Body: RULAC Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee Date: December 3, 2012 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Rural Urban Liaison Advisory Committee (RULAC)/2012/Rural Urban Liaison Advisory Committee (RULAC) - 03 Dec 2012.pdf)
Document Text
Rural Urban Liaison Advisory Committee (RULAC) Monday, December 3, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. County Administration Office AGENDA
Page 1.
Welcome
Adoption of Notes -
2-12
a)
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Communications
Fairmount Home
13-45
a)
46-99 100-124 125 6. 126-130
Fairmount Home
LSR Services a)
Community and Family Services
b)
Emergency Services
c)
Provincial Offences
Other Business a)
Financial Services
b)
Electoral Boundary Reform
Confirmation of Next Meeting
Adjournment
Page 1 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
RURAL-URBAN LIAISON ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RULAC) Kingston-Frontenac LSR/CMSM Local Service Protocol Meeting Notes
Date:
Monday September 10, 2012
Place:
Loyalist Room, 1st floor, City Hall
Time:
9:00-10:30 a.m.
Attendees: City of Kingston CouncillorReitzel – Chair Councillor Scott Gerard Hunt, CAO Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Adele Lafrance, Director, Community & Family Services Hal Linscott, City Solicitor Desiree Kennedy, City Treasurer
County of Frontenac Warden Janet Gutowski Mayor Gary Davison Deputy Warden Denis Doyle Ms. Elizabeth Savill, CAO Ms. Marian VanBruinessen, Treasurer Ms. Angelique Tamblyn, Executive Assistant to CAO Paul Charbonneau, Director, Emergency & Transportation Services Julie Shillington, Administrator, Fairmount Home
Melanie Ryttersgaard, Executive Assistant to the CAO (Recorder) Regrets: Mayor Gerretsen **Where available, reports are linked to the City website”
- Welcome – Councillor Reitzel welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order.
- Adoption of Notes – June 11, 2012 – received by consensus
- Communications: Nil
- Fairmount Home – Julie Shillington provided an update on Fairmount Home, referencing the reports issued with the agenda. Comments are summarized below: Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 1 of 11
Page 2 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
2nd quarter activity update – Frontenac County has an arbitrated settlement with union; the collective agreement expires at the end of 2012. On the second page there is a note re: task force – under the Long Term Care Act, better instruction for staff on what to do about harassment is to be developed; there is a large group of staff working on it to develop an easy to understand policy. Ms Shillington noted that during Nurses’ Week a highlight was a powerpoint presentation compiled by 7 residents on the topic of being locked in the bathroom. The home has had a family information session; there is no family council at present, so they try to have more frequent family information sessions. Julie noted that the well was drilled, pump test done, water quality testing completed. An engineering report is being compiled for well connection. Auditorium fundraising campaign update – Fundraising committee is assembled; the case for support and fundraising title are established, with a kickoff on Sept 12. Gerard asked whether the funds raised will be applied to the County share of the auditorium cost. In response Julie noted that they have applied for federal grant funding ($1M) and it will likely be a few months before hearing if the grant application is successful.
- Emergency Services – Paul Charbonneau, Director, Emergency & Transportation Services 2nd quarter activity update – highlights: EMS week in May was a success; one of biggest events at Cataraqui Centre Centre Court. Participated in special Olympics – medical coverage completely performed by EMS. The Grand Opening of the Wolfe Island Accommodation building (funded by Build Canada funding) took place. Volunteers on Wolfe Island come most often from off-island and need a better place to stay. Uniqueness of Wolfe Island is that it is 1 of 4 volunteer ambulance services in Ontario. Proposed Temporary Logistics Support Location – Mr. Charbonneau provided background on the need for a temporary logistics support location. They have been storing a large vehicle in South Frontenac but the space is now needed by South Frontenac. A temporary location has been secured to rent space on Fortune Cres for stores and two large vehicles; October 1 is the move-in date. Cross Border Revenue - L&A County has opened a new 12 hour station in the Township of Loyalist. FPS does approximately 1000 calls per year in this area and the new station will now respond to approximately 660 per year. This will have an effect on land ambulance budget cross border revenue. The effect will be measured during the new budget year preparations. Update on Ambulance Dispatch Reporting System (ADRS) – transitioning from the old secure VPN style of receiving info from province re: calls (not receiving data directly). Have had issues with data for years. The new system is a web-based, timely system that allows development and measuring of performance indicators and reporting back to Council. The formal agreement was signed by County Council. Councillor Reitzel recommended attendees make appointments to see the ambulance dispatch centre at John Counter Blvd and Sir John A Macdonald; they dispatch across 5 counties – Hastings to Brockville. Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 2 of 11
Page 3 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
Cross Border Revenue - L&A County has opened a new 12 hour station in the Township of Loyalist. FPS does approximately 1000 calls per year in this area and the new station will now responds to approximately 660 per year. This will have an effect on land ambulance budget cross border revenue. The effect will be measured during the new budget year preparations.
6. Provincial Offences – Hal Linscott, City Solicitor, presented a summary of the provincial offences data and noted the following: POA 2012 2nd quarter report. In 2010 revenues were just over $2M. In 2011, revenues were just under $2M so budgeted for 2012 at $1.9M. Revenue at the end of June was short; projected revenues at end of 2012 will be $200-$250K less than projected. Expenditures are at 50% at end of June. Unpaid fines/outstanding receivables are about $12.5M. Continue to increase ($120-$130K over Q2). Number of charges laid in Q2 2012 is down by 600 at the end of Q2 2012. Accounts Receivable: unpaid fines are $12.5M. On the summary of charges laid by various enforcement agencies, Mr. Linscott noted that Kingston Police are down from 2011 levels; other figures are full-year figures (divide by ½). South Frontenac is on target and may be slightly ahead; Sharbot Lake is on target from last year but down from 2010. Mr. Linscott noted that there haven’t been any large fines arising from other types of provincial legislation, e.g. occupational health and safety; sometimes see major dollar fines from convictions around environmental legislation; hasn’t happened in 2012. Impacted on revenues to this point. Collections: The City makes significant efforts to collect on unpaid fines; license suspension is most effective tool; plate denial is a small motivator. The City has In-house collection staff who pursue unpaid fines; large fines where we can identify properties they own, re-mortgage/sale of property – fine must be paid before other transactions. Over 1 year old – collection agencies. Even professional collection agencies can’t get a significant rate of return. There is work ongoing by the province on enhancing enforcement. Report from OPC association; AMO has been involved; prosecutors and court management association have been involved. Hoping for enhanced collection tools in the future to assist in collecting more outstanding fines. Responding to questions, Mr. Linscott noted that the outstanding fines will be written off in the sense that they won’t show on the reporting, but the debts will still exist so that they are kept on the books legally in case of repayment opportunities. 7. Community and Family Services Q2 2012 LSR – tracking well on all programs. Ontario Works has a surplus in the administration line due to some vacancies that haven’t been filled; allowances – are tracking according to budget (actually a little below budget); case load trends have stabilized. Childcare programs look good on paper because of cost control but not because demand is being met. At the end of June over 250 childcare fee subsidy cases closed; also received $146K from province; current position is to be Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 3 of 11
Page 4 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
forecasting a short term surplus. Families are being called with subsidy announcement; will likely grant 250 new subsidies, have processed 175 to date. Rush of calls to get on wait list since announcing; sitting at around 500 on wait list. Could use more money but are managing the program per our policy. Housing – tracking appropriately. Two major housing sub-items – administrative costs are tracking lower due to delayed staffing, additional revenues. Housing program costs are not divided equally throughout the year so show higher than they should at this point in time.
The following reports provided background and decisions. Staff walked through these, connecting the reports where appropriate.
12-181 Delegated Approval for Agreements under the KF Renovates (May 15, 2012) City Council Resolution: Delegated Approval and Signing Authority for Agreements under the Kingston-Frontenac Renovates Program THAT Council authorize the Commissioner, Community Services or her delegate to review and approve all documents and agreements related to the Kingston-Frontenac Renovates Program as required and as approved by the Legal Services Department. CARRIED Mr. Laidman noted that this is a minor item providing delegated authority to staff to implement agreements. For interest sake, this is one program that has a significantly higher update for County than city.
12-217 Centralized Childcare Info and Waitlist System (June 19, 2012) City Council Resolution: Award of RFP – Provision, Implementation and Support of a Centralized Childcare Information and Wait List System THAT the RFP F31-CS-CFS-2012-01 for the purchase of a web based solution to support a Centralized Childcare Information and Wait List System for licensed childcare spaces be awarded to RBB Innovations for a total price of $58,800 plus applicable taxes; and THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to enter into an agreement, in a form satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services, with RBB Innovations for the acquisition and ongoing support of this application; and THAT up to $114,600 be approved from the Best Start Unconditional Grant Reserve Fund to fund both the product purchase and reimbursements to participating childcare service providers for the technological upgrades required to permit them to participate in this initiative. CARRIED
Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 4 of 11
Page 5 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
Ms. Lafrance noted that this report is tied to childcare strategies approved in 2011; deals with selection of a vendor etc.
ARCP-12-009 Childcare Management Strategies (June 19, 2012) City Council Resolution: 2011 – 2014 Childcare Management Strategies for Kingston Frontenac – Updates and Recommended Revisions. THAT the following childcare management strategy changes be approved:
- Revisions to the Childcare Management Strategies 2011-2014 as per Exhibit A of this report;
- Revisions to the Fee Subsidy Wait List Policy as per Exhibit B attached to this report;
- Adjustment to the Dedicated Referral Care Strategy to dedicate a minimum 10 subsidized referrals for part time childcare starting in September 2012 for families seeking referral childcare in a centre of their choice;
- Conclusion of the one-time dedicated Transition/stabilization Funding Strategy for Helen Tufts Nursery School and The Child Centre (Sharbot Lake) as per Exhibits C and D of this report. CARRIED Ms. Lafrance noted that the wait list policies had to be updated for fee subsidy. The policy was written because the province directed that; now having lived with a wait list since November, improved policies are required. The second piece of the report deals with stabilization and transition strategy. Two centres are receiving funding on a limited time basis: Helen Tufts; Child Centre in Sharbot Lake. The intention is to dedicate funding to assist transition to full day kindergarten. Business cases were required and the outcomes were different for each. The Child Centre in Sharbot Lake presented a strong business case, noting that they could not demonstrate ongoing financial viability without dedicated funding due to population density and catchment area. It is important to have licensed childcare in rural area as it serves as an employment support and helps to stabilize the social fabric of a community. Proposed and approved by Council, would have dedicated rural childcare funding; assigned money to Centre so it would remain in the community. Warden Gutowski added that the Child Centre in Sharbot Lake expanded with a significant grant from the province a few years ago and then full day kindergarten came in. She expressed great appreciation that the City is recognizing this Centre as providing significant services to families in that community.
HHC-12-012 Rent Supplement Info Report (April 12, 2012) - Information Report – no Council resolution HHC-12-015 Housing Programs Update (May 10, 2012) - Information Report – no Council resolution
Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 5 of 11
Page 6 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
HHC-12-014 Asset Management Systems Info (June 14, 2012) – Information Report – no Council resolution ARCP-12-006 Former Tenant Arrears (June 28, 2012) - Information Report – no Council resolution Mr. Laidman noted that the foregoing four reports were information reports to Council. He offered to answer any questions attendees might have. The reports cover an overview for the housing committee and ARC Committee on various programs including rent supplement; status of programs, etc. He noted that former tenant arrears will be identified through changes in the Housing Services Act.
12-243 Investment in Affordable Housing (July 17, 2012) City Council Resolution: Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) in Ontario THAT Council approve IAH funding of one million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($1,650,000) to Frontenac Community Mental Health and Addictions Services (FCMHAS) for the development of eleven (11) affordable rental units; and THAT Council authorize the Commissioner, Community Services or her delegate to review and approve, for execution by the Mayor and Clerk, all documents and agreements related to the IAH funding provided to FCMHAS as required and as approved by the Legal Services Department; and THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute all documents and agreements related to the IAH funding provided to FCMHAS as approved by the Commissioner, Community Services or her delegate; and THAT Council approve funding in an amount up to forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) from the Affordable Housing Construction Reserve to Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. to complete the planning process for their development as set out in their RFP submission; and THAT Council authorize the Commissioner, Community Services or her delegate to review and approve, for execution by the Mayor and Clerk, all documents and agreements related to the funding provided to Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. as required and as approved by the Legal Services Department; and THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute all documents and agreements related to the funding provided to Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. as approved by the Commissioner, Community Services or her delegate. CARRIED The Service Manager has been provided with provincial funding. Three sub-components are going ahead. A proposal from Frontenac Community Mental Health resulted in $1.65M for a project on Lyon Street that resulted in 11 affordable housing units. A 49 unit building will also be constructed. Princess St Co-op received $45K to complete the final planning process to go forward if funding is available or if the first proponent cannot complete.
Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
The following three reports provide background information to 12-244; notes are recorded below under the heading 12-244.
12-227 Changes to OW and ODSP Benefits (June 19, 2012) City Council Resolution: Changes to Ontario Works and ODSP Benefits Resulting from 2012 Provincial Budget THAT the current OW discretionary benefit schedule be maintained to the end of the 2012 fiscal year for residents of Kingston, at a municipal cost of approximately $206K due to the revised provincial cost sharing formula, being funded by the Social Services Stabilization Fund; and THAT staff designate the provincial portion of Community Start-up and Maintenance Benefit funding being reinvested into the consolidated housing and homelessness funding in January 2013 to continue to be used for Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program residency costs in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac; and THAT staff report back with a proposed plan to present community and budgetary challenges with discretionary benefits and the Community Start-up and Maintenance Benefit, prior to the 2013 operating budget submission. CARRIED
12-191 Updates on Funding Process for Homelessness Services (June 19, 2012) City Council Resolution: Update on Funding Process for Homelessness Services THAT City staff report back to City Council at the July 17, 2012 meeting to provide an update on next steps based upon funding announcements from the province. CARRIED
12-242 Next Steps for funding allocations CHPP (July 17, 2012) City Council Resolution: Next Steps for funding allocations under the Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) THAT a Request for Proposals (RFP) not be issued for the Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) and Municipal Housing & Homelessness Strategic Fund (HHSF) to allocate funding for 2013 as the Provincial allocation has not been announced and insufficient time remains to undertake such an RFP for 2013; and THAT staff be directed to report back to Council by October 31, 2012 with either recommendations for funding existing programs based upon the announced Provincial funding allotment for 2013 or contingency options for funding existing programs for the first quarter of 2013 if no Provincial funding has yet been announced; and
Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
THAT a full evaluation of the Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) and Municipal Housing & Homelessness Strategic Fund (HHSF) be included in the Housing and Homelessness Plan to be undertaken in 2012 and 2013 by the Housing Department; it being understood that the plan will be used as the basis for the allocation of funding for both programs. CARRIED
Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 8 of 11
Page 9 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
12-244 Revisions to OW Discretionary CSUMB (September 4, 2012) City Council Resolution: THAT staff be directed to include the funding allocations and offsetting revenue sources detailed in Exhibit A of this report in the 2013 and 2014 Housing and Community and Family Services Operating budget submissions including; Redirection of $260,000 in unallocated municipal Housing Department operating funds toward a new municipal Discretionary Residency Benefit (CSUMB replacement); One time, 2013 contribution of $218,268 from the Local Services Realignment (LSR) Reserve Fund to offset the funding shortfall for Emergency Hostels and as interim funding to continue with existing homelessness programs until completion of the homelessness planning and allocation method for 2014; 2013 contribution of $70,864 and 2014 contribution of $161,193 from the National Child Benefit Reinvestment Reserve Fund toward the new municipal Discretionary Residency Benefit and Emergency Hostel per Diems; and THAT staff be further directed to develop an interim funding formula for Emergency Hostels, within the approved budget parameters, and that staff report back to Council with an interim funding formula for 2013 pending the completion and implementation of the Homelessness Plan; and THAT the 2013 funding of Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program, Municipal Housing and Homelessness Strategy, Rent Bank and Utility Bank funds as detailed in Exhibit B of this report, be approved; and THAT the revised OW Discretionary Health Benefit service level schedule as detailed in Exhibit C of this report, be approved; and THAT the new municipal Discretionary Residency Benefit service level schedule for social assistance recipients residing in Kingston to replace the previous OW/ODSP Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) as detailed as Exhibit D of this report, be approved.
Excerpt from JM meeting notes - 12-244 Revisions to OW Discretionary CSUMB–A representation was made at AMO with respect to the impact of these changes, on the basis this was driven by Minister of Finance and is a capped program. It is nice to talk about uploads but this has impacts on the most vulnerable and is a hidden download. Adele noted that we got a little bit of info out when we met with the Minister, who provided data on costs we didn’t have. With the upload we couldn’t continue with that model because the City had the authority to approve and the two items that were changed they were open-ended entitlements. One was open-ended because it was a mandatory benefit (legislation). The province is reducing capital expenses to $10 per case based on the average across the province; Kingston was at $13.50 per case, which puts us 30% above the
Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 9 of 11
Page 10 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
provincial average. It is no surprise that Toronto is close to the provincial average too. CSupp – initial advice was elimination of CSupp (mandatory benefit); eliminating ODSP and OW. The province is committed to giving us 50% in new community homelessness prevention funding but we got 46% (based on core housing needs). We have the goals of the funding but don’t have detailed program descriptions yet or outcome measures. Moved emergency hostels from being an OW benefit into new homelessness prevention initiative. The years 2009, 2010 and 2011 were used to set allocation. Did not include PNA component; clients will be entitled to that under OW. Three year averaging based on need and demand didn’t leave us in a great position (we had just opened a new hostel). Rent bank – had to reallocate from four programs; 50% being reallocated toward new residency benefit program to bring it up to 70%. Those on OW and ODSP will be able to take advantage through that program; the remainder will be in a rent utility program for low income users. Ms. Beckel queried whether there can be a split between utility costs and rent. Ms. Lafrance responded that the funding can all be used for rent or utilities as the City is getting all funds in one envelope now; we have the ability to spend it as we wish making the new program more flexible, which may help the County. The City’s proposal, then, is to put municipal money into a community startup fund that can be managed, once it’s a discretionary benefit. The City had planned for the savings (3 year budgeting); went to 70% of previous community startup and maintenance benefits. City patched it together; it will be one-stop shopping for the clients; learning curve from mandatory to discretionary benefit. Health benefits – live within the cap because it made more sense to put everything together; low vacancy rate, affordable housing council priority – live within the cap and prioritize what we’re going to spend money on. Eyeglasses, dental, funerals. Mr. Laidman noted that emergency shelters funding is based on 3 year average; have complicating factor that we’ve opened one more shelter. We will have to make up a small amount of difference for 2013, 2014. We are no longer bound by per diem costs; will be meeting with shelters in September to determine funding; can’t keep per diems as there is a risk we will go over budget. Eventual goal that the homelessness plan will have a recommended allocation and funding model for 2014 going forward; how many beds are needed and how they should be funded. Ms. Lafrance referenced Exhibit A which shows the finances. 2011 is benchmark year because we don’t know the costs in 2012. Challenge – don’t know what actual split of CSupp for City/County is for OW and ODSP. Used 10%. 2013 under 2011 is what would have been forecast based on status quo. Last year’s upload numbers reflected this. 2nd pg of schedule – if we adjust the provincial cost share based on announcement and 70% approach for CSupp and try to keep emergency hostel per diems at 2012 levels, impact would be $58K to County over status quo, $549K to City. Don’t get to save the entire upload. Ms. Hurdle noted that the savings is less for the County than expected ($58K instead of $130K). Ms. VanBruinessen asked what the implications are if the County doesn’t agree? In response, Ms. Lafrance noted that residency benefits now have an upset limit and need to be tracked; if the County elects not to participate, we will put the County’s share (10%) of provincial funding in and will assess entitlement – County share will be slightly less. Staff think the $60k could be high; uptake has not been as high in the County but don’t know the ODSP uptake. More homeowners in the rural areas so may be more need for extra fuel, etc. Ms. VanBruinessen asked what the implications would be if the County decided they didn’t want to go to 70% for residency Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 130
AgendaItem#2a)
benefit. Ms. Lafrance responded that the City will take the funding and divide it by 12 and will move from mandatory benefit to a discretionary benefit so it doesn’t become an income supplement. Ms. VanBruinessen queried whether the City can monitor the amount of declined applications for County. Ms. Lafrance noted that the City can do that as the same reporting is required for the City. Mr. Hunt asked when the City, from a process perspective, would need the information from the County to know the standard they want to apply. Ms. Lafrance indicated that by November would be helpful in setting allocations and Ms. Savill confirmed that the County can provide a response by November. Ms. Hurdle noted that regarding emergency hostel per diems, under OW and the LSR agreement funding was apportioned by residency; now it is being put into the consolidated homelessness prevention funding. Moving the funding out to a different program means that it’s not a mandatory requirement anymore. We are not interested in opening more shelters but are looking at ways to reduce the costs and better align services. There is the question of if it is City taxpayers paying for the service but it is supporting County residents, how do we address this? The bigger issue is, do we stop assisting people who are not from the Kingston area. Ms. Savill noted that she may request City staff attend County Council to refresh Council and assist with the November decision. 8. Other Business – to be confirmed
County of Frontenac 150th anniversary at County – discussion as to what participation level the City of Kingston will have with County (2015). Definitely want to include Kingston and its residents in some way/shape/form. Planting seed; ideas/thoughts are welcome. Joint celebration discussions would be welcome. Perhaps a way of tying it all together. Discussion at future date/resources. Committee has been struck in County; two chairs sit down together to find common ground. County to send letter to City with details. Date of the next RULAC meeting is Monday December 3, 2012 (9:00-10:30) at the County offices, with Joint Management being held on Monday November 19 from 3-4:30 p.m. at the same location.
It was moved by Mayor Davison and Seconded by Councillor Scott that all reports presented at this meeting were received. 9. Adjournment – Mayor Doyle moved adjournment, with Warden Gutowski seconding the motion.
