Body: Committee of the Whole Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee of the Whole Date: January 8, 2014 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Committee of the Whole/2014/Committee of the Whole - 08 Jan 2014 - Agenda.pdf)
Document Text
Committee of the Whole – Regular Meeting January 8, 2014 – 9:00 a.m. The Frontenac Room, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, ON
AGENDA Page
- CALL TO ORDER a)
The Clerk will call the meeting to order and proceed with the election of a Chair.
[Addenda] 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 3. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 4. DEPUTATIONS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS a)
FCM Focus and Discussions regarding Housing in Canada Kingston City Councillor Dorothy Hector, FCM Board Member will provide this presentation.
b)
The Future of Housing Growth in the County of Frontenac Ms. Mary Lynn Cousins Brame, Executive Director, Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation will provide this presentation.
4-244
c)
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan ● Housing Affordability in Frontenac County (Pages 58-61 ) ● Strategic Direction #11 - Developing a Rural Homelessness Strategy (Pages 108112 ) Municipal Housing Strategy Final Summary Report ● Recommendations 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 31, 32, 35 and 36 Mr. Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing, City of Kingston will provide this presentation.
245
[Addenda] d)
Review of the Kingston Frontenac Renovates Program Mr. Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing, City of Kingston will provide this presentation.
246-247
e)
Mr. Wayne Robinson will address the Committee of the Whole regarding Elder Care for Northern Portion of Frontenac County
248
f)
County of Frontenac Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project Final Summary Report Recommendations
Page 1 of 269
Page 4. DEPUTATIONS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS Mr. Joe Gallivan will lead this presentation.
249-253
g)
County Official Plan - Section 5 Housing and Social Services Mr. Gallivan will provide this presentation.
h)
County of Frontenac Financial Contribution to Social Housing
- CLOSED MEETING a)
As authorized under Section 239 of the Municipal Act to consider: (d) Labour Relations and Employee Negotiations - as it relates to the organizational review of municipal employees’ responsibilities
[Addenda] 6. REPORTS a)
254-262
Committee Briefing: Mr. Walter Knott, Chair, Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee will brief the Committee of the Whole with respect to the recommendations and actions stemming from the January 6, 2014 SDOR meeting.
[Addenda] b)
Report of the Service Delivery and Organizational Review Committee from meeting held January 6, 2014 Recommendations: THAT the Corporate Services vehicle compliment be reduced to the 2 Prius vehicles, with the other vehicles to be disposed of accordingly. THAT Council seek a consultant for the work of two (2) lean6sigma process reviews for Procurement and the second to be brought forward by staff. THAT the CAO bring forward to County Council any policies of a significant nature for which there could be risks.
[Addenda] 7. MOTIONS, NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN a)
Request to the City of Kingston Frontenac County Representation on Committees Moved by: Councillor McDougall Seconded by: Councillor Davison WHEREAS the City of Kingston is responsible, as the Municipal Service Manager, for services which fall under the Local Services Re-alignment formula, including the provisions of Housing and Homelessness for the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac; AND WHEREAS the City of Kingston has a Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee that is mandated to provide advice to Council on housing, publicly assisted
Page 2 of 269
Page 7. MOTIONS, NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN affordable housing and homelessness policies, the implementation of the Municipal Housing Strategy, Homelessness Plan and other municipal housing strategies, policies and directives that affect both the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac; AND WHEREAS it has been identified through the Municipal Housing Strategy and the Homelessness Plan that the issues around housing and homelessness in urban and rural areas are diverse; AND WHEREAS the City of Kingston makes provisions to allow for technical representation on its Boards and Committees which are not required to meet the criteria to serve on a committee, including its Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac respectfully requests that the Council of the City of Kingston amend the Committee Composition of the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee to include one (1) resident of the County of Frontenac; AND FURTHER THAT the composition of the Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation Board of Directors be amended to include one (1) Member of Frontenac County Council.
- RISE AND REPORT
- COMMUNICATIONS 263-269
a)
Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting held December 4, 2013.
- NOTICE OF MOTION
- OTHER BUSINESS
- PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD
- ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-YEAR MUNICIPAL HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS PLAN
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
1|Page
Page 4 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Contents Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………5 Development of the Housing & Homelessness Plan …………………………………………………….5 Communication Strategy ……………………………………………………………………………………….7 Provincial Requirements ……………………………………………………………………………………….8
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………… 10 Overview of Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………. 13 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness…………………………………………………………………………… 13 Municipal Housing Strategy Update …………………………………………………………………………. 15
10-Year Plan to End Homelessness …………………………………………………………………. 19 Overview of Themes and Strategies ………………………………………………………………………. 20 Key Terms ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 Where We Are Now …………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 A Snapshot of Homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac …………………………………………….. 25 Available Services ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33 Cost of Homelessness …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42 Where We Want To Be ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 45 What Does Ending Homelessness Look Like? …………………………………………………………….. 45 An Evidence-Based Approach ………………………………………………………………………………….. 46 The Future of Homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac …………………………………………….. 53 How We Get There…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 54
- Systems Reorientation: Leadership, Integration, & Coordination……………………………… 55
- Homelessness Prevention and Diversion……………………………………………………………….. 58
- The Role of Shelters ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 61
- Increasing Housing Options …………………………………………………………………………………. 65
- Improving Housing Stability …………………………………………………………………………………. 68
- Rural Homelessness ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 70
- Measuring Outcomes and Reporting Successes ……………………………………………………… 75 Implementing This Plan ………………………………………………………………………………………. 77 Phasing …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 77 Implementation …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 79
Municipal Housing Strategy Update ……………………………………………………………….. 81 Overview of Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………. 83 The Housing Continuum ……………………………………………………………………………………… 99 Influences on the Housing Continuum ……………………………………………………………………. 102 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 102 Housing Affordability ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 103 Affordability Scenarios………………………………………………………………………………………….. 104 Levels of Affordability …………………………………………………………………………………………… 106 Housing Targets …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 108 Permanent Supportive Housing ……………………………………………………………………………… 110 What about Transitional Housing? …………………………………………………………………………. 111 Implications of the Targets ……………………………………………………………………………………. 113 Consolidating Policies Relating to Housing Affordability ………………………………………….. 116 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 116
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
2|Page
Page 5 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Student Housing ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 118 Current Strategies in Kingston ……………………………………………………………………………. 118 Planning and Policy Instruments to Promote Student Housing ………………………………….. 119 Purpose-Built Student Accommodation ………………………………………………………………….. 120 Experiences in Other Jurisdictions ………………………………………………………………………….. 120 Lessons Learned…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 123 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 123 Resources ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 124 Inclusionary Zoning ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 125 Experiences in the United States ……………………………………………………………………………. 126 Experiences in Other Canadian Jurisdictions ……………………………………………………………. 126 Barriers to Implementation and Warnings ………………………………………………………………. 129 Lessons Learned…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 129 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 130 Resources ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 130 Housing Affordability in Rural Areas ……………………………………………………………………. 131 Housing Situation in Frontenac ……………………………………………………………………………… 131 Housing Tenure in Rural Areas ………………………………………………………………………………. 131 Housing For Seniors ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 132 Opportunities For Rural Affordable Housing Development ……………………………………….. 133 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 134 Resources ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 134
Appendices ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 135 Appendix A: Provincial Requirements ………………………………………………………………….. 136 Appendix B: Costs of Homelessness …………………………………………………………………….. 140 Appendix C: Funding and Service Model ………………………………………………………………. 143 Allocations of Municipally Controlled Funds ……………………………………………………………. 150 Recommended Funding Allocations, Years One Through Four …………………………………… 152 Allocation of Additional Funds……………………………………………………………………………….. 163 Summary of Year-by-Year Funding Allocations ………………………………………………………… 165 Appendix D: Discretionary Residency Benefit Program ……………………………………………. 167 Appendix E: Local Ontario Works Pay Direct Policy ………………………………………………… 170 Appendix F: Selecting and Implementing an Assessment and Acuity Tool …………………… 171 Vulnerability Index ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 171 Vulnerability Assessment Tool……………………………………………………………………………….. 172 Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT) ……………………………………………. 173 Appendix F: Professional Development Agenda …………………………………………………….. 175 Appendix G: Program and Service Modifications to Align to Plan ………………………………. 177 The Role of Shelters ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 177 Right-Sizing the Shelter System ……………………………………………………………………………… 178 Drop-In Centres …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 183 Appendix H: Service Pathway from Homeless to Housed …………………………………………. 184 Appendix I: 40 Recommendations Update ……………………………………………………………. 185 Strategic Direction #1: Managing the Housing Agenda ……………………………………………… 185 Strategic Direction #2: Creating a Complementary Regulatory Environment……………….. 191 Strategic Direction #3: Leveraging Resources and Tools ……………………………………………. 198 Strategic Direction #4: Building Housing Capacity…………………………………………………….. 210
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
3|Page
Page 6 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Strategic Direction #5: Cultivating Partnerships ……………………………………………………….. 214 Appendix J: Additional Resources ……………………………………………………………………….. 218
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
4|Page
Page 7 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
Consolidated Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Introduction In 2011, the new Housing Services Act came into effect, requiring all Service Managers in Ontario to develop a ten-year plan to identify objectives and targets related to housing and homelessness, as well as actions proposed to meet those objectives. The City of Kingston, as the Service Manager for the City and the County of Frontenac, already had a Municipal Housing Strategy in place but no official plan to address homelessness. Thus, in summer 2012, development commenced on a 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness to guide funding and service orientation related to homelessness. Concurrently, the existing Municipal Housing Strategy was updated to extend the projections to a ten-year horizon and to bring it into alignment with the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. The result of this effort is the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan. This Plan recognizes and builds on the existing Municipal Housing Strategy. The MHS is not required to read, understand, or implement the strategies and recommendations identified in this document. However, the Municipal Housing Strategy includes a needs assessment and other background information useful for understanding how the recommendations in this document were obtained.
Development of the Housing & Homelessness Plan In Kingston and Frontenac, a comprehensive Municipal Housing Strategy was developed in 2010-2011 with extensive public engagement and the approval of Kingston City Council. When the Housing Services Act came into effect requiring a document beyond what was already in effect, it seemed logical to build on the approved Municipal Housing Strategy. The first task was to develop a homelessness plan that was compatible with the provincial requirements set out in the Housing Services Act. Building on the research already conducted in the development of the Municipal Housing Strategy, OrgCode Consulting, Inc. also compiled data related to homelessness and emergency shelter usage, social housing and social assistance rates, and updated data on rental prices in Kingston and Frontenac. Key stakeholder interviews were conducted with a number of city staff as well as representatives from over two dozen homeless service delivery agencies, including all agencies which receive funding directly from the Service Manager. Four public consultation sessions were conducted in late 2012 and early 2013 in Kingston and Frontenac, with more than 100 citizens attending. Best practices from jurisdictions across Canada and the United States were reviewed and heavily emphasized within the development of the 10-Year Plan to End 5|Page
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Page 8 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Homelessness, including Housing First, Rapid Re-Housing, targeted prevention, and diversion from emergency resources. These practices have been implemented in various jurisdictions, small and large, across North America, and have been scrutinized in numerous prestigious, peer-reviewed academic journals. In order to ensure that such programs are implemented in such a way as to promote efficacy, the Plan recommends funding be allocated to consistent professional development and training across all homeless service delivery agencies in Kingston and Frontenac. Once the outline of the Plan was developed, the draft themes and strategies were presented to service providers in order to obtain feedback and ensure that agencies were prepared for the upcoming changes. The draft Plan was met with tentative approval, and the feedback received was incorporated into the Plan with the addition, modification, and removal of a number of strategies. With the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness complete, OrgCode Consulting, Inc. was hired to update the Municipal Housing Strategy. Because the MHS was already approved by council, updates would be minor. Primary among these updates were to extend the recommendations through to 2023 and to provide further clarification to the affordability targets. The basis for the analysis on the depth of affordability stems from the background research and targets completed by SHS Consulting for the 2011 Municipal Housing Strategy. City of Kingston staff provided assurance that the data collected, published and used for the municipal housing strategy, which comes from multiple sources and which was manipulated in various ways consistent with the development of a municipal housing strategy, was accurate and complete. OrgCode Consulting did not, therefore, run independent analysis on the housing targets. The targets, as established in the Municipal Housing Strategy, were accepted as accurate. Using its proprietary housing affordability model, OrgCode was able to use data from the Municipal Housing Strategy and the development of the Homelessness Plan to investigate further the range of affordability within the affordability targets, as well as establish targets for rent geared to income (RGI) permanent supportive housing (PSH). The housing affordability model, like the Municipal Housing Strategy targets, projects housing demands and affordability over the next 10 years. There are a range of indicators, based upon trends, that most impact the conclusions reached by the affordability model, including, but not limited to: City and County population Understanding anticipated population changes and characteristics of population change (in-migration, age, participation in labour force, income levels, gender, birth and death rates, etc.) Incidence of low-income, and characteristics of low-income households July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
6|Page
Page 9 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Mean and median household income, and characteristics of households by income brackets Breakdown of industries, with attention paid to propensity of lower-wage industry sectors Rates of unemployment, as well as length of unemployment and other unemployment trends Rates of income assistance (Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program, Canada Pension Plan, etc.) relative to rental market affordability Minimum wage income relative to rental market affordability Availability of affordable rental units within current and historic rental market by type of unit and range of affordability Trends in household composition Mobility of households Service use patterns within homeless shelters (occupancy rates, average lengths of stay, household characteristics of shelter users, etc.) Development patterns Loss and changes in composition of rental market housing stock Like any forward-looking projection, both current and historic data, as well as an understanding of current initiatives to address known issues become important factors in breaking down anticipated levels and types of affordability within affordable housing. For example, because the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness places strong emphasis on helping homeless people achieve housing with supports based upon presenting issues and acuity, there will be an emphasis placed on RGI PSH and units affordable to persons making $649 per month or less (the lowest rate of shelter allowance and basic needs on Ontario Works).
Communication Strategy Staff will need to communicate the content of the Plan to service providers, local elected officials, the Province of Ontario, and to the general public. The communications with these various audiences should stress the following: o the Plan was created with considerable community input; o the Plan relies strongly on proven practices from other jurisdictions that are applicable to Kingston and Frontenac, and which have been validated through rigorous academic and social science research; o some of the practices and strategies being recommended in the Plan may be a challenge to our own values and beliefs, but are proven to work; July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
7|Page
Page 10 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
o ending homelessness places the needs of homeless persons front and centre in our thinking and actions; o there will be changes in how services are delivered to best meet the needs of people in Kingston and Frontenac, but not a desire to see more investment in the service sector; o as Service Manager, the City of Kingston accepts the leadership responsibility to drive the plan forward and relies on the service provider community to help deliver services in true partnership; and, o there is strong accountability to how funds will be invested in ending homelessness, realizing that an investment in changing services will result in community impacts.
Provincial Requirements The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing requires each Service Manager’s housing & homelessness plan to adhere to several requirements. The following table demonstrates how all requirements are met or exceeded within the Housing & Homelessness Plan. For further information regarding provincial requirements at the time this document was created, see Appendix A: Provincial Requirements. Requirement
How the requirement is met
An assessment of current and future
housing needs within the service manager’s service area Objectives and targets relating to housing needs
A description of the measures proposed
Municipal Housing Strategy, Phase 1, pages 38-103 Pages 103-116 Municipal Housing Strategy, Phase 2, pages 71-72 Pages 15, 86, 193
to meet the objectives and targets
A description of how progress towards
meeting the objectives and targets will be measured Is focused on achieving positive outcomes for individuals and families Addresses the housing needs of individuals and families in order to help address other challenges they face Has a role for non-profit corporations
Pages 15, 84, 190-190
Pages 75-76 Pages 21, 17-18, 21, 69, 94, 98, 209-210, 217 Pages 14, 16, 18-21, 54, 67, 91, 98, 203,
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
8|Page
Page 11 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Requirement
How the requirement is met
and non-profit housing co-operatives
217 Pages 14, 16-17, 19-21, 54, 67, 91, 97, 203, 216 Pages 13, 17-20, 54, 57, 96-98, 213, 214217
Has a role for the private market in
meeting housing needs Provides for partnerships among governments and others in the community Treats individuals and families with respect and dignity Is co-ordinated with other community services Is relevant to local circumstances
Allows for a range of housing options to
meet a broad range of needs Ensures appropriate accountability for public funding Supports economic prosperity Is delivered in a manner that promotes environmental sustainability and energy conservation
Page 47-49 Pages 13, 17-20, 54, 57, 96-98, 213, 214217 Page 24-45 Municipal Housing Strategy, Phase 1 Pages 14, 16-17, 19-21, 54, 67, 88, 93, 197, 207 Pages 15, 21, 76, 84, 190 Pages 42-45 Pages 15, 85, 191
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
9|Page
Page 12 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Executive Summary The current estimate is that there are 400 persons experiencing homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac at any given point in time. What is known is that, in 2012, 818 people stayed in shelters over the course of the year. These individuals and families have varying degrees of acuity – level of need – ranging from requiring simple assistance such as using a computer to search for apartments, to having severe and co-existing issues that make independent living extremely difficult. Some homeless persons are youth who have run away from or been kicked out of their parent’s home, while others may have experienced a sudden and severe economic hardship such as the loss of a job or a medical emergency, while still others are aboriginal, queer, or veterans, coping with uniquely difficult situations. People experiencing homelessness are a disparate group, ranging in age, gender, ethnicity, level of education, state of health, and mental wellbeing. What they have in common is that they all lack housing. Housing is a fundamental need of all Canadians, regardless of circumstance. Simply put, homelessness is the same as “house-less-ness” – the situation wherein a person’s housing need is not being met. Housing, therefore, is the solution – in fact, the only answer – to homelessness. This Plan focuses on the intersection between housing and homelessness. Ensuring an adequate supply and range of housing is the key to reducing and ultimately ending homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac. Housing is vital to the creation of healthy, sustainable and complete communities. Residents of all ages, income levels, abilities, and family types rely on housing to offer a meaningful place to grow and a safe and secure place to live. Having a full range of housing options to meet the needs of all residents is a key contributor to maintaining a high quality of life, a vibrant local economy, and a healthy community. The need for adequate, secure and affordable housing affects almost all people at one point or another; whether it is a young family looking to buy its first home, a student looking for temporary rental housing, a single parent struggling to find adequate housing for them self and their children, a senior citizen on a fixed income, an individual recently released from prison in need of a transition into society, a person who is no longer able to work due to a disability, a victim of violence, a family put out of their home by a temporary crisis, or simply someone who works at a modest wage. As a social determinant of health, a lack of adequate, affordable and secure housing increases the risks of many health problems. On the other hand, a suitable mix of July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10 | P a g e
Page 13 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan housing can have a positive impact on the entire community. For example, an appropriate supply of affordable housing can help retain young talent and knowledge in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac. Seniors can stay in their communities longer and enjoy the social connections that they have established in these communities when they have a suitable supply of affordable and appropriate housing to choose from. An adequate supply of affordable housing can also provide the accommodation needed by minimum wage workers vital to the success of local service businesses, thereby contributing to a critical element of the local economy. This Plan sets out a roadmap for the next ten years. At the end of those ten years, there will be an adequate supply of housing, and, using evidence-based and evidenceinformed practices such as Housing First, homelessness will no longer be a problem within Kingston and Frontenac. Recognizing the importance of housing to all members of society and the benefits that adequate housing can provide for the community as a whole, in 2010 the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac undertook the development of a Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS). Below we summarize the key housing issues that arose from the research and consultation process conducted in the study which form the basis for the suggested housing policies and actions. The aging population will have an increasing influence on local housing demand. The proportion of the population of Kingston and Frontenac aged 65 years and older is projected to increase from 15.7% in 2006 to 27.1% in 2036. An adequate range of housing choices for seniors is needed in order to ensure seniors can remain in their communities and to live independently for as long as possible. Housing stock in Kingston and Frontenac is not very diverse. While the number of households continues to increase, the composition of households is changing with more one- and two-person households as well as an aging population with changing housing needs. In contrast to the diversification of households, the housing stock in Kingston and especially Frontenac remains predominantly single detached homes. In 2006, single detached homes represented 49.0% of the housing stock in Kingston and 93.1% of the stock in Frontenac. Ownership tenure has been increasing but impact of low interest rates is diminishing. Home ownership rates have increased from 1996 to 2006 in Kingston and Frontenac; increasing by 6.2% in Kingston and 4.3% in Frontenac. The increasing prices of homes may have an impact on this trend as the average sale prices of homes in the City of Kingston have increased steadily from 2005 to 2010, with prices of semi-detached homes increasing by 32.0% and prices of single detached homes increasing by 27.3% by 2010.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
11 | P a g e
Page 14 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan The rental housing supply in Kingston and Frontenac is declining despite sustained demand. The number of rental dwellings in Kingston decreased from 19,545 in 1996 to 18,475 in 2006. This is largely due to individual units, previously used as income properties, being sold to owner-occupier households. In Frontenac, rental dwellings decreased from 1,175 in 1996 to only 970 in 2006. In addition, average market rents in Kingston CMA are increasing at a higher rate than the Provincial average while vacancy rates are among the lowest in Ontario, pointing to the difficulty in securing rental accommodation in the area. The shortage of student housing is having an impact on the overall market availability of affordable housing. Kingston is home to two major post-secondary educational institutions (Queen’s University and St. Lawrence College) as well as to the Royal Military College and the Canadian Forces School of Communications and Electronics. Approximately 12,000 Queen’s University students live off-campus and one of the issues of off-campus housing is that it is generally more expensive than on-campus housing. In addition, landlords normally require 12-month leases, which presents a problem for international and co-op students who usually do not require the accommodation for a whole year. The demand for student housing also impacts lower income households within the permanent population who have to compete for many of the same types of units and reduces the options available to these households. In addition, students may be seen by landlords as more attractive tenants compared to lower income households since they may be able to provide parental guarantees. Household incomes are polarized and there is a clear contrast between renters and owners. In 2005, 22.0% of renter households in Kingston and Frontenac fell within the first income decile ($15,337 or less in 2005) compared to only 4.1% of all owner households. On the other hand, only 1.3% of all renter households and 14.3% of all owner households fell within the highest income decile during the same time period. There is an increasing incidence of low-income households in Kingston, unlike the County where it is declining. The incidence of low income in private households in Kingston increased from 14.0% in 1995 to 15.4% in 2005. In contrast, the prevalence of low income in private households in Frontenac decreased from 12.8% to 8.7% in the same time period, following the trend seen for the Province as a whole. The City of Kingston also had a higher incidence of low-income households (15.4%) compared to the Province as a whole (14.7%) in 2005. There is a lack of affordable ownership and rental housing in Kingston and Frontenac. Overall, the home ownership market in Kingston CMA is not affordable to households earning $49,037 or less while the private rental housing market would not be affordable to households earning $28,658 or less. At least 20% of all households would not be able to afford rental units in the private rental market and would require some form of rental assistance. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
12 | P a g e
Page 15 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Overall, affordability is a bigger issue in the City of Kingston as compared to the County of Frontenac but affordability for renter households is a significant issue for both. In 2006, 48.4% of renter households in Kingston spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs compared to only 16.5% of owner households. In addition, during the same time period, 12.0% of renter households spent 70.0% or more of their income on housing costs compared to only 3.4% of owner households. In the County of Frontenac in 2006, 39.6% of renter households spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs. This proportion increased from 37.0% in 1996. This is also significantly larger than the proportion of owner households spending 30% or more of their income on housing costs in 2006 (18.0% of all owner households). Housing affordability challenges are most acute for youth-led households and loneparent households. In 2005 in Kingston, 74.3% of all youth-led households spent 30% or more of their income on housing costs. In Frontenac, lone-parent households had the largest proportion of households (36.0%) spending 30% or more of their household income on housing costs. There is a lack of social housing units, particularly for families and single-person households. There were a total of 1,133 applicants on the centralized wait list for social housing in Kingston and Frontenac as of July 31, 2010. This included 62 senior applicants (5.5% of total) and 1,071 family / mixed applicants (94.5%), which include single individuals, couples, and families. In addition, family / mixed units comprise 88.0% of the social housing stock whereas they comprise 94.5% of the applicants on the wait list. In order to ensure an adequate supply and range of housing in Kingston and Frontenac, the recommendations identified in the Municipal Housing Strategy have been updated and clarified. In addition, new recommendations have been identified and expanded upon in the Municipal Housing Strategy Update.
Overview of Recommendations 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness
- Systems Reorientation: Leadership, Integration & Coordination 1.1. The Service Manager will take a leadership role in setting targets and standards for service delivery and reporting outcomes. 1.2. Implement a new funding model to reflect the Plan’s priorities and implement the Plan’s strategies. 1.3. Adopt a Housing First approach across the system. 1.4. Implement common intake and assessment protocols and practices. 1.5. Adopt a common Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). 1.6. Bring this Plan and the Municipal Housing Strategy into alignment. 1.7. Implement a new professional development plan and syllabus to support the implementation of the Plan. 1.8. Continue to foster and support the Homeless Service Providers Networking Group. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
13 | P a g e
Page 16 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
- Homelessness Prevention & Diversion 2.1. Place a strong emphasis on diversion from emergency resources. 2.2. Develop and adopt a tool to identify which individuals and families are eligible for targeted homelessness prevention assistance. 2.3. Develop an institution discharge protocol for the region. 2.4. Increase access to and awareness of services available to individuals and households at risk of homelessness.
- The Role of Shelters 3.1. Reframe emergency shelters as centres of opportunity that are one of the entry points to the housing system. 3.2. Establish housing worker functions within shelters. 3.3. Right-size the shelter system. 3.4. As appropriate, introduce shelter specialization within Kingston’s shelter system.
- Increasing Housing Options 4.1. Work towards the rental housing targets detailed in the updated Municipal Housing Strategy. 4.2. Prioritize access to available housing for those with the deepest and most chronic needs first. 4.3. Remove the homeless priority policy from the social housing waitlist. 4.4. Create more permanent supportive housing (PSH) units. 4.5. Develop an inventory of scattered-site rental units that can be used for Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing clients. 4.6. Encourage collaboration between landlords and housing support workers.
- Improving Housing Stability 5.1. Allocate resources towards providing support to clients after they are housed. 5.2. Expand the municipality’s existing Ontario Works Pay Direct Policy to allow for amounts to exceed the monthly shelter allowance. 5.3. Implement a Housing First program. 5.4. Implement a Rapid Re-Housing program.
- Rural Homelessness 6.1. Expand housing options for low-income and homeless individuals in rural areas. 6.2. Improve access to services in rural areas. 6.3. Enhance targeted prevention in rural areas. 6.4. Promote local leadership in ending homelessness.
- Measuring Outcomes & Reporting Successes 7.1. Conduct a Point-In-Time (PIT) Homeless Count every 2 years using a valid, reliable, and consistent methodology. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
14 | P a g e
Page 17 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 7.2. Publish HMIS reports of aggregate data and circulate to service providers quarterly. 7.3. Publish an annual, public report card. 7.4. Track quarterly performance of funded agencies against targets. Municipal Housing Strategy Update Strategic Direction #1: Managing the Housing Agenda 1. That the City and County establish the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan as the primary strategic plan to help guide and align local housing efforts. 2. That the City develop a tactical plan concerning the acquisition of new units of affordable housing. 3. That the City and County use the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan as an alignment tool across areas of municipal responsibility. 4. That the Housing Department of the City take lead responsibility for advancing the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan in collaboration with internal and external stakeholders, including the County. 5. That the City recognize and support the Housing & Homelessness Advisory Committee as a primary vehicle for engaging stakeholders and providing advice on matters related to housing. 6. That the City report on 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan progress regularly and publish an annual report card identifying key indicator status including indicators relating to homelessness. 7. That the City gather, maintain and monitor data to support housing and homelessness accountability practices, both internally and in support of provincial requirements. Strategic Direction #2: Creating a Complementary Regulatory Environment 8. That the City encourage social capital initiatives. 9. That the City implement Official Plan policies that promote inclusive, sustainable and flexible communities. 10. That the City pursue inclusionary zoning opportunities as part of the comprehensive Zoning By-law (ZBL) review. 11. That the City seek opportunities to appropriately integrate student housing. 12. That the City adopt refined targets for units to be added to the current housing stock over the next 10 years as follows: Housing Form – 45% singles, 15% multiples and 40% apartments Housing Tenure – 70% ownership, 30% rental Housing Affordability – 25% of units at rates up to the affordability threshold 13. That the County establish an Official Plan to help guide land use planning which has consistent housing polices among the four constituent Townships
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
15 | P a g e
Page 18 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
and which establishes targets for units to be added to the current housing stock over the next 10 years as follows: Housing Form – 92% singles, 4% multiples and 4% apartments Housing Tenure – 90% ownership, 10% rental Housing Affordability – 25% of units at rates up to the affordability threshold That the City and Council continue their support for second suites as an affordable rental housing alternative. That the City implement key affordable housing provisions from the Official Plan as a part of the comprehensive ZBL review. That the County undertake a review with local Townships to identify zoning anomalies that may be acting as barriers, especially when it comes to supporting seniors housing options. That the City continue to support timely land use approvals through the Implementation and Service Improvement Plan developed as a result of the 2013 Mayor’s Task Force on Development.
Strategic Direction #3: Leveraging Resources and Tools 18. That the City maximize available funding. 19. That the City and County advocate for additional funding from senior governments on a ‘fair share’ basis, particularly with regards to addressing capital shortfalls and affordability gaps. 20. That the City evaluate local opportunities to increase sustained resources that could be made available to address local housing needs. 21. That in recognition of the Council’s decision to invest $2M per year for 5 years towards the Capital Investment in Affordable Housing Program and the Affordable Housing Land Acquisition and Disposition Fund, the City consider extending the investment for the full 10-year duration of the Plan. 22. That the City place particular emphasis on partnering with private and nonprofit housing providers to enable leveraging of available resources in order to maximize the provision of affordable housing. 23. That the City pursue opportunities to utilize inclusionary zoning and density bonusing to achieve negotiated agreements for the provision of affordable housing in new developments. 24. That the County consider establishing appropriate authorities/incentives in support of affordable housing to help prepare for development opportunities that may arise. 25. That the City expand the current inventory of suitable lands or properties for affordable housing to include opportunities from other public sector agencies, other levels of government (including the County) and privately held lands. 26. That the City continue to regularly monitor the condition of the social housing portfolio and actively seek alternate funding to assist with major capital repairs. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
16 | P a g e
Page 19 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 27.
That the City explore opportunities to review services and asset management planning to ensure sharing of resources between the City’s two municipal housing providers, and to then expand these resources to other local housing providers. That the City research and develop options for the continuation of social housing post End of Operating Agreements to meet its legislated and financial obligations in conjunction with the Step Down Funding planning study. That the City establish a strategic asset management plan using existing tools to help guide decisions regarding asset renewal/ redevelopment in the social housing portfolio. That the City use Rideau Heights as an initial pilot community for testing asset renewal strategies that can be applied elsewhere. That the City and County continue to advocate for additional senior government funding to address the increasing support service needs of residents (Ontario Disability Support Program, Ministry of Community & Social Services, etc.) That the City and County pursue linkages with support service funders and coordinators in the health and community service fields (Local Health Integration Network, Children’s Aid Society, etc.) as a means of expanding support service opportunities in the community. That the City arrange for housing workers to support persons who are precariously housed in social housing to gain greater housing stability.
Strategic Direction #4: Building Housing Capacity 34. That the City continue the consolidation of the municipal housing function. 35. That the City in collaboration with the County implement the Service Manager’s Communications Plan developed as part of the MHS. 36. That the City in collaboration with the County use community forums and theme-based workshops as vehicles for bringing partners together, expanding knowledge of housing development practices, and sharing community ideas, programs and policy. 37. That the City, in concert with sector organizations where possible, help support community agency renewal through workshops geared to social housing practitioners. Strategic Direction #5: Cultivating Partnerships 38. That the City engage the homelessness service sector as part of the broader housing context. 39. That the City more actively engage the private sector. 40. That the City establish and maintain a housing information e-centre on the City’s web-site to provide housing information and establish a virtual contact point for inquiries. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
17 | P a g e
Page 20 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 41.
That the City include community-based housing innovation awards as part of the Liveable City Program as a means of acknowledging community partners and raising the profile of affordable housing.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
18 | P a g e
Page 21 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
Consolidated Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Plan to End Homelessness It is unknown how many homeless individuals and families reside in Kingston and Frontenac, although estimates from the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) in Washington, D.C. suggest that, based on population size, there are approximately 400 people at a given point in time. The 2012 data indicates that 818 unique individuals accessed the emergency shelter system in Kingston during a period of one year. These homeless persons have a variety of needs ranging from long-term assistance to maintain housing to individuals and families who need a safe place to escape domestic violence. People experiencing homelessness are a disparate group, ranging in age, gender, ethnicity, level of education, state of health, and mental wellbeing. What they have in common is that they all lack housing. Housing is the only known solution to homelessness. That’s why this Plan focuses on housing provision as the key to reducing, and ultimately ending homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac. “Ending homelessness” means that there will be an effective system in place such that absence of housing in the future will be short-term and rare and people will no longer experience chronic homelessness or repeated episodes of homelessness. This Plan outlines a number of evidence-based and evidence-informed practices, including Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing that are designed to assist persons experiencing homelessness access housing quickly and maintain their housing. Using these approaches, homeless individuals are matched with the most appropriate level of supports relative to their individual needs. These individuals and families are given priority in accessing housing, and are provided with other “wraparound” supports and services (such as attending to health issues) only after they have moved into their new residence. By adopting these approaches by the year 2023, chronic and long-term episodic homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac will not exist as it does today. To achieve this future state in the housing and homelessness service system, seven themes have been developed through consultation with over 20 service providers, four public consultation sessions that included well over 100 members of the public, and extensive research into best and promising practices from other jurisdictions. These themes are: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Systems reorientation: leadership, integration & coordination Homelessness prevention & diversion The role of shelters Increasing housing options 19 | P a g e
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Page 22 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 5. Improving housing stability 6. Rural homelessness 7. Measuring outcomes & reporting successes
Overview of Themes and Strategies
- Systems Reorientation: Leadership, Integration & Coordination 1.1. The Service Manager will take a leadership role in setting targets and standards for service delivery and reporting outcomes. 1.2. Implement a new funding model to reflect the Plan’s priorities and implement the Plan’s strategies. 1.3. Adopt a Housing First approach across the system. 1.4. Implement common intake and assessment protocols and practices. 1.5. Adopt a common Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). 1.6. Bring this Plan and the Municipal Housing Strategy into alignment. 1.7. Implement a new professional development plan and syllabus to support the implementation of the Plan. 1.8. Continue to foster and support the Homeless Service Providers Networking Group.
- Homelessness Prevention & Diversion 2.1. Place a strong emphasis on diversion from emergency resources. 2.2. Develop and adopt a tool to identify which individuals and families are eligible for targeted homelessness prevention assistance. 2.3. Develop an institution discharge protocol for the region. 2.4. Increase access to and awareness of services available to individuals and households at risk of homelessness.
- The Role of Shelters 3.1. Reframe emergency shelters as centres of opportunity that are one of the entry points to the housing system. 3.2. Establish housing worker functions within shelters. 3.3. Right-size the shelter system. 3.4. As appropriate, introduce shelter specialization within Kingston’s shelter system.
- Increasing Housing Options 4.1. Work towards the rental housing targets detailed in the updated Municipal Housing Strategy. 4.2. Prioritize access to available housing for those with the deepest and most chronic needs first. 4.3. Remove the homeless priority policy from the social housing waitlist. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
20 | P a g e
Page 23 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 4.4. Create more permanent supportive housing (PSH) units. 4.5. Develop an inventory of scattered-site rental units that can be used for Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing clients. 4.6. Encourage collaboration between landlords and housing support workers. 5. Improving Housing Stability 5.1. Allocate resources towards providing support to clients after they are housed. 5.2. Expand the municipality’s existing Ontario Works Pay Direct Policy to allow for amounts to exceed the monthly shelter allowance. 5.3. Implement a Housing First program. 5.4. Implement a Rapid Re-Housing program. 6. Rural Homelessness 6.1. Expand housing options for low-income and homeless individuals in rural areas. 6.2. Improve access to services in rural areas. 6.3. Enhance targeted prevention in rural areas. 6.4. Promote local leadership in ending homelessness. 7. Measuring Outcomes & Reporting Successes 7.1. Conduct a Point-In-Time (PIT) Homeless Count every 2 years using a valid, reliable, and consistent methodology. 7.2. Publish HMIS reports of aggregate data and circulate to service providers quarterly. 7.3. Publish an annual, public report card. 7.4. Track quarterly performance of funded agencies against targets.
Key Terms Acceptable Housing – Housing that is not in need of major repairs, as reported by the residents. Adequate Housing – Housing that is acceptable (see Acceptable Housing), affordable (see Affordable Housing), and suitable (see Suitable Housing). Housing that is not adequate is Below Housing Standards. Affordable Housing – Housing that costs less than 30% of total before-tax household income for all monthly payments inclusive of rent and utilities. Core Housing Need – Households whose housing is below standards (see Housing Below Standards) and who would have to pay 30% or more of its total before-tax income to pay the median rent of alternative local accommodation that is Adequate Housing.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
21 | P a g e
Page 24 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Homelessness – when an individual/family lacks a safe, fixed, regular and adequate place to sleep, or who regularly spends the night in an emergency shelter, similar institution, or a place not intended for human habitation. Homelessness can be further broken down into the following categories: Absolute Homelessness - When an individual/family is without a residence and sleeps in indoor or outdoor public places not intended for habitation (e.g. streets, parks, abandoned buildings, stairwells, doorways, cars, or under bridges). Sheltered Homelessness – When an individual/family is without a residence and spends the night in an emergency shelter or similar institution, including having no fixed address and staying overnight in a hospital, jail or prison. At-risk of Homelessness – When an individual/family is spending 50% or more of its gross monthly income on housing, or when the condition of the housing either because of state of repair or number of occupants is inadequate for ongoing habitation. Chronic homelessness – When an individual/family experiences continuous homelessness for a period of one year or greater; or, four or more episodes of homelessness within a three-year period. Most often chronically homeless persons also have complex, co-occurring and frequently disabling conditions. Episodic homelessness – When an individual/family experiences homelessness for less than a year and no more than three instances of homelessness within a three-year period. Cyclical homelessness – When an individual/family moves in and out of various states of homelessness and housing such as moving from a motel to a low-cost rental to a point of incarceration to a shelter to a hospital stay, and so on. The cycle suggests that this is a pattern of housing status that can has some consistency in the movement between a homeless and housed state, even though the exact types of housing or homelessness may change. Invisible Homelessness (Hidden Homelessness) - When an individual/family does not access emergency shelters or sleep in visible public areas, usually because they are temporarily staying with friends or family. Homeless Family – A unit comprising one or more adults accompanying at least one minor, usually but not always a blood relative, who are Homeless. Homeless Youth – A youth who is between the ages of 16-24, without adult supervision, and is Homeless. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
22 | P a g e
Page 25 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Housing Below Standards – Housing that does not meet all three standards of affordability (see Affordable Housing), adequacy (see Adequate Housing), and suitability (see Suitable Housing). Housing that is not below standards is Acceptable Housing. Interim Housing – Temporary housing that is available immediately to households who are Homeless, available on a short-term basis while the household searches for a more permanent solution. See also Transitional Housing. Permanent Housing – Any housing arrangement where the tenant can continue to live at the same address indefinitely, as long as the tenant pays the rent on time, follows the lease, and doesn’t disrupt the reasonable enjoyment of others. Service Manager – The agency responsible for delivering and administering social and affordable housing, other social services programs such as Ontario Works and childcare, and in many cases delivering homelessness initiatives. The City of Kingston is the Service Manager for Kingston and the County of Frontenac. Suitable Housing – Suitable housing has enough bedrooms for the size and make-up of resident households, which means one bedroom for each: cohabiting adult couple; unattached household member 18 years of age and over; same-sex pair of children under age 18; additional boy or girl in the family, unless there are two opposite sex children under 5 years of age, in which case they are expected to share a bedroom. A household of one individual can occupy a bachelor unit (i.e. a unit with no bedroom). Transitional Housing – Similar to Interim Housing, but most often with a specified time limit for how long tenants can stay, and often with requirements of complying with additional rules such as sobriety and/or curfews.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
23 | P a g e
Page 26 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Where We Are Now The City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac encompass an area of 3,787.79 km2, situated 200 km from Ottawa, 250 km from Toronto, and only 50 km from the border to the US. In total, the geographic region is home to 149,738 individuals, an increase of 4.1% from 2006. The region is split into five municipalities: the City of Kingston, which comprises the bulk of the region’s population, and the Townships of North Frontenac, Central Frontenac, South Frontenac, and Frontenac Islands, which together comprise the County of Frontenac. Table 1: Population by Municipality, 2006-2011
Municipality City of Kingston Township of North Frontenac Township of Central Frontenac Township of South Frontenac Township of Frontenac Islands Total
Population (2011) 123,363 1,842 4,556
Population (2006) 117,207 1,904 4,665
% Change (2006-2011) 5.3% -3.3% -2.3%
% of Total 82.4% 1.2% 3.0%
18,113 1,864
18,227 1,862
-0.6% 0.1%
12.1% 1.2%
149,738
143,865
4.1%
100%
Kingston in particular has several unique characteristics that define the local landscape. As the largest city between Ottawa and Toronto, Kingston provides services to a large geographic area. For instance, Kingston General Hospital is the regional hospital for the Counties of Lanark, Leeds & Grenville, Lennox & Addington, Hastings and Prince Edward, as well as Kingston and Frontenac – serving a total population of over 500,000. Weeneebayko Patient Services, which operates out of Hotel Dieu Hospital, provides medical services for those from as far away as the western coast of James Bay and Hudson Bay, Moose Factory, Moosonee, New Post, Fort Albany, Kashechewan, Attawapiskat and Peawanuck. Kingston has three post-secondary institutions, one of which (Queen’s University) is internationally renowned. Fully 24% of Kingston’s adults have a university degree, compared to only 20% of adults across Ontario, and 18% across Canada. Kingston also has the highest rate of doctorates per capita in Canada, at 1.67%. However, despite a higher than average rate of educational attainment, the median income of Kingston residents was $26,8901, which was only slightly higher than 1
2005 data – most recent available
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
24 | P a g e
Page 27 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Canadian average ($25,615) and lower than Ontario average ($27,258). Moreover, 15.4% of Kingston residents reported income below the Low-Income Cut-Off (LICO), which was higher than the rates in Ontario (14.7%) and Canada (15.3%). Table 2: LICO for Kingston CMA, 2000-2011
Family Size 1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 persons 6 persons 7 or more persons
2000 $12,991 $15,811 $19,689 $24,563 $27,970 $31,020 $34,069
2005 $14,571 $17,734 $22,083 $27,550 $31,371 $34,792 $38,212
2009 $15,579 $18,960 $23,610 $29,455 $33,541 $37,198 $40,854
2011 $16,328 $19,872 $24,745 $30,871 $35,154 $38,986 $42,819
Kingston and its surrounding environs is also host to 9 prisons, which house approximately 2,500 inmates at a given point in time. While the correctional system provides steady employment for over 4,000 employees and is the third largest employer in the region, there is a perception that more Kingston residents have a history of involvement with the law than other similarly sized communities. Kingston is also home to a Canadian Forces Base (CFB), one of the few in the country to station Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel in the same location. In total, approximately 8,000 individuals are employed by CFB Kingston, of which approximately 5,000 are military personnel. Studies in the US have found that veterans are more likely to become homeless than non-veterans, though it is unclear whether this trend is also present in Canada. Kingston is very compassionate when it comes to meeting the immediate needs of people experiencing homelessness or precariously housed. There are six municipally funded homeless shelters. There are a number of meal programs. Efforts are made to prevent evictions, when possible. Sub-populations like youth and Aboriginal people have the opportunity to be housed through specialized programs. By all accounts, Kingston has done a formidable job at managing homelessness. This plan outlines the steps necessary to ensure that homelessness does not grow further, and places emphasis on ending homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac. A Snapshot of Homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac It is impossible to state with confidence how many individuals and families are experiencing homelessness in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac. This inability to define the scope of the challenge or to determine the exact, disparate needs of those who do find themselves to be homeless results in a network of homelessness and housing services providers who are continually in a reactive posture. To be clear, July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
25 | P a g e
Page 28 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan this is a natural and expected reaction on the part of service providers in this type of environment, not a shortcoming in their efforts to provide excellence in service. Measuring the scope of homelessness is possible and it is being done with greater precision in jurisdictions around the world and, most notably, in the United States where the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made homeless counts mandatory every two years as a condition of ongoing funding. The predominant and proven methodology is called a Point-In-Time (PIT) Homeless Count. A PIT Count entails surveying the entire city (outdoor spaces, homeless shelters, etc.) during a specified window in time—up to 24 hours—during the same week of the year from count to count. Historically some communities attempted to use shelter figures as a proxy for the entire homeless population. Methods such as counting the total number of unique individuals visiting shelters during a certain period of time can be inaccurate because they do not account for individuals who may be checked in at more than one shelter during the specified time period resulting in duplication. Another problem is that this approach does not account for the people who did not access a shelter when the count was being conducted. Point-In-Time Homeless Counts from jurisdictions with similarly sized populations as the City of Kingston suggest that an average of 400 people are experiencing homelessness at any given point in time in Kingston and Frontenac. In addition, the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH)2 in Washington, D.C., estimates that an average of 29 persons per 10,000 people in urban areas are experiencing homelessness.3 The NAEH projection suggests that approximately 358 homeless individuals call Kingston their home. However, the numbers will vary widely city to city based on a number of local economic, geographic, climatic, historical, and political factors. Therefore, any reliance on the estimate in the absence of a true count being conducted must be considered an “order of magnitude” barometer of the potential state of homelessness in Kingston, not a scientific metric.4 The table below illustrates communities with similar populations as Kingston and a range of persons experiencing homelessness from 227 in Springfield, Illinois to 1,471 people in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Where Canadian examples can be included, they have been. The high level of variation between similarly sized municipalities indicates that the estimate of 400 homeless persons is likely to be inaccurate to some degree.
2
While there is a fledgling Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, it does not have a Research Institute like the National Alliance does. While some caveats are necessary in using US based work for Canadian related research, the methods employed by the Alliance have been well researched and evaluated considerably. As noted, the intent is to use the methods to provide an “order of magnitude” assessment in the absence of solid local data on the scope of the homeless population at any one point in time. 3 Henry, M. and Sermons, M. W. (2010) Geography of Homelessness. National Alliance to End Homelessness. 4 OrgCode Consulting, Inc. has conducted PIT Counts in Metro Vancouver (23 municipalities, including the City of Vancouver) and Red Deer, Alberta in 2011 and 2012, respectively.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
26 | P a g e
Page 29 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Table 3: 2011 PIT Count Results Across Similarly Sized Municipalities
City Canada Kelowna, British Columbia5 Red Deer, Alberta6 USA7 Warren, Michigan Elizabeth, New Jersey Hartford, Connecticut Allentown, Pennsylvania Springfield, Illinois Lansing, Michigan Manchester, New Hampshire Cambridge, Massachusetts
Population
Homeless Count
117,312 90,564
279 279
134,243 125,660 124,867 119,141 117,076 114,605 109,830 106,038
656 1,471 881 759 227 444 350 471
Homelessness is also a reality in rural areas that are included within the boundaries of the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac. The NAEH estimates that on average, there are 14 homeless per 10,000 people in rural areas,8 suggesting approximately that there are 42 people experiencing homelessness in Frontenac County. It is also important to note that the propensity of homelessness, as suggested by the NAEH, does not account for persons or families that are doubled-up with other family members, sleeping on a friend’s couch or floor, or in overcrowded situations. No methodology has accurately been able to quantify the extent of these unseen homeless people anywhere in the world, though there is no doubt that these individuals and families use homeless related services, including shelters on occasion. The homeless population in any geographic area is composed of diverse demographics—they are not a homogenous group. Several distinct “sub-populations” of homeless people exist, often with very different characteristics from one another even within the sub-populations themselves. The following section will describe the characteristics and needs of four distinct groups: homeless youth, homeless families, homeless women, and homeless aboriginal persons. While these groups comprise sizeable minorities of the total homeless population, there are other groups that are particular needs as well: persons who are chronically 5
SPARC BC. (2011) Knowledge for Action: Hidden Homelessness in Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna, Nelson, and Nanaimo. 6 City of Red Deer. (2012) Red Deer Point In Time [PIT] Homeless Count 2012. 7 Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2011) The 2011 Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness: Supplement to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report. 8 Henry, M. and Sermons, M. W. (2010) Geography of Homelessness. National Alliance to End Homelessness.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
27 | P a g e
Page 30 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan homeless typically comprise 15%-20% of the total homeless population; veterans are disproportionately represented among those who are homeless; seniors who become homeless are particularly vulnerable; persons who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer can comprise up to 40% of the homeless youth subpopulation; and newcomers to Canada often have culturally specific needs, such as language barriers. All of these groups have very different needs in service provision, reinforcing the notion that Youth Approximately 1 in 3 persons experiencing homeless are unaccompanied youth – defined as those between the ages of 16 and 24 who are without adult supervision.9 In Kingston, 27% of shelter users are in this group. They are among the most vulnerable of groups who experience homelessness. Homeless youth are more vulnerable to exploitation from adults and other youth. Their brains are still developing and are highly susceptible to outside influence.10 Like any youth, they are still experimenting and trying to decide who they are. Youth are extraordinarily resilient, but they still need a supportive environment in which to pursue opportunities and to be able to fail, learn and try again without severe, life-altering consequences.11 Youth are best served by youth-specific services, not by being treated as adults. For instance, youth-specific shelters, like Kingston Youth Shelter, help protect homeless youth from exploitation from older homeless individuals or from abuse that they may have been experiencing in their family home.12 Youth are also susceptible to non-homeless persons who will attempt to exploit the vulnerability and uncertainty that accompanies the experience of youth homelessness. The Seattle Police Department, for example, has studied the issue and found that 77% of homeless youth were approached for prostitution, drugs, criminal or other exploitive activities within 45 minutes of when they arrived unaccompanied on the street. 13 These youth present a unique opportunity to effectively intervene and end their homelessness. If left alone, homeless youth have the potential to become tomorrow’s chronically homeless adults. However, assisting homeless youth to find housing stability in their lives is one way of preventing future chronic homelessness.
