Body: RULAC Type: Agenda Meeting: Committee Date: May 6, 2013 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County

[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Rural Urban Liaison Advisory Committee (RULAC)/2013/Rural Urban Liaison Advisory Committee (RULAC) - 06 May 2013.pdf)

Document Text

Rural Urban Liaison Advisory Committee (RULAC) Monday, May 6, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. County Administration Office, Frontenac Room AGENDA

Page 1.

Welcome

Adoption of Notes

3-7

a)

12-12-03 RULAC Notes

Communications

Fairmount Home

8-35

a)

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on these reports in a consolidated fashion. Fairmount Home - LTC Homes Accountability Planning Submission (LAPS) Report Fairmount Home Operational Update 2013-007 Fairmount Home - 4th Quarter Activity Update 2013-025 Fairmount Home - Auditorium Renovation Report-AppendE. 2013-048 Fairmount Home - 2012 Year in Review 2013-047 Fairmount Home - 2013-2016 Long-Term Care Home Service Accountability Agreement L-SAA

36

b)

37-63

Fairmount Home 2013 Budget

LSR Services a)

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports in a consolidated fashion. 13-028 Distribution of funding for cc centre wage subsidy 13-064 New Ont CC funding formula & frameworkxx LH 13-099 Sydenham OW Office Rental 13-067 Childcare framework and reduction in funding.pdf Q4 2012 LSR - updated 3-14-13

Page 1 of 205

Page 5. 64-189

LSR Services b)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports in a consolidated fashion. 13-005 Interim Emergency Shelter Funding Model for 2013 13-068 Status on Dawn House Shelter for Women 13-081 CHPI Transition Funding 13-121 CHPI Transition Funding 13-121 Exhibit A - MCSS Mitigation Funds 13-121 Exhibit B Outline for Use of Transition to CHPI funding HHC-13-001 Housing Charter HHC13-003 Municipal Housing Strategy 40 recommendations progress HHC-13-004 Revised Housing Charter 12-244 Exhibit ‘A’ 13-005 Exhibit ‘B’ HHC-13-006 Housing Programs Reporting HHC-13-007 Communications Plan Exhibit A Draft Communications Plan HHC-13-008 2012 Report on Housing and Homelessness 2013 Approved Budget - City (Community & Family Services/Housing)

190-203

c)

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on these reports in a consolidated fashion. 2013-008 Emergency and Transportation Services - 2012 4th Quarter Activity Update 2013-015 Emergency and Transportation Services - Election to Paramedic Chiefs of Canada Board of Directors of the Chief of Paramedic Services 2013-027 Emergency and Transportation Services - Capital Purchase of Two Ambulances and One Emergency Response Vehicle 2013-021 Emergency and Transportation Services - Community Paramedicine 2013-039 Emergency and Transportation Services - Operational Agreement - Flagging Hazardous Addresses 2013-040 Emergency and Transportation Services - 2006-2012 Vehicle Maintenance Expenses Frontenac Paramedic Services 2013 Budget

204-205

d)

Other Business a)

County Official Plan Project

Confirmation of Next Meeting a)

Provincial Offences POA 2012 4th quarter report POA 2013 Approved Budget - City of Kingston

To be confirmed.

Adjournment

Page 2 of 205

AgendaItem#2a)

Rural-Urban Liaison Advisory Committee Monday, December 3, 2012 Notes County Administration Boardroom, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie 9:00 a.m. County of Frontenac Present: Janet Gutowski, Warden Denis Doyle, Councillor Gary Davison, Councillor Liz Savill, CAO Marian VanBruinessen, Treasurer Julie Shillington, Administrator of Fairmount Gale Chevalier, Deputy Chief of Performance Standards Jannette Amini, Deputy Clerk Kieran Williams, Municipal Intern Angelique Tamblyn, Executive Assistant (Recording Secretary) 1.

City of Kingston Present: Brian Reitzel, Councillor Jeff Scott, Councillor Gerard Hunt, CAO Desiree Kennedy, Treasurer Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner of Community and Family Services Adele LaFrance, Director of Administration Regrets: Mark Gerretsen, Mayor

Welcome

Warden Gutowski called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. With the following additions/corrections made, the agenda was accepted by consensus:  Addition to Other Business – Informal update on infrastructure rd  Correction – 3 Quarter Financials are for Fairmount and ETS 2.

Adoption of the Notes

The notes of the RULAC meeting notes held on September 10, 2012 were accepted by consensus. 3.

Communications – Nil

Fairmount Home    

Fairmount Home – 2nd Quarter Consolidated Statistical Report Fairmount Home – Quality Improvement Activities Update Fairmount Home – Enabling Accessibility Grant Fairmount Home – 3rd Quarter Activity Update

Ms. Shillington provided an overview of the above reports. Highlights and comments included:

Rural-Urban Liaison Advisory Committee Notes December 3, 2012

12-12-03 RULAC Notes

Page 1 of 5

Page 3 of 205

AgendaItem#2a)

Ms. Hurdle commented that the aging workforce and the type of work being done are impacting both the type and severity of staff injuries. Similar injuries are being experienced at Rideaucrest. Both Councillors Reitzel and Scott are on the board of Rideaucrest Home. Although the nursing budget is currently over budget, Ms. Shillington noted that the revenue increase from the Ministry had not been included and assured members that mitigation strategies are being pursued. The Fairmount Home reports were accepted by consensus. 5.

LSR Services a)        

Community and Family Services

Report 12-311 HBH Kingston Coop CFHC funding v3 12-367 Information Report - Cessation of Fee Subsidy Waitlist HHC-12-016 Kingston Frontenac Renovates Program Guidelines HHC-12-020 Housing Programs Reporting for Sept. HHC-12-021 Homelessness Plan RFP Results and Future Process HHC-12-022 Analysis of Centralized Wait List HHC-12-024 Interim Funding Model for Shelters for 2013 Q3 2012 LSR

Ms. Hurdle and Ms. Lafrance provided an overview of the reports. Highlights and comments included: Both Warden Gutowski and Councillor Davison expressed support for the affordable housing projects. In particular, the seniors’ complex project in Sharbot Lake was highlighted. A concern was raised that the centralized childcare fee subsidy waitlist had been seen as a reservation system instead of a system to help people in immediate need. With a surplus forecasted and the decommissioning of the waitlist, any unused funding can be converted to wage subsidy funding so the funding will not be lost. The funding level is anticipated to remain constant although a change in the funding formula is expected at some point. In response to a childcare question from Councillor Reitzel concerning the kindergarten changes and how they were impacting funding and how the schools in the County are involved, members were informed that as of September 2011 50% of the transition had been achieved. The balance of the transition is expected to occur over the next two years. The turbulence is anticipated to continue over these next two years. City staff is working with the school boards to identify spaces in schools that may be available for children under the school age. Several daycare centres have already changed or closed programs completely in response. A note was made that the soon-to-be defunct RRAP program was well utilized by County residents. Warden Gutowski shared that within the County, each Township has its own official plan. It is hoped that the Housing and Homelessness Study will identify some of the barriers to housing options.

Rural-Urban Liaison Advisory Committee Notes December 3, 2012

12-12-03 RULAC Notes

Page 2 of 5

Page 4 of 205

AgendaItem#2a)

Councillor Scott commented on the importance to rural residents to stay in their communities and is pleased to see the development of the “how-to” guide to offer assistance with the development of second residential units in the City including the rural areas. Councillor Davison shared that some residents try to use the granny suite option to create a duplex. In response, South Frontenac Township does not permit any cooking or kitchen facilities. They too want to support people staying in their communities. A note was made that City staff attended the November County Council meeting to discuss and raise awareness of the Homelessness Plan being developed to meet the provincial mandate for a 10-year plan to be in place by January 2014. The Centralized Housing Registry Wait List was recently reviewed by surveying those on the list. There were some people on the list looking for alternative accommodations who are already in social housing. In response to a question from Councillor Reitzel, Ms. Hurdle indicated that she will provide more detailed data on the wait list concerning movement of people between the County and the City. Councillor Davison shared that, of the 30 units in Verona, few residents are from the County. Ms. Savill shared that County Council passed a resolution at its November meeting requesting that any staff recommendation on the Municipal Housing Strategy Communications Plan and Housing Charter be deferred until formal comments have been provided by Frontenac County Council. Ms. Hurdle responded, advising that draft material has been circulated but not to the City’s committee. County Councillor John McDougall has shared his interest in having an opportunity for input, particularly concerning the obligations that will affect the County. It was agreed that further staff discussion is required. With respect to the 3rd Quarter financials, staff vacancies have created the under spending. The Community and Family Services reports were accepted by consensus. Ms. Hurdle and Ms. Lafrance left the meeting at 10:25 a.m. b) Emergency Services         

Emergency & Transportation Services – Placement of Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) – Ontario Defibrillator Access Initiative Emergency & Transportation Services – Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) Measurement Emergency & Transportation Services – new Land Ambulance Station in the Northern Portion of the County of Frontenac Emergency & Transportation Services – Scouts Canada – Medvents Program Partnership Emergency & Transportation Services – Legislated Response Time Performance Plan Emergency & Transportation Services – 2012 3rd Quarter Activity Update Emergency & Transportation Services – Community Paramedicine Emergency & Transportation Services – Fire Tiered Response Agreements Financial Services – Land Ambulance Vehicle Useful Life Adjustment

Deputy Chief Chevalier provided an overview of the reports. Highlights and comments included:

Rural-Urban Liaison Advisory Committee Notes December 3, 2012

12-12-03 RULAC Notes

Page 3 of 5

Page 5 of 205

AgendaItem#2a)

The utilization of paramedic resources is measured, plotted and analyzed and, as expected, demand is higher in the urban area. Councillor Reitzel asked if a snapshot of each urban and rural station could be provided. The Deputy Chief advised further work is being done and will be reported. The CACC is responsible for dispatching the closest ambulance. Dispatch of fire is handled independently. This applies also to any accidents along Highway 401. Warden Gutowski stated that the County along with the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus supports the introduction of a different dispatch system called the Medical Priority Dispatch System that has been shown to improve the utilization of resources where it is being used (Toronto and Niagara). The Chief and Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs (OAPC) are working with MOHLTC in an attempt to influence this provincially-controlled aspect of the service. To begin addressing the increase in 911 calls and the aging population, the County is considering the introduction of a Community Paramedicine pilot project on Wolfe Island. Councillor Scott acknowledged the aging population, including residents at Country Pines, and expressed interest in the potential of the project beyond Wolfe Island. The priority of fire tiered response agreements is to ensure the right resources are dispatched to patients. The County has separate agreements with each of the four Townships and the City. Mr. Hunt has requested that any final recommendations be delayed until the Chief has had an opportunity to discuss the details with the City’s new Fire Chief. The useful life of ambulances is being reconsidered from six years to 4.5 years. Mr. Hunt commented that a fleet replacement policy is distinct from depreciation and suggested any policy might include a step to assess the state of a unit prior to replacement as is done at the City. The 2012 ambulance budget is on track although there are sick time issues which are being reviewed. The Emergency Services reports were accepted by consensus. Ms. Shillington left meeting at 10:55 a.m. c)

Provincial Offences

Mr. Hunt provided an overview of the Provincial Offences report noting that outstanding fines and continue to rise and a small year-end deficit is anticipated. The Provincial Offences report was accepted by consensus. 6.

Other Business

Infrastructure – Warden Gutowski spoke about the development of a long term vision for transportation and infrastructure. The Townships’ Public Works Managers have been working collaboratively and have submitted a report to each council addressing the transportation issues and the corridors feeding into the City. She suggested joint meetings with a broader group of transportation managers including the City, County of Lennox and Addington and United Counties of Leeds and Grenville could be beneficial. Rural-Urban Liaison Advisory Committee Notes December 3, 2012

12-12-03 RULAC Notes

Page 4 of 5

Page 6 of 205

AgendaItem#2a)

Budget – The City approved its budget last week. City staff did not table the Fairmount Auditorium capital item but will bring it forward at a later date once it has been endorsed by County Council. City Councillor Dorothy Hector is prepared to attend a County Council meeting in the new year to discuss roads, public transportation, car pooling and other FCM updates. Electoral Boundary Reform – Ms. Savill shared information about the County’s response to the federal government’s Electoral Boundary Reform Commission’s proposal. It is publicly available on the County’s website. The Electoral Boundary report was accepted by consensus. 7.

Confirmation of Next Meeting

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

Rural-Urban Liaison Advisory Committee Notes December 3, 2012

12-12-03 RULAC Notes

Page 5 of 5

Page 7 of 205

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:

November 5, 2012

Date of Meeting:

November 21, 2012

Re:

Fairmount Home – LTC Homes Accountability Planning Submission (LAPS) Report

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – LTC Homes Accountability Planning Submission (LAPS) Report; AND FURTHER that Council of the County of Frontenac approve the LAPS documents as appended to this report; AND FINALLY that the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the Administrator to submit the approved LAPS documents to the South East Local Health Integration Network.

Background Every three years long-term care homes must submit a planning submission to the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN). The LAPS is a planning document that provides information about a long-term care home that in turn supports the required negotiations of the LTC Home Service Accountability Agreement with the LHIN.

Comment County Council is responsible for reviewing and approving the information in the LAPS before it is submitted to the LHIN. The first part of the LAPS is the description of services (Appendix I) in which we provide current information about the home and its services. A new section in this part relates to quality improvement practices where I have highlighted our participation in Residents’ First and our ongoing quality improvement initiatives. Administrative Report Fairmount Home – LTC Homes Accountability Planning Submission (LAPS) Report November 21, 2012

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 1 of 2

Page 8 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

The second part of the LAPS is the service plan (Appendix II) in which we provide information about strategic goals and priorities and how they help to advance the LHIN’s Integration Health Sustainability Plan. In addition, there is the opportunity to provide a situation analysis and advise the LHIN of any proposed operational changes.

Sustainability Implications Submission of the LAPS is required to maintain funding flow from the LHIN.

Financial Implications Failure to submit an approved LAPS may result in suspension of funding from the LHIN.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected LHIN Staff Residents Volunteers

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – LTC Homes Accountability Planning Submission (LAPS) Report November 21, 2012

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 2 of 2

Page 9 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Description of Home and Services Description of Home and Services A-1 General Information LTCH Legal Name LTCH Common Name LTCH Facility ID Number LTCH Facility (master number for RAI MDS) Owner/Parent Organization Address City Geography served (catchment area) Accreditation organization Date of Last Accreditation

Fairmount Home for the Aged Fairmount Home M11094 The Corporation of the County of Frontenac 2069 Battersea Road Glenburnie K0H 1S0 Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox & Addington Accreditation Canada 2012 3 Years Awarded

A-2 LTCH Classification Total # of Beds Licensed/Approved Beds

A

B

C

New

D

Other

128 Total # of Beds

Bed Types

Comments/Additional Information

Convalescent Care Beds Respite Beds Beds in Abeyance ELDCAP Beds Interim Beds Veterans’ Priority Access beds Other beds available under a Temporary Emergency Licence or Short-Term Authorization A-3 Structural Information Type of Room (this refers to structural layout rather than what is charged in accommodations) Number of rooms with 1 bed 100 Number of rooms with 2 beds Number of rooms with 3 beds 0 Number of rooms with 4 beds Other Separate Infirmary (Y/N) Year of Construction

N 1968

Number of Rooms Year(s) of renovations

Opening Date

Sept/68; July/04

Number of Floors

2002-2004 2 plus basement

Number of Units/Resident Home Areas and Beds Unit/Resident Home Area 1North – secure 1South 2North 2South

14 0

Number of Beds 32 32 32 32

1

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 10 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Description of Home and Services A-1 General Information LTCH Legal Name LTCH Common Name

Fairmount Home for the Aged Fairmount Home

A-4 Additional Services Provided Service Provided Yes No X Nurse Practitioner X Physiotherapy X Occupational therapy Ophthalmology/ X Optometry X Audiology X Dental X Respiratory Technology X Denturist IV Therapy X (antibiotics or hydration) X Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) Support for hemodialysis X (HD) French Language X Services Secure residential X home area(s) Specialized Dementia X Care unit(s) Designated smoking X room(s) Specialized unit for X younger physically disabled adults X Support for Feeding Tubes Specialized Behavioural X treatment unit(s) Additional service X commitments for new bed awards (1987 to 1998) Other (specify) Other (specify) Other (specify)

Contract for Service Yes No

Explanation if applicable

X

X X X

Can access if necessary

A.-5 Specialized Designations

Religious Ethnic Linguistic French Language Service Designation Aboriginal Other (specify) Other (specify)

Designated Yes No X X X

Comments

X X

2

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 11 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Description of Home and Services A-1 General Information LTCH Legal Name LTCH Common Name Other (specify) Other (specify)

Fairmount Home for the Aged Fairmount Home

A-6 Community Linkages

Volunteer program Service groups Language interpreters Cultural interpreters Advisory council Community board Faith communities Other (specify) Other (specify) Other (specify) Other (specify)

Service Provided Yes No X X X X X X X

A-7 Services Provided to the Community Service Provided Yes No X Meal Services X Social Congregate Dining X Supportive Housing /SDL X Adult Day Program X Retirement living Other (specify) Other (specify) Other (specify) Other (specify)

Comments

Comments If required to apartments next door for supper

A-8 Quality Improvement Practices Residents First Leading Quality Program (for Senior Managers) Residents First Improvement Facilitators Residents First Quality Improvement Teams

Lean Methods

Comments The home participates in Residents’ First and senior managers sit on the home’s Quality Assessment & Assurance Committee. Administrator has taken the IF program We have a variety of teams that look at quality improvement and use a variety of tools to track QI initiatives. Examples are our Palliative Care Team, Skin & Wound Care Team, Restorative Nursing Team, etc. Our home participated in the LEAN initiative through Residents’ First. A group of staff have been trained in LEAN methodology through Residents’ First. This was applied to nursing shift change processes. We will be looking further at applying LEAN to our dietary workflow processes.