Meeting Notes RULAC September 10, 2012
09-10-12 Meeting Notes
Page 11 of 11
Page 12 of 130
AgendaItem#4a)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount
Date Prepared:
August 22, 2012
Date of Meeting:
September 19, 2012
Re:
Fairmount Home – 2012 2nd Quarter Consolidated Statistical Report
Background As the “licensee” of the home under the Long-Term Care Homes Act and as a requirement for Accreditation, Council needs to be aware of the performance measures that are being collected at Fairmount, the results of those measures and any action plans that may be developed as a result. The home also has a responsibility under the Quality Improvement section of the Act to report our quality improvement activities to our residents, staff, volunteers and family members. With this in the mind, Fairmount’s Quality Assurance and Assessment Committee (QAAC) has developed a Quality Improvement Consolidated Statistical Report (Appendix A). This report contains information on all of the performance measures that were being collected in the home in the first and second quarter of 2012 and includes information such as goals (if established) and comments about the information collected.
Comment A review of the programming measures indicates that we are meeting the requirements of the Long-Term Care Homes Act in terms of providing weekend and evening programming and that a high percentage of our residents participate in at least one program each month. You will note that there is a new indicator in the dietary department regarding the taking of food temperatures by recreation staff at the weekly summer barbeques. Training on how to accurately take and document the food temperatures was provided to the recreation staff by the Manager of Food Services. The results of the Goldcheck audits in housekeeping remain constant. You will note a new measure in the laundry department regarding lost clothing. This has been added as a result of the annual Resident & Family Satisfaction Survey. We want to track how Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 2nd Quarter Consolidated Statistical Report September 19, 2012
Fairmount Home
Page 1 of 3
Page 13 of 130
AgendaItem#4a)
often lost clothing complaints come in and how many of those complaints are resolved with the clothing being located. Please note there was one form completed and the clothing was found. A new measure focusing on regulatory testing is in place for the maintenance department. This is to ensure that all regulatory testing and inspections such as fire systems, gas fireplace, generator, etc. are completed as scheduled. 100% of regulatory testing was completed in the second quarter. The number of residents using a restraint remains constant from 2011. The percentage of residents with complete restraint documentation remains good and the percentage of complete restraint flow sheet documentation is improving. To clarify, the first measure tracks whether or not staff has documented why the resident needs a restraint, what other alternatives have been considered/attempted and if there is a medical order for the restraint. The flow sheet measure tracks the daily required monitoring by the RPNs and PSWs. The Assistant Director of Care has been following up with the staff on the importance of and requirement for this documentation. Timeliness of completion of regulatory testing for MRSA/VRE remains a challenge and it will be discussed as a quality improvement initiative at the next registered staff meeting. There were 117 documented resident incidents and near misses, 85 of which were related to falls, near miss falls and medication incidents. There were five incidents related to resident aggression. There were three attempted elopements (exterior of building); three elopements (from secure unit to another unit in the home) and two times residents were found unescorted in a non-public area of the home – once in the stairwell by the public elevator and another time in the 1North stairwell. Staff members were once again reminded that it does take a few seconds for the magnetic locks to lock once a door has been opened so they must remain vigilant and ensure that a resident has not followed them into a stairwell. There were also four choking episodes. There were a variety of hazards documented through Risk IDs, inspections, observation, etc. There were issues with the loading dock door not closing properly which resulted in the installation of a new key pad. There were several issues with staff carrying dirty linen down the hallway and many problems with slippery floors on 1North. Individual laundry carts will be provided to PSWs to ensure there is no reason to carry dirty laundry down the hall. Additional dehumidifiers were purchased to help reduce the humidity on 1North but further investigation will be required into how to reduce the humidity in that area. We will be sharing these results with Residents’ Council, family members and staff in the coming month.
Sustainability Implications Measuring performance is essential to providing a high quality service. It allows an organization to identify areas where improvement is needed and triggers discussion as to how this can be done.
Financial Implications Measuring performance is a part of the home’s risk management and compliance processes. Failure to manage risk and assess compliance can lead to financial implications.
Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 2nd Quarter Consolidated Statistical Report September 19, 2012
Fairmount Home
Page 2 of 3
Page 14 of 130
AgendaItem#4a)
Recommendation That Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – 2012 2nd Quarter Consolidated Statistical Report for information only.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Fairmount Management Team Staff Residents Volunteers
Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 2nd Quarter Consolidated Statistical Report September 19, 2012
Fairmount Home
Page 3 of 3
Page 15 of 130
Fairmount Home FAIRMOUNT HOME QUALITY ASSURANCE & ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (QAAC)
Quality Improvement (QI) Consolidated Statistical Report 2012
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 16 of 130
Fairmount Home
PROGRAMMING Statistic / Audit
Measurement
Program Attendance: First floor
residents
attending at least one program
(monthly)
/ # total residents
Program Attendance: Second floor
residents
attending at least one program
(monthly)
/ # total residents
Activity Calendar
1st floor
programs & # 2nd floor programs
Goal
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
1st Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
Jan 57/60
Feb 59/62
Mar 62/63
Apr 61/63
May 62/63
Jun 63/63
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 57/62
Feb 62/63
Mar 60/64
Apr 62/64
May 61/63
Jun 62/63
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 28:17
Feb 22:17
Mar 23:18
Apr 18:18
May 21:17
Jun 17:16
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Comments
(monthly) (to ensure equitable) Activity Calendar
weekend
programs in the quarter
45/12.5
48/13
The LTC Homes Act requires weekend programming March #’s higher than usual (staff on every w/e)
/ # total weekends
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 17 of 130 QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 1
Fairmount Home
evening
programs in the quarter
9/13
11/13
The LTC Homes Act requires evening programming
3/18
See comment
It was noted that Generation Jamboree had a huge impact on male residents, although not intended for male residents only
/ # weeks in the quarter NEW - Programs directed at male residents
programs aimed
at our male population /total # programs
This indicator is being reviewed as to the relevance and how to capture men’s involvement in programs without specific ones for men only NEW - Large group activity evaluations
large group
activity evaluations completed
100%
0
1/1
Intent was to pilot the form for Walk for Memories - there was some misunderstanding re. which form to use – will trial it with Pancakes for Parkinson’s in April
/total # large group activities
VOLUNTEERS Statistic/Audit
Goal
1st Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
volunteer hours
6500
1644.5 (programs cancelled with outbreak)
1963
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 2
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
Comments
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 18 of 130
Volunteer Hours
Measurement
Fairmount Home
Volunteer Survey
of surveys
returned
35% return rate
0 surveys issued 0 surveys returned
0 surveys issued 0 surveys returned
95% satisfaction rate
0 surveys issued 0 surveys returned
0 surveys issued 0 surveys returned
4 programs / 12+ programs
0 programs reviewed
0 programs reviewed
4 e-newsletters per year
0
1 volunteer enewsletter distributed to 41 volunteers
/ # surveys issued
of satisfied
volunteers / #of volunteers surveyed
Volunteer Program Review
of programs
reviewed / # of volunteer assisted programs 100% of volunteer suggestions to improve programs considered
volunteer enewsletters
distributed /4 quarters
NEW – Recognition of
methods used to
ensure
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 3
Unavailable at time of printing
3 Gazette articles 1 Volunteer
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 19 of 130
NEW Quarterly enewsletter
Fairmount Home
volunteer contributions
communication of volunteer contributions each quarter
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 20 of 130 QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 4
Newsletter 1 power point presentation at Volunteer dinner 1 presentation to County Council
Fairmount Home
DIETARY Goal
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
Daily Food Temperature Audit
Weekly audit of individual meals where food temperature was taken and documented
100%
85.23%
92.%
Daily Café Fridge and Freezer Temperature Audit
Monthly audit of days temperatures were taken and documented
100%
N/A
95%
.
Weekly BBQ Food Temperature Audit
Weekly audit of individual BBQs where food temperature was taken and documented
100%
N/A
100%
New initiative for compliance in place as of June 1st. 2012
Refrigerator & Freezer Temperature Log
Monthly audit of days temperatures were taken and documented
100%
94%
98%
Daily Warewashing Sanitation Logs
Monthly audit of days sanitation logs information was documented
100%
86%
77%
NEW – Dietary referrals
dietary referrals
completed
100%
Compiling information at time of printing
100%
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 5
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
Comments
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 21 of 130
Measurement
Statistic/Audit
st
Fairmount Home
NEW – Quality initiatives
new quality
initiatives undertaken
(annual)
4
1
-Whipped topping for desserts -New thickener & thickened products introduced -Labeling of foods in the serverys -Weekly dietary meetings -BBQ Food Temperatures
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 22 of 130 QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 6
3
Fairmount Home
HOUSEKEEPING Measurement
Goal
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
Goldcheck
Weekly audits, monthly and quarterly reports indicating % of perceived cleanliness
100%
82%
85%
New - Routine Cleaning Audit
Routine cleaning of resident rooms as recorded by staff. % calculated on number of opportunities vs. completed
100%
1N - 93.4% 1S – 90.9% 2N – 83.9% 2S – 99%
1N – 89.90% 1S – 92.37% 2N – 90.8% 2S – 88.5%
Overall – 91.9%
Overall – 90.26%
new product &
processes tested
100%
None to date
None to date
Statistic/Audit
NEW – New products & processes testing
st
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
Comments
/total number of new products & processes implemented
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 23 of 130 QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 7
Fairmount Home
LAUNDRY Statistic/Audit
Measurement
Laundry Poundage
Measured daily compiled monthly
NEW - Lost Clothing
lost clothing
found
Goal
90%
1st Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
66000 lbs
66000 lbs
Not available at time of printing
1 L&F form submitted on July 19.
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
Comments
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
Comments
Items found – 100%
/total # lost clothing forms submitted
MAINTENANCE Statistic/Audit Work Orders
Measurement
completed
Goal
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
100%
Completed 1142 Issued 1190 – 95.9%
Issued – 1161 Completed – 1143 98.44%
/total # work orders Electrical Inspection Admission
of inspections
completed
20 of 27 admissions since Jan. 1, 2012 have recorded inspections – 74%
Page 24 of 130
regulatory
testing completed
100%
Fire – 100% Water – 100% Elevator – 100%
/total # regulatory testing scheduled
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 8
Planned 2nd quarter follow to identify the 7 missing inspections and reason (s).
AgendaItem#4a)
100%
/ # of new inspections NEW – Regulatory Testing
st
Fairmount Home
NURSING Statistic/Audit Restraint Use (monthly)
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Oct
13
14
19
19
19
19
20
18
Average # of restraints used (including bedrails)
28
32
35
38
38
38
36
33
of residents
using a restraint
17
22
22
25
23
25
25
23
3/3
6/8
1/1
3/3
2/2
3/3
2/2
3/3
100 %
75%
100%
100 %
100%
100%
100 %
100%
4/17
10/14
11/20
7/23
16/29
18/54
20/31
77%
71%
55%
70%
55%
66%
24/3 1 75%
Measurement
Goal
Average # of restraints used (excluding bedrails)
residents with
complete restraint documentation
100%
/ # resident charts audited
residents entries
with complete flow sheet documentation
100%
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 9
Sep
Nov
Comments
Dec
65%
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 25 of 130
/ # resident entries audited
st
Fairmount Home
PostAdmission Audit
100%
MRSA/VRE on time = 58% 1st Mantoux on time= 75% Other sections complete on chart = 66%
MRSA/VRE on time = 55% 1st Mantoux on time= 82% Other sections complete on chart = 91%
Medication Reconciliation Verified
of time
admission meds are reconciled/# of admissions
100%
100%
100%
Medication Sign-off (MDSRAI audits)
% assessments with all meds signed in 7days
100%
72%
85%
N/A
Booked for Aug 23
#’s reflect last quarter of 2011
#’s reflect first quarter of 2012
MSSA (completed annually) CIHI measures
Medication Incidents
medication
incidents
22
14
10
medication
incidents resulting in harm to resident
0
0
0
discrepancies in
count of narcotic &
0
0
0
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 10
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 26 of 130
CIHI Statistics (see attached)
Fairmount Home
controlled drugs / # time counted
adverse drug
reactions
0
0
0
84
59
Chart Audits
completed
Resident Incident Reports
Quarterly reports for trending
146 – 78 falls/14 medication/14 aggression
Palliative Care
Number of residents with PPS 30% or less monthly
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr May June
Jul Aug
4
2
2
2
cancelled
of compliments
from Memory Book quarterly
4 compliments/6 deaths
NEW - Staffing Plan Evaluation
#validated workload complaints from staff
117 – 75 falls/10 medication/6 Near misses related to elopement/5 aggression
2
2
4 compliments/10 deaths/6 donations
0
0
N/A
Stats not available yet
/total # complaints
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 11
0
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 27 of 130
nursing staff
injuries on day shift when three staff on unit
Fairmount Home
/total # nursing staff injuries
NEW - Resident Personal Items Labeling
% admission assessments & labeling completed on time
90%
83%
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 28 of 130 QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 12
72%
Fairmount Home
INFECTION PREVENTION & CONTROL Statistic/Audit Symptoms
Measurement
Goal
residents
displaying symptoms resulting in an infection
st
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
32/128 (UTI’s not included)
2/10
Respiratory (5 cases) and Enteric outbreaks in March
0
1
1 in April
Comments
/ 128 MRSA/CDif
nosocomial
infections
0
Wheelchair Cleaning
wheelchairs
cleaned
100%
(monthly)
/ # scheduled
Hand Hygiene (x2/yr)
compliant/total
opportunities observed
50%
PPE Use
staff using
proper PPE
100%
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 13
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
351 428
323 421
353 430
329 425
319 428
331 409
391 501
84%
77%
83%
81%
77%
85%
76%
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
61%
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 29 of 130
/ # staff observed
Jan
Fairmount Home
FALLS Statistic/Audit
Measurement
Goal
Falls
of falls
30
(monthly)
residents who
have fallen
1st Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
3rd Quarter Results
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
23
25
30
18
18
27
50
40
17
22
22
15
15
17
20
18
1
0
3
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
5
3
0
0
0
0
4/4
4/4
6/6
3/3
1/2
4/4
2/2
3/4
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
75%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Sep
Oct
Nov
Comments
Dec
/ 128 Severity of falls
1
of near miss
falls
100%
/ # of residents who have fallen 2 or mores times in a week QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 14
May/Aug – did not do rounds on a resident where rounds have been done before, all measures that are acceptable t o him are in place, and he is receiving full tx of his seizures
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 30 of 130
of residents
who have fallen 2 or more times in a week on whom falls round were conducted
Fairmount Home
where falls rounds were not conducted
falls
prevention education opportunities offered to staff, residents & family members
which are the cause of his falls At least once per year to each group
1 – in mandatory training
0
0
1 – in mandatory training
0
0
0
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 31 of 130 QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 15
Falls display to all – all categories took part
Fairmount Home
INCONTINENT & BOWEL MANAGEMENT st
Statistic/Audit
Measurement
Goal
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
Voiding record
residents with
completed 3d voiding record on admission
100%
12
12
100%
100%
12
12
/ #admissions
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
Comments
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
Comments
Oct
SKIN & WOUND MANAGEMENT st
Statistic/Audit
Measurement
Goal
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
Pressure Ulcer Prevalence
of residents with
pressure ulcers
5%
TBA
N/A
of residents with
new pressure ulcers
5%
Jan 2.3%
Wound Care Sheets
audits
completed
100%
(monthly)
/ # audits scheduled
(annually) Pressure Ulcer Incidence
Feb 2.3%
Mar 7.8%
Apr 1.5% NNA
May 3.9% NNA
Jun
Jul
Aug
7.8% 2NA
2.3% NNA
4.6% NNA
(monthly) 21/21
17/17
17/17
21/22
26/26
30/30
100%
100%
100%
95%
100%
100%
Nov
Dec
NNA=No new admissions
Jan - Unable to do audits May – 1 wound 1 day late
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 32 of 130
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 16
No data
Sep
Fairmount Home
HEALTH & SAFETY / RISK MANAGEMENT Statistic/Audit Fire Drill Attendance (annually)
st
Measurement
Goal
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
3rd Quarter Results
staff attending at
least one fire drill per year
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
100%
66%
100%
100%
100%
0
62%
17%
(21/34)
(4/23)
4/8 = 50%
N/A
4th Quarter Results
Comments Only measured in December
/ total # of staff Employee Workplace Inspections
inspections
completed on time
April report is missing – we are sure the old house was inspected but can’t find the form
/ # of inspections scheduled Management Workplace Inspections
inspections
completed on time / # of inspections scheduled
lost time injuries
High Risk Activity Verification Process
staff knowing 1
identifier
Hazards
Quarterly hazard reports for
/ # of total injuries
100%
11/12 = 92%
5/12 = 42%
/ # staff knowing 2 identifiers
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 17
1st quarter – 18 related to outbreaks
2 med fridge needs defrosting; 2 water
Issues with loading dock door not
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 33 of 130
Employee Incident Reports (from OHN quarterly updates)
Fairmount Home
trending
locking; other doors not closing; carrying dirty linen down hallway; slippery floors on 1North
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 34 of 130 QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 18
temperatures high; four loading dock door not closing properly; 2 chemicals not stored properly
Fairmount Home
EDUCATION &TRAINING Statistic/Audit Inservice Attendance
Measurement
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
186
236
70%
N/A
N/A
75%
15/24
33/39
62%
85%
Goal
st
staff in
attendance at all inservices
of staff that
attend at least one inservice per year
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
Comments
/ 185 (total # of staff) (annual) Inservice Evaluations
evaluations
completed / # inservices offered
Topics (annual)
100%
of staff attended
sessions on mandatory topics
100%
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 19
N/A
N/A
30
149
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 35 of 130
of educational
needs addressed / # of educational needs identified (annual)
Fairmount Home
GENERAL Statistic/Audit Family/Resident Satisfaction Survey (annual) Staff Satisfaction Survey (annual) NEW - Staff Absenteeism Rate
Measurement
respondents
satisfied
st
Goal
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
90%
97.5%
N/A
Survey closed March 31- 15 respondents
80%
n/a first quarter
N/A
Survey to be issued later in year
3%
563 days = 8%
522 days = 7.7%
6 staff = 3%
7 staff = 4%
Comments
/ total # respondents
respondents
satisfied / total #respondents
sick days taken
/average # shifts scheduled
Average 522 shifts/3918 hrs per week
(not including full 15 week leaves) NEW - Staff Turnover
staff leaving
employment
Based on 168 staff – 4 terminations & 9 resignations
/total # staff Complaints
Bed Occupancy
0
4
4
written
complaints
0
0
0
98%
99.3%
99%
days bed
actually occupied
QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 20
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 36 of 130
(trended quarterly)
verbal
complaints
Fairmount Home
/ total number of days
PAIN & SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT Statistic/Audit
Measurement
Goal
1st Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
Prevalence of Daily ModerateSevere Pain scores
of residents with
moderate-severe daily pain scores
10%
5: Moderate (3.9%) 0: Severe
5: Moderate (3.9%) 0: Severe
Incidence of new Daily ModerateSevere Pain scores
of new resident
with moderatesevere daily pain scores
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
Comments
(Down 5 Moderate Cases) 2 New Admissions
/ 128 residents 10%
3: Moderate (2.3%) 0: Severe
2: New Moderate (1.5%) 0: Severe
/ 128 residents
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 37 of 130 QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 21
Fairmount Home
RELIGIOUS & SPIRITUAL CARE Statistic/Audit NEW - Pastoral Visiting
(monthly) NEW - Multifaith Services provided
Measurement
resident
receiving a pastoral visit
st
Goal
1 Quarter Results
2nd Quarter Results
3rd Quarter Results
4th Quarter Results
90%
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
July
Oct
n/a
n/a
n/a
100% 100% 100%
May
June
Aug
Sep
Nov
Dec
Comments Data collection started in April
/ total # respondents
weeks with at
least one multifaith service provided
80%
83%
Two services cancelled first quarter due to outbreak
/ total # weeks
AgendaItem#4a)
Page 38 of 130 QAAC – QI Consolidated Statistical Report 2012 Page | 22
AgendaItem#4a)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount
Date prepared:
August 22, 2012
Date of meeting:
September 19, 2012
Re:
Fairmount Home – Quality Improvement Activities Update
Background As set out in the Long-Term Care Homes Act, every long-term care home must have a comprehensive quality improvement program that includes mechanisms for evaluation and reporting.
Comment Part of the home’s quality improvement program involves the documentation of quality improvement activities through project charters. This allows the team responsible for the activity to measure its progress. The following are the formal quality improvement activities that we are documenting to date in 2012 through project charters. Name of Project
Description
Nursing Restorative Care – Range of Motion
Registered staff can perform range of motion (ROM) treatments with residents within their scope of practice. PSWs cannot unless they have had training and the activities are delegated to them by registered staff. The purpose of this project is to introduce ROM treatments to the PSW role. Currently this project is underway on 1South. Traditionally there is a low completion rate of the survey. In 2012 we offered the option of completing the survey electronically through Survey Monkey. Unfortunately, this did not result in a higher completion rate – it remained about the same. The purpose of this initiative was to reduce the
Completion of Resident/Family Satisfaction Survey
RPN Needs from Dietary for Medication Pass
Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 Quality Improvement Activities Update September 19, 2012
Fairmount Home
Page 1 of 3
Page 39 of 130
AgendaItem#4a)
Bed Side Rails Algorithm
Ante UP Program
HyFIBRE Drink
number of times that RPNs did not have the cups, applesauce, etc. that they needed from the dietary department for the medication pass. A formal ordering system was put into place between the RPNs and Manager of Food Services. The process is working well. On 2South there were more residents using bedrails that on the other units. Bedrails are considered a restraint. Using a reliable and validated algorithm developed by the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario we wanted to explore reducing the use of two bedrails. At the time of writing this report one resident who originally used two bedrails was no longer using any. This was a 16-week Restorative Nursing program to increase resident exercise with the hopes of increasing the residents’ ROM and strength, maintain their current level of activities of daily living and decrease their pain. Outcome was positive. This was a three-week trial focused on three residents to determine the effect the HyFIBRE drink would have on residents with chronic constipation. The aim was to keep the bowel movements per day the same or greater in number by using the HyFIBRE drink and not laxatives. We were also hoping to decrease the number of bowel care interventions required. The results are being discussed at the next senior management meeting.