9
Mobilizing Local Capacity to End Homelessness in Canada. Winters, K. C. (2008) Adolescent Brain Development and Drug Abuse. Mentor Foundation. Raising the Roof. (2009) Youth Homelessness in Canada: The Road to Solutions. 12 Raising the Roof. (2009) Youth Homelessness in Canada: The Road to Solutions. 13 National Alliance to End Homelessness.(2013) Conference on Family and Youth Homelessness. 10 11
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
28 | P a g e
Page 31 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan One study found that each youth experiencing homelessness is reflected in an annual taxpayer burden of $13,900 and an annual social burden of $37,450. 14 Once these youth reach the age of 25, it is estimated that they will impose a future lifetime taxpayer burden of $148,790 and a future lifetime social burden of $461,020. Altogether, the lifetime cost of each homeless youth is over $1 million.15 The Mobilizing Local Capacity to End Youth Programs that specifically Homelessness Program (MLC) is a five-year initiative target homeless youth are an that sees local community energies and capacity for essential part of the homeless collective action as the front line in attacking the service delivery system. complex social issues surrounding youth Kingston has recently been homelessness. The MLC is the result of an exciting selected to be part of a new, 5partnership between The National Learning year program initiated by the Community on Youth Homelessness (LC), Eva’s National Learning Community Initiatives and the Canadian Housing Renewal on Youth Homelessness, Eva’s Association (CHRA), with generous funding from the Initiatives, and the Canadian Catherine Donnelly Foundation. “Our ultimate goal Housing and Renewal is to end youth homelessness by fostering collective Association entitled Mobilizing community action and promoting systemic change Local Capacity to End Youth to public policies in Canada,” says Maria Crawford, Homelessness in Canada. Co-Chair of the MLC program and Executive Director Locally, this program is funded of Eva’s Initiatives in Toronto. and implemented by the United Way. Over the next five years, Kingston will make great strides towards ending youth homelessness. Families Homeless families are another sub-group of the whole homeless population that has distinct characteristics and heightened vulnerability. A homeless family is defined as one or more adults with at least one accompanied child, who lack a safe, stable, and permanent housing arrangement. In Kingston, there were a total of 56 family units, comprising 164 individuals, who accessed the shelter system in 2011. This comprises about 25% of all individuals who access shelters in Kingston, but data from the National Alliance to End Homelessness suggests that about 50% of persons experiencing homelessness are part of a family.16 Families who become homeless share many characteristics: very low incomes, single parenthood and most often single motherhood, younger heads of households, very young children and sometimes current pregnancy, weaker social networks, and a history 14
The $13,900 includes homeless shelters, hospital bills, legal fees, cost of Children’s Aid workers, incarceration, etc. $37,450 represents all other indirect costs, such as lost taxes, lower productivity, lost wages, marginal excess tax burden, lower economic growth, etc. 15 Belfield, C. R., Levin, H. M., & Rosen, R. (2012) The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth. The Kellogg Foundation. 16 National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2006) Promising Strategies to End Family Homelessness.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
29 | P a g e
Page 32 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan of the household moving frequently. However, in these respects and in others, homeless families resemble housed, poor families. Often, these families have higher incidences of domestic violence, and mental illness including anxiety and depression. Children in these families often have behavioural problems and below average performance in school.17 Fortunately, approximately 75% of families that experience homelessness are able to regain housing with little or no difficulty.18 For these families, Kingston’s Ryandale, Lily’s Place, and Dawn House shelters provide safe, emergency shelter. The remaining 25% need additional assistance to end their homelessness. A promising practice in ending family homelessness is known as Rapid Re-Housing. This Plan is designed to help implement Rapid Re-Housing within Kingston and Frontenac. Women Homeless women are often identified as a special population among homeless groups. On average, 32% of homeless persons are female;19 in Kingston, 29% of shelter users are women, which can be considered average. Homeless women have many characteristics in common with homeless youth and homeless families. This is unsurprising, since homeless women are more likely to be in families than homeless men, and homeless women are, on average, younger than homeless men. For instance, a 2009 Toronto study found the average age of homeless women to be 36, while the average age of homeless men was 40. 20 A recent Red Deer study found that among homeless persons, women had an average age of 31 while men had an average age of 37.21 The same Red Deer study found that 1 in 4 homeless women had children with her. Women who are homeless have significantly different needs than men. On the positive side, homeless women tend to have better networks than their male counterparts. Women are more likely to be able to “couch surf” and are more able to ask for and receive assistance. As a result, women tend to be homeless for shorter amounts of time than men. 22
17
National Alliance to End Homelessness.(2006) Promising Strategies to End Family Homelessness. Culhane, D. P., Metraux, S., Park, J. M., Schretzman, M., & Valente, J. (2007) Testing a Typology of Family Homelessness Based on Patterns of Public Shelter Utilization in Four U.S. Jurisdictions: Implications for Policy and Program Planning. Housing Policy Debate, 18(1). 19 Morris, R.I. & Strong, L. (2004) The impact of homelessness on the health of families. Journal of School Nursing, 20(4), 221-27 20 Toronto Shelter, Support & Housing Administration. (2007) What Housing First Means for People: Results of Streets to Homes 2007 Post-Occupancy Research. 21 City of Red Deer. (2012) Red Deer Point In Time [PIT] Homeless Count 2012. 22 City of Red Deer. (2012) Red Deer Point In Time [PIT] Homeless Count 2012. 18
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
30 | P a g e
Page 33 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Conversely, homeless women are more vulnerable than homeless men. Approximately 1 in 8 have been sexually abused in the past year, and 1 in 3 have been physically abused in the same time period.23 In many cases, this is domestic violence, and may even be a precipitating factor that triggers a woman’s homeless episode. More than 40% have major depressive disorder, and more than one-third have post-traumatic stress disorder. 31% have attempted suicide at least once.24 Many homeless women also engage in what is known as “survival sex.” These women may find a person to date so that they have a warm place to sleep overnight – exchanging sexual intimacy for shelter. It is largely unknown how prevalent this phenomenon is, since these women would generally be considered invisibly homeless and may not access homeless services. To some, survival sex may be considered prostitution, but others who engage in survival sex draw a distinction between the two. However, sex work is not an uncommon way for homeless women to earn money. Although co-ed shelters are appropriate for some homeless women, many – particularly those with a history of abuse – are better served by single-gender shelters. Thus, it is wise to continue pursuing Kingston’s current approach of providing some women-only and some mixed shelters. Aboriginal People Across Canada, persons of aboriginal descent are extremely overrepresented among homeless populations. In Kingston, ethnicity of homeless individuals is not currently captured, but evidence from other jurisdictions suggests that even municipalities with very few persons claiming aboriginal heritage have disproportionately high rates of aboriginal persons among their homeless populations. Table 4: Proportions of Aboriginal Identity Among General and Homeless Populations by Municipality
Municipality Toronto Hamilton25 Vancouver26 Calgary27 Red Deer28
Aboriginal People (% of total population) 0.5% 1.3% 2.0% 2.5% 4.4%
Homeless Aboriginals (% of total homeless population) 15% 20% 27% 16% 44%
23
Arangua, L., Andersen, R., & Gelberg, A. (2005) The Health Circumstances of Homeless Women in the United States. International Journal of Mental Health, vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2005 24 Roman, N. (2011) Domestic Violence Housing First Symposium: Building on Our Past, Learning as We Go: Keynote Remarks. Conference of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 25 St. Michael’s Hospital. (n.d.) Homelessness in Canadian Cities. Centre for Research on Inner City Health. 26 Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness. (2012) One Step Forward: Results of the 2011 Metro Vancouver Homeless Count. 27 Calgary Homeless Foundation. (2012) Winter 2012 Point-in-Time Count Report.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
31 | P a g e
Page 34 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
In Kingston, approximately 2% of the total population is of aboriginal descent, suggesting that 1/4 of all people experiencing homelessness may be aboriginal. Multiple studies agree that, on average, aboriginal people experiencing homelessness have higher needs than people who are not of aboriginal descent. While only 15% of Toronto’s homeless people self-identified as aboriginal, 26% of those “sleeping rough” (i.e. sleeping on the streets) were aboriginal.29 In Calgary, while 16% of homeless individuals were aboriginal, persons with aboriginal heritage accounted for 26% of the homeless individuals in police detention and 38% of those sleeping rough.30A recent report from Red Deer found that aboriginal people tended to be homeless for three times as long as non-aboriginal people, on average.31 Aboriginal homeless individuals tend to be younger, on average. In the City of Vancouver, for instance, over 50% of homeless youth self-identified as aboriginal.32 In addition, more homeless aboriginal persons are female, and they are more likely to be part of homeless families.33 Most aboriginal persons experiencing homelessness face the same barriers as others who are homeless, such as very low income, health problems, and higher rates of addiction. However, they also face an added layer of complexity due to their unique heritage. The best approach to providing services to this sub-population is to provide culturally specialized, aboriginal-specific services.34 Kingston has some specialized services available for aboriginal persons who are homeless. Tipi Moza is a social housing provider with 17 units specifically allocated for aboriginal families with low income. Weeneebayko Patient Services, operated out of Hotel Dieu, provides specialized health-related services to aboriginal peoples from the Mushkegowuk Territory. KagitaMikam provides employment services including training for aboriginal individuals, and the Katarokwi Native Friendship Center provides a number of other social services for individuals of aboriginal heritage. However, there are no services in Kingston specific to homeless aboriginal persons.
28
City of Red Deer. (2012) Red Deer Point In Time [PIT] Homeless Count 2012. St. Michael’s Hospital. (n.d.) Homelessness in Canadian Cities. Centre for Research on Inner City Health. 30 Calgary Homeless Foundation. (2012) Winter 2012 Point-in-Time Count Report. 31 City of Red Deer. (2012) Red Deer Point In Time [PIT] Homeless Count 2012. 32 Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness. (2012) One Step Forward: Results of the 2011 Metro Vancouver Homeless Count. 33 City of Red Deer. (2012) Red Deer Point In Time [PIT] Homeless Count 2012. 34 Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness. (2012) One Step Forward: Results of the 2011 Metro Vancouver Homeless Count. 29
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
32 | P a g e
Page 35 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Available Services Kingston is the only municipality with any extensive homelessness services between Toronto and Ottawa. There is a perception among service providers that persons who find themselves homeless in smaller surrounding communities may hitchhike or purchase a bus ticket to Kingston in order to gain needed assistance. However, evidence from other jurisdictions suggests that the majority of persons who experience homelessness choose to remain in their home community. A 2012 study in Red Deer, Alberta – a community halfway between Calgary and Edmonton, with a similar population size as Kingston – found that 62% of its homeless population were locals.35 It is actually more likely that those homeless persons not from Kingston moved into the city looking for work or housing, or to move in with family members, before experiencing housing instability and ultimately homelessness. Due to the relatively large size of Kingston in the context of its surrounding municipalities, Kingston is an attractive place to look for work and other opportunities. Thus, on a number of characteristics, Kingston more closely resembles a city larger than its population would indicate, including offering a wider array of services than a similarly sized municipality in closer proximity to a large city. Kingston currently has a robust network of social services available to persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. There are sufficient shelter beds and meal programs to meet the day-to-day needs of persons experiencing homelessness. In short, Kingston is successful in its present orientation towards managing homelessness. However, in the effort to end homelessness, the service delivery system will need to adjust and align its services to the new objective. Shelters In 2012, Kingston’s six municipally funded shelters had a total of 20,798 occupied bed nights. A “bed night” is a measure of shelter usage equal to one person sleeping in one bed for one night. This means that on average, 57 of Kingston’s 78 municipally funded shelter beds were full every night in 2012. In total, 818 unique clients stayed in Kingston’s six shelters in 2012. This is an increase of 25% over 2011. Table 5: Capacity and Mandate of Emergency Shelters in Kingston
Shelter Name Ryandale Shelter for the Homeless
Mandate Emergency shelter for men, women, families, and children.
Capacity 15
35
City of Red Deer. (2012) Red Deer Point In Time [PIT] Homeless Count 2012.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
33 | P a g e
Page 36 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Shelter Name Dawn House Women’s Shelter Kingston Harbour Light Kingston Youth Shelter In From the Cold Lily’s Place
Mandate Emergency shelter for women and children.
Capacity 10
Emergency shelter for men. Emergency shelter for youth aged 16-24. Emergency shelter for men and women. Emergency shelter for women and children.
836 1537 24/2038 14
Clients stayed an average of 28 nights, which is the second consecutive annual increase. In 2011 the average length of stay was 25 nights, while in 2010 it was 22 nights. The majority (69%) of shelter users stay in shelters for less than 30 days, which is consistent with other jurisdictions. However, the data suggests that each year, fewer and fewer shelter users are staying for less than 30 days, and an increasing number are staying from 30-90 days. Graph 1: Length of Stay, All Shelters, 2008-2012
45%
40
40%
35
35%
30
30%
25
25%
20
20%
15
15% 10%
10
5%
5
0%
Average Length of Stay (Days)
% of All Shelter Users
Length of Stay, All Shelters, 2008-2012
0 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
< 1 week
1 week - 1 month
1 month - 3 months
3 months - 10 months
10 months
Average Length of Stay
Homelessness is a rare event in almost all instances, according to analysis of shelter and Homeless Management Information System data. Research done by Culhane et al.,39 as 36
Only 7 of 8 beds are funded municipally. Only 8 of 15 beds are funded municipally. 38 Only 20 of 24 beds are funded municipally as of January 1, 2013. The shelter is also moving to a new location in 2013 which will only have 20 beds, but “flex space” allowing another 9 mats should there be additional demand. 39 Culhane, D. P., Metraux, S., Park, J. M., Schretzman, M., & Valente, J. (2007) Testing a Typology of Family Homelessness Based on Patterns of Public Shelter Utilization in Four U.S. Jurisdictions: Implications for Policy and Program Planning. Housing Policy Debate, 18(1). 37
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
34 | P a g e
Page 37 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan well as Springer & Mars40 and others such as Byrne41, have demonstrated time and again that most people that experience homelessness do so only once in their life, for a short period of time, and are not ever homeless again. One of the things a homeless service delivery system attempts to do is ensure that homelessness remains a shortterm, infrequent event – if it occurs at all. There are a couple of trends that are troubling within the shelter system in Kingston. The first is that the percentage of people staying less than a week is decreasing. It would be hoped that this increases overtime, and is indicative that more assistance in securing housing is warranted. Secondly, the trend is suggesting greater chronicity within the shelter using population, overall, over the past five years. There is a greater percentage of people staying for a longer period of time. In 2011 and 2012, the annual shelter occupancy rate was 76% and 75%, respectively, for the 78 municipally funded emergency shelter beds, though the occupancy rate fluctuates during the year and from shelter to shelter. The overall occupancy rate of 75% suggests that there is no need, at this time, to increase shelter capacity. If trends continue and the recommendations of this Plan are followed, there is reason to believe that shelter services will not need to be expanded over the next 10 years, and reductions in shelter services will need to be considered at the same time that the services are enhanced to include or provide supports designed to a permanent, safe and affordable housing outcome. The following chart illustrates the occupancy rates for each shelter over the past eight years, though some points of clarification are required. Both Harbour Light and Kingston Youth Shelter offer additional beds that are not funded by the municipality. Harbour Light had a 2012 average occupancy rate of 53%, but the municipally funded beds were full 61% of the time. Kingston Youth Shelter, similarly, had an average 2012 occupancy rate of 46%, but the municipally funded beds had an occupancy rate of 87%. Ryandale increased its number of beds in 2010 and In from the Cold did likewise in 2009, explaining the significant drops in occupancy rates for those shelters in those years.
40
Springer, J. & Mars, J. (1999) Profile of The Homeless Population: Mayor’s Homelessness Action Task Force. City of Toronto. 41 Culhane, D. P. & Byrne, T. (2010) Ending Family Homelessness in Massachusetts: A New Approach for the Emergency Assistance Program. University of Pennsylvania: Departmental Papers (SPP).
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
35 | P a g e
Page 38 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Graph 2: Actual Occupancy Rates by Shelter, 2005-2012
Occupancy as a % of total beds available
Actual Occupancy Rates by Shelter, 2005-2012 110% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Ryandale
Dawn House
Harbour Light
In from the Cold
Kingston Youth Shelter
Lily’s Place
2012
Food Services The majority of homeless individuals access food services—a food bank, a meal program, or a dinner/breakfast program within a shelter. Many service providers interviewed by the consultants in 2012 indicated that it was very difficult for a person to go hungry in Kingston since food services are widely available. However, it was also mentioned that access to food services on the weekends was relatively limited, as illustrated in Figure 1: When is Food Available in Kingston?
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
36 | P a g e
Page 39 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Figure 1: When is Food Available in Kingston?
When is Food Available in Kingston? Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 8am
Noon Not available
4pm Available
8pm
Midnight
There are at least nine meal programs available in Kingston, and a variety of other programs and agencies that provide residents of Kingston and Frontenac with nourishment. In addition, all shelters provide their clients with at least one meal each day. In total, food banks distributed over 26,000 baskets of food in 2012. Table 6: Food Services Available and Number of Clients
Food Service
Clients Served (daily)
Clients Served (annually)
Food Banks Community Choice Pantry SFCS Food Bank Vinnie’s Emergency Groceries Partners in Mission Bread of Life Club
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
7,741 720 6,766 10,299 800
Meal Programs Martha’s Table Lunch By George Kingston Street Mission The Gathering Place St. John’s Parish Hall Loretta Lunch Storehouse of Hope
140 40-50 15-20 60-80 50-80 70 30-40
44,600 10,000-13,000 5,500-7,300 9,000-12,500 2,500-4,000 14,229 1,500-2,000
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
37 | P a g e
Page 40 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Seventh Day Adventist Church Good Times Diner Bread of Life Club
not available 35 100-150
not available 2,250 8,400-12,000
Health Care People experiencing homelessness have much higher rates of virtually all illnesses, particularly infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, HIV infection, and hepatitis B and C.42 In addition, they tend to have higher rates of most afflictions, with chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, seizures, musculoskeletal disorders, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease often going undiagnosed and/or untreated.43 Time spent homeless tends to worsen existing conditions. Homeless individuals with a serious illness are less able to properly treat their afflictions in ways that housed individuals can, such as by eating healthy food, taking medications on time, and getting sufficient bed rest. Sleeping in congregate settings and having fewer opportunities to tend to personal hygiene also expose homeless individuals to disease and infection at higher rates than the general populace.44 As a result, people experiencing homelessness tend to be frequent users of the health care system. In particular, higher cost services are used more often, such as emergency rooms and ambulances.45 One study found that persons experiencing homelessness visit the emergency room an average of 2.1 times per year, a rate more than 10 times higher than the housed population.46 In addition, homeless people are hospitalized up to five times more frequently than the general public and stay in hospitals much longer.47 Kingston is well served by three large hospitals, and in that respect, resembles a much larger city. Kingston General Hospital serves an area of approximately 20,000 km2, including the Counties of Frontenac, Lanark, Leeds & Grenville, Lennox & Addington, Hastings and Prince Edward – a combined population of over 500,000 people.48
42
Hwang, S. & Henderson, M. (2010).Health Care Utilization in Homeless People: Translating Research into Policy and Practice. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Working Paper No. 10002. 43 Hwang, S. & Henderson, M. (2010).Health Care Utilization in Homeless People: Translating Research into Policy and Practice. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Working Paper No. 10002. 44 Gaetz, S. (2012) The Real Cost of Homelessness: Can We Save Money by Doing the Right Thing? The Homeless Hub, Paper #3. 45 Ibid. 46 Hwang, S. & Henderson, M. (2010).Health Care Utilization in Homeless People: Translating Research into Policy and Practice .Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Working Paper No. 10002. 47 Gaetz, S. (2012) The Real Cost of Homelessness: Can We Save Money by Doing the Right Thing? 48 Kingston Central Ambulance Communication Centre. (2012)
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
38 | P a g e
Page 41 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Improving opportunities for persons experiencing homelessness to access preventative and non-emergency healthcare would stabilize and/or improve their health and reduce the demand on Kingston’s emergency medical services. Mental Health and Addictions It is estimated that 67% of individuals who are homeless have mental illness or have experienced mental illness sometime in their lives.49 The experience of being homeless has been proven to worsen mental wellbeing, exacerbate pre-existing mental illnesses, and lead to new problems including substance use. In fact, a recent study found an inverse relationship between psychiatric hospital beds and homelessness – fewer beds corresponds to more homelessness.50 Thus, there is a correlation between chronic homelessness, substance use, and worsened mental health.51 Kingston has a number of agencies and facilities that provide assistance, support, and/or treatment for those experiencing mental illness and/or addictions. Many also provide assistance to those with problematic substance use. In 2016, a new 270-bed hospital is slated to open and replace St. Mary’s of the Lake and Providence Care Mental Health Services. The new hospital will have 120 beds for longterm mental health patients (of which 30 will be forensic beds), 100 beds for patients requiring complex continuing care, and 50 beds for rehabilitation.52 While this will be a state of the art facility, it will also result in a reduction of 35 beds from the currently available hospital beds for mental health patients. Evidence suggests that the best approach to helping homeless individuals who are experiencing poor mental health and substance use problems is to end their homelessness by providing safe, permanent and supported housing.53 This is an approach pursued by some of the service providers in Kingston and Frontenac, such as Frontenac Community Mental Health & Addictions Services who have an inventory of 165 beds for their clients, indicating that, locally, there are indicators of progress on this front. Compelling new research from the Mental Health Commission of Canada, which conducted a five-city demonstration project on this approach comparing housing with supports to “treatment as usual” found that for high-service users, this approach resulted in savings to government of $9,390 per person per year; that for every dollar spent on this type of housing and support intervention $1.54 was saved in reductions to 49
Hwang, S. & Henderson, M. (2010).Health Care Utilization in Homeless People: Translating Research into Policy and Practice. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Working Paper No. 10002. 50 Markowitz, F. E. (2006) Psychiatric Hospital Capacity, Homelessness, and Crime and Arrest Rates. Criminology, 44(1). 51 Gaetz, S. (2012) The Real Cost of Homelessness: Can We Save Money by Doing the Right Thing? 52 Vanden Brink, D. (2012, March 30) New hospital will be ‘purpose built’ facility. Kingston Whig-Standard. 53 Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2012) At Home/Chez Soi Interim Report.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
39 | P a g e
Page 42 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan shelter, health, and justice services54. While this type of service delivery is intensive and generally more costly than generally housing help services that do not provide supports to people in housing, the longer-term payoff clearly demonstrates the investment is a prudent use of available resources. This is especially true when one considers that this type of intervention resulted in 86% of clients remaining in their first or second unit, compared to only 30% of the treatment as usual population remaining stably housed. Housing A major barrier in Kingston to reducing the scope of homelessness is the lack of affordable housing. The vast majority of individuals who experience episodic homelessness are able to quickly regain housing without requiring many services, but this process is currently hampered in Kingston by a combination of low vacancy rates and high rental prices. Graph 3: Average Rent vs. Inflation Rate, Kingston CMA, 2002-2012
Average Rent (2-bedroom units) vs. Inflation Rate Kingston CMA, 2002-2012 $1,200.00
6.0%
$1,000.00
5.0%
$800.00
4.0%
$600.00
3.0%
$400.00
2.0%
$200.00
1.0%
$-
0.0% 2002
2003
2004
Average Rent
2005
2006
2007
2008
Rate of Inflation
2009
2010
2011
2012
Rate of Rent Increase
Over the past ten years, the average rate of rent increase has been higher than the rate of inflation every year except for 2007, indicating that rent prices are becoming increasingly unaffordable every year. Lower vacancy rates create an environment where landlords can achieve higher rent levels because of the demand in the Kingston Census Metropolitan Area. A “healthy” 54
Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2012) At Home/Chez Soi Interim Report.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
40 | P a g e
Page 43 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan vacancy rate—which favours neither tenants nor landlords—is considered to be 3%. Lower than 3% is considered to be a “landlord’s market” and above 3% is considered to be a “renter’s market”. Kingston’s vacancy rate was 1.7% in fall 2012. Over the last decade, only once, in 2007, has the vacancy rate increased slightly above 3%. In Ontario, only Guelph and Thunder Bay had lower vacancy rates than Kingston in 2012, while Toronto’s was also 1.7%. Graph 4: Vacancy Rate vs. Rate of Rent Increase, Kingston CMA, 2002-2012
Vacancy Rate vs. Rate of Rent Increase Kingston CMA, 2002-2012 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Vacancy Rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Rate of Rent Increase
One of the reasons for this low vacancy rate is the presence of three post-secondary institutions, which exert pressure on the available rental units: Queen’s University, St. Lawrence College, and the Royal Military College. Queen’s University had a full-time enrolment in 2011 of 19,462, and an additional 2,442 students who were not full-time. Over the next year, enrolment is projected to grow by approximately 2%.55 Queen’s has slightly over 4,000 beds available in residence and has a policy of providing accommodation to first year students only. Although 550 more beds will be added in two new residences due for completion by 2015,56it is estimated that there will be 12,000 students housed off-campus, in 5,000 rental housing units. It is further projected that by 2021, off-campus Queen’s students will occupy 6,900 rental units.57
55
Queen’s University.(2012) Enrolment Plan 2012-2013. Queen’s University. (2012, December 10) Two New Residences Support Need for Student Living Space.Queen’s University News Centre. 57 City of Kingston.(2011) Municipal Housing Strategy. 56
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
41 | P a g e
Page 44 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan St. Lawrence College (SLC) and Royal Military College (RMC) both contribute to the demand for rental housing, but on a smaller scale than Queen’s. SLC Kingston hosts 4,729 students and RMC has an enrolment of 1,692. However, neither of these institutions is located in the downtown core and, as a result, they place higher demand in different geographic areas. In addition to these post-secondary institutions, the Canadian Forces Base Kingston also causes downward pressure on the available rental market. CFB Kingston employs approximately 8,400 persons and approximately 5,000 are military personnel posted in Kingston. While many military personnel live in the 497on-base units, it is increasingly common for personnel to live in private rental units while stationed in Kingston, particularly those with spouses or families. Since 2000, the number of on-base housing units has been reduced by close to 40%; meanwhile, the number of Lodger Units has increased by 20% since 2004. There is a strong need in Kingston for more rental units that are affordable to individuals with very low income. Addressing the issue of low vacancy rates by increasing the total number of rental units available may have the effect of reducing the rate of rent increase over time and this has the potential to yield more affordable rent prices. Increasing affordable housing stock comes with a significant cost – as does housing with supports – which could be achieved through a rent supplement program. However, it is essential for the successful implementation of this plan. Currently those in the housing help field face many challenges finding adequate, suitable, and affordable housing for homeless individuals. Often, housing that is available for such clients fails to meet housing standards, which places formerly homeless households at an increased risk of returning to a homeless situation. While this Plan specifically speaks to homelessness, it is critical to understand the critical role that housing plays and how essential the continued implementation of the updated Municipal Housing Strategy is to the success of this Plan. Cost of Homelessness Homelessness has an enormous and negative impact across a number of dimensions on every community in which it exists. On the individual level, the experience of being homeless can have a significant, negative impact on the individual’s current and future wellbeing beyond physical or mental health that was mentioned earlier in this Plan.58 People who are homeless are 58
Hwang, S. & Henderson, M. (2010).Health Care Utilization in Homeless People: Translating Research into Policy and Practice. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Working Paper No. 10002.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
42 | P a g e
Page 45 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan also significantly more likely to be involved in criminal activity, whether as a victim, a perpetrator, or as a witness.59 Homelessness is often associated with a strain in relationships.60 Sometimes, a relationship reaches a breaking point, such as when a youth fights with his or her parents, resulting in the youth leaving home, or when a victim of domestic violence decides to leave.61 In other situations, when an individual spends a period of time experiencing housing and financial instability, the burden of homelessness can be a shared experience when the person asks friends and relatives for help whether that is borrowing money, sleeping on a couch, or looking for a job. This added pressure places stress on a person’s relationships and reduces the person’s ability to ask for help in the future. Whatever the circumstances, in most cases, homeless individuals face some degree of social alienation and isolation,62 which can further worsen health and mental health.63 Homelessness also places indirect costs on the community in which it occurs. A higher prevalence of homeless people visibly living on the streets can negatively impact perceptions of tourists or local pedestrian traffic and thereby negatively impact sales at local retail stores.64 Finally, the presence of homelessness also places a large financial burden on the local economy. A recent report by Gordon Laird suggested that in 2007, the annual cost of homelessness Canada-wide was $4.5 billion.65 Although this cost is not evenly divided throughout the entire country, a simple estimate would suggest that the share of this cost for the geographic area of Kingston and Frontenac is approximately $20 million per year. This annual cost of $20 million is shared between the municipal, provincial, and federal levels of government. While some of these costs such as those for emergency shelters may be direct, some costs such as lost taxes may be indirect and difficult to measure.
59
Hulchanski, D., Campsie, P., Chau, S. B., Hwang, S., & Paradis, E. (Eds.), (2009) The Street Health Report, 2007: The Health of Toronto’s Homeless Population, in Finding Home: Policy Options for Addressing Homelessness in Canada. 60 Hulchanski, D., Campsie, P., Chau, S. B., Hwang, S., & Paradis, E. (Eds.), (2009) The Street Health Report, 2007: The Health of Toronto’s Homeless Population, in Finding Home: Policy Options for Addressing Homelessness in Canada. 61 Kidd, S. A. (2009) Social Stigma and Homeless Youth, in Finding Home: Policy Options for Addressing Homelessness in Canada. 62 Hulchanski, D., Campsie, P., Chau, S. B., Hwang, S., & Paradis, E. (Eds.), (2009) The Street Health Report, 2007: The Health of Toronto’s Homeless Population, in Finding Home: Policy Options for Addressing Homelessness in Canada. 63 Marmot, M., & Wilkinson, R. (Eds.). (2003). Social determinants of health: The solid facts (2nd ed.). Copenhagen: World Health Organization. 64 O’Grady, B., Gaetz, S., & Buccieri, K. (2011) Can I See Your ID? The Policing of Youth Homelessness in Toronto. The Homeless Hub, Paper #5. 65 Laird, G. (2007).Shelter: Homelessness in a Growth economy: Canada’s 21 Century Paradox. Calgary, AB: Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
43 | P a g e
Page 46 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Evidence proves that the majority of these costs are accrued by only a small proportion of homeless persons.66These individuals are mostly comprised of chronically homeless individuals—persons who have been homeless for at least a year, or at least four times in the past three years. In Kingston, it is estimated that on average, the annual cost per homeless individual is approximately $18,000 per year. Chronically homeless individuals, however, accrue much higher costs of approximately $62,000 per person, per year.67 The actual size of the homeless population in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac is unknown, but three population estimates are provided on the table below as an estimate of total known costs accrued by homeless individuals, annually. Table 7: Total Estimated Costs of Homelessness in Kingston
Low Estimate Medium Estimate High Estimate
Population Size 300 818 1200
Top 20% Service Users $3,729,895.00 $10,170,180.38 $14,919,580.02
Total Cost All Service Users $5,418,780.02 $14,775,206.85 $21,675,120.07
A shift in service orientation specifically targeting the top 20% most frequent users of services can result in major potential savings, especially over the long term. A recent study in Halifax suggested that investing in social housing could generate savings of 41% per person.68 A similar Canada-wide study found savings of $1.54 for every dollar invested in supported housing programs.69 There is a well-known true story by Malcolm Gladwell entitled Million-Dollar Murray, in which Murray, a chronically homeless man, visits the hospital nearly every week for close to ten years, accruing a hospital bill of over $100,000 per year. One police officer is quoted as saying “it cost us one million dollars not to do something about Murray.” A reoriented focus to end homelessness requires the community to use existing funds differently rather than relying on new funding. In the process, the community will see – as other jurisdictions have experienced – that the focus on ending homelessness results in fewer people experiencing homelessness, thereby exerting less demands on shelter, health and justice services. Simply managing homelessness is an expensive approach that entails doing the same thing year after year and watching demand increase. Ending homelessness entails doing things differently and watching demand decrease. 66
Poulin, S., Maguire, M., Metraux, S., & Culhane, D. (2010).Service use and costs for persons experiencing chronic homelessness in Philadelphia: a population- based study. Psychiatric Services, 61(11). 67 For a full breakdown of cost estimates, see Appendix B: Costs of Homelessness. 68 Palermo, F.; Dera, b.; Clyne, D. (2006).The cost of homelessness and the value of investment in housing support services in Halifax Regional Municipality. Halifax: Cities and Environment Unit, Dalhousie University. 69 Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2012) At Home/Chez Soi Interim Report.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
44 | P a g e
Page 47 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan This Plan lays out the framework to end homelessness in the next ten years. Not only will it reduce the financial costs of homelessness, but it will also reduce the social burden to everyone in Kingston and Frontenac.
Where We Want To Be By 2023, the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac will have ended homelessness amongst individuals and families experiencing chronic and episodic homelessness. Ending homelessness means that shelters will return to their initial purpose as a short-term, emergency response to homelessness. Homelessness as a whole shall become infrequent, rare and of a short duration. In order to get there, a fundamental shift in thinking is required. This shift will be implemented at the Service Manager level and will impact everyone who interacts with homeless individuals and families across the region. This Plan will help guide the shift in thinking by changing how homelessness is addressed in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac. Instead of managing homelessness by increasing shelter beds reactively when emergency shelter needs increase, this Plan uses evidence-based, proven approaches that focuses on housing as the solution to homelessness. The approaches are based on a fundamental premise: by providing the appropriate support services that help people experiencing homeless acquire and maintain housing, the number of people experiencing homelessness—particularly chronic or long-term homelessness—will steadily decrease, reducing the demand for emergency resources such as shelter beds. Other jurisdictions that have adopted this approach have demonstrated that this goal is achievable. For instance, Chicago reduced the need for emergency shelter beds by 77% over 10 years.70 The Government of Alberta is another example when the Province implemented a housing program that focused on chronically homeless individuals with the highest needs. Alberta saw 80% of those clients achieving housing stability. As a result, the province-wide need for shelter beds decreased by 10% in just 3 years.71 Ending homelessness within ten years is a realistic and attainable goal. This Plan will identify the steps needed to get there. What Does Ending Homelessness Look Like? o No one is homeless for longer than 30 days. o Chronic homelessness is completely eradicated. 70
Chicago Alliance. (2012) Chicago’s Plan 2.0: A Home for Everyone. Alberta Secretariat for Action on Homelessness. (2013) A Plan for Alberta: Ending Homelessness in 10 Years: 3 Year Progress Report. 71
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
45 | P a g e
Page 48 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan o The need for emergency shelter beds has been greatly reduced and shelter beds are an integral part of a housing system. o There are sufficient units of housing – including permanent supportive housing – so that people who are homeless have a place to go. o Housing and support workers rapidly respond as soon as an individual or family becomes homeless. o Services are integrated, and there is coordinated access and assessment across the homeless and housing crisis response system. o Evidence-based practices have been adopted and service providers are constantly refining and improving their techniques based on new data. An Evidence-Based Approach Pioneer programs in North America that were specifically designed to end homelessness originated in New York City when Pathways to Housing was introduced and then in Toronto with their award winning Streets to Homes program. These programs focused on similar principles such as client empowerment, recovery, the right to selfdetermination, and the right to personal lifestyle choice. Both programs have received considerable international attention, undergone extensive independent review, received a plethora of awards, and the programs have been successfully replicated in other jurisdictions. Both programs focused on housing as the primary solution to ending homelessness. A housing first philosophy is an approach to ending homelessness by helping people experiencing homelessness to access housing as quickly as possible without preconditions and before addressing any of the individual’s or family’s other needs. This approach delivered measurable differences in people’s lives. First, there were marked quality of life improvements among clients who were housed. Clients demonstrated improved health, mental health, and addictions symptoms, largely due to the removal of stress associated with being homeless. Clients also had fewer interactions with police officers.72 Most clients were more receptive to receiving treatment for various health, mental health, and substance use problems and this resulted in decreased usage of costly emergency services such as ambulances and emergency rooms.73 Over time, Housing First evolved beyond a simple philosophy and became the name of a specific type of comprehensive service delivery.
72
Toronto Shelter, Support & Housing Administration. (2007) What Housing First Means for People: Results of Streets to Homes 2007 Post-Occupancy Research. 73 Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2012) At Home/Chez Soi Interim Report.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
46 | P a g e
Page 49 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Housing First Housing First is a specific type of intervention, delivered through Intensive Case Management (ICM) or Assertive Community Treatment (ACT). It is important to note that there is presently more than one ACT team operating within the Kingston area – such as the ones operating out of Providence Care. It would be advantageous to seek opportunities to partner with such agencies to take advantage of existing expertise within the community. The critical elements of Housing First include: o A focus on helping persons experiencing homelessness find permanent housing as quickly as possible. Transitional or interim housing is not a component of a Housing First approach. o Services are provided to clients after they are housed, to promote housing stability and general wellbeing. These services vary greatly from client to client depending on individual needs, and may be time-limited or long-term. Not everyone needs the same type or level of supports. o A focus on seeking out those chronically homeless individuals and families with the highest level of needs. Housing First is not a “first come, first served” approach. o No “housing readiness” requirement. There is no expectation that clients demonstrate their readiness by being sober or seeking treatment prior to entering the program. o A harm reduction approach. Clients are not required to abstain from substance use; instead there is a focus on minimizing the risks and harmful effects associated with substance use. o The client’s housing is not dependent on compliance with service – services and housing are “de-linked”. Instead, they sign a standard lease and are only expected to pay their rent on time while being provided services and supports that help them do so successfully. Clients may lose their housing, but this does not cause them to lose their supports. Instead, supports are already in place to assist the client in regaining housing as quickly as possible. o Clients have a choice in their housing, such as what part of the city they want to live in, whether they would like roommates, whether they would like to live in a congregate setting or a scattered-site setting, etc. o A client’s participation in a Housing First program is completely voluntary. This approach has been adopted in many jurisdictions, and has been identified as a “best practice” by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Housing First is the fundamental approach used by the seven Community Based Organizations in Alberta that were formed as part of the Government’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness in 2009. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
47 | P a g e
Page 50 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Most notably, Housing First reduces the need for shelter beds by moving the most frequent clients into permanent housing and helping them stay housed. A recent, Canada-wide study found that Housing First clients spend 73% of their time in stable housing, as opposed to only 30% for chronically homeless individuals receiving “treatment as usual.”74 Housing First is cost-effective even though it is not an inexpensive strategy. The average annual cost of a Housing First intervention is approximately $17,000 per person. However, for the highest users of services – the specific population Housing First is intended to target – this investment returned a saving of $1.54 for every dollar invested.75 In 2007, Kingston was one of six Ontario municipalities selected to participate in the Hostels to Homes (H2H) Pilot Project. H2H was a program adopting many features of Housing First, responding to the trend of increasing lengths of stay at emergency shelters by chronically homeless individuals. A total of 44 participants enrolled in this pilot, including approximately 30% who were chronically homeless with high needs, 30% who were youth with moderate needs, and 40% who were adults with lower needs. While this program did not adhere to all the features of the core Housing First program – notably, Housing First is intended to target only those with the highest needs – it was still lauded in Kingston as being both effective and cost effective. Hostels to Homes was funded primarily (80%) by the province of Ontario through emergency shelter per diem funding. The program operated effectively for 18 months using roughly the same amount of funding that was previously allocated for the same clients staying in emergency shelters. There was a modest start-up cost related to implementing the program, but the program was primarily funded through a reallocation of existing resources. Currently, under the new Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) funding model, it is possible to re-implement, enhance, and expand a Housing First program, using the framework set up by Hostels to Homes in 2007. Housing First is not an appropriate strategy for everyone who experiences homelessness—it is primarily designed for people who have been homeless the longest. For those with moderate needs, an approach such as Rapid Re-Housing is more appropriate.
74
Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2012) At Home/Chez Soi Interim Report. Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2012) At Home/Chez Soi Interim Report.
75
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
48 | P a g e
Page 51 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Rapid Re-Housing Rapid Re-Housing is a similar intervention to Housing First with a few key differences. First, Rapid Re-Housing is targeted towards individuals and families who have been episodically homeless for a long time and who have mid-range acuity. Typically, these clients have two or three life areas where providing supports would improve their housing stability. Second, Rapid Re-Housing is almost always time-limited. While clients move into housing that is permanent (i.e. they can live there as long as they continue to pay rent), supports are only provided for a finite amount of time, usually six months. Supports may be extended (usually in 3-month increments) a number of times, but if there are persistent barriers to housing stability that require long-term support, the client may be better served through a Housing First program. Like Housing First, Rapid Re-Housing focuses on helping clients find housing as quickly as possible. There is no requirement that the client be clean or sober, or in a treatment program. Additional services are provided as needed to assist the client in obtaining housing stability, but the approach is different. Clients are assisted in developing a Housing Plan with action steps and goals, and typically, clients are able to achieve some degree of stability within a year. Rapid Re-Housing is almost exclusively delivered through scattered-site apartments, not congregate housing. Similar to Housing First, clients have the choice about where they want to live and what type of housing they would prefer. There are different levels of intensity that can be provided as part of a Rapid Re-Housing program, as illustrated in Table 8: Levels of Rapid Re-Housing.76 Table 8: Levels of Rapid Re-Housing
Level 1
Level 2
Barriers to Obtaining Housing A few late utility and credit card payments.
Barriers to Retaining Housing Low income, insufficient savings.
Minor offense history, few or no housing references,
Inconsistent employment, poor budgeting skills, minor
Client Assistance Provided Start-up financial assistance, home visit after movein. Above, plus ongoing assistance with housing search,
Landlord Assistance Provided Program contact information.
Periodic checkins, availability for 6 months, assistance if
76
National Alliance to End Homelessness.(2011) Rapid Re-Housing Triage Tool.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
49 | P a g e
Page 52 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Level 3
Level 4
Barriers to Obtaining Housing pattern of late payments.
Barriers to Retaining Housing mental illness, possible past homelessness.
Some criminal history, up to 3 evictions, noise complaints and/or property damage, closed accounts due to debt. Up to 5 evictions, criminal history including drug offense or crimes against person or property.
As above, plus problems with mental illness or substance use, possible family conflict, multiple past episodes of homelessness. As above, plus very low income, no bank account.
Client Assistance Provided weekly home visits, services available for up to 6 months. Above, plus timelimited rental assistance, unannounced drop-in visits, services available up to 9 months. As above, plus staff accompanies client to meet with landlord, up to 12 months of service.
Landlord Assistance Provided eviction a possibility.
9-month availability, assistance after program has ended, possible payment of court fees, relocation if eviction pursued. As above, plus 12-month availability, payment or repair of damages, possible up-front payment of damage deposit or other costs in addition to normal start-up costs.
In summary, Rapid Re-Housing is a more appropriate approach to households that are experiencing moderate barriers to obtaining housing. For individuals and families with fewer barriers, homelessness prevention or diversion may be the best approach. Diversion & Prevention Not all persons experiencing homelessness require – or are best served by – costly interventions. Evidence indicates that close to 80% of persons who experience homelessness do so for a very short period of time and then are able to gain or regain housing with little to no assistance.77
77
Kuhn, R. &Culhane, D. P. (1998) Applying Cluster Analysis to Test a Typology of Homelessness by Pattern of Shelter Utilization: Results from the Analysis of Administrative Data. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(2).
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
50 | P a g e
Page 53 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan In terms of service efficiency, it is important to allocate the right resources to the right person at the right time. If the majority of individuals and families experiencing homelessness can be housed with minimal assistance, providing those households with additional and unnecessary assistance is not an effective use of funds. A better approach would be to ensure that all persons entering the homelessness service delivery system have exhausted all of their existing resources and networks prior to obtaining homelessness prevention assistance. This strategy is called diversion, because it diverts people from the emergency response system and redirects them towards existing, non-emergency resources. For instance, the Ontario Energy Board offers a Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP), which offers assistance with utility arrears. Diversion also relies heavily on trying to connect people seeking service back to “natural” supports such as friends and family when it is appropriate to do so, so that the individual or family does not need to come into the emergency service delivery system. Diversion fundamentally attempts to exhaust all other approaches to meeting the needs of the household prior to accepting them into the emergency service delivery system. Evidence indicates that most recipients of homelessness prevention assistance – such as financial assistance from rent banks – would not become homeless if they had not received such funding. In fact, a recent study from New York found that, on average, a typical homelessness prevention program allocates 80% of its resources to preventing homelessness among households that would not have become homeless without the assistance.78 In addition, the same programs, on average, “miss” providing assistance to 34% of households that do become homeless.79 The most effective use of prevention funds is to improve screening and targeting techniques to ensure that clients receiving assistance are the ones who have the most characteristics in common with the existing chronically homeless population.80 Therefore, in addition to being at risk of eviction, clients must demonstrate eligibility for prevention assistance by presenting a number of other risk factors. Those clients who have fewer risk factors are encouraged to use their own resources and networks to prevent homelessness, or to access existing, non-emergency services. This approach ensures that prevention resources are available to those households that are at the greatest risk of becoming homeless. This has proven to be both efficient and effective.
78
See the Homebase Study completed by the City of New York, City University, and ABT Associates. Shinn, M., Baumohl, J., & Hopper, K. (2001) The Prevention of Homelessness Revisited. Analyses of Social Issues and Policy, 1(1). 80 National Alliance to End Homelessness.(2011) Prevention Targeting 101. 79
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
51 | P a g e
Page 54 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Data Collection & Assessment A critical component in ending homelessness is collecting data through valid and consistent methodologies. Without concrete evidence, it is impossible to determine the success of even the most basic programs or services. A key component in data collection is to conduct Point-In-Time Homeless Counts on a regular basis. Point-in-Time (PIT) Counts are a widely accepted methodology, implemented across Canada and legally required in the United States as a requirement for ongoing funding. This method of data collection allows for an accurate snapshot of the current homeless population in a given window of time. This snapshot is critical to establish a baseline that allows for a shared understanding regarding the municipality’s starting point, and PIT Counts can also be one of the indicators for system performance over time. Currently, in Kingston, there is a lack of reliable data to determine the size and composition of the homeless population so conducting a PIT Count is an essential step. In addition, ensuring that all agencies involved in ending homelessness are able to “speak the same language” by using common tools to collect information about their clients is another vital component of this Plan. The data collected does not need to be extensive. In fact, there is a growing movement towards collecting only the most essential data about clients. There is no value in collecting more data than is useful; in fact, such an exercise is frequently seen as a waste of time for staff (and clients) at the point of collection as well as for those people conducting subsequent analyses. A best practice in data collection is to assemble all stakeholders – including funders and service providers – and identify the most important client information and adopt an intake and tracking tool that allows all agencies in the system to assess acuity and capture information consistently and accurately. Coordinated access and common assessment is at the core the HEARTH Act provisions in the United States required by all communities as a requirement for funding. There are three tools with different applications that are known to have a strong evidentiary basis:
- Vulnerability Index. Primarily used for medically frail, street involved populations;81
- Vulnerability Assessment Tool. Primarily used in determining Permanent Supportive Housing access and level of support;82 and,
81
Based upon the research of Drs. Hwang and O’Connell, the Vulnerability Index was first used by Common Ground in New York City, and has since expanded to be the instrument used in the 100,000 Homes Campaign in the US. 82 Under the direction of Bill Hobson, the Vulnerability Assessment Tool was created and first implemented by DESC in Seattle, Washington.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
52 | P a g e
Page 55 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 3. Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool. Primarily used in integrated service delivery systems, from point of initial intake through to successful completion of case management supports in housing.83 The Future of Homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac By adopting these best practices that are anchored by Rapid Re-Housing and Housing First, Kingston will be poised to end homelessness within ten years. Chronically homeless individuals will enrol in Housing First programs, where they will move into permanent housing and be supported in maintaining their housing and evidence supports the fact that most people will successfully maintain their housing if they receive the right supports. This will significantly reduce the demand for shelter beds in the city, reduce the average duration of shelter stay, and reduce the number of people repeatedly returning to shelters. People with more moderate needs – such as those who are episodically homeless, or those who are approaching a state of chronic homelessness – will enrol in Rapid ReHousing. They will be assisted in finding a new residence and provided with short-term supports to help maintain their housing stability. This will also contribute to further reductions on shelter bed demand, duration of shelter stay, and number of recurring clients. The majority of persons who experience homelessness will regain housing with little or no assistance. There will be housing workers available to help them find housing more quickly, but most will not need much assistance to secure their housing stability. This group will not notice a major change in service provision, nor will the characteristics of this group significantly change after implementation of this Plan. These individuals and families will access the homeless service delivery system as it is intended – as an emergency service when they are experiencing a crisis situation in their housing. Some individuals will not become homeless, due to improved targeting of those at risk of homelessness and through increased diversion. Others who currently receive homeless prevention assistance will not receive benefits, yet will still manage to maintain their housing without assistance from the emergency response system. By successfully targeting those who are most likely to become homeless, resources will be allocated more effectively, and there will be a resultant reduction in total number of people who become homeless. Finally, Kingston and Frontenac will be able to monitor progress through the efficient and appropriate data collection that will provide a means to monitor the fidelity and 83
The Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT) is a proprietary instrument designed and developed by OrgCode Consulting, Inc.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
53 | P a g e
Page 56 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan impact of the new programs. The data-based feedback for the homeless service delivery system will help the Service Manager adapt and react to any changes, take remedial action if program performance standards and outcomes are not being achieved and will identify high-performing agencies. Through a multi-faceted strategy that combines Housing First, Rapid Re-Housing, Diversion and Prevention and Data Collection and Assessment Tools into an efficient system of homeless service delivery, chronic homelessness can be ended, households will be moved into permanent housing quicker, and people will receive appropriate supports to help sustain their housing. Over time, as this Plan is implemented, there will be reductions in the length of time people spend homeless, decrease the number of people becoming homeless for the first time, and reduce the need for emergency shelter beds.
How We Get There To end homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac by 2023, this Plan has identified 7 principle themes as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Systems Reorientation: Leadership, Integration, and Coordination Homelessness Prevention and Diversion The Role of Shelters Increasing Housing Options Improving Housing Stability Rural Homelessness Measuring Outcomes and Reporting Successes
When implemented together, these themes will form the foundational framework for ending homelessness. Each theme has between four and eight associated strategies related to the common theme. In total, the 34 strategies provide Kingston with the detailed action points that will help end homelessness. The strategies outlined in this Plan assume that its implementation is concurrent with the Municipal Housing Strategy and the Mobilizing Local Capacity to End Youth Homelessness in Canada plan.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
54 | P a g e
Page 57 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
- Systems Reorientation: Leadership, Integration, & Coordination Ending homelessness requires an overarching shift in the homeless service delivery system. This shift will be guided by this Plan, but requires leadership, collaboration and coordination by the Service Manager to ensure that all aspects of the homeless service delivery system are working together to achieve the objectives of the Plan – including community and social services funded by other agencies such as the United Way. Each agency should not only be familiar with their own role in the service delivery system, but also the roles that each other agency plays, and how they are integrated to serve the overarching system goal. Agencies will work together, to adopt common approaches, philosophies, service priority policies and tools. All agencies involved in the homeless service delivery system must immediately restructure their approach to focus on ending homelessness by including housing as the desired client outcome. This means that all agencies need to adopt the Housing First philosophy. Not every agency needs to deliver a Housing First program, but they must adopt elements that are consistent with the philosophy such as reducing barriers to services, employing harm reduction techniques, and focusing on connecting clients with housing. To assist with the goal of acquiring a common language across the service system, a professional development agenda will be implemented. This will help the service providers become fluent with best practices and adopt common policies. The syllabus for the professional development agenda could include the following: o housing-focused case management; o assertive engagement; o harm reduction; o motivational interviewing in a homeless and housing service setting; o strength based and client centred service responses; o recovery; o crisis planning; o community service access through brokering and advocacy; and, o acuity assessment. A critical element of the Plan is for a common intake and assessment tool to be implemented across all intake points in the service system. This tool will determine the type of assistance that the client is eligible for, including: shelter diversion, prevention assistance, Rapid Re-Housing, Housing First, or some other type of assistance. When the same tool is implemented at all intake points, system efficiency will be enhanced and there will be consistency in service provision. Common intake techniques can be done three different ways, each with its own benefits and drawbacks: July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
55 | P a g e
Page 58 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
- Centralized intake requires all clients to access the service system at the same physical location; this reduces training requirements and potential inconsistencies. The downside is that a centralized intake may create barriers for clients who are not able to travel to the intake point.