Other (specify) Other (specify)

3

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 12 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Long-Term Care Home Accountability Submission (LAPS) Service Plan Narrative Click Here to view detailed instructions for completing the Service Plan Narrative LTCH Name: Facility Number:

Fairmount Home H11094

Service Plan Narrative – Part A: 2013/16 Strategic Goals and Priorities: Fairmount Home, owned and operated by the County of Frontenac, provides long-term care to all of our 128 residents through our Gentlecare™ philosophy. We received a three-year accreditation in 2012 through Accreditation Canada. Resident-focused services include recreation, spiritual, nursing, medical, housekeeping, laundry, dietary, maintenance and administrative. We are pleased to have an Occupational Therapist, Nurse Practitioner and Restorative Care Nurse on staff. We have 168 staff. We also have a strong volunteer base providing over 7,000 hours each year. We operate a volunteer staffed café which provides services to residents, staff, family members, volunteers and tenants at Country Pines Apartments (located next door) and offer a small Meals2Go program to Country Pines Apartments (evening meal 5 days/wk) as requested. Physiotherapy services are provided by Centric Health. Social work services are provided by K3C. The management of Environmental and Food Service as well as the dietitian services are provided by Sodexo. Fairmount’s strategic plan was approved by Council in 2012 as follows: Our Vision Fairmount is recognized as a home of choice thanks to our Gentlecare™ philosophy; the dedication of staff, volunteers, students and community partners; our sustainable practices and our quest for continuous quality improvement. Our Mission Members of the Fairmount community are treated with dignity and respect in a creative and responsive environment in which all members are dedicated to promoting the individual strengths and abilities of each other.

CRE– A– T– I– V– E–

Our Values Caring and Compassionate C– Responsive and Respectful O– Expertise, Enabling M– Acceptance, Advocacy, Appreciation M– Team Work U– Independent and Innovative N– Vibrant, Visionary I– Ethical T– Y–

Community-Oriented Opportunity and Openess Meaningful and Mindful Motivated Unique Neighbourly Inclusive Togetherness YOU – our focus

Our Priorities Our Residents

1

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 13 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Long-Term Care Home Accountability Submission (LAPS) Service Plan Narrative Fairmount will ensure a holistic lifestyle for all residents by responding to their unique needs and wishes related to learning and desired experiences to satisfy their physical, social, emotional, spiritual, mental and cultural needs and by ensuring that all members of the Fairmount community are knowledgeable and accepting of our Mission, Vision and Values and put them into practice all day, every day. Our Staff & Volunteers Fairmount will be a positive learning environment based on best practices and mutual respect, creativity and innovation and will maintain a strategy for recruitment, training and retention to ensure an exceptional group of staff and volunteers. Our Community Fairmount will continue seeking the involvement of the wider community by bringing members into Fairmount through the sharing of our expertise, our location and our excellent programming and by reaching out to members as a leader and a participant, sharing our knowledge and resources to plan and implement activities that will improve the lives of the elderly throughout the entire area. Our Relationships Fairmount will continue to develop new relationships, while recognizing the value of our current ones, to ensure the highest quality of care and programming for Fairmount and the long-term care sector. Our Communications Fairmount will maintain an open and accountable program of accessible communications with its residents, staff, volunteers, family members and members of its greater community. Our Infrastructure Fairmount will ensure that its activities are supported by good quality, well maintained, well managed and, where required, accessible infrastructure. Our Sustainability Fairmount will strive to become a sustainable organization by seeking out opportunities and resources that will allow us to reduce our financial and environmental impact upon our community. For 2013-2016 we have identified several projects to be undertaken as follows: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h)

Auditorium renovation Implementation of new nursing software Implementation of point of care technology Implementation of eMARs Implementation of new preventative maintenance & housekeeping software Access to internet for residents Use of OTN for resident consults, appointments Succession planning

Advancement of the IHSP:

2

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 14 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Long-Term Care Home Accountability Submission (LAPS) Service Plan Narrative We recognize the value of Nurse Practitioners in long-term care and are blessed to have a full-time NP on staff. She has alleviated some of the responsibilities from the attending physicians which allows them more time to see their own patients; provided a quicker response to medical concerns of residents; provided preventative health information to staff, residents and volunteers; was successful in bringing telemedicine to the home in the hopes of reducing resident hospital/doctor’s office visits; developed end-of-life decision-making and pain and symptom management toolkits which have been shared with other homes; provided IV therapy/hyperdermoclysis training to RNs for antibiotic therapy, hydration, etc. She provides guidance to NP students and 4th year nursing students when placed at Fairmount. All of these activities support advancement of the LHIN’s IHSP, particularly in reducing visits to the ER and hospital admissions. Telemedicine is at Fairmount and presently it is used by FMT staff and community partners primarily for education and meeting purposes. Our aim is to use OTN for clinic appointments; access to emergency room expertise; access to geriatric specialties, etc. Again this will help support the advancement of the IHSP in reducing visits to the ER and hospital admissions. We are consistent in meeting the established targets for responding to LTC admission applications. Staff at Fairmount continues to participate on a variety of committees, task forces and collaboratives. Through these venues we have the opportunity to network with our peers to identify further opportunities to work together. As we cannot do it all in LTC, we have a variety of partnerships with other organizations in order to meet our resident needs. These include, but are not limited to, PC Mental Health Services, Alzheimer Society of Kingston, Diabetes Society, CNIB, Veterans’ Affairs, etc. We also reach out to other LTC homes for assistance in policy and program development. We are a member of OANHSS and are active participants in OANHSS Region VI. We have a vibrant volunteer program and have partnered with other LTC homes to provide education on a variety of topics to our volunteers and are currently working with other homes to provide activities to our younger resident population. The auditorium renovation project when completed will provide a modern accessible space to not only the residents of the home but the community as a whole. Situation Analysis We anticipate that our bed occupancy will remain consistent as there is a very long waiting list for Fairmount and a true need for LTC services in our community. In developing budget it is unfortunate that we do not know what is in store for us in regard to CMI, funding or resident accommodation fees. Over the past few years our CMI has increased slightly but we never know what type of residents will be admitted and given the fact that the CMI used for funding purposes is not current it is a challenge. We cannot anticipate MOHLTC acuity increases and changes in resident accommodation fees. We continue to budget conservative increases in acuity and

3

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 15 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Long-Term Care Home Accountability Submission (LAPS) Service Plan Narrative accommodation funding and we are now concerned with how the changes to the high intensity needs fund will impact the home. It’s important to note that without the proper staffing levels it is a challenge to meet performance targets. The following are several risks related to staffing that need to be considered. The collective agreement that covers all but six staff at the home expires on December 31, 2012. Our 2010-2012 collective agreement was settled through arbitration in 2012 with a 2% wage increase in each of the three years of the contract. In 2010, County Council advised the management of the home that there would be no increase to the municipal levy related to the operating budget of the home. In 2011, there were lay-offs in the nursing department in order to meet this directive. If the funding increases from the Ministry continue not to keep pace with those of arbitrated settlements, it will affect the care and services provided to our residents as we will once again be looking at staff lay-offs given over 80% of our operating budget is related to wages and benefits. The current average age of our employees is 43 years. 24% of our employees are between the ages of 50 and 70 years with 10 of them over the age of 60. In five years 41%, almost half, of our employees will be between the ages of 50 and 70. The average age of Fairmount’s management team is 55 years. Given these facts, succession planning and recruitment must be a priority for Fairmount. The implementation of the Long-Term Care Homes Act has made a tremendous impact on the workflow of the management team. Many hours are now being spent reviewing documentation, conducting program evaluations, developing and monitoring indicators, developing and scheduling emergency exercises and staff education. While much of this was in place in some form or another prior to 2010, the specificity of the Act and the need for detailed documentation has required the managers to pull back from being on the floors with the staff and the residents in order to deal with the requirements. Changes to the Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care High Intensity Needs Fund will result in additional pressures on our budget. We will receive $0.12 per resident day ($5,606 annually) in our raw food envelope for oral feeds, enteral nutrition and total parental nutrition and $0.63 per resident day ($29,434) in our nursing envelope for wound care, vital pain management, treatment and transfer, staff training, ostomy supplies, oxygen supplies and assessment. In addition we will have to pay 5% of costs for any other services that remain covered under the fund including supplementary staffing and exceptional wound care. From January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012 our submissions to the fund averaged $10,557 annually for enteral feeds and $33,373 annually for wound care, oxygen and vital pain management. In addition we have averaged an additional $1,500 per year for supplementary staffing of which we will now have to pay 5%. Based on this history we will have a HIN funding shortfall on an annual basis. Additional funds in the nursing envelope for these needs are not available as our municipality already provides substantial funding to that envelope so this will be an additional burden on our taxpayers. It will be an ever increasing burden should we be forced through legislation to admit multiple residents with conditions requiring these specialized services. Evaluation of Prior Year Performance (optional)

4

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 16 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Long-Term Care Home Accountability Submission (LAPS) Service Plan Narrative

Changes to Operations Summary (optional)

5

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 17 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Long-Term Care Home Accountability Submission (LAPS) Service Plan Narrative

NOTE: PLEASE DELETE THESE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE SUBMITTING - http://www.fimdata.com/LTCHome (Source – Long Term Care Homes Accountability Planning Submissions (LAPS) Guidelines, section 4.2 Service Plan) The LAPS service plan narrative should be no more than four (4) pages in length on letter size paper using Arial 11pt font. Do not include attachments or any other additional documents with the LAPS. The narrative service plan is an opportunity for the LTCH to describe for the LHIN the role that it plays within the local community and how it will support the sustainability of the local health care system. The information will describe the programs and services provided by the LTCH, to meet the unique needs of the local community. This section may include information related to the parent corporation in relation to corporate service improvement initiatives but must be provided in a local context. The Service Plan narrative is intended to cover the term of the L-SAA – 2013/16. The Service Plan will allow the LTCH to provide information that describes services that the home operates or plans to operate within the 2013/14 year, and any information related to services that the home plans to operate in 2014/15 and 2015/16 fiscal years. Service Plan The LTCH should complete the Service Plan for 2013/14, and provide any relevant information, if available, regarding the 2014/15 and 2015/16 fiscal years that the LHIN should be made aware. If information is provided for 2014/15 and 2015/16, please indicate in which year the information is applicable. i.

Strategic Goals and Priorities This may include: • Key messages for the LHIN such as:

• Services or programs the LTCH operates or plans to operate that meet the unique needs of the resident population and/or the local community. These would include unique clinical programs or programs meeting the needs of local cultural, linguistic or religious groups. Describe the characteristics of the specific population(s) served and the needs the services are intended to address. The narrative should address all services described in Description of Services above.
• Describe how the LTCH’s initiatives address the health needs of the local Francophone community if the LTCH is required to provide services to the public in French under the French Language Services Act.
• Communication strategies planned or underway with other HSPs or the local community.
• Plans for structural redevelopment within the MOHLTC’s Long-Term Care Home Renewal Strategy.
• Any other activity of which the LHIN should be aware.

6

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 18 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Long-Term Care Home Accountability Submission (LAPS) Service Plan Narrative

iii. Advancement of the IHSP • How the LTCH’s strategic and operating plans contribute to the LHIN IHSP and improve service capacity, delivery and coordination of care/services within the local health system. For example, outline any partnerships/alliances with other HSPs or other service providers such as linkages with mental health services or hospitals for residents with complex medical needs, etc. • How the LTCH plans to meet its obligations within the LHSIA that include: o Community engagement obligations under sections 16(6); o Identify integration opportunities under section 24. • The results of any community engagement and integration activities. Specifically, the impact these results have on the community and the LTCH’s ability to enhance service capacity and improve service delivery to meet identified community needs. ii.

Situation Analysis • Prudent business assumptions and rationale regarding bed occupancy, service delivery and overall expenses and revenues, including collection of resident co-payment revenue. • A description of significant budgetary and operational risks (no more than three (3)), if any, that may affect the LTCH’s ability to meet compliance standards, resident care needs, operational objectives and financial objectives. This should include the identification of any operational issues that may impact the LTCH’s ability to meet compliance standards. • An outline of the realistic strategies to mitigate or manage the identified risk(s).

iii.

Evaluation of Prior Year Performance (optional) • A critical and objective evaluation of the prior year’s operational performance:

• Challenges encountered;
• Strategies undertaken to address these challenges.

iv.

Changes to Operations Summary (optional) • Highlight changes to operations that are being considered for the duration of the L-SAA (Changes that require pre-approval from the LHINs cannot be included unless the change has already been approved.).

7

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 19 of 205

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:

November 7, 2012

Date of Meeting:

November 21, 2012

Re:

Fairmount Home – Operational Update

Recommendation Resolved That Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – Operational Update Report for information only.

Background Managers at Fairmount review the home’s revenues and expenditures on a monthly basis. Council should be aware of several challenges the home has been facing which are having an impact on the 2012 budget.

Comment The 3% increase to the revenue of the nursing and programming envelopes anticipated in 2012 by the long-term care sector did not materialize with homes only receiving 1% from the provincial government. However there was an unanticipated increase in the revenue allocation supporting raw food and other accommodation envelopes which balance out to an anticipated loss in Ministry revenue of about $16,000. In 2012, we have experienced an unusually high amount of long-term sick leave and modified work. Looking at the first nine months of the year, long-term sick leave (anything over two weeks at a time) has increased by 50% over the same period in the last two years going from 656 days (4,970 hours) in 2010 to 984 days (7,380 hours) in 2012. Modified work costs have increased 300% in the same period going from 768 hours in 2010 to 2,313 hours in 2012. The requirement to cover increasing sick leave, modified work and required vacation leave has resulted in significant overtime, primarily in the nursing department. In general, 2% of staff base wages are set aside each year for sick time in addition to another 2% for modified work. In the nursing department we actually budget more than 2% for modified Administrative Report Fairmount Home – Operational Update November 21, 2012

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 1 of 3

Page 20 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

work and also budget for overtime based on the trends over time. The combination of sick time, modified work and overtime has led to nursing wages and benefits being over budget by $134,303 at the end of September, $60,000 of which is overtime and modified work, and the laundry wages and benefits being over budget by $17,574. Management staff has been aggressively managing the staff attendance however caution must be taken in applying disciplinary action including termination in health related situations. The attendance management program as a whole has been reviewed with Human Resources. The provision of modified work to injured workers is a requirement under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and our compliance is monitored by WSIB case managers. We provide annual education to staff on safe work practices and will be putting some further resources into pinpointing the specific reasons for the dramatic increase in staff injuries. To mitigate the financial impact for 2012, we are not replacing the first two PSW sick calls on the day shift which includes moving staff from our secure unit to cover other units in the home. Managers are being directed not to purchase any further equipment unless it is essential for the operation of the department. In addition, we are reviewing the sick, modified and overtime budgets for 2013 as well as the process for the approval of vacation during peak months for 2013. A second issue that I would like to raise is the cost of incontinence products. We have budgeted at $1.33 per resident day but unfortunately our costs are running closer to $1.57 per resident day. While this cost is down from several years ago we are not meeting our 2012 target. Our management team has been discussing the ethics related to cost versus resident comfort and independence. We provide incontinence products to 78% of our residents. We provide a variety of products to enhance their comfort, quality of life and independence. We provide an extra absorbent product for overnight that allows residents to have uninterrupted sleep – staff do not have to wake them up every couple of hours to change the product. We also provide pull-ups which retains the resident’s dignity and independence. They don’t need someone to help them go to the facilities as they would if they were wearing a brief. These are not provided in all long-term care homes. We and our product provider are doing everything that we can to maintain costs and we are very reluctant to start reducing the variety of product as it would compromise the residents’ comfort and quality of life which contradicts our mission at the home. The raw food envelope is over budget by close to $23,000 at the end of September. The contracted on-site Managers have been delving into the reasons why and are taking actions to mitigate. The new menus introduced in June are a factor and have been reworked to find cost savings. There was also higher than average inventory on site at the end of that month. As well there was an increase in the raw food per diem in April that was not budgeted but must be expensed. It is important to note that should the raw food budget fail to come back into line before year end there is a financial penalty clause in our agreement with the food service management provider. Overall Fairmount’s revenue is slightly over budget and expenditures are slightly under budget however there are several projects which do need to be completed prior to year end. The final staff mandatory education session will be held on December 5th which does require staff replacement, the dietary workflow review which had been awarded and is underway, and the well project. Two RFPs that will affect the overall Fairmount budget were also released before the last financial statements were released – the Auditorium Architect and the Actuarial Assessment.

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – Operational Update November 21, 2012

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 2 of 3

Page 21 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Sustainability Implications Measuring performance is essential to providing a high quality service. Reviewing the quarterly financial statements allows an organization to identify areas where improvement is needed and triggers discussion as to how this can be done.

Financial Implications Year-end projections are not available at the time of writing this report.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Fairmount Management Team Staff Residents Volunteers

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – Operational Update November 21, 2012

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 3 of 3

Page 22 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Report 2013-007 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount

Date Prepared:

December 31, 2012

Date of Meeting:

January 16, 2013

Re:

Fairmount Home – 4th Quarter Activity Update

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – 4th Quarter Activity Update for information only.

Background The following are some of the highlights from October 1 to December 31, 2012 of which County Council should be aware.