Financial Implications In many cases quality improvement activities are undertaken to improve processes however there are times when, depending upon the outcome, these activities can have financial implications. There is a financial implication related to the above noted activities should the HyFIBRE drink trial prove successful and a decision be made to provide it to all residents with chronic constipation.
Sustainability Implications The Health and Social Services Vision Statement from Directions for Our Future reads: Residents (both permanent and seasonal) are able to access high quality health care and professional social services through a network of care facilities and programs in the Frontenacs. The County fosters the network of health care and social service providers through development, maintenance, attraction and retention programs. It also advocates for a strong health and social services system, supported through effective service delivery agreements. Our quality improvement program will help us to ensure high quality services are provided to our residents. Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 Quality Improvement Activities Update September 19, 2012
Fairmount Home
Page 2 of 3
Page 40 of 130
AgendaItem#4a)
Recommendation That Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – Quality Improvement Activities Update Report for information only.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Fairmount Management Team Staff Residents Volunteers RNAO Centrix Health
Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 Quality Improvement Activities Update September 19, 2012
Fairmount Home
Page 3 of 3
Page 41 of 130
AgendaItem#4a)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AS AMENDED To:
WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount
Date prepared:
September 18, 2012
Date of meeting:
September 19, 2012
Re:
Fairmount Home – Enabling Accessibility Grant (as amended)
Background Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is providing the opportunity for organizations to apply to its Enabling Accessibility Fund for up to $50,000 per project. Applicants must ensure that their activities are conducted in Canada and must contribute to creating or improving accessibility for people with disabilities.
Comment
As set out in the grant application, eligible activities include, but are not limited to:
constructing an interior or exterior ramp installing wider doors or installing automated door openers raising or lowering sinks and/or counters improving lighting and increasing colour contrast building an accessible washroom installing accessible door handles and light switches installing an elevator or lift providing computer enhancements such as interactive speech capability installing a wheelchair lift on a community-based vehicle, and any other activities that contribute to creating or enhancing accessibility for people with disabilities and that are deemed acceptable by HRSDC
The County will be submitting an application for assistance in making the entrance to the Fairmount auditorium more accessible through the installation of a barrier-free lift and barrier free door operators. This work is planned as part of the auditorium renovation project. Another application will be submitted for the installation of 12 barrier-free door operators in the County Administration and FPS offices. Administrative Report as Amended Fairmount Home – Enabling Accessibility Grant September 19, 2012
Fairmount Home
Page 1 of 2
Page 42 of 130
AgendaItem#4a)
A third application will be submitted for the construction of a ramp outside of the Frontenac Room to accommodate individuals using the door directly out to the patio. This doorway is also a fire exit and is critical to ensuring the safe egress from the large meeting room. The cost of this work is estimated at $14,000. It is important to note that we need to provide proof that at least 25% of the project costs are funded by non-federal government sources. As well, if we receive approval the work will need to commence before March 31, 2013. Financial Implications In 2009, the cost estimate to making the auditorium entrance barrier free was approximately $168,000. If we are successful, the $50,000 will offset the costs of the overall renovation project. The funds for six barrier-free door operators were budgeted in 2012. If we are successful we will be able to recoup this expenditure and install an additional six. It is estimated that each door operator including installation costs $3,000. The support for the ramp will require a County investment of $3,500 that can be offset almost entirely by the funds received for the door operators should that application also be successful. Sustainability Implications The County’s 2012 Accessibility Plan states: The County is committed to being proactive in removing barriers for persons with disabilities and continues to remove barriers as financial resources permit. If the County is successful in its application it will be one step closer in providing barrier-free access to its site at 2069 Battersea Road. Recommendation That Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – Enabling Accessibility Grant Report for information: AND FURTHER THAT Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the execution of the funding agreement by the CAO in the event the application being made under the Enabling Accessibility Grant through Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is successful. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Staff Residents Volunteers Auditorium Fundraising Committee
Administrative Report as Amended Fairmount Home – Enabling Accessibility Grant September 19, 2012
Fairmount Home
Page 2 of 2
Page 43 of 130
AgendaItem#4a)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared By:
Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount
Date Prepared:
October 3, 2012
Date of Meeting:
October 17, 2012
Re:
Fairmount Home – 2012 3rd Quarter Activity Update
Background The following are some of the highlights from July 1 to September 30, 2012 of which County Council should be aware.
Comment Social Work Review Contract social work services were introduced to Fairmount in January 2012. A meeting was held to confirm satisfaction with the services. As a reminder to Council, the social worker is on site three hours every other Wednesday. Health Quality Ontario Webinar I attended an HQO webinar on understanding risk adjusted health quality indicators. Surveillance Cameras Motion-activated surveillance cameras were introduced to the loading dock area at Fairmount as a result of staff security concerns documented during the annual workplace risk assessment exercise. A policy on the use and access to the cameras is in place. Residents’ First Teleconference I attended a teleconference explaining the opportunities for use of the tools on the Residents’ First website related to the tracking of indicators. Auditorium Fundraising Kick-Off The fundraising kick-off event was a great success with over $24,000 being raised. Sales from the resident-made fascinators, necklaces and art were over $800. Our Campaign Chair was present and announced a pledge from Shoppers Drug Mart in the amount of $20,000. To date we have raised over $61,000. Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 3rd Quarter Activity Update October 17, 2012
Fairmount Home
Page 1 of 2
Page 44 of 130
AgendaItem#4a)
TSSA Regulations We met with a representative of our elevator contractor to discuss recently released changes to the TSSA regulations. We will need to install safety railings on the top of one of our elevators as well as making some changes in one of the elevator rooms. The work must be completed before December 2013 and the costs will be reflected in the 2013 budget. Major Projects The well project is ongoing. The flooring and wall protection in the 1South dining and activity rooms are complete as is the carpeting on 2South. The steamer has been installed in the main kitchen. The dietary workflow call for proposals was released a second time as the first respondents were not successful in their proposals. L-SAA & LAPS I attended several teleconferences of the steering committees for the development of these documents. As a reminder to Council the L-SAA is the three-year accountability agreement between the Home and the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) and the LAPS is the planning document that accompanies it. Modified Work The opportunity for modified work must be provided to staff members who suffer a workplace injury. Council should be aware that over the summer the home provided a significant number of modified work hours, particularly in the nursing department. Most of the injuries were related to the transferring and repositioning of residents. Please be assured that training is provided to staff annually on back care, transferring and repositioning and we ensure this training is reviewed again when there is an incident. Recommendation RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – 2012 3rdQuarter Activity Update report for information only.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Residents Staff Volunteers Thyssen Elevator Residents’ First
Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 3rd Quarter Activity Update October 17, 2012
Fairmount Home
Page 2 of 2
Page 45 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
CITY OF KINGSTON
REPORT TO COUNCIL
Report No.: 12-311 TO:
Mayor and Members of Council
FROM:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
RESOURCE STAFF:
Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department
DATE OF MEETING:
November 6, 2012
SUBJECT:
Affordable Housing Project Funding for Home Base Housing (540 Montreal Street), Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. (1338 Princess Street), and Central Frontenac Housing Corp.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to receive Council approval to re-allocate funds from the former Delivering Opportunities for Ontario Renters (DOOR) Capital Reserve Fund as well as funds from municipal reserves and housing capital funds to three affordable housing projects. On April 5, 2011, Council approved former DOOR funding in the amount of $1.1 M to Home Base Housing (HBH) to construct ten affordable rental units as part of a larger conversion project on Montreal Street. HBH has continued to work through the planning process and design of the building which has resulted in a decision to reduce the number of units from ten to seven. HBH has amended its estimated cost to $116,357 per unit for a total grant of $814,500. This cost per unit is still below previous Affordable Housing Program (AHP) and DOOR projects which averaged $120,000 - $130,000 per unit and allows for remaining $285,500 to be reallocated to another project. On July 17, 2012, Council approved funding in the amount of $45,000 from the Affordable Housing Construction Reserve to Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. to complete the planning process for its development of eight affordable townhouses on its property at 1338 Princess Street. It is expected that this project will be ready to begin construction in the early spring of 2013. Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. is requesting $1,123,000 to complete the construction of these units, for a total funding of $1,168,000 or $146,000 per unit. Funding for this project is available using the remaining DOOR Capital Reserve Funds ($435,931); Affordable Housing Construction Reserve ($594,969); and the 2012 Capital Investment in Affordable Housing program ($92,100). Of the original $6.62M received in former DOOR funding, City Council allocated $500,000 for an Emergency Shelter Capital Reserve Fund to assist with the implementation of a longer term
Community and Family Services
Page 46 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO COUNCIL
Report No.: 12-311 November 6, 2012
- Page 2 -
strategy to meet the community’s ongoing and dynamic emergency shelter needs. In June 2010, City Council authorized $445,000 to HBH for the relocation and redevelopment of the In From the Cold Shelter and authorized that $50,000 remain in the Emergency Shelter Reserve Fund for unanticipated capital expenses related to health and safety needs. City staff are recommending that the $50,000 from the Emergency Shelter Reserve Fund be re-allocated back to the former DOOR Capital Reserve Fund to provide capital funding to build more affordable units in the community and that the $50,000 be allocated as part of the request from Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. for that purpose. On May 19, 2009, Council approved Central Frontenac Housing Corporation (CFHC) to receive former DOOR funding of $625,000 or $125,000 per unit for the construction of a five unit seniors building. With the introduction of the AHP Extension 2009 funding, their project was moved to the new Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program for funding of $600,000 or $120,000 per unit. DOOR funding of $25,000 was still provided. During construction, the building was vandalized which caused construction delays and cost overruns. As a result the Corporation has been unable to complete the final construction details. Staff are recommending that CFHC be allocated DOOR funding of $25,000 to complete the required landscaping, paving, and lighting. This would keep the allocation for CFHC in line with other former DOOR funded projects at a cost of $130,000 per unit. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approve a reduction in former DOOR funding to the revised amount of $814,500 to Home Base Housing (HBH) for the development of seven affordable rental units; and THAT Council approve DOOR funding in the amount of $25,000 to Central Frontenac Housing Corporation to complete landscaping, lighting and paving for five seniors affordable units; and THAT Council approve $50,000 and any accumulated interest to be allocated from the Emergency Shelter Reserve Fund to the former DOOR Capital Reserve Fund to provide capital funding to build more affordable units in the community; and THAT Council approve total funding in the amount of $1,123,000 from the former DOOR Capital Reserve Funds ($435,931), the Affordable Housing Construction Reserve ($594,969) and the 2012 Capital Investment in Affordable Housing program ($92,100) to Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. for development of eight affordable rental units; and THAT Council authorize the Commissioner, Community Services or her delegate to review and approve, for execution by the Mayor and Clerk, all documents and agreements related to the funding allocations outlined in this report as required and to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services; and THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute all documents and agreements related to the funding allocations outlined in this report as approved by the Commissioner, Community Services or her delegate.
Community and Family Services
Page 47 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO COUNCIL
Report No.: 12-311 November 6, 2012
- Page 3 -
AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer
CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS: Cynthia Beach, Sustainability & Growth
N/A
Denis Leger, Transportation, Properties & Emergency Services
N/A
Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston
N/A
(N/R indicates consultation not required)
Community and Family Services
Page 48 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO COUNCIL
Report No.: 12-311 November 6, 2012
- Page 4 -
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: Background In 2007, the City of Kingston received $6.62M from the Delivering Opportunities for Ontario Renters (DOOR) component of the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program (AHP). Council subsequently approved that $6.12M DOOR funding be allocated for the creation and construction of social housing and that $500,000 be allocated for an Emergency Shelter Reserve Fund to assist with the implementation of a longer term strategy to meet the community’s ongoing and dynamic emergency shelter needs. Emergency Shelter Capital Reserve In August 2008, City Council authorized that $55,000 be divided amongst the emergency shelters to complete some capital repairs at each of the facilities. In June 2010, City Council authorized that the balance of the DOOR shelter funding ($445,000) be allocated to Home Base Housing (HBH) from the Emergency Shelter Reserve Fund for the capital costs associated with the redevelopment of In From the Cold Shelter, pending the acquisition of an appropriate building. City Council further authorized that $50,000 which had been earned in interest, remain in the Emergency Shelter Reserve Fund for unanticipated capital expenses related to health and safety needs. There are 6 Emergency Shelters in the City of Kingston, the majority of which have an affiliation with a larger organization as follows: Name of Shelter In From the Cold Lily’s Place Dawn House Women’s Shelter Salvation Army Harbour Light Kingston Youth Shelter Ryandale Family Shelter
Name of Affiliate Organization/ Building Owner Home Base Non-Profit Housing Corp. Home Base Non-Profit Housing Corp. Ministry of Community & Social Services Salvation Army Hotel Dieu Hospital N/A
City staff recently provided an opportunity for all emergency shelters to submit requests to access the capital reserve account funding and the only request came from Dawn House Women’s Shelter for $10,000 to insulate a portion of their building. At their October 2, 2012 Board meeting, the Dawn House Board resolved to pursue a merger with another shelter or non profit agency and the Executive Director also submitted her resignation. Due to this unstable situation and the Housing Department’s ongoing concerns about the financial viability of the organization, staff are not recommending that this request for capital funding be granted to Dawn House. In addition to the potential financial support available to the shelters from their affiliated agencies or building owners listed above, both the United Way and the Federal Homelessness Prevention Strategy (HPS) funds can be accessed for capital repairs. Emergency shelters have also indicated that they have obtained funding through corporate donations to enable them to complete capital upgrades. City staff also recently connected with
Community and Family Services
Page 49 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO COUNCIL
Report No.: 12-311 November 6, 2012
- Page 5 -
homelessness shelters to inform them of a grant program from Home Depot which provides materials and labour. Under the new Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) the focus in the community is expected to shift to a “Housing First” model where clients are moved from Emergency Shelters into permanent housing with support services. City staff are recommending that the $50,000 from the Emergency Shelter Reserve Fund be re-allocated to provide capital funding to build more affordable units in the community to assist in our goal of moving clients into permanent housing. Home Base Housing On April 5, 2011 Council approved $1.1 M in former DOOR funding for HBH for the development of 10 new affordable rental units to be developed through conversion of a commercial building located at 540 Montreal Street. This building will also accommodate the In From the Cold Emergency Shelter operated by HBH, as well as their administrative offices. HBH has encountered some environmental concerns on the property which has delayed construction of the project although it is anticipated that construction will begin this winter. During the final design plan phase, structural concerns were raised about locating the apartments on the second floor of the building. A new design has been proposed which would move the apartments to the first floor; however, the number of units would be reduced from 10 units to 7 units. There would be 6 bachelor units and 1 one bedroom wheelchair accessible unit. There are no stairs or ramps required to enter the building or to access these units. The original cost estimates have been revised as they have progressed through the environmental and planning stages. The increase from $110,000 to $116,357 per unit will still result in a project that is below the average per unit funding provided to other affordable housing projects. Overall, the project will require $285,500 less in total funding which can be used to fund another project. The proposed rents will remain at 80% of the CMHC Average Market Rent which is currently $498 for a bachelor unit and $643 for a one bedroom. As previously reported to Council, rent supplements will be provided for all units to ensure rents are affordable to applicants who may be on the Centralized Waiting List. The City has sufficient rent supplement allocations to meet this need. Central Frontenac Housing Corporation Central Frontenac Housing Corporation (CFHC) was one of five proposals approved by Council for DOOR funding in 2009. They were approved for $625,000 or $125,000 per unit for the construction of a five-unit senior’s townhouse complex in Sharbot Lake. Subsequent to that approval, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) announced the new CanadaOntario Affordable Housing Program, Extension, 2009 (AHP Extension 2009) to provide funding for construction ready affordable housing projects. As CFHC was construction ready, it was submitted to MMAH and was approved for $600,000 or $120,000 per unit in funding. As the
Community and Family Services
Page 50 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO COUNCIL
Report No.: 12-311 November 6, 2012
- Page 6 -
AHP Extension 2009 funding was less than the original DOOR funding, CFHC also received $25,000 or $5,000 per unit from DOOR. There were many challenges in the development of this project which caused unexpected delays and expenses. CFHC was required to attend an OMB hearing, in which they were successful, but which was costly and time consuming. During construction, the building was vandalized which resulted in construction delays to order new materials and an increase in the cost of onsite security. The final result was a shortfall in funding needed to complete many of the final site details, some of which are necessary for the safety of the tenants and their visitors. Fencing is required along the edge of the property which drops off significantly into a ravine. An old wooden fence has been placed alongside the parking lot as a temporary measure. Exterior lighting is minimal. Motion sensor lights around the building and parking lot are needed to enhance visibility at night. Landscaping was not able to be completed. In addition, paving is needed around the parking area as well as a walkway to the building to improve the walking surface for the seniors. The estimate for these items is approximately $25,000. In order to enhance the safety of the building, staff are recommending that funding of $25,000 be provided to CFHC to complete the necessary site improvements around the 5 unit seniors building. Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. On April 11, 2012, staff released a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking non-profit proponents able to develop new affordable rental units with funding provided under the Rental Housing component of the Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) in Ontario. Five proposals were received and evaluated. Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. (Kingston Co-op) ranked second. Kingston Co-op’s proposal is for the development of a third phase on their property at 1338 Princess Street. This phase will be 8 one bedroom townhouse units with rents set at $475 per month which is 59% of the current CMHC average market rent for a minimum of twenty-five years. All units will have widened doorways and one unit will have an accessible bathroom. In July 2012, Council approved the allocation of $45,000 from the Affordable Housing Construction Reserve to Kingston Co-op to complete the planning process so they could be shovel-ready in the event future funding became available. Kingston Co-op is now working with the Planning Department to complete this process. Kingston Co-op has requested funding of $146,000 per unit for a total of $1,168,000. With the approval of $45,000 for initial planning costs, Kingston Co-op would need $1,123,000 to complete their project. It is recommended the funding first be withdrawn from the remaining DOOR Capital Reserve Fund (including funds transferred from the Emergency Shelter Reserve Fund) which is approximately $435,931 and the balance of $687,069 be funded from the Affordable Housing Construction Reserve and the 2012 Capital Investment in Affordable Housing program.
Community and Family Services
Page 51 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO COUNCIL
Report No.: 12-311 November 6, 2012
- Page 7 -
The Capital Investment in Affordable Housing Program Policy was reviewed as it is recommended that $92,100 be utilized from this fund to support this project. Section 5.1.8 of the policy indicates that generally, the contributions will be limited to $50,000 per unit and that a greater amount can be considered where longer period of affordability is guaranteed. Section 5.1.5 also states that affordable units must be guaranteed for a minimum of 15 years and that longer period of affordability will be given priority. Considering that Capital Investment in Affordable Housing program makes up 8% of the overall project funding and that the project proposes an affordability period of 25 years at 59% of CMHC market rent (which is 21% less than the minimum prescribed in the policy), staff feel that the deviation from the general guidelines of the policy is appropriate. Summary of Projects and Funding Sources Project Home Base Housing (540 Montreal St) - 7 Units
Kingston Co-operative Homes (1338 Princess St) – 8 units
Central Frontenac Housing Corp (Clement Road, Sharbot Lake) – 5 units
Proposed Funding Source $814,500 DOOR
Notes Previously funded at $1.1M from former DOOR
$435,931 former DOOR (including $50,000 from Emergency Shelter Reserve Fund); $92,100 2012 Capital Investment Program; and $594,969 Affordable Housing Construction Reserve
Previous funding was $45,000 from Affordable Housing Construction Reserve for planning process
$25,000 DOOR
Previously received $600,000 from Provincial Affordable Housing Program and $25,000 from DOOR
EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: Municipal Capital Facilities By-Law 2003-061. The capital investment in affordable housing program also applies to this report. NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: There is sufficient funding within the DOOR Capital Reserve Fund, the Affordable Housing Construction Reserve, and the 2012 Capital Investment Program to fund all three (3) projects.
Community and Family Services
Page 52 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO COUNCIL
Report No.: 12-311 November 6, 2012
- Page 8 -
CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department
613-546-4291 ext. 1231 613-546-2695 ext. 4957
OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Desiree Kennedy, Director of Financial Services and City Treasurer Mary McIntyre, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department Lee Campbell, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department Melanie Bale, Financial Analyst, Housing Department Joe Gallivan, Manager of Sustainability Planning, County of Frontenac EXHIBITS ATTACHED: N/A
Community and Family Services
Page 53 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
CITY OF KINGSTON
INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL
Report No.: 12-367 TO:
Mayor and Members of Council
FROM:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
RESOURCE STAFF:
Adèle Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services
DATE OF MEETING:
November 6, 2012
SUBJECT:
Cessation of the Childcare Fee Subsidy Waitlist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As Council is aware, a Fee Subsidy Waitlist had been in effect since November of 2011 due to increase demand and utilization of Fee Subsidy funding, provided to the City as both cost shared and 100% provincial program funding. During the summer of 2012, the number of families receiving fee subsidies decreased for a number of reasons, including the ongoing implementation of full day kindergarten. In response to this reduced subsidy utilization, Childcare Programs increased fee subsidy offering to families on the waitlist. As of October 4, 2012, all families on the fee subsidy waitlist that required child care either now or in the immediate future had been contacted and offered a fee subsidy appointment. As available funding continued to be forecasted after the waitlist had been exhausted, Childcare Programs was able to cease the waitlist and move to offer fee subsidies openly. The decommissioning of the waitlist are as prescribed in the current fee subsidy waitlist policy, as approved by Council (Meeting No. 2012-18 of July 17-19th, 2012): “The City’s waitlist for fee subsidies will be decommissioned when a projected surplus in available funding is identified and all applicants requiring fee subsidy assistance immediately or in the near future have been served.” A new waitlist will only be invoked if and when the demand for fee subsidies is again greater than available funding. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information purposes only.