- Decentralized intake implements common policies across all intake points; this approach improves accessibility and requires that staff at all intake points undergo the same start-up training and subsequent refreshers and updates. All new staff must receive training as part of their orientation.
- Finally, a telephone or internet-based access point (i.e. dialling 2-1-1) reduces training requirements but has its own limitations such as the lack of face-to-face interaction. After intake, client information is captured in a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The database will be shared across all shelters and managed by the Service Manager. Implementing a common HMIS ensures that clients receive coordinated assistance among different service providers, since client data is only recorded once. Less time will be spent on administration and data is shared more efficiently in real time and that means that clients will receive appropriate assistance in a timely manner. An HMIS with more advanced features can also be used to track shelter usage in real time. For instance, if one shelter is full and another client arrives, staff would be able to know which shelters have beds available and be able to refer the client without difficulty. A common concern related to sharing HMIS data is that of confidentiality and privacy of clients. However, most HMIS packages are built with such challenges in mind and are well equipped to address these issues, and the vendors that create and sell HMIS products have had to prove that all personal privacy and protection matters have been addressed in accordance with all relevant legislation. For example, HMIS vendors in the US have had to demonstrate compliance to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development that there are considerable data controls on who is authorized to view which data under which circumstances. In Alberta, there are two different HMIS in use, both of which were rigorously reviewed by Provincial privacy experts and found to meet or exceed all privacy controls. Entry of data into an HMIS comes with documented client consent. Given that there is informed consent, and considering the range of privacy controls that are in place with an HMIS, there is no reason to believe that an HMIS could not be implemented in Kingston; nor is there reason to believe it would not meet MFIPPA requirements. In practice, most clients are happy to consent, since they would normally provide the same information to multiple service providers anyway and often get tired of repeating themselves every time they access a new service. Ending homelessness means that every part of the system is dedicated to that goal. This requires a system-wide shift in thinking, an emphasis on leadership and coordination, July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
56 | P a g e
Page 59 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan and the adoption of new tools to enhance service delivery. To make this happen, several strategies have been developed: Strategies 1.1 The Service Manager will take a leadership role in setting targets and standards for service delivery and in reporting outcomes. o Under the Housing Services Act, the Service Manager is legally responsible for the implementation of the Plan. Their role is to set goals, ensure compliance, and assess results. 1.2 Implement a new funding model as shown in the Implementation Section and which reflects the Plan’s priorities and implement the Plan’s strategies. o Develop a consistent standard for funding allotment tied to client needs and the agency’s successful housing outcomes. 1.3 Adopt a housing first approach across the system. o All agencies within the homeless management delivery system will reframe their approach to service delivery to adopt more philosophies and approaches consistent with Housing First. 1.4 Implement common intake and assessment protocols and practices. o Adopt an intake/assessment tool and protocols that work best within the Kingston homeless service delivery system. 1.5 Adopt a common Homeless Management Information System. o Identify which HMIS meets the needs of Kingston and Frontenac. o Purchase the system, install it, and provide initial and ongoing training for staff using the system. 1.6 Bring this Plan and the Municipal Housing Strategy into alignment. o Update the Municipal Housing Strategy and ensure that its strategies also work towards the goal of ending homelessness; the Municipal Housing Strategy and this Plan will be companion documents. 1.7 Implement a new professional development agenda to support implementation of the Plan. o Mandate that all homeless service delivery workers engage in training seminars to ensure that there is a common understanding of each aspect of the Plan. 1.8 Continue to foster and support the Homeless Service Providers Networking Group. o Use this “table” as an opportunity to improve communication and reduce inconsistencies across services, and find opportunities for further integration through collaboration and coordination.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
57 | P a g e
Page 60 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 2. Homelessness Prevention and Diversion Preventing homelessness is an attractive proposition. By reducing the number of individuals and families who become homeless, the burden on the emergency response system is lessened, including the demand for emergency shelter beds. However, preventing homelessness is not an easy task. Entering a state of homelessness is a complex process that manifests differently for every person and family. While many people who are facing evictions are able to find an alternate solution that doesn’t result in homelessness, it is not always simple to predict which individuals and families have the capacity to do so.84 Emerging research indicates that homelessness prevention strategies are most effective before an at-risk individual reaches a crisis situation. Those at risk of imminent eviction are less likely to stay engaged with services and supports that help them address the underlying issues at play. Without resolving those underlying issues, the same individuals are more likely to experience periodic crises and repeated experience with eviction.85 The National Alliance to End Homelessness identifies several common misconceptions about homelessness prevention: That, households being evicted will become homeless if not assisted. In reality, many households will be able to resolve the situation without assistance from the homelessness service delivery system. One study found that on average, 80% of recipients of eviction prevention assistance would not have resulted in homelessness.86 That, if a household is assisted in their moment of need, homelessness has been prevented. In reality, longer term supports may be needed to address the root causes for the crisis situation, otherwise, the household may face another eviction again in the near future. That, households know when they are at risk of homelessness and will seek assistance when that is the case. In reality, not all households know that their tenancy is at risk, and many do not know where to turn for assistance or are able to navigate the system if they do need help. That, households that can’t prove that they can stabilize quickly without assistance are bad risks. In reality, the process of determining which households are the best candidates for assistance is more complex than a simple risk analysis.
84
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2006) Promising Strategies to End Family Homelessness. Shinn, M., Baumohl, J., & Hopper, K. (2001) The Prevention of Homelessness Revisited. Analyses of Social Issues and Policy, 1(1). 86 Shinn, M., Baumohl, J., & Hopper, K. (2001) The Prevention of Homelessness Revisited. Analyses of Social Issues and Policy, 1(1). 85
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
58 | P a g e
Page 61 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Research suggests that strategically targeting homelessness prevention services is the most effective way to allocate homelessness prevention resources. This proactive approach specifically targets those at-risk individuals who most closely resemble the existing chronically homeless population.87 People being released or discharged from prisons, jails, and hospitalizations is one such group that is at risk. A recent study in Toronto found that 32% of provincial inmates expected that they would be homeless upon release from prison.88 With such a high likelihood of imminent homelessness, developing a discharge plan for those targeted individuals is an effective solution. For those at risk of eviction, but who do not resemble the chronically homeless population, diversion is a more appropriate strategy. It relies on individuals at imminent risk of becoming homeless to draw on existing networks to end or prevent their own homelessness without entering the homeless service delivery system. The underlying principle is to provide front-line intervention to households seeking emergency assistance by providing a preliminary assessment and assistance in problem solving and to divert clients from accessing emergency shelter beds. Strategies 2.1 Place a strong emphasis on diversion from emergency resources. o Assist households and individuals in accessing and maximizing all nonpublic resources and networks prior to entering the homeless service delivery system. 2.2 Develop and adopt a tool to identify which individuals and families are eligible for targeted homelessness prevention assistance. o Through coordinated access, ensure that all intake points use the same assessment tool to determine when diversion or prevention may be appropriate. o Target homelessness prevention programs specifically at those households who most closely resemble the existing chronically homeless individuals and families. 2.3 Develop a discharge protocol for the region. o Create a plan, policies, and protocols governing the process of an individual’s discharge, release, or graduation from federal or provincial prisons, police detention, psychiatric facilities, hospitalization, or the child welfare system.
87
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2011) Prevention Targeting 101. Kellen, A., Freedman, J., Novac, S., Lapointe, L., Maaranen, R., & Wong, A. (2010) Homeless and Jailed: Jailed and Homeless. John Howard Society of Toronto. 88
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
59 | P a g e
Page 62 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan o Engage hospitals, mental health facilities, addictions treatment programs, correctional services, Kingston Police Force, Children’s Aid Society, John Howard Society, Elizabeth Fry Society, interim housing providers, permanent social housing providers, supportive housing providers, landlords, and emergency shelters to participate in its creation, development, and implementation. 2.4 Increase access to and awareness of services available to individuals and households at risk of homelessness. o This will help prevent homelessness in a few cases where households simply do not know what services are available to them.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
60 | P a g e
Page 63 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 3. The Role of Shelters Emergency shelters play a critical role in the emergency response system to homelessness. It is important that shelters remain consistent in their role to meet immediate shelter needs. However, shelters should never be used as de facto housing. With a movement towards ending homelessness rather than managing it, the role of shelters needs to be reframed in Kingston and Frontenac. Over time, shelter occupancy will decrease along with average length of stay in shelters. This shift is possible when shelters reframe their operations as centres of opportunity; they will become access points to the overall service delivery system. The core goal that must remain at the forefront at all times is that clients must move out of shelters and into housing as quickly as possible. First, shelters will be open and staffed 24 hours per day, seven days per week. This will introduce or should introduce consistency of funding and operations. During the daytime, they will be adequately staffed to serve their primary function – helping those who are homeless find a suitable housing arrangement. A 24/7 shelter provides a place for people to sleep in the evening and overnight hours. During the daytime, staff work intensely with those that need assistance accessing income supports, housing, and otherwise ending their homelessness. These staff members are not necessarily staff of the shelter, but could be employees of a Housing First or Rapid Re-Housing program. During the daytime, staff members provide intensive housing assistance, such as viewing apartment listings, applying for financial assistance, accompanying clients to appointments and apartment viewings. Very simple lunch is served at the shelter. During the daytime, the only activity that can be undertaken at a shelter is related to obtaining housing – no television, no sleeping, no recreational programming, no social activities. In the eventing, there is some recreational time, followed by dinner, some sort of evening activity, and then the ability for clients to access the beds again at night. Thus, 24-hour shelters have two distinct modes of operation: a night system, which is about sheltering; and a day system, which is about getting people out of shelter. All shelters will use the same intake and assessment tools that are used throughout the homeless delivery system and record client data on a common system, streamlining the intake process. This process will ensure that each client is matched and connected to an appropriate level of support. Priority will be given to people who are chronically homeless. By adopting a Housing First program and ensuring that adequate supports are in place, Kingston will see a significant reduction in demand the demand for emergency shelter beds as chronically July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
61 | P a g e
Page 64 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan homeless individuals move out of shelters and into housing. Currently, the top 20% of shelter users account for 66% of bed nights in Kingston. If those individuals are successfully housed and supported in maintaining their housing, the need for shelter beds in Kingston will drop to as low as one-third its current level within the next ten years. To reflect the changing need for shelters, the shelter system will be “right-sized” starting in 2015. This will be allow time for the other elements of the Plan to be implemented and take effect. Based on the successes of new programs and the results of a Point-InTime Homeless Count, the need for shelters will be revisited. This will entail the reallocation of resources away from shelter beds, towards other needed services within the homeless service delivery system. While some shelter beds will likely be removed and some shelters may even close, it is important to consider the role of shelter specialization. For example, evidence suggests that outcomes for homeless youth are higher when they are separated from homeless adults, such as through the presence of youth-specific services and a youth-specific shelter.89 In Kingston, the Mobilizing Local Capacity (MLC) to End Youth Homelessness initiative seeks to develop other youth-specific services. At the time of writing, Kingston and Kamloops, BC have been designated as pilot locations for this Canada-wide initiative. In the near future, there will be a decreasing number of shelter beds required but there will be an ongoing role for shelters to play. Much like fire stations, shelters serve to provide immediate assistance for people in emergencies. Shelters will continue to provide assistance through the following strategies: Strategies 3.1 Reframe emergency shelters as centres of opportunity. o Shelters will be accessible service points, open 24/7, with services available on site or through direct referral that will end a person’s homelessness, including access to housing help resources and specialists. Not every shelter requires its own housing help resources, but the shelter system as a whole must be served by specialists with the sole function of helping people in access and sustain permanent housing. o Develop municipal directives and standards outlining the new role of shelters. 3.2 Establish housing worker functions within shelters. o Enhance the capacity and responsibility of shelters to offer assistance to clients in accessing and maintaining housing through direct staffing or
89
Raising the Roof. (2009) Youth Homelessness in Canada: The Road to Solutions.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
62 | P a g e
Page 65 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan dedicated staff from another organization in the service system as housing specialists for the shelter. o Integrate a coordinated access and common assessment functions into shelter to triage client housing support needs. o Structure the staffing of housing workers serving shelter residents as follows: i. 20% of staff to provide general housing help to individuals or families newly in shelter (less than 14 days) including access and support in locating vacant units; ii. 40% of staff to provide Rapid Re-Housing support to those individuals and families with a moderate acuity level. Assistance will be provided in locating units and in providing case management supports for 3-6 months for each household selected for Rapid Re-Housing. Fidelity to proven Rapid ReHousing practices will be a requirement. iii. 40% of staff to provide Housing First Intensive Case Management supports to individuals and families with high acuity levels. Assistance will be provided in locating units and in providing intensive case management for at least 12 months for each household selected for Housing First. Fidelity to proven Housing First practices will be a requirement. 3.3 Right-size the shelter system. o Maintain the current level of beds for the next two years, then reevaluate need based on the PIT Homeless Count, HMIS data, and the impact of new housing services and training. Considerations in the evaluation shall include: i. The number of unsheltered homeless individuals—people sleeping outdoors, staying in overnight restaurants or coffee shops, sleeping in cars, squatting, sleeping in other buildings not designed or fit for human habitation—that would access shelters if space were available; ii. The reduction in moderate and high acuity individuals and families staying in shelter rather than being supported in housing; iii. The reduction in recidivism (reduced returns to homelessness) through housing and supports; and, iv. The reduction in consumption of shelter resources by a small cohort of shelter stayers (the top 20% of shelter users currently consume 66% of bed nights). o Focus on closing entire facilities after the evaluation rather than across the board retractions to ensure viability of operations. This focus also encourages economies of scale and mergers within the shelter system. 3.4 As appropriate, introduce specialization within Kingston’s shelter system. o Explore opportunities for infirmary beds, crash beds, palliative care beds, and other specialized options within existing shelters. For instance, one July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
63 | P a g e
Page 66 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan shelter could be a “first-stop” shelter that only accepts new intakes and persons who have been in the shelter system for less than 10 days. After a person passes the 10-day mark, they could get transferred to a second shelter. This would allow one shelter to specialize in intake and a second shelter to specialize in housing services.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
64 | P a g e
Page 67 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 4. Increasing Housing Options The only solution to homelessness is housing. However, housing comes in a number of different forms, with a number of different characteristics. For formerly homeless individuals, there is no single type of housing that is most appropriate to all homeless individuals. The best approach is to increase the range of options available for clients. Some individuals may be homeless due to a lack of availability of apartments, and may be best housed in rental units on the private market, or with a small rent supplement. Others may need a staff member to check in periodically to provide support with a medical treatment regime, while still others may be best served with a on-site staff member 24 hours each day, communal meals, and daily programming activities. Providing a range of options ensures that each client has an option best suited for him or her, and moreover, that the client has meaningful and clear housing options from which to choose. A 2007 study in Toronto found that formerly homeless individuals who were able to choose their housing arrangement were much more satisfied with their housing arrangement than those who had no choice, and moreover that those with choice had better quality of life and increased housing stability.90 There is a broad spectrum of housing models with various associated benefits and drawbacks of each. One dimension is level of supports. A housing support worker interviewed by the consultants suggested that in Kingston there are gaps in this continuum, and that there may be a lack of housing with moderate supports, while there are greater amounts of housing with high supports and with light supports. Table 9: Housing Options by Level of Support
No Support Independent living without assistance.
Financial Support Residents live independently, receiving only some financial support in paying rent.
Light Support Also known as “independent living with supports,” a support worker is available by phone and generally spends a few hours on-site each week.
Moderate Support A support worker is generally onsite during normal business hours, and a support worker is on call should a crisis occur.
High Support Support worker(s) are on-site 24/7; often ACT or ICM teams are involved. Clients have high needs and need intensive supports.
90
Toronto Shelter, Support & Housing Administration. (2007) What Housing First Means for People: Results of Streets to Homes 2007 Post-Occupancy Research.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
65 | P a g e
Page 68 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
A second dimension is a range of housing forms. Self-contained units are more expensive to build, while shared buildings are less expensive but may cause problems due to individuals with higher needs living in shared settings. Table 10: Housing Options by Housing Form
Shared A shared house, on average 4 bedrooms, with shared bathrooms, kitchen, and common areas.
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Similar in form to a hotel or college residence, each small unit has a private bathroom and an efficiency kitchen. Shared full kitchen and common areas.
Self-Contained Apartment or House Standard apartments as found on the private market, with private kitchen and bathroom. Minimal common space.
Level of concentration is also a dimension on which supportive housing can be differentiated. Congregate housing arrangements have a high density of clients in one location – often a single building is entirely consisting of supportive housing units. In contrast, scattered site supportive housing units are intermixed within the larger community, and are located next to private market housing units and/or non-supportive social housing units. Finally, there is the question of who owns the housing units. While it is more common for supportive housing units to be owned by not-for-profit housing providers or public bodies, in scattered-site arrangements, private landlords can play a role in providing housing options. One innovative model known as sponsor-based, scattered site housing entails agencies contacting landlords and arranging to lease several units from that landlord through a “head lease” or “master lease” arrangement. The agency then sublets each unit to their clients, using standard leasing agreements. This mutually beneficial arrangement can be successful because the landlord is guaranteed to have tenants but does not deal with the tenants directly. Service providers may get a reduced rate for renting “in bulk” and are spared the capital cost of building or owning their own housing units. This approach helps clients secure a place to live and they often have a greater range of housing options due to the scattered-site model. The drawback to this approach can be the liability and insurance associated with this type of rental arrangement, which rests with the master leaser, and which can create significant additional costs. Interim housing is a type of housing that can be provided on a non-permanent basis. In general, time-limited housing is not an effective approach to ending homelessness because inherent deadlines can cause housing instability, not solve it. However, for some distinct sub-populations – such as families escaping domestic violence – interim July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
66 | P a g e
Page 69 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan housing can be a good solution, since they are very likely able to achieve housing stability once they find suitable accommodations, but they have an immediate and pressing need for some sort of temporary housing. As outlined above, the best solution is to develop an available range of housing options to meet each client’s individual needs. In order to achieve that goal, several strategies have been developed: Strategies 4.1 Work towards the rental housing targets in the Municipal Housing Strategy. o Increasing the number of private market rental units available will serve in the longer term to stabilize rental prices and increase the vacancy rate. 4.2 Prioritize access to available housing for those with the deepest and most chronic needs first. o Those who have been homeless the longest, and those with the highest acuity, are served most effectively by ensuring that they obtain access to housing as quickly as possible. 4.3 Remove the homeless priority policy from the social housing waitlist. o Currently, 1 in 10 available social housing units is allocated to homeless persons. However, this can result in wait times of years. Other methods will be used to encourage quick housing solutions. 4.4 Create more permanent supportive housing (PSH) units. o Re-profile some existing shelter beds into PSH units as opportunities arise. o Investigate alternative and cost-effective options, such as purchasing existing buildings. 4.5 Develop an inventory of scattered-site rental units that can be used for Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing clients. o This inventory should include a range of unit types and locations, from both public and private housing providers. o Fund a dedicated staff member to be the “Housing Liaison” or “Landlord Locator.” This staff member can be employed by any agency in the homeless service delivery sector, but it must be clear that their role is the go-to person who knows about finding housing 4.6 Encourage collaboration between landlords and housing support workers. o Create a forum to discuss common approaches and problem solving, identify support and training opportunities, improve the stability of tenancies and decrease turnover. o Increased communication will improve willingness of landlords to take on formerly homeless tenants and will decrease evictions.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
67 | P a g e
Page 70 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 5. Improving Housing Stability An examination of Housing First programs shows that chronically homeless individuals and families are commonly re-housed on multiple occasions. Some service providers are known to describe these individuals as “hard to house” and are reluctant to help these persons find new housing, fearing that the outcome will be yet another eviction and the attempt will result in failure. The “hard to house” label is used to offset their frustration but there are solutions. Housing First challenges these assumptions and seeks specifically to target those individuals who have the most difficulty retaining their housing. Services and supports are provided with the specific goal of improving the client’s housing stability and thus reducing the likelihood of eviction. Importantly, when a Housing First client is evicted, that is not seen as a failure of the program or the client. Instead, it is understood that the client is already accessing the supports he or she needs to be re-housed quickly, thus minimizing the amount of time that the client spends homeless. This also results in improved system efficiency, since the client and his or her support worker are able to learn from the experience and determine what worked and what did not, rather than starting from the beginning all over again. An effective homeless service delivery system focuses on housing as the solution to homelessness. It also acknowledges that formerly homeless individuals and families often need support in maintaining their housing after being re-housed. Formerly homeless clients have a range of needs and require a range of different types and levels of supports available to help them maintain their housing. This is informed by the assessment and understanding of the client’s acuity. Some clients will need some form of time-limited supports, and some may require periodic check-ins from a support worker to ensure that there are no problems with housing or life stability. Some clients may request more intensive services, such as assistance accessing mental health services, addictions treatment, or supported employment. However, a key element in providing housing supports to clients is choice. Clients are never required to accept supports and they can never be evicted for refusing services. In fact, clients should be allowed to opt in to one service while refusing another. It is not an “all-or-nothing” condition for engaging with Housing First. Services are offered to help promote housing stability but if a client believes that he or she can maintain housing stability on their own, or if they simply do not want certain services, that is always their choice.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
68 | P a g e
Page 71 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Improving housing stability among formerly homeless individuals and families is primarily a matter of matching the client to the right supports and services. To that end, several strategies have been developed: Strategies 5.1 Allocate resources towards providing support to clients after being housed. o Prioritize resources for those with the highest needs first. o In addition to the shelter-specific housing workers outlined in 3.2, ensure that there is (1) FTE Housing First Intensive Case Manager (ICM) for every 20 homeless people encountered outdoors during the PIT Count that have been homeless for greater than one year. 5.2 Expand the municipality’s existing Ontario Works Pay Direct Policy to allow for amounts to exceed the monthly shelter allowance. o Remove the stipulation that places a limit on the amount that can be paid to landlords as rent. 5.3 Implement a Housing First program. o Allocate staff and resources, including training, for a Housing First program. o Establish Housing First program expectations through updated policies and procedures. o Ensure that contracts with Housing First program providers are aligned to specific measurable targets that: o Have a maximum 1:20 staff/client caseload at any one point in time. o Maintain housing stability target of 80% or more of the clients being supported. 5.4 Implement a Rapid Re-Housing program. o Allocate staff and resources including training to a Rapid Re-Housing program. o Establish Rapid Re-Housing program expectations through policies and procedures. o Ensure contracts with Rapid Re-Housing program providers are aligned with specific measurable targets that: o Have a maximum 1:30 staff/client caseload at any one point in time. o Maintain housing stability target of 85% or more of the clients being supported.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
69 | P a g e
Page 72 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 6. Rural Homelessness Rural homelessness is often overlooked because homelessness is typically seen as an urban phenomenon. While it is true that the vast majority of persons experiencing homelessness find themselves in urban or even suburban areas, evidence suggests that 7%91 to 9%92 of all homeless people live in rural areas. There is currently a paucity of research about rural homelessness. However, the available evidence suggests that rural homelessness has several distinct features that differentiate it from the more prevalent urban homelessness: o Access barriers. Even when services are available, due to the geography of a rural area, it is often difficult to access these services, particularly among lowincome groups. o Low public awareness. Homelessness is often perceived as an urban issue, so rural residents are often unwilling to believe that homelessness is an issue in their community. This lack of awareness makes action difficult. o Lack of funding. Due to the low public awareness and overall smaller population, proportionally fewer funds are available for services related to homelessness in rural areas. o Low density. It is estimated that in Frontenac County, there may be one homeless person per 100 square kilometers. This level of density does not support fixed-location facilities to address the needs of homeless persons. A concerted effort to end homelessness in Frontenac County requires a dedicated effort to address all four of these barriers, all the while adhering to the other principles outlined in this Plan, such as increasing housing options and improving housing stability. Lack of access to services is a major difficulty in rural areas. Due to the geography of a rural area, a private automobile is nearly mandatory, but for low-income persons, this may be unrealistic. There have been interesting innovations in other jurisdictions to address the transportation barrier. For instance, in nearby Hastings County, a rural public transportation system has been created called the TROUT. Other communities have focused on enhancing remote access to services, using forms of communication such as telephone or internet. Alternatively, some areas have implemented mobile services such as a Health Bus – services that travel to where people need them. Figure 2: Geography of Frontenac County illustrates the size and scale of Frontenac County. While the green stars are major settlements within the County, the purple markers represent service locations. The two large purple circles are 50-kilometer radii around
91
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2010) Rural Homelessness: Fact Sheet. Robertson, M., Harris, N., Fritz, N., Noftsinger, R., & Fischer, P. (2007) Rural Homelessness.2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research.
92
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
70 | P a g e
Page 73 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan North and South Frontenac service locations – a distance that could take an hour or more to drive. Figure 2: Geography of Frontenac County
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
71 | P a g e
Page 74 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Of course, even if services are available and accessible, they still will not be able to reach persons in need if those people are not aware of them. This speaks to the issue of low public awareness. Rural homelessness is less visible than urban homelessness, with many persons who are experiencing homelessness getting shelter through couch surfing, living in cars or vans, camping, or sleeping in barns or other structures not intended for human habitation.93 A person sleeping on a friend’s couch may not think of him or herself as homeless, and may not be aware of the services available. A homeless person may be reluctant to let on the truth of his or her situation, refusing to access services even if available. Conversely, the fewer persons who use homeless services, the less significant the problem of homelessness appears, which may result in pressure to cut funding. It is important in rural areas to raise awareness about the problem of homelessness. In Frontenac County, 40% of renters and 18% of homeowners pay more for housing than is affordable. In addition, 8.7% of Frontenac households are below the poverty line. These statistics suggest that as many as 1 in 5 households in the County might require assistance from time to time. Raising awareness about this issue addresses three problems: community support for programs and initiatives; knowledge about the services available for those who will need them in the future; and combating stigma associated with asking for help. Low public awareness may mean lack of funding. If it is generally believed that homelessness is not an issue in Frontenac County, it may be difficult to obtain funding for initiatives related to homelessness. This can be combatted in a few ways. First, by increasing public awareness, there may be more support among voters and donors to contribute to homelessness initiatives. Second, seeking partnerships and opportunities for collaboration, and strategically allocating funds can put limited resources put to maximum effectiveness. For instance, effective rural homeless service delivery systems can be found in Arizona and Alabama; in both cases several neighbouring counties opted to join together and pool their funds, since no county had enough resources on their own to address the problem of homelessness.94 In Frontenac, it could be seen as an advantage that Kingston is the Service Manager for the area; there is an opportunity to focus on ways to improve service delivery to rural areas of Kingston and Frontenac by expanding the catchment are of existing services. These services have established quality and breadth; the only challenge is bringing services to rural communities. 95
93
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2010) Rural Homelessness: Fact Sheet. Housing Assistance Council. (2002) Continua of Care Best Practices: Comprehensive Homeless Planning in Rural America. 95 OrgCode Consulting, Inc. fully acknowledges and supports the advocacy of the senior staff of the County of Frontenac to have “Rural Homelessness” recognized as a major theme in this Plan. OrgCode encourages the Service Manager to conduct additional consultations with the County subsequent to the publication of this Plan. 94
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
72 | P a g e
Page 75 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Finally, there is a lack of homeless service provider infrastructure in rural areas. For instance, there are no “formalized” emergency shelters anywhere in the County of Frontenac. In most rural areas, due to low population density, dedicated emergency shelters are impractical due to the access challenges. Building an emergency shelter in the County of Frontenac is not an effective solution. Other rural jurisdictions have experimented with other types of emergency shelter provision: a host homes program involves volunteers opening their homes to a homeless guest for a short while, and is most applicable for homeless youth;96 a motel voucher system allows homeless persons and families to have a short hotel stay paid for by an agency;97 a bus system that collects homeless persons and brings them to shelters;98 or dual-purposing a building (or buildings) such as a church to act as a mat program during extreme weather. 99 To address many of these issues, evidence from several rural jurisdictions in the USA also indicate that critical to the success of rural homelessness service provision is strong leadership, collaboration between different stakeholders, and inclusion.100 In particular, critical success factors include: A “glue person” who understands the universe of service provision throughout the region and is able to provide a top-level perspective; A “champion” for ending homelessness, who is a respected and well-known member of the community, whose role is to build trust and relationships; A high level of involvement by local agencies in the planning process and strong grassroots leadership; A focus on strategies that promote inclusion, integration, and collaboration between different stakeholders; and, A willingness for “outside the box” thinking and creative solutions. Despite the fact that the population of the County of Frontenac is comparatively smaller than Kingston’s, homelessness is a very real problem for those in the County who have experienced, are experiencing, or are at risk of experiencing homelessness. Due to a general lack of infrastructure available to respond to homelessness, the National Alliance to End Homelessness in the United States suggests that the best approach to ending rural homelessness is to focus on prevention, using evidence-based prevention and targeting strategies.101 Ending rural homelessness requires an adherence to many of the other strategies identified in this Plan, such as focusing on housing as the solution to homelessness, supporting people in their housing, and using a data-driven approach. It is not 96
See, for instance, Halton’s Bridging the Gap program. See, for instance, Napanee’s program administered by the Morningstar Relief Mission. 98 See, for instance, the Tri-Cities Homelessness & Housing Task Group. 99 See, for instance, Macomb County’s Rotating Emergency Shelter Team. 100 National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2010) Critical Success Factors in High Performing Rural Continuums of Care. 101 National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2010) Rural Homelessness: Fact Sheet. 97
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
73 | P a g e
Page 76 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan recommended that the Service Manager create a rural emergency shelter. Several strategies specific to the rural areas of Kingston and Frontenac have also been identified: Strategies 6.1 Expand housing options for low-income and homeless individuals in rural areas. o Promote secondary suites within existing structures without compromising safety or the character of the older buildings. o Consider rent supplements as a vehicle for promoting housing access in rural areas rather than extensive new construction. 6.2 Improve access to services in rural areas. o Promote on-line resources that can be accessed to assist with housing security. o Increase outreach programs to better connect at risk households with available services. o Investigate options to address the transportation issue in rural areas. 6.3 Enhance targeted prevention in rural areas. o Increase awareness of resources within and across the broader region. o Assess needs of presenting households and exercise diversion as much as possible to connect people with natural supports first, rather than system supports. 6.4 Promote local leadership in ending homelessness. o Identify a “glue person” to improve local service delivery. o Identify a “champion” to raise public awareness of rural homelessness.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
74 | P a g e
Page 77 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 7. Measuring Outcomes and Reporting Successes To meet the goal of ending homelessness, it is vital that performance and progress is tracked and that data is recorded accurately and in a timely fashion. Homelessness is a field where the lack of data often hampers system effectiveness, response and improvement due to an incomplete understanding of the population being served. There are several reasons why data may be incomplete or unreliable. First and foremost, even the definition of what constitutes homelessness may be brought into question. Youth who have run away from their homes but intend to return, and women fleeing abusive situations, are two examples of situations where there may be some dispute. A second reason why data may be incomplete is because some homeless individuals use multiple services while others use no services at all. Counting, for instance, the number of unique visitors to shelters may result in inaccurate estimates about the total homeless population due to some individuals not accessing shelters at all. In addition, homelessness is a fluid situation, resulting in some individuals moving in and out of homelessness over a given period of time—meeting the definition of chronic homelessness but essentially “unseen”. Dealing with these issues requires an attention to data integrity and adherence to proven methodologies. Better data yields better results, and allows for programs and services to be modified as needed based on outcomes and changing needs. In the United States, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has mandated that all municipalities conduct a Point-in-Time (PIT) Homeless Count every two years as a requirement of receiving funding, and has created national standards for this practice.102 While PIT counts are not a perfect, over time there have been adaptations to the methodology that will improve the quality and reliability of the results. Conducting a PIT Count can also provide an opportunity for service providers to conduct a needs assessment at the same time. This allows the community to establish a baseline and understand how many individuals and families are experiencing homelessness at a given point in time. Conducting PIT Counts at fixed, regular intervals with consistent, evidence-based methodology has been found to provide increasingly more valuable data with each subsequent count. Other data can be obtained from shelters and other service providers, although this data will not account for those persons experiencing homelessness who do not engage with the service system. To achieve an accurate determination, a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) that is shared across service providers will ensure that there is no duplication in counting. Double counting is one of the complications that often results when agencies independently track and report data to 102
Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2011) The 2011 Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness: Supplement to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
75 | P a g e
Page 78 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan the Service Manager. Without using a common HMIS, it is impossible to know if clients staying in emergency shelters are the same people who access drop-in centers. Jurisdictions that have made a commitment to end homelessness have also embraced data and a focus on outcomes as the critical pillars to success. With a strong attention to data, it is possible to not only achieve better outcomes, but also to demonstrate that success. A continuously maintained dataset also allows for ongoing program evaluation and refinements based on that evaluation. Finally, those places that are achieving positive outcomes in addressing homelessness share their findings and status with the community at large. To measure the effectiveness of homeless services in Kingston and Frontenac, several strategies have been identified: Strategies 7.1 Conduct a Point-In-Time (PIT) Homeless Count every 2 years using a valid, reliable, and consistent methodology. o Conduct the first PIT count in fall 2013 and use the results as a baseline from which to identify needs and set goals. o Use the second PIT count in fall 2015 to evaluate the impact of new programs, measure success against goals, and revisit targets. 7.2 Publish HMIS reports of aggregate data and circulate to service providers quarterly. o By providing up-to-date sector-wide data, individual service providers can react and respond to changing needs and evaluate the effectiveness of programs. 7.3 Publish an annual report card for public consumption. o Provide a brief, readable document to report key indicators and identify trends. o Increase transparency and public awareness about services and service performance related to homelessness. 7.4 Track performance of funded agencies compared to performance targets on a quarterly basis. o Take remedial action for under-performance. o Provide transparent, public praise for those organizations meeting or exceeding expectations. o Service Manager to conduct an annual, system-wide evaluation.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
76 | P a g e
Page 79 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Implementing This Plan The goal of this Plan is to create an integrated response across Kingston and Frontenac to unify all agencies working towards the common goal of ending homelessness. Currently, various participant organizations that are working within the homeless service delivery sector are fragmented when considered through the lens of an integrated system. This is largely due to a history of piece-meal funding and a lack of overall strategic planning within the sector. This Plan governs programs and services initiated and funded by the Service Manager in Kingston. However, many agencies within the homeless service delivery sector receive additional funding – sometimes even all of their funding – from other sources, most notably the United Way. These agencies are not obligated to follow the strategies and policies set forth in this Plan. The approaches laid out in this document are based on extensive research of evidencebased practices that have been proven to be effective in ending homelessness. One key component is to ensure that all agencies within the system are working in collaboration with one another, even in such cases when funding is not received through the Service Manager. Thus, in implementing this Plan, it is essential to ensure that all governmental, nongovernmental, non-profit, faith-based, civic, philanthropic, and community-based organizations operating in the homeless service delivery sector fully adopt this Plan. As has been the experience in other jurisdictions, the more that funders are aligned, the better the results of moving forward with ending homelessness. To that end, the leadership within the community, including the pivotal and influential status of the Service Manager, will need to work across funding tables to build a common strategic purpose to realize the full potential of this Plan. It is also important that this Plan be understood and implemented alongside other related plans and policies, including (but not limited to) the Municipal Housing Strategy and the forthcoming Mobilizing Local Capacity to End Youth Homelessness in Canada plan. By ensuring that all agencies work together to end homelessness, within 10 years, Kingston and Frontenac will have ended homelessness. Phasing After adoption and implementation of the Plan, Kingston and Frontenac will begin to undergo a change. This change will be felt most acutely by service providers, who will, by necessity, undergo some restructuring, but also by persons experiencing chronic homelessness and those at risk of homelessness. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
77 | P a g e
Page 80 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Immediately, Kingston will: Reduce funds for residency benefits and low income assistance bank programs; Publicly announce a shift in approach from managing homelessness to ending homelessness. Begin development of a Housing First program and Rapid Re-Housing program, identifying and addressing the needed inputs. Begin implementation of a professional development agenda and syllabus by sharing new roles, responsibilities, and expectations with shelter providers and other agencies that are part of the homelessness service delivery system. Within the next year, Kingston will: Implement a new funding model, reflecting goals and priorities outlined in this Plan. Conduct Kingston’s first ever Point-In-Time Homeless Count to set a baseline against which to measure performance and progress. Implement a full professional development agenda as a condition for agencies to receive funding. Move the first Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing clients into housing and have supports in place for those individuals. Begin to see some Rapid Re-Housing clients “graduating” from the program, achieving housing stability and requiring significantly fewer supports. Identify and adopt a Housing Management Information System (HMIS) that meets the needs of our service providers.103 Three years from now, Kingston will: Begin to see a decrease in shelter bed demand. See a reduction in recidivism. Conduct a second Point-In-Time Count and notice a reduction in chronic homelessness. Begin to see some Housing First clients “graduating” from the program, achieving housing stability and requiring significantly fewer supports. Have reduced the average length of stay in shelters to 21 days. Five years from now, Kingston will: See a marked decrease (at least 30% reduction within the first three years after the first Point in Time Count) in the amount of chronically homeless individuals accessing shelters and sleeping outdoors. Have reduced the average length of stay in shelters to 14 days. 103
OrgCode Consulting, Inc. has developed a features, cost and capabilities matrix of existing HMIS software that we will share with the City once this Plan has been published.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
78 | P a g e
Page 81 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan See a 30% reduction in shelter bed nights from 2013 levels. See more Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing clients “graduating” from the program, achieving housing stability and requiring significantly fewer supports. Update this Plan, as per the requirements of the Housing Services Act, 2011. Ten years from now, Kingston will: See 80% of former chronically homeless individuals now stably housed. See a 50% reduction in shelter bed nights from 2013 levels. Have reduced the average length of stay in shelters to 7 days. Ensure that no one is homeless for longer than 30 days. In 2023, service providers will have ended homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac. This means that chronic and episodic homelessness will be relics of the past. Shelters, while fewer, will play an important role in meeting emergency shelter and service needs. Homelessness, when experienced, will be infrequent and of a short duration. Implementation This Plan is intended to provide guidelines and a cohesive overall approach to ending homelessness that is based on proven, evidence-based and evidence-informed practices. The intent is that this Plan be used as a reference document to help guide future decision-making in the community. To assist in the immediate implementation of the Plan and short-term service reorientation, several appendices were created.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
79 | P a g e
Page 82 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Page 83 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
Consolidated Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Municipal Housing Strategy Update This Municipal Housing Strategy Update was created to serve five purposes: Improve and expand the targets for housing affordability identified in the Municipal Housing Strategy; Provide guidance on issues that have emerged since the Municipal Housing Strategy was created; Clarify some recommendations in the Municipal Housing Strategy that were proving difficult to implement; Adhere to the requirements of the provincial Housing Services Act; and, Connect and align with the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. A central concept in this housing strategy is the idea of a housing continuum. There is no “one size fits all” type of housing that is appropriate to everyone in Kingston and Frontenac. Instead, each household has distinct needs based on such factors as stage of life, income, and level of needs. In order to ensure adequate housing stock for all households, it is essential to understand the housing continuum and ensure that every point within the continuum is represented in the housing stock within the region. Housing affordability continues to be a challenge in Kingston and Frontenac. One of the reasons for this is due to a lack of clear and consistent definition of affordability and the fact that affordability targets have not been implemented or tracked in either municipality. While the Kingston Official Plan defines affordable housing as that which costs no more than 30% of the tenant’s monthly income, other policies exist within the municipality which are inconsistent with this definition. Moreover, this definition of affordability relative to income rather than rental price causes difficulty in implementation. In Kingston, for persons with very low income (such as recipients of Ontario Works), 30% of a household’s monthly income is as low as half of the average market rent in the area, highlighting the need to create more housing units with a deeper level of affordability than those currently provided through programs such as the provincial Investment in Affordable Housing program. It is recommended that over the next ten years, a total of 2110 affordable units are created in Kingston and Frontenac. These units should be targeted for the following income cohorts, as described in Table 11: Number of Affordable Units Needed by Income Cohort. Table 11: Number of Affordable Units Needed by Income Cohort
Level of Affordability Units Affordable to Persons Making $649
Number of New Units Needed Over the Next Ten Years 837 81 | P a g e
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Page 84 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Level of Affordability
Number of New Units Needed Over the Next Ten Years
or less per month Units Affordable to Persons Making $650 to $1,149 per month Units Affordable to Persons Making $1,150 to $1,541 per month Units Affordable to Persons Making $1,542 to $2,639 per month Total Affordable Dwellings
476 628 169 2110
In addition to creating affordable housing, the region has a need for additional permanent supportive housing units – housing that is not only affordable but also is staffed with workers who provide various supports to the tenants. Permanent supportive housing is key to the success of the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. It is recommended that, between Kingston and Frontenac, 299 additional units of permanent supportive housing be acquired over the next ten years, with the majority of those units located within Kingston. Another challenge identified in the City is the pressure exerted on the rental market by students attending Kingston’s three post-secondary institutions. Kingston currently lacks a strategy to address the student housing question. It is recommended that the municipality work with all three post-secondary institutions as well as the Canadian Forces Base in order to develop a strategy specifically to house Kingston’s temporary residents. The Municipal Housing Strategy recommends pursuing inclusionary zoning as a method for increasing the supply of affordable housing. However, at the time of writing, such policies are not permitted within the Ontario planning framework. This document explores alternative methods that can be described more broadly as inclusionary policies that use similar principles but are permitted in Ontario. Developing affordable housing in rural areas is wrought with its own challenges, as well. For instance, higher density developments are more cost effective, but are not consistent with the character of a rural area. Nor are multi-unit buildings feasible in areas where septic systems are predominant. In order to ensure adequate provision of affordable housing in rural areas, alternative solutions should be pursued, such as promoting secondary suites, encouraging smaller lot sizes and smaller dwellings, as well as converting existing buildings to residential purposes. In order to ensure an adequate supply and range of housing in Kingston and Frontenac, the 40 recommendations identified in the Municipal Housing Strategy have been updated and clarified. In addition, new recommendations have been identified. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
82 | P a g e
Page 85 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Recommendations from the Municipal Housing Strategy which have been fully completed have been removed from this Plan. The Municipal Housing Strategy’s original 40 recommendations and a description documenting progress to date in completing each recommendation can be found at Appendix I: Original MHS Recommendations.