Comment Building Change Together – Fairmount Auditorium Fundraising $50,000 was received from Homestead Landholdings, a Tupperware fundraiser was held and the direct mail letters were issued. $5,000 was received from the Estate of Art Clow, a longterm volunteer at Fairmount. The Volunteer and Special Events Coordinator and I also did a presentation to the Kingston-Frontenac Rotary Club. Major Projects The dietary workflow project is complete. It is anticipated that it will take close to 12 months to implement the recommendations. The contract for the connection of the new well was awarded as was the contract for the auditorium architect. Teleconferences & Workshops I attended several more teleconferences of the steering committees for the development of the LAPS and L-SAA on behalf of the CAO as well as an education session on the LAPS. 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. Fairmount Home – 4th Quarter Activity Update January 16, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 1 of 3

Page 23 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

I also attended a teleconference on the revised High Intensity Needs program and funding flexibility changes. I attended an on-site workshop on dealing with conflict. OANHSS Region VI I attended the annual general meeting and was elected Secretary. I have previously been PastPresident. 1North Humidity We had a knowledgeable individual come in to discuss the humidity problems that we have been experiencing on our secure unit. He suggested that the first step is to have the system balanced again which we will schedule. Dietary Inspection Protocol I conducted a dietary inspection using the Ministry’s inspection protocol as part of our pleasurable dining program. The only concern was that all staff on the unit was convinced that a resident’s diet had been changed when it had not. This led to an excellent discussion on the home’s diet change policy. Outbreaks We had two significant outbreaks during the fourth quarter. In early October we saw a scabies outbreak on our secure unit requiring treatment for all residents, volunteers and staff on the unit. This resulted in an unexpected expenditure of close to $6,000 for the treatment. In December we had an Influenza A outbreak which, while touching all residents units, did not become widespread. Staff did a good job of using their personal protective equipment, cleaning and washing their hands. Internal Activities I attended the Alzheimer Society’s Coffee Break held here at the home as well as a memorial service, Remembrance Day service, celebratory tea for Art and Clara Clow and unit Christmas parties. Staff Service Tea We held our annual staff service tea with staff reaching service milestones of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 years. As in past years I bake the goodies for the tea to show my appreciation of all that they do for Fairmount. Website Staff at Fairmount has been participating in the development of the new County website. We are looking forward to having the Fairmount web pages truly promote who we are here at Fairmount through pictures and stories as well as having the opportunity to share our quality improvement activities with our community. Strategic Planning I attended two days of County strategic planning. Family Information Session We scheduled and promoted a Family Information Session however we did not have any family members attend. JBS Scheduling System We hosted Lanark Lodge for a morning to review our scheduling software system and talk about our scheduling policies and procedures. Fairmount Home – 4th Quarter Activity Update January 16, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 2 of 3

Page 24 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Mandatory Staff Education Another mandatory staff education day was held with close to 50 staff in attendance. These sessions help to ensure that we meet the training requirements set out in the Long-Term Care Homes Act. Budget Much time was spent preparing the 2013 budget. VALID Research Study We are participating in a research study with Queen’s University called VALID (Volunteers Adding Life In Dementia) focusing on the impact regular contact with volunteers has on residents with dementia. Missing Resident Policy We conducted a table top exercise focusing on our missing resident policy. Staff was very aware of the roam alert system, the missing resident policy as well as the point of care policy.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Residents Staff Volunteers

Fairmount Home – 4th Quarter Activity Update January 16, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 3 of 3

Page 25 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Report 2013-025 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount

Date Prepared:

January 22, 2013

Date of Meeting:

February 20, 2013

Re:

Fairmount Home – Auditorium Renovation Report

Recommendation That Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – Auditorium Renovation Report for information only.

Background The Fairmount Home auditorium was built circa 1976 and includes a kitchenette, foyer and two two-stall accessible washrooms. The only element of renovation scoped and undertaken as part of the Home’s redevelopment project affecting the auditorium was the installation of a sprinkler system. There have been issues with the auditorium structure and systems for years now and the issue has been at the Council table on almost an annual basis. The project was first raised with the past Council during its budget discussions in 2008 when Council was asked to conduct a feasibility study on renovating the auditorium. The feasibility study was received in the summer of 2009 and it is important to note that the report states that the “auditorium is in good structural condition” and is “a good candidate for renovation and revitalization”. The report also noted that given the long list of deficiencies, the full potential of the auditorium is not being realized especially in the area of revenue generation. In September 2009, a report was brought forward to the past Council with the following resolution:

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – Auditorium Redevelopment report for information; Administrative Report Fairmount Home – Auditorium Renovation Report February 20, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 1 of 3

Page 26 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

AND FURTHER THAT Council support the establishment of a committee to launch a fundraising campaign for the redevelopment of the Fairmount Auditorium. This resolution was tabled and was to be brought forward to the new Council. On October 19, 2011 the same report came forward to this Council and at that meeting the establishment of a committee to launch a fundraising campaign for the redevelopment of the Fairmount Auditorium was approved. The committee was established in April 2012 and a goal of $200,000 was set with the campaign kick-off occurring in September 2012. On July 24, 2012 Council approved the following resolution:

RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – Auditorium Renovation Project – RFP for Architectural Services report; AND FURTHER THAT Council authorize the Clerk to release a Request for Proposals for Architectural Services for the Auditorium Renovation Project and to contract with the successful bidder to prepare revised concept drawings and cost estimates in 2012 at a cost not to exceed $15,000 and to provide further services, upon authorization of the Auditorium Renovation Project, including final drawings and related construction-related services at a rate not to exceed 8% of the construction value. CARRIED Finally, the project came forward to Council last month during budget discussions as staff and residents are seeking approval to commence the renovations in 2013.

Comment At the budget meeting last month, I made Council aware that the architects were completing the final conceptual design (Appendix A) and updated cost estimate. You will note the conceptual design includes: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h)

A covered entrance and lift Lobby area Lots of storage Accessible washrooms Space for the vending machines & resident games tables Kitchen with pass-through Greenhouse Auditorium with ability to split room into three separate spaces

This design meets the needs identified by residents, staff and volunteers in the 2009 feasibility study and those voiced over the past several years. The updated construction cost estimate from the architect totals $1,922,358.00 which includes a 20% contingency allowance. We have added additional dollars to reflect a project manager, designated substance report, permits, communication equipment and general items such as window blinds.

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – Auditorium Renovation Report February 20, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 2 of 3

Page 27 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

There has been strong support for this project from our residents, staff, volunteers and community partners. Without that support we would not have been successful in meeting our Building Change Together Auditorium Fundraising Campaign goal of $200,000. The question now being asked by many of those individuals is “when does the shovel get in the ground?”

Sustainability Implications The Infrastructure vision statement in the County’s Directions for Our Future document reads: Services and economic activity in the County of Frontenac are supported by good quality, well maintained and well managed public, commercial, industrial, and residential infrastructure, with life-cycle cost and environmental considerations. County and Townships’ prudent fiscal management ensures an appropriate balance between servicing ongoing municipal demands and investing in future operations. By authorizing the commencement of the auditorium renovation project, Council will be taking a step to ensure the quality of Fairmount’s infrastructure and enable the home to promote the use of the auditorium to not only residents of Fairmount but the greater community as well.

Financial Implications The preliminary estimate is $2,175,000. As indicated in the budget document, the County of Frontenac’s share of the project will be taken from donations and reserves.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Staff Residents Volunteers J.L. Richards Building Change Together Committee Members

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – Auditorium Renovation Report February 20, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 3 of 3

Page 28 of 205

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

AgendaItem#4a)

Page 29 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Report 2013-048 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared By:

Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount

Date Prepared:

February 27, 2013

Date of Meeting:

March 20, 2012

Re:

Fairmount Home – 2012 Year in Review

Background In order to preserve the Home’s history, an annual pictorial review of resident, staff and volunteer activities is assembled and shared.

Comment 2012 was another exciting year at Fairmount Home with new opportunities and challenges presenting themselves to residents, staff and volunteers. The Fairmount Home 2012 Year in Review CD is attached.

Sustainability Implications By viewing the 2012 Year in Review, one can be assured that Fairmount provides quality care for our residents and offers a valuable social and cultural hub for our community of residents, staff, family members, volunteers and other stakeholders.

Financial Implications None.

Recommendation That Council of the County of Frontenac receive this Fairmount Home – 2012 Year in Review report for information only. Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 Year in Review March 20, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 1 of 2

Page 30 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Residents Staff Volunteers

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2012 Year in Review March 20, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 2 of 2

Page 31 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Report 2013-047 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT To:

WARDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

From:

Elizabeth Savill CAO

Prepared by:

Julie Shillington Administrator of Fairmount

Date Prepared:

February 13, 2013

Date of Meeting:

March 20, 2013

Re:

Fairmount Home – 2013-2016 Long-Term Care Home Service Accountability Agreement (L-SAA)

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Fairmount Home – 20132016 L-SAA report for information; AND FURTHER that the Council of the County of Frontenac direct the Clerk to sign the 20132016 L-SAA and return to the Local Health Integration Network as required under the Local Health Systems Integration Act.

Background The L-SAA is the service accountability agreement between a long-term care home licensee and the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) and is required by the Local Health Systems Integration Act (LHSIA). It assists the LHIN in fulfilling its obligations to the Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care, the Province and the taxpayer in respect of funding as well as its obligations under LHSIA to plan, fund and integrate the local health system. Our current L-SAA expires March 31, 2013.

Comment This L-SAA was developed through consultation with sector associations and key stakeholders including the Ontario Long-Term Care Association, Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Health Quality Ontario, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Ontario Hospital Association. It was updated to reflect changes in law and in service accountability standards across the service accountability agreements. While there are several changes related to minor errors in reference, use of Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2013-1016 Long-Term Care Home Accountability Agreement (L-SAA) March 20, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 1 of 4

Page 32 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

defined terms, conformation and formatting, there are some significant changes of which Council should be aware. There is a new definition for conflict of interest as follows: “Conflict of Interest” in respect of an HSP includes any situation or circumstance where in relation to the performance of its obligations under this Agreement (i) The HSP; (ii) A member of the HSP’s Board or (iii) Any person employed by the HSP who has the capacity to influence the HSP’s decision, has other commitments, relationships or financial interests that: (i)

Could or could be seen to interfere with the HSP’s objective, unbiased and impartial exercise of its judgment; or (ii) Could or could be seen to compromise, impair or be incompatible with the effective performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Please note that an HSP is a Health Service Provider. The HSP is to use the funding, provide the services and otherwise fulfill its obligations without an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. The agreement also defines the CEO as “the individual accountable to the Board for the provision of the services in accordance with the agreement”. In regards to Fairmount it would be the Administrator. There are also additional requirements related to e-Health in that the HSP agrees to: (i)

Comply with any technical and information management standards, including those related to architecture, technology, privacy and security set for health service providers by the MOHLTC, eHealth Ontario or the LHIN within the timeframes set by the MOHLTC or the LHIN as the case may be; (ii) Implement and use the approved provincial e-health solutions identified in the LHIN e-health plan; and (iii) Implement technology solutions that are compatible or interoperable with the provincial blueprint and with the LHIN e-health plan. In a review of the current e-health plans, the e-health solution related to long-term care is RAIMDS 2.0 which we currently use. There is a new requirement under the Funding section of the agreement not to use the funding for compensation increases prohibited by applicable law. The LHIN has also added a clause that allows the discontinuation of funding in the case of an unremediated breach of funding. There is a requirement for a HSP that is not subject to the procurement provisions of the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act to have a procurement policy in place that requires the acquisition of supplies, equipment or services valued at over $25,000 through a competitive process that ensures the best value for the funds expensed. There is a new requirement to report on the HSP’s community engagement and integration activities at least once per year.

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2013-1016 Long-Term Care Home Accountability Agreement (L-SAA) March 20, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 2 of 4

Page 33 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

There is now a requirement for a declaration of compliance. On or before March 31st of each year, the Board (Council) will need to issue a compliance declaration declaring that the HSP has complied with the terms of the agreement. This declaration has to be posted in the home as well. The representations and warranties for governance have been updated as follows: (a)

The HSP represents, warrants and covenants that it has established, and will maintain for the period during which this Agreement is in effect, policies and procedures: (i)

That set out a code of conduct for, and that identify the ethical obligations of HSP’s Personnel; (ii) To ensure the ongoing effective functioning of the HSP; (iii) For effective and appropriate decision-making; (iv) For effective and prudent risk-management, including the identification and management of potential, actual and perceived conflicts of interest; (v) For the prudent and effective management of the Funding; (vi) To monitor and ensure the accurate and timely fulfillment of the HSP’s obligations under this Agreement and compliance with the Act and LHSIA; (vii) To enable the preparation, approval and delivery of all Reports; and (viii) To address complaints about the provision of Services, the management or governance of the HSP. (b)

The HSP represents and warrants that it: (i) (ii) (iii)

Has, or will have within 60 days of the execution of the Agreement, a Performance Agreement with its’ CEO; Will take all reasonable care to ensure that its’ CEO complies with the Performance Agreement; and Will enforce the HSP’s rights under the Performance Agreement.

Please note that HSP’s Personnel is defined as “The controlling shareholders (if any), directors, officers, employees, agents, volunteers and other representatives of the HSP. In addition to the foregoing HSP’s Personnel shall include the contractors and subcontractors and their respective shareholders, directors, officers, employees, agents, volunteers or other representatives”. A Code of Conduct is in place for staff but Council will also need one. There is a complaints procedure in place in regards to Fairmount Home but there will need to be procedures developed for other service areas, if not already in place, and governance. Please note that compliance with the L-SAA is already required as part of the Administrator’s annual performance. The insurance requirements have been updated to ensure that insurers have a secure A.M. Best rating of B+ or greater. This section also sets out required insurance types and minimum coverage levels. A copy of the HSP’s insurance certificate must be provided to the LHIN. There are also performance indicators with established performance targets and standards. Failure to meet a performance target may trigger consequences under the agreement. For 2013/14 the performance indicators are (1) bed occupancy and (2) compliance status.

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2013-1016 Long-Term Care Home Accountability Agreement (L-SAA) March 20, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 3 of 4

Page 34 of 205

AgendaItem#4a)

Sustainability Implications The L-SAA aligns with the health system priorities of the province which are to keep people healthy, provide faster access to family health care and to provide the right care, at the right time in the right place.

Financial Implications If the L-SAA is not signed, the LHIN will discontinue the flow of funds to Fairmount.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Staff Residents Volunteers Local Health Integration Network Ministry of Health & Long-Term Care

Administrative Report Fairmount Home – 2013-1016 Long-Term Care Home Accountability Agreement (L-SAA) March 20, 2013

Fairmount Home: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 4 of 4

Page 35 of 205

AgendaItem#4b)

County of Frontenac 2013 DRAFT Budget Fairmount Summary 2013 Budget

2012 Budget

Budget Variance

% Budget Change

2012 Actuals

$

$

$

%

$

REVENUE Provincial/Federal Funding User Fees Other Revenue City of Kingston Contribution Recoveries

5,101,205 2,967,670 1,000 1,543,639 85,395

5,155,401 2,883,105 0 1,509,375 82,300

-54,196 84,565 1,000 34,264 3,095

-1.05% 2.93% 2.27% 3.76%

5,381,949 2,739,556 3,084 1,505,545 105,058

TOTAL REVENUE

9,698,909

9,630,181

68,728

0.71%

9,735,192

OPERATING

Transfer from Reserves TOTAL REVENUE AND RESERVE TRANSFERS

61,000 12,083 48,917 404.84% 13,723 ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== 9,759,909 9,642,264 117,645 1.22% 9,748,915

EXPENSE Salaries Benefits Office Supplies and Repair Medical Supplies and Repair Equipment Supplies and Repair Public Relations Travel, Training, Conference fees Professional, Contracted Service, Insurance Building Mainenance Communications Supplies, Service and Equipment Vehicle Service and Suppllies Rentals, Leases, Penalties and Interest Utility Costs Prior Year projects committed Other Internal Transfers - Reserve County reserve transfers Depreciation TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE

6,467,411 6,442,838 24,573 0.38% 6,634,253 2,035,702 1,885,547 150,155 7.96% 1,802,299 31,344 34,782 -3,438 -9.88% 28,136 110,040 64,200 45,840 71.40% 57,125 803,438 798,605 4,833 0.61% 766,444 7,000 7,000 0 0.00% 7,420 44,720 43,020 1,700 3.95% 33,437 410,150 422,800 -12,650 -2.99% 453,596 194,024 198,488 -4,464 -2.25% 196,053 71,965 69,965 2,000 2.86% 59,062 6,400 6,400 0 0.00% 5,949 16,500 17,379 -879 -5.06% 17,526 208,100 243,000 -34,900 -14.36% 204,632 0 0 0 0.00% 146,957 40,534 79,534 -39,000 -49.04% 5,518 39,000 39,000 0 0.00% 39,000 71,169 34,010 37,159 109.26% 34,010 540,852 524,096 16,756 3.20% 537,951 11,098,349 10,910,664 187,685 1.72% 11,029,368 ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== TOTAL OPERATING LESS NON CASH DEPRECIATION 10,557,497 10,386,568 170,929 1.65% 10,491,417 NET OPERATING EXPENSE

797,588

744,304

53,284

7.16%

742,502

1,623,794 95,200 200,000 608,938 2,527,932

312,052 61,200 0 175,648 548,900

1,311,742 34,000 200,000 433,290 1,979,032

420.36% 55.56%

185,575 0 0 87,329 272,904

CAPITAL CAPITAL REVENUE City contribution to capital City contribution to capital - prior year Capital Donations Reserve transfer TOTAL CAPITAL REVENUE AND RESERVE TRANSFER

CAPITAL EXPENSE

246.68% 360.55%

NET CAPITAL EXPENSE

2,527,932 548,900 1,979,032 360.55% 272,905 ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== 0 0 0 1

NET OPERATING AND CAPITAL LEVY

============== ============== ============== ============== ============== 797,588 744,304 53,284 7.16% 742,503

LONG TERM DEBT County - Transfer to Long-Term Debt Debt Charges City Contribution to LT Debt FMT Provincial contrbution to redevelopment Tranfer from FRO reserve NET CONTRIBUTION TO DEBENTURE

863,703 812,510 51,193 6.30% 812,510 667,647 718,840 -51,193 -7.12% 716,200 -712,503 -712,503 0 0.00% -710,709 -483,552 -483,552 0 0.00% -484,865 -125,000 -125,000 0 0.00% -125,000 ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== 210,295 210,295 0 0.00% 208,136 ============== ============== ============== ============== ==============

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

Fairmount Home 2013 Budget

1,007,883

954,599

53,284

5.58%

950,639

Page 36 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

CITY OF KINGSTON

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13- 028 TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Adèle Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services

DATE OF MEETING:

December 18, 2012

SUBJECT:

Distribution of Surplus Provincial Funding to Childcare Centres for Wage Subsidy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Subsequent to the cessation of the Fee Subsidy Wait list and completion of the related outstanding fee subsidy applications, a projected surplus of approximately $580,000 in Childcare Programs funding was identified for 2012. This projected funding surplus resulted from three factors listed as follows:

1. the maintenance of the fee subsidy waitlist due to over expenditure forecasting in the first 5 months of 2012,
2. the provision of an additional $142K in provincial funding in July 2012 for the remainder of the year and
3. the net reduction of approximately 230 fee subsidy recipient files (over 30%) between May and August 2012. Pursuant to both the local Wage Subsidy Funding Policy and the longstanding Childcare Service Management goal of optimizing use of available provincial childcare program funding, $550,000 of this identified surplus program funding has been reallocated to the Wage Subsidy Program and distributed to eligible Childcare Centres as additional wage subsidies for their staff. This reallocation of surplus funding to childcare wage subsidies provides a significant stabilization support to recipient childcare centres, as many have experienced significant changes and/or reductions in their enrollment and program deliveries over the past few years due to implementation of Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) and more recently this year, due to the imposition of the fee subsidy wait list during the first 9 months of this year. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information purposes only.