Community and Family Services
Page 54 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL November 6, 2012
- Page 2 -
Report No.: 12-367
AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS: Cynthia Beach, Sustainability & Growth
N/A
Denis Leger, Transportation, Properties & Emergency Services
N/A
Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston
N/A
(N/R indicates consultation not required)
Community and Family Services
Page 55 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL November 6, 2012
- Page 3 -
Report No.: 12-367
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: On January 1, 2007, the province implemented a new subsidy application process for parents applying for childcare fee subsidies. The Income Test replaced the Needs Test application and the new model provided common eligibility criteria across the province and is a less intrusive process for families. The impact for Kingston – Frontenac was the rise in the number of families that were eligible for childcare subsidies. Included in the change to an income test application, the province required all Service Managers to develop a Waitlist Policy that used a first come/first served approach. A Council approved Policy was to be submitted to the province in 2008. Since invoking the Waitlist Policy in November 2011, a number of clarifications and adjustments were identified and were recommended to City Council in July 2012. This recommendation was an update to the 2011 – 2014 Childcare Management Strategies for Kingston – Frontenac Report approved by Council on July 17, 2012. A Fee Subsidy Waitlist was invoked in November of 2011 as projected fee subsidies exceeded available funding for 2011. This Waitlist carried over into 2012 as early year expenditures continued to exceed available funding. In the second quarter of 2012, a controlled offering of subsidies to families on the Waitlist was provided based on close monitoring of funding availability. During the summer of 2012, the number of families receiving fee subsidies started to decrease for various reasons including the implementation of full day kindergarten. In response to the decreased expenditures, subsidy offering was increased. As of October 4, 2012, Childcare Programs had contacted all families on the fee subsidy waitlist that required child care either now or in the immediate future to offer them a fee subsidy appointment. Fee subsidy availability continued to be forecasted after this waitlist call out had been exhausted. Childcare Programs issued a letter to the remaining 211 registrants on the waitlist, the majority of whom had previously declined an appointment on at least one occasion, advising them of the availability of fee subsidy, the cessation of the waitlist and information on the process for scheduling a fee subsidy application appointment. The waitlist was then decommissioned and childcare service providers advised that fee subsidy appointments would be scheduled openly. The above process was in accordance with the current approved fee subsidy waitlist policy states the following: “The City’s waitlist for fee subsidies will be decommissioned when a projected surplus in available funding is identified and all applicants requiring fee subsidy assistance immediately or in the near future have been served.” A new waitlist will only be invoked if and when the demand for fee subsidies is greater than available funding. As Childcare Programs could not predict the duration of the City’s fee subsidy waitlist, families requiring both immediate care and future care were included on the waitlist. One of the challenges experienced while administering the waitlist during 2012 is that many registrants decline the offer for a fee subsidy appointment but asked to remain on the waitlist. Reasons for remaining on the waitlist included the following: parent(s) not working or attending school at time
Community and Family Services
Page 56 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL November 6, 2012
- Page 4 -
Report No.: 12-367
of offer, immediate child care was not required, or income taxes were not yet filed (provincial requirement). As the waitlist is not intended to be a subsidy reservation system, but rather a means of fairly allocating subsidies when demand exceeds available funding, it is not appropriate to maintain a waitlist when subsidies are readily available. Moreover, maintenance of a fee subsidy waitlist for future care when subsidies are currently available is contrary to serving families on a first come, first served basis and meeting the current demands on the community. Finally it must be recognized that there is a significant administrative burden to keeping a waitlist along with significant confidential information management responsibility but no benefit to eligible applicants when subsidies are readily available. Waitlist data – November 2011 – October 2012 During the first two quarters of 2012, there was a modest decrease in the number of children assisted with fee subsidies for childcare. At the end of June, a significant decrease was experienced as 292 children exited the system at approximately the same time the province announced additional funding for fee subsidies was available for the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac. Although the City was aware that additional provincial dollars was forthcoming, the timing of the announcement and the allocated amounts was unknown. On July 10, 2012, the City was notified of the additional funding allocations. Starting mid-July, Childcare Programs started at the top of the waitlist and attempted to contact applicants that required care now or in the near future. By September, it was identified that there was enough funding available in 2012 to continue moving down the list until the end was reached. The following chart below shows the timeframes & number of fee subsidies that were offered in 2012. Number of fee subsidies offered
Communicated to Childcare Operators
Subsidy Effective Date
10 5 12 6 4 20 195 5 25 5 Balance of waitlist
December 15, 2011 February 14, 2012 May 18, 2012 June 20, 2012 June 21, 2012 July 20, 2012 July 23, 2012 July 23, 2012 August 29, 2012 September 20, 2012 October 4, 2012
January 2, 2012 March 1, 2012 July 1, 2012 September 3, 2012 September 3, 2012 September 3, 2012 September 3, 2012 September 3, 2012 September 3, 2012 As required As required
Community and Family Services
Page 57 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL November 6, 2012
- Page 5 -
Report No.: 12-367
During the timeframe of the administration of the 2011/12 fee subsidy waitlist, over 600 families were contacted to offer a fee subsidy. Of these families, approximately 40% were approved for subsidy, 13% were in the process of applying as of October 2012, 12% discontinued and 35% declined. Reasons for declining subsidy included: requesting subsidy for 2013, waiting for required documentation, waiting for birth of child, not living in the area, or not employed or attending school at the time of contact. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: 2012 Fee Subsidy Waitlist Policy NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: As of September 30, 2012 a surplus of over $580K is anticipated for childcare fee subsidies for 2012. If this funding is not used to serve additional families for fee subsidies during 2012, it will be used for wage subsidy per provincial guidelines and in accordance with the current Council approved Childcare Service Management Strategies for Kingston & Frontenac. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Adele Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services Dept.
613-546-4291 ext. 1231 613-546-2695 ext. 4801
OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Laura Austin, Supervisor, Childcare Programs, Community and Family Services Katie Clarke, Manager of Program Delivery, Community and Family Services EXHIBITS ATTACHED: N/A
Community and Family Services
Page 58 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
CITY OF KINGSTON
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.:
HHC-12-016
TO:
Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee
FROM:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group
RESOURCE STAFF:
Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department
DATE OF MEETING:
June 14, 2012
SUBJECT:
Kingston Frontenac Renovates Program Guidelines
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Ontario Renovates is a part of the Provincial Investment in Affordable Housing Program (IAH) approved for implementation by Council in December, 2011 and which is being renamed the Kingston Frontenac Renovates Program to reflect the local implementation standards of the program. The program provides financial assistance to lower income homeowners to pay for modifications to make their property safe and improve accessibility. This new program is designed to replace some aspects of the federal Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) which ended March 31, 2012. A funding commitment of $200,000 per year for three consecutive years will be made available for this program which is a substantial reduction from the RRAP program. Basic program requirements from the Province will need to be adhered to by the Service Manager. Staff have identified additional guidelines to ensure these limited funds are used in the most efficient manner and will be able to provide funding to applicants in greatest need. It should be noted that all loans for this Program are forgivable as long as the applicant meets all provincial and local criteria. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.
Community and Family Services
Page 59 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-016 June 14, 2012
- Page 2 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS: Cynthia Beach, Sustainability and Growth Denis Leger, Transportation, Properties & Emergency Services
N/R
Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston
N/R
(N/R indicates consultation not required)
Community and Family Services
Page 60 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-016 June 14, 2012
- Page 3 OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: The Investment in Affordable Housing Program (IAH) allowed the Service Manager to determine local funding priorities amongst six programs. In December 2011, Council decided to reallocate provincial funding to the Ontario Renovates, Rent Supplement, and Rental Housing Capital programs. Kingston Frontenac Renovates Program (Ontario Renovates) will be funded on the basis of $200,000 per year over the next three (3) years for a total of $600,000. This represents approximately a third of the funding made available in previous years to the Service Manager area under the former CMHC RRAP program. Recognizing that the investment in the area will be less than in previous years, City staff have identified other funding partnership opportunities to better serve clients and to extend these limited funds even further. It should be noted that in addition to the RRAP program ending at the end of March, the recently announced Provincial budget is proposing to eliminate home repair benefits from social assistance. The Service Manager must implement the Kingston Frontenac Renovates program complying with the basic requirements of the Province. City staff are adding criteria and requirements to the program in order to effectively target property owners to meet local community and individual needs. The purpose of this report is to inform the Housing and Homelessness Committee on both provincial and local criteria and requirements. It should be noted that all loans for this Program are forgivable as long as the applicant meets all provincial and local criteria. Sections 1 through 3 of this report are set Provincial criteria for this Program. Sections 4 through 7 are additional criteria and requirements developed by the local Service Manager to provide more clarity to the Program and better reflect local needs.
- Objectives of Ontario Renovates (Provincial) 1.1. Home Repair: To establish acceptable living standards and improve the living conditions of households in need through financial assistance to repair deficiencies in their homes. 1.2 Accessibility: To foster independent living of seniors and persons with disabilities by providing financial assistance to support modifications and renovations to increase accessibility of affordable homeownership properties. 1.3 Energy Reduction: To respect the environment and to realize savings that will improve housing affordability over the long term through the use of energy saving products or systems.
- General Program Guidelines (Provincial) 2.1 Homeowners can receive a forgivable loan that does not have to be repaid — provided the borrower meets all the terms of the loan approval agreement; 2.2 Housing must be at least five years old and meet specific eligibility guidelines; 2.3 Households must meet specified income limits, to reflect locally determined levels; 2.4 Home owners must agree to continue to own and occupy their home as their primary residence for up to ten (10) years; and 2.5 Funds are not available for work already started.
Community and Family Services
Page 61 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-016 June 14, 2012
- Page 4 3. Target Client Group (Provincial) 3.1 Seniors; 3.2 Persons with disabilities; 3.3 Low to moderate income singles and families; 3.4 The Provincial guidelines allow for the funds to be given to landlords of rental housing as well but staff are recommending only homeowners to be eligible due to the already discussed funding limitations.
- Basic Eligibility and Loan Criteria for All Requests (Local) 4.1 Home must be their sole and principal residence; 4.2 Property value must not exceed the locally determined House Value Threshold of $250,000. (same threshold as used for Homeownership Program; confirmation of Market Value will be provided by valid confirmation of MPAC Notice); 4.3 Total Household Incomes must not exceed a local Income Threshold of $73,500 (60th percentile). Preference will be given to applicants whose Total Household Income is less than $61,250 (50th percentile). Further graduation of household income thresholds below the 50th percentile have been determined to reflect level of need in relation to household size. Applicants with incomes between the 50th and 60th income percentiles will only be provided funding if there are no qualifying applicants in the below 50th income percentile. –(Confirmation of income is provided by valid copy of Notice of Assessment and verification of ‘current income’ for all occupants); 4.4 Property must be at least 10 years old, except for projects related to Modifications for Persons with Disabilities or Limited Mobility; 4.5 Maximum loan is $10,000 per project. It is anticipated that average loans will be in the $5,000 to $6,000 range allowing the municipality to assist more households (see Exhibit A to this report); 4.5.1. If an individual application warrants exceptional consideration for a loan in excess of $10,000, such consideration may be given by requesting a review of the request. 4.6 Is provided in the form of a forgivable loan based upon the cost of ‘approved’ work items; 4.7 Loan will be monitored and regulated by issuance of a signed Promissory Note and Letter of Agreement if loan is less than $10,000. Loans of greater value, based upon exceptional circumstances and individual review, may be Registered on Title 4.8 Forgiveness period is 10 years and is reduced at an equal rate per year over the affordability period; 4.9 If any of the following situations occur the applicant is considered to be in default and any outstanding balance must be repaid: 4.9.1 Homeowner ceases to occupy the unit as sole and principal residence; 4.9.2 Misrepresentation occurs related to eligibility for the program; or 4.9.3 Funding is used for other purposes
Community and Family Services
Page 62 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-016 June 14, 2012
- Page 5 4.9
Repayments made to the Service Manager are to be reinvested into the Ontario Renovates Program unless otherwise directed by the Ministry.
General Eligible Activities and Costs (Local) 5.1 Loans must address essential repairs, retrofits or replacements to ‘at least’ one of the following building elements; 5.1.1 Structural (including accessibility) - doors, low-E Argon windows, foundations, roofs (min. R-40), walls, floors and ceilings, etc.; 5.1.2 Electrical – wiring and electrical systems; 5.1.3 Plumbing; 5.1.4 Septic systems, well water and well drilling; 5.1.5 Heating systems, (using Energy Star qualified furnace with a brushless DC motor); and 5.1.6 Fire Safety
Accessibility Modifications for Seniors (65+),Persons with Disabilities and Those Experiencing Reduced Mobility (Local) 6.1 Property Values must not exceed the local House Value Threshold; 6.2 Total Household Incomes (minus Federal Disability Tax Refund) must not exceed local Income Thresholds for housing type; 6.3 A healthcare professional may be required to confirm the disability and prescribe the modification for greater independent living if the disability is not readily apparent to the administrator of the program; 6.4 Maximum loan of $10,000 which includes a grant of $3,500 for ‘accessibility repairs or retrofits’ made to a home, and does not require repayment. Remaining $6,500 would be in the form of a forgivable loan, if applicant is eligible. This is reflective of the former RRAP program policy; 6.5 Improvements must be: 6.5.1 Permanent; 6.5.2 Intended to eliminate barriers and safety risks; 6.5.3 Improve the ability to meet demands of daily living within their home; and 6.5.4 Meet occupancy standards 6.6 Modifications such as; ramps, hand rails, chair & bath lifts, height adjustments to countertops and cues for door bells & fire alarms are deemed eligible; 6.7 Funding for modifications for persons with disabilities and reduced mobility may be combined with funding from other agencies to more effectively address the homeowner’s individual needs.
EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: N/A NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A
Community and Family Services
Page 63 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-016 June 14, 2012
- Page 6 ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: The program is specifically targeted to providing funds to improve accessibility for seniors and persons with disabilities. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Funding has been provided in annual budgets in accordance with the Policy. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group
613-546-4291 ext. 1231
OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Rob Rowe, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department Julie Salter-Keane, Accessibility Compliance Project Manager Susan Beckel, County of Frontenac Members of the Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committee EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A - Summary of RRAP Program 2008-2011 in Kingston/Frontenac Area
Community and Family Services
Page 64 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
Exhibit A -
Summary of RRAP Program 2008-2011 in Kingston/Frontenac Area
TOTAL Cumulative Allocation (6 Components) Program Component Kingston Frontenac County RRAP Homeowner 463,572 (54%) 390,495 (46%) RRAP Rental 421,444 (97%) 19,235 ( 3%) RRAP Disabled 218,603 (59%) 162,954 (41%) Emergency Repair 23,450 (12%) 169,461 (88%) Secondary/Garden 0 24,000 (100%) Suite SUM TOTAL (%) 1,127,069 (60%) 766,145 (40%) AVERAGE Annual Allocation (6 Components) Program Component Kingston Frontenac County RRAP Homeowner 154,524 (54%) 130,165 (46%) RRAP Rental 140,481 (97%) 6,412 (3%) RRAP Disabled 72,968 (59%) 54,318 (41%) Emergency Repair 7,817 (12%) 56,487 (88%) Secondary/Garden 0 8,000 (100%) Suite SUM TOTAL (%) 375,690 (60%) 255,382 (40%) AVERAGE Allocation per Project (6 Components) Program Component Kingston Frontenac County RRAP Homeowner 5,209 (30) 6,007 (22) RRAP Rental 10,034 (14) 4,809 ( 1) RRAP Disabled 5,605 (13) 5,432 (10) Emergency Repair 5.863 ( 1) 5,135 (11) Secondary/Garden 0 24,000 ( 1) Suite SUM TOTAL (%) 375,690 (58) 255,382 (44)
Community and Family Services
Combined 854,067 (45%) 440,679 (24%) 381,557 (20%) 192,911 (10%) 24,000 (1%) 1,893,214 (100%)
Combined 284,689 (45%) 146,893 (24%) 127,186 (20%) 64.304 (10%) 8,000 (1%) 631,071 (100%)
Combined 5.546 (51) 9.580 (15) 5.530 (23) 5.214 (12) 24,000 ( 1) 631,071 (102)
Page 65 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
CITY OF KINGSTON
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-020 TO:
Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee
FROM:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
RESOURCE STAFF:
Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department
DATE OF MEETING:
September 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
Housing Programs Reporting
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the January 30th meeting of the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee, members of the Committee requested an information update report from the Housing Department on a regular basis. At the February 16th meeting, Report #HHC-12-008 provided an outline of the programs and information that the Housing Department will report to the Committee in March and September of each year. Accordingly, this report to the Committee will essentially cover information and statistics related to the first half of 2012. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.
Community and Family Services
Page 66 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-020 September 13, 2012
- Page 2 – AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS: Cynthia Beach, Sustainability & Growth
N/R
Denis Leger, Transportation, Properties & Emergency Services
N/R
Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston
N/R
(N/R indicates consultation not required)
Community and Family Services
Page 67 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-020 September 13, 2012
- Page 3 – OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: The Housing Department prepares regular statistical reports for programs for review and analysis. Some reports may be of assistance to members of the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee to carry out their roles and responsibilities under the Committee’s Terms of Reference and mandate. Accordingly, the Housing Department will provide members of the Committee the following information on a bi-annual basis: a. Social Housing Registry waiting list numbers by household size and type b. Social Housing Registry statistics on households housed and applications received c. Update on capital project developments under the IAH and AHP programs d. Rent Supplement program updates e. Emergency shelter usage f. Ontario Renovates statistics g. Homeownership statistics h. Update on Affordable Housing Land Acquisition and Disposition program i. Update on Affordable Housing Capital Investment Program j. Miscellaneous – any other updates relevant to housing programs Full details on the above items were provided with the initial report in March, 2012, Report # HHC-12-009 Housing Programs Reporting, in order to obtain some background to each of these programs. It is anticipated that this and future reports will simply include the actual statistics. New programs or programs lacking statistics will be the exception as background information would be more appropriate and appreciated. The Kingston-Frontenac Renovates Program: (Previously – Ontario Renovates Program) The Kingston-Frontenac Renovates Program (KFR) was implemented effective July 3, 2012. Through this program, grants for accessibility projects (to a maximum of $3,500) and/or interest free forgivable loans (to a maximum of $10,000) will be made available to assist low income homeowners to complete emergency repairs to their homes. The emergence of this program comes at an important time as other similar programs such as the CMHC, Renovation & Repair Assistance Program (RRAP), the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) emergency repairs benefits and the Ontario Works Community, Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB),.have either ceased or will be winding down in the near future. Collectively, this results in a substantial reduction in overall funding to assist low income home owners. Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) per year for the next three consecutive years (April 1, 2012 to March 31st, 2015) will be available through the KFR Program. It is anticipated that the demand for this limited funding will be great. To this end, staff have designed the program to focus eligibility to ‘homeowners’ only and to restrict initial eligibility to households within specific income thresholds. Further, staff are using a job priority rating process to determine and assign funding based upon project type and relative need. This will help to maximize the use of available funding by directing it to those with greatest need.
Community and Family Services
Page 68 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-020 September 13, 2012
- Page 4 – Program Information such as Eligibility Rules, Program Guidelines and Application Forms are available on the City of Kingston, Housing Department Website, and the County of Frontenac Website. Applications are also be available for pick-up at the Housing Department, at 362 Montreal Street, or arrangements can be made to have an application and program information mailed to interested persons by contacting the Housing Department. As of August 15, 2012, the Housing Department has received twenty nine (29) applications. Fourteen (14) applications meet eligibility criteria. The remaining applications either do not meet eligibility criteria or they lack required information to confirm eligibility. Thirteen (13) of the eligible applicants have had a home visit. Commitment of initial projects funding will soon occur. Update on Affordable Housing Land Acquisition and Disposition program At the June 5, 2012 Arts, Recreation, and Community Policies Committee endorsed a policy which sets out the guidelines for the municipally funded Affordable Housing Land Acquisition and Disposition Program. . In April, Council approved the sale of 1316 Princess St for the purposes of facilitating affordable housing. This is a vacant site purchased for $1.2M from the Affordable Housing Land Acquisition Fund. The site is undergoing environmental investigations. Once complete the Housing Department will be working on development scenarios and options for Council consideration. The entire $1M in the 2012 capital budget was required to contribute to the acquisition of this property. On August 14, 2012 Council directed staff to finalize the acquisition of 7 Wright Crescent owned by the Congregation of Notre Dame for a total of $1M plus incidentals with $590,000 funded from the 2012 Affordable Housing Capital Investment Program budget and $410,000 plus incidentals (Land Transfer Tax, land registry investigations and registrations, etc) funded through an approved advance from the 2013 Affordable Housing Land Acquisition and Disposition Capital Program budget. The sale is to for the purposes of facilitating affordable housing. This property includes a three storey plus basement dormitory style building on 2.3 acres of land. Housing Department staff are currently developing options for Council consideration regarding the future status, use, and development of the site. Staff expects to present these options in the fall of 2012.