Overview of Recommendations Strategic Direction #1: Managing the Housing Agenda
- That the City and County establish the 10 Year Housing and Homelessness Plan as the primary strategic plan to help guide and align local housing efforts. Adoption of the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan by each respective Council will establish a clear strategic housing framework. Responsibility: City of Kingston Council, County of Frontenac Council Time Frame: Short-term Status: ongoing
- That the City develop a tactical plan concerning the acquisition of new units of affordable housing. Develop a financial plan to direct the acquisition and construction of new units of affordable housing that would allow the City to meet its affordable housing targets set out in this Plan. Ensure that all existing Capital housing programs contain maximum flexibility to be used for acquisition of existing housing units or other alternative housing types Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) in consultation with Finance, Real Estate & Construction, and Planning Departments Time Frame: Short-term Status: no action taken
- That the City and County use the 10 Year Housing and Homelessness Plan as an alignment tool across areas of municipal responsibility. Having adopted the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan as a strategic document, City/County senior staff should use it to guide implementation via related municipal work plans. Responsibility: Senior staff in City of Kingston and County of Frontenac Time Frame: Short-term, then ongoing
- That the Housing Department of the City take lead responsibility for advancing the 10 Year Housing and Homelessness Plan in collaboration with internal and external stakeholders, including the County. Housing Department to set–up and chair interdepartmental committee that oversees implementation of 10 Year Housing and Homelessness Plan, as required. Planning, Building, Finance and Community & Family Services staff and County as core participants, other staff as required Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
83 | P a g e
Page 86 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Time Frame: Short-term, then ongoing Status: ongoing 5. That the City recognize and support the Housing & Homelessness Advisory Committee as a primary vehicle for engaging stakeholders and providing advice on matters related to housing by: Focusing Committee activity on housing issues, policies and program. Ensuring broad and balanced representation on the Committee from private, public and municipal interests. Continuing to support the role of the Committee in vetting policies relating to housing and homelessness. Ensure focus is centered on providing advice for housing and homeless issues Membership to include representatives from the local Homebuilders Assn., City Planning Dept., Community Leadership Team (per United Way), homeless service providers and service recipients Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead), other departments as required Time Frame: Short-term, then ongoing Status: ongoing 6. That the City report on 10 Year Housing and Homelessness Plan progress regularly and publish an annual report card identifying key indicator status including indicators relating to homelessness. Establish 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan monitoring table to show progress against approved recommendations Define and develop key housing indicators Report annually to Council via report card on indicators and 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan status Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead), in consultation with Planning; and Building and Licensing Departments Time Frame: Short-term, then ongoing Status: first year complete, ongoing 7. That the City gather, maintain and monitor data to support housing and homelessness accountability practices, both internally and in support of provincial requirements. Monitor 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan implementation to confirm provincial expectations and obligations Consolidate standard data and program monitoring information into one source Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead), in consultation with Planning; and Building and Licensing Departments Time Frame: Short-term, then ongoing Status: ongoing July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
84 | P a g e
Page 87 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Strategic Direction #2: Creating a Complementary Regulatory Environment 8. That the City encourage social capital initiatives by: Supporting legislative reforms that improve household income retention incentives and help address the impacts that utility costs have on poverty Working collaboratively with social assistance staff and the Province to reduce procedural ‘barriers’ Linking municipal programs and poverty reduction initiatives that help support win-win opportunities Advocate through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association (OMSSA) for income maintenance reforms based on identified issues. Monitor LTAHS implementation to confirm Provincial reforms regarding rent-geared-to-income (RGI) and social assistance, as well as social capital initiatives. Review municipal housing and homeless programs to help identify and promote opportunities that reduce poverty Explore opportunities through system planning with stakeholders to help address mutually beneficial housing outcomes. Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead), City of Kingston Council, Housing & Homelessness Advisory Committee Time Frame: Short- to medium-term Status: ongoing 9. That the City implement Official Plan policies that promote inclusive, sustainable and flexible communities by: Ensuring that the Locational Analysis For Affordable Housing be used and referred to during decisions on which affordable housing projects should be supported Reviewing demolition and conversion provisions to help further support the retention of existing rental stock. Responsibility: City of Kingston Planning Department (lead) in consultation with Housing Department, interdepartmental committee Time Frame: Short- to mid-term, then ongoing Status: ongoing 10. That the City pursue inclusionary zoning opportunities as part of the comprehensive Zoning By-law (ZBL) review by: Working to strengthen municipal policies related to height and density bonusing under Section 37 of the Planning Act. Conducting a study to implement a new inclusionary policy to be conducted as part of 5 year Official Plan review. Taking advantage of possible future legislative changes that permit more inclusionary zoning. Responsibility: City of Kingston Planning Department Time Frame: Short- to long-term July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
85 | P a g e
Page 88 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Status: ZBL review in progress 11. That the City seek opportunities to appropriately integrate student housing by: Supporting initiatives to address the supply of student housing. Work with Queen’s University as part of the Central Accommodation Review to develop a strategy to ensure an adequate supply of student housing within Kingston. Responsibility: City of Kingston Planning Department (lead) with input from Housing Department and Town/Gown Committee; Queen’s University Time Frame: Short- to mid-term, then ongoing Status: Central Accommodation Review in progress 12. That the City adopt refined targets for units to be added to the current housing stock over the next 10 years as follows: Housing Form – 45% singles, 15% multiples and 40% apartments Housing Tenure – 70% ownership, 30% rental Housing Affordability – 25% of units at rates up to the affordability threshold Approve the housing targets as part of the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan Develop a monitoring tool for key info Measure and report on targets annually as part of Report Card (per Rec.#6) Using incentive tools available, actively seek out commitments to help support form, tenure, and affordability targets through the development approval process Responsibility: City of Kingston Planning Department (lead) with input from Housing Department Time Frame: Short-term Status: no action taken 13. That the County establish an Official Plan to help guide land use planning which has consistent housing polices among the four constituent Townships and which establishes targets for units to be added to the current housing stock over the next 10 years as follows: Housing Form – 92% singles, 4% multiples and 4% apartments Housing Tenure – 90% ownership, 10% rental Housing Affordability – 25% of units at rates up to the affordability threshold Review and consult on key housing issues, options and policies to be implemented, including: Defining affordability Housing mix and diversity Residential intensification Renewal and rehabilitation of housing stock Seniors housing options Secondary suites Adopt OP, work with local jurisdictions to implement upper tier polices in July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
86 | P a g e
Page 89 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan local Ops Implement a definition of affordable housing and adopt affordable housing targets in the County of Frontenac Official Plan. Implement a definition of affordable housing and adopt affordable housing targets in the Township of Central Frontenac Official Plan. Implement a definition of affordable housing and adopt affordable housing targets in the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. Implement a definition of affordable housing and adopt affordable housing targets in the Township of Frontenac Islands Official Plan. Responsibility: County of Frontenac (lead) in collaboration with four constituent Townships Time Frame: Mid-term Status: County OP in development 14. That the City and Council continue their support for second suites as an affordable rental housing alternative by: Encouraging and supporting applications for second suites where currently permitted in ZBL’s and where appropriately accommodated through required municipal Planning approvals Monitoring the implementation of the secondary suite pilot project to assist in evaluating impacts and the number of units created through the program Undertaking a study to assess the potential to broaden the pilot project area to include as-of-right permissions within additional areas of the City where servicing concerns are addressed; in accordance with applicable legislation, the study should also evaluate and recommend zoning provisions for accommodating secondary suites within accessory buildings (e.g. above detached garage, within a separate building on a residential lot occupied by a primary dwelling). Through the comprehensive ZBL review process, implement the recommendations and appropriate zoning provisions resulting from the preceding study. Encouraging built-in conversion potential for appropriate housing within new development Streamlining administrative approvals for second suites, including developing expedited internal Planning and Building review procedures to reduce the cost and time to obtain appropriate approvals for secondary suites throughout the City. Continue to enhance awareness through the public education campaign including, the development of public information materials Monitor LTAHS implementation to confirm Provincial expectations and obligations regarding second suites Encourage the creation of second suites and support applications that come forward in areas where currently permitted by ZBL’s Through the comprehensive ZBL review, identify appropriate zones, July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
87 | P a g e
Page 90 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan establish as-of-right provisions and define suitable standards for second suites, having regard for servicing capacity Once zones, provisions and standards are established through the ZBL review, the Housing Department should develop a resident information package for second suites which outlines standards, zoning requirements and the approvals process Responsibility: City of Kingston Planning Department (lead), Housing Department, interdepartmental committee and County of Frontenac Time Frame: Short- to mid-term Status: Ongoing 15. That the City implement key affordable housing provisions from the Official Plan including policies that: Encourage housing mix and diversity Support density and intensification Enable residential renewal and rehabilitation Review minimum separation distances for residential care facilities Through the comprehensive ZBL review, ensure that OP provisions regarding affordable housing are implemented by: Providing for a mix of residential uses and densities across zones Allowing various forms of intensification in the urban area while considering minimizing parking and amenity space arrangement. Supporting housing renewal while limiting conversion or demolition when not in the public interest Reviewing opportunities to reduce/eliminate separation distances for residential care facilities Encourage the adoption of a definition of housing affordability that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement across all departments and committees within Kingston and Frontenac, and encourage the adoption of affordable housing targets as identified in this document. Work with the Housing & Homelessness Advisory Committee so that they understand their role as champions of the definition of housing affordability and the affordability targets within Kingston. Encourage the Planning Department in the City of Kingston to adopt the housing affordability targets and track progress. Include the percentage of affordable units approved in the annual report card (see Recommendation #6) Responsibility: City of Kingston Planning Department (lead), Housing Department, and interdepartmental committee Time Frame: Short- to mid-term Status: In progress 16. That the County undertake a review with local Townships to identify zoning anomalies that may be acting as barriers, especially when it comes to supporting seniors housing options. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
88 | P a g e
Page 91 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Undertake preliminary review to identify specific zoning barriers When County Official Plan is in place, work to implement County and local OP policies via zoning bylaws and use this process to help address identified barriers Encourage the development of secondary suites and garden suites within the County of Frontenac. Create policies within the County of Frontenac Official Plan that permit such developments. Pursue opportunities as they arise to increase the amount of affordable housing within the County. Seek opportunities to convert underutilized buildings to affordable housing. Investigate the possibility of amending planning and zoning policies to support intensification. Support affordable housing developments such as the Seniors’ Housing Pilot Project.” Responsibility: County of Frontenac (lead) in collaboration with four constituent Townships Time Frame: Mid-term Status: implementation to occur after the adoption of the County Official Plan 17. That the City continue to support timely land use approvals through the Implementation and Service Improvement Plan developed as a result of the 2013 Mayor’s Task Force on Development. Housing Department staff to help facilitate applications for affordable housing by providing advice and education to applicants Expand private sector roundtable sessions to include Housing Department or other City staff who are on the interdepartmental committee Seek to have affordable housing projects designated as a High Priority by the Inter Departmental team overseeing the implementation of the Mayor’s Task Force on Development Responsibility: City of Kingston Planning Department (lead), Housing Department, and interdepartmental committee Time Frame: Ongoing Status: Ongoing Strategic Direction #3: Leveraging Resources and Tools 18. That the City maximize available funding by: Utilizing current program offerings Continuing to actively seek out other funding opportunities Developing a contingency plan to manage anticipated step downs in future senior government funding Leverage homeless funding by bundling/aligning various funding streams July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
89 | P a g e
Page 92 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan with community priorities Continue to maximize take-up of available rent supplement dollars through active negotiation with local landlords Using sector networks, seek out other possible housing funding opportunities Establish a plan for managing funding step down by: Creating a detailed funding horizon profile by program and project Developing an impact analysis against the funding horizon profile Ensure the step down funding plan considers end of operating agreement impacts Establishing a prioritized resource plan to mitigate the impacts Give consideration to prioritizing surplus City and County land for the purpose of affordable housing – through direct use of the land or by dedicating the provisions of the sale directly for affordable housing purposes Promote limited-equity ownership amongst lower income persons Prioritize homeless funding on those initiatives that are focused on ending homelessness instead of managing it Reinvest money saved from closing shelters as outlined in the homelessness plan into housing and support programs Protect existing public assets through policy mechanisms such as conversion and demolition controls. Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) Time Frame: Short- to mid-term, then ongoing Status: in progress 19. That the City and County advocate for additional funding from senior governments on a ‘fair share’ basis, particularly with regards to addressing capital shortfalls and affordability gaps. Advocate through local MP’s, MPP’s, AMO & OMSSA for additional funding to address local housing needs, especially in the area of low income households and social housing stock repairs Responsibility: City of Kingston Council, County of Frontenac Council Time Frame: Short-term Status: ongoing 20. That the City evaluate local opportunities to increase sustained resources that could be made available to address local housing needs. Select financial models which offer best-value investment, balancing needs for short term affordability (e.g. rent supplements) and longer term housing supply (e.g. capital funding or incentives). Options to be reviewed include: Utilizing a portion of savings from uploaded social service costs to address low income housing needs Dedicating a share of City assessment growth for housing purposes Apportioning a specific dedicated municipality tax levy for housing Utilizing tax increment financing to support affordable housing July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
90 | P a g e
Page 93 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan development Allocating proceeds from the sale of surplus City land Other sources as may be identified Providing greater specificity to Affordable Housing as a preferred public good when density bonusing is considered as part of Section 37 agreements Ensure any larger plans of subdivision and redevelopment at or above 1 hectare include a portion of units considered to be affordable as per the Official Plan guidelines Work with the Provincial Government to ensure a portion of land transfer tax is made available locally, and that said portion be earmarked exclusively to build, acquire and support lower income persons in housing Evaluation of Development Charge relief for affordable housing projects Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead), in collaboration with Finance Department Time Frame: Short-term Status: ongoing 21. That in recognition of Council’s decision to invest $2M per year for 5 years towards the Capital Investment in Affordable Housing Program and the Affordable Housing Land Acquisition and Disposition Fund, the City review and consider extending the investment for the full 10-year duration of the Plan. The initial programs should be reviewed prior to the end of the initial 5-year funding cycle to evaluate their effectiveness and the need to continue funding for the full 10-year period. Responsibility: City of Kingston Council, County of Frontenac Council Time Frame: 2015 Status: ongoing 22. That the City place particular emphasis on partnering with private and non-profit housing providers to enable leveraging of available resources in order to maximize the provision of affordable housing. Actively promote increased development dialogue between non-profit and private sector partners. Use opportunities to broaden awareness through venues such as the Planning Dept. roundtable sessions, Construction Association meetings and KEDCO In housing procurement processes, recognize the potential benefits of joint partnerships within the evaluation process Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department Time Frame: Ongoing Status: ongoing 23. That the City pursue opportunities to utilize inclusionary zoning and density bonusing to achieve negotiated agreements for the provision of affordable housing in new developments. Reinforce affordability target obligations of the OP with the local July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
91 | P a g e
Page 94 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan development industry Based on incentive tools available through OP and zoning, actively seek out affordability commitments through the development approvals process Review opportunities for potential projects during the planning preconsultation stage Target new development opportunities for inclusionary zoning, especially in greenfield locations Target higher density and mixed use transit corridors for density bonusing, giving particular attention to the impact of parking relief Create a by-law to permit the use of height and density bonusing as identified in Section 9.5.25 of the Official Plan. Identify in the by-law the situations in which the provision of affordable housing is a priority. Include in the by-law the target number of affordable units required for the target density bonus. It is recommended that 15% of units be affordable in exchange for a 25% density bonus (or equivalent). Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) in consultation with Planning Department Time Frame: Ongoing Status: ongoing 24. That the County consider establishing appropriate authorities/incentives in support of affordable housing to help prepare for development opportunities that may arise. Explore development fee relief, property tax relief for multi-res and capital facility by-law authorities in concert with local townships as initial measures Responsibility: City of Kingston Planning Department (lead) in consultation with Finance Department Time Frame: Short-term Status: no action taken 25. That the City expand the current inventory of suitable lands or properties for affordable housing to include opportunities from other public sector agencies, other levels of government (including the County) and privately held lands. Augment current City inventory of potential lands with other possible target sites (public private), including donations Ensure full circulation of agency surplus notices within City when received (i.e. federal, provincial, county, school boards, etc.) Establish options for land exchanges as part of acquisition/disposal process or via development approvals processes using capital facilities authorities Adopt a three-pronged approach for acquiring more affordable housing: Acquisition of existing structures, such as vacant hotels, apartment buildings and houses for sale, empty schools and warehouses, and convert to affordable housing; New construction on city-owned land; and, Rent supplements. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
92 | P a g e
Page 95 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) in consultation with Real Estate & Construction and Planning Departments Time Frame: Short- to mid-term Status: in progress 26. That the City continue to regularly monitor the condition of the social housing portfolio and actively seek alternate funding to assist with major capital repairs. Maintain up-to-date snapshot of portfolio condition by supporting project Building Condition Assessments (BCA’s) and actively gathering data for portfolio planning purposes Using existing asset planning tools and City resources to help guide decisions regarding allocation of repair funding Continue to advocate to MMAH for additional capital repair assistance (e.g. Social Housing Renovation & Retrofit Program) Responsibility: City of Kingston Planning Department (lead) in consultation with Real Estate & Construction Department Time Frame: Ongoing Status: set-up complete, implementation ongoing 27. That the City explore opportunities to review services and asset management planning to ensure sharing of resources between the City’s two municipal housing providers, and to then expand these resources to other local housing providers. Review opportunities to share services and asset management planning for the two largest housing providers in order to expand access to resources, broaden knowledge and better manage risks Once established, expand access to these technical resources to other housing providers in the community Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) in consultation with Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation & Town Homes Kingston Time Frame: Short- to mid-term Status: ongoing 28. That the City research and develop options for the continuation of social housing post End of Operating Agreements to meet its legislated and financial obligations in conjunction with the Step Down Funding planning study. Analyze each Housing Provider to assess current and future financial and capital needs Establish asset management strategies for each Housing Provider Review rent supplement program to identify cost saving measures Should be considered in conjunction with Step Down Funding planning Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department Time Frame: Short-term Status: in progress 29. That the City establish a strategic asset management plan using existing tools to help guide decisions regarding asset renewal/ redevelopment in the social housing portfolio. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
93 | P a g e
Page 96 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Build on interim work established for short term properties Using the funding step down plan evaluate all properties within the social housing portfolio. Specifically assess options for sustaining each asset and leveraging equity versus current condition, remaining useful life, operational capacity and ability to maintain resident affordability. Establish a strategic asset management plan that sets out long term strategies for leveraging equity and managing portfolio asset renewal/redevelopment. Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) in consultation with Finance and Real Estate & Construction Departments Time Frame: Short-term Status: in progress 30. That the City use Rideau Heights as an initial pilot community for testing asset renewal strategies that can be applied elsewhere. That the City partner with KFHC to undertake a regeneration planning process for the social housing core area and municipally owned lands of the Rideau Heights community including: The preparation of a land development plan to achieve the goals of community renewal The development of a business plan and phasing strategy to accomplish the eventual regeneration build-out The planning process should include a full program of consultation with residents and key stakeholders Identify strategies and lessons learned to support renewal of other social housing sites within the City Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) in consultation with Finance, Real Estate & Construction, and Planning Departments Time Frame: Mid- to long-term Status: in progress 31. That the City and County continue to advocate for additional senior government funding to address the increasing support service needs of residents (Ontario Disability Support Program, Ministry of Community & Social Services, etc.) Along with other municipalities, advocate through AMO & OMSSA for additional support service dollars to address growing needs Responsibility: City of Kingston Council, County of Frontenac Council Time Frame: Short-term Status: ongoing 32. That the City and County pursue linkages with support service funders and coordinators in the health and community service fields (Local Health Integration Network, Children’s Aid Society, etc.) as a means of expanding support service opportunities in the community. Building on connections in the supportive housing & homelessness sectors, July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
94 | P a g e
Page 97 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan convene a community roundtable to explore possible housing support opportunities Use the venue as a means of broadening support for the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan and seeking solutions to support issues Establish and sustain a dialogue on partnership opportunities by connecting agencies with HHAC Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department, County of Frontenac Time Frame: Short-term Status: ongoing 33. That the City arrange for housing workers to support persons who are precariously housed in social housing to gain greater housing stability. Develop a program to provide supports to persons living in social housing that are precariously housed and/or at risk of homelessness with a focus on achieving long-term housing stability for those households Should be considered as part of support worker job descriptions for implementation of the Homelessness Plan Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department Time Frame: Short-term Status: no action taken
Strategic Direction #4: Building Housing Capacity 34. That the City continue the consolidation of the municipal housing function by: Supporting the Housing Department as the ‘Centre of Expertise’ for housing and homelessness issues within the City Coordinating housing and homelessness planning for the broader service area in collaboration with the County and community service providers Re-aligning housing staff to accommodate future needs arising from integrated homelessness service planning Housing Department responsibilities expanded to include stronger homelessness role, integrated with housing duties Monitor LTAHS implementation to confirm Provincial expectations and obligations, especially with regards to Service Manager obligations and the resulting impacts on resources Coordination of housing & homelessness planning in concert with the United Way (HPS), while ensuring collaboration with the County and fully engaging community stakeholders Housing Department to have primary responsibility for 10 Year Housing and Homelessness Plan implementation Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) in consultation with County of Frontenac Time Frame: Short-term Status: set-up complete, implementation ongoing July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
95 | P a g e
Page 98 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 35. That the City in collaboration with the County implement the Service Manager’s Communications Plan developed as part of the MHS Ensure that all programming and services offered by the Housing Department is consistent with the Communications Plan and is an integral part of that program or service Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) in consultation with County of Frontenac Time Frame: Short-term Status: ongoing 36. That the City in collaboration with the County use community forums and themebased workshops as vehicles for bringing partners together, expanding knowledge of housing development practices, and sharing community ideas, programs and policy. Develop possible themes for events, as necessary that brings partners together Actively seek timely topics, speakers and possible sponsors (e.g. CMHC, Home Builders Assn., KEDCO, United Way of KFL&A, service clubs, etc.) Focus on broader based housing topics that bring various stakeholders together Host some events in the County and use these opportunities to address rural themes. Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) in consultation with County of Frontenac Time Frame: Short-term Status: ongoing 37. That the City, in concert with sector organizations where possible, help support community agency renewal through workshops geared to social housing practitioners. Collaborate with sector organizations like Ontario Non-Profit Housing Assn., Cooperative Housing Federation, Ontario municipal Social Services Assn., Social Housing Services Corp. and Canada Mortgage & Housing Corp. to determine what workshops or events they will be holding locally Identify potential unmet gaps and seek opportunities to encourage addressing of gaps by sector organizations Where necessary, supplement sector efforts with targeted workshops to help build and maintain social housing provider capacity Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department Time Frame: Ongoing Status: ongoing
Strategic Direction #5: Cultivating Partnerships 38. That the City engage the homelessness service sector as part of the broader housing context by supporting the implementation of the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
96 | P a g e
Page 99 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Plan: Collaborating with the Community Advisory Board regarding the funding of homelessness programs and initiatives Collaborating with other agencies for funding allocations aligned with this Plan, such as the United Way. Extending partnership information to homelessness agencies, especially those with housing-related activities sponsored by City Supporting the implementation of the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan Engage housing, service and support providers to set out integrated planning directions Establish homelessness contact and resource information for sharing among service agencies Consolidate information and resource material for posting on the City web site (e-centre), promoting this as a central information tool for service providers and housing stakeholders Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department Time Frame: Short-term, then ongoing Status: in progress 39. That the City more actively engage the private sector by: Expanding on existing private-sector roundtable sessions currently fostered by the Planning Dept. Inviting private sector representatives to the Housing and Homelessness Committee table to share insights Hosting topical workshops or forums geared to private sector issues as a means of broadening a shared understanding among community partners Provide for Housing Department representation at private sector roundtable hosted by Planning Dept. Provide for private sector representation on the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee Host occasional events that bring community housing stakeholders together with the private sector Seek topics on broader based housing topics that are of interest to both private sector and community partners Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department and Planning Department Time Frame: Short-term Status: ongoing 40. That the City establish and maintain a housing information e-centre on the City’s web-site to provide housing information and establish a virtual contact point for inquiries. Develop an on-line resource centre on the City web site that provides onestop shopping for housing information Build on existing housing services area but broaden housing topics to July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
97 | P a g e
Page 100 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan capture housing and homelessness Ensure ease of navigation Develop and maintain standard plus refreshed content to meet changing user needs Responsibility: City of Kingston Housing Department (lead) in consultation with Communications Department Time Frame: Short-term Status: in progress 41. That the City include community-based housing innovation awards as part of the Liveable City Program as a means of acknowledging community partners and raising the profile of affordable housing. Broaden the Liveable City Program to recognize community-based housing innovations in affordability Host occasional recognition events Responsibility: City of Kingston Planning Department (lead) in consultation with Housing Department Time Frame: Short-term Status: ongoing
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
98 | P a g e
Page 101 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
The Housing Continuum When developing a strategy to ensure a sufficient supply of housing within a particular geographic region, it is essential to look at housing along a continuum. Not every household has the same requirements when it comes to housing provision – in fact, a given housing unit is more likely to be unsuitable for a household selected at random than appropriate. Factors such as household income, family size, and stage of life all affect the type of housing that best suits that family. A housing continuum, therefore, describes a range of housing options across a spectrum, illustrating the need for a variety of different approaches to housing provision in order to meet demand. There are several dimensions to the housing continuum, as illustrated in Figure 3: The Housing Continuum (DRAFT). Figure 3: The Housing Continuum (DRAFT)
Life Stage A household’s needs change depending on the stage of life members of the household are at. For instance, as a child and youth, a person lives with a parent or guardian until he or she is legally able to live on his or her own, if not longer. Most young people move out of their parents’ house at some point and into rental accommodation – some with roommates, others with a romantic partner, still others alone. Eventually, most – but not all – households buy a house. Even after a house is purchased, however, needs change: with the addition of children, having an older parent or relative move in to an accessory suite, or having older children move out. Nearing the end of one’s life, persons develop special needs, such as requiring accessible features like ramps, or possibly the assistance of a caregiver. Thus, depending on where a person is at in his or her life, that person will likely have very specific housing needs. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
99 | P a g e
Page 102 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan The previous description applies to what is considered “normal” for a statistically average household. There can be wide variation, however, as many households do not conform to the norm. This further highlights the need for a variety of types of housing to accommodate the variety in types of households. A range of approaches to housing are required to meet housing needs throughout the continuum. The range of approaches needs to accommodate the ways in which households can be formed, re-constituted and permanently altered over time. The variation in households impact the approaches to housing that are required. A range of needs and supports, as well as a range of different types of housing and accommodation are both necessary to meet housing needs throughout the life cycle outlined above. Lastly, there must be balance in the approach to addressing the housing needs within the continuum and, at the same time, determining the specific needs that are present. It’s important not to allow one element of the life cycle to trump the needs across the continuum. Income Income can also play a role in the type of housing appropriate for a household. For persons with very low income, it is unlikely that they can afford even the most inexpensive of rents. For instance, a single person receiving Ontario Works gets only $376 per month to pay for rent – slightly more than half of the average cost of a bachelor apartment in Kingston. Households at the extremely low end of the income spectrum have few housing options – either double- or triple-up with roommates or family members, or live in social housing that is geared to income (RGI). For households with slightly higher incomes, some rental units are provided that are “affordable,” meaning that the housing provider has entered into an agreement to offer rents below what would normally be asked for on the private rental market. These providers can be public or private, and collect rent based on an agreement – in Ontario, it is typical for such units to be offered at 80% of the average rent in the area. For those with still higher incomes, housing needs are provided through the private rental market. The price of rent depends highly on the going rate in a municipality, location, size, and quality. In Kingston, an average two-bedroom apartment rents for $1005 per month. Households with above average income are likely to pursue home ownership at some stage. For lower-income households pursuing home ownership, a municipal program exists to assist families to obtain a down payment known as the Municipal Home Ownership Program in Kingston. Finally, for those with the highest income, home ownership is the preferred type of housing, whether through a mortgage or not. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
100 | P a g e
Page 103 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan The types of housing and shelter accommodation has a range of diversity not just across the categories, but within each category as well. For example, shelters have different designs and numbers of beds just like apartment buildings; ownership housing may have different square footage and land around the house; long-term care housing has a variety of services and payment structures. The types of housing and shelter accommodation necessary in the continuum is further influenced by where people are at in the life cycle and their needs and supports, if any. The continuum seeks to ensure there is an appropriate range and quantity of different types of housing and shelter accommodation within the community to meet the needs of its residents. Needs and Supports At one end of the spectrum, there are persons with very high needs, who require 24hour supports. These individuals include people with severe medical problems, developmental and cognitive disabilities, aging adults, and youth who have been removed from their parents’ care. The most extreme of these cases might require institutional care. For persons with slightly lower needs, supportive housing provides a high level of supports provided in a home environment. Supportive housing is a residence with onsite dedicated professional supports to tenants for most or all of the day. There can be supports with life-skills, daily living, psycho-social supports or accompaniment to appointments in the community. In most situations, each tenant has their own lockable bedroom or unit with some shared common space. Housing with supports is for individuals with moderate needs, who do not require constant supports but require assistance with some activities. Housing with supports is provided in the community (rather than a congregate setting) and is staffed by support workers who visit on a regular basis but are not there all the time. In both supportive housing and housing with supports, there can be a range in the intensity and type of supports provided. Finally, at the opposite end of the housing continuum is independent living, which is a situation that the majority of Canadians are familiar with. Understanding needs and supports must be balanced throughout the housing continuum. It is not just the polar extremes of independence and institutional care. The variations and nuances in independence and support throughout the continuum must be taken into consideration. Where an individual is at in their life cycle, as well as the type of housing or other type of accommodation they are in, will inform specific activities related to the provision of supports, if required.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
101 | P a g e
Page 104 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Influences on the Housing Continuum Influencing the three continuum concepts above are considerations such as personal preferences, needs, life circumstances, and access to resources. Some examples include: not everyone with a larger income will choose to own the place where they live, availability or lack of available supports impacting a person’s ability to remain housed in a specific type of housing such as needing ramps in a rental unit, people moving into or out of the City such as a student who lives in Kingston for three or four years while attending college or university, a family with three children moving to Kingston for a job, a homeless person from a neighbouring community who needs access to shelter, inter-generational housing such as children, adults and grandparents who share housing, immigration and newcomers, job interruption or access to the labour market, special needs, etc. Recommendations In the short term, the City should fund housing workers to support persons who are precariously housed in social housing to gain greater housing stability. Work with social Housing providers to develop a program to provide supports to persons living in social housing that are precariously housed and/or at risk of homelessness with a focus on achieving longterm housing stability for those households To support this initiative, provide funding for training and to hire staff to support clients living in social housing; The client/staff ratio for this support position should be 30:1
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
102 | P a g e
Page 105 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Housing Affordability What is housing affordability? The City of Kingston uses the following definition, which is derived from Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement: Figure 4: City of Kingston and County of Frontenac’s Definition of Housing Affordability
In the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or, Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area. In the case of rental housing, for which the total monthly shelter cost is the gross monthly rent that includes utilities, heat, hydro and hot water, but excludes parking and cable television, the least expensive of: A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or, A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area. This type of definition of affordability has the drawback of being variable and dependent on the resident’s level of income, and is generally believed to require a fair amount of verification. Thus, in some cases, a more simplistic, fixed definition of affordability is used that is easier to implement. For instance, under the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) and the Investment in Affordable Housing for Ontario Program (IAH), the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing requires that rental units receiving provincial funding must have a maximum rent set at or below 80% of the Average Market Rent as defined by the CMHC. Figure 5: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s Definition of Affordability to be Eligible for Funding
Affordability is defined as having rents for the project that are at or below 80% of CMHC Average Market Rent (AMR) at the time of occupancy. In addition, the Kingston Municipal Housing Facilities By-Law (No. 2011-79) has yet another definition of housing affordability, however, it is not recommended that this definition change to allow flexibility to fund a variety of housing programs:
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
103 | P a g e
Page 106 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Figure 6: Definition of Affordable Housing in City of Kingston’s Municipal Housing Facilities By-Law
Housing with monthly occupancy costs at or below the average market rents in Kingston and area as defined annually by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). Thus, with such varying definitions, it is easy to lose sight of what is affordable. The following section will clarify what affordability means to specific low-income groups. Affordability Scenarios In order to illustrate what constitutes an affordable housing unit, this section will identify several living scenarios that are common among persons with low income. The scenarios used will be: Scenario 1: A family of four (two adults, two children), with one wage-earner working full-time and earning minimum wage. Scenario 2: A family of four (two adults, two children), receiving an allowance from Ontario Works. Scenario 3: A family of three (one adult, two children), receiving an allowance from Ontario Works. Scenario 4: A one-person household (one adult), receiving Old Age Security or a Guaranteed Income Supplement. Scenario 5: A one-person household (one adult), receiving an allowance from the Ontario Disability Support Program. Scenario 6: A one-person household (one adult), receiving an allowance from Ontario Works. First, we will identify the approximate average monthly income of each of these households. Table 12: Scenario-Based Monthly Income Calculations
Income from Employment Basic Allowance Maximum Shelter Allowance OAS/GIS Child/Family Benefits GST/HST Credits Ontario Sales Tax Credit Employment Insurance Paid Canada Pension Plan Paid Working Income Tax Benefits Total Income
Scenario 1 $1,777.00
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
$453.00 $695.00
$350.00 $641.00
$744.00 $64.00 $88.00
$744.00 $64.00 $66.00
$2,044.00
$1,865.00
Scenario 5
Scenario 6
$596.00 $479.00
$230.00 $376.00
$32.00 $22.00
$29.00 $22.00
$21.00 $22.00
$1,326.00
$1,126.00
$649.00
$1,272.00 $743.00 $64.00 $88.00 ($33.00) ($74.00) $74.00 $2,639.00
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Scenario 4
104 | P a g e
Page 107 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Next, we identify the housing needs of each scenario household, as well as the rental prices based on various levels of affordability. The following table identifies the percentage of income required to pay for rent at each of two rent levels: average market rent (as identified by CMHC) and 80% of average market rent. The table also identifies the amount of income left over in each scenario for all other non-rent expenses for the month. Table 13: Scenario-Based Levels of Affordability Calculations
Apartment Size Rent Market % of Income Average Remainder 80% of Rent Market % of Income Average Remainder
Scenario 1 3 bed $1,230.00 47% $1,409.00 $984.00 37% $1,655.00
Scenario 2 3 bed $1,230.00 60% $814.00 $984.00 48% $1,060.00
Scenario 3 2 bed $1,005.00 54% $860.00 $804.00 43% $1,061.00
Scenario 4 1 bed $850.00 64% $476.00 $680.00 51% $646.00
Scenario 5 1 bed $850.00 75% $276.00 $680.00 60% $446.00
Scenario 6 Studio $661.00 102% ($12.00) $528.80 81% $120.20
In the preceding table, it was demonstrated that a single person receiving Ontario Works benefits cannot pay for an apartment – even a bachelor or studio apartment – at average market rates, as the rental cost is higher than that person’s total monthly income. For all of the scenarios, the cost of rent is unaffordable even if rent is equal to 80% of the average market rate. In fact, for most scenarios, households are paying 50% or more of their income on rent. In reality, the 30% of income rule is somewhat flexible. Most sources suggest that 30%35% is an acceptable range to be spent on housing costs. In particular, households with higher income are able to spend more on their housing costs due to simply having more money to begin with. It has been proposed that, as income rises, the amount spent on housing increases at a lower rate. To put it differently, lower-income households must spend a higher proportion of their income to cover their basic needs (i.e. shelter and food) than those with higher incomes. This is reflected in the Provincial Policy Statement, which states that definitions of affordability only apply to the 60% of households with the lowest income. However, there are very few instances where spending less than 30% of a household’s income is unaffordable. Thus, to consider what level of rent is affordable, it is useful to use the 30% of income as a benchmark.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
105 | P a g e
Page 108 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Table 14: Scenario-Based Affordable Rent Prices
Income 30% of Income Max Shelter Allowance Affordable Rent
Scenario 1 $2,639.00 $791.70 $791.70
Scenario 2 $2,044.00 $613.20 $695.00 $695.00
Scenario 3 $1,865.00 $559.50 $641.00 $641.00
Scenario 4 $1,326.00 $397.80 $397.80
Scenario 5 $1,126.00 $337.80 $479.00 $479.00
Scenario 6 $649.00 $194.70 $376.00 $376.00
Table 14: Scenario-Based Affordable Rent Prices, above, shows the affordable level of rent for each of the scenario households. For Scenarios 1 and 4, “Affordable Rent” is defined as 30% of household income. Other scenario households are provided with a shelter allowance – an amount that can only be spent on housing. If those households find a situation where they pay less than the maximum shelter allowance on rent, they do not receive the remainder of the shelter allowance. Thus, as long as the rental price is less than or equal to the maximum shelter allowance, the cost of rent does not impact total household income. However, the scenarios above illustrated only six hypothetical household situations with a maximum annual household income of $31,668, which is less than half of the median household income. For a two-bedroom apartment at average market rent to be affordable, the total annual household income must be $40,200. However, the most recent data available indicates that in Kingston, nearly 70% of renter households have an income below this threshold. In fact, approximately 13% of renter households have a total annual income between $31,668 and $40,200 – suggesting that while market rate apartments are still unaffordable for this group, they may be able to pay for an apartment at 80% of average market rent. Levels of Affordability Units affordable to persons making $649 per month or less A single person, with no dependents, receiving Ontario Works (OW) benefits will have an income of $649 per month, as described in Scenario 6. For a person in this Scenario, the affordable level of rent is $376, which is the maximum shelter allowance provided by OW. From a gross monthly income perspective, it is preferable that these units cost the tenant no more than the Shelter Allowance component of his/her Ontario Works. Housing at this rate will not take the individual out of a state of rather significant economic poverty, but alleviates housing cost as a risk factor for their month-to-month budgeting. It is also possible that some persons making minimum wage do not have enough hours to exceed $649 on a monthly basis. These individuals would also need housing that is July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
106 | P a g e
Page 109 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan affordable to their lower income status. For consistency and equity, it is recommended that these units also are priced at $376 or less per month, appreciating that this will exceed 30% of gross monthly income for some individuals, but also appreciating that his/her income is also more likely to fluctuate on a month to month basis given the nature of their employment. Units affordable to persons making $650 to $1,125 per month In between the Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program benefit ranges, these units account for those individuals and families that are relying on the likes of part-time employment, partial benefits, some forms of disability payments, Ontario Works with additional discretionary benefits added – and other comparable situations. The minimum cost for these units shall be $376 to be consistent with the Shelter Allowance component of Ontario Works, when that is applicable. It is expected, however, that the units will rent across an entire range for this income cohort, from $376 right up to $479 per month, especially for those at the upper end of the income range within the classification. Units affordable to persons making $1,126 to $1,541 per month These units are intended to be affordable to persons on Ontario Disability Support Program, Older Adults that rely on Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement, and lower-wage earners. A single person on the Ontario Disability Support Program can receive $1,126 per month, as described in Scenario 5. For these persons, an affordable monthly rent is $479 or less, so as to be consistent with the Shelter Allowance. These units are also intended to especially be affordable to single person households that rely on Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement, as described in Scenario 4. Units intended for persons in Scenario 4 should not rent for more than $398 per month. Lower wage earners in this affordability cohort can be expected to pay up to $462 per month on her/his rent, depending on their total monthly income. Therefore, to meet the affordability needs with this cohort rents would need to range from $398 up to $479. Units affordable to persons making $1,542 to $2,639 per month This affordability cohort encompasses a range of lower income earners, as well as a range of different household compositions relying on income supports. Some examples: A family of four with one wage earner making minimum wage, as in Scenario 1. A family of four on Ontario Works, as in Scenario 2. A single parent household with two children on Ontario Works, as in Scenario 3. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
107 | P a g e
Page 110 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan An individual working 40 hours per week making minimum wage will earn approximately $1777 per month. This affordability cohort also takes into consideration those households that make more than $10.25 per hour, but still struggle with overall affordability either because of the amount of their wage or the number of hours of work that they receive. Within this cohort rents will need to range from a minimum of $533 for lower-income earners that are single and live on minimum wage, through to $792 for the higher income earners in this bracket. The benefit of this affordability cohort is that it allows the City and County to address the needs of some multi-child households relying on income supports, as well as address housing needs amongst the “working poor”. Housing Targets Recommendations #10 and #11 of the Municipal Housing Strategy suggests that the City and the County, respectively, adopt refined targets for units to be added to the current housing stock over the next 10 years. One of the identified targets was that 25% of new units be affordable. The Municipal Housing Strategy sets a target for new affordable housing units built over the next ten years as follows: 1700 new units in the City of Kingston, and 410 new units in the County of Frontenac. The initial projections in the Municipal Housing Strategy indicated an average of 170 units per year up to 2021 for the City of Kingston, and an average of 41 units per year up to 2021 for the County of Frontenac. Based upon available data, it is prudent to extend these projections through to 2023 still assuming annualized figures of 170 and 41 for the City and County respectfully as it pertains to affordable dwellings. There is no compelling reason based upon available data and evidence to alter the 170 and 41 targets for the 2022 and 2023 calendar years. Using its proprietary housing affordability model, OrgCode was able to use data from the Municipal Housing Strategy and the development of the Homelessness Plan to investigate further the range of affordability within the affordability targets. The housing affordability model projects housing demands and affordability over the next 10 years. There are a range of indicators, based upon trends, that most impact the conclusions reached by the affordability model, including, but not limited to: City and County population Understanding anticipated population changes and characteristics of population change (in-migration, age, participation in labour force, income levels, gender, birth and death rates, etc.) Incidence of low-income, and characteristics of low-income households
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
108 | P a g e
Page 111 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Mean and median household income, and characteristics of households by income brackets Breakdown of industries, with attention paid to propensity of lower-wage industry sectors Rates of unemployment, as well as length of unemployment and other unemployment trends Rates of income assistance (Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program, Canada Pension Plan, etc.) relative to rental market affordability Minimum wage income relative to rental market affordability Availability of affordable rental units within current and historic rental market by type of unit and range of affordability Trends in household composition Mobility of households Service use patterns within homeless shelters (occupancy rates, average lengths of stay, household characteristics of shelter users, etc.) Development patterns Loss and changes in composition of rental market housing stock Like any forward-looking projection, both current and historic data, as well as an understanding of current initiatives to address known issues become important factors in breaking down anticipated levels and types of affordability within affordable housing. For example, because the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness places strong emphasis on helping homeless people achieve housing with supports based upon presenting issues and acuity, there will be an emphasis placed on units that are deeply affordable. Table 15: 10-Year Housing Targets based on Level of Affordability indicates the target number of housing units to be created over the next ten years, in Kingston and Frontenac, based on level of affordability. Table 15: 10-Year Housing Targets based on Level of Affordability
Level of Affordability Units Affordable to Persons Making $649 or less per month Units Affordable to Persons Making $650 to $1,149 per month Units Affordable to Persons Making $1,150 to $1,541 per month Units Affordable to Persons Making $1,542 to $2,639 per month Total Affordable Dwellings
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
City of Kingston 678
County of Frontenac 159
387
89
476
499
129
628
136
33
169
1700
410
2110
TOTAL 837
109 | P a g e
Page 112 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Permanent Supportive Housing The targets examine the need for Rent Geared to Income (RGI) Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) on top of the affordable dwelling targets. Between now and 2023, it is projected that the City of Kingston will require 261 more units of Permanent Supportive Housing, and the County of Frontenac will require 38. This works out to approximately 26 RGI PSH units per year in the City, and 4 RGI PSH units per year in the County. Table 16: 10-Year Permanent Supportive Housing Targets
City of Kingston 1700 261 1,961
Type of Unit Affordable Dwellings Permanent Supportive Housing Total New Units
County of Frontenac 410 38 448
TOTAL 2110 299 2,409
The Permanent Supportive Housing, as outlined in the projections, can be in scattered sites (existing apartment buildings), as a specialized component of new construction or acquisition, or stand-alone congregate facilities made possible through new construction or acquisition. There is no compelling evidence in any of the academic literature proving that one approach (scattered vs. congregate) outperforms the other in service outcomes, though congregate is determined to be more efficient and affordable. Consumer preference, however, is shown to be a strong predictor of housing stability, and therefore, having a mix of scattered site and congregate approaches to PSH are preferred. The Permanent Supportive Housing is characterized and understood as follows: It is a housing option that can be considered by a subset of the population. No one is forced, coerced or placed in the units by housing workers, the courts or mental health professionals without the willing consent, participation and choice of the occupant. It is a housing option that has rent geared to income. This should be understood as no more than 40% of gross monthly income. The higher income threshold (40% instead of a more common 30%) takes into account that in addition to rental services, residents are also contributing in a small way to the costs of the extra support provision that they are receiving while in the Permanent Supportive Housing. The Permanent Supportive Housing is exclusively for individuals that are assessed as having a higher acuity, as outlined in greater detail in the Homelessness Plan. The Permanent Supportive Housing deliberately seeks to serve those that have complex, co-occurring issues. Many of these individuals are likely to have demonstrated behaviour in other housing or homeless shelters
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
110 | P a g e
Page 113 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan that was considered to be problematic or disruptive by other residents and/or the service provider. The Permanent Supportive Housing is not time limited. Occupants, because of their acuity and presenting issues, may stay in the housing as long as they desire, so long as they meet the most basic requirements of the tenancy (e.g., paying rent; not committing egregious criminal offences, etc.). The Permanent Supportive Housing is grounded in a harm reduction philosophy, covering all four pillars of the harm reduction approach. While some occupants may choose decreased substance use and participation in other risky behaviour in his/her life, it is not a requirement for participating in the housing. In the event that an individual must leave the Permanent Supportive Housing they will be assisted in accessing another Permanent Supportive Housing unit immediately. They do not get kicked out of the overall support program, nor do they do to the bottom of a waiting list. The service model goes to great lengths to focus on positive change for residents while maintaining a service delivery model that is not focused on compliance based residency where the likes of sobriety, taking of medications, addressing existing physical health issues, and/or accessing mental health supports are a requirement of tenancy. What about Transitional Housing? This Plan places strong emphasis on Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), and to some, it may appear that Transitional Housing (TH) has been overlooked and is conspicuously absent from the Plan. There was no discussion about TH in this Plan for the twofold reason that the Service Manager does not currently fund any Transitional Housing and that this Plan does not recommend that the Service Manager commence funding Transitional Housing. A “typical” Transitional Housing program (there is a large degree of variation from case to case) is seen as an intermediate step between homelessness and independent living. A homeless person may transition from living on the streets or in shelters to TH and from there, move on to a place of his or her own. In most cases, supports are provided in the TH, such as life skills classes, addictions treatment, etc. Usually, but no always, Transitional Housing is seen as a program that has rules by which clients must abide. Almost always, TH is time-limited, although the length of time may be anywhere between six months and two years. However, there are many things that make this model problematic: There is no evidence to suggest that Transitional Housing achieves better outcomes than Permanent Supportive Housing. In fact, there are some studies finding that PSH outperforms TH, many that suggest equal outcomes, and none July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
111 | P a g e
Page 114 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan that prove conclusively that Transitional Housing results in higher outcomes than Permanent Supportive Housing. If clients succeed, they are rewarded by being evicted. Because the programs are time-limited, at the end of the program, clients are required to leave, regardless of whether they want to or not. This is disruptive to a client’s wellbeing and stability, since they may have formed attachments to the area or neighbours, and may not be interested in leaving. If the clients fail, they return to homelessness. Most TH programs have rules, such as requiring a client’s attendance at AA meetings, or working towards some life improvement. If a client does not comply with these requirements, they are removed from the program, and more often than not, return to the very homeless shelters from which they came. When is a client ready for housing? Arguably, everyone is ready for permanent housing. Requiring a client to participate in a program and demonstrate their ability to be self-sufficient is not only condescending (and thus, the opposite of empowering) but also counterproductive as it prolongs the amount of time for which a person lacks stable and permanent housing. Moreover, because all individuals are unique, it is impossible to say whether a finite amount of time (for instance, one year) is sufficient for all clients to become “ready” to live independently – some may quickly progress through the program while others may need a slower pace. An artificial deadline does not work It makes more sense to help a person learn life skills in his or her own home. If a person learns how to cook, clean, go grocery shopping, and take the bus while in Transitional Housing, and successfully graduates from the program, then moves to a new residence, he or she has to re-learn everything including where the bus stop and grocery store are, how the new kitchen works, etc. Moreover, the client may not feel confident in his or her new home and become homeless again due to an easily averted difficulty. From an efficiency standpoint, it makes more sense to help a client learn these skills while they are in a permanent housing arrangement rather than a temporary one. Transitional Housing is far more expensive than Permanent Supportive Housing. Usually, TH comes with more intensive supports than PSH – the idea is that clients are being transitioned to independence, thus more life skills are taught in a shorter period of time. In contrast, PSH does not have the intensive emphasis on getting clients “ready” to move on. In addition, TH requires twice as much administration – once moving a client from a shelter to Transitional Housing, and second from TH to a permanent housing option. Because of the high turnover (with maximum stays of 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years), support workers (and clients) are spending more time getting to know new clients and helping them transition rather than working on long-term relationships. The main benefits of Transitional Housing are the supports that are provided, and indeed many clients thrive in a supportive environment. However, this is an argument July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
112 | P a g e
Page 115 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan for supportive housing rather than transitional housing. The same supports can be provided in a permanent environment. It is true that many clients will eventually want to move on, and that a supportive housing environment may be a temporary arrangement. However, there is nothing stopping a client from exiting PSH. Most Canadians live in what would be termed permanent housing, but on average, a Canadian household moves every five years or so due to changing needs and stage of life. Thus, instead of thinking of permanent housing as fixed housing arrangement that will last forever, it is best to understand permanent housing as a residence from which the tenant is never required to move out as so long as they continue to pay rent on time and adhere to the terms of a standard lease. Thus, instead of encouraging any new or existing Transitional Housing in Kingston or Frontenac, the philosophies of this Plan suggest that, instead, Transitional Housing be converted into Permanent Supportive Housing or other type of permanent housing arrangement. Implications of the Targets Two main implications for the City and County emerge from the targets: Giving consideration to RGI Permanent Supportive Housing over and above existing affordable housing targets from the existing Municipal Housing Strategy; and, Meeting the depth of affordability required for the units to meet the intended results in the community. The 2011 Municipal Housing Strategy is a very thorough, well-researched document with considerable community input. The positioning of the recommendations on housing targets appears to be well informed as it relates to tenure and affordability. Absent from the strategy, which is not a fault of the Strategy itself, but rather borne out of the work done on the Homelessness Plan, is the need to more closely examine Permanent Supportive Housing needs within the City and County. As discussed earlier, PSH can take many different forms. The depth of supports provided for the intended population that it serves greatly influences the depth of operating assistance required for the housing. On the one hand there must be suitable subsidy to cover physical plant maintenance of the building, including addressing damages that are likely to be over and above other forms of rental accommodation. On the other hand, the effectiveness of PSH comes from the supports. The operating costs of PSH related to support costs range considerably. On the richer end of the scale is a recovery-oriented Assertive Community Treatment program within a PSH environment. This model tends to cater almost exclusively to persons with serious and persistent mental illness with co-occurring physical health and July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
113 | P a g e
Page 116 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan substance use issues, requiring multiple hours of medical and housekeeping support on a daily basis. A moderate scale investment is specialized multi-disciplinary team combining housing based case managers with part-time access to mental and physical health professionals. This type of multi-disciplinary approach uses Intensive Case Management in service delivery, leveraging the more expensive resources only when needed to those residents that most require the service access. People served by this approach may also have higher acuity like their ACT-served counterparts, but tend not to have the same severity in co-occurring issues. The actual costs associated with service delivery are highly dependent upon the overall acuity of the persons being served, as well as the volume of people that meet those service needs requirements. The bigger question is how much funding is available. The availability of funding is more likely to dictate how many people can be supported by which model of service delivery. Also of importance is who pays for the support costs associated with the PSH. Some communities have relied solely upon Provincial health funding. Other communities have looked to the use partnership agreements with hospital and community-based health care providers to use existing health funding in a different way. In some instances, housing funding earmarked for a community has been used to fund this combination of health and housing supports. Others still have used HPS and municipal funding to fund the supports. The second major implication is how to meet the affordability thresholds outlined within the targets. Housing will always be an income issue relative to a housing expense issue. Such a discussion, however, often leads to inaction, as there is no agreement on whether additional income assistance should take precedence over development/ acquisition of additional units. It is doubtful, however, that additional income alone would solve all of the affordability issues. With more resources, the housing market simply responds accordingly, as pretty much any community with above average wages and scarce housing supply demonstrates time and again. As such, the acquisition and development of units becomes very important in addition to rent supplements that may be made available. Most fundamentally, getting to the thresholds of affordability requires decreasing the monthly carrying costs associated with the building. This means much deeper capital investment per unit to ensure that mortgage costs are not a significant cost driver. This also means, in most circumstances, using durable building materials that while they may cost more up front result in less damage to be covered over time. Furthermore, this also means a close examination at energy efficiency, decreasing the operational costs of all of the common spaces throughout the entire building. These and other opportunities for cost reductions on a monthly building will need to be explored in depth with all pro forma.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
114 | P a g e
Page 117 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan The targets stipulate that the goal for both the affordable dwellings and the RGI PSH dwellings can be met through new construction, acquisition, and/or rent supplement. This maximum flexibility allows the City and County to make the most of the market situation in the community, as well as seize opportunities to acquire or develop new buildings (or support non-profits in doing so) where it makes the most sense. However, to ensure the likelihood of sustainability in the portfolio of housing that is affordable that is secured through this plan, it is recommended that new construction and acquisition account for at least 60% of meeting the target. The reason for doing so is that is adds to the physical assets of affordable housing, which is less influenced by the budgetary cycle in the way that a rental supplement may be. Within the City this means that 1,177 of the units should come by way of new construction or acquisition. In the County this works out to 269 of the units. It is recommended that the majority of new units added to the affordable housing inventory be municipally controlled, through new construction or acquisition. However, due to a limited budget, it is unlikely that new units can be procured quickly enough to meet the targets. Thus, as a stopgap, rent supplements are recommended to make up the difference. Rent supplements are not a sustainable solution, but they are much more affordable to the municipality in the short-term since they require no capital investment. Table 17: Number of New Affordable Housing Units Needed by Year and by Method of Procurement proposes a sample method for meeting the affordable housing targets over the next ten years. Table 17: Number of New Affordable Housing Units Needed by Year and by Method of Procurement
Cumulative Rent New Acquisition Private Total New Units Supplement Construction Market % of total units 30% 30% 30% 10% Year 1 241 72 72 72 24 Year 2 482 145 145 145 48 Year 3 723 217 217 217 72 Year 4 964 289 289 289 96 Year 5 1205 362 362 362 121 Year 6 1446 434 434 434 145 Year 7 1687 506 506 506 169 Year 8 1928 578 578 578 193 Year 9 2169 651 651 651 217 Year 10 2409 723 723 723 240 For further discussion to the costs of various methods of acquiring additional affordable housing, refer to Error! Reference source not found..
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
115 | P a g e
Page 118 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Consolidating Policies Relating to Housing Affordability At present, the ability of parties within the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac to develop affordable housing are hampered by not having a clear and consistent definition of housing affordability. In the Ontario planning environment, policies are hierarchical. The provincial government may dictate certain standards, to which upper-tier municipalities (i.e. the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac) are required to adhere through documents such as the Official Plan. Lower-tier municipalities (i.e. the Townships of North, Central, and South Frontenac, and the Township of Frontenac Islands) must adhere to policies identified by upper-tier municipalities. Finally, municipal by-laws must be consistent with policies set out in a municipality’s Official Plan. In Kingston and Frontenac, not all plans and policy are consistent with the higher-level plans and policies. The following table identifies and summarizes these inconsistencies. Plan, Policy, or By-Law Provincial Policy Statement City of Kingston Official Plan Municipal Housing Strategy County of Frontenac Official Plan Township of North Frontenac Official Plan Township of Central Frontenac Official Plan Township of South Frontenac Official Plan Township of Frontenac Islands Official Plan
Status Reference Consistent Consistent N/A Consistent No definition No definition No definition
It is recommended that, beginning at the top level and working down, each plan or policy be revisited to ensure consistency with the higher-level policies. Further, it is recommended that policies related to housing affordability are strengthened to further promote the development of affordable housing. Recommendations In the short term, encourage the adoption of a definition of housing affordability that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement across all departments and committees within Kingston and Frontenac, and encourage the adoption of affordable housing targets as identified in this document. Work with the Housing & Homelessness Advisory Committee so that they understand their role as champions of the definition of housing affordability and the affordability targets within Kingston. Encourage the Planning Department in the City of Kingston to adopt the housing affordability targets and track progress. Include the July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
116 | P a g e
Page 119 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan percentage of affordable units approved in the annual report card (see Recommendation #6)
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
117 | P a g e
Page 120 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Student Housing A major pressure exerted on the rental market in Kingston is that caused by the significant number of students who study at one of Kingston’s three post-secondary institutions. It is perceived that students occupy dwellings that would otherwise be occupied by low-income households, thereby limiting the amount of affordable rental housing available for non-students. Whether or not this is the case is unclear. However, what is certain is that Kingston is host to a large number of students who occupy a large number of rental units. In particular, many students who attend Queen’s University reside in a concentrated area in close proximity to the downtown of Kingston. Many of the housing units occupied by students are older, converted single detached homes, which were not originally intended to house a group of students. Kingston currently lacks a municipal strategy that specifically addresses housing for students, however, it is in the process of conducting a Central Accommodation Review, a study looking at the housing supply in the downtown area, which includes the Queen’s student housing area. Such a strategy would undoubtedly be beneficial as a tool to direct and promote future growth in a planned and orderly manner, as opposed to addressing student housing issues as they arise on an ad hoc basis. This section addresses the topic of student housing within Kingston and examines some practices in other municipalities with a large number of students. Current Strategies in Kingston Kingston already has a number of policies in place to promote good relationships between student tenants and landlords. These include: Preferential placement and discounted advertising for Landlord Contract Program (LCP) units on the university’s housing website Numerous programs to educate students about leases, being a good neighbour, and finding housemates A program that lets neighbours call the university, rather than the police, about noise complaints, if they believe a student household is responsible; the number of calls to this line are decreasing and it is rare for a student household to get a repeat visit as students are well aware that the police could have been involved instead. Currently, Queen’s is developing a Campus Master Plan (CMP) about which details are unknown, but it has been stated that student housing will be addressed to some extent. However, while the current Municipal Housing Strategy indicates that demand for student housing is creating problems due to perceived anti-social behaviour and increasing rents in neighbourhoods where students have concentrated, it does not July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
118 | P a g e
Page 121 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan address the need to promote additional student housing development in a more comprehensive manner. The current student housing policies, as described above, focus on limiting the impacts of students in the neighbourhoods where they currently settle. It is essential to remember that student housing demand in different rental markets does not always have the same consequences, and policy responses need to take into account the local context. Any strategy for student housing in Kingston should include regular monitoring of the off-campus student population and its impacts on local communities. These existing policies promote collaboration between the university, students, and the community and will continue to be important components of any future student housing strategy. Planning and Policy Instruments to Promote Student Housing It is difficult to clearly identify ‘best practices’ to promote student housing that is appropriately sited and integrated into the community such that the impact on other residents is minimized, because many municipalities lack such strategies and have relied on the private rental market to supply housing rather than actively facilitating or promoting the construction of off-campus housing. A second approach concentrates on using zoning by-laws or other regulatory tools, such as landlord licensing, to limit the concentration of student rental housing in particular neighbourhoods. However, some municipalities are also adopting planning policies that are intended to direct the construction of new, privately developed rental housing, including student housing, to specific areas. In Ontario, both London and Oshawa have established student housing policies. A comparison of how university towns seek to manage student housing issues in the US, Canada and the UK suggests that while every community’s response will necessarily be determined by its local context, there are four key elements: 1. 2. 3. 4.
university cooperation in controlling the number of students living off-campus; consistent enforcement of local by-laws; effective planning policies to limit student concentration; mutual efforts by municipalities and universities to foster good relations.