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 37 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL December 18, 2012

• Page 2 -

Report No.: 13-028

AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner

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: City staff members will provide a

Page 38 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL December 18, 2012

• Page 3 -

Report No.: 13-028

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: As noted in the Executive Summary, a surplus of approximately $580,000 in provincial Childcare funding is currently projected for 2012 based on current and reliable expenditure data. This projected funding surplus, associated with lower than previously forecasted fee subsidy expenditures resulted from three factors listed as follows:

1. the maintenance of the fee subsidy waitlist due to over expenditure forecasting in the first 5 months of 2012,
2. the provision of an additional $142,310 in provincial funding in July 2012 for the remainder of the year
3. the closure of 562 fee subsidy case files from May to August of 2012, representing a net reduction of approximately 230 recipients (over 30%) by August 2012. In retrospect, it is now recognized that additional fee subsidy applications could have been taken earlier in the year and more families assisted with childcare fees in the first half of the year. However, as monthly fee subsidy expenditure forecasts projected a deficit until May 2012 and with limited ability to predict the unprecedented level of subsidy file closures that would occur between May to August 2012, a cautious rate of new subsidy grants was observed until July 2012. A further contribution to the development of the funding surplus was the duration of time required for families to respond to subsidy appointment offers. While capacity was created within Childcare Programs to schedule additional subsidy appointments in August and September, many parents could not be reached at the contact numbers provided or could not attend at the earliest appointment times offered. Reasons for parental delays in attending eligibility appointment times offered included not having their required verification information readily available (example: had not yet filed their 2012 income tax or retained their Notice of Assessment) or delays in securing a childcare space and/or finalizing personal/family activities related to eligibility for fee subsidy assistance. Wage Subsidy Policy: As the Municipal Service Manager for provincial childcare funding for Kingston and Frontenac, the City is responsible for the management and administration of Childcare Wage Subsidy funding. Wage Subsidy funds enable eligible formal childcare centres, nursery schools, privatehome day care agencies and “Special Needs” resource service providers to enhance employee salaries and benefits and to make childcare more affordable for all users. In October 2007, Council approved a new Wage Subsidy Distribution Model and related administration policy, with the objectives listed as follows:
4. Maximize distribution of funding to local service providers and minimize the requirement to return funding to the Province,
5. Provide inclusion for new centres and program expansions,
6. Increase Service provider disbursement flexibility,
7. Reduce funding inequities within the fixed funding envelope.

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 39 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL December 18, 2012

• Page 4 -

Report No.: 13-028

The new policy approved by Council in 2007 recognized both the historic provincial wage subsidy funding commitment to some long standing centres who had come to rely on it (benchmark funding) and concurrently prescribed that the remainder of the eligible service agencies receive an equitable share of the balance of the available funds. The model recognized that in order to ensure funding sustainability for the city, the equitable rate of entitlement (the percent equitable distribution rate) must fluctuate as the amount of available funding is generally fixed while the overall service system capacity changes. An electronic tool was developed to calculate the appropriate equitable distribution of funds and commencing in 2008 the approved Wage Subsidy policy and equitable distribution funding model have effectively directed the distribution of allocated funds for Wage Subsidy along with the reinvestment of available surplus where applicable. The following table details the Amount Invested, % Equitable Distribution Rate at Year End, the number of childcare agencies and staffing levels (FDEs*) funded since adoption of the current Wage Subsidy Distribution model in 2008: Year

Wage Subsidy Investment Funding $2,525,335 $2,524,449 $2,626,884 $2,525,335 $3,075,335

YE % Equitable Distribution 96.93% 92.25% 89.51% 70.84% 96.24%

Number of Recipient Childcare Agencies 44 42 42 43 44

Total FTEs* funded 2008 386.32 2009 362.74 2010 377.70 2011 411.12 2012 414.10 (as of 3rd quarter)

• FTE= full time equivalent, based on minimum of 35 hours per week for 12 months of the year. Childcare Service Funding Flexibility: The optimum and maximum investment of available childcare funding into the local childcare service system has been a longstanding mutual priority of the Ministry of Education (MEDU), the City as the Childcare Service Manager and the local Childcare Service Providers who strive to meet the childcare service requirements of the families within our community. With the implementation of Full Day Kindergarten, both the Ministry of Education (MEDU) and the City as the Childcare Service Manager recognized the potential destabilization that the migration of children from licensed Childcare to Full Day Kindergarten could have on Childcare Service Providers. Increased flexibility in the allocation of available childcare funding was identified as a means by which municipal service managers could assist with the stabilization of childcare centres during FDK implementation as well as in the post implementation future. With this increased funding flexibility objective in mind, in 2011 when provincial oversight for Childcare funding was transferred from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS) to the Ministry of Education (MEDU), funding administration requirements were amended by the

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 40 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL December 18, 2012

• Page 5 -

Report No.: 13-028

Province so that municipalities were no longer required to seek ministerial approval to reallocate childcare funds between operating programs (fee subsidy, wage subsidy and special needs) for several of the major funding codes (DNA, ELCC, & ELCD). In practical terms, this increased provincial flexibility gives the city autonomy to reallocate available childcare program funds previously earmarked for fee subsidy to the wage subsidy program which continues to be funded at levels significantly below the provincial maximum entitlement of $ 9,534 per year per FTE. The following table provides data related to the current (2012) wage subsidy funding and demonstrates the impact of the reallocation of the $550,000 in available childcare funding: Wage Subsidy Data Description Total Childcare Agencies Receiving Wage Subsidy Original 2012 Wage Subsidy Allocation Gross Wage Subsidy Budget Allocation Preliminary Equitable Distribution Rate Calculation

Childcare Agencies Receiving Benchmark Funding above

Equitable Distribution Rate

Childcare Agencies Receiving Funding at Equitable

Distribution Rate Year End 2012 Wage Subsidy Allocation Gross Wage Subsidy Budget Allocation Preliminary Equitable Distribution Rate Calculation

Childcare Agencies Receiving Benchmark Funding above

Equitable Distribution Rate

Childcare Agencies Receiving Funding at Equitable

Distribution Rate

Data Volume 44 ~ $2,525,335 64.76% 25 19 ~ $3,075,335 96.24% 12 32

This reallocation of surplus funding to wage subsidies will permit childcare centres to significantly improve the wages provided to their staff for 2012 and as such will represent a significant stabilization support as many centres have been required to adjust program capacity and reduce staff hours or overall staff complement due to reductions in enrollment over the past few years. It is further recognized that as school boards expand FDK programs, childcare centres are facing strong competitors when recruiting qualified ECEs, as school board salary rates for ECEs employed in FDK programs are higher than most Childcare Centres can afford to pay. This augmented wage subsidy funding will assist in narrowing the compensation rate for childcare centre staff this year. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: Kingston Frontenac Wage Subsidy Distribution Policy, approved by Council Nov 2007

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 41 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL December 18, 2012

• Page 6 -

Report No.: 13-028

NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternate formats. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: There are no financial implications for the City or the County associated to this report. Funds being reallocated are 100% provincially funded. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Adèle Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services

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 Stephanie Crawford, Administration Officer, Childcare Programs Stephen Dickey, Deputy Treasurer, Financial Services EXHIBITS ATTACHED: N/A

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 42 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

CITY OF KINGSTON

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-064 TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Adèle Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services

DATE OF MEETING:

March 5, 2013

SUBJECT:

New Ontario Childcare Funding Formula and Framework

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Over the course of the past year, the Province has announced funding changes to Homelessness funding and Ontario Works benefits that required municipalities to revise service strategies to deliver programs within fixed and sometimes reduced allocations. Deregulation of program requirements to provide increased municipal flexibility is the principal tool being provided to municipalities by the Province to achieve the increased efficiency required to optimize the fixed/reduced funding. Council was previously advised of the new 2013 Ontario Childcare Service Management Guidelines as well as the reduction of approximately $475,000 to $530,000 in childcare funding for 2013, in Information Report 13-067. This report also advised that the Province had provided $963,608 in one-time mitigation funding to the City as the Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM) for Kingston and Frontenac. The new funding formula and framework streamlines the previous multiple funding streams and program requirements, and provides municipalities with increased flexibility in distributing the funding provided. The greatest change in funding flexibility recognizes a broader “general operating” expense category for service providers while eliminating the previous rigidly prescribed wage subsidy, pay equity and wage improvement funding. The Province has indicated that 2013 will be treated as a transitional year with changes limited to financial and data reporting. During transition, staff will undertake consultation with local childcare service providers and related stakeholders to formulate revisions to local Childcare Service Management Strategies, including the parameters for the new “general operating” expense funding. As this matter is complex and there are significant impacts to service providers, staff recommend that this transitional period be extended to include 2014. The recommended revised Childcare Service Management Strategies (Service Plan in the provincial

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 43 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-064 March 5, 2013

• Page 2 -

context) for Kingston and Frontenac will be presented to the Arts, Recreation & Community Policies Committee and RULAC in the first half of 2014 for implementation in 2015. As part of the transition, staff recommend the status quo funding models, service management strategies and program policies be maintained in 2013 to ensure service system stability. In particular, the need to maintain the 2012 global funding allocations for wage subsidy (including pay equity and wage improvement) and special needs resourcing are required for service provider financial stability as well as for continuity of supports to children with special needs participating in childcare. To mitigate the 2013 provincial funding reduction, staff is recommending that Council approve the use of up to $300,000 of the one-time mitigation funding in 2013 to offset some of the reduction in the balance of funds that will be used for fee subsidy assistance for families. While this $300,000 allocation of mitigation funding for fee subsidy will assist in meeting some of the fee subsidy demand, the possibility of having to invoke a fee subsidy wait list at some point in 2013 will remain due to ongoing high demand for this assistance and the limited funding. It is anticipated that changes and transitioning will start in 2014. It is also anticipated that some of the provincial one-time funding will be required to support this transition. Staff will report back at a later time with proposed transition funding for 2014 which will be funded by the provincial one-time grant. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the 2013 provincial childcare service contract with the Ministry of Education as well as the Letter of Understanding related to the one time mitigation funding subject to the satisfaction of the Legal Services; and THAT Council approve the use of up to $300K of provincial one time mitigation funding for fee subsidies in 2013 to mitigate the immediate provincial funding reduction; and THAT Council approve the reinvestment of the $51K of the City of Kingston’s municipal cost share savings realized from the provincial reduction of the cost shared envelope for 2013 and 2014 for fee subsidy purposes; and THAT Council recognize 2013 & 2014 as transitional years and direct staff to undertake revisions to local Childcare Service Management Strategies, in consultation with service providers and community stakeholders and present the revised strategies to the Arts, Recreation & Community Policies Committee for recommended implementation in 2015 including a new funding model and distribution policy for “general operating expense” funding.

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 44 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-064 March 5, 2013

• Page 3 -

AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner

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: City staff members will provide a

Page 45 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-064 March 5, 2013

• Page 4 -

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: Background: Management oversight for provincial childcare funding was transferred to the City of Kingston, as the Consolidated Municipal Services Manager (CMSM) for Kingston and Frontenac in 2000. The program initially enjoyed a significant funding surplus as provincial funding increases exceeded demand until approximately 2007. By 2008, the conversion to “income based” eligibility testing for fee subsidy and the expansion of licensed childcare sites and spaces fostered through provincial Best Start funding, resulted in increased enrolment in licensed childcare. In 2010, the Province introduced the Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) initiative which further compounded the service management challenge as the impact of this initiative on childcare centres could not be easily forecasted. In 2011 and 2012, the imposition of a local fee subsidy wait list was required to ensure that expenditures did not exceed the overall funding allocation. This fee subsidy wait list in turn impacted enrolment at centres that have high enrolment ratios of subsidized to full fee paying families. In response to these ongoing and increasing funding pressures, local childcare service management plans and policies have required repeated revision from 2008 to the present to address ongoing system needs. Local childcare Service Management Strategy revisions have focussed on the two (2) largest annual operating subsidies (fee subsidies and wage subsidies) but the ongoing objective of an allocation of funds in a fair, effective and sustainable manner to support responsive, affordable childcare has remained unchanged. In December of 2012, the Province released the new Ontario Childcare Service Management Guidelines for 2013, which included a new funding formula and funding framework. The new funding formula and framework aim is to increase: efficiency, responsiveness, predictability & transparency, quality and accountability. New Ontario Funding Formula & Funding Framework: Provincial childcare funding allocations and entitlement calculations have been based on a patchwork of historical data and piecemeal provincial funding pockets, with significant inequities growing among CMSMs since devolution. While additional funding was committed to childcare in the 2012 provincial budget, the need to address the existing and growing funding inequities was recognized. Through its Modernization of Childcare undertaking, the Province developed and released a new funding formula and framework in December of 2012 along with new 2013 Ontario Childcare Service Management Guidelines. The new provincial funding formula determines the means by which provincial funds are distributed among CMSMs across the Province. The new funding formula is based on a weighting of the most currently available demographic data including: child population, household incomes below the Low Income Cut Off (LICO), level of education attainment, OW caseload, aboriginal population, French speaking population, population with no knowledge of either official language, and rural/ remote communities data.

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 46 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-064 March 5, 2013

• Page 5 -

In applying this funding formula, funding equity has improved across the province with some CMSMs such as the Regional Municipalities of York and Peel receiving additional funding while other CMSMs such as the Cities of London, Sudbury and Windsor and the County of Lambton experiencing funding reductions. Kingston is part of this latter group, incurring a reduction of $475.5K in provincial funding over last year’s (2012) allocation. Further details and assessment of the funding reduction is included under the Financial Impact Assessment section below. Recognizing the short notice period and the potential impact on CMSMs, the Province has included mitigation funding for CMSMs experiencing funding reductions. Kingston Frontenac will receive $963,608 in one-time mitigation funding to be used in the next few years to transition local childcare services to align with the reduced 2013 funding allocation. The new provincial funding framework prescribes the rules by which CMSMs may use childcare funds provided to them to meet the provincial childcare objectives. The Province has simplified and streamlined the funding framework through the merging of overlapping funding programs and the elimination of inflexible entitlement calculation requirements, particularly related to the myriad of wage subsidy related funds. As a result of the increased flexibility provided by the new funding framework, the Province expects CMSMs to better address local priorities and challenges including the sustainability of childcare for younger children as FDK implementation continues and in the case of Kingston, the reduction of $475.5K in provincial funding. Financial Impact Assessment: The impacts of the new provincial funding guidelines are significant and complex. Exhibit A details the 2012 and 2013 childcare funding allocations. Staff recommend that the global 2012 funding allocation for wage subsidy (including pay equity and wage enhancement) of $3,362,439 and special needs resourcing of $ 784,914, be maintained within the Program Funding allocation as these subsidies are required by service providers to maintain financial stability as well as for continuity of supports to children with special needs participating in childcare. Maintenance of these funding levels will however, reduce the 2012-2013 funding available for fee subsidies by a gross shortfall of $597.5K. As the last 2 years of FDK implementation will occur in September 2013 and 2014, it is reasonable to anticipate that fee subsidy demand will level off or decrease in the next 2 years. Based on this assumption, staff recommend that Council approve use of up to $300K of provincial one time mitigation funding for fee subsidies in 2013 to mitigate some of the immediate funding reduction. Staff does not recommend utilizing more of the mitigation funding in 2013 as this would reduce the amount of funding available to support service management changes required of the new funding framework. The second component of the funding reduction relates to the municipal cost share contribution. Childcare funding includes three cost sharing levels: 100% provincial (new funding since 2005),

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 47 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-064 March 5, 2013

• Page 6 -

80/20 cost shared (program funding transferred at devolution) and 50/50 funding (for municipal administration). The Province determined that the funding allocation that would be reduced would be the 80/20 funding which means that there is a potential municipal savings to CMSMs as their cost share obligation is diminished. The following table details the impact of the funding reduction by contributing government source and identifies the amount of municipal funds ($54,091) that may either be saved or reinvested. 2012-2013 Childcare Funding Compared by Contributing Government Gross Provincial Municipal 2012 $10,236,144 $8,470,781 $1,765,363 2013 $9,706,545 $7,995,273 $1,711,272 $$ Reduction $529,599 $475,508 $54,091 As can be seen from the above table, if the municipal contribution is not reinvested, the overall funding reduction will increase to $529.6K. Moreover, the funding reduction related specifically to “program” subsidies, equates to $597.5K as the Province has prescribed that a greater proportion of funds be dedicated to repairs, retrofits and transformation type initiatives than in past years. Based on this $597.5K shortfall, staff recommend that for 2013 and 2014 these municipal funds be reinvested in Childcare to assist in mitigating the funding reduction and enabling the transitioning to the new program guidelines. This municipal reinvestment, along with the proposed application of up to $300K in mitigation funding in 2013 will reduce the fee subsidy funding shortfall to $243.4K The municipal contribution is shared with the County of Frontenac. As the affected funding will relate to fee subsidies and the proportional usage of these funds between the City and the County is approximately 94% to 6% respectively, the City reinvestment will represent approximately $51K while the County share would represent approximately $3K. Service System Impact Assessment: While the above assessment and recommendations address the financial impacts of the new funding formula, the impacts of the new framework may prove to be more challenging to address. In particular, the transitioning away from the former tightly prescribed wage subsidy funding to the more flexible “general operating expense” funding model will present significant challenges to the City as the Service Manager and to the childcare operators who provide the care. On the other hand, a new funding formula that recognizes more flexible service schedules (including evening, weekends and part time care) as well as service provision in less profitable locations (rural areas) will encourage services that meet broader needs of many families who may currently not have service options.