Update on Affordable Housing Capital Investment Program Per the approved policy, funds were taken from this program to help purchase 7 Wright Crescent. Sufficient funding remains to still fund another project in 2012 from this fund if an appropriate project is identified. In 2012, the following allocations have been made from this capital program: $118,000 to the Engcon project on Canatara Court; $590,000 to the purchase of 7 Wright Crescent There is $292,000 left in the 2012 capital program. Secondary Suites Program The Municipal Housing Strategy included recommendations for the City to implement second residential unit permissions within Official Plan policies and zoning by-law regulations. The intent of the policy and regulatory changes would seek to encourage the development of second
Community and Family Services
Page 69 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-020 September 13, 2012
- Page 5 –
residential units as an alternative affordable living arrangement not currently permitted within the City’s land use planning framework. Based on information reports prepared by Staff and a consultant, Council provided direction to pursue the required planning approvals within select areas of the City regulated by zoning by-laws 76-26 (former Township of Kingston) and 32-74 (former Pittsburgh Township). Other areas of the City, particularly the downtown area, were considered potentially unable to accommodate second residential units, at this time,as-of-right due to anticipated servicing (water and sewer) capacity concerns. At the current time the Housing Department has submitted Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to the Planning and Development Department to pursue the required permissions within the prescribed areas of the City. A Public Meeting was held on September 6th and it is anticipated Planning and Development Department Staff will complete their internal review by November. Based on the achievement of these key milestones, the second residential unit permissions could formally be in place by the end of 2012. In support of the new planning permissions a second residential unit handbook or “how-to” guide is being prepared to assist the public in evaluating and constructing second residential units. While the planning approvals currently being pursued include a limited area of the City, monitoring the development of second residential units and related servicing impacts will assist in the subsequent expansion of the locations where second residential unit permissions apply. Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) in Ontario On July 17, 2012, Council approved IAH funding of one million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($1,650,000) to Frontenac Community Mental Health and Addictions Services (FCMHAS) for the development of eleven (11) affordable rental units and further approve funding in an amount up to forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) from the Affordable Housing Construction Reserve to Kingston Co-operative Homes Inc. to complete the planning process for their development as set out in their RFP submission. The FCMHAS project is a 49 unit project on Lyons Street. This property will see 11 of the units funded through this program while the remainder of the funding will come from other sources. Kingston Co-operative Homes has received zoning approval for an 8 unit expansion to their property on Princess St. The $45,000 will be used towards their completion of the planning process, in particular Site Plan Control approval. Options for Homes (Anna Lane) Members of the Committee have inquired about the status of this project located on the corner of Bagot and Queen Streets. The City has entered into an agreement with Options for Homes to defer payment of the Development Charges associated with the project as a loan. The payment is for a maximum of $857,000. Essentially this is used as a loan for anyone meeting income eligibility standards in the agreement. Any funds not used towards low income purchasers is given back to the City. All funds are to be paid back to the City at the 10 year mark or at the time of sale of the unit, whichever is first. The project was delayed significantly by an OMB appeal which has now been decided. The project has recently amended some of the interior of the building to allow for more one bedroom units to meet a higher demand for
Community and Family Services
Page 70 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-020 September 13, 2012
- Page 6 – these sizes of units, especially for low income purchasers. It is expected that current sales will allow the project to proceed to construction this fall. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: N/A NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: N/A CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
613-546-4291 ext. 1231
OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department Lee Campbell, Acting Manager, Housing Department Mary McIntyre, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department Rob Rowe, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Registry Applicant Income Distribution Exhibit B: Eligible Households on the Wait List for Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) Assistance – Household Size & Type Exhibit C: Households Housed From, Removed or Added to Wait List Exhibit D: Housing Capital Projects Exhibit E: RGI Rent Supplement Programs Exhibit F: Non Housing Services Act Rent Supplement Programs Exhibit G: Emergency Shelter Usage Exhibit H: Homeownership Program
Community and Family Services
Page 71 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
Exhibit A
Registry Applicant Income Distribution Applicant Status: Eligible
SUMMARY Income Category Ont. Disability Support Program Ontario Works C.P.P. (Canada Pension Plan) Part Time Employment Old Age Security/G.I.S. Full Time Employment Other Income Employment Insurance (E.I.) Other Pensions O.S.A.P Support Payments Company Pension Gains -Aced Self Employment W.S.I.B. (Long Term) W.S.I.B. (Short Term) Immigrant/Government Sponsorship Annuity (R.I.F) Other Spouses Allowance Interest -Bank Other Country Social Security Total
Applicant Income Records 543 345 190 95 94 92 70 38 18 13 12 10 8 7 7 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 1560
% 34.8 22.1 12.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 4.5 2.4 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Note: Some households have more than one income source are therefore listed in more than one category
Community and Family Services
Page 72 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
Exhibit B - page 1- Eligible Households on the Wait List for RGI– Household Size & Type – January to March 2012 SP-Special Priority HP-Homeless Priority CHChronological Bedroom(s)
January
February
S P
HP
C H R
Total on CWL
SP
1 Bedroom
49
81 602
732
2 Bedrooms
18
25 205
3 Bedrooms
11
10
4 Bedrooms
2
5 Bedrooms
March
C H R
Total on CWL
S P
45
84 583
712
248
16
24 199
65
86
10
7
2
35
39
1
1
0
16
17
Senior
0
1
66
67
Total
81 119 989
1189
Community and Family Services
HP
C H R
Total on CWL
49
74
594
717
239
15
20
198
233
66
83
6
6
67
79
1
30
32
1
1
35
37
1
0
17
18
2
0
15
17
0
1
68
69
0
1
71
72
73 117 963
1153
73 102
980
1155
HP
Page 73 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
Exhibit B- page 2 – Eligible Households on the Wait List for RGI– Household Size & Type – April to June 2012 SP-Special Priority HP-Homeless Priority CHChronological Bedroom(s)
April
May
S P
H P
C H R
Total on CWL
SP
1 Bedroom
49
73
594
716
2 Bedrooms
12
20
210
3 Bedrooms
5
4
4 Bedrooms
1
5 Bedrooms
June
C H R
Total on CWL
S P
H P
C H R
Total on CWL
37
69 607
713
24
66 607
697
242
9
16 217
242
12
16 216
244
67
76
7
5
71
83
7
5
67
79
1
35
37
1
2
36
39
0
1
34
35
2
1
15
18
4
1
11
16
2
1
11
14
Senior
0
1
71
72
0
1
76
77
0
1
78
79
Total
69
10 0
992
1161
58
94
101 8
1170
45
90
101 3
1148
Community and Family Services
H P
Page 74 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
Exhibit C Kingston & Frontenac - 2012 Households Housed from RGI Wait List by Month Jan Chronological Special Priority
7 5
Mar Apr May June TOTAL 9 12 9 6 7 50 8 9 7 12 11 52
Homeless Priority
3
5
1
0
2
1
12
15
22
22
16
20
19
114
TOTAL
Feb
% 44% 46% 11%
Total Applications Received Jan 2012
Apps. Var. # Var.%
83 8 10.70
Total Applications
83
Feb Mar Apr May Jun TOTAL 95 89 80 86 58 491 4 -9 -7 6 -45 -658 4.40 -9.18 -8.05 7.50 -43.69 -65.7 95
89
80
86
58
Reasons for Households Removed from CWL Reason Cancelled Ineligible Housed TOTAL
Jan
Feb 7 61 15 83
Cancelled = Incomplete - pending over one year; Deceased; As per request; Joining of files/Duplicate record; Administrative overhoused/supportive transfers i.e. moved out
12 48 22 82
Mar Apr May Jun TOTAL 21 17 24 12 93 72 58 76 56 371 22 16 20 19 114 115 91 120 87 578 Ineligible = No response to annual review; Former tenant arrears; 3 refusals; income over the HIL’s; Repayment agreement not in good standing; Unable to live independently; Inability to contact; Misrepresentation of income.
Var.# - refers to variance from number of applications received in the previous year Var.% - refers to the percentage variance from number of applications received in the previous year
Community and Family Services
Page 75 of 130
491
Capital Amount
14
14
hard to house
RGI
AHP
406,000
84,000
Jul-06
Rented
Elizabeth Fry Society
Russell Street
6
6
women/ conflict with the law
RGI
AHP
174,000
30,468
May-07
Rented
K&FHC
Van Order Dr
49
49
seniors
AHP
3,430,000
290,031
Dec-07
Rented
Paul Martin Construction
Bath Road
118
93
none
AHP
2,071,921
484,809
Jun-08
Rented
Tipi Moza
Johnson Street
3
2
disabled
AHP
140,000
0
Feb-07
Rented
Home Base Housing Fresh Start Phase 2
Joseph Street
24
24
hard to house
RGI
AHP
1,680,000
144,000
Sep-09
Rented
FCMHAS
Lyons St
43
43
mental illness
RGI
AHP
3,956,000
322,000
Feb-11
Rented
Interval House
Stephen Street
19
13
VDV
RGI
DOOR
1,464,399
0
Sep-10
Rented
Habitat for Humanity
Division Street
4
4
families in poverty
Home Ownership
Home Ownership
100,000
52,876
Oct-09
Rented
10 – RGI 39 - 80% CMHC 100% CMHC 1 - RGI 1 - 80% CHMC
Status
Capital Funding Source (AHP or DOOR)
Joseph Street
Completion Date
Rent Levels
Home Base Housing Fresh Start Phase 1
Construction Reserve Fund Allocation (Development Charges)
Location
AgendaItem#5a)
Page 76 of 130
Proponent
Target Group
Housing Capital Projects
Total # of Units In Project Total # of Affordable Units
Community and Family Services
Exhibit D – page 1
Construction Reserve Fund Allocation (Development Charges)
Completion Date
2,400,000
108,630
Oct-10
Rented
625,000
0
Apr-11
Rented
DOOR
128,500
0
Jun-12
Site Plan Modification Application
RGI
DOOR
859,914
0 Nov-11
seniors
10 – RGI 17 - 80% CMHC
DOOR
3,240,000
118,205 Aug-12
10
seniors
RGI
Municipal Funding
539,500
0 Dec-12
10
singles
6 - RGI 4 - 80% CMHC
DOOR
1,100,000
49
11
mental illness
523
341
Blackburn Mews
65
20
disabled & VDV
Central Frontenac Housing
Sharbot Lake
5
5
seniors
Cataraqui Co-op
Elliot Avenue
1
1
disabled
RGI
John Howard Society
Montreal Street
9
9
men released from prison
K&FHC
Queen Mary Rd
27
27
J. Fern Inc.
Canatara Court
77
Home Base Housing
Montreal Street
10
FCMHAS
TOTAL
Lyons St
Rent Levels
Jay Patry Inc
Target Group
Location
5 - 80% CMHC 15-RGI 2 – RGI 3 - 80% CMHC
RGI
AHP
AHP
0
1,650,000
0
$23,965,234
$1,635,019
2013
2013
Status
Capital Amount
AHP
Proponent
Rented Official Opening Sept. 2012 Under Construction Remediation Plan w/MOE To sign Contribution Agreement Dec. 2012
AgendaItem#5a)
Page 77 of 130
Capital Funding Source (AHP or DOOR)
Housing Capital Projects
Total # of Units In Project Total # of Affordable Units
Community and Family Services
Exhibit D – page 2
AgendaItem#5a)
Exhibit E
RGI RENT SUPPLEMENT PROGRAMS (Included in 2003 RGI units) Regular Rent Supplement Number of Units 376 Selects Tenant: KFHC refers 2 names to Landlord Initial Rent Calculation: Registry Ongoing Rent Calculation: KFHC Maintains Tenant File: KFHC Pays Rent Subsidy: KFHC Homestead, Skyline, Realstar, Town Homes Kingston (THK), KFHC, Central Frontenac Housing Corporation Regular Rent Supplement Number of Units: 41 Selects Tenant: Housing Provider Initial Rent Calculation: Registry (Housing Provider assists) Ongoing Rent Calculation: Housing Provider Maintains Tenant File: Housing Provider Pays Rent Subsidy: KFHC Home Based Housing (HBH), E. Fry, Tipi Moza In-Situ Rent Supplement Number of Units: 3 Selects Tenant: Registry determines eligibility Initial Rent Calculation: Registry – Part B Ongoing Rent Calculation: Service Manager Maintains Tenant File: Service Manager Pays Rent Subsidy: Service Manager THK, Tipi Moza, private landlord Strong Communities Rent Supplement Note: Although rents are RGI these units are not included in the legislated 2003 RGI units Number of Units 77 Selects Tenant: KFHC refers 2 names to Landlord Initial Rent Calculation: Registry Ongoing Rent Calculation: KFHC Maintains Tenant File: KFHC Pays Rent Subsidy: KFHC Homestead, Skyline, Realstar
Community and Family Services
Page 78 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
Exhibit F
NON – HOUSING SERVICES ACT RENT SUPPLEMENT PROGRAMS (Rents based on income) Kingston Rent Subsidy Program – AHP Units Number of Units: 71 Selects Tenant: Housing Provider Initial Rent Calculation: Housing Provider Ongoing Rent Calculation: Housing Provider Maintains Tenant File: Housing Provider Pays Rent Subsidy: Service Manager HBH, FCMHAS STRSP – Short Term Rent Support Program (ends March 31, 2013) Number of Units: 28 Selects Tenant: Service Manager Initial Rent Calculation: Service Manager Ongoing Rent Calculation: Service Manager Maintains Tenant File: Service Manager Pays Rent Subsidy: Service Manager (STRSP funds) Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) – (Started July 1, 2012) Number of Units: 13 – HBH Kingscourt Ave. (2012 – 2013) Selects Tenant: HBH Initial Rent Calculation: HBH Ongoing Rent Calculation: HBH Maintains Tenant File: HBH Pays Rent Subsidy: Service Manager (IAH funds) Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) – (to begin July 2013) Number of Units:
Approx 70 including above STRSP units (2013-2021) Approx. 25 (2014 – 2021) Selects Tenant: Service Manager Initial Rent Calculation: Service Manager Ongoing Rent Calculation: Service Manager Maintains Tenant File: Service Manager Pays Rent Subsidy: Service Manager (IAH funds)
Community and Family Services
Page 79 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
Exhibit G - Emergency Shelter Usage - Approved Bed Nights 2012 Actual Bed Nights - Paid Res. Days January Ryandale 409 Dawn House 221 Harbour Light 181 KYSP 222 In From The Cold 494 Lilly’s Place n/a Total Res. Days 1527
February 358 245 117 168 324 n/a 1212
Actual Stay - ‘Not Paid For’ - Bed Nights Res. Days January February Ryandale 0 25 Dawn House 33 2 Harbour Light 2 0 KYSP 0 0 In From The Cold 28 4 Lily’s Place Total Res. Days 63 31 Turn Aways/Referrals Res. Days January Ryandale 64 Dawn House Harbour Light 1 KYSP 10 In From The Cold 19 Lily’s Place Total Res. Days 94
March 399 277 185 271 468 n/a 1600
April 348 312 75 147 542 163 1587
May 424 274 163 213 495 261 1569
June YTD Total 412 2350 213 1542 130 851 260 1281 471 2794 306 1792 8,818
March 0 7 0 0 1
April 27 0 0 0 0 0 27
May 0 0 2 0 10 0 12
June YTD Total 16 68 0 42 0 4 0 0 0 43 9 25 157
May 39 25 5 15 23 9 107
June YTD Total 43 208 4 84 0 11 19 109 20 125 6 92 537
31 May 465 310 217 248 744 434 1984
30 June YTD Total 450 2730 300 1820 210 1274 240 1456 720 4368 420 2548 1920 11,648
8
February 0 38 5 20 19
March 30 0 0 22 26
82
78
April 32 17 0 23 18 3 93
29 February 435 290 203 232 696 406 1856
31 March 465 310 217 248 744 434 1984
30 April 450 300 210 240 720 420 1920
Approved Bed Nights Bed Nights Ryandale Dawn House Harbour Light KYSP In From The Cold Lily’s Place Total Res. Days
31 January 465 310 217 248 744 434 1984
Community and Family Services
Page 80 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
EXHIBIT H HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS
Municipal Homeownership Program Down Payment - 5% of purchase price to maximum of $12,500 April 2012 – August 2012 6 households Total funding: $60,000
AHP Revolving Fund Down Payment - 5% of purchase price to maximum of $12,500 April 2012 – September 2012 5 households Total funding: $61,000
Community and Family Services
Page 81 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
CITY OF KINGSTON
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-12-021 TO:
Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee
FROM:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group
RESOURCE STAFF:
Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department
DATE OF MEETING:
September 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
Homelessness Plan RFP results and future process
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As per the Housing Services Act, 2011, the City of Kingston must have an approved 10-year housing and homelessness plan in place by January 1, 2014. In 2011, the City completed a fiveyear Municipal Housing Strategy which will be updated and expanded to a ten year period. In order to complete the requirements of the Act, the City has solicited proposals from consultants who would be interested in developing a Homelessness Plan for the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac. This new document must be strategically linked to the Municipal Housing Strategy to ensure that the two components are complementary and can form one overall plan. Following the Request for Proposal (RFP) process to secure a consultant firm to prepare the plan, OrgCode Consulting Inc. was chosen as the successful candidate from a group of three submissions. OrgCode Consulting Inc has developed a detailed project schedule which will include various forms of consultations with affected agencies and the public. Expected completion is April 2013. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.
Community and Family Services
Page 82 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 13, 2012
- Page 2 -
Report No.: HHC-12-021
AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer
CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS: Cynthia Beach, Sustainability & Growth
N/R
Denis Leger, Transportation, Properties & Emergency Services
N/R
Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston
N/R
(N/R indicates consultation not required)
Community and Family Services
Page 83 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 13, 2012
- Page 3 -
Report No.: HHC-12-021
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: The Housing Services Act requires that each Service Manager have a 10 year housing and homelessness plan. Housing and homelessness plans are intended to provide the foundation for the consolidation of corresponding programs. Program consolidation, together with other initiatives under the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy are intended to provide the municipality with more flexibility, enabling the Service Manager to direct housing and homeless resources more effectively to where they are needed most. Local plans are required to reflect key provincial interests set out in the Housing Services Act (HAS) and the Ontario Housing Policy Statement which provides additional policy context and direction to Service Managers to support the development of locally relevant plans. Key components of the plan are to include:
Assessing the community’s current and future housing and homelessness needs Establishing objectives and targets to meet local needs Describing the measures proposed to meet the objectives and targets Setting out performance measures that will show how objectives and targets will be measured.
Service Managers are required to ensure that their plans address all matters defined as provincial interests in the HSA and the Ontario Housing Policy Statement. As such, the plan must reflect a system of housing and homelessness services that:
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 provides for partnerships among governments and others in the community treats individuals and families with respect and dignity is coordinated with other community services is relevant to local circumstances ensures appropriate accountability for public funding supports economic prosperity, and; addresses the housing needs of victims of domestic violence and persons with disabilities.
The objective of the homelessness plan is to develop a recommended service delivery model including the recommended level of service and the methodology for the future allocation of homelessness funding to service providers. The plan will also include the following elements: a. Integration between housing and homelessness programs and services; b. The future roles and opportunities for shelters c. Aligning services to focus on housing as the solution to homelessness
Community and Family Services
Page 84 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 13, 2012
- Page 4 -
Report No.: HHC-12-021
d. Supportive housing and housing with supports e. Prevention and discharge strategies f. Understanding clients being served and the impacts on services The Housing Department issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to hire a consultant to lead and develop the plan. The successful firm, OrgCode Consulting Inc., has been serving the needs of the private, non-profit, public and non-government sectors for over 30 years. The firm has prepared housing and homeless strategies and funding allocation models for municipalities throughout Canada and the United States and, specifically, in the Province of Ontario. OrgCode will utilize all existing data and information collected by the City of Kingston’s Municipal Housing Strategy as well as the new data and information to be obtained through stakeholder interviews and community consultations. The goal of the homelessness plan will be to provide direction regarding the priorities and programs required in the community and how homelessness funding, inclusive of emergency shelters, should be allocated. The plan may also provide a foundation for future community plans developed by community stakeholders and partners. The process to complete the homelessness plan will begin in the first week of September 2012 and will continue as follows: Deliverable Project schedule (GANTT chart) Research and analysis of background information to assess scale of homelessness issues in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac Engagement with service providers, United Way and the general public Design and programming strategy
Timeline Within one week of contract award Start: September 4 Finish:
November 16
Start:
November 19
Finish: Start:
December 14 December 17
Finish: January 11 Draft service delivery model, service levels and Start: January 14 funding structure Finish: March 15 Final Plan April 5, 2013 Presentations to Committees and Council Any date after April 8, 2013 Council approval July 2013 EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: N/A
Community and Family Services
Page 85 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 13, 2012
- Page 5 -
Report No.: HHC-12-021
NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The costs associated with creating the homelessness plan will be paid for through the Housing Department’s operating budget. Adequate funding has been included in the 2012 operating budget. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group
613-546-4291 ext. 1231
OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department Lee Campbell, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department Geoff Coons, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department EXHIBITS ATTACHED: N/A
Community and Family Services
Page 86 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
CITY OF KINGSTON
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.:
HHC-12-022
TO:
Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee
FROM:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group
RESOURCE STAFF:
Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department
DATE OF MEETING:
September 13, 2012
SUBJECT:
Analysis of Centralized Social Housing Registry Wait List
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Kingston as Service Manager maintains a Centralized Housing Registry Wait List from which eligible households are placed into rent geared to income (RGI) housing. The “Wait List” is a frequently referred to figure which is often used as a proxy to portray the depth of the affordable housing shortage in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac (Service Manager Area). This report provides some basic analysis to determine the “core” Wait List of households who are waiting for rent geared to income housing in the Service Manager area. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.