By-law enforcement to promote better quality student housing can be effective if bylaws are not enforced through a complaint-based system; generally a license and inspection system is more effective. A common approach is ‘defining a family’ in order to limit the number of unrelated people living together, but this is not legal in Ontario and can make it difficult to build housing specifically for students to live in a dorm-like arrangement with a shared kitchen/bath.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
119 | P a g e
Page 122 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Purpose-Built Student Accommodation In both the UK and the US, off-campus student housing is increasingly being provided through ‘purpose-built student accommodation’ (PBSA) that may be developed by the educational institution(s), private developers, or a combination of the two. Universities may make agreements with private developers to guarantee minimum occupancy for new PBSA units, which removes the obligation to fund the capital costs of construction while ensuring a fixed return for the developer, although subsidies or other supports may be necessary to ensure that the housing is affordable for lower-income students. This approach is seen as a way to simultaneously reduce the pressure students create on local housing markets and to attract students to specific locations where student housing is perceived as a desirable land use. PBSA also can have positive impacts when it is appropriately sited in areas where it may contribute to a broader revitalization strategy. However, in some communities, PBSA appears to have resulted in the student tenants treating the surrounding area as an extension of the campus rather than a neighbourhood with many different kinds of residents, and students tend to concentrate in rental units around these facilities. It is seen as most effective at providing affordable housing for students without producing unbalanced communities when it is integrated with more diverse housing types and commercial/retail uses, can accommodate students at different life stages with different needs (e.g., both undergraduate, graduate, part-time, and mature students) and can be adapted as those needs change. Experiences in Other Jurisdictions There are several recent examples of student housing policies in Ontario cities, including London (University of Western Ontario, Fanshawe College) and Oshawa (University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Durham College, Trent University satellite campus); these policies serve both to limit concentrations of student housing and to promote the construction of housing that is designed for or accessible to students in areas slated for redevelopment. However, both policies are only a few years old, making it a challenge to evaluate their impact in terms of creating additional student housing and reducing the incentive to convert low-density housing for multiple-occupancy in order to rent to students. Planning policies can be used to facilitate redevelopment of underutilized lands with higher density forms of housing, including Purpose-Built Student Housing (PBSH). However, there must be suitable lands near the university to channel students seeking off-campus housing, and it is important to ensure that there are a variety of housing types so that the area is not segregated. Near-campus neighbourhoods in London
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
120 | P a g e
Page 123 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan London has adopted several policy and planning initiatives to address the need for student housing, including: Efforts to educate students and more intensive bylaw enforcement; A cost-shared Housing Mediation office; A Student Housing Advisory Committee; Special Official Plan policies to control the scale/bulk of residential infill in nearcampus neighbourhoods; New Official Plan policies were adopted in 2009, including zoning by-law changes and a requirement to establish a ‘vision’ for each near-campus neighbourhood to provide context for planning applications; A 5-bedroom limit for all “dwelling units” (upheld at the OMB); Zoning Bylaw changes to limit infill with multi-unit residential dwellings in lowdensity neighbourhoods Overall, all of these initiatives are aimed at controlling intensification. The city found that a comprehensive policy was needed because special policies applied to specific neighbourhoods experiencing a concentration of students were resulting in a shift in the student population to areas where those policies weren’t in effect. London has set out land use planning goals for intensification in near-campus neighbourhoods: New development is comprised of a balanced mix of structure types; Purpose-built to support the anticipated level of intensity; Located along transportation corridors and away from the interior of low density residential neighbourhoods; High quality urban design features. Beyond zoning by-law changes, London has established policies to regulate consents in low-density neighbourhoods in order to control intensification and ensure that any new lots will conform to the zoning by-laws. Applications for minor variances that are not consistent with the land use goals and zoning by-laws will not be supported. The maximum number of bedrooms per dwelling unit is also being reduced from 5 to 3 in near-campus neighbourhoods, although 5-bedroom dwelling units will continue to be permitted in certain areas. There is also a city-wide requirement for rental units to be licensed, although this by-law does not apply to rental units in apartment buildings, stacked townhouses or townhouses. Licensing in Waterloo In Waterloo, Ontario, which is host to Wilfred Laurier University, University of Waterloo, and Conestoga College, has recently implemented a Landlord Licensing program through a by-law enacted in 2011. This program requires a license for any dwelling wherein rent is collected. In order to obtain a license, certain requirements must be July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
121 | P a g e
Page 124 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan met, such as ensuring all units adhere to the building and fire codes, regulating the number of bedrooms and the maximum size of the buildings, etc. The benefit of such a program is it allows the municipality to monitor the supply of rental housing (while the program was created with students in mind, it applies to all rental housing in the municipality) and ensure that all rental housing provided be safe and adequate. The drawbacks are financial; such a program requires money to be administered, and while the landlords pay the fee to be licensed, the tenants ultimately bear the cost through increased rent, diminishing the affordability of each individual unit. Oshawa Student Housing Strategy The strategy recommends the following changes be considered for the Oshawa Official Plan: Encourage a range of housing accommodation for students; Encourage an appropriate supply of off-campus student housing in appropriate locations; Encourage student accommodations predominantly in arterial road corridors, in the Downtown and a purpose-built north student village area; Encourage a balanced use of low density housing forms (e.g., singles and semis) for student housing in near campus neighbourhoods; Support financial incentives for multi-unit housing in the corridors near UOIT and Durham College and Trent; Encourage the post-secondary institutions to develop a student housing policy for the development of future on-campus housing Rental housing in the university vicinity is to be licensed. The strategy also identifies an area for redevelopment that is seen as having the capacity to accommodate all demand for student housing and identifies policies to promote and facilitate new housing in that area. The recommendations aim to encourage purpose-built student housing in that area as well as the construction of additional on-campus housing. Lodging houses are suggested as an interim use in existing single-detached houses in the Simcoe Street North area until the area is redeveloped, in order to meet current demand for student housing. In addition, some areas where the university is expected to expand in the future are recommended for rezoning to permit higher-density residential uses including a purpose-built “student village” area. The strategy also gives some consideration to how students access the university on foot and recommends looking at the need for pedestrian walkways in different locations. This may also have the effect of reducing other residents’ perception of the students’ impacts on the community.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
122 | P a g e
Page 125 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan The strategy suggests several incentives, which include: A Community Improvement Plan for multi-unit housing (excluding condominiums) in designated areas A development charge exemption, to be put in place for a suggested 5 years. It also recommends that all the educational institutions in Oshawa put in place Housing Policies for both on- and off-campus housing and identify their role in the provision of student housing, and establish a Student Housing Office that would (at a minimum) undertake activities such as facilitating students’ contact with accredited housing providers. The Oshawa Student Housing Strategy acknowledges that housing that benefits students also benefits other groups (e.g., people receiving social assistance), and zoning bylaws should not be used to regulate behaviour in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code. However the strategy did not recommend two approaches suggested by the Ontario Human Rights Commission: that affordable and supportive housing should be permitted in all neighbourhoods, and that a city-wide licensing by-law for all rental properties would be preferable to solely focusing on students and the area around the university. Lessons Learned While Kingston has different characteristics than Waterloo, Oshawa, or London, it is still useful to examine approaches in other jurisdictions to learn from their experiences. Evidence suggests that the best practice in a municipality such as Kingston is to promote the development of student housing in such a way that is controlled and consistent with the priorities of the municipality. This can be accomplished through: A city-wide plan that addresses the provision of student housing, whether this comes in the form of a Community Improvement Plan, a Secondary Plan, or through the Campus Master Plan; Supporting redevelopment and intensification through clearly defined policies that set out acceptable parameters that are consistent with the goal of increasing the housing supply and mitigating the impact on the local neighbourhood; Extensive collaboration between the post-secondary institutions in Kingston and the municipality to ensure that the goals of each party are compatible. Recommendations In the short term, support initiatives to address the supply of student housing. Work with Queen’s University to develop the Campus Master Plan. In the medium term, develop a strategy to ensure an adequate supply of student housing within Kingston.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
123 | P a g e
Page 126 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Support the implementation of the findings of the Central Accommodation Review, in order to: o Present a vision of a Kingston in which there is adequate housing for students as well as permanent residents, including a vision for where the student housing will be located, the type of dwelling, and the look and feel of student-dominated neighbourhoods; o Identify the roles and responsibilities of the municipality, institutions, housing co-operatives, and the private sector in student housing provision; o Define how, where, and in what circumstances intensification for the purpose of creating additional units will be permitted. Resources Bromley, Ray, and Robert B. Kent. “Integrating Beyond the Campus: Ohio’s Urban Public Universities and Neighbourhood Revitalization.” Planning Practice & Research 21.1 45–78. City of Kingston. Information Report to Near Campus Neighbourhoods Advisory Committee. 2013. Frierson, Jack S. (2004) How Are Local Governments Responding to Student Rental Problems in University Towns in the United States, Canada, and England. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 33, p 497. Macintyre, Clement. “New Models of Student Housing and Their Impact on Local Communities.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 25.2 (2003): 109–118. CrossRef. Web. 28 May 2013. Munro, Moira, and Mark Livingston. “Student Impacts on Urban Neighbourhoods: Policy Approaches, Discourses and Dilemmas.” Urban Studies 49.8 (2012): 1679–1694. usj.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca. Web. 22 May 2013. Rugg, Julie, David Rhodes, and Anwen Jones. “Studying a Niche Market: UK Students and the Private Rented Sector.” Housing Studies 17.2 289–303. Sage, Joanna, Darren Smith, and Philip Hubbard. (2013) New-build Studentification: A Panacea for Balanced Communities? Urban Studies.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
124 | P a g e
Page 127 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Inclusionary Zoning Recommendation #9 suggests that the City begin “Pursuing inclusionary zoning opportunities as part of the comprehensive Zoning By-law (ZBL) review.” Similarly, recommendation #22 suggests “that the City pursue opportunities to utilize inclusionary zoning and density bonusing to achieve negotiated agreements for the provision of affordable housing in new developments.” In order to address this recommendation, a more in-depth understanding of inclusionary zoning is required. Inclusionary zoning is a specific type of policy that was originally enacted by ordinance in Fairfax County, Virginia, and has since become widely used in the United States. Essentially, inclusionary zoning requires that in new residential developments, a certain proportion of the units must be affordable. However, this type of by-law is not permitted under the Planning Act in Ontario. More broadly, however, is a collection of policies referred to as “inclusionary policies,” which share the same intent as inclusionary zoning but use a wide range of planning tools and methods, and have a number of components: Threshold: how large does the development need to be before some units must be affordable? The threshold could be anywhere between 10 units to over 200 units, while Boulder, Colorado applies the inclusionary policy to any new residential development. Set-Aside Requirement: how many units must be affordable? Most US communities require 10%-15% to be affordable, while Vancouver requires 20%. Level of Affordability: who is eligible to live in the affordable units? Usually, a household must demonstrate that their income is 80% or lower of Area Median Income (AMI), though there are a variety of methods used. Duration of Affordability: for how long must a unit be affordable? The period of time is usually sometime between 10 to 30 years, though some programs are indefinite. For affordable home ownership, the affordability requirement is often registered on title, preventing families from purchasing a house at a discount and then selling at a large profit a few months later – in some cases, resale profit is split between the household and the municipality. Mandatory, Hybrid or Voluntary: is the inclusionary policy a requirement of developments or is it voluntary (presumably with incentives)? In most of the US, the policy is mandatory, though in Ontario, a mandatory policy would not be legal. A hybrid approach is when affordable housing development is mandatory in certain circumstances, such as in Chicago, where the policy comes into effect only when development is occurring on city-owned land or with a municipal subsidy. Incentives: what, if any, incentives are provided to developers who build affordable units? Some commonly used incentives include: height and density increases, fast track for development approvals, reduced parking requirements,
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
125 | P a g e
Page 128 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan waiver or reduction of development fees, reduced parking requirements, or subsidies such as tax increment financing (TIF) In-Lieu Concessions: are developers allowed to provide some other concession in lieu of building affordable housing? Developers may prefer to pay a cash amount or provide some land to the municipality rather than actually building and selling affordable buildings. Whether or not this is permitted, and when, is another component of inclusionary policies. The promise of inclusionary zoning is alluring for many reasons. Primarily, it appears to be a simple policy fix to increase the supply of affordable housing: require that 10% of all new developments are affordable, and watch as the supply of affordable housing in an area increases with little effort. However, the reality is not quite so simple. Experiences in the United States In the United States, inclusionary zoning is largely mandatory and is enabled by state legislation, notably in California, Massachusetts and New Jersey. However, this approach is not widely considered to be an effective or efficient way to provide affordable housing, for a number of reasons: It does not create a large volume of affordable housing – usually 3%-7% of new development in inclusionary zones; It is often necessary to provide incentives or compensation even if the policy is mandatory; Incentives are often funded by the state or federal government, making the true cost of the program difficult to ascertain; Direct and indirect costs are often significant; Inclusionary zoning can cause the average house price to rise; The cost of social housing is burdened by homebuyers and landowners, as opposed to some level of government. Arguably, this approach tends to worsen affordability overall. A developer is unlikely to be unwilling to simply make a smaller profit if required to sell some of his units at a lower price. Instead, he will raise the prices on the rest of his units to recoup the losses, leading to an overall housing price inflation. Alternatively, seeing potential profits diminish, fewer developers would be willing to develop, causing a contraction in the number of units being created, which has a similar impact of causing the prices of existing units to rise.
Experiences in Other Canadian Jurisdictions
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
126 | P a g e
Page 129 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Vancouver, British Columbia In Vancouver, a policy was implemented in 1988 to require that 20% of all land in new neighbourhoods (“major projects”) be provided for affordable housing. In this case, the developer must provide land for affordable housing, but not actually build housing. The intent was that once the land was secured, Vancouver would work with senior levels of government to acquire funding to build social housing. In reality, however, there were major changes in senior-level affordable housing programs in 1993 and 2002, which resulted in a lack of funding to build new social housing. The policy was amended to allow developers to provide cash-in-lieu of land, with the funds received allocated to build housing on previously acquired land. Over 21 years, the inclusionary policy has been used to acquire the capacity to develop 2,533 units, of which 1,427 have been built. This limited effectiveness is largely attributed to the model’s dependence on funding derived from senior levels of government. However, a positive aspect of this policy has been the largely successful acquisition of land; siting of social housing developments is often problematic in other jurisdictions. Montreal, Quebec In Montreal, a voluntary, incentive-based policy is in place that encourages a mix of housing in large developments (the focus is on developments of over 200 units). The strategy calls for 30% of all new residential housing be affordable, with 15% social housing and the other 15% either affordable rental or home ownership. Like in Vancouver, the onus is on the developer to provide the land only, though in Montreal developers are given the option to build a “turnkey” development – the municipality outlines the parameters of the project and provides market-rate funding up front, but the developer actually does the building, at which point ownership transfers to the municipality. In Montreal, the inclusionary policy does not come into effect if a developer is not seeking a change in land use designation. If they apply for a change in designation, a negotiation process begins with the planning department, which is done on a case-bycase basis. Due to the specific context in Montreal, the voluntary approach is quite effective due to strong civic engagement. A law states that if a project requires a zoning or land use change, the draft by-law is subject to approval by referendum, unless a majority of eligible voters in a district sign a petition saying that they agree to the change. This empowerment has resulted in some activist groups lobbying developers to provide even more affordable housing – during the first two years in which this policy was in effect, 39% of all new development was affordable, surpassing the city’s goal. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
127 | P a g e
Page 130 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan The program has been quite successful, but the model is unlikely to be replicable in other jurisdictions due to the specific context – the combination of active local housing advocates, political will, strong powers to appeal developments, and a favourable housing market. Edmonton, Alberta The government is considering a by-law wherein the municipality may, at its sole discretion, purchase 5% of the units in all new multifamily residential developments of a certain size at 80% of their market value. Further, if the developer did not intend to sell the units but instead intended to rent them out, the municipality may enter into an agreement with the developer to provide the same number of units at 80% of the average market rate, with the city paying for the difference. In addition, for single detached dwellings, the municipality may require 5% of the value of the proposed development, which will then be used to build affordable housing. Finally, when the developer applies for rezoning that would result in the creation of additional residential units, the municipality may impose a levy equal to 20% of the value of 10% of the additional units allowed. This policy has not yet been implemented, and it is unclear what the impact of this method would be. However, it was proposed that approximately 600 new affordable housing units would be acquired over a three-year period, with the cost being split three ways between cash-in-lieu payments, rent from the future tenants, and provincial funding. Toronto, Ontario In Toronto, which has a policy context that most closely resembles Kingston, there is no specific inclusionary zoning policy. However, the municipality makes use of Section 37 of the Planning Act, which allows for municipalities to provide incentives in the form of additional height and/or density in exchange for providing some community benefit – “facilities, services, or matters.” In Toronto, the community benefits can be additional parkland, childcare facilities, community centres, public art, streetscape improvements, or affordable rental housing. The Section 37 approach to inclusionary zoning has not been particularly effective. If a Section 37 negotiation begins, planners may ask for any of the community benefits, with the majority of the agreements relating to additional parkland. According to Toronto planners, affordable housing only happens through Section 37 if a councillor takes an interest and specifically asks for it, and councillors are generally reluctant to do so, since a park or art would benefit the whole community while affordable housing would only benefit a few households. In a survey of the 413 Section 37 agreements dating back to 1983, only 19% of these agreements secured affordable housing.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
128 | P a g e
Page 131 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Toronto also has a “large sites” policy that applies Section 37 incentives to developments of over 5 hectares. This policy identifies the first priority of community benefit to be the provision of at least 20% of the additional units be affordable rental units. Although this provision has been more successful, it is less frequently applied. Barriers to Implementation and Warnings The primary difficulty in implementing inclusionary zoning policies in Kingston, and in Ontario more broadly, is that such policies are not specifically permitted under the Planning Act. While some municipalities, such as Toronto, have used Section 37 to mimic an inclusionary policy, these policies have not been challenged at the Ontario Municipal Board to date, and it is unclear how the OMB would rule on such a matter. This is somewhat problematic, since planning law in Ontario is comparatively litigious, and having the OMB rule against inclusionary policies in one jurisdiction can effectively prohibit such policies across Ontario. Most municipalities are calling on the Ontario government to explicitly allow inclusionary policies. It is recommended that, if Kingston wishes to pursue an inclusionary policy, the counsel of a planning law expert be obtained. Lessons Learned The main drawbacks of an inclusionary policy relate to: Possible upwards pressure on average housing prices, reducing overall housing affordability; Significant cost to the municipality relating to various types of compensation or incentives for developers; and, Possibility that an inclusionary policy may not result in a significant increase in affordable units. Most evidence suggests that effective inclusionary policies are not seen as the single solution for creating affordable housing. Inclusionary policies should be seen as one type of a variety of tools available for affordable housing provision. In particular, due to the possibility of negative market distortions resulting from inclusionary zoning, the most efficient inclusionary policies require the provision of units on the expensive end of the affordability spectrum; inclusionary zoning is not effective at providing affordable units to those households with very low income. Thus, implementing an inclusionary policy in Kingston would require a solution that addresses all three of these issues. That being said, a report undertaken by the Canadian Policy Research Networks on the feasibility of implementing inclusionary zoning in Toronto found that “provided that it is used to build affordable homeownership units for the shallow subsidy group; it is properly designed in July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
129 | P a g e
Page 132 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan consultation with all relevant stakeholders, especially the development community; affordability is rigorously controlled through price and occupancy restrictions that run with the land; and inclusionary zoning is part of a more comprehensive housing strategy. If all those elements are in place in a supportive political and collaborative environment, then the reality might match up with the promise.” Recommendations In the short term, work to strengthen municipal policies related to height and density bonusing under Section 37 of the Planning Act. Create a by-law to permit the use of height and density bonusing as identified in Section 9.5.25 of the Official Plan. Include in the by-law the recommended number of affordable units required for the target density bonus. It is recommended that 15% of units be affordable in exchange for a 25% density bonus (or equivalent).
In the long term, take advantage of possible future legislative changes that permit more inclusionary zoning. At present, some policies are prohibited, but in the near future, change may be possible. The City and County should lobby the provincial government for more clarity on policies related to inclusionary zoning. Ensure appropriate consultation with the development community on any new inclusionary policy Resources Altus Group Economic Consulting. (2010) The Potential Effects of Inclusionary Zoning in Canada, 2010 Report. Canadian Home Builders’ Association. Cornerstones Inclusionary Affordable Housing. City of Edmonton. Gladki, J. & Pomeroy, S. (2007) Implementing Inclusionary Policy to Facilitate Affordable Housing Development in Ontario. Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association. Mah, J. (2009) Can Inclusionary Zoning Help Address the Shortage of Affordable Housing in Toronto? Canadian Policy Research Network.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
130 | P a g e
Page 133 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Housing Affordability in Rural Areas Geographically, an enormous proportion of the area covered by the Municipal Housing Strategy is rural. These rural areas have distinct housing needs as compared to urban areas of Kingston. Housing Situation in Frontenac The housing situation in Frontenac County has several distinct characteristics: The housing stock is older in Frontenac than Kingston, particularly the rental housing stock, of which more than one third was built before 1946. Partially due to the age of the housing stock, housing in Frontenac is in greater need of repair than in Kingston. Lower-income households in rural areas tend to live in older housing, which often is poorly insulated and therefore has high heating and utility costs. It is more expensive to build housing in rural and remote areas due to lack of infrastructure, small population, and lower demand. Due to the smaller market, fewer units are constructed over time, leading to a contraction in supply of individuals and companies who build housing. The fewer number who remain are comparatively more expensive due to low competition, and must pay higher costs for shipping materials longer distances, and building infrastructure. Far more homes in Frontenac are owner-occupied than in Kingston; in Frontenac, 90.5% of households own their home while only 62% do in Kingston. Housing Tenure in Rural Areas The high proportion of home ownership in Frontenac is both a blessing and a curse. Homeowners tend to have higher or even moderate incomes. In Frontenac, since over 90% of households own their home, it follows that those who live in rental housing must, on average, have low income. For the majority of households who own their homes, the situation is positive, since homeowners, by definition, have more assets than renters, and comparatively, more rural homeowners are mortgage-free than urban homeowners. However, the situation is not as good for the renter households. Due to a comparatively small rental housing market, there is lower demand for new units to be built, and the majority of tenants have low income. Therefore, it is difficult for landlords to earn enough income to be able to reinvest in the rental properties. Over time, this leads to a decline in the rental housing stock, and a widening gap between the wealthier homeowners and the lower income renters. This creates an additional challenge. Most housing policy assumes that if a renter household increases their income, they will be able to afford a higher quality unit and July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
131 | P a g e
Page 134 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan resolve a poor housing situation. However, if the rental housing market is so depressed or constrained that this solution is not possible, the result may be rental households with moderate income who live in inadequate housing due to a lack of options, which could result in emigration to urban areas with better quality housing. Housing For Seniors A growing senior population is a reality in many Canadian rural communities, including Frontenac County. According to recent population projections, it is believed that by 2036, fully 34% of Frontenac’s population will be over the age of 55. The growth of the senior population in rural areas is not isolated to Frontenac County; it is occurring in rural areas across Canada. This trend can be understood to have a number of concurrent causes: Aging in place of the “baby boomer” population. Mature adults who reside in Frontenac at the time of their retirement are unlikely to leave their home community at that time. Returning home of new retirees who grew up in Frontenac. Some former residents of the Townships have moved to a larger city for work. Upon reaching retirement, some are expected to return to their roots. Retiring to the country. A number of urbanites move to a quieter, smaller community after retirement. This is particularly the case for individuals who have a seasonal home and may have the desire to make it their primary residence after they retire. Out-migration of younger adults. As younger adults leave to urban areas to pursue employment opportunities, the relative proportion of seniors within Frontenac increases. Seniors have specific housing needs. Some continue to live in a house they own and have lived in for many years. While socially, this is desirable as the resident lives in an area they are familiar with, from a mobility and maintenance point of view, this can be problematic. Many houses in Frontenac are older, thereby requiring more investment for utilities, and maintenance. In addition, a house that was once suitable to a mobile adult may not be suitable to an older person with trouble getting around. In addition, many seniors may be “over-housed” – continuing to live in a house with more bedrooms than they need after children have moved out, which also contributes to higher utility costs. Other seniors will rent a housing unit, whether this is dedicated housing for seniors or part of the regular rental market. While rental options for seniors are expanding, most of the options tend to be expensive and cater to wealthier seniors. For renter seniors who are less well off, housing affordability is a great challenge since the household’s income is either limited or non-existent. Finding a unit that meets the July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
132 | P a g e
Page 135 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan needs of a senior household while remaining affordable is difficult, particularly in areas where the rental market is small. Finally, seniors often have more health needs than younger adults. As a result, close proximity and access to medical facilities is an important factor to consider related to housing for seniors. However, many seniors do not have access to reliable transportation, due to a variety of reasons including poor eyesight. The closest major hospital is in Kingston, which is over 100 km away from some parts of Frontenac County. Opportunities For Rural Affordable Housing Development Conversions A number of existing buildings in rural areas may be suitable for conversion to affordable housing. For instance, large single-family homes may be divided into multiple units, and disused non-residential property (i.e. schools, hotels, warehouses) can be converted into residential uses. Incentives Sometimes in rural areas, the lack of affordable housing development is due to a lack of incentives. For instance, zoning or other municipal policies may deter potential developers. In other cases, the lack of municipal infrastructure may cause developers to hesitate. A number of municipal incentives can be explored to encourage affordable housing development, including selling municipal land at a very low price, offering to build infrastructure, or expediting the development approval process. Intensification One of the key methods of keeping costs down, particularly in rural areas, is to create dwellings in close proximity to one another. This reduces servicing costs, and, if constructed at the same time, can reduce construction costs due to economies of scale. However, in many rural areas – Frontenac included – intensification is often viewed as undesirable, and there is the perception that allowing intensification will change the character of the community. An important counterpoint to this perception is the reality of “aging in place.” If one were to consider housing across a person’s lifetime, one would recognize the changing needs at different life stages – from a rental unit to a small starter home to a larger family-sized dwelling to a single-story bungalow, for example. In order to encourage residents to remain in their community throughout their lifetime, there should be a diversity of housing types to accommodate all life stages. At present, there are some barriers to intensification within Frontenac County. For instance, zoning is almost exclusively for single-detached homes, and there are strict regulations for septic system provision for multi-unit buildings. However, there are a July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
133 | P a g e
Page 136 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan number of ways that moderate intensification can be pursued in the County without making significant changes: Permitting and promoting secondary suites, accessory apartments, and garden suites Amending zoning provisions to allow two homes to be built on the same lot without requiring subdivision approval Simplify the subdivision approval process to encourage the development of smaller dwellings on smaller lots with higher density Pursue opportunities for shared housing developments Alternative Housing Types An alternate way to increase the amount of affordable housing is to explore alternative housing types, such as mobile homes and manufactured (pre-fabricated) homes. Recent innovations within this sector allow for the proper integration of mobile and manufactured homes within rural communities without difficulty, and these options are often sold at a lower price point than traditional housing. Recommendations In the short term, encourage the development of secondary suites and garden suites within the County of Frontenac. Create policies within the County of Frontenac Official Plan that permit such developments. In the medium term, pursue opportunities as they arise to increase the amount of affordable housing within the County. Seek opportunities to convert underutilized buildings to affordable housing. Investigate the possibility of amending planning and zoning policies to support intensification. Support affordable housing developments such as the Seniors’ Housing Pilot Project. Resources Bruce, D. (2003) Research Report: Housing Needs of Low-Income People Living in Rural Areas. Distinct Housing Needs Series. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Slaunwhite, A. (2009) Under Pressure: Affordable Housing in Rural Ontario. CPRN Research Report. Canadian Policy Research Networks.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
134 | P a g e
Page 137 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendices
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
135 | P a g e
Page 138 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
Consolidated Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendix A: Provincial Requirements This Plan meets all requirements set out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as identified in the Housing Services Act, 2011, as demonstrated in the introduction of this document. The following appendix outlines these requirements, for information purposes only. The Housing Services Act, 2011, requires that: 6. Housing and homelessness plans (1) Each service manager shall have a plan to address housing and homelessness. 2011, c. 6, Sched. 1, s. 6 (1). (2) The plan must include, (a) an assessment of current and future housing needs within the service manager’s service area; (b) objectives and targets relating to housing needs; (c) a description of the measures proposed to meet the objectives and targets; (d) a description of how progress towards meeting the objectives and targets will be measured; and (e) such other matters as may be prescribed. 2011, c. 6, Sched. 1, s. 6 (2). (3) The plan must, (a) address the matters of provincial interest under section 4, including each aspect described in a clause of subsection 4 (1); and (b) be consistent with the policy statements issued under section 5. 2011, c. 6, Sched. 1, s. 6 (3). Section 6. (1) (3) (a) refers to matters of provincial interest under section 4: 4. Provincial interest (1) For the purposes of sections 5 and 6, it is a matter of provincial interest that there be a system of housing and homelessness services that, (a) is focused on achieving positive outcomes for individuals and families; (b) addresses the housing needs of individuals and families in order to help address other challenges they face; (c) has a role for non-profit corporations and non-profit housing co-operatives; (d) has a role for the private market in meeting housing needs; (e) provides for partnerships among governments and others in the community; (f) treats individuals and families with respect and dignity; (g) is co-ordinated with other community services; (h) is relevant to local circumstances; (i) allows for a range of housing options to meet a broad range of needs; (j) ensures appropriate accountability for public funding; (k) supports economic prosperity; and 136 | P a g e
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Page 139 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan (l) is delivered in a manner that promotes environmental sustainability and energy conservation. 2011, c. 6, Sched. 1, s. 4 (1). Section 6. (1) (3) (b) refers to policy statements under section 5: 5. Policy statements to guide plans (1) For the purpose of guiding service managers in the preparation of their housing and homelessness plans, the Minister may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, issue policy statements on matters relating to housing or homelessness that are of provincial interest under section 4. 2011, c. 6, Sched. 1, s. 5 (1). Section 5. (1) references a policy statement. The Ontario Housing Policy Statement states: 1.2 Policy Direction Service Managers will ensure that local housing and homelessness plans: a. Demonstrate a system of coordinated housing and homelessness services to assist families and individuals to move toward a level of self-sufficiency; b. Include services, supported by housing and homelessness research and forecasts, that are designed to improve outcomes for individuals and families; c. are coordinated and integrated with all municipalities in the service area; d. contain strategies to increase awareness of, and improve access to, affordable and safe housing that is linked to supports, homelessness prevention and social programs and services; e. contain strategies to identify and reduce gaps in programs, services and supports and focus on achieving positive outcomes for individuals and families; f. contain local housing policies and short and long-term housing targets; g. provide for public consultation, progress measurement, and reporting. 2.2 Policy Direction Service Managers will ensure that housing and homelessness plans: a. provide measures to prevent homelessness by supporting people to stay in their homes including eviction prevention measures and the provision of supports appropriate to clients’ needs; b. are based on a Housing First philosophy and developed in consultation with a broad range of local stakeholders including those who have experienced homelessness; c. support innovative strategies to address homelessness; d. include the provision of supports prior to and after obtaining housing to facilitate transitioning people from the street and shelters to safe, adequate and stable housing.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
137 | P a g e
Page 140 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 3.2 Policy Direction Service Managers will ensure that their housing and homelessness plans: a. reflect the active engagement of non-profit housing corporations and non-profit housing co-operatives in current and future needs planning; b. include strategies to support non-profit housing corporations and non-profit housing co-operatives in the delivery of affordable housing; c. include strategies to support ongoing access to affordable housing by preserving existing social housing capacity. 4.2 Policy Direction Service Manager housing and homelessness plans will set out a strategy to generate municipal support for an active and vital private ownership and rental market, including second units and garden suites, as a necessary part of the housing continuum including affordable home ownership, where appropriate. 5.2 Policy Direction Service Manager housing and homelessness plans will demonstrate how progress will be made in moving toward integrated human services planning and delivery. 6.2 Policy Direction a. Accessibility. Service Manager housing and homelessness plans will contain an assessment of needs that identifies and sets local requirements for accessible housing and homelessness services for people with disabilities, including those who have mental health needs or illness and/or substance use issues. b. Special Priority Policy. Service Manager housing and homelessness plans will include a strategy setting out how the housing needs for victims of domestic violence will be addressed and managed at the local level, in coordination with other community-based services and supports. c. Aboriginal Peoples Living Off-Reserve. Service Manager housing and homelessness plans will identify and consider the housing needs of Aboriginal Peoples living off-reserve. d. Community Needs. Service Manager housing and homelessness plans reflect the evolving demographics of their community and address the needs of specific local groups. Local groups might include: seniors, youth, women, immigrants, persons released from custody or under community supervision, Crown Wards, and Franco-Ontarians. 7.2 Policy Direction Service Manager housing and homelessness plans will demonstrate a commitment to improve the energy efficiency of existing and future publicly funded housing stock. This includes support for energy conservation and energy efficiency through operating programs, tenant engagement, housing located near transportation choices, and
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
138 | P a g e
Page 141 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan innovative investment decisions such as the installation of renewable energy and low carbon technologies.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
139 | P a g e
Page 142 of 269
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendix B: Costs of Homelessness The following chart describes the average annual costs per homeless person broken down by services used. A similar study in Philadelphia divided the homeless population by level of service usage into five groups, ranging from the top 20% (First Quintile), who were found to account for over 60% of the costs associated with homelessness, to the bottom 20% (Fifth Quintile), who while comprising the same number of individuals experiencing homelessness, accounted for less than 2% of all service use.104 This useful approach demonstrates clearly how the majority of costs associated with homelessness are borne by a small group – those who are chronically homeless. However, large-scale studies show that only about 15.8% of the homeless population is chronically homeless, so the costs of chronic homelessness may be even higher than the costs of the First Quintile on the table below.105 This chart was derived using a similar approach, using values obtained from a number of Canadian sources.106 Table 18: Costs of Homelessness by Quintile of Homeless Population
Service Unit Days in shelter ($51.65) Street outreach ($20.00) Case management
First Quintile 82.20 days $4,245.57 7.59 uses $151.74 19.48 claims
Second Quintile 25.98 days $1,341.85 5.96 uses $119.11 3.97 claims
Third Quintile 11.21 days $578.99 4.60 uses $92.01 0.42 claims
Fourth Quintile
Fifth Quintile
4.45 days $229.84 3.72 uses $74.31 0.08 claims
1.21 days $62.50 2.55 uses $51.00 0.00 claims
Overall Average 24.96 days $1,289.16 4.88 uses $97.63 4.79 uses
Poulin, S., Maguire, M., Metraux, S., &Culhane, D. (2010).Service use and costs for persons experiencing chronic homelessness in Philadelphia: a population- based study. Psychiatric Serivces, 61(11). 105 Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2012) The 2012 Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness: Volume 1 of the 2012 Annual Homeless Assessment Report. 106 Data obtained from: City of Kingston; Frontenac Paramedic Services; Kingston General Hospital; Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2012) At Home/Chez Soi Interim Report; Ku, B. S., Scott, K. C., Kertesz, S. G., & Pitts, S. R. (2010) Factors Associated with Use of Urban Emergency Departments by the U.S. Homeless Population. Public Health Reports, 125(3); Calgary Homeless Foundation. (2008) Report on the Cost of Homelessness in Calgary.
July 23, 2013
140 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 143 of 269
104
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Service Unit claims($24.00) Land Ambulance ($387.00) Emergency Room Visit($360.30) Hospitalization ($1054.88) Detox ($256.93)
Second Quintile
Third Quintile
Fourth Quintile
Fifth Quintile
Overall Average
$467.63 3.11 rides $1,201.78 8.70 visits $3,134.05 7.80 days $8,226.71 6.60 days $1,695.43 4.73 uses $2,248.92 18.09 days $12,542.10
$95.29 1.09 rides $423.10 3.06 visits $1,103.37 2.75 days $2,896.28 2.32 days $596.89 1.79 uses $851.08 3.83 days $2,654.79
$9.97 0.58 rides $223.37 1.62 visits $582.51 1.45 days $1,529.05 1.23 days $315.12 0.71 uses $338.03 0.80 days $551.69
$1.91 0.31 rides $119.40 0.86 visits $311.37 0.77 days $817.32 0.66 days $168.44 0.31 uses $146.92 0.25 days $173.80
$0.00 0.09 rides $35.66 0.26 visits $92.99 0.23 days $244.10 0.20 days $50.31 0.11 uses $52.19 0.05 days $31.89
$114.87 1.04 rides $400.66 2.90 visits $1,044.86 2.60 days $2,742.69 2.20 days $565.24 1.53 uses $727.11 4.60 days $3,188.94
21.63 days $17,217.90
4.58 days $3,644.52
0.95 days $757.36
0.30 days $238.59
0.06 days $43.78
5.50 days $4,377.80
11.37 uses $1,044.61
1.24 uses $114.26
0.32 uses $29.13
0.06 uses $5.73
0.01 uses $1.31
2.60 uses $238.79
26.40 days $1,891.83
9.29 days $666.03
4.91 days $351.62
2.62 days $187.95
0.78 days $56.13
8.80 days $630.71
18.03 visits $1,081.99
6.12 visits $367.36
3.14 visits $188.33
1.37 visits $82.05
0.13 visits $7.64
5.76 visits $345.33
July 23, 2013
141 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 144 of 269
Psychiatric crisis response ($475.00) Psychiatric inpatient days in general hospital ($693.25) Psychiatric inpatient days in psychiatric hospital($795.96) Mental health outpatient consults($91.84) Addictions treatment inpatient days ($71.67) Addictions treatment outpatient visits($60.00)
First Quintile
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Service Unit Community policing arrests ($84.00) Police detention ($261.39) Provincial or federal prison ($108.72) Total annual costs per person Total Annual Cost, Low Estimate (300) Total Annual Cost, Medium Estimate (653) Total Annual Cost, High Estimate (1000)
First Quintile
Second Quintile
Third Quintile
Fourth Quintile
Fifth Quintile
Overall Average
15.11 arrests $1,269.33
5.33 arrests $447.55
2.81 arrests $236.28
1.50 arrests $126.30
0.00 arrests $0.00
5.05 arrests $423.82
3.77 days $984.20 43.79 days $4,761.14
1.26 days $328.64 15.42 days $1,676.20
0.37 days $97.61 8.14 days $884.93
0.10 days $25.45 4.35 days $473.02
0.01 days $2.59 1.30 days $141.27
1.10 days $287.52 14.60 days $1,587.31
$62,164.92
$17,326.34
$6,766.00
$3,182.39
$873.36
$18,062.46
$3,729,895.00
$1,039,580.21
$405,960.05
$190,943.12
$52,401.63
$5,418,780.02
$8,118,738.13
$2,262,819.59
$883,639.71
$415,619.53
$114,060.88
$11,794,877.84
$12,432,983.35
$3,465,267.37
$1,353,200.17
$636,477.07
$174,672.10
$18,062,600.06
142 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 145 of 269
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendix C: Funding and Service Model As of January 1, 2013, all Service Managers in Ontario are granted the ability to allocate funding as per formulae set out in the 10Year Homelessness Plan. Thus, a coherent investment framework is required. This appendix provides suggestions on how funding may be allocated, but is subject to changing local needs. In this section on funding are suggestions for considerations, not absolutes in how the City must allocate funds. To guide future funding allocations, this Plan has identified four Strategic Areas of Investment. This ensures a coherent and defensible approach to accounting for municipal investment and the results of that investment. It improves roll-up of data over time relative to the sectors of service.
143 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 146 of 269
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Homeless Prevention Entry into homelessness must be the last possible option for a household that has lost or is about to lose their housing.
Connecting to Long-Term Assistance Connecting homeless households to short-term housing, with the aim of ultimately connecting them to permanent housing.
Four Strategic Areas of Involvement Housing Supports
Program Supports
Connecting homeless households to permanent housing using a variety of strategic approaches.
In addition to housing supports, some individuals will benefit from more intensive or alternate supports.
July 23, 2013
144 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 147 of 269
When Strategic Areas of Investment are well defined, it becomes clearer about where funds will be allocated. Each Strategic Area of Investment will be allocated a percentage of the total funding allotment and this will reflect the priorities identified in the Plan.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
For years one through four, the recommended funding allocation is identified on the table below. It is expected that the allocations be revisited for years five through ten. Over time, the Connecting to Long-Term Assistance Strategic Area of Investment should be reduced and, concurrently, the Housing Supports Strategic Area of Investment would be increased. Table 19: Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Involvement
Strategic Area of Involvement Homelessness Prevention Connecting to Long-Term Assistance Housing Supports Program Supports Total
Funding Allocation 15% 35% 40% 10% 100%
Each of the Strategic Areas of Investment can be further divided into Sectors of Service, all centred around the goal of ending homelessness. The following illustration provides an overview of the Sectors of Service:
145 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 148 of 269
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Shelters Discharge Planning and Coordination
Outreach Support, Triage, & Assessment
Supports to Assist Other Activities
Prevention
Ending Homelessness Rapid ReHousing
Drop-Ins and Warming Centres
PSH Congregate Supported
Scattered-site ICM
Scattered-site ACT
PSH Congregate Supportive
July 23, 2013
146 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 149 of 269
The intent of the investment in each sector of service improves aggregation of data that directly relates to the investment and clarifies the problem that each type of service attempts to solve. Then, the service delivery models can be determined for each sector accompanied by a description of the intended outcomes and the performance indicators.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Within the funding allotment for each Strategic Area of Investment, funds are allocated to each Sector of Service based on identified needs of clients and success of past programs. Below are colour-coded tables that correspond to each Strategic Area of Investment and the Sectors of Service that can be considered:
Table 20: Sectors of Service within Homelessness Prevention
Homelessness Prevention 15% of available funding Problem Statement
Service Delivery Model Intended Outcomes Indicators
Prevention Entry into homelessness must be the last possible option for a household that is about to lose or has lost their housing. Varied Reduction in first time homelessness Project specific
Discharge Planning and Coordination Kingston must work to prevent homelessness by ensuring that people in the care of hospitals, psychiatric facilities, correctional facilities, and children’s services are not being discharged into homelessness. Varied Reduction in first time homelessness Project specific
Table 21: Sectors of Service within Connecting to Long-Term Assistance
Connecting to Long-Term Assistance 35% of available funding Outreach, Triage, Assessment, & Diversion*
Shelters
*Recognition that there are multiple opportunities throughout the housing process to perform these functions.
Problem Statement
In infrequent emergency situations, some individuals and families require short-term accommodation and assistance in meeting basic needs until they can move into permanent housing. Overnight accommodation at a minimum Provision of one or more meals Access to basic needs Referral to housing and other community based resources
July 23, 2013
147 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 150 of 269
Service Delivery Model(s)
Some homeless people do not actively seek service or are poorly served by existing services such that their homelessness has not ended, and require deliberate engagement and support structure to focus on permanent housing. Defined outreach area or targeted in-reach area Prioritization of people with most acute needs and/or longest term homeless Intense engagement on a limited basis rather than casual engagement with large numbers of people
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Connecting to Long-Term Assistance 35% of available funding Intended Outcomes Indicators
Connect to long-term housing solutions Diversion
of people connected
% of connections housed % returning to outreach services
Connect to long-term housing solutions Diversion
of people served
Length of stay Positive destinations
and % of people returning
Table 22: Sectors of Service within Housing Supports
Housing Supports 40% of available funding
Problem Statement
Service Delivery Model
Scattered Site Intensive Case Management (ICM)
Individuals with moderately acute needs require case management supports to assist with housing and life stability, otherwise will cycle in and out of homelessness
Some individuals with higher acuity benefit from integration into existing buildings and neighbourhoods with an ICM care structure in order to maintain housing.
Each case manager has his or her own caseload Moderate level acuity results in focused attention on 2-3 primary issues Case management supports usually for 6 months
Each case manager has their own case load Broker and advocate for access to other community resources Care structure supports individuals with higher acuity Approximately 1:20 ratio
Scattered Site Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Some individuals with higher acuity benefit from integration into existing buildings and neighbourhoods with ACT to assist in meeting complex, and often co-occurring health and mental health issues in order to maintain housing. ACT Team Approximately 1:10 ratio Disciplines on same team Operate in team based approach to care Address complex health, mental health and addiction issues in addition to housing
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Congregate Supportive Without 24 hour staffing in a location with other tenants with comparable complex and co-occurring issues, some individuals are unable to maintain housing.
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Congregate Supported Without staffing on-site for 8 or more hours per day in a location with other tenants with comparable complicated issues, some individuals are unable to maintain housing.
On site staffing 24 hours per day Range of disciplines amongst staff team Case management within residential environment Combination of in-service and referral based external supports Size of building dictates
Daily residential contact and tenant support as required Most often on site staff facilitate access to external resources for tenants
July 23, 2013
148 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 151 of 269
Rapid Re-Housing
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Housing Supports 40% of available funding Intended Outcomes
Decreased acuity Improved quality of life 85% remain housed throughout duration of support
Decreased acuity Improved quality of life 80% remain housed throughout duration of support Most but not all are expected to graduate
Decreased acuity Improved quality of life 80% remain housed throughout duration of support Improved health and wellness
Indicators
of people housed
% that remain housed at 6 months
and % of unsuccessful
and unknown exits
of people housed
% that remain housed
and % of unsuccessful
and unknown exits
of people housed
% that remain housed
and % of unsuccessful
and unknown exits
staffing model Decreased acuity Improved quality of life 80% remain housed throughout duration of support
Decreased acuity Improved quality of life 80% remain housed throughout duration of support
of people housed
% that remain housed
and % of unsuccessful
and unknown exits
of people housed
% that remain housed
and % of unsuccessful
and unknown exits
Table 23: Sectors of Service within Program Supports
Program Supports 10% of available funding Problem Statement
Service Delivery Model
Project specific Improved housing stability
Warming and Drop-In Centres During certain hours of the day, if emergency shelters are not open 24 hours, additional locations may be necessary to provide homeless persons an opportunity to meet some basic needs and get out of the elements. Client engagement Basic needs Decreased demand People kept alive
July 23, 2013
149 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 152 of 269
Indicators Intended Outcomes
Supports to Assist Other Activities In addition to housing supports, some individuals will benefit from more intensive or alternate supports (e.g., medical consult, access to an Elder), and/or specialized services to help create a home environment (e.g., access to social purpose enterprise, furniture bank, etc.) Varied
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Allocations of Municipally Controlled Funds The following section describes the current funding allocations for municipally controlled funds, including provincial money allocated through the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) and municipal money set towards homelessness programs. The following budgets do not include funds related to the Discretionary Residency Benefit Program (DRB). In the following tables, the budget for the DRB program has been omitted. For a discussion about the recommendations related to the DRB program, see Appendix D: Discretionary Residency Benefit Program. It is important to note that the items outlined below are not the only programs working towards ending homelessness within the Kingston-Frontenac region, nor are these the only sources of funding available to agencies in the sector. For instance, the United Way is a major source of funding for many organizations working to end homelessness. Federal/Provincial funding is available through the Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) program and the Federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS). There are a number of other initiatives and funding sources, as well. While the following section only relates to municipally controlled dollars, further on in this Implementation Compendium, there is an outline of opportunities for other funding bodies to align their allocations with the directions set out in the Plan and in this Compendium. 2013 Existing Programs and Funding Allocations
As identified on the graph below, the current allocation of funds is not compatible with the recommended levels of funding per Strategic Areas of Investment.
July 23, 2013
150 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 153 of 269
The 2013 funding allocations are very similar to 2012 funding levels. The funding model for 2013 should be understood as an interim funding model while a long-term strategy was in development. Many programs in 2013 receive funding at or near historical levels. For instance, despite the discontinuation of the “per diem” funding model for emergency shelters, the level of funding to each shelter in 2013 remains the same or similar as 2012.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Graph 5: 2013 Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Investment
2013 Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Investment Housing Supports (should be over 40%) 10% Program Supports (should be under 10%) 39% Connecting to Long-Term Supports (should be under 35%) 36%
Homelessness Prevention (should be 10% to 15%) 15%
Table 24: 2013 Funding Allocations
Funding Allocation $239,597.00 $107,074.00 $670,785.00 $492,583.00
Emergency Shelters
$869,999.99
Notes Rent banks, RDAP, financial assistance Eviction prevention workers operating out of Home Base Housing Drop-in centers and daytime shelter funding Supports offered by Elizabeth Fry, John Howard Society, and Home Base Housing All shelter-related funding not including day operations
July 23, 2013
151 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 154 of 269
Program Area Banks Eviction Prevention Drop-ins Support Services
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Program Area Permanent Supportive Housing Total
Funding Allocation $244,279.00
Notes Joseph Street housing operated by Home Base Housing, Russell Street housing operated by Elizabeth Fry Society, and Fresh Start operated by Home Base Housing.
$2,624,317.99
Not included in the above total is funding related to the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB), which accounts for another $2.77 million annually, inclusive of the new Municipal Discretionary Residency Benefit program and the OW Discretionary Benefits funding. For recommendations related to this program, see page 165. Homelessness Plan Implementation Reserve When the transition to the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) was announced and it was revealed that less provincial funding was going to be available, the City of Kingston authorized the expenditure of additional funds in 2013 to maintain services at comparable levels as 2012 until such time as a homelessness plan was in place. Then, in December 2012, the Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) announced that it would be providing the Service Manager with a one-time grant of $1,113,000 to assist with the changes in funding methodology and the implementation of CHPI. A decision was made to spend the majority of the MCSS grant money on budget items for which the City had previously authorized municipal funds. This decision allowed the municipal funds to be freed up for other purposes relating to homelessness. After the receipt of the MCSS funds, $555,479 in municipal funds was used to create a new Homelessness Plan Implementation Reserve. This Implementation Compendium provides recommendations about how this reserve should be used in 2014 and 2015.