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 48 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-064 March 5, 2013

• Page 7 -

Staff recognize that research and analysis into current service provision and funding distribution, along with engagement of stakeholders for the purpose of determining service priorities, assessing risks and developing strategies to address them is required. Without a doubt, a significant portion of the consultation with service providers will focus on the development of a new funding distribution framework for the new “general operating expense” funding category. Next Steps: Staff proposes the following timelines for the development of new and or revised Childcare Service Management Strategies: Consultation and Strategy Drafting: Strategy Refinement: 2nd Round Consultation: Recommendation Report to ARCP: Admin Procedure Development including Reporting Forms: Service Provider Resource Provision & Training: Implementation of revised funding distribution model:

Q1-Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q1-Q2 2014 Q2-Q3 2014 Q4 2014 January 1, 2015

These time lines will permit adequate service provider consultation, sufficient time to assess the ongoing impact of Full Day Kindergarten implementation and the opportunity for staff to become more familiar with both the new provincial guidelines and service contracting requirements. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: 2011-2014 Childcare Management Strategies for Kingston & Frontenac, approved by Council December 2011 and related updates approved July 2012 Ontario Childcare Service Management Funding Guidelines 2013 Ministry of Education, released December 2012 NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternate formats FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: This report does not recommend any additional municipal funding contribution beyond the levels already approved in the 2013 City and County operational budgets. As previously noted the magnitude of the provincial funding reduction in 2013 will be between $475.5K and $529.6K depending on whether Council elects to maintain the investments of the municipal contribution already approved in the 2013 operational budget. This municipal contribution (or savings if not maintained) represents approximately $51K for the City and 3K for the County.

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 49 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-064 March 5, 2013

• Page 8 -

The provision of mitigation funding by the Ministry of Education and Council’s approval of usage of up to $300K in 2013 will decrease the funding shortfall between 2012 and 2013 to $175K. While it is anticipated that additional one time provincial mitigation funding will be required for 2014 in order to maintain system stability prior to implementation of the revised strategies, the amount required will be determined based on actual 2013 fee subsidy demand and as a component of the formulation of the 2014 municipal operating budget. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Adèle Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services

ext 1231 ext 4801

OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Laura Austin, Supervisor, Childcare Programs Stephen Dickey, Deputy Treasurer, Financial Services Alan McLeod, Senior Legal Counsel Cheryl Hitchen, Manager Social Planning & Policy EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit ‘A’ 2012 & 2013 Childcare Funding Allocations

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 50 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

Exhibit A - Page 1 - Report 13-064: 2012 Childcare Funding Allocations 2012 Funding Allocations Previous Funding Name Program DNA Fee Subsidies ELCC Fee Subsidies OW Formal OW Informal ELCD Fee Subsidy 100% ELCD & Extended Day Fee Subsidy Transition Operating DNA Special Needs ELCC Special Needs ELCD Special Needs DNA Wage Sub (NP)incl DNA Pay Equity DNA Wage Subsidy (P) ELCC Wage Subsidy (NP) ELCC Wage Subsidy (P) ELCD Wage Subsidy (NP) ELCD Wage Subsidy (P) Wage Improvement (NP) Wage Improvement (P) DNA MofS Pay Equity Total Program Funding

Gross Allocations

Provincial Share

Municipal Share

$2,793,978 $2,235,182 $626,875 $501,500 $580,250 $464,200 $125,000 $100,000 $739,738 $719,738 $238,451 $238,451 $215,590 $215,590 $595,023 $476,018 $45,000 $36,000 $144,891 $164,891 $2,321,600 $1,857,280 $263,088 $210,470 $35,000 $28,000 $0 $0 $221,580 $221,580 $55,720 $55,720 $257,492 $257,492 $58,308 $58,308 $149,651 $149,651 $9,467,235 $7,990,072

$558,796 $125,375 $116,050 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $119,005 $9,000 $0 $464,320 $52,618 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,477,163

Administration DNA Administration ELCC Administration ELCD Administration Total Administration

$504,000 $72,400 $59,781 $636,181

$252,000 $36,200 $59,781 $347,981

$252,000 $36,200 $0 $288,200

Repairs, Retrofits & Transition Funding Repairs & Maintenance Capacity Funding Child Care Transition Minor Capital Small Water Works Repairs, Retrofits & Transition Funding

$21,592 $24,536 $74,943 $11,657 $132,728

$21,592 $24,536 $74,943 $11,657 $132,728

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$10,236,144 $8,470,781

$1,765,363

TOTAL 2012 FUNDING

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 51 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

Exhibit A - Page 2 - Report 13-064: 2013 Childcare Funding Allocations 2013 Funding Allocations New Funding Name Core Service Delivery Program • General Operating • Fee Subsidy • OW Fee Subsidies • Special Needs Res •MofS Pay Equity Core Service Delivery Program Sub Total Administration Core Service Del Sub Total Special Purpose Rural Cost of Living FDK Transition Language Aboriginal Utilization Repairs & Mntnance Special Purpose Program Sub Total Repairs, Retrofits & Transformation Funding Transformation Capacity Building Retrofits Small Water Works Repairs, Retrofits & Transformation Funding TOTAL FUNDING

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Gross Allocations

Provincial Share

Municipal Share

$7,751,322 $6,328,250

$1,423,072

$673,913 $385,713 $8,425,235 $6,713,963

$288,200 $1,711,272

$240,632 $240,632 $245,737 $245,737 $387,683 $387,683 $137,482 $137,482 $24,150 $24,150 $1,197 $1,197 $21,789 $21,789 $1,058,670 $1,058,670

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$73,900 $49,929 $87,154 $11,657

$73,900 $49,929 $87,154 $11,657

$0 $0 $0 $0

$222,640

$222,640

$0

$9,706,545 $7,995,273

$1,711,272

Page 52 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

CITY OF KINGSTON

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-099 TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Adele Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services Department

DATE OF MEETING:

March 5, 2013

SUBJECT:

Sydenham Ontario Works Office Rental

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Kingston, as Consolidated Municipal Service Manager for Ontario Works for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac, operates two satellite offices in the County of Frontenac. These offices are in addition to the main office located at 362 Montreal Street in Kingston. The satellite offices assist in delivering optimal customer services for County residents. Currently there is a satellite office located in Sharbot Lake and one located in Sydenham. For Sharbot Lake, the City of Kingston has a service agreement with Northern Frontenac Community Services Corporation to rent an office and shared services such as reception, washrooms, client wait area, telephone, IT and parking. Over the past ten years, the City has rented similar services from Limestone Education Centre for shared office space one day per week in Sydenham. Up until June 2012, this office space was shared with the Frontenac Employment Resource Centre but due to a provincial government decision to streamline and focus employment services in the province, the employment resource centre had to permanently close. Due to the removal of this program funding, the City of Kingston’s current service agreement for Sydenham, no longer includes shared reception services. In order to provide full reception services for clients as well as increased security for staff, as of April 1, 2013, the City of Kingston will be renting services from Southern Frontenac Community Services Corporation and moving the Sydenham office from 2779 Rutledge Road to 4419 George Street, Sydenham. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 53 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-099 March 5, 2013 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: City staff members will provide a

Page 54 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-099 March 5, 2013 Page 3

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: The City of Kingston (City), as Consolidated Municipal Service Manager for Ontario Works for the City and County of Frontenac (County), has two satellite offices in the County. One of the satellite offices is located in Sharbot Lake and the other in Sydenham. The satellite offices are only staffed part-time for the purpose of delivering Ontario Works to clients. In order to keep costs low while still providing full service office to clients, Ontario Works purchases shared services for these locations from partner agencies. In Sharbot Lake, the City has a service agreement with Northern Frontenac Community Services Corporation (NFCSC) to purchase office space and shared services such as reception, washrooms, client wait area, telephony and parking. Ontario Works operates out of this office four days per week (Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday). NFCSC also rents out space and shared services to other community agencies and partners. This proves to be extremely beneficial for Ontario Works clients as they can access many other services they may require without having to incur additional travel. Additional services include the following: family counseling, mental health services, addictions counseling, credit counseling, Ontario Disability Support Program, children’s services, family violence services and more. Over the past ten years, the City has purchased similar services from Limestone Education Centre for shared office space one day per week in Sydenham. Up until June 2012, this office space was shared with the Frontenac Employment Resource Centre (FERC) but due to a provincial government decision to streamline and focus employment services in the province, the employment resource centre closed permanently at the end of May 2012. Ontario Works has continued to deliver service from this location every Thursday but the only remaining agency operating out of this office on Thursday is Limestone Education Centre (Limestone). There are only two employees working in this office on a given Thursday: the City of Kingston Ontario Works Case Manager and the Limestone Literacy Instructor. The service reduction at this location has caused a decrease in customer service for clients and an increased security issue for City staff. With the removal of FERC, Ontario Works clients no longer have a receptionist to greet them when they enter the centre. At times, they may need to enter the centre; self declare their arrival and look for the Ontario Works Case Manager. If the Case Manager is busy with another client, the client may not receive any reception service or guidance, unless the Limestone employee is available to greet them. With only two employees working at the centre, if one steps out for their break or for business reasons, the other employee is left alone. This creates a safety concern for staff. The City’s service agreement for the shared office space expires on March 31, 2013. In order to provide full reception services for clients as well as increased security for staff, as of April 1, 2013, the City of Kingston will be purchasing accommodation services from Southern Frontenac Community Services Corporation (SFCSC) and moving the Sydenham office from 2779 Rutledge Road to 4419 George Street, Sydenham. The service agreement with SFCSC will include office space, reception services, shared washrooms, client wait area, telephony and parking. SFCSC offers services that Ontario Works clients access such as support services, housing assistance, transportation, food bank, financial assistance for items such as rent

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 55 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-099 March 5, 2013 Page 4

deposit assistance and utility upgrades, and referrals to other programs and agencies. By relocating Ontario Works to shared space with SFCSC, clients will receive improved customer service as well as have access to additional community resources. Ontario Works clients requiring literacy upgrading will continued to be referred to Limestone as partnerships between Ontario Works and Limestone will go on regardless of the physical location of the Ontario Works office. In 2014-2015, SFCSC is planning to move all of their services to The Grace Centre located at 4295 Stage Coach Road, Sydenham. SFCSC hopes that The Grace Centre can be a hub for social services and partner agencies in the Sydenham region. Ontario Works will be able to purchase shared services from SFCSC at The Grace Centre after renovations are complete and all services have moved. City staff have consulted with the County of Frontenac and will ensure that information on relocation is distributed to key stakeholders. External Consulted County of Frontenac EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: There are no existing Policies/By-Laws concerning this subject, on record, to date. NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternative formats upon request. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: There are no budgetary impacts to this report. The annual lease cost remains $5,000 for the Sydenham space and is included in the 2013 operational budget. As an allowable administration costs, this lease cost is eligible for 50% cost sharing through provincial OW program and admin funding and is further cost shared with the County of Frontenac in accordance with the Local Services Realignment agreement. 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: Katie Clarke, Manager, Community and Family Services Department EXHIBITS ATTACHED: N/A

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 56 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

CITY OF KINGSTON

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-067 TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Adèle Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services

DATE OF MEETING:

January 22, 2013

SUBJECT:

New Childcare Guidelines and Reduction in Funding Allocations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In late December 2012, the Ministry of Education released the new 2013 Ontario Child Care Service Management Guidelines for Consolidated Municipal Service Managers and District Social Services Administration Boards. The Ministry also released 2013 funding allocations for each service manager. Preliminary staff analysis of the impact of the new funding formula on Kingston and County of Frontenac for 2013 indicates a reduction of between $475,000 and $530,000 from the 2012 funding level. The financial reduction is mainly in the programming area which means that service providers will be directly impacted. This funding reduction will likely have an impact on the City being able to maintain fee subsidies for child care. Staff will complete financial impact analysis and review options once the Ministry has provided all details of the new funding formula. The Province has also announced a one-time grant of $963,608 for the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac to help transition to a new funding model. 2013 will be considered a year of transition and staff will not be seeking to make any major changes until there is an opportunity to consult with service providers. This change in funding formula is one of the many provincial program changes that have taken place in the last year. These provincial program changes, including reduction in discretionary benefits, discontinuation of the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit, changes to the former Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program, have all resulted in a reduction being invested in the community. This reduction of provincial funding in community social programs has forced the City to amend its benefit programs/policies to make them more stringent or for the City to invest more property taxes to maintain a similar level of service. Staff believe that there will be more provincial program changes in social services in the next year which could

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 57 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL January 22, 2013

• Page 2 -

Report No.: 13-067

very well result in further reduction of provincial funding. It is important for Council to be aware of these program changes as Council has adopted a property tax increase of 2.5% over the next two years and is also preparing for a strategic session to set priorities.

RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information purposes only.

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 58 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL January 22, 2013

• Page 3 -

Report No.: 13-067

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: City staff members will provide a

Page 59 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL January 22, 2013

• Page 4 -

Report No.: 13-067

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: On June 27, 2012, the provincial government distributed the “Modernizing Childcare Care in Ontario” discussion paper to assist Ontario in moving towards a higher quality, accessible and co-ordinated early learning and care system for children. In moving forward with this initiative, the government recognized that funding for childcare must include a funding formula that would be transparent and informed by evidence to support consistency, accessibility for families and quality for children and childcare operators. New provincial funding formula and framework On December 18, 2012, the Ministry of Education released the new 2013 Ontario Child Care Service Management Guidelines for Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM’s) and District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSAB’s). The following were identified as the provincial objectives: increase transparency and equity, respond to demographic changes, streamline and simplify childcare funding, increase flexibility for CMSM’s/DSSAB’s (Service System Managers) to better meet local needs for licensed childcare services. 2013 – Transitioning Year To best support the implementation of the framework, 2013 is being considered a transition year. CMSM’s/DSSAB’s will be consulting with the Ministry of Education on implementation of the new funding formula framework. As well, CMSM’s/DSSAB’s across the province will be engaging local stakeholders to assist with updating local childcare service strategies and plans consistent with the new formula framework. The provincial goal for community consultation is to increase co-ordinated and integrated early learning and childcare services at a local level. For Kingston-Frontenac, the new funding formula represents a decrease ranging between $475,000 and $530,000, which represents 3% in ongoing funding from 2012 to 2013. The 3% decrease does not include one-time funding received in July of 2012 in the amount of $222,788. A Report to Council, seeking authority for the Mayor and Clerk to execute the 2013 Service Contract with the Province and detailing the impacts of the funding reduction and any immediate contingencies if required will be forthcoming. This report will be provided to Council as soon as City staff receive and review the actual agreement document and have the opportunity to participate in upcoming provincial sessions to further inform on the new guidelines. Next steps will also include communication with community stakeholders and later this year, a consultation process with them to determine recommended updates to our local childcare service management strategies both to address this funding reduction and to experience the full benefit of the new flexibilities which may be gained through the new funding framework. As 2013 will be treated as a transition year, no significant changes will be undertaken prior to

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 60 of 205

AgendaItem#5a)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL January 22, 2013

• Page 5 -

Report No.: 13-067

gaining a better understanding of the new provincial guidelines and consulting with local childcare stakeholders. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: N/A NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternate formats. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Preliminary analysis completed by staff indicates that funding reduction will vary between $475K and $530K for child care services within the City of Kingston & the County of 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: N/A EXHIBITS ATTACHED: N/A

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

Page 61 of 205

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

City of Kingston Analysis - OW, ODSP, CHILDCARE & HOUSING: LSR YTD QUARTERLY REPORT YEAR: 2012

QUARTER: 2012 Consolidated Net Budget

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

2012 Consolidated Actual Costs to Date

4th

% Consolidated Budget Expended

PERIOD ENDING DATE: 31-Dec-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 79.592 City / 20.408 County

ONTARIO WORKS OW Administration OW Program Delivery OW Allowances Employment Assistance Delivery 2011 Rate Increase Subsidy Subtotal OW Program Costs Total OW Admin & Program Costs

$

3,671,409

$

3,140,902

85.6%

$

3,014,410

$

2,551,669

84.6%

$ $

4,409,147 76,272

$ $

3,994,830 69,222

96.2%

$

4,064,052

$ $ $ $

3,898,755 27,947 (2,421) 3,924,281

97.6% 40.4%

4,485,419

4,286,879 30,956 (2,662) 4,315,173

97.2% 40.6%

$

$ $ $ $

$

8,156,828

$

7,456,075

91.4%

$

7,078,462

$

6,475,950

91.5%

Actual OW Allowance & Benefit Ratio YTD OW Caseload Average

Under budget due to temporary vacancies and allocation of Director’s Salary to Childcare Admin

reflects stable caseload levels

96.6%

90.941% 2715

2,977

CHILDCARE SERVICES Childcare Admin. (Reg & ELCC) Childcare Programs Fee Subsidy (DNA, ELCC, OW Formal) Fee Subsidy (Informal OW) Wage Subsidy (DNA, ELCC) Special Needs (DNA & ELCC) Other Prior Yr Wage Subsidy Recovery

$

288,233

$

288,200

100.0%

$

231,904

$

229,384

98.9%

$ $ $ $

822,221 3,000 523,937 128,004

$ $ $ $ $ $

824,559 580 523,938 128,005 (282) (107)

100.3% 19.3% 100.0% 100.0%

$ $ $ $ $

770,170 2,811 421,544 118,276

$ $ $ $ $ $

786,190 580 417,012 117,350 (271) (85)

102.1% 20.6% 98.9% 99.2% Miscellaneous Revenue

Net CC Program Delivery

$

1,477,162

$

1,476,692

100.0%

$

1,312,801

$

1,320,776

100.6%

Total Childcare Costs

$

1,765,395

$

1,764,892

100.0%

$

1,544,705

$

1,550,160

100.4%

$

1,764,892

Housing Administration Housing Program Costs Total Housing Admin & Prog Costs

$ $ $

996,806 9,568,221 10,565,027

$ $ $

862,538 9,174,730 10,037,268

86.5% 95.9% 95.0%

$ $ $

804,969 9,037,100 9,842,069

$ $ $

688,152 8,666,236 9,354,388

85.5% 95.9% 95.0%

Total City-County LSR Soc Serv Costs

$

20,487,250

$

19,258,234

94.0%

$

18,465,236

$

17,380,498

94.1%

Under budget due to Housing Program Admin position being filled mid-May. Costs not fully incurred for Contracted Services and Extreme Clean Program.