Community and Family Services
Page 87 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 13, 2012
- Page 2 -
Report No.: HHC-12-022
AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS: Cynthia Beach, Sustainability and Growth Denis Leger, Transportation, Properties & Emergency Services
N/R
Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston
N/R
N/R
(N/R indicates consultation not required)
Community and Family Services
Page 88 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 13, 2012
- Page 3 -
Report No.: HHC-12-022
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: The Housing Department, as Service Manager, maintains the Social Housing Registry Wait List for rent geared to income (RGI) assistance in order to meet provincial legislation and provide for an orderly and current system of accessing RGI housing. Eligible households applying are placed on the Registry Wait List in chronological order, with the exception of one legislated and one local priority. Registry staff performs regular maintenance of the Wait List to ensure all persons on the Wait List remain eligible. Reasons for being deemed ineligible and being removed from the list include, but are not limited to, increased income over the maximum allowance, refusing at least three offers for housing, former tenant arrears, or not providing updated household information related to eligibility. Eligible households are able to select only certain areas within the service area or even specific buildings. Furthermore, households currently housed in an RGI unit either locally or from outside our jurisdiction can request to be placed back on the Wait List in order to be able to move to a different building within the service area. Lastly, there are no local residency rules associated with eligibility requiring that persons need to reside within the limits of the Service Manager area to be able to apply for the Wait List for RGI assistance. The provincial eligibility criteria regarding residency states that all household members must be Canadian citizens or have applied for refugee claimant or landed immigrant status. All of these items cause the actual Wait List to appear inflated beyond one of the core purposes for the Wait List which is to house persons from the Service Area needing RGI housing. ANALYSIS All figures are as of the end of July, 2012 Total number of households on Wait List Total number of households in receipt of RGI Assistance in Kingston/Frontenac service area (i.e. already a tenant in an RGI housing unit) Total number of households in receipt of RGI assistance from other service areas Total number of households on Wait List currently residing outside Kingston/Frontenac service area Core Wait List
1159 101
48 101 909
The above analysis begins with the total number of households on the Wait List and removes three groups of households. The first group removed are those households currently receiving RGI assistance in the Kingston/Frontenac Service Area. This group is therefore currently housed in an RGI unit but wishes to move to another property within the RGI system of properties. The second group removed are those currently receiving RGI assistance in other Service Areas. This group is therefore housed in an RGI unit but are presumably seeking to
Community and Family Services
Page 89 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 13, 2012
- Page 4 -
Report No.: HHC-12-022
move to Kingston. The last group removed are those currently residing outside the Kingston/Frontenac service area but not currently in receipt of RGI assistance. This results in the Core Wait List which is a list that identifies the number of Kingston and Frontenac households seeking RGI housing who are not housed in the RGI system already. This analysis was not done to try to reduce the emphasis on the Wait List or the extreme need for more affordable housing in the Service Area but rather to ensure that the Housing and Homelessness Committee understands the nature of the Wait List and the true need for RGI housing in the Service Area. More information is available in the Municipal Housing Strategy related to the total need in the community for housing and the number of low income households in the service area. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: N/A NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: N/A CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group
613-546-4291 ext. 1231
OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Lee Campbell, Housing Programs Administrator Lori O’Sullivan, Housing Registry Coordinator EXHIBITS ATTACHED: N/A
Community and Family Services
Page 90 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
CITY OF KINGSTON
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report #:
HHC-12-024
TO:
Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee
FROM:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
RESOURCE STAFF:
Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department
DATE OF MEETING:
November 8, 2012
SUBJECT:
Interim Shelter Funding Model for 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City currently funds six (6) emergency shelters for 78 beds under the Ontario Works shelter per diem model. The Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) is a consolidation and reduction in homelessness funding from the Province to take effect in January 2013 and includes funding for emergency shelters. Under the CHPI, there is no longer a link between eligibility for Ontario Works benefits and payment for shelter per diems which has provided the flexibility to the Service Manager to fund emergency shelters differently starting in 2013. City staff was notified of the funding allocation under CHPI in July. In September 2012, City Council approved a municipal contribution towards emergency shelters to help cover the shortfall in funding from the Province. Under the proposed funding models the number of shelter beds to be funded has been reduced from 78 to 74 as per the agreement with In From the Cold to reduce their shelter beds from 24 to 20 when they relocate their shelter in 2013. City staff presented four (4) different funding models for the emergency shelters to consider at a meeting on September 21st and also solicited suggestions for other funding models from the group. No other suggestions were received and the shelters were asked to complete a survey to rank their first and second choices and to provide input on funding ratios where applicable. The feedback and selections from the emergency shelters were analyzed by City staff resulting in a recommendation of the following funding model for 2013: Base Funding with Utilization Funding Shelters would receive 75% of the $800K in base funding calculated on the proportionate number of approved beds funded at each shelter. The balance of funding (25%) would be divided by twelve (12) and paid out fully each month based on the bed utilization reported by each shelter. This is the preferred model because the base funding provides consistent cash flow to cover operating expenditures and the utilization portion recognizes shelters with higher utilization rates. Under this scenario, the entire funding envelope would be managed within the approved budget.
Community and Family Services
Page 91 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report #: HHC-12-024 November 8, 2012
- Page 2 The Service Manager has recently hired OrgCode Consulting to develop a Homelessness Plan for the City which should be completed in July 2013. The funding model being recommended is considered interim for 2013 only in anticipation of recommendations in the Homelessness Plan. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.
Community and Family Services
Page 92 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report #: HHC-12-024 November 8, 2012
- Page 3 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services
Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS: Cynthia Beach, Sustainability and Growth
N/R
Denis Leger, Transportation, Properties & Emergency Services
N/R
Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston
N/R
(N/R indicates consultation not required)
Community and Family Services
Page 93 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report #: HHC-12-024 November 8, 2012
- Page 4 OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: Report #12-244 to City Council provided details on the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) funding which is a consolidation and reduction in provincial homelessness funding being provided to the City as Service Manager and beginning in 2013. The funding for emergency shelters was included in the CHPI funding. On September 4, 2012 City Council passed the following resolution: THAT Council direct staff to develop an interim funding formula for Emergency Hostels, within the approved budget parameters, and that staff report back to Council with an interim funding formula for 2013 pending the completion and implementation of the Homelessness Plan; Under the 2013 consolidated funding allocation, the Province took the three year average of shelter per diems from 2009 to 2011 to calculate the City’s shelter funding allocation, less the Personal Needs Assistance (PNA) for client’s personal needs – i.e. food and toiletries. The rationale for the exclusion of the PNA was that beginning in 2013, under Ontario Works (OW) regulations, OW clients residing in emergency hostels will now be eligible for basic needs allowance. The exclusion of PNA has resulted in less funding being allocated to the shelters’ funding pot from the Province. The opening of 14 additional shelter beds at Lily’s Place in 2012 has also resulted in increased overall shelter bed utilization and expenditures which was not included in the Province’s calculation of the City’s shelter funding allocation. On September 4, 2012, City Council approved $800K for 2013 shelter funding which includes a municipal contribution of approximately $262K and which is expected to provide comparable funding to the emergency shelter system for 2013. The consolidated funding model provides municipalities with more flexibility and as of 2013 municipalities can revise the current per diem funding formula for shelter beds. City staff met with the Managers and Executive Directors from the six municipally funded Emergency shelters on September 21st to discuss potential interim funding models for the emergency shelters. Staff provided four (4) funding models for review and discussion as follows: Model #1 - Status Quo This model would strictly use a per diem model of funding similar to the current system. Under this model, shelters would continue to report client stays to the City to determine payment eligibility. Currently, there are deductions in payments to shelters should clients be in receipt of income while staying in the shelter. Under this proposed model, no deduction would be applied for client income. This model would result in a reduced per diem calculated on full utilization of all beds in the shelter system to ensure that the City’s approved contribution remains within budget. The per diem rate would be reduced from the current $47.90 to $29.62. Pros/Cons: Under this model, funding is unpredictable from month to month and it is likely that the full envelope would not be used as the per diem rate would need to be based on an assumed 100% occupancy rate. Though the per diem could be adjusted quarterly based on utilization, there would still be a reduced per diem rate to ensure spending did not exceed budget.
Community and Family Services
Page 94 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report #: HHC-12-024 November 8, 2012
- Page 5 Model #2 – Full Operating Grant Under this model, the operating grant would be calculated by taking the $800K for shelter funding and calculating each shelter’s proportionate share of funding based on the shelter’s approved number of beds. Pros/Cons: This model provides shelters with consistent funding to better manage cash flow; however, there is no opportunity for shelters to also receive funding based on their utilization rates and needs. This model provides no incentive for shelters to accept high risk clients and no accountability regarding utilization. Model #3 – Base Funding with Utilization Funding Shelters would receive a percentage of the $800K based on their approved number of shelter beds. The balance of the funding would be divided by twelve (12) and paid out fully each month based on each shelter’s monthly bed utilization as a percentage of the total monthly utilization of shelter beds across all six shelters. Pros/Cons: The base funding provides consistent cash flow to cover operating expenditures and the utilization portion recognizes needs for shelters with higher utilization rates. The entire funding envelope would be guaranteed to be spent under this scenario. The utilization funding could be unpredictable and an increase in beds funded at one provider would result in reduced funding for other providers. Model #4 – Base Funding with Quarterly Per Diem Funding Shelters would receive a percentage of the $800K in base funding and the balance would be paid out monthly based on a per diem established quarterly using the amount of funding available and the potential full utilization of beds. The per diem would be calculated at the beginning of each quarter based on the balance in the utilization funding envelope. Pros/Cons: The base funding provides consistent cash flow to cover operating expenditures and the utilization portion recognizes shelters with higher utilization rates. The entire funding envelope would not be spent under this model. The quarterly per diems are unknown in advance making it difficult to budget while there would be additional administration under this model. The utilization funding would be unpredictable. Summary and Recommendation Examples of funding scenarios under each of the four models were presented to the emergency shelters on September 21st. Each shelter was asked to complete a survey to provide feedback on the models indicating their first and second choices. Model 3 and 4 included a split in funding between base and utilization and shelters were also asked to provide feedback on the ratio to be applied to each under these two models. Each shelter was also asked to provide other funding models for consideration; however, no other suggestions were received. The results of the survey were as follows:
Community and Family Services
Page 95 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report #: HHC-12-024 November 8, 2012
- Page 6 Name of Shelter
First Choice Funding Model
Second Choice Funding Model
Ryandale Shelter for the Homeless In From the Cold
Model 2 – Full Base funding Model 3 – Base and Utilization funding split
Lily’s Place
Model 3 – Base and Utilization funding split
Dawn House
Model 2 - Full Base funding Model 2 – Full Base funding Model 2 – Full Base funding
Model 3 – Base and Utilization funding split Model 4 - Base funding with fluctuating per diem per quarter Model 4 – Base funding with fluctuating per diem per quarter Model 3 – Base and Utilization funding split Model 1 – Status Quo
Harbour Light Kingston Youth Shelter
Model 3 – Base and Utilization funding split
Preferred Funding Ratio split for Models 3 and 4 Base: 75 Utilization: 25 Base: 80 Utilization: 20 Base: 80 Utilization: 20 Base: 80 Utilization: 20 No response (N/A) Base: 80 Utilization: 20
Four out of six shelters selected full base funding (Model 2) as their first choice and none selected it as their second choice. Model 3 (base and utilization funding split) was selected by two shelters as their first choice and by three shelters as their second choice. The shelter preferred ratio between base funding and utilization funding is an 80% base and 20% utilization split. All funding models were based on a total of 74 funded beds. Shelter funding agreements between the City and the Emergency shelters currently cover 78 beds which include an increase of 14 beds in 2012 with the opening of Lily’s Place. The reduction in funded beds is at In From the Cold Shelter where the beds have been reduced from 24 to 20 beds. In From the Cold (IFTC) shelter is planning to relocate to 540 Montreal Street in 2013 and the agreement had been to fund IFTC shelter for twenty (20) beds in this new location. In their current location, they can accommodate 24 people should the need arise; however, this can become problematic for any extended period of time due to space limitations. City staff have reviewed the feedback provided and have looked at the implications of increasing the beds at specific shelters and the result is that increasing funding to one organization decreases funding to another. Model 3 appears to provide the most rational funding model and is based on the number of beds for which the City currently has a funding agreement – with the exception of In From the Cold for which the City had already agreed to a reduction in number of beds. City staff are recommending 75% base funding and 25% funding for utilization. This formula provides a stable funding source to each shelter while also ensuring that the Housing Department objective of full utilization of system beds is being incentived through the utilization funding. This formula also provides the most equitable funding redistribution amongst shelters using the rationale of funding based on proportionate number of beds.
Community and Family Services
Page 96 of 130
AgendaItem#5a)
INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report #: HHC-12-024 November 8, 2012
- Page 7 The Service Manager has recently hired OrgCode Consulting to develop a Homelessness Plan for the City and it is anticipated that it will be completed in July 2013. The funding model being recommended is considered interim for 2013 only in anticipation of some changes to the shelter bed system and the funding model as a result of the Homelessness Plan. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: N/A NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: City Council approved a City contribution of $236K to Emergency Shelters for 2013 by Report # 12-244 on September 4, 2012, which is subject to final budget approval. The County has been asked to contribute $26K for the 2013 cost of Emergency shelters. The municipal cost budgeted for emergency shelters in 2012 is $150K which is cost-shared between the City and the County based on weighted assessment. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing
613-546-4291 ext. 1231 613-546-2695 ext. 4957
OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Lee Campbell, Housing Program Administrator, Housing Department Melanie Bale, Financial Analyst, Housing Department Katie Clarke, Manager, Program Delivery, Community & Family Services EXHIBITS ATTACHED: N/A
Community and Family Services
Page 97 of 130
Community and Family Services
City of Kingston Analysis ‐ OW, ODSP, CHILDCARE & HOUSING: LSR YTD QUARTERLY REPORT YEAR: 2012
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
QUARTER: 2012 Consolidated Net Budget
2012 Consolidated % Consolidated Actual Costs to Date Budget Expended
3rd
PERIOD ENDING DATE: 30‐Sep‐12
2012 City Net Approved Budget
City Actual Costs to Date
City % Budget Expended
Comments For cost share based on wt assessm’t, budgeted @ 80.457 City / 19.543 County; Actual is 79.986 City / 20.014 County
ONTARIO WORKS OW Administration
$
3,671,409 $
2,349,951
64.0%
$
3,014,410 $
1,918,359
63.6%
OW Program Delivery OW Allowances Employment Assistance Delivery Subtotal OW Program Costs
$ $ $
4,409,147 $ 76,272 $ 4,485,419 $
3,194,745 18,016 3,212,760
72.5% 23.6% 71.6%
$ $ $
3,994,830 $ 69,222 $ 4,064,052 $
2,910,073 17,014 2,927,086
72.8% 24.6% 72.0%
Total OW Admin & Program Costs
$
8,156,828 $
5,562,712
68.2%
$
7,078,462 $
4,845,446
68.5%
Actual OW Allowance & Benefit Ratio YTD OW Caseload Average
91.108% 2755
3,018
CHILDCARE SERVICES Childcare Admin. (Reg & ELCC)
$
288,233 $
208,939
72.5%
$
$ $ $ $
822,221 3,000 523,937 128,004
603,049 135 435,363 107,055 ‐ 1,145,602
73.3% 4.5% 83.1% 83.6%
$
$ $ $ $ $ 1,477,162 $
77.6%
$ $ $ $ $ $
770,170 2,811 421,544 118,276 ‐ 1,312,801
$
1,765,395 $
1,354,541
76.7%
Housing Administration Housing Program Costs Total Housing Admin & Prog Costs
$ $ $
996,806 $ 9,568,221 $ 10,565,027 $
584,962 7,258,608 7,843,570
Total City‐County LSR Soc Serv Costs
$
20,487,250 $
14,760,823
Childcare Programs Fee Subsidy (DNA, ELCC, OW Formal) Fee Subsidy (Informal OW) Wage Subsidy (DNA, ELCC) Special Needs (DNA & ELCC) Other Net CC Program Delivery Total Childcare Costs
231,904 $
167,122
72.1%
$ $ $ $ $ $
570,634 135 348,229 98,176 ‐ 1,017,174
74.1% 4.8% 82.6% 83.0%
$
1,544,705 $
1,184,296
76.7%
58.7% 75.9% 74.2%
$ $ $
804,969 $ 9,037,100 $ 9,842,069 $
467,888 6,884,134 7,352,022
58.1% 76.2% 74.7%
72.0%
$
18,465,236 $
13,381,764
72.5%
based on 9 months actual claims based on 9 months actual claims based on 10 months cash flow based on 10 months cash flow
77.5%
HOUSING SERVICES
AgendaItem#5a)
Page 98 of 130
County Analysis ‐ OW, ODSP, CHILDCARE & HOUSING: LSR YTD QUARTERLY REPORT
Consulting expense not fully incurred in Q3 and new employee only started mid‐May.
Community and Family Services
YEAR: 2012
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
QUARTER: 2012 Consolidated Net Budget
3rd
2012 Consolidated % Consolidated Actual Costs to Date Budget Expended
2012 County Net Draft Budget
PERIOD ENDING DATE: 30‐Sep‐12 County % County Actual Budget Costs to Date Expended
Comments
ONTARIO WORKS OW Administration
$
3,671,409 $
2,349,951
64.0%
$
656,999 $
431,592
65.7%
OW Program Delivery OW Allowances Employment Assistance Delivery Subtotal OW Program Costs
$ $ $
4,409,147 $ 76,272 $ 4,485,419 $
3,194,745 18,016 3,212,760
72.5% 23.6% 71.6%
$ $ $
414,317 $ 7,050 $ 421,367 $
284,672 1,002 285,674
68.7% 14.2% 67.8%
Total OW Admin & Program Costs
$
8,156,828 $
5,562,712
68.2%
$
1,078,366 $
717,266
66.5%
Actual OW Allowance & Benefit Ratio YTD OW Caseload Average
8.892% 263
3,018
CHILDCARE SERVICES Childcare Admin (Reg & ELCC)
$
288,233 $
208,939
72.5%
$
56,329 $
41,817
74.2%
Childcare Programs Fee Subsidy (DNA, ELCC, OW Formal) Fee Subsidy (Informal OW) Wage Subsidy ( DNA, ELCC) Special Needs (DNA & ELCC) Other Subtotal CC Program Delivery
$ $ $ $ $ $
822,221 3,000 523,937 128,004 ‐ 1,477,162
$ $ $ $ $ $
603,049 135 435,363 107,055 ‐ 1,145,602
73.3% 4.5% 83.1% 83.6%
52,050 189 102,393 9,728 ‐ 164,360
$ $ $ $
32,415 ‐ 87,134 8,879
62.3% 0.0% 85.1% 91.3%
77.6%
$ $ $ $ $ $
$
128,428
78.1%
Total Childcare Costs
$
1,765,395 $
1,354,541
76.7%
$
220,689 $
170,245
77.1%
Housing Administration
$
996,806 $
584,962
58.7%
$
191,837 $
117,074
61.0%
Housing Program Costs Total Housing Admin & Prog Costs
$ $
9,568,221 $ 10,565,027 $
7,258,608 7,843,570
75.9% 74.2%
$ $
531,121 $ 722,958 $
374,474 491,548
70.5% 68.0%
Total City‐County LSR Soc Serv Costs
$
20,487,250 $
14,760,823
72.0%
$
2,022,013 $
1,379,059
68.2%
based on 9 months actual claims based on 10 months cash flow based on 10 months cash flow
HOUSING SERVICES Consulting expense not fully incurred in Q3 and new employee only started mid‐May.
AgendaItem#5a)
Page 99 of 130
Below 75% due to prior period subsidy repayments.
AgendaItem#5b)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services
Date prepared:
July 26, 2012
Date of meeting:
September 19, 2012
Re:
Emergency and Transportation Services – Placement of Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) – Ontario Defibrillator Access Initiative
Background On June 3, 2011, Premier Dalton McGuinty announced the Government of Ontario’s commitment to saving lives with Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs), by providing $8 million dollars to place the life-saving devices in publicly funded, high-use sport and recreation facilities and schools across Ontario. As a result, the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario (HSFO) is leading the Ontario Defibrillator Access Initiative, and is set to open the largest application process for AED grant funding in Ontario’s history. This will have a significant impact on the cardiac health of all Ontarians. Since its inception in 2006, the Foundation has worked diligently with our partners towards the common goal of creating cardiac safe communities and the formation of Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) programs. The Foundation is moving forward in implementing the largest AED grant allocation to date, and will be opening two rounds of funding over the next two years. In an effort to be responsive to the diverse communities across the province and to assess the local understanding, perceived need and current level of AED deployment, they will be opening up the application process to Lower-Tier Municipalities, School Boards, First Nation Communities and Parks & Recreation for the first time in the program’s history.
Comment All previous rounds of funding for AEDs have been open to upper tier municipalities only. In the County of Frontenac, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreements are in place with each of our member townships that have seen twenty-two (22) AEDs placed throughout the County. These MOU agreements transfer all responsibility, after the initial purchase and installation, for the ongoing maintenance and costs of the AEDs to the townships Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Placement of Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) – Ontario Defibrillator Access Initiative September 19, 2012 Page 1 of 2
Emergency Services
Page 100 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
Following the same process of previous initiatives for the placement of AEDs, the same MOU agreements will need to be signed with any of the other entities that are now allowed to apply under the ODAI program. This may include the two (2) School Boards and/or any First Nations within the County of Frontenac. The first round of the OADI has been completed: there were applications for twenty-six (26) AEDs from entities within the County of Frontenac. The HSFO has announced fifteen (15) AEDs have been granted: the Limestone District School Board has been granted nine (9) AEDs, the Township of North Frontenac has been granted two (2) and the Township of Central Frontenac has been granted four (4).
Sustainability Implications Implementing an active program of communications with taxpayers, stakeholders, townships and other partners is one of Council’s priorities.
Financial Implications The total costs of funding of this initiative will come directly from the HSFO to the County of Frontenac upon submission of invoicing for the purchase of the AEDs and the training of participants.
Recommendation THAT Council of the County of Frontenac accept this Emergency & Transportation Services – Placement of Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) – Ontario Defibrillator Access Initiative report; AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac hereby authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Limestone District School Board and any other entity (i.e. a First Nation, Kingston Frontenac Library Board, etc.) that may be granted AEDs under the Ontario Defibrillator Access Initiative.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario Township of North Frontenac Township of Central Frontenac Limestone District School Board
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Placement of Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) – Ontario Defibrillator Access Initiative September 19, 2012 Page 2 of 2
Emergency Services
Page 101 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services
Date prepared:
July 26, 2012
Date of meeting:
September 19, 2012
Re:
Emergency and Transportation Services – Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) Measurement
Background The Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) ratio is an indicator and measurement of productivity for an ambulance service. UHU is calculated by dividing the number of unit hours (fully equipped ambulance for one hour) for a given period of time by the total calls occurring during that time period. Typically, paramedic organizations strive for the highest utilization rates possible, while maintaining the best response times possible. Generally speaking, industry standards state, an overall utilization rate of 0.25 to 0.35 is considered average utilization, 0.35 to 0.45 above average utilization and 0.15 to 0.25 below average utilization.
Comment The impact of increasing UHU ratio is inversely proportional to the ability to maintain response time reliability. The higher the UHU, the more difficult it will be to meet established response time levels. Obviously, the converse of this is that the lower the UHU the greater the availability to respond. In rural areas, call volumes and UHU ratios are traditionally lower than urban centres. Table 1 indicates that Frontenac Paramedic Services’ 2011 UHU ratio is 0.26 over the year, within the average utilization window.