From 2014 onwards, funding allocations will be directed into five primary programming areas. These Program Areas will be:
- Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing (Housing Supports)
July 23, 2013
152 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 155 of 269
Recommended Funding Allocations, Years One Through Four
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Diversion & Brief Intervention (Homelessness Prevention) Outreach & Engagement (Connecting to Long-Term Supports) Emergency Shelters (Connecting to Long-Term Supports) Permanent Supportive Housing (Housing Supports)
Before specific recommendations are presented, it is important to discuss these Program Areas further. Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing is a Program Area that works towards the goal of assisting currently homeless households with the highest acuity and the most complex needs connect with housing. This can be seen as a continuation of the Housing Help Centre as well as other day funding for shelters but with a major shift in orientation. The funding allocated in this Program area includes costs to keep shelters open during the day and salaries as well as the training of employees. The staff includes an Intensive Case Management team and/or an Assertive Community Treatment team. There are several ways that a Housing First/Rapid Re-Housing program could work in Kingston-Frontenac. A simple approach is to have one agency responsible for managing the program that would include the training of workers, and then “stationing” employees at each of the shelters in Kingston. Alternatively, multiple agencies could operate programs independently from each other. Diversion & Brief Intervention is a Program Area that works towards the goal of preventing homelessness, especially first-time homelessness. This could be seen as a continuation of the following programs: eviction prevention workers, rent banks, utility banks, RDAP, and financial assistance programs. However, existing programs will need to be reoriented to align with the philosophies and directions set out in the Plan. While some existing programs could be modified, others may need to be discontinued and replaced by new programs. The funding allocated in this Program Area includes salaries for employees and training as well as financial assistance that can be allocated according to program mandates. Diversion & Brief Intervention employees will primarily be located within shelters
July 23, 2013
153 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 156 of 269
Outreach & Engagement is a Program Area that works towards engaging persons with the service delivery system, such as chronically homeless individuals who are not currently engaged in ending their homelessness. This Program Area also helps connect persons about to be discharged from institutions (i.e. prison, hospital, foster care) who are at risk of homelessness to ensure that they are connected with appropriate services. The funding allocated to this Program Area includes salaries for employees, training and programming costs.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Emergency Shelters can be seen as a continuation of existing funding that allows emergency shelters to operate. The funding allocated to this Program Area includes funding to keep shelters open 24 hours per day (with minimal staffing during the daytime), provide dinner and breakfast and salaries for staff. Permanent Supportive Housing refers to the provision of housing for formerly homeless individuals, particularly those with higher needs. Through this Program Area, funds will be used primarily to acquire and maintain a stock of housing for PSH. Year One Recommended Programs and Funding Allocations It is recommended that year one be seen as a transitional year for service agencies. Initially, existing contracts will be renewed while agencies work with the Service Manager to adapt to the Plan, take on new roles, and pursue professional development activities. During early 2014, there will be a transition from current contracts to new contracts that reflect the principles outlined in the Plan. This transition will occur somewhere around quarter 2 or 3 of 2014. The main changes in funding in year one come from reallocating funds from drop-in centres, shelter daytime funding, eviction prevention programs, and rent banks. These existing funds are re-profiled to clarify the goal of the funding. Some funds, including those previously allocated to eviction prevention and rent banks, are reallocated to Diversion & Brief Intervention, which focuses on clients with low needs who do not need to access the homeless delivery system (Diversion) or who need low levels of assistance (Brief Intervention). Overall, new programs will need to be developed to incorporate principles outlined in the Plan as well as best, promising and emerging practices. By the end of year one, infrastructure to deliver Diversion & Brief Intervention programming is in place.
July 23, 2013
154 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 157 of 269
A new program will be implemented in year one: Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing. This funding will be used, in part, to hire staff to work as case managers. These staff will primarily work at shelters but need not be employed by the shelter at which they work. Instead, they will be employed by Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing programs.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
As illustrated on the graph below, the recommended levels of funding are much closer to the general recommendations outlined in the Strategic Areas of Investment. Graph 6: Year One Recommended Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Investment
Year One Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Investment Program Supports 9% Housing Supports 37%
Connecting to Long-Term Supports 40% Homelessness Prevention 14%
July 23, 2013
155 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 158 of 269
It is anticipated that new service contracts and the implementation of this Plan will not occur until sometime midway through the fiscal year. Thus, both absolute amounts (based on a full fiscal year) and proportions of the total are provided. If, for instance, 75% of the funding remains when the Plan is implemented, then each of the budget items should be allocated an amount based on the new total.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Table 25: Year One Recommended Funding Allocations by Program Area
Program Area Housing First & Rapid ReHousing
Diversion & Brief Intervention
Outreach & Engagement
Youth Net
July 23, 2013
156 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 159 of 269
Emergency Shelters
Funding Allocation Notes $850,000.00 Funding allows for at least (6.5) Housing First and Rapid Re-housing or professionals for shelter services, recommended to be broken down as 29.0% of total follows: (1) Kingston Youth Shelter; (1) Kingston Harbour Light; (2) In from the Cold; (2) to be shared across Family Shelters. Additional funding to be used to provide shorter term rental assistance to chronic homeless persons moving into housing, moving costs, etc. Establishing the infrastructure for the Housing First and Rapid Re-housing program (including additional professional development) is funded through the $555k in transition funding. $400,000.00 Re-profiles both of the existing Eviction Prevention workers, plus adds or more staff to assist with coordinated access and assessment on a 13.7% of total community-wide basis. Changes the nature of existing prevention activities. Becomes more integrated with promising practices and emerging practices on financial assistance. Takes a small portion of assistance previously available in the form of Rent Bank to assist those individuals and households that most clearly resemble the existing chronically homeless population. $230,000.00 Re-profiles existing Elizabeth Fry and John Howard programs as Outreach or and Engagement with the populations they are serving. 7.9% of total $264,210.00 Same as 2013 or 9.0% of total $935,000.00 $90,000 increase in shelter funding over 2013. Reflects operating cost or pressures, plus daytime operating costs with skeleton staff for those 32.0% of total shelters that did not already receive daytime funding.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Program Area Permanent Supportive Housing Total
Funding Allocation $246,000.00 Same as 2013 or 8.4% of total $2,925,210.00 $2,600,318.00 annual budget Based on full fiscal year $324,892.00 reserve funds
Notes
Year Two Recommended Programs and Funding Allocations In year two, The City will no longer fund at least one shelter. This will result in the reduction of funding allocated to emergency shelters and a corresponding increase in funding to Outreach & Engagement, Interim Housing, and Housing First & Rapid ReHousing. The shelter facility which is no longer being funded could be utilized for this purpose. This change is reflected in the graph below and shows an increase of funding towards Housing Supports as well as a decrease in funding allotted to Connecting to Long-Term Supports—this trend should be encouraged.
157 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 160 of 269
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Graph 7: Year Two Recommended Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Investment
Year Two Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Investment Program Supports 9% Housing Supports 39% Connecting to Long-Term Supports 37% Homelessness Prevention 15% Table 26: Year Two Recommended Funding Allocations by Program Area
Funding Allocation $850,000.00 Same as year one
Notes
$425,000.00 The infrastructure of diversion and brief interventions will be in place throughout year one. In year two, there is a slight increase in the overall funding to this area, allowing for a more robust mobile coordinated access and common assessment approach, including more assistance with brief interventions in shelter environments.
July 23, 2013
158 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 161 of 269
Program Area Housing First & Rapid ReHousing Diversion & Brief Intervention
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Program Area Outreach & Engagement Youth Net Emergency Shelters Permanent Supportive Housing Total
Funding Allocation $230,000.00 $264,210.00 $815,000.00 $246,000.00
Notes Same as year one Same as year one Decreases shelter funding based on the anticipated closure of one shelter. Same as year one
$2,830,210.00 $2,600,623.00 annual budget $229,587.00 reserve funds
Year Three Recommended Programs and Funding Allocations In year three, there will be a decrease in shelter funding to reflect decreasing demand for shelter beds. To achieve this, it is likely that a second shelter will need to be closed as opposed to decreasing funding across the shelter system by 20%. There will also be a reduction in funding for Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing, which will reflect a stabilization of the program (as opposed to an expansion of the program as seen in year one and year two). By year three, the new homeless service delivery system will have all of the appropriate infrastructure—staff, programs, and housing—to trend towards a reduction of homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac. It is recommended that this year’s budget be used as a baseline for future funding allocations. In the future, any additional funds should be primarily directed towards Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing, and to a lesser extent, expanding the Outreach & Engagement, PSH, and/or Diversion & Brief Intervention programs, depending on emerging trends and pressing issues. The recommended funding allocations for year four reflect such a modification.
July 23, 2013
159 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 162 of 269
By year three, the graph showing funding allocations by Strategic Area of Investment resembles the recommended general levels with 40% dedicated to Housing Supports, 10% dedicated to Program Supports, close to 15% dedicated to homelessness prevention and close to 35% dedicated to Connecting to Long-Term Supports.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Graph 8: Year Three Recommended Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Investment
Year Three Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Investment Program Supports 10% Housing Supports 40%
Connecting to Long-Term Supports 34% Homelessness Prevention 16% Table 27: Year Three Recommended Funding Allocations by Program Area
Program Area Housing First & Rapid ReHousing
$230,000.00 Remains the same as year two.
July 23, 2013
160 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 163 of 269
Diversion & Brief Intervention Outreach & Engagement
Funding Allocation Notes $788,000.00 The reduced allocation to this line is not a reduction in staffing. In fact, staffing may increase by this point. The reduction in funding accounts for the infrastructure investment in this sector being in place. $425,000.00 Remains the same as year two.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Program Area Youth Net
Emergency Shelters Permanent Supportive Housing Total
Funding Allocation $264,210.00 Remains the same as year two.
Notes
$647,000.00 Represents a 20% decrease in funding to shelters, representing at least a 20% decrease in demand, but also appreciating fixed operating costs. $246,000.00 Remains the same as year two. $2,600,210.00
Year Four Recommended Programs and Funding Allocations As previously indicated, year three should be seen as a baseline for future funding allocations. In year four (and onwards), it is expected that there will be continued reduction in demand for shelter beds and, therefore, a corresponding reduction in funding for emergency shelters. All additional funds (such as the reinvestment of shelter dollars) should be re-allocated as per the following formula: 50% of available funds directed towards Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing The other 50% is allocated towards Diversion & Brief Intervention, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Outreach & Engagement, depending on emerging issues at the time. The graph below suggests a future direction for funding allocation by Strategic Area of Investment: increasing proportions towards Housing Supports, and decreasing proportions towards Connecting to Long-Term Supports.
161 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 164 of 269
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Graph 9: Year Four Recommended Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Investment
Year Four Funding Allocations by Strategic Area of Investment Program Supports 10%
Housing Supports 41% Connecting to Long-Term Supports 33% Homelessness Prevention 16%
Table 28: Year Four Recommended Funding Allocations by Program Area
Funding Allocation Notes $800,000.00 Slight increase over year three as a result of reinvestment of shelter dollars. $430,000.00 Slight increase over year three as a result of reinvestment of shelter dollars. $237,500.00 Slight increase over year three as a result of reinvestment of shelter dollars.
July 23, 2013
162 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 165 of 269
Program Area Housing First & Rapid ReHousing Diversion & Brief Intervention Outreach & Engagement
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Program Area Youth Net
Emergency Shelters Permanent Supportive Housing Total
Funding Allocation Notes $264,210.00 Remains the same as year three.
$613,400.00 Represents a further 5% decrease in shelter expenditures over year three as a result of housing efforts. $255,500.00 Slight increase over year three as a result of reinvestment of shelter dollars. $2,600,610.00
Allocation of Additional Funds The recommended funding allocations for year one assume that the amount of money available for homeless services in Kingston and Frontenac is fixed. This assumption was made to ensure the feasibility of the implementation of the plan. However, in the future, more money may be allocated towards ending homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac. Instead of providing a global increase to all funded programs, it is recommended that the Service Provider prioritize programs and allocate the new funds according to the following formula: 50% of any additional funding should go towards Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing. The second priority should be towards increasing the supply of Permanent Supportive Housing. Any remaining funds should be used to bolster existing funding for Outreach & Engagement and Diversion & Brief Intervention based on local needs at the time.
July 23, 2013
163 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 166 of 269
Some additional funding may be provided by other agencies such as the United Way. Agencies that provide funding but are not controlled by the municipality are encouraged to participate in the implementation of the plan. When an agency extends an offer to contribute to ending homelessness in Kingston, the agency should be encouraged to follow the same formula as identified above:
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
50% for Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing, then funding for Permanent Supportive Housing, followed by Outreach & Engagement and Diversion & Brief Intervention. Often, additional funding that becomes available has specific requirements. For instance, some funding may only be used for capital projects, while other funds may be one-time only, while still other funding may be used specifically to serve certain sub-populations only. In these situations, it is wise for the Service Manager to view these additional funds from a systemic, rather than piece-meal approach. The following question should be kept in the forefront of the decision-making process: how can these additional funds be used to further the homeless service delivery system as a whole? If additional funds become available that are tied to a program area that is already well funded, it may be prudent for the Service Manager to divert some existing funding out of that program area. For instance, if the Service Manager has planned to allocate $2,000 of CHPI funds to the training of outreach workers, and then later receives additional funding that must be spent on training; the Service Manager could shift the $2,000 from CHPI funds away from the Outreach & Engagement program area and into a different program area, such as Permanent Supportive Housing or Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing.
164 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 167 of 269
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Summary of Year-by-Year Funding Allocations
Program Area Drop-In Centres & Day Shelters Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing Rent & Utility Banks Eviction Prevention Diversion & Brief Intervention Support Services Outreach & Engagement Youth Net Emergency Shelters Permanent Supportive Housing Annual Budget Transition Funds Total
Year One
Year Two
Year Three
Year Four
!
$850,000.00
$850,000.00
$788,000.00
$800,000.00
$239,597.00 ✖ $107,074.00 ✖ !
$400,000.00
$425,000.00
$425,000.00
$430,000.00
$228,373.00 ✖ !
$230,000.00
$230,000.00
$230,000.00
$237,500.00
$264,210.00 $869,999.99 $244,279.00
$264,210.00 $935,000.00 $246,000.00
$264,210.00 $815,000.00 $246,000.00
$264,210.00 $647,000.00 $246,000.00
$264,210.00 $613,400.00 $255,500.00
$2,624,317.99
$2,600,318.00 $324,892.00 $2,925,210.00
$2,600,623.00 $229,587.00 $2,830,210.00
$2,600,210.00
$2,600,610.00
$2,600,210.00
$2,600,610.00
$2,624,317.99
Program discontinued Program commenced
Funding increase Funding decrease
Funding remains constant
July 23, 2013
165 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 168 of 269
Key: ✖ !
2013 $670,785.00 ✖
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Graph 10: Year-by-Year Funding by Strategic Area of Investment
Year-by-Year Funding by Strategic Area of Investment 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Desirable
2013
2014
2015
2016
Program Supports
Homelessness Prevention
Connecting to Long-Term Supports
July 23, 2013
Housing Supports
166 | P a g e
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 169 of 269
2017
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendix D: Discretionary Residency Benefit Program The Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) is a program that has been operating in Ontario since 2004. Prior to that, CSUMB had been in place since 1993. In January 2013, CSUMB ceased to exist, with 50% of its funding transferred from the Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). The Service Manager opted to create a new program in January 2013 entitled the Discretionary Residency Benefit (DRB). Under CSUMB, $2.084 million in provincial funding was available annually and served 8,800 clients. Under the new DRB, only $960,000 of the previous two million is available from the province. In Kingston & Frontenac, a decision was made to supplement the provincial funds by an increase in municipal dollars, restoring the funding level to 70% of previous levels. The available funding to individual applicants was reduced as a result. The following table compares the former CSUMB program with the Discretionary Residency Benefit program currently available to eligible Ontario Works and ODSP clients in Kingston & Frontenac: Table 29: Changes to Residency Benefits
Singles Singles and Couples Families including Couples, Sole Supports with at least one child or Couples with at least one child Families including Sole Support parents with at least one child or Couples with at least one child
CSUMB $799 / 24 months
DRB $500 / 36 months
$1500 / 24 months
$1000 / 36 months
It is recommended that the Discretionary Residency Benefit program be reworked. The discontinuation of CSUMB does mean that fewer dollars are available, but it also grants municipalities unprecedented freedom to allocate those dollars according to local priorities. Most importantly, CSUMB funding was a mandatory benefit available to all who met the criteria. It also had no upper limit on the number of clients who could access the benefit and, therefore, no upper limit on the amount of provincial funding available. Now that there is a smaller pot of funding available but fewer provincial restrictions on how it can July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
167 | P a g e
Page 170 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan be allocated—as long as the funding is used towards the purpose of ending homelessness—this change can be seen as an opportunity for the Service Manager. Adhering to the principles and strategies identified in the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac, it is recommended that a clean break be made from the discontinued CSUMB program. A new program can be implemented with a portion of the funding previously allocated to CSUMB that also provides applicants with financial assistance. Since the implementation of the DRB in January 2013, the Service Manager has identified that changes are required to the program and has implemented some changes. A recommended program would have the following features. Narrow definition of household eligibility. An explicit definition of eligibility criteria will help reduce subjectivity and help ensure that those who need the funding the most are able to receive assistance. For instance, consider prioritizing access for those who are currently homeless, those who are being discharged from an institution, victims of family violence, and those living in premises certified as unsafe or uninhabitable.107 Prioritized expenditures. Priority should be placed on providing households with last month’s rent, followed closely by first month’s rent and a damage deposit. Emphasis should be placed on essential expenses that directly assist households to access housing. More assistance available to households in greatest need. Households at the highest risk of homelessness are likely to experience intermittent periods of housing instability. Rather than allow these households to become homeless, or prolong their episode of homelessness, due to an arbitrary limit on the length of time that must pass between accessing funds, establish a “soft” limit of one access per year but—and this is where good judgement plays a role— allow for exceptions in exceptional situations, especially when there are no other sources of funding available. The purpose of this program would be more narrowly defined than its predecessors. The program would have two main goals: 1) to directly assist households currently experiencing homelessness to access financial aid to obtain housing, and, 2) to prevent highest-risk households from becoming homeless. Because of its specific purpose and narrow definitions of eligibility, this new program would serve a significantly smaller number of clients than CSUMB served but the new program will provide more meaningful assistance.
107
For a sample tool to determine eligibility, reference Eligibility Criteria and Rating Tool for Hennepin County Family Homelessness Prevention, available at http://www.endhomelessness.org/page//files/3919_file_hennepin_prevention_screening_tool.pdf
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
168 | P a g e
Page 171 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan There are three options related to funding levels of the new program: Option 1: Maintain current levels Option 2: Reduce municipal contribution
Option 3: Re-invest towards Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing
Maintain the 2013 level of funding for the new program. The funding model assumes this option is selected. Due to the reduction in funding from the provincial government, the municipality is currently contributing approximately $600,000 annually to maintain services at 70% of 2012 levels. However, with stricter eligibility requirements, the budget for this program could be cut by up to 25%, with the savings reducing the municipal contribution to the program. With stricter eligibility requirements, the budget for this program could be cut by up to 25%, with the savings being re-allocated towards Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing programs.
This approach supports the following principles and strategies identified in the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac: 1.9 Implement common intake and assessment protocols and practices. 2.5 Place a strong emphasis on diversion from emergency resources. 2.6 Develop and adopt a tool to identify which individuals and families are eligible for targeted homelessness prevention assistance. 4.2 Prioritize access to available housing for those with the deepest and most chronic needs first.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
169 | P a g e
Page 172 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendix E: Local Ontario Works Pay Direct Policy Since 2001, Kingston has offered a service entitled the Local Ontario Works Direct Pay Policy (Direct Pay), which allows for Ontario Works recipients to voluntarily deduct the shelter portion of their Ontario Works benefit and have that portion paid directly to their landlord. A similar service is also offered with Utilities Kingston. When the service was first implemented, it was limited to OW recipients living in social housing. In 2004, the policy was revisited, and expanded to include OW recipients living in private market apartments to a maximum pay direct amount equal to the maximum OW Shelter allowance. The rationale for this change was the following: Reduction in arrears. Though it is unknown how much was the result of the new pay direct option, Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation saw a 58% reduction in arrears from 2000 to 2003. Few problems. There were relatively few problems or complaints made as a result of this program partly because participation was voluntary. Demand to expand. There were many requests to expand this program to include OW recipients who lived in private market apartments. Currently, the program is limited to a maximum monthly amount equal to the shelter allowance for OW recipients; clients are unable to use the pay direct service to pay more than that amount, even if the amount is exceeded by a few dollars. The rationale for this limit is to “safeguard against encroachment on the OW Basic Allowance component of the monthly financial assistance.” There is demand in Kingston and Frontenac to allow for pay direct amounts that exceed the OW shelter allowance. Since participation in the program is completely voluntary, it seems reasonable to make this modification to the change. The program helps improve housing stability by reducing evictions due to non-payment of rent. Expanding the program would allow more clients to participate in the program, thus increasing overall housing stability for the region. This approach supports the following principles and strategies identified in the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac: 5.2 Expand the municipality’s existing Ontario Works Pay Direct Policy to allow for amounts to exceed the monthly shelter allowance.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
170 | P a g e
Page 173 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendix F: Selecting and Implementing an Assessment and Acuity Tool The Plan calls for the implementation of a tool that can be used to assess the needs of people seeking service, determine acuity, and inform service delivery. The right acuity tool will also assist Kingston in measuring how people’s lives change as a direct result of the intervention overtime. This type of outcome data is not available in the community at present. As outlined in the Plan, there are three evidence-informed and valid tools that can be chosen from: o Vulnerability Index o Vulnerability Assessment Tool o Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT) In the first quarter of year one, Kingston should have selected which of the three tools it wishes to see implemented across all service providers. The second and third quarters of year one will present the opportunity for all service providers to be effectively trained on how to use the tools in assessment and case management supports. By year two, the assessment and acuity tool should be implemented throughout the community. Service contracts should reflect that the use of the tool is part of contract compliance. There are three assessment and acuity tools that are recommended for use to determine service prioritization. The three tools are: o Vulnerability Index o Vulnerability Assessment Tool o Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT) Vulnerability Index From Vulnerability Index: Prioritizing the Street Homeless Population by Mortality Risk. Available online at: http://www.jedc.org/forms/Vulnerability%20Index.pdf The Vulnerability Index is a tool for identifying and prioritizing the street homeless population for housing according to the fragility of their health. It is a practical application of research into the causes of death of homeless individuals living on the street conducted by Boston’s Healthcare for the Homeless organization, led by Dr. Jim O’Connell. The Boston research identified the specific health conditions that cause homeless individuals to be most at risk for dying on the street. For individuals who have been homeless for at least six months, one or more of the following markers place them at heightened risk of mortality: July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
171 | P a g e
Page 174 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan o o o o o o o o
more than three hospitalizations or emergency room visits in a year more than three emergency room visits in the previous three months aged 60 or older cirrhosis of the liver end-stage renal disease history of frostbite, immersion foot, or hypothermia HIV+/AIDS tri-morbidity: co-occurring psychiatric, substance abuse, and chronic medical condition
The Vulnerability Index is administered in the form of a survey, which captures a homeless individual’s health and social status. It identifies the most vulnerable through a ranking system, which takes into account risk factors and the duration of homelessness. This ranking allows those with the most severe health risks to be identified and prioritized for housing and other support. Vulnerability Assessment Tool From Vulnerability Assessment Tool for determining eligibility and allocating services and housing for homeless adults. Available online at: http://www.desc.org/documents/09.11.2012.DESC.Intro_to_Vulnerability_Assessment_ Tool.incl%20VAT%20&%201-page%20validity.pdf The DESC Vulnerability Assessment Tool provides a structured way of measuring a homeless person’s vulnerability to continued instability. By rating a person’s level of functioning or severity of condition across 10 domains, a comprehensive assessment of vulnerability can be reached and then compared with vulnerability assessments of other homeless people. The assessment process entails a structured interview followed by completion of the rating scales. The tool is designed for use by service workers accustomed to interacting directly with homeless people, and training is required to ensure reliable application of the tool. At the heart of the DESC Vulnerability Assessment tool are the ten separate domains that interviewers use to measure client vulnerability. The domains are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Survival Skills Basic Needs Indicated Mortality Risks Medical Risks Organization/Orientation Mental Health Substance Use Communication July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
172 | P a g e
Page 175 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 9. Social Behaviours 10. Homelessness Each domain represents an area that assesses a homeless person’s limitations in meeting his or her own needs. Over the years, DESC determined that the above domains are key to understanding a homeless person’s risk for victimization or death on the street. The numerical score that is applied to each domain provides a way to rank a homeless person’s vulnerability when compared to other clients who have been interviewed and assessed. Once a community of homeless adults have been assessed, those with the highest scores are considered to be at highest risk and can be prioritized for services. Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT) From What is SPDAT? Available online at: http://www.orgcode.com/resources/what-isspdat/ The Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT) is changing the intake and service delivery landscape. SPDAT was launched in 2011 and is now in use in more than 50 communities across North America — SPDAT is a best practices requirement in several of those communities. The SPDAT uses 15 dimensions to determine an acuity score that will help inform professional Housing First or Rapid Re- Housing practitioners about the following: o people who will benefit most from Housing First o people who will benefit most from Rapid Re-Housing o people who are most likely to end their own homelessness with little to no intervention on your part o which areas of the person’s life that can be the initial focus of attention in the case management relationship to improve housing stability o how individuals and families are changing over time as a result of the case management process The 15 dimensions are:
- Self Care and Daily Living Skills
- Social Relationships and Networks
- Meaningful Daily Activity
- Personal Administration and Money Management
- Managing Tenancy
- Physical Health and Wellness
- Mental Health and Wellness
- Medication
- Interaction with Emergency Services
- Involvement in High Risk and/or Exploitive Situations July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
173 | P a g e
Page 176 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 11. Substance Use 12. Abuse and/or Trauma 13. Risk of Personal Harm/ Harm to Others 14. Legal 15. History of Homelessness and Housing The SPDAT can be easily integrated with existing HMIS systems and, in many communities, it has been used to supplement or replace various self-sufficiency matrices. Devoid of gimmicks and poorly informed assumptions, the SPDAT is based upon evidence and has undergone rigorous testing in communities throughout North America. The SPDAT has been reviewed by experts in health, mental health, addictions, housing and homelessness and has proven to be effective for a range of populations from an age, gender and cultural perspectives. Now, in Version 3, the SPDAT continues to positively impact the lives of thousands of homeless individuals and families. An added benefit is that frontline workers have reported improvement in their job performance through the use of the SPDAT. The SPDAT is logical, succinct and quick to administer with your clients. Organizationally, SPDAT is easy to implement. By the way, the SPDAT is free. The only cost to your organization is the required one or two-day training program to ensure that frontline staff, team leaders, supervisors and other important community stakeholders know how to effectively use this remarkable tool.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
174 | P a g e
Page 177 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendix F: Professional Development Agenda Service providers cannot just be asked to deliver services differently than how they have done so historically. They must be fully trained to achieve the outputs and outcomes envisioned in the Plan. A professional development agenda must be invested in to increase the likelihood of goals being achieved, especially as it relates to the effective provision of Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing services that have true fidelity to proven practice.108 The professional development requirements outlined below are in addition to what may be considered standard training and staff requirements to work in the sector (e.g., boundaries, first aid, universal precautions, practicing self-care, mental health first aid, relevant legislation, etc.). There are two methods through which a professional development agenda may be pursued. In the first method, the Service Manager is responsible for implementation of the professional development agenda. This could be implemented (at least in part) through the Homeless Service Providers Networking Group. The second method would allow each individual agency to be responsible for the training of its employees; however, this method is much more difficult to ensure that training is consistently of high quality across all service providers. The first method is recommended. A professional development agenda must be implemented as quickly as possible with the understanding that such an undertaking requires time and resources. The proposed funding allocation for future years assumes that the majority of professional development will occur in year one. Those involved in Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing should have the following training components delivered to them within the first month of employment: o Core concepts and service orientation of Housing First o Core concepts and service orientation of Rapid Re-housing o Objective based client interactions o Using acuity to leverage case management opportunities in goal setting o Documentation, case notes, file organization, and case structure Annually, throughout the entire service delivery system, staff in all programs should have access to training in: o Motivational Interviewing in homeless and housing service delivery settings o Excellence in housing-based case management o Using assertive engagement to promote housing access and stability o Brokering and advocacy 108
Independent of the Plan, some organizations such as Elizabeth Fry Society, Home Base Housing and Frontenac Community Mental Health and Addictions Services all began to invest and participate in related professional development activities in 2013.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
175 | P a g e
Page 178 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan o o o o o o o o
Crisis planning Risk assessment and risk management Working safely alone Exit planning Promoting recovery Stages of change Acuity and assessment Promoting greater independence through the five components of housing stability
Following one year of service delivery with an effort to build increased specialization and performance excellence, consideration should be given to training qualified case management staff in the following areas of expertise: o Integrated Dual Disorders Treatment o Illness Management Recovery o Implementation of Treatment Protocols o Supported Employment o Discharge Planning o Leveraging assets of Peers o Working effectively with those that hoard, collect and/or treasure hunt
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
176 | P a g e
Page 179 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendix G: Program and Service Modifications to Align to Plan The Role of Shelters Throughout the discussion in the body of the Plan, shelters have been positioned as “Centres of Opportunity.” This means that people have the opportunity to be adequately sheltered at night and that people have the opportunity to be assisted in acquiring housing during the day. A Centre of Opportunity essentially combines multiple services dedicated to serving the needs of the homeless population into a single facility as follows: during the evening, a hot meal is provided; overnight, a warm bed is available; and, during the day, homeless individuals and families can access assistance that will help them end their homelessness. A sample operating day in a Centre of Opportunity might look like the following: Example: Sample Daily Routine in a Centre of Opportunity 07:00 Wake-up time. Continental breakfast is provided by overnight staff, and brown bag lunches are prepared. 08:00 Overnight shelter function has ceased. Overnight staff go home, and daytime services begin. Brief Intervention & Diversion staff along with Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing staff arrive and begin offering day services. 08:00-16:00 Daytime staff provides intensive housing assistance during the day. They help clients apply for financial assistance, look up apartment listings, help clients apply for social housing, bring clients to appointments and apartment viewings. Anyone not participating in getting housed must leave the shelter. 16:00 Daytime services cease. Housing First & Rapid Re-Housing staff, along with Diversion & Brief Intervention staff leave for the day, and the evening shift of shelter workers begin work. The shelter operates much like a traditional shelter. Intake for the evening begins. 17:00 Hot meal program 17:00-19:00 Socio-recreational programming, such as AA meetings, access to a TV room, casual time. 19:00 Access to sleeping quarters is made available. 22:00 Lights out. 22:00-07:00 No programming, skeleton crew of staff for safety and security purposes.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
177 | P a g e
Page 180 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan During the evening and overnight hours, shelters should perform a more traditional role. In contrast, the sole activity in a shelter during the day is the process of getting people out of the shelter and into housing. Anyone not participating in getting housed must leave the shelter. To ensure that the maximum number of homeless persons are engaged with housing programs, the funds for day programs that historically have been available for people will be re-allocated to housing supports. Relevant literature and evidence from other jurisdictions support the fact that having low-barrier drop-in programs results in very low rates of housing access compared to comprehensive housing assistance approaches. This new approach to housing focused service delivery that is anchored in shelters, promotes housing access and stability as the intended goal and integrated function of shelters as part of the housing service system. Right-Sizing the Shelter System The idea of “right-sizing” the shelter system is emphasized throughout the Plan. With a focus on achieving housing outcomes, it is anticipated that demand for shelters will decrease. It is projected that by year three, there will be a 20% reduction in demand for shelter beds from current levels. It is far more efficient to reduce the number of facilities that offer shelter beds than to reduce the number of beds at each facility. The majority of costs associated with operating a shelter are fixed and the marginal cost of adding or subtracting one bed is minor in comparison. It is recommended that after the first two years of Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing service, at least one shelter should close. To be clear, “closure” entails the withdrawal of municipal funding to an agency for the purpose of operating a shelter. With a view to the capacity of the system, it would be advantageous to reorient the agency and the shelter facility towards a different purpose within the homeless service delivery system. This approach would ensure that valuable resources such as knowledgeable staff, expertise and the building itself are not lost.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
178 | P a g e
Page 181 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Graph 11: Demand for Emergency Shelters, 2005-2016
Emergency Shelters: Demand & Capacity 2005-2016
Actual Number of Beds Available, 2012, 86.0
100.0 90.0
Number of Shelter Beds
80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0
Actual Bed Used, 2012, 56.8
40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Actual Bed Used
Target Number of Beds Needed
Actual Number of Beds Available
Projected Bed Usage
Projected Number of Beds Needed
Projected Number of Beds Available
2016
In 2012, an average of 57 beds were occupied each night. This is the best indicator of demand for emergency shelters available until a point in time count (PIT Count) is conducted in Kingston and Frontenac. Currently, there are 74 beds available that are municipally funded, though an additional 12 beds are available through alternate funding sources. In From the Cold is going to be relocating in 2012 to a more modern, purpose-built facility that will include flexible space that can accommodate additional, overflow beds if needed. The City of Kingston is currently over-served by shelters. On average, 57 beds are needed per night, which is a 75% occupancy rate. To cover costs, an ideal occupancy rate is approximately 90% and this allows enough space to shelter additional persons in case of emergencies such as extreme weather. Based on a 90% occupancy rate and demand for 57 beds, the recommended number of beds within the shelter system in Kingston is 63.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
179 | P a g e
Page 182 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan The shelter system in Kingston presently has an excess of at least eleven beds (up to 23 if one considers non-municipally funded beds). It is recommended that the Service Manager begin to pursue options to right size the emergency shelter system. This would entail the closure and repurposing of existing shelter(s). It would be ideal to convert existing shelter(s) to permanent supportive housing when it is feasible to do so. This approach would include a one-year transition period during which staff could undergo training for their new role and budgets can be adjusted. Some staff turnover is expected. The Service Manager is able to encourage, but not require, this shift through discontinuing funding for existing shelter programs and providing funding for new, proposed programs if they align with the strategies and directions identified in the Plan. The funding allocated would be reduced to approximately 60% of what was formerly provided and would no longer come out of the Emergency Shelter budget but be sourced instead from the Permanent Supportive Housing budget. This amount would cover the costs of the building, administration, etc. Residents would be required to pay rent although the amount would be assumed to be no more than the OW shelter allowance. Additional staff (i.e. case managers) would be paid for through a different budget such as the Housing First/Rapid Re-Housing Program Area. Alternatively, partnerships could be pursued with health agencies such as Providence Care, Hotel Dieu, or FCMHAS. Decision-Making Framework Once again, it is recommended that the overall shelter system has an average occupancy rate of 90%. If the occupancy rate of the shelter system stays consistently below 85% for at least one year, it is recommended that the Service Manager consider closing a shelter at that time. Conversely, if the occupancy rate rises above 95% for one year, the Service Manager should consider opening a new shelter. This means that in year two, one shelter should be closed, and it is projected that in 2016, the Service Manager consider the possibility of closing a second shelter, based on an anticipated 20% reduction in demand for shelter beds. If the demand for emergency shelters is reduced to an average of 46 beds per night, as projected, a right sized system will have 51 beds. The following criteria is recommended for the Service Manager to determine which shelter(s) will cease to receive funding: o Need. Is there a demonstrable need to keep the shelter open? Would existing clientele be able to find emergency accommodation at another shelter location within reasonable proximity? o This can be primarily measured through the occupancy rate. o Outcomes. Does the agency have a track record of positive outcomes for clients, such as: July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
180 | P a g e
Page 183 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan o Recidivism is one measure of outcomes; what percent of homeless persons return to homelessness? o Positive destinations from shelter; where do households go when they leave the shelter? o Length of stay (mean and median); how long do persons stay homeless before finding housing? o Financial stability. Does the shelter operate efficiently, consistently adhering to its mandate, demonstrating competence in financial management? Does the shelter require more money to offer a comparable service than other municipally funded shelters? Is the cost per unit (i.e. cost per bed, cost per bednight, cost per hour) higher than other shelters? Could the same service be otherwise offered for a lower cost? If there is no need to keep a shelter open, its funding should be discontinued, regardless of other considerations. If the agency has a poor track record or requires excessive resources, remedial action should be considered, such as new management or additional staff training. However, if there is a system-wide need to eliminate beds, the shelter that closes should be one that is less necessary, with poorer client outcomes and, if applicable, financial instability. To illustrate the point, Graph 12: 2012 Annual Cost Per Bed, by Shelter, below, describes one way to determine financial efficiency. Note that this graph illustrates only municipal/CHPI funds per municipally funded bed. It does not take into consideration non-municipally funded beds or non-municipal sources of funding. However, this is not the only measure to determine the financial state of a shelter. Other relevant measures include total budget, annual budget deficits (especially trends), average cost per bed night, cost per hour of operation, et cetera. For reference, Graph 13: 2012 Annual Occupancy Rate, by Shelter is provided, which compares the average occupancy rate for each shelter over the 2012 calendar year. This graph compares the total number of bed nights used in the year to the total number of beds available, regardless of how the beds or bed nights are funded.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
181 | P a g e
Page 184 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Graph 12: 2012 Annual Cost Per Bed, by Shelter
2012 Annual Cost Per Bed $16,000.00 $14,000.00 $12,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $Ryandale
Dawn House Harbour Light In from the Kingston Cold Youth Shelter
Lily’s Place
Graph 13: 2012 Annual Occupancy Rate, by Shelter
2012 Occupancy Rate 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ryandale
Dawn House
Harbour Light
In from the Cold
Kingston Youth Shelter
Lily’s Place
This approach supports the following principles and strategies identified in the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac: 3.3 Right-size the shelter system. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
182 | P a g e
Page 185 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 4.7 Create more permanent supportive housing (PSH) units. Drop-In Centres The Service Manager currently funds two drop-in centres in Kingston: the Barrie Street Drop-In Centre/Housing Help Centre, which operates out of In From the Cold, and the Gathering Place. A third drop-in, the Friendship Room, operates at Martha’s Table and is not funded by the municipality. The Plan recommends converting existing shelters into 24-hour “Centres of Opportunity,” that includes keeping all shelters open during the daytime. With this systematic approach, drop-in centres are less necessary within the homeless service delivery system. Homeless individuals will be able to access warmth, food, and assistance at shelters so maintaining drop-in centres is a duplication of services. Best practices suggest that in an effective homeless service delivery system, all access points to services (including shelter, food, financial assistance, etc.) are coordinated in effectively connecting users with housing assistance, which is precisely what Centres of Opportunity are designed to do. It is recommended that all drop-in centres in Kingston cease to operate according to their current mandate. Instead, existing funding devoted to drop-ins should be reallocated to allow shelters to be open during the day and to hire housing workers to operate out of shelters Within Kingston, it has been determined that there are adequate food services offered throughout the week with the exception of weekends. As long as this remains the case, there is no need for the Service Manager to fund any drop-in centres in Kingston particularly if shelters are converted to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. This approach supports the following principles and strategies identified in the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness in Kingston and Frontenac: 3.5 Reframe emergency shelters as centres of opportunity.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
183 | P a g e
Page 186 of 269
AgendaItem#4c) Housing & Homelessness Plan | PART 3
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
a PPe n dH:Ix Service c : s e rPathway v Ic e Pat from h w ay Homeless f r o m h o me ess t o h o used Appendix to lHoused
self referral
successful diversion
Meet with Diversion & Brief Intervention Worker
Homeless outreach
cannot be diverted wait 10 days…during this time, user expected to be out of the shelter during the day searching for housing
homelessness solved without assistance
first time homeless repeat shelter user
Shelter Intake
Still Homeless
Pre-Screen & Full Acuity Assessment this happens during the daytime at a shelter
Permanent Supportive Housing Permanent supports of a wide variety
High Acuity
Low to Moderate Acuity
Housing First
Rapid Re-Housing
OPTIONS
Scattered Site With Supports
Scattered Site With Supports
Assistance provided includes viewings, lease signing, move-in assistance Supports for 12-18 months
Assistance provided includes viewings, lease signing, move-in assistance Supports for 3-6 months
Page | 46
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
184 | P a g e
Page 187 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendix I: Original MHS Recommendations This appendix includes the original recommendations from the Municipal Housing Strategy of which this Plan is based. The appendix provides an overview of the actions taken to date for each of the recommendations. This section is included for reference purposes only; the most up-to-date recommendations are in this document, on pages 83-99. Strategic Direction #1: Managing the Housing Agenda
- That the City and County establish the Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS) as the primary strategic plan to help guide and align local housing efforts. Implementation Adoption of the MHS by each respective Council will establish a clear strategic housing framework Responsibility City of Kingston Council, County of Frontenac Council Time Frame Short term (1st year) Resources Staff report Actions Taken: The MHS was adopted by Kingston City Council in September 2011. County Council have accepted MHS and are actively implementing the recommendations that are specific to the County The Municipal Housing Strategy will act as a guide to create a 10-year housing plan, as per provincial legislation. The MHS and its associated policies are now referenced in all relevant department reports and are used as a guide by Housing Department in formulating new program policies Status: Complete
- That the City and County use the Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS) as an alignment tool across areas of municipal responsibility. Implementation Having adopted the MHS as a strategic document, City/County senior staff should use it to guide implementation via related municipal work plans. Responsibility Senior staff at City of Kingston and County of Frontenac Time Frame Short term set-up (1st year), then ongoing Resources Staff time Actions Taken: The MHS has focused the departmental activity and work plans of the City and County since its adoption. It is used as a reference for new program policy July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
185 | P a g e
Page 188 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan development in the Housing Department of the City but also in associated departments such as Planning and Community and Family Services. The MHS will continue to guide the creation of an extended 10-year housing plan. Status: Set-up: complete Implementation: ongoing
That the Housing Department of the City take lead responsibility for advancing the MHS in collaboration with internal and external stakeholders, including the County. Implementation Housing Department to set–up and chair interdepartmental committee that oversees implementation of MHS, as required. Planning, Building, Finance and Community & Family Services staff and County as core participants, other staff as required Responsibility City of Kingston – Housing Department (lead) Time Frame Short term set-up (1st year), then ongoing oversight Resources Staff time Actions Taken: An interdepartmental committee has been created to review and implement secondary suites policies and regulations led by the Housing Department. The City Housing Department has consulted with the County of Frontenac regarding the plan to build new affordable housing units for seniors within the County. The City Housing Department has consulted with community partners, service providers and members of the general public in the City and the County regarding the creation of the 10-year homelessness plan. The City Housing Department has led staff from various City departments to review and develop an Affordable Housing Locational Analysis, which has been endorsed by City Council. Status: Set-up: complete Implementation: ongoing
That the City recognize and support the Affordable Housing Committee as a primary vehicle for engaging stakeholders and providing advice on matters related to housing by: Renaming the Committee to the ‘Housing and Homelessness Advisory July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
186 | P a g e
Page 189 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Committee’ Focusing Committee activity on housing issues, policies and program. Ensuring broad and balanced representation on the Committee from private, public and municipal interests Implementation Revise terms of reference to change name, broaden mandate to include homelessness and expand membership Ensure focus is centered on providing advice for housing and homeless issues Revise current membership to also include representatives from the local Homebuilders Assn., City Planning Dept., Community Leadership Team (per United Way), homeless service providers and service recipients Responsibility City of Kingston – Housing Department (lead), other departments as required Time Frame Short term set-up (1st year), then on-going Resources Staff time for technical support to committee. Actions Taken: The Committee was renamed the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee The mandate/terms of reference of the Committee is to: o Provide advice to Council on housing, publicly assisted affordable housing and homelessness policies; o Provide advice regarding the implementation of the Municipal Housing Strategy, Homelessness Plan and other municipal housing strategies, policies and directives; o Provide information and input on housing matters as related to poverty reduction through the appointment of one member of the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee to the Poverty Reduction Group, for a term of two years and two members of Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee to the Poverty Reduction Housing Sub Working Group for a term of two years. o Maintain close linkages with other City Committees and working groups to ensure co-ordination of housing, affordable housing and homelessness initiatives. o Provide housing and homelessness advice. o Provide advice on overall financial investment tools for housing and homelessness but not on individual funding allocation. The terms of reference have ensured the focus of the Committee remains on advice and policy setting A broad and balanced representation on the HHA Committee has been established through the committee by-law that requires membership composition of: July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
187 | P a g e
Page 190 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan o 2 members of Kingston City Council, o 1 representative from the County of Frontenac, o 1 representative from the Kingston Economic Development Corporation (KEDCO), o 1 representative from Kingston Home Builders Association (KHBA), o 1 representative from the Kingston Not for Profit Housing Association, o 1 representative from homelessness service providers (involved with Community Advisory Board on Homelessness), o 1 representative from the Community Leadership Committee (as established by United Way KFLA, o 1 tenant of social/affordable housing services, and, o 2 members of the public at large. Status: Set-up: complete Implementation: ongoing
- That in accordance with the Province’s Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy (LTAHS) direction for integration on local program planning, the City: Engage local homelessness service providers, recipients and the County in system planning Work with the United Way as they pursue community entity status in order to secure federal Homeless Partnership Strategy (HPS) funding Consolidate provincial homelessness funding programs to help effectively address community priorities Implementation Monitor LTAHS implementation to confirm Provincial expectations and obligations, especially around funding consolidation Working in consultation with the United Way, confirm the lead role for community entity per the Federal Homeless Partnership Strategy) and connection with the Community Advisory Board (CAB) Coordinate efforts with CAB and County to identify, plan and set strategies for addressing local housing and homeless needs Engage housing, service and support providers as well as recipients throughout the planning process Develop a consolidated homeless funding strategy that respects LTAHS parameters while directing funds to priority community needs Responsibility City of Kingston – Housing Department (lead), United Way (HPS), CAB and community agencies as primary stakeholders Time Frame Short term. Set-up roles and planning process (1st year), consolidate July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
188 | P a g e
Page 191 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Resources
funding (2nd year), on-going engagement thereafter. Additional staff time to facilitate planning & consolidate funding, Consulting resources as required
Actions Taken: City staff have met twice with CHPP funded agencies in 2011 to review services and conduct gap analysis. In 2011, operational reviews with each agency were conducted. Two information sessions were held with service providers in 2012 regarding consolidated funding; reports to Council were sent to agencies to keep them updated throughout the planning phase in 2012 City staff have met with emergency shelter providers quarterly United Way in concert with the City of Kingston organized a service mapping session in April 2012 City of Kingston and United Way have met with service providers to organize a networking committee o Initial meeting held in May 2012; o A community kick-off meeting for the group occurred in September 2012; o A third meeting is scheduled for May 2013. County staff have been kept informed of plans for RFP for CHPP funding and funding changes and proposed local strategies and have been consulted on the various Reports to Council with respect to same; City staff assisted in the development of the Terms of Reference for the Community Advisory Board (CAB) City staff assisted the United Way in the community plan for homelessness required by Service Canada for Community Entity Two City staff members sit on the CAB and are active members. The Province has announced the provincial allocation towards consolidated homelessness funding; the City has hired a consultant (OrgCode) to develop the homelessness plan for the City and County to help inform required services and service levels. Public consultations and interviews with key community stakeholders occurred in Autumn/Winter 2012; County staff are represented within the working group created to oversee the development of the Homelessness Plan; the CAB will be consulted as a key stakeholder in the development of the homelessness plan. Housing, service and support providers will all be interviewed and consulted throughout the homelessness planning The consolidated homeless funding strategy will be created as a part of the 10year homelessness plan that will be available by mid-2013. Status: Complete. Removed from 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
189 | P a g e
Page 192 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
That the City report on MHS progress regularly and publish an annual report card identifying key indicator status. Implementation Establish MHS monitoring table to show progress against approved recommendations Define and develop key housing indicators Create template for annual report card Report annually to Council via report card on indicators and MHS status Responsibility City of Kingston – Housing Department (lead) in consultation with Planning, Building and Licensing Time Frame Short term. Set-up indicators + template (1st year), reporting annually thereafter Resources Additional staff time, Consulting resources as required for initial template Actions Taken: The report on the status of the 40 recommendations found in the MHS was be completed and submitted to the HHA Committee at their December 2012 meeting The template of the annual report card is complete The 2012 annual report card was circulated to the public in April 2013 Status: Set-up: complete 2012 report: complete Annual reports: ongoing
That the City gather, maintain and monitor data to support housing and homelessness accountability practices, both internally and in support of LTAHS requirements. Implementation Monitor LTAHS implementation to confirm provincial expectations and obligations Consolidate standard data and program monitoring information into one source Responsibility City of Kingston – Housing Department (lead) with input from Planning Building and Licensing Time Frame Short term consolidation (1st year), Annual data gathering Resources Additional staff time Actions Taken: July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
190 | P a g e
Page 193 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan The City of Kingston engaged local service providers in exploring the use of a Government of Canada approved, data collection software package called HIFIS (Homeless Individuals and Families Information System. Training on the software was provided to interested parties during 2012. The 10-year Homelessness Plan will make a recommendation with respect to the benefits of a consolidated data collection system that would be universally used by all homeless service providers. Currently, HIFIS use is voluntary and not universally used in Kingston. The Housing Department Work Plan for 2013 includes the development of benchmarks to measure housing and homelessness progress. The research for this project was started in the fall of 2012. Status: In progress Strategic Direction #2: Creating a Complementary Regulatory Environment 8. That the City encourage social capital initiatives by: Supporting legislative reforms that improve household income retention incentives and help address the impacts that utility costs have on poverty Working collaboratively with social assistance staff and the Province to reduce procedural ‘barriers’ Linking municipal programs and poverty reduction initiatives that help support win-win opportunities Implementation Advocate through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association (OMSSA) for income maintenance reforms based on identified issues. Monitor LTAHS implementation to confirm Provincial reforms regarding rent-geared-to-income (RGI) and social assistance, as well as social capital initiatives. Review municipal housing and homeless programs to help identify and promote opportunities that reduce poverty Explore opportunities through system planning with stakeholders to help address mutually beneficial housing outcomes. Responsibility City of Kingston –City Council – advocacy role, Housing Department (lead), Collaboration with the newly re-named Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee (HHAC) Time Frame Short term Advocacy & monitoring, (1st year), Program review & implement, (2nd-3rd year) Resources Additional staff time July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
191 | P a g e
Page 194 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Actions Taken: City of Kingston Housing Department staff have partnered with Kingston Hydro to help promote their Home Assistance Program for Social Housing Residents; a program designed to reduce electricity consumption in social housing units, and in turn, reduce utility bills. This information has been extended to the local housing providers group who can help further promote the program to their tenants. The REDY program enhances tenant education about energy reduction and saving practices. One of the objectives of the Kingston-Frontenac Renovates program initiated in summer 2012 is to encourage home repair associated with energy efficiencies. Funding for this program is currently available through 2014. Under the proposed changes to the Community Start Up Municipal Benefit (CSUMB) as a result of the Consolidated Homeless Prevention Initiative (CHPI), social assistance clients will now be able to access income assistance from one source through their case manager. This new process is a more efficient management of this funding. The City of Kingston’s Housing Department initiated a working group among local housing service providers to examine the newly implemented Housing Services Act (HAS), discuss its content, provide feedback on options that would be customizable for the Kingston community and report back to the larger housing provider group. This process will lead to policy changes to address issues related to poverty. The Housing Department retained OrgCode Consulting Inc. to develop a 10-year Homelessness Plan for the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac. Implementation is scheduled for late 2013. Status: Ongoing
- That the City implement Official Plan policies which promote inclusive, sustainable and flexible communities by: Pursuing inclusionary zoning opportunities as part of the comprehensive Zoning By-law (ZBL) review Seeking opportunities to appropriately integrate student housing Undertaking a broad locational analysis of affordable housing opportunities and recommending options that promote community inclusion. Reviewing demolition and conversion provisions to help further support the retention of existing rental stock. Implementation Complete a broad locational analysis in support of inclusive housing policies July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
192 | P a g e
Page 195 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Responsibility
Time Frame Resources
Through the comprehensive ZBL review, explore opportunities to promote inclusionary zoning concepts and retain rental housing stock through demolition and conversion policies Identify and promote solutions to student housing issues through the Town & Gown Committee Where necessary, develop and bring forward an Official Plan (OP) amendment to implement necessary policy changes that support inclusion City of Kingston – Planning Department (lead) with input from Housing Dept. and the interdepartmental committee, Locational analysis led by Housing Department, undertaken by consultants, CAO’s office – lead on Town & Gown Committee Short to mid-term, Locational analysis, (1st year), ZBL review (1st-3rd year), Other work (on-going) City funding for locational analysis, Staff time for policy review and committee engagement
Actions Taken: Locational analysis was endorsed by City Council in March 2013. The Housing Department presented housing data MHS recommendations to the Town-Gown Committee. The Housing Department is working with Queen’s to coordinate housing issues and maintain a transparent, on-going dialogue. The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive zoning bylaw review. Housing Department staff have actively contributed to the preparation of preliminary research to identify issues related to affordable housing. Status: Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Review: Phase 1 complete, Phase 2 in progress Locational Analysis: complete 10. That the City adopt refined targets for units to be added to the current housing stock over the next 10 years as follows: Housing Form – 60% singles, 20% multiples and 20% apartments Housing Tenure – 70% ownership, 30% rental Housing Affordability – 25% of units at rates up to the affordability threshold Implementation Approve the housing targets as part of the MHS Develop a monitoring tool for key info Measure and report on targets annually as part of Report Card (per Rec.#6) Using incentive tools available, actively seek out commitments to help support form, tenure, and affordability targets through the development approval process July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
193 | P a g e
Page 196 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Responsibility Time Frame Resources
City of Kingston – Planning Department (lead) with input from Housing Department Short term, (1st year) Staff time
Actions Taken: Building targets will be included and tracked annually in the report card. Statistics will be contributed by the City’s Building and Licensing Department. Status: No action taken 11. That the County consider establishing an Official Plan to help guide land use planning which has consistent housing polices among the four constituent Townships and which establishes targets for units to be added to the current housing stock over the next 10 years as follows: Housing Form – 92% singles, 4% multiples and 4% apartments Housing Tenure – 90% ownership, 10% rental Housing Affordability – 25% of units at rates up to the affordability threshold Implementation Confirm approval for undertaking Official Plan development Review and consult on key housing issues, options and policies to be implemented, including: o Defining affordability o Housing mix and diversity o Residential intensification o Renewal and rehabilitation of housing stock o Seniors housing options o Secondary suites Adopt OP, work with local jurisdictions to implement upper tier polices in local OPs Responsibility County of Frontenac in collaboration with four constituent Townships Time Frame Medium term, (3rd to 5th year) Resources Wide range of resources required (staff and consultants) Actions Taken: County Council approved of the development of an Official Plan in 2012. County Council will review a first draft of its Official Plan in the summer of 2013, with an aim for completion by 2014. Status: In progress, completion anticipated by the end of 2014
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
194 | P a g e
Page 197 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
- That the City and County support second suites as an affordable rental housing alternative by: Encouraging and supporting applications for second suites where currently permitted in ZBL’s Developing and implementing as-of-right zoning provisions within appropriate residential zones via the comprehensive ZBL review Encouraging built-in conversion potential for appropriate housing within new development Streamlining administrative approvals for second suites Enhancing awareness through the public education campaign (Rec.#33), including a resident fact sheet Implementation Monitor LTAHS implementation to confirm Provincial expectations and obligations regarding second suites Encourage the creation of second suites and support applications that come forward in areas where currently permitted by ZBL’s Through the comprehensive ZBL review, identify appropriate zones, establish as-of-right provisions and define suitable standards for second suites, having regard for servicing capacity Once zones, provisions and standards are established through the ZBL review, the Housing Department should: Establish a user-friendly application process which includes a servicing review as part of the necessary approvals process Develop a resident information package for second suites which outlines standards, zoning requirements and the approvals process That the City establish a working group to develop guidelines for implementing second suites and that this working group include representation from the private sector Responsibility City of Kingston - Planning Department (lead) with input from Housing Department and the interdepartmental committee, Housing Department to lead support for second suite applications, monitor LTAHS, promote awareness and develop applicant information & communication tools, County of Frontenac in collaboration with four constituent Townships Time Frame Short term. Promote interim applications, ZBL provisions and standards (2nd to 4th year) Resources Additional staff time, consulting resources as required Actions Taken: The Housing Department initiated Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, which would permit Second Residential Units as-of-right within particular areas July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
195 | P a g e
Page 198 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan of the City. The proposed amendments will partially implement recent provincial legislative changes which provide direction for municipalities to permit Second Residential Units within single-detached, semi-detached, and row house dwellings. In support of the proposed amendments, a series of public information guidebooks are being developed which will assist homeowners in navigating the administrative and construction requirements for developing a legal Second Residential Unit within the City of Kingston. The guidebooks and other supporting information will be provided on the City website. Subsequent initiatives to promote Second Residential Units as an affordable housing option will include streamlining approvals processes within areas excluded from the as-of-right permissions in addition to conducting further research regarding the development of second dwellings within ancillary or detached structures. The current planning approvals, which will provide permissions for Second Residential Units within particular areas of the City, will be formally in place in early 2013. This is being considered a pilot project and will be evaluated by Housing Department in 2013 and 2014. Status: Ongoing 13. That the City implement key affordable housing provisions from the Official Plan as a part of the comprehensive ZBL review, including policies that: Encourage housing mix and diversity Support density and intensification Enable residential renewal and rehabilitation Review minimum separation distances for residential care facilities Implementation Through the comprehensive ZBL review, ensure that OP provisions regarding affordable housing are implemented by: o Providing for a mix of residential uses and densities across zones o Allowing various forms of intensification in the urban area while considering minimizing parking and amenity space arrangement. o Supporting housing renewal while limiting conversion or demolition when not in the public interest Reviewing opportunities to reduce/eliminate separation distances for residential care facilities
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
196 | P a g e
Page 199 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Responsibility Time Frame Resources
City of Kingston – Planning Dept. (lead) with input from Housing Department and the interdepartmental committee Short to mid-term, Tie in locational analysis results from Rec. #9, (1st year), ZBL review (1st-3rd year), Other work (on-going) Staff time and City funding, Consulting resources as required
Actions Taken: Similar to Recommendation #9, the Locational Analysis is presented to the HHA Committee in December 2012. This issue will continue to be analyzed and addressed in 2013. The Planning Department initiated the Comprehensive Update of the City’s Zoning Bylaw’s in 2012. Issues related to affordable housing have been included and considered in the preliminary issues documents produced to evaluate items to consider during the update. In the Zoning Bylaw consolidation, the Planning Department has stated their intent to remove separation distances related to residential care facilities altogether. Status: In progress 14. That the County undertake a review with local Townships to identify zoning anomalies that may be acting as barriers, especially when it comes to supporting seniors housing options. Implementation Undertake preliminary review to identify specific zoning barriers When County Official Plan is in place, work to implement County and local OP policies via zoning bylaws and use this process to help address identified barriers Responsibility County of Frontenac in collaboration with four constituent Townships Time Frame Medium term, (3rd to 5th year) Resources Planning resources required (staff + consultants) Actions Taken: Similar to the action taken in Recommendation #11, County Council will review a first draft of its Official Plan in the spring of 2013, with an aim for completion by 2014. The County’s Official Plan will address zoning anomalies that may cause barriers to development. Status: No action taken. Implementation anticipated to begin in 2015 and continue through 2016.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
197 | P a g e
Page 200 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
- That the City continue to support timely land use approvals by: Re-evaluating opportunities to streamline the planning approvals process wherever possible Establishing an internal review mechanism for identifying policies that cut across areas of responsibility Continuing to dialogue with the development industry to identify and resolve any problem areas Implementation To monitor the approvals process and seek opportunities that help streamline application processing Housing Department staff to help facilitate applications for affordable housing by providing advice and education to applicants Expand private sector roundtable sessions to include Housing Department or other City staff who are on the interdepartmental committee Responsibility City of Kingston - Planning Dept. (lead) with input from Housing Department and the interdepartmental committee, Housing Department (lead) on facilitating affordable housing applications Time Frame Short term, expand private sector roundtable, (1st year), Process review, (on-going) Resources Staff time Actions Taken: Housing Department staff attend Planning Department meetings to remain informed of ongoing project applications. Planning Department holds quarterly liaison meetings with the Kingston Homebuilders Association and the Kingston Construction Association. The Mayor’s Task Force on Development was established in 2012 recently reported on ways to improve the development review system. The Planning Department has initiated a customer service training program for all staff and departments involved in the development review process to ensure consistency and efficiency in this process Status: Task Force: complete Implementation: ongoing Strategic Direction #3: Leveraging Resources and Tools
- That the City maximize available funding by: Utilizing current program offerings Continuing to actively seek out other funding opportunities July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
198 | P a g e
Page 201 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Developing a contingency plan to manage anticipated step downs in future senior government funding Implementation Leverage homeless funding by bundling/aligning various funding streams with community priorities Continue to maximize take-up of available rent supplement dollars (including Short term Rent Supplement Program) through active negotiation with local landlords Actively refer interested individuals to the Renovation & Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) offered by Canada Mortgage & Housing Corp. (CMHC) Using sector networks, seek out other possible housing funding opportunities Establish a plan for managing funding step down by: o Creating a detailed funding horizon profile by program and project o Developing an impact analysis against the funding horizon profile Establishing a prioritized resource plan to mitigate the impacts Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) Time Frame Short term, Step down Plan, (1st year), Bundling and take-up for programs, (1st to 2nd year), On-going, Referrals and scanning for other funds Resources Additional staff time, Consulting resources as required for funding step down Plan Actions Taken: The leveraging of homeless funding by bundling/aligning various funding streams with community priorities will be determined by the findings of the Homelessness Plan which was initiated in fall 2012 with an end date of July 2013. The timing of the completion of this Plan will allow for this aligning of funding to occur for 2014 funding agreements. Funding under the IAH program will provide a significant number of new rent supplements beginning April 2013 for up to nine years Housing Department staff continue to work on a Rent Supplement Analysis to establish various funding scenarios in order to maximize future available funding. RRAP funding terminated in March 2012. Kingston-Frontenac Renovates initiated effective July 3rd however geared to private homeowners only. This indirectly reduces demand for social housing and other rental stock. Non-profit housing and multi-unit landlords currently not eligible for this program funding. 2 properties were purchased by the City of Kingston through the Affordable Housing Land Acquisition Program for the expressed purpose of future affordable housing development
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
199 | P a g e
Page 202 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Housing Department staff have encouraged its housing providers to join the microfit program in order to secure new forms of revenue Housing Department staff have begun to address the operating agreement expiry and managing the funding step-down. This item is in the 2013 Department Work Plan. Status: In progress
That the City and County advocate for additional funding from senior governments on a ‘fair share’ basis, particularly with regards to addressing capital shortfalls and affordability gaps. Implementation Advocate through local MP’s, MPP’s, AMO & OMSSA for additional funding to address local housing needs, especially in the area of low income households and social housing stock repairs Responsibility City of Kingston Council, County of Frontenac Council Time Frame Short term, (1st year) Resources Staff assistance Actions Taken: The City of Kingston has an elected official appointed to the AMO Board. The Mayor/CAO office hired an Intergovernmental Relations Manager in 2012, which has been instrumental in lobbying for senior government funding and identifying better means to engage senior government funders. Status: Kingston: ongoing Frontenac: no action taken
That the City continue to review its Capital Facilities By-law with the goal of expanding incentives and tools as they arise. Implementation Examine the Municipal Capital Facility (MCF) by-law to ensure that all incentives contemplated under the MHS are available for use Where necessary, broaden the range of available municipal incentives under the by-law to better promote affordability (in terms of duration, depth or both) Incentives should be made available in relation to benefit offered – the greater the incentive offered, the more affordability that will be expected in return July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
200 | P a g e
Page 203 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Responsibility Time Frame Resources
City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) in collaboration with Legal Short term, (1st year) Staff time, Consulting resources as required
Actions Taken: The noted by-law has recently been revised twice. The latest revision was to add affordable homeownership as a funding possibility under this by-law which allows the municipality to provide funding to affordable housing initiatives Status: Complete. Removed from the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan. 19. That the City evaluate local opportunities to increase sustained resources that could be made available to address local housing needs. Implementation Select MHS financial models which offer best-value investment, balancing needs for short term affordability (e.g. rent supplements) and longer term housing supply (e.g. capital funding or incentives). Options to be reviewed include: o Utilizing a portion of savings from uploaded social service costs to address low income housing needs o Dedicating a share of City assessment growth for housing purposes o Apportioning a specific dedicated municipality tax levy for housing o Utilizing tax increment financing to support affordable housing development o Allocating proceeds from the sale of surplus City land o Other sources as may be identified Secure formal commitment from Council to fund inflows to the Housing Fund (Rec. #20) per the selected options Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) in collaboration with Finance Dept. Time Frame Short term (within 1 year) Resources Staff time, Consulting resources as required, Funding commitment as determined by process Actions Taken: A funding strategy has been created for the Discretionary Municipal Residency Benefit which has a direct impact on housing outcomes for low income earners Directing of the Housing Provider Net-Operating Surplus to the Social Housing Construction Reserve Fund (SHCRF) is a resource for retaining existing stock. Expanding CRF access to include funding for REI Projects also enhances July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
201 | P a g e
Page 204 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan program/project sustainability by reducing operating costs or maximizing revenues Status: Ongoing 20. That in recognition of Council’s intention to invest up to $5M, the City give particular consideration to establishing a Housing Fund as the principal tool for accumulating and disbursing funding for affordable housing and that the City consider an initial investment to seed the fund. Implementation Explore options for creating and operating a Housing Fund which will operate as a revolving fund Funding of initiatives should address the needs of those along the housing continuum, especially those households with low or moderate incomes and who are most vulnerable Target funding initiatives that support innovative approaches, leverage available resources and generate the maximum benefit for investment Define input, output and replenishment parameters Consider consolidating existing City housing reserve funds into this new Housing Fund Seed the Fund with an initial allocation Investment in the Housing Fund be distributed to support capital, rent supplement/housing allowance and home ownership programs Provide inflows to the Fund though options adopted via Rec. #19 Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) in collaboration with Finance Dept. Time Frame Short term (1st to 2nd year) Resources Initial seeding, on-going contribution, staff time, Consulting resources as required Actions Taken: 3-year funding for the City of Kingston’s Home Ownership Program began in 2012 $1M capital investment in affordable housing program set up and funded $1M affordable housing land acquisition and disposition fund set up and funded Each of the $1M programs has been funded for five years The land acquisition program policy guideline expects that the program will function as a revolving fund as funds will be returned to the program upon the sale of lands July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
202 | P a g e
Page 205 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Status: Ongoing 21. That the City place particular emphasis on partnering with private and non-profit housing providers to enable leveraging of available resources in order to maximize the provision of affordable housing. Implementation Actively promote increased development dialogue between non-profit and private sector partners. Use opportunities to broaden awareness through venues such as the Planning Dept. roundtable sessions, Construction Association meetings and KEDCO In housing procurement processes, recognize the potential benefits of joint partnerships within the evaluation process Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) Time Frame On-going Resources Staff time Actions Taken: KFHC opened the Royal Cataraqui affordable housing units for seniors on Queen Mary Road in 2012. The Housing Department remains engaged in the planning process for development of units on Cassidy Street with Town Homes Kingston Housing Department provided funding and a new type of partnership arrangement with EngCon Inc on Canaterra Ct project to facilitate the construction of 10 seniors apartments Home Base Housing purchased property on Montreal Street for the purpose of building affordable housing units, as well as moving the Housing Help Centre to the same location. The Housing Department has partnered with HBH with rent supplement funding. The Housing Department facilitated the sale of the former Leroy Grant Drive parkland to a private developer for the provision of 16 affordable housing units throughout the City. Status: Ongoing 22. That the City pursue opportunities to utilize inclusionary zoning and density bonusing to achieve negotiated agreements for the provision of affordable housing in new developments. Implementation Reinforce affordability target obligations of the OP with the local development industry Based on incentive tools available through OP and zoning, actively seek out affordability commitments through the July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
203 | P a g e
Page 206 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Responsibility Time Frame Resources
development approvals process Review opportunities for potential projects during the planning pre-consultation stage Target new development opportunities for inclusionary zoning, especially in greenfield locations Target higher density and mixed use transit corridors for density bonusing, giving particular attention to the impact of parking relief City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) in consultation with Planning Dept. On-going Staff time
Actions Taken: Housing Department staff are attending pre-consultation meetings to communicate departmental objectives and programs to private sector developers Housing Department will be working with Planning Department to review options within the Comprehensive Update to the Zoning Bylaw being undertaken by the Planning Department to find other means to encourage new forms of affordable housing. Status: In progress Notes: See also Recommendation #9 and the chapter on Inclusionary Zoning.
- That the County consider establishing appropriate authorities/ incentives in support of affordable housing to help prepare for development opportunities that may arise. Implementation Explore development fee relief, property tax relief for multi-res and capital facility by-law authorities in concert with local townships as initial measures Responsibility County of Frontenac -Planning Dept. (lead) with Finance Dept. Time Frame Short term (1st to 3rd year) Resources Staff time, costs subject to measures implemented Actions Taken: County Official Plan, which is currently being written, must be in place before this recommendation can be implemented.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
204 | P a g e
Page 207 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Status: No action taken.
- That the City expand the current inventory of suitable lands or properties for affordable housing to include opportunities from other public sector agencies, other levels of government (including the County) and privately held lands. Implementation Augment current City inventory of potential lands with other possible target sites (public private), including donations Ensure full circulation of agency surplus notices within City when received (i.e. federal, provincial, county, school boards, etc.) Establish options for land exchanges as part of acquisition/disposal process or via development approvals processes using capital facilities authorities Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) with input from Real Estate & Construction as well as Planning Dept. Time Frame Short term Circulations (1st year), Mid-term, Inventory/ exchanges (2nd to 3rd year) Resources Staff time, surplus lands Actions Taken: The City of Kingston acquired two additional properties for the purpose of affordable housing in 2012 (1336 Princess Street and 7 Wright Crescent) The City of Kingston maintains ongoing dialogue with all provincial/federal and educational agencies regarding the potential transaction of properties. Status: In progress
- That the City continue to regularly monitor the condition of the social housing portfolio and actively seek alternate funding to assist with major capital repairs. Implementation Maintain up-to-date snapshot of portfolio condition by supporting project Building Condition Assessments (BCA’s) and actively gathering data for portfolio planning purposes Using existing asset planning tools and City resources to help guide decisions regarding allocation of repair funding Continue to advocate to MMAH for additional capital repair assistance (e.g. Social Housing Renovation & Retrofit Program) Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) with input from Real Estate & Construction, City Council – advocacy role Time Frame On-going Resources Staff time and funding for BCA’s July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
205 | P a g e
Page 208 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Actions Taken: The Housing Department continues to work with providers to manage their capital needs through Asset Management software purchased in 2011. Housing Department staff are working with providers to ensure all capital and building condition data is in this system for all buildings in order to fully utilize the software beginning in 2013. This software will allow providers and the Service Manager to track building conditions, allow short & long term capital planning and allow for the development of a long term funding strategy by individual providers and the SM. Building Condition Assessments for all providers were last completed in 2003 (paid for by Service Manager). Local Housing Corporation recently updated BCAs on all buildings in 2011. Status: Set up: complete Implementation: ongoing
- That the City explore opportunities to review services and asset management planning to ensure sharing of resources between the City’s two municipal housing providers, and to then expand these resources to other local housing providers. Implementation Review opportunities to share services and asset management planning for the two largest housing providers in order to expand access to resources, broaden knowledge and better manage risks Once established, expand access to these technical resources to other housing providers in the community Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) in collaboration with Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corp. and Town Homes Kingston Time Frame Short to mid- term, Initial review, (2nd year), Expand (3rd year) Resources Staff time and provider support, Consulting resources as required Actions Taken: KFHC has agreed to offer its Asset Planner management services to all smaller housing providers. This would include data input into Asset Planner program on behalf of smaller providers. There have been ongoing discussion and encouragement for KFHC to provide support services such as RFP / Tender Templates, Review/Evaluation of capital repair requirements, other initiatives as identified, such as bulk purchasing and community supports
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
206 | P a g e
Page 209 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Status: Ongoing 27. That the City research and develop options for the continuation of social housing post End of Operating Agreements to meet its legislated and financial obligations. Implementation Analyze each Housing Provider to assess current and future financial and capital needs Establish asset management strategies for each Housing Provider Review rent supplement program to identify cost saving measures Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) Time Frame Short term (1st year) Resources Staff time and technical/consulting support Actions Taken: The Housing Department is developing a policy to address consents permitting refinancing and redevelopment options to create additional units and promote financial viability Note: only transitions within the next 12 – 16 months are debentures being paid off on two KFHC projects. Unit numbers and operating costs are not affected. Housing Department staff are interested in developing and sharing possible ‘End of Operating Agreement’ Solutions Package to be presented to Non Profit Housing Corporation Boards well in advance of agreement expiration. An EOA survey (through HSC) will soon be identifying potential options. Level of detail will support localized plans/options. Ongoing review and implementation of the HSA may also expand options around ability to leverage assets, etc. The Housing Department has partnered with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to develop a consent policy pilot project that the Ministry will use with other Service Managers across the Province. Status: In progress 28. That the City establish a strategic asset management plan using existing tools to help guide decisions regarding asset renewal/ redevelopment in the social housing portfolio. Implementation Build on interim work established for short term properties (ref. Rec.#27) Using the funding step down plan (ref. Rec. #16), evaluate all properties within the social housing portfolio. Specifically assess options for sustaining each asset and July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
207 | P a g e
Page 210 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Responsibility Time Frame Resources
leveraging equity versus current condition, remaining useful life, operational capacity and ability to maintain resident affordability. Establish a strategic asset management plan that sets out long term strategies for leveraging equity and managing portfolio asset renewal/re-development. City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) with input from Finance and Real Estate & Construction Short term (2nd – 3rd year) Staff time and technical/ consulting support
Actions Taken: The Asset Planner Program is a work in progress which is intended to focus Building Condition Assessments as required, track building conditions, allow short & long term capital planning and allow for the development of a long term funding strategy by individual providers and the SM. This program will also provide a Facilities Condition Index (FCI), which will help determine how long repair funds will be required for ongoing maintenance and identify when a building should be considered for replacement. The City recently received grant funding approval from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to be used towards asset management planning. Housing Department staff will be working with Housing Providers in 2013 to determine how best to use this funding. Status: In progress
- That the City use Rideau Heights as an initial pilot community for testing asset renewal strategies that can be applied elsewhere. Implementation On the basis of foundational work establishing asset management strategies (ref. Rec #28), use a pilot process to test asset renewal strategies Elements would typically include: o Completing an asset renewal context assessment o Conducting a feasibility screen o Identifying possible options and financial implications for each Developed a preferred renewal concept option with staging and full costing Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) with input from Finance, Real Estate & Construction and Planning Dept. Time Frame Short term (2nd – 3rd year) July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
208 | P a g e
Page 211 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Resources
Staff time and technical/ consulting support
Actions Taken: Preliminary departmental planning was initiated in 2012. This included research on other successful projects elsewhere in North America and coordination with other City departments on expectations and issues related with the project. The 2013 City Capital Budget includes $550,000 to undertake this multi year project. KFHC has agreed to assist in the funding of the project and Housing Department staff will be initiating grant applications in 2013 for further funding opportunities A consultant has been hired to undertake this pilot project and planning has begun. Status: In progress 30. That the City and County continue to advocate for additional senior government funding to address the increasing support service needs of residents (Ontario Disability Support Program, Ministry of Community & Social Services, etc.) Implementation Along with other municipalities, advocate through AMO & OMSSA for additional support service dollars to address growing needs Responsibility City of Kingston Council, County of Frontenac Council Time Frame Short term, (1st year) Resources Staff Assistance Actions Taken: Similar answer to Recommendation #17: The City of Kingston has an elected official appointed to the AMO Board. These advocacy efforts are ongoing and a future strategy will be refocused, following an anticipated provincial election in 2013. The Housing Department and the Community and Family Services Department have utilized the Manager of Intergovernmental Affairs hired in 2012 to assist in the lobbying of senior governments. The Community and Family Services Department has actively engaged senior governments over recently announced reductions in social service benefits as well as proposed changes to the social services system in Ontario. This has included appearing in front of legislative committees at Queens Park and hosting senior provincial officials in Kingston. Status: Ongoing
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
209 | P a g e
Page 212 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 31. That the City and County pursue linkages with support service funders and coordinators in the health and community service fields (Local Health Integration Network, Children’s Aid Society, etc.) as a means of expanding support service opportunities in the community. Implementation Building on connections in the supportive housing & homelessness sectors, convene a community roundtable to explore possible housing support opportunities Use the venue as a means of broadening support for the MHS and seeking solutions to support issues Establish and sustain a dialogue on partnership opportunities by connecting agencies with HHAC Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Dept. (lead) and County of Frontenac Time Frame Short term (2nd to 3rd year) Resources Staff time Actions Taken: Housing Department have ongoing meetings with City staff and community agencies to identify gaps in support services and develop a means / resource to fill gaps. Housing Department staff have taken the lead on facilitating 3 sessions with housing providers and community agencies, which created the Homeless Services Networking Committee. The next community session will be held in May 2013. Frontenac Community Mental Health and Addiction Services (FCMHAS) received funding through HPS to hire a support worker to support social housing tenants; Housing Department staff and the consultant preparing the Homelessness Plan have completed consultations with key community agencies and service providers Status: Ongoing Strategic Direction #4: Building Housing Capacity 32. That the City better consolidate the municipal housing function by: Establishing the Housing Department as the ‘Centre of Expertise’ for housing and homelessness issues within the City Coordinating housing and homelessness planning for the broader service area in collaboration with the County and community service providers Having City housing staff lead the inter-departmental committee responsible for implementing the MHS (which is to include County staff) Re-aligning housing staff to accommodate future needs arising from integrated July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
210 | P a g e
Page 213 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan homelessness service planning Implementation Housing Department responsibilities expanded to include stronger homelessness role, integrated with housing duties Monitor LTAHS implementation to confirm Provincial expectations and obligations, especially with regards to Service Manager obligations and the resulting impacts on resources Coordination of housing & homelessness planning in concert with the United Way (HPS), while ensuring collaboration with the County and fully engaging community stakeholders Housing Department to have primary responsibility for MHS implementation, including chairing of interdepartmental committee that oversees MHS Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) in collaboration with County of Frontenac Time Frame Short term (1st to 2nd year) Resources Additional staff resources, Consulting resources as required Actions Taken: The City of Kingston’s Housing Department has been created and it has been established as the ‘Centre of Expertise’ for housing and homelessness issues within the City and County. The Housing Plan is to be updated and extended from 5 years to 10 years as required by Provincial legislation; process to begin in 2013 Consultant has been hired to compete the 10-year Homelessness Plan. Public consultations and interviews with key community stakeholders were completed in Autumn/Winter 2012. The final recommendation report is complete and is scheduled to be presented to Council in summer 2013. Interdepartmental consultation was completed as part of secondary suites planning. Interdepartmental consultation has begun for the multi-year Rideau Heights Community Renewal Plan Regular update meetings have occurred between City of Kingston Housing Department and County of Frontenac staff The Housing Department hired two new staff members in 2012 to reflect increased work expectations generated by the MHS. Staff roles within the Housing Department were evaluated and reassigned in 2012 to align with the MHS and the City’s Strategic Plan priorities The Housing Department has placed more emphasis on homelessness programs and homeless service provider support, through regular updates at housing team meetings, cross-training of staff, increased profile of homelessness programs and services in the annual report card. Provincial expectations for the service manager obligations and impacts on resources will be outlined in the Homelessness Plan, spring 2013. July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
211 | P a g e
Page 214 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan City staff are serving on the United Way’s Community Advisory Board to ensure coordination of homelessness planning Similar content covered in the Actions Taken for Recommendation #5 Status: Set-up: complete Implementation: ongoing 33. That the City in collaboration with the County develop a communications plan to drive out main messages from the MHS in a simple, visual way - reinforcing the issues and the need to work collectively Implementation Working with Communications Dept, develop MHS summary messaging to be used for building broader community awareness and promoting partnerships Link audience back to expanded presence on City web site (ref. Rec.#39) to reinforce contact point for housing information Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) in concert with County of Frontenac Time Frame Short term (1st year) Resources Staff time, including Comm. Consulting resources as required Actions Taken: Housing Department staff have finalized this Plan and it was presented to the HHA Committee in early 2013. All programs initiated in 2012 such as the Home Ownership Program and Kingston Frontenac Renovates Program had a coordinated communications plan to ensure appropriate advertisement in the community Status: Set-Up: Complete Implementation: Ongoing 34. That the City and County adopt a Housing Charter as a means of communicating policy principles regarding housing and homelessness. Implementation City staff to develop background information/examples and draft a charter for HHA Committee consideration that conveys principles in succinct, straight-forward language Committee to review and recommend Charter for Council consideration County staff to develop draft for County Council consideration Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) in consultation with Housing and Homeless Advisory Committee County of Frontenac Planning staff (lead) July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
212 | P a g e
Page 215 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Time Frame Resources
Short term (1st year) Staff time, Consulting resources as required
Actions Taken: Housing Charter draft is complete and a report prepared for review by the HHA Committee in December 2012. Status: Complete. Removed from the 10 Year Housing & Homelessness Plan. 35. That the City in collaboration with the County use community forums and themebased workshops as vehicles for bringing partners together, expanding knowledge of housing development practices, and sharing community ideas, programs and policy. Implementation Develop possible themes for events, as necessary that brings partners together Actively seek timely topics, speakers and possible sponsors (e.g. CMHC, Home Builders Assn., KEDCO, United Way of KFL&A, service clubs, etc.) Focus on broader based housing topics that bring various stakeholders together Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) in concert with County of Frontenac Time Frame Short term (1st to 2nd year) Resources Staff time, modest City and County funding as required Actions Taken: The Housing Department hosted a community symposium on affordable housing in May 2012. Renowned expert on affordable housing and architecture, Dr. Avi Friedman, led the lecture presentations and offered the keynote address. The Housing Department is responsive to identified needs of local housing providers by bringing in speakers to monthly housing provider meetings. The intent is to address operational needs, identify community service gaps, enhance housing management practices and provide information regarding legislative changes. The same approach applies for regularly-scheduled meetings with shelter providers meetings – i.e. police, Frontenac Community Mental Health Services The Housing Department helped create a Homelessness Service Provider Networking Group that can help bridge between the gaps in services, offer referrals to clients in need and support for front-line staff who serve clients regularly. Similar content found in the Actions Taken for Recommendation # 32
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
213 | P a g e
Page 216 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Status: Ongoing 36. That the City, in concert with sector organizations where possible, help support community agency renewal through workshops geared to social housing practitioners. Implementation Collaborate with sector organizations like Ontario Non-Profit Housing Assn., Cooperative Housing Federation, Ontario municipal Social Services Assn., Social Housing Services Corp. and Canada Mortgage & Housing Corp. to determine what workshops or events they will be holding locally Identify potential unmet gaps and seek opportunities to encourage addressing of gaps by sector organizations Where necessary, supplement sector efforts with targeted workshops to help build and maintain social housing provider capacity Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) Time Frame Ongoing Resources Staff time Actions Taken: Similar Actions Taken to Recommendation #35 The Housing Department is responsive to identified needs of local housing providers by bringing in speakers to monthly housing provider meetings. This is intended to address operational needs, identify community service gaps, enhance housing management practices and provide information regarding legislative changes. A chart has been prepared that identifies all gaps in services for homeless prevention. This is intended to better inform the Homelessness Plan on needs in this sector as well as funding agencies such as the United Way to ensure funding is being used most advantageously in the community The Housing Department helped create a Homelessness Service Provider Networking Group that can help bridge between the gaps in services, offer referrals to clients in need and support for front-line staff who serve clients regularly. The group will meet quarterly. Status: Ongoing Strategic Direction #5: Cultivating Partnerships 37. That the City engage the homelessness service sector as part of the broader housing context by: July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
214 | P a g e
Page 217 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Broadening the Housing and Homelessness Committee’s mandate to include homelessness issues and encourage the participation of service providers Collaborating with the Community Advisory Board regarding the funding of homelessness programs and initiatives Expanding Housing staff responsibilities to include homelessness integration Extending partnership information to homelessness agencies, especially those with housing-related activities sponsored by City Implementation As part of the federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) community entity framework, work with the Community Advisory Board (CAB) to establish roles and responsibilities Engage housing, service and support providers in an inaugural roundtable to introduce staff and set out integrated planning directions Use this opportunity to clarify the roles of the City and CAB and how these relate to the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee Provide for CAB representation on the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee and encourage service provider participation Establish homelessness contact and resource information for sharing among service agencies Consolidate information and resource material for posting on the City web site (e-centre), promoting this as a central information tool for service providers and housing stakeholders Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) Time Frame Short term, connections with providers and community, (1 st year), Information sharing is on-going Resources Staff time, support for web, Consulting resources as required Actions Taken: Housing Department staff are now a part of the Community Advisory Board Housing Department staff are working with United Way to clarify roles of City and CAB The Housing Department holds quarterly meetings with the local shelter group The Housing Department coordinated meetings with all homeless provider agencies Similar responses given in Recommendation #5, noted above. Status: In progress.
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
215 | P a g e
Page 218 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan 38. That the City more actively engage the private sector by: Expanding on existing private-sector roundtable sessions currently fostered by the Planning Dept. Inviting private sector representatives to the Housing and Homelessness Committee table to share insights Hosting topical workshops or forums geared to private sector issues as a means of broadening a shared understanding among community partners Implementation Provide for Housing Department representation at private sector roundtable hosted by Planning Dept. Provide for private sector representation on the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee Host occasional events that bring community housing stakeholders together with the private sector Seek topics on broader based housing topics that are of interest to both private sector and community partners Responsibility City of Kingston - Housing Department and Planning Dept. Time Frame Short term (1st to 2nd year) Resources Staff time, modest event costs Actions Taken: Housing Department staff now monitoring development activity and attending pre-consultation meetings where preliminary development plans are presented Private sector representation is included in the Planning Department privatesector roundtable Private sector housing developers were invited to attend and participate in the Avi Friedman spring symposium. Private sector representatives also attended CMHC events scheduled in 2012. Housing Department staff are active and attentive resources to private sector inquiries, when required. Status: Ongoing 39. That the City establish and maintain a housing information e-centre on the City’s web-site to provide housing information and establish a virtual contact point for inquiries. Implementation Develop an on-line resource centre on the City web site that provides one-stop shopping for housing information Build on existing housing services area but broaden housing topics to capture housing and homelessness Ensure ease of navigation Develop and maintain standard plus refreshed content to meet changing user needs July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
216 | P a g e
Page 219 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan Responsibility Time Frame Resources
City of Kingston - Housing Department (lead) with Communications support Short term (1st to 2nd year) Staff time, web support, Consulting resources as required
Actions Taken: The content of the current Housing Department website was reviewed in autumn 2012, in concert with the corporation’s “clean-up” of the existing website, prior to the change-over to the new website in early 2013. The content of the Housing Department tab on the website will be corrected and refreshed, where necessary; late-2012-early 2013 The City of Kingston unveiled a new corporate website in early 2013. E-service on this website is included as part of the 2013 Housing Department work plan. Status: In progress
- That the City include community-based housing innovation awards as part of the Liveable City Program as a means of acknowledging community partners and raising the profile of affordable housing. Implementation Broaden the Liveable City Program to recognize communitybased housing innovations in affordability Host occasional recognition events Responsibility City of Kingston - Planning Dept. in collaboration with Housing Department Time Frame Short term (2nd to 3rd year) Resources Staff time, modest City funding Actions Taken: The next Livable City Awards will be awarded in 2014, and there are plans to recognize affordable housing. Status: Ongoing
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
217 | P a g e
Page 220 of 269
AgendaItem#4c)
10-Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Appendix J: Additional Resources Homelessness Prevention Prevention Targeting 101. Available at http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/prevention-targeting-101 Sample: Eligibility Criteria and Rating Tool for Hennepin County Family Homelessness Prevention. Available at http://www.endhomelessness.org/page//files/3919_file_hennepin_prevention_screening_tool.pdf Intake/Assessment Protocols Coordinated Entry: The Basics. Available at http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/coordinated-entry-the-basics Coordinated Assessment Checklist. Available at http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/coordinated-assessmentchecklist The Assessment and Referral Process: Coordinated Assessment Checklist Addendum. Available at http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/theassessment-and-referral-process-coordinated-assessment-checklist-addend Sample: Memphis/Shelby County Intake Form. Available at http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/memphis-shelby-county-intakeform Rapid Re-Housing Rapid Re-Housing: A Triage Tool. Available at http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/rapid-re-housing-triage-tool Rapid Re-Housing: Successfully Ending Family Homelessness. Available at http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/rapid-re-housing-successfullyending-family-homelessness
July 23, 2013
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
218 | P a g e
Page 221 of 269
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FINAL SUMMARY REPORT
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
re fact consulting
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 222 of 269
PREPARED BY:
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
INTRODUCTION TO THE MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY Housing is vital to the creation of healthy, sustainable and complete communities. Residents of all ages, income levels, abilities, and family types rely on housing to offer a meaningful place to grow and a safe and secure place to live. Having a full range of housing options to meet the needs of all residents is a key contributor to maintaining a high quality of life, a vibrant local economy, and a healthy community.
As a social determinant of health, a lack of adequate, affordable and secure housing increases the risks of many
Recognizing the importance of housing to all members of society and the benefits that adequate housing can provide for the community as a whole, the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac have undertaken the development of a Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS). This summary report provides an overview of the Strategy, how it was developed and its formal recommendations.
STUDY PURPOSE The overall purpose of this study was to develop a Municipal Housing Strategy to replace the previous housing strategy 1
The Canadian Facts; Social Determinants of Health (2010)
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
1
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 223 of 269
The need for adequate, secure and affordable housing affects almost all people at one point or another; whether it is a young family looking to buy its first home, a student looking for temporary rental housing, a single parent struggling to find adequate housing for them self and their children, a senior citizen on a fixed income, an individual recently released from prison in need of a transition into society, a person who is no longer able to work due to a disability, a victim of violence, a family put out of their home by a temporary crisis, or simply someone who works at a modest wage.
health problems.1 On the other hand, a suitable mix of housing can have a positive impact on the entire community. For example, an appropriate supply of affordable housing can help retain young talent and knowledge in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac. Seniors can stay in their communities longer and enjoy the social connections that they have established in these communities when they have a suitable supply of affordable and appropriate housing to choose from. An adequate supply of affordable housing can also provide the accommodation needed by minimum wage workers vital to the success of local service businesses, thereby contributing to a critical element of the local economy.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
entitled The Kingston Model for Action, which was prepared in 2005 and followed the earlier Kingston Area Housing Study (1990).
policies and programs in an actionable plan for the 2011 to 2015 period. By establishing minimum targets for the provision of affordable housing, the Municipal Housing Strategy also aims to meet the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005).
STUDY APPROACH
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
2
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 224 of 269
The goal of this project was to develop a Municipal Housing Strategy for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac that contains projections, policies, and programs for affordable housing and unique approaches to creating a diverse housing stock in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac in the short, medium and long term. This study re-evaluates the housing issues faced by the City of Kingston / County of Frontenac through a comprehensive assessment of housing demand and supply. It also refines strategies to address identified housing issues, ensuring that they aligned with strategic community direction. As a result, the Municipal Housing Strategy has established formal recommendations on
The overall approach in completing this Municipal Housing Strategy involved three phases and incorporates a range of research and consultation techniques. Phase 1: Housing Demand and Supply Analysis provides the key analytical foundation for identification of housing needs in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac. The purpose of the work was to identify the key housing issues facing area residents in the short and long term. Phase 2: Housing Policies and Actions provides an assessment of the current policy context and establishes recommended policies and actions aimed at addressing housing gaps which meet identified needs in the short and long term. Phase 3: Housing Strategy Implementation Plan presents a comprehensive framework for addressing each of the recommendations in the Strategy and identifies stakeholders responsible for implementation. To further support Strategy implementation, staging, priorities and resourcing for proposed activities have also been outlined. Individual reports were developed for each of the three phases of work and this final report provides an overall summary of findings and recommendations for the MHS.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
CONSULTATION STRATEGY Consultation has been an integral component of the Municipal Housing Strategy. A number of key stakeholders were identified and contacted throughout the study process to gain valuable input into housing needs in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac. Their ideas on strategies and actions to address housing challenges were also solicited.
Other consultation activities during the study included a survey of community agencies, personal and telephone interviews and focus group sessions with key stakeholders. Committee consultations, briefings and five community consultation sessions were also held throughout the study, enabling multiple feedback opportunities for the public.
The following figure illustrates the elements that make up the three phases of the study:
re fact consulting
3
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 225 of 269 MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
WHAT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING? At almost every consultation session held during the course of this study, the question was asked: “What is the definition of affordable housing?” We believe it is critical that there is a clear and consistent understanding of this definition, as it is at the very heart of this Municipal Housing Strategy. As pointed out in the introduction to this report, all members of the community require adequate, secure and affordable housing, whether they are young families looking to buy their first home, senior citizens on fixed incomes, persons with disabilities, students, individuals released from prison with nowhere to turn or single persons working at minimum wage. Each earns a different level of income and therefore each can afford a different range of housing options.
Accordingly, for a disabled person whose only income source is government assistance through the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), this translates to housing with a monthly cost of about $470 and leaves them very few options in the housing market. For a young family with two working partners earning a total of $55,000 per year, their income places them within the definition of the lowest 60% of household income in the Kingston/Frontenac area and translates to housing with a monthly cost of about $1,500 in rent or mortgage payments. This leaves them a number of options in both the rental and home ownership markets that would be affordable at their income level, including the purchase of a home priced in the $230,000 range. All of these options fall within the definition of affordable housing. The goal of the Municipal Housing Strategy is to ensure that all households within the community have housing options that are affordable to them at their income level; hence, the need for a definition of affordable housing that covers all such situations.
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
4
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 226 of 269
Because of the wide range of household types and income levels in any community, the definition of affordable housing must cover a wide range of situations. What is affordable to a senior on a fixed pension is much different than what is affordable to a young family with two working partners. In light of these differences, the Province of Ontario prepared a
definition that it included in its Provincial Policy Statement and requires municipalities to follow as a guide. This definition basically states that housing is deemed affordable where costs do not exceed 30% of total household income for those households who rank among the lowest 60% of all households incomes in a community.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
In keeping with the above discussion, the City of Kingston has adopted a definition of affordable housing in its Official Plan that closely follows the Provincial guideline. It is this definition that forms the basis for the affordable housing policies suggested in this Municipal Housing Strategy. The following figure illustrates examples of three typical households and the housing options they can afford within the Kingston regional market.
Jake & Danielle bring in $55,000 a year. They can afford a semi detached or townhouse in Kingston but currently don’t have the money for a down payment.
Jennifer receives $469 from ODSP for her shelter allowance and she needs to find a place with some supports to help manage her worsening arthritis st
$0
$17,678
1 Income Decile
nd
$29,753
2 Income Decile
$40,369
$50,811
3 Income Decile
4 Income Decile
rd
th
th
$62,216
5 Income Decile
th
$76,891
6 Income Decile
WHAT THEY CAN AFFORD Rent = $442 or less Purchase Price = $65,536 or less
Rent = $744 or less Purchase Price = $110,301 or less
Rent = $1,009 or less Purchase Price = $149,657 or less
Rent = $1,270 or less Purchase Price = $188,367 or less
Rent = $1,555 or less Purchase Price = $230,648 or less
Rent = $1,922 or less Purchase Price = $285,052 or less
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
5
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 227 of 269
Lisa is a single mother with 2 children. She works as a receptionist and can only afford $699 per month to cover her rent and utilities.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
HOUSING ISSUES IN THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC Below we summarize the key housing issues that arose from the research and consultation process conducted in Phase One of the study which form the basis for the suggested housing policies and actions.
THE AGING POPULATION WILL HAVE AN INCREASING INFLUENCE ON LOCAL HOUSING DEMAND The proportion of the population of Kingston and Frontenac aged 65 years and older is projected to increase from 15.7% in 2006 to 27.1% in 2036. An adequate range of housing choices for seniors is needed in order to ensure seniors can remain in their communities and to live independently for as long as possible.
While the number of households continues to increase, the composition of households is changing with more one- and two-person households as well as an aging population with changing housing needs. In contrast to the diversification of
OWNERSHIP TENURE HAS BEEN INCREASING BUT IMPACT OF LOW INTEREST RATES IS DIMINISHING Home ownership rates have increased from 1996 to 2006 in Kingston and Frontenac; increasing by 6.2% in Kingston and 4.3% in Frontenac. The increasing prices of homes may have an impact on this trend as the average sale prices of homes in the City of Kingston have increased steadily from 2005 to 2010, with prices of semi-detached homes increasing by 32.0% and prices of single detached homes increasing by 27.3% by 2010.
THE RENTAL HOUSING SUPPLY IN KINGSTON AND FRONTENAC IS DECLINING DESPITE SUSTAINED DEMAND The number of rental dwellings in Kingston decreased from 19,545 in 1996 to 18,475 in 2006. In Frontenac, rental dwellings decreased from 1,175 in 1996 to only 970 in 2006. In addition, average market rents in Kingston CMA are increasing at a higher rate than the Provincial average while vacancy rates are among the lowest in Ontario, pointing to the difficulty in securing rental accommodation in the area.
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
6
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 228 of 269
HOUSING STOCK IN KINGSTON AND FRONTENAC IS NOT VERY DIVERSE
households, the housing stock in Kingston and especially Frontenac remains predominantly single detached homes. In 2006, single detached homes represented 49.0% of the housing stock in Kingston and 93.1% of the stock in Frontenac.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Trends in Average Market Rents, 2006-2010
student housing also impacts lower income households within the permanent population who have to compete for many of the same types of units and reduces the options available to these households. In addition, students may be seen by landlords as more attractive tenants compared to lower income households since they may be able to provide parental guarantees.
HOUSEHOLD INCOMES ARE POLARIZED AND THERE IS A CLEAR CONTRAST BETWEEN RENTERS AND OWNERS
THE SHORTAGE OF STUDENT HOUSING IS HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE OVERALL MARKET AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THERE IS AN INCREASING INCIDENCE OF LOWINCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN KINGSTON, UNLIKE THE COUNTY WHERE IT IS DECLINING The incidence of low income in private households in Kingston increased from 14.0% in 1995 to 15.4% in 2005. In contrast, the prevalence of low income in private households in Frontenac decreased from 12.8% to 8.7% in the same time period, following the trend seen for the Province as a whole.
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
7
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 229 of 269
Kingston is home to two major post-secondary educational institutions (Queen’s University and St. Lawrence College) as well as to the Royal Military College and the Canadian Forces School of Communications and Electronics. Approximately 12,000 Queen’s University students live off-campus and one of the issues of off-campus housing is that it is generally more expensive than on-campus housing. In addition, landlords normally require 12-month leases, which presents a problem for international and co-op students who usually do not require the accommodation for a whole year. The demand for
In 2005, 22.0% of renter households in Kingston and Frontenac fell within the first income decile ($15,337 or less in 2005) compared to only 4.1% of all owner households. On the other hand, only 1.3% of all renter households and 14.3% of all owner households fell within the highest income decile during the same time period.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
The City of Kingston also had a higher incidence of low-income households (15.4%) compared to the Province as a whole (14.7%) in 2005. Incidence of Low Income in Private Households: Kingston, Frontenac and Ontario; 1995 & 2005
THERE IS A LACK OF AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL HOUSING IN KINGSTON AND FRONTENAC
In 2006, 48.4% of renter households in Kingston spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs compared to only 16.5% of owner households. In addition, during the same time period, 12.0% of renter households spent 70.0% or more of their income on housing costs compared to only 3.4% of owner households. In the County of Frontenac in 2006, 39.6% of renter households spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs. This proportion increased from 37.0% in 1996. This is also significantly larger than the proportion of owner households spending 30% or more of their income on housing costs in 2006 (18.0% of all owner households).
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES ARE MOST ACUTE FOR YOUTH-LED HOUSEHOLDS AND LONEPARENT HOUSEHOLDS In 2005 in Kingston, 74.3% of all youth-led households spent 30% or more of their income on housing costs. In Frontenac, lone-parent households had the largest proportion of households (36.0%) spending 30% or more of their household income on housing costs.
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
8
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 230 of 269
Overall, the home ownership market in Kingston CMA is not affordable to households earning $49,037 or less while the private rental housing market would not be affordable to households earning $28,658 or less. At least 20% of all households would not be able to afford rental units in the private rental market and would require some form of rental assistance.
OVERALL, AFFORDABILITY IS A BIGGER ISSUE IN THE CITY OF KINGSTON AS COMPARED TO THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC BUT AFFORDABILITY FOR RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR BOTH
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Percentage of Household Income Spent on Rent: Kingston, Frontenac and Ontario, 2005
THERE IS A LACK OF SOCIAL HOUSING UNITS, PARTICULARLY FOR FAMILIES AND SINGLE-PERSON HOUSEHOLDS
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
9
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 231 of 269
There were a total of 1,133 applicants on the centralized wait list for social housing in Kingston and Frontenac as of July 31, 2010. This included 62 senior applicants (5.5% of total) and 1,071 family / mixed applicants (94.5%), which include single individuals, couples, and families. In addition, family / mixed units comprise 88.0% of the social housing stock whereas they comprise 94.5% of the applicants on the wait list.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the housing needs identified in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac, a comprehensive review of current relevant policy and effective practices, and feedback from a wide range of stakeholders, a series of 40 recommendations have been developed. The recommendations reflect a broad three-pronged approach aimed at maintaining, enhancing and adding to the supply of appropriate and affordable housing in the community.
Five strategic directions have been established to help address these high level objectives. They are:
- Managing the housing agenda
- Creating a complementary regulatory environment
- Leveraging resources and tools
- Building housing capacity
- Cultivating partnerships A series of recommendations have been developed for each strategic direction and these are detailed in the following section.
re fact consulting
10
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 232 of 269 MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Strategic Direction #1 – Managing the Housing Agenda
- That the City and County establish the Municipal Housing Strategy as the primary strategic plan to help guide and align local housing efforts.
- That the City and County use the Municipal Housing Strategy as an alignment tool across areas of municipal responsibility.