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) Measurement September 19, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 1 of 3
Page 102 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
Table I
UHU Report for Frontenac Paramedic Services January to December 2011 All Bases Total Priority 1-4 Responses
20,457
Total Staff Hours
78,840
UHU
0.26
Further, a base by base and hour by hour UHU analysis was performed and there is no concern regarding an above average utilization within our entire system for Priority 1 to 4 responses.
The above analysis then allows for further review of call volume and to perform a “Demands Analysis” of our urban response area to ascertain if our resource allocation is matched to our high average requests for service and adjust scheduling or vehicle placements. Due to the fact rural bases are low call volume and often one (1) vehicle bases, this Demand Analysis has little value on resource allocation. This UHU information will be used to further evaluate FPS demands for service. The demands for services evaluation will come forward to County Council for review in a future report. Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) Measurement September 19, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 2 of 3
Page 103 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
Sustainability Implications Good stewardship of the County’s financial resources and most appropriate care of our residents and visitors when in need of paramedic services.
Financial Implications None.
Recommendation That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept this Emergency and Transportation Services – Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) Measurement report for information only.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) Measurement September 19, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 3 of 3
Page 104 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services
Date prepared:
July 26, 2012
Date of meeting:
September 19, 2012
Re:
Emergency and Transportation Services – New Land Ambulance Station in the Northern Portion of the County of Frontenac
Background At its meeting of July 24, 2012, County Council received an update report regarding the construction of a new land ambulance/fire station in North Frontenac and the following motion was carried:
Motion #221-12
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Clayton Councillor McDougall
RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – North Frontenac Joint Land Ambulance/Fire Station Development Update 2012-#03 report for information; AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute a Letter of Termination as contemplated under clauses 9 and 10 of the Agreement made between The Corporation of the County of Frontenac and The Corporation of the Township of North Frontenac dated the 23rd day of January, 2012 effective immediately. CARRIED The “Letter of Termination” has been executed and the option of that project is now exhausted.
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – New Land Ambulance Station in the Northern Portion of the County of Frontenac September 19, 2012 Page 1 of 4
Emergency Services
Page 105 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
Comment The chronology of this issue began with the predicament that existed at the Snow Road land ambulance station wherein the ambulance was continually outside and required to be left running (all seasons) for the climate protection of equipment and drugs. In May 2008, a direction was given to staff to review the entire rural land ambulance situation. IBI Group was engaged to produce the “Rural Area Ambulance Service Review” document in March 2009 to ascertain operational efficiencies and work distribution. County Council has received numerous subsequent staff reports since March 2009. In 2000, the KPMG Land Ambulance Transition Study: Municipal Cooperative for Land Ambulance Transition, undertaken by the Steering Committee, chaired by Elizabeth Savill, Frontenac’s CAO, representing the Counties of Frontenac, Lennox & Addington, Hastings, Prince Edward, Renfrew and the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, established the following response time criteria: •
Population less than 5,000 designation as: – Rural or wilderness – 30 minutes for rural area response time – 120 minutes for wilderness area response time
The construction of a new land ambulance base in the County of Lennox and Addington has been confirmed in the Northbrook area. Our GIS Specialist has updated the time distance map presented below:
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – New Land Ambulance Station in the Northern Portion of the County of Frontenac September 19, 2012 Page 2 of 4
Emergency Services
Page 106 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
IBI examined the alternatives and make recommendations for service delivery in the rural areas of the County. The IBI Final Report was presented to County Council on March 18, 2009 by Mr. Marvin Rubenstein. The mapping has been done utilizing the recommendation from the IBI Group Study and the assessment conducted, within the context of this review, supports the following:
A relocation of the Ompah ambulance to a location in the vicinity of the intersection of Ardoch Road and County Road 509. From this proposed location an ambulance: •
Will have better access to major roads serving North and Central Frontenac Townships, including Sharbot Lake and Highway 7;
•
Will be able to respond more rapidly to calls that originate in both North and Central Frontenac Township areas, particularly communities situated in the easterly catchment areas of the Townships. Response time to Ompah and its immediate environs may increase slightly. In this regard it should be noted that Ompah and its immediate local environs generate relatively few calls.
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – New Land Ambulance Station in the Northern Portion of the County of Frontenac September 19, 2012 Page 3 of 4
Emergency Services
Page 107 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
The revised mapping illustrates a balanced and seamless overlay of response time and is utilizing the 30 minutes for rural area response time as recommended in the 2000 KPMG report.
Sustainability Implications There is a strong need and importance for infrastructure and response capabilities that are strategically located and managed in the delivery of land ambulance services. Further, our land ambulance stations are one of our visible tools to extend the branding of the County and communicate our sustainability.
Financial Implications None at this time
Recommendation That the Council of the County of Frontenac accept this Emergency and Transportation Services – New Land Ambulance Station in the Northern Portion of the County of Frontenac report for information and; Further, that the Council of the County of Frontenac give direction to the Chief of Paramedics to investigate options in the recommended location area for a new ambulance station.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – New Land Ambulance Station in the Northern Portion of the County of Frontenac September 19, 2012 Page 4 of 4
Emergency Services
Page 108 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services
Date prepared:
September 7, 2012
Date of meeting:
September 19, 2012
Re:
Emergency and Transportation Services – Scouts Canada – Medvents Program Partnership
Background The purpose of the Medical Venturer program is to introduce youth to the medical field, provide an opportunity to determine their potential and desire in first aid. The first link in the chain of survival is first aid. The MedVent program allows youths to work closely with various people whose chosen career is in the Medical field. With the aid of their sponsors, many MedVent groups provide the youth with an introduction to the operations of a Paramedicine organization and the rigors one needs to enter the workforce in a safe environment. A subsequent goal of the program is also to help the youth solidify their desire to either enter or not enter the medical field. Many of our members have commenced their careers in the medical field as first aiders, paramedics, nurses and doctors. The program started as a section in the vocational scouting program at Scouts Canada. The program later became the known as the themed Scouting program. Each group has its own local sponsor which is typically the local paramedic or regional EMS (Emergency Medical Service) department.
MedVents Scouts Canada Medical Venturers and Rovers Motto: Challenge and service
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Scouts Canada – Medvents Program Partnership September 19, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 1 of 2
Page 109 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
Comment During the last two (2) years, the Loyalist Area of Scouts Canada has been working on the formation of a Medvents program. In the spring of 2012 they were successful in starting the Loyalist Area Medical Venturer Company and Rover Crew. They have six (6) active members and have been participating in providing first aid coverage, with the 1st Downsview Medvents Group, at various events in our region. The local Scouts Canada leadership has approached Frontenac Paramedic Services to discuss a partnership agreement for this new group. This program has been a very successful community initiative in over thirty (30) locations in Canada including Ottawa, Toronto, Bruce County and Windsor. It has created opportunity for youth and will enable Frontenac Paramedic Services to contribute to the community beyond its traditional mandate.
Sustainability Implications Implementing an active program of communications and partnerships with taxpayers, stakeholders, townships and other partners is one of Council’s priorities.
Financial Implications There are no mandatory costs to this partnership.
Recommendation THAT Council of the County of Frontenac accept this Emergency & Transportation Services – Scouts Canada – Medvents Program Partnership report; AND FURTHER THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac hereby authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Scouts Canada to form a partnership with the Loyalist Area Medical Venturer Company and Rover Crew.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Scouts Canada Loyalist Area Medical Venturer Company and Rover Crew Jerry Crawford, 1st Downsview Medvents
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Scouts Canada – Medvents Program Partnership September 19, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 2 of 2
Page 110 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services
Date prepared:
July 26, 2012
Date of meeting:
September 19, 2012
Re:
Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plan
Background In 2006, in conjunction with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the provincial government established a Land Ambulance Committee (LAC) to review ambulance response time standards. On July 31, 2008 changes were made to the Ambulance Act, Ontario Regulation 267/08, amending O. Reg. 257/00 with the heading “Section 22: Part VIII, Response Time Performance Plans, Sections 22 and 23”. These changes were to be phased in over three years and were to be fully in effect in 2011 with reporting requirements starting in October 2010. Please click on the following link to the regulation: Ambulance Act, O. Reg. 257/00, as amended The municipality is to submit their Response Time Plan to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Emergency Health Services Branch Director no later than October 1 of each year (Section 23 (5) including performance targets for sudden cardiac arrest, CTAS 1, CTAS 2,3,4 and 5. Then by March 31 of each year the same table with the actual times achieved in the year previous will be reported to the MOHLTC. “CTAS” or Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale, is a priority setting scale to describe the severity of a patient’s condition. In this scale, “CTAS 1” is the most serious, and CTAS 5 the least. The previous emergency response time standard had been based on 1996 performance that differed for each upper tier. Since then the ambulance system and associated demands have changed. The new regulation provides flexibility for each municipality to establish their own percentages of time that they expect to meet their target times considering their local resources. In some categories municipalities can establish their own targets in both time and percentage. With the new standard the response time will be measured based on the severity of the call as found by the paramedic (vs. how it was dispatched). This is similar to how medical evaluations Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plan September 19, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 1 of 3
Page 111 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
are conducted. It is intended to propel the stakeholders to continue to pursue system improvements to more accurately identify patients in the greatest need through the ambulance dispatch call interrogation process. It is suggested that the Response Time plan reflect current performance elements, so that a year over year benchmarking of response times can be evaluated. Other options include to “under-promise and over-deliver”, or conversely to establish targets in excess of the current performance and enhance service to meet those targets.
Comment The previous emergency response time standard had been based on 1996 performance that differed for each upper tier. Since then, the ambulance system and associated demands have changed. The new regulation provides flexibility for each municipality to establish its own percentages of time that it expects to meet its target times considering local resources. In some categories, municipalities can establish their own targets in both time and percentage. The County of Frontenac’s 90th percentile response time measurement in 1996, 14 minutes 52 seconds, establishes that 90 of 100 calls were responded to in under 14:52. The new reporting process simply restates this performance in relation to a set time, as a percentage of calls. Specifically:
- Sudden Cardiac Arrest calls will have a target percentage of the calls having a Defibrillator on scene within 6 minutes;
- Sudden Cardiac Arrest and CTAS 1 calls will have a target percentage of the calls where a paramedic resource is on scene within 8 minutes;
- CTAS 2, 3, 4, and 5 will have a target percentage of the calls where a paramedic resource is on scene in a determined timeframe. Under both the old and the new process, the times identified to the Province are applicable to the entire service area of the County of Frontenac. There are no provisions in the regulations to provide for variations in population or call volume density. It is important to note that response time performance is increased in densely populated areas. The response time performance reported is an amalgamation of calls throughout the service area, and expectations should be tempered as such. Under this regulation, municipalities will be credited when any defibrillator is used to assist a victim of sudden cardiac arrest including a public access defibrillator or a tiered response agency. In addition, Emergency Response Vehicles with one paramedic will continue to be calculated in the response time calculations. With the new standard, the response time will be measured based on the severity of the call, as found by the paramedic (vs. how it was dispatched), which is in keeping with how medical evaluations are conducted. It is intended to propel the stakeholders to continue to pursue system improvements to more accurately identify patients in the greatest need through the ambulance dispatch call interrogation process. The Response Time Plan can: (1) reflect current performance; (2) opt to ‘under-promise and over-deliver’ for the first year to ensure we understand the issues; or (3) establish targets in excess of the current performance and enhance service to meet those targets.
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plan September 19, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 2 of 3
Page 112 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
Municipalities within the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC) have been working together in an attempt to develop some consistency within the Caucus area. Future reports will be provided quarterly to allow Council to monitor our performance. It is recommended that the County of Frontenac set the following criteria under Regulation 257/00, as amended, for its response time targets for 2013: For the calendar year of 2013, from January 1 to December 31, i. Designated Delivery Agent (DDA) - SUDDEN CARDIAC ARREST 48% percent of the time, within 6 minutes from the time ambulance dispatch conveys the call information to the paramedic, the County of Frontenac will endeavour to have a responder equipped and ready to use an AED at the location of a patient determined to be in sudden cardiac arrest. ii. EMS Designated Delivery Agent - CTAS 1 68% percent of the time, within 8 minutes from the time ambulance dispatch conveys the call information to the paramedic, the County of Frontenac will endeavour to have a PARAMEDIC as defined by the Ambulance Act and duly equipped at the location of a patient determined to be CTAS 1. iii. EMS Designated Delivery Agent - CTAS 2, 3, 4, 5 The County of Frontenac will endeavour to have a PARAMEDIC as defined by the Ambulance Act and duly equipped at the location of a patient determined to be CTAS 2, 3, 4, 5 within a period of time determined appropriate by the DDA and noted below in Table 1, or as resources permit (level of effort): Table 1, CTAS 2, 3, 4, 5 EMS Delivery Agent Commitment CTAS Target time from paramedic received until on scene 2 10 minutes 3 10 minutes 4 10 minutes 5 10 minutes
% Target 65% 65% 65% 65%
Sustainability Implications Good stewardship of the County’s financial resources and most appropriate care of our residents and visitors when in need of paramedic services.
Financial Implications None at this time.
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept this Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plan report; AND FURTHER THAT Council direct the Clerk to introduce a by-law later in the meeting adopting the response time standards as outlined in this report. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plan September 19, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 3 of 3
Page 113 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services
Date prepared:
September 30, 2012
Date of meeting:
October 17, 2012
Re:
Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Activity Update
Background This report is presented to Council to provide an update on the various ongoing activities and special projects during the 3rd quarter of 2012.
Comment Meetings Attended County Council – Regular Meeting County Council – Special Meeting County Council – Joint Council Joint Management and RULAC County Emergency Management Program Committee City of Kingston Emergency Management Program CACC Advisory Regional Paramedic Program of Eastern Ontario (RPPEO) Fire/Paramedic Labour Relations Committee OPSEU Local 462 Labour Management Committee CUPE Local 109 Labour Management Committee County Health & Safety Committee EMO Loyalist Sector Meeting Regional Acute Care Stroke Protocol Committee
Dates July 24, September 19
September 10 September 11 September 13 September 12
July 31
Committee Activities
- Association of Emergency Medical Services of Ontario (AMEMSO) Board: August 17
- AMEMSO - Eastern Ontario Chiefs: September 13/14
- Emergency Medical Services Chiefs of Canada (Executive/Board) Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Activity Update October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 1 of 2
Page 114 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
Special Projects/Other Activities
- Seniors Care Strategy Consultation (August 20) I attended a meeting at the SE-LHIN to be part of a focus group regarding the work being done by Dr. Sinha as the expert lead on a new Seniors Care Strategy. Dr. Sinha has expressed interest in Community Paramedicine as part of this strategy.
- Community Paramedicine Visit to Renfrew County (August 30) Deputy Chief Gale Chevalier and I travelled to Eganville to observe one of the County of Renfrew’s community paramedicine initiatives. We visited a Seniors Clinic held in a long term care facility. Residents of the facility as well as local citizens come and visit to have their blood pressure, temperature and heart rate check as well as the opportunity to discuss any health concerns with the paramedics.
- OAPC (formerly AMEMSO) Fall Conference (September 24 - 28) The Chiefs of Eastern Ontario were the proud hosts of the annual OAPC fall conference including the Gala Evening to award the Governor General Exemplary Services Medal. The conference plenary speakers covered Offload Nurse Delays and Liability Issues, Paramedics and the Seniors Care Strategy and Safety in Health Care. Six (6) of our paramedics, Luc Croteau, Ross Brown, Jeff Burgess, Dave Parkhill, Joe Ferguson and John Taggart received the EMS Exemplary Services Medal from Major General Richard Rohmer, Canada’s most decorated citizen.
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Activity Update report for information only.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Activity Update October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 2 of 2
Page 115 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services
Date prepared:
September 20, 2012
Date of meeting:
October 17, 2012
Re:
Emergency and Transportation Services – Community Paramedicine
Background The document “County of Frontenac Strategic Plan – Directions for Our Future – Moving Forward” dated March 2011 identifies the following: Explore strategies related to mobile health care/primary care prevention. Development of this strategy would reference the briefing provided to Council on new opportunities and efficiencies to be achieved potentially by reframing ambulance services in a primary care/mobile health care framework – e.g., administering inexpensive drugs immediately to patients on site rather than transporting them to/from hospital where more expensive drugs and care would be the norm. Partnerships with external agencies to improve community health care might be involved, engaging primary care providers and community paramedicine. There may also be tradeoffs to consider, such as purchasing more ambulances or supporting rural transportation. At its meeting of April 18, 2012, County Council received a delegation presentation entitled Optimizing Rural Services through Community Paramedic Programs by Chief Michael Nolan of Renfrew County; the following motion was carried:
Motion #112-12
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Clayton Councillor Inglis
RESOLVED THAT the presentation by Mike Nolan, Chief of Paramedics, County of Renfrew and President of Emergency Medical Services Chiefs of Canada (EMSCC) regarding Government Relations and Community Paramedicine be received for information. CARRIED Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Community Paramedicine October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 1 of 2
Page 116 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
Comment In August 2012, Deputy Chief Gale Chevalier and I travelled to Eganville to observe one of the Community Paramedicine programs operated by Renfrew Paramedic Services. The program is a “Wellness Clinic” operated within a long term care facility accessible to the entire community. At this clinic, paramedics, as well as volunteer paramedic students and military medics, set-up to receive citizens and perform the following basic assessments: pulse, blood pressure, blood sugar, temperature and SPO2. The findings are then recorded for the citizen in a notebook which the citizen retains and brings back for each visit. This clinic has been operating for three (3) years as there was an identified need for primary health monitoring within the community due to withdrawal of family physicians. We asked visitors what this clinic has meant to them and they all felt that it has allowed them to feel “safe” in staying in their homes knowing that they have access to this service. One particular story was voiced by a gentleman who came to the clinic when it first opened and on his second visit the paramedic assessment identified an issue with high blood pressure. He was referred to a physician and he was immediately received primary care. Happily, he remains in the community with good vital signs that are checked each month at this “Wellness Clinic”. Deputy Chief Chevalier and I plan to meet with the Board of the Medical Centre of Wolfe Island to understand what the needs may be and how this program or perhaps other Community Paramedicine programs may be initiated in this community.
Sustainability Implications Good stewardship of the County’s financial resources by investigating creative and alternative activities to support our residents’ efforts to stay in their homes longer can, in this case, impact the number emergency calls and the demands placed on the ERs of the region’s hospitals contributing to the containment of costs throughout the health care system.
Financial Implications None at this time.
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Emergency and Transportation Services – Community Paramedicine report for information only.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected County of Renfrew Paramedic Service
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Community Paramedicine October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 2 of 2
Page 117 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Paul J. Charbonneau Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services
Date prepared:
July 26, 2012
Date of meeting:
October 17, 2012
Re:
Emergency and Transportation Services – Fire Tiered Response Agreements
Background Medical Tiered Response Programs have been in place in this area since the mid 1990s. These agreements were developed and authorized between local response agencies (Township Councils), Kingston Central Ambulance Communications Centre, Southeastern Ontario Base Hospital Program and the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, Emergency Health Services Branch. It became clear that Medical Tiered Response Agreements were part of the provincial land ambulance downloading exercise and the County of Frontenac was to become a party to the agreements within its jurisdiction. The guiding principles of a medical tiered response program are: •
To ensure the timely availability of resources to safely and efficiently mitigate a life threatening incident; and
•
To deploy adequately trained and equipped personnel to the scene of agreed upon life threatening emergencies.
These principles are supported by Frontenac Paramedic Services. If the primary agency (Frontenac Paramedic Services) cannot respond within an acceptable timeframe dependent upon the patient’s medical condition then a secondary agency should be deployed to ensure the citizen receives appropriate initial medical attention. However, the criteria by which medical tiered response is initiated and the issue of response times for the primary agency must be practical to local concerns. The County of Frontenac established its Medical Tiered Response Program in late 2007 following passage of these two (2) motions by County Council: Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Fire Tiered Response Agreements October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 1 of 5
Page 118 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
Motion #114-07
Moved by: Mayor Vanden Hoek Seconded by: Mayor Davison
RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive this Emergency and Transportation Services – Medical Tiered Response Program report and authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an agreement with any township within the County that wishes to participate in this program according to the terms outlined in this report. CARRIED Motion #224-07
Moved by: Mayor Gutowski Seconded by: Mayor Davison
RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac hereby receives the Emergency & Transportation Services – Medical Tiered Response Program with the City of Kingston report and authorize the Warden and Clerk to execute an agreement with the City of Kingston to participate in this program according to the terms outlined in this report. CARRIED
Comment Amendments to the current agreements must be negotiated between the County, which is responsible for land ambulance delivery, and the City and/or Townships participating in a medical tiered response program. Several meetings with the chair of the committee representing the area Fire Chiefs and the Director of Emergency and Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services for the County of Frontenac have taken place. The subject of the discussions is the current application of the response criteria and the need for amending said criteria. The Association of Municipal Emergency Medical Services of Ontario (AMEMSO), now known as the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs (OAPC) released the document INFORMING THE PUBLIC DIALOUGE AROUND MEDICAL TIERED RESPONSE IN ONTARIO; An Independent Evidence-Based Review in September 2011. As indicated in the OAPC paper, the peer-reviewed scientific literature shows that only slightly more than 2% of EMS 911 calls would benefit from cardiac defibrillation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or other time-sensitive interventions offered by firefighters. Despite the low actual clinical need, urban Ontario fire departments have asked to be sent to between 5 and 35% of EMS calls, and some have suggested they should respond to 100% of EMS calls. No scientific evidence exists to support such levels of response. In this project, Performance Concepts Consulting has conducted an evidence-based examination of 2010 EMS/Fire clinical data sets extracted from selected OAPC members from across the province.
Despite relatively large volumes of Fire tiered responses in the 2010 sample period, the proportion of calls where fire departments deliver patient procedures is small. In the Peterborough example, 93% of the fire department tiered response calls did not involve the delivery of any patient procedures. There is no clinical evidence emerging from the AMEMSO case studies that an expanded scope of fire department tiered medical response would deliver an increase in
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Fire Tiered Response Agreements October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 2 of 5
Page 119 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
meaningful fire patient procedures, improve patient outcomes, or provide relief to paramedic workload burdens.1 Increasing the number of “lights-and-siren” responses in a community carries with it significant risks. Although reasonably rare, fire apparatus response crashes do occur, and can be catastrophic because of the large size and weight of the pumpers, aerial ladders and elevating platform trucks sent to EMS calls. Unfortunately, the risks of such crashes are disproportionately born by civilians, not the responders themselves. For a community to accept these risks, there would need to be clear scientific evidence of medical benefit from adding fire response to a call where an ambulance was already well on the way. Are all EMS calls time-sensitive? All calls to 911 are important, particularly to those placing the call. Fortunately, just as in hospital emergency departments, few EMS 911 calls involve critical illness or injury. Despite this being “self-evident” to those in medical professions, the public position of the fire service unions and some of their management often suggest that every EMS call is a “life-or-death, seconds-can-save-a-life” emergency, warranting emergency response by whoever is available in the community. This promotes unwarranted fear in the community that death or disability could be avoided if only a fire truck responded in addition to a paramedic ambulance, none of which is supported by fact. In most EMS 911 calls, the arrival of first-aid trained firefighters provides no tangible benefit, other than the firefighters willingness to help carry the paramedics equipment back to the waiting ambulance. In fact, EMS calls can be reliably and safely classified and prioritized by EMS dispatch personnel, with response ranging from immediate for the relatively few critical calls to less urgent low priorities for the majority of calls, most of which involve clearly non-emergent patients. Toronto and Niagara EMS use the internationally-accepted Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS), a scripted interview process which highly reliably prioritizes calls based on patient problem and incident type. MPDS is backed by an extensive published scientific literature in peer-reviewed medical journals, and allows most EMS calls to safely forgo police or firefighter response. OAPC advocates for the extension of this proven triage tool to all Ontario CACCs to allow for a more careful process of identifying urgent responses. Abacus Data Inc. completed a study in September 2011 entitled Evaluating Public Opinion on EMS Dispatching, A survey of 1002 Ontarians. Three specific questions asked resulted in the following data:
2
1
Performance Concepts Consulting. (2011). INFORMING THE PUBLIC DIALOGUE AROUND MEDICAL TIERED RESPONSE IN ONTARIO, An Independent Evidence‐Based Review Coletto, D., and Monk, A. (2011). Evaluating Public Opinion on EMS Dispatching, A Survey of 1002 Ontarians. 20 Sept 2011
2
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Fire Tiered Response Agreements October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 3 of 5
Page 120 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
3
Support for the mandatory dispatch of fire fighters to all medical calls was more equally distributed (33% support/39% opposed) in the following study question:
4
All parties to the dialogue should engage in meaningful and respectful discussion and advocate for public policy that achieves the following:
We need to get the right resources, to the right patient in the time frame that makes a difference. That means that for patients who need immediate airway management or AED that everyone - dispatch, fire and ambulance - needs to work together to get resources out there as soon as possible. It also means that there is
3 4
Coletto, D., and Monk, A. (2011). Evaluating Public Opinion on EMS Dispatching, A Survey of 1002 Ontarians. 20 Sept 2011 Coletto, D., and Monk, A. (2011). Evaluating Public Opinion on EMS Dispatching, A Survey of 1002 Ontarians. 20 Sept 2011
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Fire Tiered Response Agreements October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 4 of 5
Page 121 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
no point sending tiered response to patients who are in no need of time limited interventions.5 In summary, fire services have a role in medical tiered response for time sensitive medical emergencies that they can make a difference i.e. cardiac arrest, airway compromise. Fire services do not have a role in non-life threatening medical emergencies. All emergency services need to work together to establish effective and efficient tiered response agreements that make the patient the centre of focus.
Sustainability Implications Good stewardship of the County’s resources and most appropriate care of our residents and visitors when in need of paramedic services.
Financial Implications The agreement addresses the issue of the exchange of disposable equipment only. All other costs for participation in this program by any fire service will be the responsibility of the individual Township or the City of Kingston.
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Emergency and Transportation Services – Fire Tiered Response Agreements report for information only.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Chief Harold Tulk, Fire Coordinator and Fire Chief, City of Kingston Mike Quinn, Fire Chief, Township of Frontenac Islands – Howe Island Rick Chesebrough, Fire Chief, Township of South Frontenac Bill Young, Fire Chief, Township of Central Frontenac Steve Riddell, Fire Chief, Township of North Frontenac
5
Dr. Gordon Jones, Medical Director, Regional Base Hospital Program for Southeastern Ontario. 2001
Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Fire Tiered Response Agreements October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 5 of 5
Page 122 of 130
AgendaItem#5b)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Marian VanBruinessen Treasurer
Date prepared:
September 25, 2012
Date of meeting:
October 17, 2012
Re:
Financial Services – Land Ambulance Vehicle Useful Life Adjustment
Background Prior to 2004, funding was provided to the County to cover a share of the Land Ambulance costs based on a Ministry template. The template included an amortization schedule that estimated the useful life of ambulances at 4.5 years. Over subsequent years, after the County of Frontenac was chosen as designated delivery agent for Land Ambulance, an assessment of the fleet suggested that ambulances could reasonably be retained for 6 years without incurring additional service costs. For that reason, the useful life of the vehicles was adjusted to 6 years in 2005 and reserve allocations were made on that basis.
Comment Since 2005, a number of circumstances have arisen which caused staff to re-assess the vehicle useful life: • •
•
Subsequent to the adjustment of the useful life to 6 years, the County was required to adopt a Tangible Capital Asset policy in which the County identified the useful life of its ambulances at 6 years. The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care`s Emergency Health Services Branch has identified that it will only fund the amortization of vehicles, not replacement cost. The County will experience greater funding, estimated at approximately $52,000 annually, with the 4.5 year useful life as opposed to the 6 year useful life. As different models of ambulance have come on stream it has been identified that the 6 year useful life is no longer valid as additional service costs are being incurred. In 2005, when the adjustment of the useful life was increased to 6 years, the County was utilizing Ford chassis ambulances with 7.3 litre diesel engines. This 7.3 litre engine was a proven workhorse and had been the power plant for these chassis for many years. In 2004, Ford, to meet new US Government emissions standards, moved to a 6.0 litre engine. This 6.0 litre engine was very expensive to maintain and Ford struggled to make it a product of excellence. The engine
Administrative Report Financial Services – Land Ambulance Useful Life Adjustment October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 1 of 2
Page 123 of 130
AgendaItem#5b) never met expectations and was in fact discontinued from production. During the time of this transition by Ford, FPS moved to a gas engine platform on a GMC chassis due to ever increasing costs of repair for the Ford 6.0 litre engine. The engine in the GM ambulance chassis will not sustain the longevity of the diesels and are starting to require engine replacement at 250,000 km. Ford does not offer a diesel engine now for ambulance chassis use and the GM ambulance chassis with a diesel engine costs approximately $10,000 more in initial capital cost.
Sustainability Implications Regular review of replacement schedules ensures the County is managing its fleet assets by controlling both capital investments and maintenance expenses.
Financial Implications The Ministry currently funds Land Ambulance based on the budget of the prior year. For that reason its share of the additional amortization costs would not be realized until 2014. The County does not fund amortization, but it does fund replacement cost. The reserve allocations for the replacement of ambulances is calculated based on an estimate of the future cost of an ambulance and not the amortization of the historical cost of the vehicle. For that reason the reserve allocations will exceed amortization by approximately $18,800 per year.
Recommendation THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive this Financial Services - Land Ambulance Useful Life Adjustment report; AND FURTHER that Council adopt a Bylaw revising the Tangible Capital Asset Useful Life Schedule to amend the useful life of an ambulance from 6 years to 4.5 years.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Paul Charbonneau, Director of Emergency & Transportation Services/Chief of Paramedic Services Allan and Partners Chartered Accountants
Administrative Report Financial Services – Land Ambulance Useful Life Adjustment October 17, 2012
Emergency Services
Page 2 of 2
Page 124 of 130
AgendaItem#5c)
CITY OF KINGSTON INTEROFFICE MEMORAND UM TO:
RULAC
FROM:
HAL LINSCOTT, CITY SOLICITOR AND DIRECTOR OF LEGAL SERVICES
SUBJECT:
POA 2012 THIRD QUARTER
DATE:
11/14/2012
QUARTERLY REPORT – REVENUE AND EXPENDIT URES 2012 Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
YTD 2012
Budget
Fine Revenue
$393,899
$468,246
$500,516
$1,362,661
$1,973,829
1
$160,229
$235,345
$187,669
$583,283
$798,545
$12,440,460
$12,566,976
$12,533,193
$12,533,193
Expenditures Outstanding 2 Receivables
- Expenditures are shown net of the county’s share of revenues in order to reflect the actual costs of operating the POA
- Uncollected fines
COMPARATIVE CHARGES AND REVENUE BY QUARTER Quarter 1 Revenues Charges
Quarter 2 Revenues Charges
Quarter 3 Revenues Charges
Quarter 4 Revenues Charges
Year To Date Revenues Charges
2010,
$448,840
4,362
$553,252
5,867
$422,766
4,640
$633,876
4,292
$2,058,734
19,161
2011
$448,818
4,211
$547,838
4,708
S552,984
4,452
$424,459
3,161
$1,974.099
16,532
2012
$393,899
3,756
$468,246
3,898
$500,516
4,242
$1,362,661
11,896
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE POA UNCOLLECTED FINES1 Uncollected Fines Outstanding
2
3
60 days or less 60 -120 days
2011
2012
$10,710,985
$12,179,509
$12,533,193
$ 559,641
$343,595
$218,373 $224,153
2007
2008
2009
2010
$8,115,399
$9,100,676
$9,772,267
$ 243,105
$ 243,409
$ 260,050
$7,872,294
Over 120 days
$225,370
$263,125
$ 291,707
$523,864
$8,640,897
$9,249,092
$9,859,638
$11,312,050
$12,090,667
S1,387,158
$962,549
$ (108,469)
$424,609
Collected During Period
$ 1,456,544
$ 1,162,882
$1,246,749
$1,278,689
+/- Collected
$ 637,068
$293,662
($83,867)
$(31,940)
- fines, fees, costs, victim surcharge and collection fees/ 2. Past due date 3. As of conviction
LARGEST ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES COMPARATIVE CHARGES Agency
2008
2009
2010
2011
Kingston Police South Frontenac OPP Sharbot Lake OPP Ministry of Transportation All other Total
10,116 2,901 857 718 889 15,481
10,986 1,717 1,598 470 1,068 15,840
13,698 2,508 1,731 228 996 19,161
11,437 2,499 847 498 1,251 16,532
Provincial Offences
2012 End of 3rd Quarter 7,756 2,174 743 263 960 11,896
Page 125 of 130
AgendaItem#6a)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:
Warden and Council Members of the County of Frontenac
From:
Elizabeth Savill CAO
Prepared by:
Marian VanBruinessen Treasurer
Date prepared:
November 12, 2012
Date of meeting:
November 21, 2012
Re:
Financial Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Financial Summary
Recommendation RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive this Financial Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Financial Summary report for information only; AND FURTHER that Council direct the Treasurer to transfer the County’s share of any shortfall resulting from the under accrual of the retroactive wage settlement from the County’s Fairmount Home Working Fund.
Background The County of Frontenac Financial Summary for the 3rd Quarter of 2012 is attached.
Comment Revenue Municipal Transfers: Transfers from the City of Kingston have been adjusted to reflect the City share of the third quarter surplus for Fairmount Home and Land Ambulance. Federal and Provincial Transfers: Variance is attributed to timing differences. Federal Gas Tax Transfers have not all been received and the transfer from MTO for the Ferry is less than budgeted. The latter is reconciled in February of the following year after year end statements are submitted. Fees and Service Charges: Fairmount resident revenues are under budget, but are reconciled at year end against Provincial revenue so that the total amount received from the Province and the residents is within the prescribed Ministry of Health and Long Term Care funding for Fairmount Home. Administrative Report Financial Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Financial Summary November 21, 2012
Financial Services
Page 1 of 5
Page 126 of 130
AgendaItem#6a) Other Income: Variance is attributed to timing differences. Expenses General Government: Budget to actual variance is primarily due to timing. Capital projects and new expenses were deferred until budget approval. Protection to Persons and Property: Equipment, identified in the budget and partially funded through JEPP, has not yet been purchased. Transportation Services: Timing differences account for under expenditure. Ambulance Services: Timing differences account for under expenditure in operating. The North Frontenac Joint Fire Station/Land Ambulance project was cancelled. Fairmount Home: On June 20, 2012 the interest arbitration decision re the contract negotiation with CUPE 2290 2010-2012 was received by the County. The retroactive wages identified in that decision were paid out in July 2012. It was determined at that time that retroactive wages had been under accrued. The amount of the under accrual is $146,957 and is shown as a separate line Prior Period Adjustment on the Fairmount variance statement. County Council can direct that the County’s share of any shortfall resulting from the under accrual be transferred from the County’s Fairmount Home Working Fund. A further report is included with this agenda of County Council providing an Operational Update which further details budget variances. Social & Family Services: Under budget. Social Housing: Timing difference accounts for over expenditure. Planning and Development: Some projects not yet completed. Recreation and Culture: The library is over budget as the County received an invoice for 2011 capital costs after the financial statements were closed. This cost is being recommended to be offset by a transfer from the Library capital reserve. Other: Includes grants which have not yet been released.
Sustainability Implications Within Directions for Our Future, the vision statement associated with Capacity Building and Governance states that “Government decision-making processes are clear, forward thinking and focused on the longer term”. By reviewing quarterly financial statements, Council can assure itself that the direction given through the 2012 budget is being carried out. At the same time, this information is being shared publicly.
Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Senior Management Team
Administrative Report Financial Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Financial Summary November 21, 2012
Financial Services
Page 2 of 5
Page 127 of 130
AgendaItem#6a)
COUNTY OF FRONTENAC 2012 Variance to September 30, 2012 Summary of Revenue and Expenditure
2012 Budget $
to date Budget $
to date Actual $
Variance $
REVENUE Requisition on Municipalities Municipal Transfers Federal and Provincial Transfers Fees and Service Charges Other Revenue
8,281,073 9,366,116 14,398,047 3,539,406 625,140
6,171,932 6,913,339 10,985,593 2,575,843 199,750
6,171,933 6,754,807 10,674,940 2,621,919 230,413
1 -158,532 -310,653 46,076 30,663
74.53% 72.12% 74.14% 74.08% 36.86%
Subtotal Revenue before Requisition
27,928,709
20,674,525
20,282,079
-392,446
72.62%
Subtotal Revenue With Requisition
36,209,782
26,846,457
26,454,012
-392,445
73.06%
Transfer From Reserves/Reserve Funds
2,782,152
297,308
200,348
-96,960
7.20%
Total Revenue and Reserve Transfers
38,991,934
27,143,765
26,654,360
-489,405
68.36%
3,640,883 -196,046 3,444,837 23,095 1,588,188 15,947,849 -532,470 15,415,379 677,951 11,428,286 -524,096 10,904,190 1,531,350 1,299,559 757,958 792,678 1,694,178 765,000 38,894,363 97,571
2,048,629 -147,035 1,901,594 20,383 1,355,454 11,373,857 -399,353 10,974,504 508,463 8,240,027 -393,072 7,846,955 1,148,513 974,294 542,219 571,259 1,196,136 96,290 27,136,064 7,701
1,654,567 -138,185 1,516,382 5,707 1,313,001 11,149,289 -430,075 10,719,214 508,244 8,193,246 -401,784 7,791,462 1,109,596 809,253 554,363 576,697 596,411 86,000 25,586,330 1,068,030
-394,062 8,850 -385,212 -14,676 -42,453 -224,568 -30,722 -255,290 -219 -46,781 -8,712 -55,493 -38,917 -165,041 12,144 5,438 -599,725 -10,290 1,549,734 1,060,329
45.44% 70.49% 44.02% 24.71% 82.67% 69.91% 80.77% 69.54% 74.97% 71.69% 76.66% 71.45% 72.46% 62.27% 73.14% 72.75% 35.20% 11.24% 65.78% 1094.62%
EXPENSE General Government Less: Non-Cash Items Net: General Government Protection to Persons and Property Transportation Services Land Ambulance Less: Non-Cash Items Net: Land Ambulance Health Services Fairmount Home Less: Non-Cash Items Net: Fairmount Home Fairmount Home Debenture Social and Family Services Social Housing Recreation and Cultural Services Planning and Development Other Expenditures Total Expense Accumulated Net Revenue (Deficit)
Administrative Report Financial Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Financial Summary November 21, 2012
Financial Services
% Total Annual Budget
Page 3 of 5
Page 128 of 130
AgendaItem#6a)
COUNTY OF FRONTENAC 2012 Variance to September 30, 2012 Summary Of Revenue and Expenditure 2012 Budget $
to date Budget $
to date Actual $
Provincial Funding Special Projects Revenue Sale of Vehicle & Equipment Other – Cross Border
7,538,528 0 28,000 67,000
5,379,061 0 28,000 0
5,374,878 6,380 0 10,150
-4,183 6,380 -28,000 10,150
71.30% 0.00% 0.00% 15.15%
Total Revenue
7,633,528
5,407,061
5,391,408
-15,653
70.63%
Service Delivery Less: Non Cash Items Net: Service Delivery Reserve for Vehicle, Equipment Replacement & Other Projects
14,543,676 -532,470 14,011,206
10,976,009 -399,353 10,576,656
10,854,601 -430,075 10,424,526
-121,408 -30,722 -152,130
74.63% 80.77% 74.40%
637,263
0
0
0
0.00%
Total Direct Service Expense
14,648,469
10,576,656
10,424,526
-152,130
71.16%
Net Operating Expense Net Capital Expense Total Expense
7,014,941 606,660 7,621,601
5,169,595 277,660 5,447,255
5,033,118 32,562 5,065,680
-136,477 -245,098 -381,575
71.75% 5.37% 66.46%
City Of Kingston 79.986% Frontenac 20.014%
6,096,214 1,525,387
4,357,041 1,090,214
4,051,835 1,013,845
-305,207 -76,368
66.46% 66.46%
0
0
174,525
174,525
0.00%
2011 Projects Brought Forward Net Capital Expense
45,000 78,000 33,000 121,660 277,660 329,000 606,660
45,000 78,000 33,000 121,660 277,660 0 277,660
32,562 74,282 0 100,243 207,087 0 32,562
-12,438 -3,718 -33,000 -21,417 -70,573 0 -245,098
72.36% 95.23% 0.00% 82.40% 74.58% 0.00% 5.37%
Offload Nursing Revenue Expense Net Offload Nursing
160,250 160,250 0
120,188 120,188 0
54,486 87,601 -33,115
-65,702 -32,587 -33,115
34.00% 54.67% 0.00%
Variance $
% Total Annual Budget
LAND AMBULANCE SERVICES
Capital Reserve Transfer Capital Expense Vehicle New Vehicle Replacement Equipment New Equipment Replacement
Administrative Report Financial Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Financial Summary November 21, 2012
Financial Services
Page 4 of 5
Page 129 of 130
AgendaItem#6a)
COUNTY OF FRONTENAC 2012 Variance to September 30, 2012 Summary Of Revenue and Expenditure 2012
2012
2012 Variance
Total Annual Budget %
Budget $
Budget $
Actual $
FAIRMOUNT HOME FOR THE AGED Revenue Provincial - Operations Provincial - Nurse Practitioner Provincial Subtotal
5,094,154 61,247 5,155,401
3,820,613 45,935 3,866,548
3,983,292 46,062 4,029,354
162,679 127 162,806
78.19% 75.21% 78.16%
Residents - Accommodation Fees
2,883,105
2,162,329
2,052,507
-109,822
71.19%
Revenue Subtotal Before Municipal Contribution
8,038,506
6,028,877
6,081,861
52,984
75.66%
63,097
0
0
0
0.00%
Total Revenue and Reserve Transfer
8,101,603
6,028,877
6,081,861
52,984
75.07%
Program and Support Services Direct Nursing and Personal Care Nurse Practitioner Nursing and Personal Care Administration Raw Food Dietary Services Housekeeping Services Laundry and Linen Services Building and Property Facility Costs General and Administrative Less: Non-Cash Items Net: General and Administrative Prior Year Adjustment
401,510 4,386,174 133,834 1,290,859 345,469 915,611 593,965 249,082 552,356 320,655 1,650,870 -524,096 1,126,774 0
301,122 3,255,881 100,376 968,844 259,102 687,198 445,474 186,812 414,267 257,405 1,134,096 -393,072 741,024 0
290,502 3,364,789 102,009 980,755 282,349 676,486 450,028 198,621 386,083 216,102 1,062,724 -401,784 660,940 146,957
-10,620 108,908 1,633 11,911 23,247 -10,712 4,554 11,809 -28,184 -41,303 -71,372 -8,712 -80,084 146,957
72.35% 76.71% 76.22% 75.98% 81.73% 73.88% 75.77% 79.74% 69.90% 67.39% 64.37% 76.66% 58.66% 0.00%
Operating Expense Subtotal
10,316,289
7,617,505
7,755,621
138,116
75.18%
548,900 0 0
229,450 0 0
178,775 0 0
-50,675 0 0
32.57% 0.00% 0.00%
Total expense Reserve transfer
10,865,189 39,000
7,846,955 39,000
7,934,396 39,000
87,441 0
73.03% 100.00%
Total Expense and Reserve transfer
10,904,189
7,885,955
7,973,396
87,441
73.12%
Municipal Contribution City of Kingston Share County of Frontenac Share
2,802,586 1,905,758 896,828
1,857,078 1,262,813 594,265
1,891,535 1,286,244 605,291
34,457 23,431 11,026
67.49% 67.49% 67.49%
Transfers - Reserves/Reserve Funds
Capital Improvements City Share of Surplus Retained County Share of Surplus Retained
Administrative Report Financial Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Financial Summary November 21, 2012
Financial Services
$
Page 5 of 5
Page 130 of 130