- That the Housing Department of the City take lead responsibility for advancing the MHS in collaboration with internal and external stakeholders, including the County.
Work with the United Way as they pursue community entity status to secure federal Homeless Partnership Strategy (HPS) funding Consolidate provincial homelessness funding programs to help effectively address community priorities 6. That the City report on MHS progress regularly and publish an annual report card identifying key indicator status. 7. That the City gather, maintain and monitor data to support housing and homelessness accountability practices, both internally and in support of LTAHS requirements.
- That the City recognize and support the Affordable Housing Committee as a primary vehicle for engaging stakeholders and providing advice on matters related to housing by: Renaming the Committee to the ‘Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee’ Focusing Committee activity on housing issues, policies and programs Ensuring broad and balanced representation on the Committee from private, public and municipal interests
Engage local homelessness service providers, recipients and the County in system planning
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
11
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 233 of 269
- That in accordance with the Provincial Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy (LTAHS) direction for integration on local program planning, the City:
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Strategic Direction #2 – Creating a Complementary Regulatory Environment 8. That the City encourage social capital initiatives by: Supporting legislative reforms that improve household income retention incentives and help address the impacts that utility costs have on poverty
Working collaboratively with social assistance staff and the Province to reduce procedural ‘barriers’ Linking municipal programs and poverty reduction initiatives that help support win-win opportunities 9. That the City implement Official Plan policies which promote inclusive, sustainable and flexible communities by: Pursuing inclusionary zoning opportunities as part of the comprehensive Zoning By-law (ZBL) review Seeking opportunities to appropriately integrate student housing Undertaking a broad locational analysis of affordable housing opportunities and recommending options that promote community inclusion Reviewing demolition and conversion provisions to help further support the retention of existing rental stock
Housing Affordability – 25% of units at rates up to the affordability threshold.
- That the County consider establishing an Official Plan to help guide land use planning which has consistent polices among the four constituent Townships and which establishes targets for units to be added to the current housing stock over the next 10 years as follows:
Housing Form – 92% singles, 4% multiples and 4% apartments
Housing Tenure – 90% ownership, 10% rental
Housing Affordability – 25% of units at rates up to the affordability threshold
- That the City support second suites as an affordable rental housing alternative by:
Encouraging and supporting applications for second suites where currently permitted in ZBL’s
Developing and implementing as-of-right zoning provisions within appropriate residential zones via the comprehensive ZBL review
Encouraging built-in conversion potential for appropriate housing within new development
Streamlining administrative approvals for second suites
Enhancing awareness through the public education campaign (Rec.#33), including a resident fact sheet
Housing Form – 60% singles, 20% multiples and 20% apartments
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
12
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 234 of 269
- That the City adopt refined housing targets for units to be added to the current housing stock over the next 10 years as follows:
Housing Tenure – 70% ownership, 30% rental
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
- That the City implement key affordable housing provisions from the Official Plan as a part of the comprehensive ZBL review, including policies that:
Encourage housing mix and diversity
Support density and intensification
Enable residential renewal and rehabilitation
Review minimum separation distances for residential care facilities
- That the County undertake a review with local Townships to identify zoning anomalies that may be acting as barriers, especially when it comes to supporting seniors housing options.
- That the City continue to support timely land use approvals by:
Re-evaluating opportunities to streamline the planning approvals process wherever possible
Establishing an internal review mechanism for identifying policies that cut across areas of responsibility
Continuing to dialogue with the development industry to identify and resolve any problem areas
re fact consulting
13
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 235 of 269 MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Strategic Direction #3 – Leveraging Resources and Tools 16. That the City maximize available funding by:
Utilizing current program offerings
Continuing to actively seek out other funding opportunities
Developing a contingency plan to manage anticipated step downs in future senior government funding
That the City and County advocate for additional funding from senior governments on a ‘fair share’ basis, particularly with regards to addressing capital shortfalls and affordability gaps.
That the City review its Capital Facilities By-law with the goal of expanding incentives and tools that can be offered in a targeted way.
That the City evaluate local opportunities to increase sustained resources that could be made available to address local housing needs.
That the City place particular emphasis on partnering with private and non-profit housing providers to enable leveraging of available resources in order to maximize the provision of affordable housing.
That the County consider establishing appropriate authorities/incentives in support of affordable housing to help prepare for development opportunities that may arise.
That the City expand the current inventory of suitable lands or properties for affordable housing to include opportunities from other public sector agencies, other levels of government (including the County) and privately held lands.
That the City continue to regularly monitor the condition of the social housing portfolio and actively seek alternate funding to assist with major capital repairs.
That the City explore opportunities to review services and asset management planning to ensure sharing of resources between the City’s two municipal housing providers, and to then expand these resources to other local housing providers.
That the City develop options for social housing stock reaching mortgage maturity in the next 12-36 months which leverage equity while addressing on-going affordability and community opportunities.
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
14
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 236 of 269
That in recognition of Council’s intention to invest $5M, the City give particular consideration to establishing a Housing Fund as the principal tool for accumulating and disbursing funding for affordable housing and that the City consider an initial investment to seed the fund.
That the City pursue opportunities to utilize inclusionary zoning and density bonusing to achieve negotiated agreements for the provision of affordable housing in new developments.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
- That the City establish a strategic asset management plan using existing tools to help guide decisions regarding asset renewal/redevelopment in the social housing portfolio.
- That the City use Rideau Heights as an initial pilot community for testing asset renewal strategies that can be applied elsewhere.
- That the City and County continue to advocate for additional senior government funding to address the increasing support service needs of residents (Ontario Disability Support Program, Ministry of Community & Social Services, etc.)
- That the City and County pursue linkages with support service funders and coordinators in the health and community service fields (Local Health Integration Network, Children’s Aid Society, etc.) as a means of expanding support service opportunities in the community.
re fact consulting
15
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 237 of 269 MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Strategic Direction #4 – Building Housing Capacity 32. That the City better consolidate the municipal housing function by:
Establishing the Housing Department as the ‘Centre of Expertise’ for housing and homelessness issues within the City
Coordinating housing and homelessness planning for the broader service area in collaboration with the County and community service providers
Having City housing staff lead the inter-departmental committee responsible for implementing the MHS (which is to include County staff)
Re-aligning housing staff to accommodate future needs arising from integrated homelessness service planning
- That the City, in concert with sector organizations where
possible, help support community agency renewal through workshops geared to social housing practitioners.
- That the City in collaboration with the County develop a communications plan to drive out main messages from the MHS in a simple, visual way - reinforcing the issues and the need to work collectively.
- That the City and County adopt a Housing Charter as a means of communicating policy principles regarding housing and homelessness.
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
16
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 238 of 269
- That the City in collaboration with the County use community forums and theme-based workshops as vehicles for bringing partners together, expanding knowledge of housing development practices, and sharing community ideas, programs and policy.
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Strategic Direction #5 – Cultivating Partnerships 37. That the City engage the homelessness service sector as part of the broader housing context by:
Broadening the Housing and Homelessness Committee’s mandate to include homelessness issues and encourage the participation of service providers
Recognizing the Community Advisory Board as the primary advisory body regarding the funding of homelessness programs and initiatives
Expanding Housing staff responsibilities to include homelessness integration
Extending partnership information to homelessness agencies, especially those with housing-related activities sponsored by City
That the City include community-based housing innovation awards as part of the Livable City Program as a means of acknowledging community partners and raising the profile of affordable housing.
That the City more actively engage the private sector by: Expanding on existing private-sector roundtable sessions currently fostered by the Planning Dept.
Inviting private sector representatives to the Housing and Homelessness Committee table to share insights
Hosting topical workshops or forums geared to private sector issues as a means of broadening a shared understanding among community partners
- That the City establish and maintain a housing information e-centre on the City’s web site to provide housing information and establish a virtual contact point for inquiries.
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
17
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 239 of 269
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY The successful implementation of the Municipal Housing Strategy is reliant on having a structured approach to undertaking tasks, managing resources and evaluating progress on an on-going basis. A formal implementation plan for the MHS has been provided in Phase 3 which sets out detailed implementation activities, core responsibilities, staging and required resources for each of the 40 recommendations. In developing the implementation plan, consideration was given to:
The need for a clear accountability structure
The important role that partners play in advancing solutions
The recognition that resources to address issues are finite
The highly relevant land use policy initiatives in the City and County that are planned or underway
The parallel implementation process for the Province’s Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy (LTAHS)
Governance & responsibilities Like any strategic plan, the implementation of the MHS is reliant on a sound accountability structure to ensure activities are initiated and completed as planned. The proposed governance structure for
(a) Council – responsible for adopting the MHS and monitoring its progress over the 5 year planning horizon (b) Housing Department – the primary steward of the MHS, responsible for overseeing implementation activities, chairing the Interdepartmental Committee and regularly reporting to Council on progress (c) Interdepartmental Committee- Chaired by the Housing Department, this proposed internal committee is to be comprised of staff from various departments of the City and County and is responsible for facilitating and supporting implementation of the MHS (d) Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee (HHAC) – This re-framed advisory body is comprised of a wide cross section of housing stakeholders – public, private and not-for-profit – and is responsible for providing advice to Council on matters related to housing and homelessness, including the MHS (e) Community stakeholders – As partners in the housing system, local stakeholders also have an important role to play in helping to support implementation activities, whether through the HHAC or directly with City/County staff.
Resourcing the Plan To effectively advance implementation, there is obviously a need to allocate necessary resources. As part of the implementation plan, required resources were identified for each recommendation. It is expected that the resources to implement the MHS would be derived from a number of sources by:
Utilizing existing staff resources to the maximum extent
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
18
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 240 of 269
As result, an implementation plan has been developed which establishes clear responsibilities, outlines priorities and utilizes available resources to help advance the recommendation of the Municipal Housing Strategy.
implementing the MHS is as follows:
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
practicable
Short Term Priorities
Augmenting existing staff resources in the Housing Department to help address both LTAHS and MHS requirements
In addition to adopting the Municipal Housing Strategy as a key housing blueprint for the City and County, key short term priorities of the MHS include:
Supplementing internal staff resources with external technical expertise as and when required
Formalizing the roles and responsibilities of the Housing Department as the primary steward of the MHS
Maximizing the use of available programs, owned lands and leveraging of housing assets
Establishing the City’s Interdepartmental Committee to refine and advance implementation work planning
Allocating new financial resources to establish, seed and sustain the proposed Housing Fund
Restructuring the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee and developing a Housing Charter
It is important to note that while municipal efforts can continue to make a real contribution to addressing local housing conditions, there remains an important and substantial financial role for senior levels of government in supporting new supply initiatives, retrofit/repair programs and income maintenance assistance. In addition to marshalling available local resources, the Strategy therefore also recommends that the City and County advocate for senior government funding to sustain these important initiatives.
Adopting recommended housing targets
Monitoring and reporting
Advancing key Zoning & Official Plan issues with the Planning Department as part of Comprehensive Zoning By‐law review process
Evaluating and selecting financial vehicles for sustaining contributions to the Housing Fund Advocating for senior government funding (new supply, supports and repairs) Identifying targeted municipal incentives and broadening granting authority
Developing a funding step down plan for existing funding programs that are sunsetting Developing an interim Asset Management strategy for social housing where debt is maturing in the next 12‐36 months Developing and issuing an initial housing Report Card
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
19
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 241 of 269
To ensure accountability to the Kingston and Frontenac communities, an Annual Housing Report Card will be published to track progress on recommendations outlined in the MHS. In addition to monitoring status, the Report Card would track key indicators to help identify local market trends and changes. It is also recommended that the MHS be reviewed every 5 years to ensure that initiatives remain relevant to underlying trends, housing conditions and the regulatory environment that can change over time.
Establishing a Housing Fund and seeding it with start-up resources
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
Key Success Factors To help ensure the successful launch and implementation of the MHS, it will be critical to move forward on initial priority activities once the MHS is adopted. Key factors for the on-going success of the MHS include:
Creating a collaborative environment - Maintaining a common strategic focus, establishing core responsibilities and linking efforts to better address community needs
Getting partners engaged in the dialogue - Establishing and sustaining a dialogue among all partners in the housing system to promote better community outcomes
Committing resources - Making best use of existing resources while enhancing efforts though additional on-going resources
Communicating results - Maintaining community awareness and accountability through regular reporting
Program funder, financer & regulator
Program funder, financer & regulator Federal Government
Service Manager, facilitator & program administrator
Non-Profit Sector
County of Frontenac
Private Sector
Coordinator, facilitator
Builders, developers, landlords, financiers
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
20
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 242 of 269
Housing & support service provider
City of Kingston
Provincial Government
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
The Municipal Housing Strategy was undertaken on behalf of the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac. We would like to thank the Steering Committee for their input and assistance during this study. The members of the Steering Committee are:
Lanie Hurdle (City of Kingston) Jim de Hoop (City of Kingston) Grant Bain (City of Kingston) George Wallace (City of Kingston) Terry Willing (City of Kingston) Cheryl Hitchen (City of Kingston) Lee Campbell (City of Kingston) Rob Rowe (City of Kingston) Mary McIntyre (City of Kingston) Cherie Mills (City of Kingston) Elizabeth Savill (County of Frontenac) Joe Gallivan (County of Frontenac)
The Municipal Housing Strategy was prepared by the consulting firm SHS Consulting in association with Re/Fact Consulting. The members of the consulting team are:
Ed Starr, SHS Consulting, Partner Ken Foulds, Re/Fact Consulting, Principal Johanna Hashim, SHS Consulting, Senior Research & Policy Analyst Karen Nelson Hamilton, SHS Consulting, Research Analyst Vincent Minichiello, SHS Consulting, Financial Analyst
MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
re fact consulting
21
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 243 of 269
10 Year Municipal Housing & Homelessness Plan
For more information on the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac Municipal Housing Strategy or to find out how you can support the goals of the Strategy, please visit: www.cityofkingston.ca or contact: Hollis Amy – CFS, City of Kingston (613) 546-2695 ext. 4973 hamey@cityofkingston.ca
re fact consulting
22
AgendaItem#4c)
Page 244 of 269 MUNICIPAL HOUSING STRATEGY FOR THE CITY OF KINGSTON AND COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
AgendaItem#4d)
Review of the Kingston Frontenac Renovates Program
Page 245 of 269
AgendaItem#4e)
Mr. Wayne Robinson will address the Committee of the Whole
Page 246 of 269
AgendaItem#4e)
Mr. Wayne Robinson will address the Committee of the Whole
Page 247 of 269
County of Frontenac Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project
NEXT STEPS In order to advance a viable seniors pilot project, the County would need to: Identify the scope of the seniors pilot project it wishes to pursue and define the County role Establish financial authorities and tools, as well as committing funding and/or resources for the project Seek out interested partners to advance the proposed pilot project through development Continue to create an attractive development environment for appropriate seniors housing projects
STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
County of Frontenac Seniors Community Housing Pilot Project
Page | 22
re fact consulting
AgendaItem#4f)
Page 248 of 269
In addition to addressing those recommendations made as part of the Policy Framework component of this study, the County will need to pursue a number of avenues specifically related to pilot project development. To advance a seniors pilot project, it is recommended:
- That the County form an implementation group/task force to help establish a seniors housing pilot project
- That the County adopt a project scope for the preferred housing pilot and define its role for the project
- That the County identify funding, resources and incentives that it is willing to provide to support a
seniors pilot project. In addition to establishing Municipal Capital Facility authorities, the County should consider the use of the following incentives: Capital funding Waivers/reductions in County and/or local municipal building and development fees/charges Reductions in County/local property taxes Contributions of municipally‐owned land/buildings Low interest or interest‐free revolving loans 4. That the County seek from the City of Kingston (as Service Manager) a funding commitment to help support the pilot project and local seniors housing needs 5. That the County promote SEED funding to possible pilot project sponsors in order to build local capacity and undertake project viability investigations 6. That the County solicit detailed pilot project proposals from interested community partners using an Expression of Interest or a Request for Proposal 7. That the County, in conjunction with local support agencies, seek funding enhancements from the Southeast LHIN for local seniors support services, local home care services , community paramedicine initiatives and home adaptation initiatives. 8. That the County foster the development of other forms of affordable and appropriate seniors housing by creating a more flexible local regulatory environment.
AgendaItem#4g)
Section 5 – Housing and Social Services Section 5 – Housing and Social Services The Housing and Social Services section contains policies that establish that Frontenac County is committed to providing a variety of housing types and social services to allow residents to enjoy a good quality of life. Services delivered include child-care, educational facilities and services, assisted living or long term care, employment services, affordable housing, transitional shelters, group homes, long term care and support services, and health facilities. The City of Kingston is responsible as the Service Manager for both the City and the County to make sure these services are available in the Frontenacs. Some of the social services are provided and funded directly by the Province or community agencies while others are provided through partnerships with the County. Volunteer groups also play an important role in the provision of social and health services within the community. The County will continue to partner with the Townships and various government and non-government agencies to deliver social services that are appropriate, effective and accessible. The Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS) forms the basis for housing policy across the Frontenacs and in the City of Kingston as a result of its City/County approval. The MHS serves as the primary strategic plan to help guide and align local housing efforts, and is the foundation for the housing policies of this Plan. 5.1
Municipal Housing Strategy 5.1.1 Introduction County Council and Kingston City Council adopted the Municipal Housing Strategy in 2011. The Strategy will act as a guide to create a ten year housing plan as required by Provincial legislation. It will help provide guidance for County Council to ensure that the citizens of the Frontenacs are housed in affordable, safe, sanitary, and adequate accommodation. 5.1.2 Policies The Municipal Housing Strategy shall be considered the primary strategic plan to help guide and align local housing efforts across the County. The County endorses the targets in the Municipal Housing Strategy for residential units to be added to the current housing stock over the next ten years and the goal of providing more affordable housing. This Plan acknowledges that the Municipal Housing Strategy is being updated in 2013 to include policies and strategies to reduce homelessness in both Kingston and Frontenac County. The County will work with the City as Service Manager to develop programs and projects to try to end homelessness in our region. It is the intent of this Plan to encourage the use of surplus municipal land or facilities for the provision of housing. Each Township may consider adopting a
County Official Plan - Section 5 Housing and Social Services
Page 249 of 269
AgendaItem#4g)
Section 5 – Housing and Social Services ‘Housing First’ approach to coordinate surplus or disposal protocols for municipal lands and institutional agencies such as the local school boards. The Municipal Housing Strategy will promote the periodic identification and monitoring of demographic changes and housing needs within the County to determine whether housing demands and needs are not or will not be met. 5.2
Affordable Housing 5.2.1 Introduction Frontenac County contains many households where the annual income is below the Provincial average. This situation makes it challenging for people to find housing that is affordable within their budget. For the long term health of the community it is important that a wide variety of housing choices be made available. 5.2.2 Policies The County and the Townships will work jointly to provide for affordable housing by enabling a wide range of housing types to meet the projected demographic and market requirements of existing and future residents of the County. County Council will establish and monitor housing targets for affordable housing for low and moderate income households in the Frontenacs, with a focus on methods of providing housing for the low-income residents of the County. Where specific needs are identified, Council will work with the City of Kingston (service manager for all of Frontenac County and the City) and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to meet identified needs. The local Townships will, where appropriate, promote intensification in settlement areas through their planning documents. Examples include: allowing for the conversion of single detached houses into multiple units and permitting land severances on large underutilized properties which will allow for new residential development on the vacant severed parcel. The County and the Townships will work to ensure a minimum 10-year supply of residential land across the Frontenacs at all times. County Council will encourage and facilitate the efforts of non-profit housing and co-operative housing to provide affordable housing. County Council will work with other levels of government to ensure that adequate resources are permitted to public sector housing programs and initiatives. County Council may participate in the provision of housing, both directly and indirectly, in accordance with the general policy and program directions
County Official Plan - Section 5 Housing and Social Services
Page 250 of 269
AgendaItem#4g)
Section 5 – Housing and Social Services established in the Official Plan and other specific direction as may be identified in the Municipal Housing Strategy as updated from time to time. County Council may assess different forms of housing design which make housing more affordable, and may investigate alternative dwelling design standards that may contribute to more affordable housing. Community Improvement Plans should consider initiatives to promote affordable housing projects in each Township. 5.3
Seniors Housing 5.3.1 Introduction The Municipal Housing Strategy has indicated that one of the biggest challenges across Frontenac County over the next twenty years to be confronted is providing housing choices for seniors who wish to remain in their community. With the existing residents aging, and with the migration of seniors settling in the County after converting their cottages to full time residential use, this issue will become a priority. The goal is to look at ways and means of finding housing types that will allow seniors to stay close to their communities and families. 5.3.2 Policies The County and the Townships may work jointly to provide opportunities for new development or redevelopment that is sustainable in a rural context and which encourages housing that will help address the evolving needs of an aging population. County Council supports the principle of aging in place as a way to address seniors housing options while at the same time encouraging more sustainable settlement areas. This plan encourages identifying affordable seniors housing projects at a variety of scales as an eligible community improvement activity in the creation of Community Improvement Plans. Where practical, it is the intent of this Plan to encourage the expansion of municipal servicing to help support appropriate multi-residential development to accommodate a seniors housing project. It is recognized that Zoning By-laws can be barriers to the development of housing for senior citizens if these types of dwellings are only allowed in certain areas of a community. Therefore it is the intent of this Plan that the County and Townships work together to create any necessary revisions to Zoning By-laws that will help facilitate the development of seniors housing on a consistent and inclusive basis across the Frontenacs.
County Official Plan - Section 5 Housing and Social Services
Page 251 of 269
AgendaItem#4g)
Section 5 – Housing and Social Services 5.4
Group Homes 5.4.1 Introduction Group homes are generally defined as residences licensed or funded under a federal or provincial statute for the accommodation of three to ten persons, exclusive of staff, living under supervision in a single housekeeping unit and who, by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status, require a group living arrangement for their well being. 5.4.2 Policies A group home shall be licensed and/or approved for funding under provincial statutes and in compliance with municipal by-laws. (Note: as defined under Section 163 of the Municipal Act). Group homes shall be permitted in the local Official Plans in all designations that permit residential use. Group homes may be subject to Site Plan Control by the local Townships to address such matters as ensuring that the site design is in keeping with the character of the area and that sufficient space is available to accommodate the needs of the residents.
5.5
Homes for the Aged (Long-Term Care Complexes) 5.5.1 Introduction There are currently no public long-term care complexes located in Frontenac County. There are two large-scale privately owned facilities nearby in Northbrook and in Perth that are used in part by Frontenac County residents. There are other small scale facilities scattered throughout the County. The Frontenac County home for the aged – Fairmount – is located in the rural area of the City of Kingston and accommodates Frontenac County residents. 5.5.2 Policies It is the intent of this Plan to recognize the value of long-term care complexes to residents of Frontenac County. The predominant uses for these complexes shall include resident rooms and beds, resident care and nursing facilities, therapy facilities, kitchen and dining facilities, offices, meeting rooms, recreation facilities, resident places of assembly, pharmacies, and open space areas. Complementary uses can include such facilities as residential dwelling units for the elderly, day care facilities, and parking lots.
County Official Plan - Section 5 Housing and Social Services
Page 252 of 269
AgendaItem#4g)
Section 5 – Housing and Social Services This Plan recognizes Fairmount Home as the County owned and operated long term care home that provides care for residents of Frontenac County, the City of Kingston, and other communities. 5.6
Secondary Suites 5.6.1 Introduction The provision of affordable housing in communities is now considered to be a provincial interest in the Ontario Planning Act. As a result, the provincial government now has changed legislation to facilitate the creation of second units in dwellings. 5.6.2 Policies Township Official Plans may include policies to allow, where appropriate, the use of a second residential unit in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse if no building or structure ancillary to the house c ontains a second residential unit; and further, to allow the use of a residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi-detached house, or rowhouse if the house contains a single residential unit. This policy shall not apply to existing sleeping cabins or ‘bunkies’ located on waterfront properties.
5.7
Accessibility 5.7.1 Introduction Frontenac County is committed to improve access and opportunities for persons with disabilities in accordance with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. 5.7.2 Policies As part of the commitment to improve accessibility in the Frontenacs, the County will: a) Have regard to accessibility for persons with disabilities when considering draft plans of subdivision; b) Establish a process to identify barriers and gaps in by-laws, policies, programs, practices, and services; c) Continue to improve the level of accessibility of by-laws, policies, programs, practices, and services; d) Actively encourage input from the community and the Accessibility Advisory Committee appointed by the Frontenac County Council in the design, development and operation of new, renovated, purchased or leased municipal services and facilities; e) Improve accessibility to persons with disabilities to encourage their integration into the economic, political, social, cultural and educational mainstream; and f) Provide resources and support to obtain these objectives.
County Official Plan - Section 5 Housing and Social Services
Page 253 of 269
AgendaItem#6b)
Minutes of the Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee Meeting January 6, 2014 A meeting of the Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee was held at the County Administrative Office, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie on Monday, January 6, 2014 at 1:00 PM. Present:
Chair Walter Knott, Warden Clayton, Deputy Warden Doyle and Councillor Davison
Also Present:
Other Councillors: Councillors Inglis and Jones; County Staff: Marian VanBruinessen, Treasurer/Acting CAO; Paul Charbonneau, Director of Emergency and Transportation Services; Jannette Amini, Acting Clerk
Call to order
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. 2.
Adoption of the agenda
Moved By: Seconded By:
Deputy Warden Doyle Councillor Davison
THAT the agenda for the January 6, 2014 Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee be amended to move Reports ii. to be considered prior to i. and as amended be adopted. CARRIED 3.
Disclosure of pecuniary interest and general nature thereof
The Chair requested the Recording Secretary to make a note in the minutes that no members of the Committee declared any disclosures of pecuniary interest.
Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee Meeting Minutes January 6, 2014
Report of the Service Delivery and Organizational Review Committee
Page 1 of 8
Page 254 of 269
AgendaItem#6b)
Adoption of minutes
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Davison Warden Clayton
THAT the minutes of the Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee meeting held on December 9, 2013 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 5.
Deputations and/or presentations
Mr. Todd MacDonald, Performance Concepts, who has been retained by the County of Frontenac for the Council Strategic Planning exercise, was scheduled to address the Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee on this matter; however due to inclement weather, Mr. Todd provided his presentation via teleconference. Mr. MacDonald provided the Committee with his thoughts on the process for the County Strategic Planning session, taking into account the KPMG report and how Council will move forward with its priorities and how it will act on the report. This will also take into account budget decisions that Council will consider in 2014 budget including reserves and revenue flows. He is attempting to develop a strategy around these matters and is looking to this Committee around timing issues. Mr. MacDonald made two points, the first being the strategic planning process and should it be the platform that Council uses to assess its strategy with respect to the KPMG report and in what order the recommendations will be implemented. He suggested that there is an opportunity to build a bridge with this Committee and felt that the strategic planning process would be a more collaborative way to do that which allows the work of the Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee to expand and include the perspectives of all council. The second point addressed timing of the implementation process of the KPMG report vs. strategic planning vs. the budget process and questioned if the budget decisions will drive the strategic planning or should that discussion take place in the strategic planning forum first. He advised that there should be a clearly understood game plan that Council’s priorities should be determined through the strategic planning session prior to the budget process. Mr. MacDonald was informed that the SDOR Committees mandate is to work on the implementation of the KPMG report and not the strategic planning process or the budget process. To Mr. MacDonald’s question as to whether this Committee has a process of extending its discussions to full Council; he was advised that any recommendations coming from this Committee are forwarded to the Committee of the Whole Council for full discussion which are then forwarded to Council for confirmation. It was recognized by members that the outcome of both a Strategic Plan and recommendations around the implementation of the KPMG report will have budget Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee Meeting Minutes January 6, 2014
Report of the Service Delivery and Organizational Review Committee
Page 2 of 8
Page 255 of 269
AgendaItem#6b)
implications; however at present, the County has no Strategic Plan and the importance of Council moving forward with its budget process and County business was stressed. Ms. VanBruinessen confirmed that the process typically would be to have a Strategic Plan, or longer term vision in place prior to budget decisions, noting the benefits of a Strategic Plan as noted in the draft Asset Management Plan which determines how tax revenues are allocated in the future. Mr. MacDonald provided his interpretation of these discussions, those being that the Committee will continue its deliberations around KPMG report and then report to Committee of the Whole Council and Council. 6.
Closed meeting
Moved By: Seconded By:
Deputy Warden Doyle Councillor Davison
RESOLVED THAT the Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee enter into a closed meeting as authorized under Section 239 of the Municipal Act, to consider: (d) Labour Relations and Employee Negotiations - as it relates to the organizational review of municipal employees’ responsibilities CARRIED Moved By: Seconded By:
Deputy Warden Doyle Warden Clayton
THAT the Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee rise from Closed Meeting without reporting. CARRIED 7.
Reports
This item was considered after ii. KPMG SDOR Report and Implementation Plan See page 4 i. 2013-241 Financial Services – Services and Organizational Review The Committee noted that this recommendation is no longer valid given that County Council has assigned this task to the Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee through its amended mandate. Staff did point out that the second portion of the recommendation would still need to be addressed as there will be a need in the 2014 budget to facilitate the recommended opportunities in the KPMG report.
Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee Meeting Minutes January 6, 2014
Report of the Service Delivery and Organizational Review Committee
Page 3 of 8
Page 256 of 269
AgendaItem#6b)
ii.
KPMG SDOR Report and Implementation Plan
The Chair provided his reasoning and overview of the SDOR Implementation Plan (attached to the agenda) that incorporates the chart presented by KPMG regarding implementation. He developed this chart for the Committee in order to stimulate discussion and the Committee agreed to proceeding with this. Do Now #1 Review vehicle fleet Ms. VanBruinessen noted that the Corporate Services vehicles are used during working hours to provide transportation to and from meetings and conferences as well as support IT circulation to ambulance bases. Chief Charbonneau advised that three of the four vehicles were approved by previous Councils based on a study that was done on where employees are going and what that would cost in mileage. The fourth vehicle is a temporary vehicle used during summer for GIS interns and students as it was more economical to use a surplus FPS vehicle and simply delay its sale. There are two Prius’, one of which falls under FPS and is used by the FPS IT staff member who is on the road continually going to ambulance bases. It is; however identified as a corporate vehicle as IT falls within Corporate Services. The decision to purchase the Prius was made in recognition of the Council interest in promoting green technology. The Committee reviewed the pros and cons of staff using their own vehicles on County business and the cost of mileage reimbursement. Councillor Clayton indicated that an assessment in North Frontenac determined that it was less expensive to buy a vehicle than to pay mileage. The Committee questioned the requirement for four vehicles but could support two vehicles; however questioned if the vehicles were required to be high end vehicles as there are many options now available that are more environmentally friendly and this should be done through a competitive process. Regarding staff concerns that two vehicles might not be sufficient, it was suggested that by example the GIS activities in North Frontenac were duplication of activity undertaken by North Frontenac staff and better coordination is required. (County staff have since confirmed with the North Frontenac CAO that all GIS activity is coordinated with the Township and that there is no overlap of service) Moved by: Councillor Davison Seconded by: Deputy Warden Doyle THAT the Corporate Services vehicle compliment be reduced to the 2 Prius vehicles, with the other vehicles to be disposed of accordingly. CARRIED #3 Entrance issue Staff advised that this item has been completed.
Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee Meeting Minutes January 6, 2014
Report of the Service Delivery and Organizational Review Committee
Page 4 of 8
Page 257 of 269
AgendaItem#6b)
#5 Distribute FGT – “deferred revenue item” It was agreed that some of the FGT reserve needs to be retained to meet County commitments; however through a Council resolution, any new FGT is distributed to the Townships. Ms. VanBruinessen advised that this discussion will come forward during budget deliberations. #17 Determine lean6signma The Committee supported this idea and felt that two processes should take place immediately. Moved by: Deputy Warden Doyle Seconded by: Councillor Davison THAT Council seek a consultant for the work of two (2) lean6sigma process reviews for Procurement and the second to be brought forward by staff. CARRIED #23 Vacated tax room – from Kingston charges Ms. VanBruinessen confirmed that this is shown each year; however the uploaded dollars are often replaced with increases in other areas of the City requisition. This year Council has already directed that the surplus from the Defined Residency Benefit be placed in reserve for the Kingston Frontenac Renovates Program. Ms. VanBruinessen will report to Council on this matter. ÏAction Item Ms. VanBruinessen to report to Council on this matter #26 Reduce staff meetings Staff advised that this item has been completed. #28 Reduce staff at meetings Ms. VanBruinessen noted that staff are in agreement with this and that this had already been identified. Staff attending both Council and Committee meetings has been reduced. Stay Working On #2 Absenteeism issue It was noted that County Council has been dealing with this and that there is a process underway; however this information needs to go back to Council on how this issue will be resolved. Ms. VanBruinessen noted that Councils direction was for staff to provide an absenteeism report quarterly, with the first report considered at the October 2013 County Council meeting. The next report is due in February. Chief Charbonneau indicated the EMS does keep monthly statistics and that providing this report to Council on a monthly basis is possible. The Committee recognized that employee absenteeism Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee Meeting Minutes January 6, 2014
Report of the Service Delivery and Organizational Review Committee
Page 5 of 8
Page 258 of 269
AgendaItem#6b)
is a large issue in both the Federal and Provincial governments and is not isolated to municipalities. The Committee also recognized that this will be a lengthy process as collective agreements must also be adhered to; however if this practice is in the confines of the collective agreements then something is incorrect with those agreements. Ms. VanBruinessen suggested that staff request the County’s Labour Lawyer to speak to this issue at the February Committee of the Whole meeting as he holds expertise in this field and would be more qualified to clarify opportunities which could be support. ÏAction Item Ms. VanBruinessen to request the County Labour Lawyer to attend the February Committee of the Whole meeting Chief Charbonneau agreed to provide monthly absenteeism reports It was suggested that the absenteeism reports include the breakdown of absenteeism by departments as well as patterns of absenteeism and what is being done regarding those who do not meet the targets Chief Charbonneau also noted that this includes the issue of the cost of part-time hours that are paid to cover sick time. Council has the right to set direction on how part-time hours are allocated. #4 Formal cross training Ms. VanBruinessen advised that cross training is ongoing and already takes place. This is also identified in the County’s Emergency Plan and staff were surprised to see this as a recommendation. #6 Standardize work week Ms. VanBruinessen noted that there are complications with going to a standardized work week as it refers to both union and non union staff. The collective agreement identifies a 37.5 hour work week and would require re-negotiation, with approximately 7 employees in Corporate Services that are unionized. She also noted that this is a challenge as there are many employees that work 37.5 hours per week and are only paid for 35 hours as the County does not pay overtime. With respect to the history of how some positions came to work 37.5 hours per week, it was identified that the salaries of some working 35 hours per week were not competitive and it was decided to move those positions to a 37.5 hours per week, although this was not supported by Treasury at the time. Unionized employees in the Old House are included in the Fairmount union but it was noted that there is the opportunity to look at the non-union positions. ÏAction Item Ms. VanBruinessen will provide Council with a report on this matter
Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee Meeting Minutes January 6, 2014
Report of the Service Delivery and Organizational Review Committee
Page 6 of 8
Page 259 of 269
AgendaItem#6b)
#8 Align admin tasks Ms. VanBruinessen was uncertain of where this recommendation came from. It was clarified that the CAO’s Office opens the mail and not the CAO. ÏAction Item Ms. VanBruinessen will address this matter #9 Consider one policy – At a council meeting It was noted that there are a substantial number of policies that have gone to Council for review. Specifically, HR policies, the Procurement Policy and legislated policies must go Council for approval; however there is a difference between administrative policies or standard operating procedures and policies of Council. The committee questioned if Council is open to spending its time reviewing policies. Moved by: Deputy Warden Doyle Seconded by: Councillor Davison THAT the CAO bring forward to County Council any policies of a significant nature for which there could be risks. CARRIED #11 Council agenda changes The agenda process has been streamlined and is being modified by staff to ensure that agendas are distributed in a timely manner. The Committee also discussed the concerns around Deputations on the Council agenda that can take away from the time that Council has to discuss major report issues that might be on the agenda. Section 16 of the Procedural By-law concerning Deputations was reviewed and it was noted that the Warden must ensure that Deputations adhere to the timelines permitted in the Procedural By-law. #15 Support AMO approach It was noted that Mr. Jim VandenHoek, former County Councillor and Warden, was appointed to the AMO Board and spearheaded the 2009 long term care report referred to in the recommendation. ÏAction Item Ms. VanBruinessen will follow up with AMO to get a status report on this matter #16 Review communications This discussion will be addressed during the strategic planning exercise. #18 EMS cost/call issue It was noted that this is a long term activity. Chief Charbonneau confirmed that costs are continually monitored in FPS; however any reductions must come at the direction of Council. When looking at costs per call, he noted that having the ambulance service on Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee Meeting Minutes January 6, 2014
Report of the Service Delivery and Organizational Review Committee
Page 7 of 8
Page 260 of 269
AgendaItem#6b)
Wolfe Island costs the County $350,000 per year, with 60 calls being received. This represents $5000 per call. He agrees that Sudbury and Hastings are very similar to Frontenac County. It was noted that Frontenac County has more seniors per capita than average and that inhibits its ability to collect taxes or keep health costs down. The Committee also felt that Fairmount Home’s expenses per bed should also be monitored. ÏAction Item Chief Charbonneau and Ms. Shillington will review the KPMG report and the comparators used in the report and report back to the Committee in June. #19 Strategic Plan This process is underway. #21 Operating reserves Ms. VanBruinessen noted that this refers to additional reserves and will be addressed during budget deliberations in the context of reserves. #24 Set budget plan for 2014 Staff are currently following this process. #27 Review minute taking It was noted that this recommendation refers to staff meetings and minutes have now been eliminated with just action items being recorded with the exception of Fairmount Home where some minutes are required for legislative purposes. Longer Term #20 Asset management This process is underway. 8.
Other business – Nil
Next meeting date
Friday, February 28, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. 10.
Adjournment
Moved By: Seconded By:
Warden Clayton Deputy Warden Doyle
THAT the meeting be hereby adjourned at 3:50 p.m. CARRIED Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee Meeting Minutes January 6, 2014
Report of the Service Delivery and Organizational Review Committee
Page 8 of 8
Page 261 of 269
AgendaItem#6b)
COMMITTEE REPORT To:
Chair and Members of the Committee of the Whole
From:
Jannette Amini Acting Clerk
Date prepared:
January 7, 2014
Date of meeting:
January 8, 2014
Re:
Service Delivery and Organization Review Committee – Recommendations to Committee of the Whole
Recommendations: THAT the Corporate Services vehicle compliment be reduced to the 2 Prius vehicles, with the other vehicles to be disposed of accordingly. THAT Council seek a consultant for the work of two (2) lean6sigma process reviews for Procurement and the second to be brought forward by staff. THAT the CAO bring forward to County Council any policies of a significant nature for which there could be risks.
Report of the Service Delivery and Organizational Review Committee
Page 262 of 269
AgendaItem#9a)
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE December 4, 2013 A regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole was held in the Frontenac Room of the County Administrative Office, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie on Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 9:00 AM PRESENT:
Warden Janet Gutowski, Councillors Gary Davison, David Jones, John Purdon, John McDougall, Denis Doyle and John Inglis
Regrets:
Deputy Warden Bud Clayton
ALSO PRESENT:
County: Marian VanBruinessen, Acting CAO/Treasurer; Julie Shillington, Administrator-Fairmount Home; Anne Marie Young, Manager of Economic Sustainability; Joe Gallivan, Manager of Sustainability Planning; Jannette Amini, Acting Clerk; Media: Jeff Green, The Frontenac News and Craig Bakay, Frontenac EMC, Elliot Ferguson, The Kingston Whig-Standard
CALL TO ORDER
Councillor McDougall, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. 2.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion #: COW37-13
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Doyle Councillor Jones
RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the December 4, 2013 meeting of the Committee of the Whole be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 3.
DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
The Chair requested the Clerk to record that in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act no disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared.
Committee of the Whole Minutes December 4, 2013
Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting held December 4,
Page 1 of 7
Page 263 of 269
AgendaItem#9a)
DEPUTATIONS AND/OR PRESENTATIONS
a)
Mr. David Townsend, Executive Director, Southern Frontenac Community Services (SFCS) addressed the Committee of the Whole regarding the Frontenac Transportation Services and provided an overview of his presentation which was attached to the agenda. He did note that last year, he did not come to the County for additional funding due to a onetime LHIN subsidy in the amount of $32,000 which was to cover a deficit caused by Adult Day programs. On a positive note, Mr. Townsend advised that administration costs are under budget by $9000 and those dollars will be re-invested into programming. He is looking to the County this year for increased funding to cover any shortfalls caused by this loss of this LHIN subsidy in order to maintain its current service levels as the only alternative option would be to increase user fees. It was pointed out that Frontenac Islands currently does not have access to this service and what could be done in order to benefit the residents of Wolfe Island. Mr. Townsend advised that discussions have taken place with various service providers regarding Wolfe Island and they are looking towards the VON to see if it would be willing to provide that service; however the option of looking at local resident volunteers is also being investigated. The LHIN only covers the area north of the 401; however Mr. Townsend will however work with Councillor Doyle to look at options for Wolfe Island. It was questioned if the statistical data could be broken down to identify place of residence as the Frontenac Transportation Services also supports rural Kingston residents north of the 401. Mr. Townsend advised that staff will try to include addresses and a break down for both Southern Frontenac Community Services and Northern Frontenac Community Services; however he did advise that the largest area covered would be Central with about 2200 rides. Of the 110 clients through SFCS, about 95 – 100 are located in South Frontenac with only 10 – 15 in rural Kingston.
b)
Mr. Lindsay Mills, Planner/Deputy Clerk, Township of South Frontenac addressed the Committee of the Whole with respect to the County Official Plan. Mr. Mills advised that his main issue with the Plan is that rather than advising what should be done, it actually sets policy and suggested that the language be changed to only include a subject area with an explanation and that policies will be set by Townships. In Mr. Mills’ opinion, the Plan tends to involve the County in everything which he feels could hold up development. Mr. Mills provided an overview of his written submission made to Township Council which points out comments he made with respect to the first draft of the Plan and expressed a major concern over the requirement of 30 metre setbacks
Committee of the Whole Minutes December 4, 2013
Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting held December 4,
Page 2 of 7
Page 264 of 269
AgendaItem#9a)
along waterfront development, noting that most development in South Frontenac is waterfront development that goes through a minor variance process and with this Plan, any future development would now require an Official Plan amendment. He concluded by stating that as it stands now, the County Official Plan contains too much overlap between this and the Township Official Plans and that the language in the Plan is too prescriptive and invasive and takes away the Township autonomy. 5.
REPORTS
a)
Working Session on the Review of the Draft Official Plan
Prior to providing an overview of the draft Official Plan, Mr. Gallivan took the opportunity to respond to comments made by Mr. Mills. He noted that with respect to the issue of the 30 metre setback concerns, he did advise that he has met with Mr. Mills and South Frontenac four times since the first draft of the Official Plan was released. A 30 metre setback is identified in most municipal Official Plans and added to this that the Township of South Frontenac has a detailed Official Plan that goes beyond this 30 metre setback with the requirement of additional criteria that acts as a ‘safety valve’ regarding waterfront development or redevelopment, which he commended and he will be revisiting this portion of the Plan to recognize that. With respect to concerns expressed regarding the language of “we and they”, he advised that this draft is an attempt to avoid those issues. Once approved by the Province, County Council will be the only body that makes decisions regarding regional issues so the Official Plan must have a vision and back bone in it, particularly around Natural Heritage otherwise the Province will intervene. He has been in contact with other County planners, specifically Renfrew County who has shared its comments received by the Province. Mr. Gallivan walked the Committee through a presentation that outlined the changes made to the first draft, with the following comments being provided by members: Section 1 1.1, Purpose, Basis and Context of the Plan It was noted that Section 1.1, Context of the Plan should be amended to include that the County also stems from between the United States to south of Kingston to address the geographical location of Frontenac Islands. It should also be noted that there are ssignificant commercial fishing and hunting operations on the Islands. This Section also talks about communities but excludes Howe Island. It was also suggested that the wording be amended to describe the County as “it goes north to Renfrew County” so as not to trivialize the County. ÏAction Items Mr. Gallivan will amend Section 1.1 to include the geographical location of Frontenac Islands and add Howe Island as one of the communities
Committee of the Whole Minutes December 4, 2013
Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting held December 4,
Page 3 of 7
Page 265 of 269
AgendaItem#9a)
1.2, How to Read the Plan The Chair asked the Committee if it agreed with this as it differentiates between the County and the Township. Mr. Gallivan noted that this addresses the issue that once this Plan is approved by the Province, County Council becomes the approval authority and as such, Council must understand what is taking place with the Township Official Plans. This statement needs to acknowledge that the Province will no longer be involved. Some Committee members felt that the word “direct” should be revised as it leaves the impression that the County is in charge of the Townships. The word “complement” was also questioned regarding who complements who with respect to Township and County Official Plans. Mr. Gallivan clarified that Township Official Plans contain detailed policies for each community which is reflected in their respective zoning by-laws. When a Township Official Plan is passed by its Council, it then goes to the Province for approval. One resolution from this Council was to recognize that a County Official Plan would help to solve planning issues by people in community who have an understanding of the planning priorities that are relevant to our rural area. One issue with the County is growth management and to allow growth outside of the settlement areas and these are the types of issues that try to deal with what is happening on the ground at the Townships and that is where the word “complement” comes from. Section 2 2.2.3, Business Parks The additional wording added to this section as part of the revisions in the second draft was questioned as being necessary and these kinds of details would be a Township rather than a County responsibility; however it was noted that comments from Mr. Mills indicated that this added verbiage was appropriate. There was no consensus from the Committee to remove this wording.
2.1.1 Agriculture It was felt that paragraph 5 seemed very specific and will this cause the need for addition studies and surveys. Mr. Gallivan clarified that this section will allow for potential additional uses on farm lands that are not recognized in the Provincial Policy Statement. In the absence of a policy regarding this in a regional plan, the Province could intervene to prevent these additional uses. This represents opportunities to farmers. The wording is there to provide context to ensure that any added uses do not dominate the property and that they remain secondary uses. ÏAction Item Mr. Gallivan will re-visit the wording in the Agricultural section Section 3 3.3.3(3) d) It was expressed that the County should not be involved in septic systems it was asked if this falls under the jurisdiction of the Health Unit. Mr. Gallivan noted that County Council is the approval authority for Plans of Subdivisions and there could be new technologies coming forward in the future around solid waste. This does not dissuade
Committee of the Whole Minutes December 4, 2013
Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting held December 4,
Page 4 of 7
Page 266 of 269
AgendaItem#9a)
new technology but recognizes that there are other ways of doing things that might allow denser developments and reduce septic outflows. ÏAction Item Mr. Gallivan will amend the wording to state County and Townships. 3.4 It was asked if this section provides flexibility to the Township of South Frontenac with respect to minor variances. ÏAction Item Mr. Gallivan will re-visit the 30 metre setback to reflect that Townships can set policies to develop within the 30 metres and that Official Plan amendments will not be required. Section 4 4.1.1 It was expressed that with respect to a regional road system, this is something that is now in the development stage between the Townships and there is a need to ensure flexibility so that any outcomes from this can be included in this Official Plan. Mr. Gallivan reflected on his meeting with South Frontenac where he was advised that there is a ‘Frontenac Corridor’ system under development by Township Public Works Managers that he has not been privy to. At this point he has insufficient information on this corridor to address this; however once the Official Plan is approved it will address the County’s priorities which will include transportation. 4.1.2 2, Goal (Rural Transportation) It was questioned if this is an achievable goal and what are the costs associated with providing a public transportation service to such a vast rural community. Mr. Gallivan clarified that a transportation system does not mean public transit and could include services such as a safe ferry system to ensure that the County’s main corridors are sustainable. There are many different options that can be explored apart from conventional transit. 4.1.1.4, Provincial Highway 7 It was asked why there was a specific policy regarding an intersection in Central. Mr. Gallivan noted that this is a major Highway and the Township of Central Frontenac, through its Official Plan, is trying to improve the commercial viability at the intersection of Highway 7 and Highway 38 and the reduction of speed levels would be to create a buffer to this site. Currently, the speed limit prevents entrances to the location and Central Frontenac wanted verbiage in the Official Plan to support attempts to slow traffic down as this is part of Central Frontenac’s developed area. 4.1.5.1, Ferry Services It was pointed out that the Simcoe Island ferry operates on a year round basis as much as possible and not seasonally as indicated. ÏAction Item Mr. Gallivan will amend the wording to note that Simcoe Island Ferry operates year round. Committee of the Whole Minutes December 4, 2013
Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting held December 4,
Page 5 of 7
Page 267 of 269
AgendaItem#9a)
This section should also applies to Howe Island Ferry Service and not just Wolfe Island and should include the Town of Gananoque. ÏAction Item Mr. Gallivan will address this concern. Mr. Gallivan noted that waste diversion is a regional issue supported by Public Works Managers and County Council can provide funding for any studies and if the County can contribute from a collaborative perspective it should do so. This is also recognized by the Eastern Ontario Wardens Caucus. Section 5 5.6.2 (Secondary Suites) Mr. Gallivan pointed out that this policy sections removes any loopholes that would permit cottage ‘bunkies’ to be converted to a secondary unit. Section 8 8.7 Mr. Gallivan noted that zoning by-laws are developed to implement Township Official Plans and are the responsibility of the Townships. Conclusion Mr. Gallivan is looking for Council’s direction to provide the draft Official Plan to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) to start its formal review process. The Committee supported this being sent to MMAH provided that the copy sent incorporated the changes being requested today. Give that any motion will require full Council approval at the December 18th meeting, Mr. Gallivan confirmed that there would be sufficient time to reflect all changes in the document. Motion #: COW38-13
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Doyle Councillor Purdon
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to submit the second draft of the County Official Plan to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for comments. CARRIED b)
Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR) Council Training Session
Due to an insufficient time, the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (IASR) Council Training Session will take place at a later date.
Committee of the Whole Minutes December 4, 2013
Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting held December 4,
Page 6 of 7
Page 268 of 269
AgendaItem#9a)
RISE AND REPORT
Motion #: COW39-12
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Doyle Councillor Jones
THAT the Committee of the Whole Council rise and report to County Council at the December 18, 2013 meeting; CARRIED 7.
COMMUNICATIONS a)
Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting held November 6, 2013
NOTICE OF MOTION Councillor Doyle advised that a motion will be coming forward to the December 18, 2013 County Council meeting which will request that staff come to County Council with three (3) budget scenarios, those being: ¾ 2% increase ¾ 0% increase ¾ 2% decrease 9.
OTHER BUSINESS
PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD
ADJOURNMENT
Motion #: COW40-12
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Doyle Councillor Jones
RESOLVED THAT the meeting hereby adjourn at 11:42 a.m. CARRIED
Jannette Amini, Acting Clerk
Councillor John McDougall, Chair
Committee of the Whole Minutes December 4, 2013
Minutes of Committee of the Whole Meeting held December 4,
Page 7 of 7
Page 269 of 269