AgendaItem#5a)

Page 62 of 205

HOUSING SERVICES

Community and Family Services: City staff members will provide a

County Analysis - OW, ODSP, CHILDCARE & HOUSING: LSR YTD QUARTERLY REPORT YEAR: 2012

QUARTER: 2012 Consolidated Net Budget

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

2012 Consolidated Actual Costs to Date

4th

% Consolidated Budget Expended

PERIOD ENDING DATE: 31-Dec-12 County % County Actual Budget Costs to Date Expended

2012 County Net Draft Budget

Comments

ONTARIO WORKS OW Administration OW Program Delivery OW Allowances Employment Assistance Delivery 2011 Rate Increase Subsidy Subtotal OW Program Costs Total OW Admin & Program Costs

$

3,671,409

$

3,140,902

85.6%

$

656,999

$

589,233

89.7%

$ $

4,409,147 76,272

$ $

414,317 7,050

96.2%

$

421,367

$ $ $ $

388,124 3,009 (241) 390,892

93.7% 42.7%

4,485,419

4,286,879 30,956 (2,662) 4,315,173

97.2% 40.6%

$

$ $ $ $

$

8,156,828

$

7,456,075

91.4%

$

1,078,366

$

980,125

90.9%

Actual OW Allowance & Benefit Ratio YTD OW Caseload Average

92.8%

9.059% 262

2,977

CHILDCARE SERVICES Childcare Admin (Reg & ELCC)

$

288,233

$

288,200

100.0%

$

56,329

$

58,816

104.4%

$ $ $ $ $

822,221 3,000 523,937 128,004

$ $ $ $ $

52,050 189 102,393 9,728

100.0%

$

164,360

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

38,369 106,925 10,655 (11) (22) 155,916

73.7% 0.0% 104.4% 109.5%

1,477,162

824,559 580 523,938 128,005 (282) (107) 1,476,692

100.3% 19.3% 100.0% 100.0%

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

1,765,395

$

1,764,892

100.0%

$

220,689

$

214,732

97.3%

$

Housing Administration

$

996,806

$

862,538

86.5%

$

191,837

$

174,386

90.9%

County share at 20.408% weighted assessment except Extreme Clean costs $8,039 which are 100% City.

Housing Program Costs Total Housing Admin & Prog Costs

$ $

9,568,221 10,565,027

$ $

9,174,730 10,037,268

95.9% 95.0%

$ $

531,121 722,958

$ $

508,494 682,880

95.7% 94.5%

Total City-County LSR Soc Serv Costs

$

20,487,250

$

19,258,234

94.0%

$

2,022,013

$

1,877,737

92.9%

Childcare Programs Fee Subsidy (DNA, ELCC, OW Formal) Fee Subsidy (Informal OW) Wage Subsidy ( DNA, ELCC) Special Needs (DNA & ELCC) Other Prior Yr Wage Subsidy Recovery Subtotal CC Program Delivery Total Childcare Costs

94.9% 1,764,892

HOUSING SERVICES

AgendaItem#5a)

Page 63 of 205

Under budget due to prior period subsidy repayments.

AgendaItem#5b)

CITY OF KINGSTON

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

DATE OF MEETING:

December 4, 2012

SUBJECT:

Interim Emergency 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 were 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 resulting in total funding of $800K for shelters (Report No. 12-244). City staff presented four (4) different interim funding models for the emergency shelters to consider and also solicited suggestions for other funding models from the group. No other comprehensive funding model suggestions were received. 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 and discussed at the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee. Staff identified the following funding model as the preferred 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 allocated within the approved budget.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 64 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 2 -

Under all funding models options, The Kingston Youth Shelter Project (KYS) faces the biggest funding challenge for 2013. Based on the recommended 2013 interim funding model, the KYS will receive approximately $30K less in 2013 funding as compared to the average 2009 – 2011 funding received. While the KYS is a 15 bed facility, the shelter per diem agreement between KYS and the City has always been to fund 8 beds only. The agreement allowed for KYS to serve up to 15 clients on a nightly basis, should the need arise, and provided that they did not exceed their annual funded bed allocation. This has resulted in higher overall utilization at the KYS on a regular basis and hence increased funding. Under the proposed funding model, KYS will continue to be funded for 8 beds, as per the agreement, and KYS will likely not be able to continue to offer the extra 7 beds due to their own internal staffing policy and the impact of the new funding formula. City staff recognizes the importance of continuing to provide these additional 7 beds in the community. To ensure that other shelters are not negatively impacted by the 2013 interim funding model being changed to accommodate KYS, City staff are recommending that KYS be provided $25,000 in one-time funding for 2013 to allow them to staff sufficiently to accommodate up to 15 clients on a nightly basis. This funding can be provided through the National Child Benefit Reserve Fund. Unlike other shelters, KYS does not currently receive any other City funding. City staff conducted a review of Dawn House Women’s Shelter in March 2012 and made a number of recommendations which have been monitored and report back to Council. In April 2012, City Council approved funding of $175K from former CHPP funding to the agency for operations in 2013. Recent management and operational changes have occurred at Dawn House recently. These changes include the resignation of their Executive Director and a submission from Dawn House to other community agencies to take over full management control as well as its assets and liabilities effective January 1, 2013. Considering these significant changes could have an impact on the mandate and operations of Dawn House, City staff will continue to monitor the situation and will provide a status report to Council in January 2013 which will include any potential changes in funding in 2013. The agency has already been advised that should it be unable to comply with the recommendations in the operational review or should another agency agree to take over Dawn House, the City will have to review the continuation of funding for 2013. In the 2013 proposed CHPI budget strategy reported to Council (Report No. 12-244), a weighted assessment contribution from the County of Frontenac of $26,203 was included to bring the shelter funding envelope to $800K. The County has recently approved this contribution for 2013. The funding recommended in this report is interim for 2013 only, pending the Homelessness Plan currently being developed by OrgCode Consulting, which is scheduled to be completed in July 2013. New shelter funding agreements based on the recommended interim funding model will be negotiated with emergency shelters in a form satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 65 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 3 -

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council support the 75% Base Funding with 25% Utilization Funding formula as described in Model 3 herein; and THAT Council approves one-time funding of $25,000 from the National Child Benefit Reserve Fund to Kingston Youth Shelter Project to allow the shelter to staff sufficiently to operate seven (7) additional beds at their shelter on a regular basis for 2013; and THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the required agreements for the provision of this funding in a form satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services; and THAT City staff report back to Council in January 2013 regarding the status of Dawn House Women’s Shelter and their continued compliance with the Housing Department’s 2012 Operational Review of the shelter.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 66 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 4 -

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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 67 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 5 -

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: Report No. 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 allotment 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 were 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. While comparable funding is being made available to the shelter system as a whole, because of the addition of beds at Lily’s Place and the changes to PNA funding, the funding to individual shelters may decrease slightly. The consolidated funding model provides municipalities with more flexibility. As of 2013, municipalities can revise the current per diem funding formula for shelter beds. City staff met with the Managers and Executive Directors of the six (6) 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

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 68 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 6 -

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. Model #2 – Full Operating Grant Under this model, the operating grant would be calculated by taking the $800K available 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 75% of the $800K based on their approved number of shelter beds. The balance of the funding (25%) 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 (6) shelters. Pros/Cons: The base funding provides consistent cash flow to cover operating expenditures and the utilization portion recognizes the need 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 Funding Model Recommendation Examples of funding scenarios under each of the four models were presented to the shelters on September 21st. Each shelter was asked to complete a survey to provide feedback on the models indicating their first and second choices. 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 staff’s consideration; however, no other comprehensive

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 69 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 7 -

funding model suggestions were received. The results of the survey were as follows in Table 1 below. Table 1 – Survey Results Name of Shelter

First Choice Funding Model

Second Choice Funding Model

Ryandale Shelter for the Homeless

Model 2 – Full Base funding

In From the Cold

Model 3 – Base and Utilization funding split

Lily’s Place

Model 3 – Base and Utilization funding split

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

Dawn House Harbour Light Kingston Youth Shelter

Model 2 - Full Base funding Model 2 – Full Base funding Model 2 – Full Base funding

Model 1 – Status Quo 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 was 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 shelters currently cover 78 beds which includes a reduction of 4 funded beds at In From the Cold shelter. 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. City staff have reviewed the feedback provided and have looked at the implications of increasing the beds at specific shelters. 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. City staff are recommending 75% base funding and 25% funding for utilization. Staff completed an analysis of potential funding levels for each shelter based on funding model 2 and funding model 3. It was determined that the difference in funding would be minimal as noted in Table 2 below. In the case of Lily’s Place, since it did not open until April 2012, there

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 70 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 8 -

are no 2009 – 2011 comparators so the potential funding indicated below is based on the 2012 year-to-date actual utilization. Table 2 – Comparison of Potential Funding Under Funding Model 2 and 3

Name of Shelter Ryandale Shelter Dawn House Harbour Light Kingston Youth Shelter In From the Cold Lily’s Place

Potential total annual funding based on Model 2

Potential total annual funding based on Model 3

$162,162.16 $108,108.11 $ 75,675.68 $ 86,486.49 $216,216.22 $151,351.35

$159,165.48 $111,256.52 $ 72,897.11 $ 91,882.41 $219,706.02 $145,092.46

Difference in anticipated funding between Model 2 and Model 3 $(2,996.68) $3,148.41 $(2,778.57) $5,395.92 $3,489.80 $(6,258.89)

The model 3 funding formula provides a stable funding source to each shelter while also ensuring that the Housing Department’s objective of full utilization of system beds is being incentivized through the utilization portion of the funding. This formula also provides the most equitable funding redistribution amongst shelters using the rationale of funding based on proportionate number of beds. This model was presented to the Housing & Homelessness Advisory Committee at their November 8th meeting and the following motion was passed by that Committee: THAT the committee requests that staff do whatever is possible to reduce the loss of beds at Kingston Youth Shelters; and THAT the committee endorses Model #3 with 75% base funding and 25% utilization funding, allowing shelters to increase utilization on a daily basis provided they do not exceed the total number of approved beds being utilized on a monthly basis. Utilization Funding Three of the funded shelters have more beds in their facilities than the number for which the City has agreed to fund as follows: Table 3 – Shelters with Additional Beds Not Funded by the City

Name of Shelter

Number of beds to be funded in 2013

In From the Cold Kingston Youth Shelter Harbour Light

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

20 8 7

Number of beds in facility 24 15 8

Potential additional un-funded shelter beds available in the community 4 7 1

Page 71 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 9 -

In the past, funding agreements with the City has enabled these shelters to bill Ontario Works for additional beds. This has resulted in periods of time where utilization has exceeded the City funded number of beds and other periods of time where utilization has been well below the number of City funded beds. Exhibit ‘A’ shows shelter bed utilization at each shelter on a monthly basis for 2011. The utilization funding will be capped monthly based on the number of beds agreed upon with each of the shelters. Should the shelters have the capacity and exceed the number of clients for which they have an agreement to provide emergency shelter, the City will pay for those additional beds, provided that the shelter does not exceed their overall monthly approved bed nights as per the funding agreement. This would provide the City with the flexibility to fill these beds intermittently when situations warrant – i.e. bed bug infestation at a shelter; inclement weather; citizens displaced due to fires or other emergencies; emergency repairs being undertaken at one shelter; flood etc. Agreements with shelters will include a requirement to report all bed utilization including those for which they are not receiving payment from the City to assist in obtaining accurate statistics on shelter bed utilization for planning purposes going forward. Each of the shelters are affected differently by the different models being proposed and this was examined fully by City staff in making the recommendation for funding model 3. Exhibit ‘B’ illustrates the potential 2013 funding for each shelter based on their 2011 average bed utilization as compared to the 2009-2011 average actual funding received at that shelter. City staff met with each shelter individually on October 25th to review the recommended funding model and to receive their feedback. The impact and implication of the funding models on each of the shelters is described below. Ryandale Shelter When compared to the 2009-2011 actual funding received, under Model 3, Ryandale Shelter could receive $1,833 less in 2013 funding. Ryandale Shelter currently pays each shelter resident $4.00 per day for “personal needs allowance” (PNA) and has budgeted $18K for this annual expenditure. As per the recent provincial program changes, shelters will no longer be required to pay PNA to their residents under the new funding model. Ryandale shelter has indicated that a reduction in financial contributions from churches and community donors has adversely affected their revenue; however, they do anticipate that they will be able to manage their operations with the income received under the revised funding model. Harbour Light When compared to the 2009-2011 actual funding received, under Model 3, Harbour Light could receive $403 more in 2013 funding. The utilization rates at this shelter are generally slightly lower than other shelters; however, the Executive Director has advised that they do not anticipate any challenges with the new funding model.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 72 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 10 -

In From the Cold When compared to the 2009-2011 actual funding received, under Model 3, In From the Cold could receive $7,593 more in 2013 funding. In From the Cold shelter is managed by Home Base Housing and their Executive Director has advised that they do not anticipate any challenges with the new funding model provided the utilization aspect of the funding is calculated on a monthly average basis. Lily’s Place Lily’s Place did not open until April 2012, and there are no 2009 – 2011 comparators, so the potential funding under Model 3 is based on the 2012 year-to-date actual utilization. Under Model 3, Lily’s Place could receive $644 less in 2013 potential funding. The Executive Director has advised that they do not anticipate any challenges with the new funding model. Dawn House When compared to the 2009-2011 actual funding received, under Model 3, Dawn House Women’s Shelter could receive $6,167 less in 2013 funding. Dawn House also pays PNA out to OW clients and reduced the amount paid to clients from $3 to $2 per day in 2012. With the changes to funding, PNA will not be an expense for Dawn House for 2013. Dawn House has advised that they anticipate their expenditures to decrease with the elimination of paying PNA; however it is anticipated Dawn House would still realize a slight loss in revenue for 2013 as compared to 2009-2011 actuals. Dawn House has been undergoing a number of governance and financial difficulties over the past few years which have been previously reported to Council. In particular, Dawn House has struggled with its governance and retaining services of a full-time Executive Director (E.D.). The present full-time E.D., who was hired early in 2012, has recently submitted her resignation. While there are currently six (6) members on the Board of Directors, one member has served for five years and the other members have all served one year or less. Earlier this year, City staff conducted an operational review of the agency with recommendations which were endorsed by Council as a condition of providing stabilization funding of $175K to provide daytime programming. In October 2012, Dawn House approached a number of community agencies to advise that it was seeking a partner to assume full responsibility of the 10-bed Women’s Shelter and to take full management control effective January 1, 2013 with a transfer of liabilities and assets. While City Council authorized the continuation of daytime program funding to Dawn House for 2013, City staff will continue to monitor the situation and report back to Council on the status of the organization in January 2013. City staff have advised Dawn House that this funding could be amended or discontinued should another agency assume control of Dawn House or if the agency is unable to fulfill its obligations under the operational review. Kingston Youth Shelter When compared to the 2009-2011 actual funding received, under Model 3, Kingston Youth Shelter could receive $32,500 less in 2013 funding. Kingston Youth shelter has been affected

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 73 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 11 -

the most by the new funding model when compared to 2009-2011 actual shelter per diem income received. In each model presented, the projected 2013 funding for Kingston Youth Shelter is approximately $30K less than what they received in funding on average from 20092011. In 2006, Kingston Youth Shelter (KYS) expanded from 8 to15 beds to address high shelter utilization over the winter. The increase in beds at KYS lasted for the winter months for 3 years and have been operated year round since 2009. Although the agreement with the City was based on 8 beds per night, KYS was allowed to bill Ontario Works for additional beds utilized by the community. Since the Provincial funding model has changed, the cost of additional beds would have to be covered by the City. Staff would be concerned with the City’s ability to meet budget targets already endorsed by Council if this practice was continued. KYS has an internal policy whereby they must double-staff should they have more than eight youth staying in the shelter. KYS has advised City staff that if their base funding is not increased to cover at least 12 beds they will not be able to accommodate more than 8 clients at a time. Challenges faced when only one staff member is present is that there is no time available to provide group or one-on-one counselling nor assistance in housing searches, job searches or referrals as the majority of staff time is spent resolving issues amongst residents and preparing/planning meals. Table 4 - Other Shelters Receive Annual Funding in Addition to Shelter Per Diem Funding as Follows: Name of Shelter

Purpose of Additional Funding

Source of Funding

In From the Cold

Double staffing at night for safety and security

Municipal Housing & Homelessness Strategic Fund (MHHSF)

To provide day time programming for residents to assist in housing searches, life skills training, etc.

Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program Municipal and Provincial (formerly CHPP – now stabilization funding)

To staff facility in the day time so that clients who are unable to leave the facility can stay – i.e. disabled, night workers, families with young children

Municipal Housing & Homelessness Strategic Fund (MHHSF)

Dawn House

Ryandale Shelter for the Homeless

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Funding

$45K

$175K

Page 74 of 205

$55K

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 12 -

To provide day time programming for residents to assist in housing searches, life skills training, etc.

Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) provincial

Harbour Light

n/a

n/a

Kingston Youth Shelter

n/a

n/a

Lily’s Place

$155K

No funding No funding

Interim one-time funding of $25,000 would enable KYS to serve up to 15 clients on any given night and maintain its current level of service. KYS has historically not paid out PNA to clients so there will be no savings to them with the new funding model. KYS has the highest average of clients with no income, due to the client group served, making it very difficult if not impossible to charge clients for their stays at the shelter to increase their revenue. Should the City provide one-time funding to KYS they would not be allowed to bill for more than 8 beds on the utilization side provided that on a daily basis they do not exceed their total monthly allocation capped at 8 beds per night. This is necessary so that there is minimal negative financial impact on the other shelters. The City would enter into a separate agreement with KYS for the one-time funding stipulating the purpose to serve additional clients and the requirement to report on total bed utilization to assist the City in analyzing overall need and utilization of shelter beds in the community. One-time funding would put KYS in line with other shelters and would not disrupt the rational funding model or the agreement to provide only 8 beds at KYS as in the past. One-time funding for KYS could be accessed from the National Child Benefit Reserve Fund which currently has a balance of approximately $65K. The purpose of The National Child Benefit (NCB) is to assist families with young children living in poverty to help prevent and reduce the depth of child poverty, support parents as they move into the labour market and reduce overlap and duplication of government programs. 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 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

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 75 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 13 -

ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternative formats upon request. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: City Council approved a City contribution of $236K to Emergency Shelters for 2013 in Report No. 12-244 on September 4, 2012, which is subject to final budget approval. 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. The County has agreed to contribute $26K for the 2013 cost of emergency shelters. It should be noted that the County is no longer obligated under the new CHPI program to contribute to the emergency shelter system. The National Child Benefit (NCB) Reserve Fund has a balance of approximately $65K. The purpose of The NCB is to assist families with young children living in poverty to help prevent and reduce the depth of child poverty, support parents as they move into the labour market and reduce overlap and duplication of government programs. It should be noted that in addition to this shelter funding model, the Housing Department will be purchasing and distributing transit passes to the shelters in order to encourage job and apartment searches. The cost of purchasing these passes will be covered by the support program funding included in the 2012 operational budget. The passes will be distributed to the shelters for use in 2013 along with a policy for use developed jointly by the Housing Department and shelters. 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: Lee Campbell, Housing Program Administrator, Housing Department Melanie Bale, Financial Analyst, Housing Department Katie Clarke, Manager, Ontario Works Program, Community& Family Services Dept. Alan McLeod, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal Services Department Desiree Kennedy, Director of Financial Services & City Treasurer EXTERNALS CONSULTED: Marian Van Bruinessen, Treasurer, County of Frontenac EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit ‘A’ Shelter bed utilization for 2011 Exhibit ‘B’ Potential 2013 funding under Model 3

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 76 of 205

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit ‘A’ - Shelter Bed Utilization for 2011 2011 Ryandale Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy Dawn House Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy Harbour Light Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy Youth Shelter Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy In From the Cold Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

414 465 89%

174 420 41%

202 465 43%

383 450 85%

261 465 56%

247 450 55%

369 465 79%

221 310 71%

270 280 96%

294 310 95%

286 300 95%

193 310 62%

257 300 86%

201 217 93%

127 196 65%

87 217 40%

138 210 66%

158 217 73%

223 248 90%

165 224 74%

228 248 92%

503 744 68%

461 672 69%

1562 1984 79%

1197 1792 67%

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

407 465 88%

402 450 89%

393 465 85%

328 450 73%

421 465 91%

3587 5010 72%

302 310 97%

317 310 102%

323 300 108%

293 310 95%

266 300 89%

277 310 89%

3299 3650 90%

99 210 47%

144 217 66%

198 217 91%

207 210 99%

173 217 80%

139 210 66%

42 217 19%

1713 2555 67%

242 250 240 248 101% 101%

169 240 70%

258 248 104%

239 248 96%

238 240 99%

347 248 140%

281 240 117%

194 248 78%

2834 2920 97%

409 744 55%

455 720 63%

435 744 58%

300 720 42%

485 744 65%

572 744 77%

698 720 97%

645 744 87%

630 720 88%

536 744 72%

6129 8760 70%

1220 1984 61%

1504 1920 78%

1297 1984 65%

1072 1920 56%

1558 1984 79%

1733 1984 87%

1868 1920 97%

1851 1984 93%

1644 1920 86%

1470 1984 74%

17976 23360 77%

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 77 of 205

Grand Totals - 2011 Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy

Jan

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit ‘B’ - Potential Funding Under Model 3 25% Annual Utilization Funding based on 2011 Average No. Of Beds $

Total Potential Annual Funding for 2013 $

3 Year Average (2009 - 2011) $

Gain/Loss between 3 Year Average $

No. Of Approved Beds

2011 Average No. Of Beds

Proportionate Share of Total Monthly Bed Nights $

Ryandale

15

10.7

162,162.16

121,621.62 37,543.86

159,165.48

160,998.48

(-1,833.00)

Dawn House

10

8.6

108,108.11

81,081.08 30,175.44

111,256.52

117,424.30

(- 6,167.78 )

Harbour Light

7

4.6

75,675.68

56,756.76 16,140.35

72,897.11

72,493.14

403.97

KYSP

8

7.7

86,486.49

64,864.86 27,017.54

91,882.41

124,383.26

(-32,500.85 )

In From The Cold

20

16.4

216,216.22

162,162.16 57,543.86

219,706.02

212,112.58

7,593.45

Lily’s Place

14

9.0

151,351.35

113,513.51 31,578.95

145,092.46

145,736.86

( 644.40 )

75% Base Funding $

Note 1: Average No. Of Beds of 9.0 for Lily’s Place is based on actual utilization April-Sept 2012

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 78 of 205

Note 2: Annual Projection of $145,736.86 for Lily’s Place is based on 6 month actuals projected over 12 months

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’

CITY OF KINGSTON

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

DATE OF MEETING:

December 4, 2012

SUBJECT:

Interim Emergency 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 were 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 resulting in total funding of $800K for shelters (Report No. 12-244). City staff presented four (4) different interim funding models for the emergency shelters to consider and also solicited suggestions for other funding models from the group. No other comprehensive funding model suggestions were received. 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 and discussed at the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee. Staff identified the following funding model as the preferred 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 allocated within the approved budget.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 79 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 2 -

Under all funding models options, The Kingston Youth Shelter Project (KYS) faces the biggest funding challenge for 2013. Based on the recommended 2013 interim funding model, the KYS will receive approximately $30K less in 2013 funding as compared to the average 2009 – 2011 funding received. While the KYS is a 15 bed facility, the shelter per diem agreement between KYS and the City has always been to fund 8 beds only. The agreement allowed for KYS to serve up to 15 clients on a nightly basis, should the need arise, and provided that they did not exceed their annual funded bed allocation. This has resulted in higher overall utilization at the KYS on a regular basis and hence increased funding. Under the proposed funding model, KYS will continue to be funded for 8 beds, as per the agreement, and KYS will likely not be able to continue to offer the extra 7 beds due to their own internal staffing policy and the impact of the new funding formula. City staff recognizes the importance of continuing to provide these additional 7 beds in the community. To ensure that other shelters are not negatively impacted by the 2013 interim funding model being changed to accommodate KYS, City staff are recommending that KYS be provided $25,000 in one-time funding for 2013 to allow them to staff sufficiently to accommodate up to 15 clients on a nightly basis. This funding can be provided through the National Child Benefit Reserve Fund. Unlike other shelters, KYS does not currently receive any other City funding. City staff conducted a review of Dawn House Women’s Shelter in March 2012 and made a number of recommendations which have been monitored and report back to Council. In April 2012, City Council approved funding of $175K from former CHPP funding to the agency for operations in 2013. Recent management and operational changes have occurred at Dawn House recently. These changes include the resignation of their Executive Director and a submission from Dawn House to other community agencies to take over full management control as well as its assets and liabilities effective January 1, 2013. Considering these significant changes could have an impact on the mandate and operations of Dawn House, City staff will continue to monitor the situation and will provide a status report to Council in January 2013 which will include any potential changes in funding in 2013. The agency has already been advised that should it be unable to comply with the recommendations in the operational review or should another agency agree to take over Dawn House, the City will have to review the continuation of funding for 2013. In the 2013 proposed CHPI budget strategy reported to Council (Report No. 12-244), a weighted assessment contribution from the County of Frontenac of $26,203 was included to bring the shelter funding envelope to $800K. The County has recently approved this contribution for 2013. The funding recommended in this report is interim for 2013 only, pending the Homelessness Plan currently being developed by OrgCode Consulting, which is scheduled to be completed in July 2013. New shelter funding agreements based on the recommended interim funding model will be negotiated with emergency shelters in a form satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 80 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 3 -

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council support the 75% Base Funding with 25% Utilization Funding formula as described in Model 3 herein; and THAT Council approves one-time funding of $25,000 from the National Child Benefit Reserve Fund to Kingston Youth Shelter Project to allow the shelter to staff sufficiently to operate seven (7) additional beds at their shelter on a regular basis for 2013; and THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the required agreements for the provision of this funding in a form satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services; and THAT City staff report back to Council in January 2013 regarding the status of Dawn House Women’s Shelter and their continued compliance with the Housing Department’s 2012 Operational Review of the shelter.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 81 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 4 -

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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 82 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 5 -

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: Report No. 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 allotment 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 were 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. While comparable funding is being made available to the shelter system as a whole, because of the addition of beds at Lily’s Place and the changes to PNA funding, the funding to individual shelters may decrease slightly. The consolidated funding model provides municipalities with more flexibility. As of 2013, municipalities can revise the current per diem funding formula for shelter beds. City staff met with the Managers and Executive Directors of the six (6) 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

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 83 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 6 -

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. Model #2 – Full Operating Grant Under this model, the operating grant would be calculated by taking the $800K available 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 75% of the $800K based on their approved number of shelter beds. The balance of the funding (25%) 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 (6) shelters. Pros/Cons: The base funding provides consistent cash flow to cover operating expenditures and the utilization portion recognizes the need 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 Funding Model Recommendation Examples of funding scenarios under each of the four models were presented to the shelters on September 21st. Each shelter was asked to complete a survey to provide feedback on the models indicating their first and second choices. 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 staff’s consideration; however, no other comprehensive

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 84 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 7 -

funding model suggestions were received. The results of the survey were as follows in Table 1 below. Table 1 – Survey Results Name of Shelter

First Choice Funding Model

Second Choice Funding Model

Ryandale Shelter for the Homeless

Model 2 – Full Base funding

In From the Cold

Model 3 – Base and Utilization funding split

Lily’s Place

Model 3 – Base and Utilization funding split

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

Dawn House Harbour Light Kingston Youth Shelter

Model 2 - Full Base funding Model 2 – Full Base funding Model 2 – Full Base funding

Model 1 – Status Quo 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 was 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 shelters currently cover 78 beds which includes a reduction of 4 funded beds at In From the Cold shelter. 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. City staff have reviewed the feedback provided and have looked at the implications of increasing the beds at specific shelters. 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. City staff are recommending 75% base funding and 25% funding for utilization. Staff completed an analysis of potential funding levels for each shelter based on funding model 2 and funding model 3. It was determined that the difference in funding would be minimal as noted in Table 2 below. In the case of Lily’s Place, since it did not open until April 2012, there

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 85 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 8 -

are no 2009 – 2011 comparators so the potential funding indicated below is based on the 2012 year-to-date actual utilization. Table 2 – Comparison of Potential Funding Under Funding Model 2 and 3

Name of Shelter Ryandale Shelter Dawn House Harbour Light Kingston Youth Shelter In From the Cold Lily’s Place

Potential total annual funding based on Model 2

Potential total annual funding based on Model 3

$162,162.16 $108,108.11 $ 75,675.68 $ 86,486.49 $216,216.22 $151,351.35

$159,165.48 $111,256.52 $ 72,897.11 $ 91,882.41 $219,706.02 $145,092.46

Difference in anticipated funding between Model 2 and Model 3 $(2,996.68) $3,148.41 $(2,778.57) $5,395.92 $3,489.80 $(6,258.89)

The model 3 funding formula provides a stable funding source to each shelter while also ensuring that the Housing Department’s objective of full utilization of system beds is being incentivized through the utilization portion of the funding. This formula also provides the most equitable funding redistribution amongst shelters using the rationale of funding based on proportionate number of beds. This model was presented to the Housing & Homelessness Advisory Committee at their November 8th meeting and the following motion was passed by that Committee: THAT the committee requests that staff do whatever is possible to reduce the loss of beds at Kingston Youth Shelters; and THAT the committee endorses Model #3 with 75% base funding and 25% utilization funding, allowing shelters to increase utilization on a daily basis provided they do not exceed the total number of approved beds being utilized on a monthly basis. Utilization Funding Three of the funded shelters have more beds in their facilities than the number for which the City has agreed to fund as follows: Table 3 – Shelters with Additional Beds Not Funded by the City

Name of Shelter

Number of beds to be funded in 2013

In From the Cold Kingston Youth Shelter Harbour Light

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

20 8 7

Number of beds in facility 24 15 8

Potential additional un-funded shelter beds available in the community 4 7 1

Page 86 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 9 -

In the past, funding agreements with the City has enabled these shelters to bill Ontario Works for additional beds. This has resulted in periods of time where utilization has exceeded the City funded number of beds and other periods of time where utilization has been well below the number of City funded beds. Exhibit ‘A’ shows shelter bed utilization at each shelter on a monthly basis for 2011. The utilization funding will be capped monthly based on the number of beds agreed upon with each of the shelters. Should the shelters have the capacity and exceed the number of clients for which they have an agreement to provide emergency shelter, the City will pay for those additional beds, provided that the shelter does not exceed their overall monthly approved bed nights as per the funding agreement. This would provide the City with the flexibility to fill these beds intermittently when situations warrant – i.e. bed bug infestation at a shelter; inclement weather; citizens displaced due to fires or other emergencies; emergency repairs being undertaken at one shelter; flood etc. Agreements with shelters will include a requirement to report all bed utilization including those for which they are not receiving payment from the City to assist in obtaining accurate statistics on shelter bed utilization for planning purposes going forward. Each of the shelters are affected differently by the different models being proposed and this was examined fully by City staff in making the recommendation for funding model 3. Exhibit ‘B’ illustrates the potential 2013 funding for each shelter based on their 2011 average bed utilization as compared to the 2009-2011 average actual funding received at that shelter. City staff met with each shelter individually on October 25th to review the recommended funding model and to receive their feedback. The impact and implication of the funding models on each of the shelters is described below. Ryandale Shelter When compared to the 2009-2011 actual funding received, under Model 3, Ryandale Shelter could receive $1,833 less in 2013 funding. Ryandale Shelter currently pays each shelter resident $4.00 per day for “personal needs allowance” (PNA) and has budgeted $18K for this annual expenditure. As per the recent provincial program changes, shelters will no longer be required to pay PNA to their residents under the new funding model. Ryandale shelter has indicated that a reduction in financial contributions from churches and community donors has adversely affected their revenue; however, they do anticipate that they will be able to manage their operations with the income received under the revised funding model. Harbour Light When compared to the 2009-2011 actual funding received, under Model 3, Harbour Light could receive $403 more in 2013 funding. The utilization rates at this shelter are generally slightly lower than other shelters; however, the Executive Director has advised that they do not anticipate any challenges with the new funding model.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 87 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 10 -

In From the Cold When compared to the 2009-2011 actual funding received, under Model 3, In From the Cold could receive $7,593 more in 2013 funding. In From the Cold shelter is managed by Home Base Housing and their Executive Director has advised that they do not anticipate any challenges with the new funding model provided the utilization aspect of the funding is calculated on a monthly average basis. Lily’s Place Lily’s Place did not open until April 2012, and there are no 2009 – 2011 comparators, so the potential funding under Model 3 is based on the 2012 year-to-date actual utilization. Under Model 3, Lily’s Place could receive $644 less in 2013 potential funding. The Executive Director has advised that they do not anticipate any challenges with the new funding model. Dawn House When compared to the 2009-2011 actual funding received, under Model 3, Dawn House Women’s Shelter could receive $6,167 less in 2013 funding. Dawn House also pays PNA out to OW clients and reduced the amount paid to clients from $3 to $2 per day in 2012. With the changes to funding, PNA will not be an expense for Dawn House for 2013. Dawn House has advised that they anticipate their expenditures to decrease with the elimination of paying PNA; however it is anticipated Dawn House would still realize a slight loss in revenue for 2013 as compared to 2009-2011 actuals. Dawn House has been undergoing a number of governance and financial difficulties over the past few years which have been previously reported to Council. In particular, Dawn House has struggled with its governance and retaining services of a full-time Executive Director (E.D.). The present full-time E.D., who was hired early in 2012, has recently submitted her resignation. While there are currently six (6) members on the Board of Directors, one member has served for five years and the other members have all served one year or less. Earlier this year, City staff conducted an operational review of the agency with recommendations which were endorsed by Council as a condition of providing stabilization funding of $175K to provide daytime programming. In October 2012, Dawn House approached a number of community agencies to advise that it was seeking a partner to assume full responsibility of the 10-bed Women’s Shelter and to take full management control effective January 1, 2013 with a transfer of liabilities and assets. While City Council authorized the continuation of daytime program funding to Dawn House for 2013, City staff will continue to monitor the situation and report back to Council on the status of the organization in January 2013. City staff have advised Dawn House that this funding could be amended or discontinued should another agency assume control of Dawn House or if the agency is unable to fulfill its obligations under the operational review. Kingston Youth Shelter When compared to the 2009-2011 actual funding received, under Model 3, Kingston Youth Shelter could receive $32,500 less in 2013 funding. Kingston Youth shelter has been affected

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 88 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 11 -

the most by the new funding model when compared to 2009-2011 actual shelter per diem income received. In each model presented, the projected 2013 funding for Kingston Youth Shelter is approximately $30K less than what they received in funding on average from 20092011. In 2006, Kingston Youth Shelter (KYS) expanded from 8 to15 beds to address high shelter utilization over the winter. The increase in beds at KYS lasted for the winter months for 3 years and have been operated year round since 2009. Although the agreement with the City was based on 8 beds per night, KYS was allowed to bill Ontario Works for additional beds utilized by the community. Since the Provincial funding model has changed, the cost of additional beds would have to be covered by the City. Staff would be concerned with the City’s ability to meet budget targets already endorsed by Council if this practice was continued. KYS has an internal policy whereby they must double-staff should they have more than eight youth staying in the shelter. KYS has advised City staff that if their base funding is not increased to cover at least 12 beds they will not be able to accommodate more than 8 clients at a time. Challenges faced when only one staff member is present is that there is no time available to provide group or one-on-one counselling nor assistance in housing searches, job searches or referrals as the majority of staff time is spent resolving issues amongst residents and preparing/planning meals. Table 4 - Other Shelters Receive Annual Funding in Addition to Shelter Per Diem Funding as Follows: Name of Shelter

Purpose of Additional Funding

Source of Funding

In From the Cold

Double staffing at night for safety and security

Municipal Housing & Homelessness Strategic Fund (MHHSF)

To provide day time programming for residents to assist in housing searches, life skills training, etc.

Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program Municipal and Provincial (formerly CHPP – now stabilization funding)

To staff facility in the day time so that clients who are unable to leave the facility can stay – i.e. disabled, night workers, families with young children

Municipal Housing & Homelessness Strategic Fund (MHHSF)

Dawn House

Ryandale Shelter for the Homeless

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Funding

$45K

$175K

Page 89 of 205

$55K

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 12 -

To provide day time programming for residents to assist in housing searches, life skills training, etc.

Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) provincial

Harbour Light

n/a

n/a

Kingston Youth Shelter

n/a

n/a

Lily’s Place

$155K

No funding No funding

Interim one-time funding of $25,000 would enable KYS to serve up to 15 clients on any given night and maintain its current level of service. KYS has historically not paid out PNA to clients so there will be no savings to them with the new funding model. KYS has the highest average of clients with no income, due to the client group served, making it very difficult if not impossible to charge clients for their stays at the shelter to increase their revenue. Should the City provide one-time funding to KYS they would not be allowed to bill for more than 8 beds on the utilization side provided that on a daily basis they do not exceed their total monthly allocation capped at 8 beds per night. This is necessary so that there is minimal negative financial impact on the other shelters. The City would enter into a separate agreement with KYS for the one-time funding stipulating the purpose to serve additional clients and the requirement to report on total bed utilization to assist the City in analyzing overall need and utilization of shelter beds in the community. One-time funding would put KYS in line with other shelters and would not disrupt the rational funding model or the agreement to provide only 8 beds at KYS as in the past. One-time funding for KYS could be accessed from the National Child Benefit Reserve Fund which currently has a balance of approximately $65K. The purpose of The National Child Benefit (NCB) is to assist families with young children living in poverty to help prevent and reduce the depth of child poverty, support parents as they move into the labour market and reduce overlap and duplication of government programs. 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 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

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 90 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘B’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-005 December 4, 2012

• Page 13 -

ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternative formats upon request. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: City Council approved a City contribution of $236K to Emergency Shelters for 2013 in Report No. 12-244 on September 4, 2012, which is subject to final budget approval. 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. The County has agreed to contribute $26K for the 2013 cost of emergency shelters. It should be noted that the County is no longer obligated under the new CHPI program to contribute to the emergency shelter system. The National Child Benefit (NCB) Reserve Fund has a balance of approximately $65K. The purpose of The NCB is to assist families with young children living in poverty to help prevent and reduce the depth of child poverty, support parents as they move into the labour market and reduce overlap and duplication of government programs. It should be noted that in addition to this shelter funding model, the Housing Department will be purchasing and distributing transit passes to the shelters in order to encourage job and apartment searches. The cost of purchasing these passes will be covered by the support program funding included in the 2012 operational budget. The passes will be distributed to the shelters for use in 2013 along with a policy for use developed jointly by the Housing Department and shelters. 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: Lee Campbell, Housing Program Administrator, Housing Department Melanie Bale, Financial Analyst, Housing Department Katie Clarke, Manager, Ontario Works Program, Community& Family Services Dept. Alan McLeod, Senior Legal Counsel, Legal Services Department Desiree Kennedy, Director of Financial Services & City Treasurer EXTERNALS CONSULTED: Marian Van Bruinessen, Treasurer, County of Frontenac EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit ‘A’ Shelter bed utilization for 2011 Exhibit ‘B’ Potential 2013 funding under Model 3

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 91 of 205

EXHIBIT ‘B’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit ‘A’ - Shelter Bed Utilization for 2011 2011 Ryandale Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy Dawn House Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy Harbour Light Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy Youth Shelter Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy In From the Cold Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

414 465 89%

174 420 41%

202 465 43%

383 450 85%

261 465 56%

247 450 55%

369 465 79%

221 310 71%

270 280 96%

294 310 95%

286 300 95%

193 310 62%

257 300 86%

201 217 93%

127 196 65%

87 217 40%

138 210 66%

158 217 73%

223 248 90%

165 224 74%

228 248 92%

503 744 68%

461 672 69%

1562 1984 79%

1197 1792 67%

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

407 465 88%

402 450 89%

393 465 85%

328 450 73%

421 465 91%

3587 5010 72%

302 310 97%

317 310 102%

323 300 108%

293 310 95%

266 300 89%

277 310 89%

3299 3650 90%

99 210 47%

144 217 66%

198 217 91%

207 210 99%

173 217 80%

139 210 66%

42 217 19%

1713 2555 67%

242 250 240 248 101% 101%

169 240 70%

258 248 104%

239 248 96%

238 240 99%

347 248 140%

281 240 117%

194 248 78%

2834 2920 97%

409 744 55%

455 720 63%

435 744 58%

300 720 42%

485 744 65%

572 744 77%

698 720 97%

645 744 87%

630 720 88%

536 744 72%

6129 8760 70%

1220 1984 61%

1504 1920 78%

1297 1984 65%

1072 1920 56%

1558 1984 79%

1733 1984 87%

1868 1920 97%

1851 1984 93%

1644 1920 86%

1470 1984 74%

17976 23360 77%

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 92 of 205

Grand Totals - 2011 Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy

Jan

EXHIBIT ‘B’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit ‘B’ - Potential Funding Under Model 3 25% Annual Utilization Funding based on 2011 Average No. Of Beds $

Total Potential Annual Funding for 2013 $

3 Year Average (2009 - 2011) $

Gain/Loss between 3 Year Average $

No. Of Approved Beds

2011 Average No. Of Beds

Proportionate Share of Total Monthly Bed Nights $

Ryandale

15

10.7

162,162.16

121,621.62 37,543.86

159,165.48

160,998.48

(-1,833.00)

Dawn House

10

8.6

108,108.11

81,081.08 30,175.44

111,256.52

117,424.30

(- 6,167.78 )

Harbour Light

7

4.6

75,675.68

56,756.76 16,140.35

72,897.11

72,493.14

403.97

KYSP

8

7.7

86,486.49

64,864.86 27,017.54

91,882.41

124,383.26

(-32,500.85 )

In From The Cold

20

16.4

216,216.22

162,162.16 57,543.86

219,706.02

212,112.58

7,593.45

Lily’s Place

14

9.0

151,351.35

113,513.51 31,578.95

145,092.46

145,736.86

( 644.40 )

75% Base Funding $

Note 1: Average No. Of Beds of 9.0 for Lily’s Place is based on actual utilization April-Sept 2012

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 93 of 205

Note 2: Annual Projection of $145,736.86 for Lily’s Place is based on 6 month actuals projected over 12 months

AgendaItem#5b)

CITY OF KINGSTON

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-068 TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

DATE OF MEETING:

February 5, 2013

SUBJECT:

Status Report on Dawn House Women’s Shelter

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Dawn House is a 10 bed emergency shelter serving women and children and is located on Victoria Street. The agency has two funding agreements with the City of Kingston amounting to approximately $300K annually. One agreement is for the provision of emergency shelter services and the other is to provide daytime programming to its residents. In 2011, City staff conducted operational reviews of the seven (7) agencies in receipt of provincial and municipal homelessness funding and provided written summaries and action plan requirements to each of the agencies. City staff identified a number of deficiencies during the review of Dawn House. The agency was unable to address them immediately and as a result another review was conducted in March 2012. In March review, it was noted that the agency had recently hired a new full time Executive Director, was actively seeking new Board members, was preparing to hire a bookkeeper and City staff reported to Council that it appeared that the agency was beginning to stabilize. However, in October 2012, City staff were notified of the resignation of the full-time Executive Director and were also notified that Dawn House had begun to actively seek out opportunities to be adopted by another community agency interested in continuing the shelter operations on their behalf. This decision was based on the agency’s concerns about their financial viability and their ability to continue to operate independently. On December 4, 2012, Council Report No. 13-005, Interim Emergency Shelter Funding Model for 2013, City Council approved an interim shelter funding model for 2013 and also directed City staff to report back to Council regarding the status of Dawn House Women’s Shelter and its continued compliance with the Housing Department’s 2012 operational review. The Board of Directors of Dawn House has been meeting regularly and is attempting to put measures into place for the ongoing management of the agency.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 94 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL February 5, 2013 Page 2

Report No.: 13-068

The most recent Board meeting was held on January 8, 2013, and while City staff have requested a status update from the agency in relation to the areas of concerns noted in the operational review of the agency, Dawn House staff has only provided an update on some areas. Staff will monitoring the situation at Dawn House and will be reporting back to Council on the updated status of the agency by the end of Q2 in 2013 which could include recommendations as it relates to funding provided to the agency. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 95 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL February 5, 2013 Page 3

Report No.: 13-068

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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 96 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL February 5, 2013 Page 4

Report No.: 13-068

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: Background In 2011, City staff conducted operational reviews of the seven (7) agencies in receipt of provincial and municipal homelessness funding and provided written summaries and Action Plan requirements to each of the agencies. City staff identified a number of deficiencies during the review of Dawn House. Concerns of the agency’s sustainability were brought to staff’s attention in October 2012. Since October 2012, City staff have attended the meetings of the Board of Directors and have expressed concerns about the financial viability of the organization and the capability of the agency to manage operations effectively in the absence of an Executive Director. Dawn House’s attempts to find an agency to adopt them have thus far been unsuccessful. City staff met with agency staff and the Board Executive on January 3, 2013, and attended meetings of the Board of Directors on November 5th and December 18, 2012. The Board held a planning meeting on January 8, 2013 and was requested to report back to the Service Manager on the current status of the agency after this meeting. This report has not yet been received. Statistical reporting In 2012, the provincial quarterly client outcome reporting was received from Dawn House on time and appears to be accurate. The agency put new client tracking systems into place in 2012 to record and report client activity as required for Service Manager reporting. In the absence of an Executive Director, the Service Manager will need to monitor this reporting closely to ensure that it is received in a timely manner and that client activities are being reported accurately. Under the Provincial Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) guidelines, agencies in receipt of funding must report on client outcomes with the goal of assisting clients in obtaining some form of permanent housing. Under this new program, all CHPI funded agencies will be monitored and the success in achieving these results for clients will be measured and analyzed closely. Staffing The last time Dawn House employed a full-time permanent Executive Director (ED) for any extended period of time was in 2006. Since that time there have been 5 full-time and 4 CoE.D.s. The most recent full-time Executive Director was hired early in 2012 and resigned in December 2012. To assist in the management of the shelter, one of the front-line unionized staff members has been promoted to a Lead Counselor position, however, the position remains part of the bargaining unit, limiting the ability to supervise and manage staff. To bridge the gap, the Board has re-hired a former Co-Executive Director to work two (2) hours each evening to assume administrative responsibilities. The person will not be on site during the daytime as she holds another full time job. The part-time assumption of the Executive Director’s duties has proven to be insufficient in the past, leading to many of the issues identified in the operational review (i.e. limited spending controls, limited programming, limited staff supervision and costly staff grievances).

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 97 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL February 5, 2013 Page 5

Report No.: 13-068

Dawn House has three full-time unionized employees. The most recent Collective Agreement was ratified in April 2012 and expired on December 31, 2012. In the absence of a full-time Executive Director, Dawn House may need to hire a labour lawyer or their Board members may need to conduct collective bargaining negotiations. There are currently insufficient funds in the budget to hire a labour lawyer and the agency would need to implement fundraising initiatives for this expense. Program/Services Dawn House has not received any submissions to adopt the agency in response to its call for adoption. Dawn House receives $175K in provincial and municipal funding to provide daytime programming to its residents. There are concerns about the ability of the agency to adequately provide the services for which they are being funded in the absence of a full time Executive Director and without supervision during daytime hours when the majority of programming is to be conducted with clients. In addition, Dawn House staff have expressed concerns about serving children in their facility due to the inadequacies of the facility and the high needs as well as behavior issues of many of the residents and their effects on the children residing in the shelter. In their efforts to find an adoption agency, Dawn House has been in discussions with agencies providing intensive support services to clients with mental health issues and/or addictions to ensure that the clients they currently serve will continue to be served in the community. No agency at this point has expressed an interest in taking on the existing operations at Dawn House. One agency did express an interest in acquiring the building to continue to serve clients with mental health disorders and/or addictions with a transitional or supportive housing setting. Budget The primary source of funding for Dawn House is through City administered funding. In 2013, it is anticipated that Dawn House will receive approximately $300K in homelessness funding from the City. In 2012, Dawn House did receive about $300K in 2012 from the City as well as a onetime funding from the United Way in the amount of approximately $22K to help them operate within their budget for 2012. The agency, like most not-for-profits, has relied on fundraising to supplement its revenues will need to continue in the future. Within most non-profit agencies, the Executive Director generally spends a great deal of time pursuing fundraising and grant opportunities which will be challenging for Dawn House without a full time Executive Director. This will further impact their ability to be financially sustainable. Under the current funding agreement with Dawn House, monthly financials are due 20 days after month end. Dawn House has not consistently provided their monthly financials to City staff within this deadline, despite repeated requests. On January 9, 2013, at the request of the City, Dawn House provided preliminary year-end financial statements for 2012. The Executive Director indicated that the final bookkeeping had not yet been completed as they were awaiting some invoices from December and that the finalized financial statements would be available the third week of January. Due to the challenges in receiving financial information from Dawn House, City staff have recommended that a meeting be set up with their auditor to obtain a

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 98 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL February 5, 2013 Page 6

Report No.: 13-068

preliminary overview of its financial position which will assist the Board in its planning and budgeting exercise for 2013. The most recent draft 2013 budget indicates that the agency will need to draw from some of their internally and externally restricted funds unless significant fundraising is undertaken in 2013. In November 2012, the Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) notified the agency that it would be paying off the agency’s mortgage debt for 302 Victoria Street (approximately $100K). While the agency benefits from the retirement of this debt, there are other considerations as a result of this divestment. Overall, it is anticipated that this debt retirement will provide some minor savings for Dawn House. City staff have been advised by the former Executive Director that the Letters Patent prohibit the agency from selling the house for a profit and must transfer it to another agency. City staff have been unable to obtain copies of the Letters Patent to date, though they have been requested. In the 2011 operational review, City staff recommended that Dawn House hire a bookkeeper rather than pay their auditor to do their monthly bookkeeping. A bookkeeper was hired in June 2012, however, has resigned effective December 31, 2012. Dawn House is currently seeking another agency to perform bookkeeping services on their behalf. Organization City staff are concerned that the recent changes in leadership within the organization will adversely affect service delivery and the financial stability of the agency. During this transition, the Dawn House Board will need to take on additional responsibilities. Fundraising and collective bargaining are two large tasks which are not accounted for in the current organizational structure. The Board of Directors has recently expanded to six members. Next Steps Due to their current financial challenges, it is essential that the agency considers the possibility of ceasing operations and identifying costs associated with this decision. City staff have encouraged Dawn House to consult with a labour lawyer and their auditor to ascertain the costs and sources of funding should they need to cease operations. The City has entered into two agreements with Dawn House for 2013, one for the provision of shelter beds ($80K – $110K) and one for daytime programming ($175K). Housing Department staff will continue to monitor operations at Dawn House to ensure municipal funds are being used appropriately and in accordance with their agreements. Both funding agreements with the agency include a 60 day termination clause. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: N/A NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 99 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL February 5, 2013 Page 7

Report No.: 13-068

ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternative formats upon request. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Dawn House’s 2013 funding for daytime programming is comprised of $155,000 funded from the Local Services Realignment (LSR) Stabilization Fund and $20,412 from the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI). Funding for the shelter operation is comprised of $81,081 of base funding for Emergency Shelters and Utilization funding which will fluctuate based on actual utilization from between $20K - $30K both funded by CHPI. 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: Lee Campbell, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department Melanie Bale, Financial Analyst, Housing Department Desiree Kennedy, Director, Financial Services EXHIBITS ATTACHED: N/A

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 100 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

CITY OF KINGSTON

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-121 TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department Adèle Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services

DATE OF MEETING:

March 5, 2013

SUBJECT:

Use of Provincial One-Time Grant Funding to Support the Transition to the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City was informed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) on December 27, 2012 that it would be providing one time grant funding to the City in the amount of $1.113M to support the Service Manager in transitioning to the new consolidated Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI). CHPI funding was announced in July 2012 and was formed by consolidating funding from the following programs: Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP), Emergency Hostels (previously provided as Ontario Works Hostel per diems), Provincial Rent Bank, Emergency Energy Fund, and approximately fifty percent of the provincial savings due to the elimination of the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) from Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). The City was advised by the Province in July 2012 that it would receive an annualized allocation of $2,953,134 for fiscal year 2013-14 which was a reduction of $1.47M from 2011-12 funding levels. This reduction resulted from the reduction of CSUMB and reduced funding for emergency hostels. Through Report 12-244, Council approved a number of program and budgetary changes to implement the new CHPI program. These changes were incorporated into the approved 2013 operating budget to address homelessness programs for 2013, the approval of a new Municipal Residency Benefit program, revisions to the rent and utility banks and the direction to develop an interim funding model for Emergency Hostels. The County of Frontenac has approved the same program changes, which has resulted in $58,513 in additional County costs.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 101 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-121 March 5, 2013

• Page 2 -

The City received notification on February 1st of the guidelines governing use of the one-time transitional funds. The funds can be allocated to the range of housing and homelessness related services as outlined in the CHPI program guidelines, including up to 10% for administration of the grant itself. All funds must be used by March 31, 2014 at which time an audited financial statement indicating final expenditures is required by the Ministry. In 2012, the City and County were proactive in dealing with the reduction of CSUMB and emergency hostel funding. Approximately $1.02M was approved in municipal funding for 2013 emergency hostels, previous CHPP programs and the new Residency Benefit (CSUMB replacement). The 2014 estimated municipal cost for these programs in 2014 is $829K. This report seeks direction that the MCSS CHPI one-time transition funds be allocated in the 2013 and 2014 budgets to replace municipal funds already allocated towards homelessness programs and, that in turn, the 2013 municipal contribution to homelessness programs be transferred to a reserve to support the implementation of the homelessness plan from 2013 to 2015. As the CHPI one-time transition funding can be used in the first quarter of 2014, staff are recommending that 25% of the funding be deferred for use in 2014. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council direct the Commissioner, Community Services to submit to the Ministry of Community and Social Services “Exhibit B Outline for Use of Transition to the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) Funding” to Report 13-121 as the City of Kingston’s required plan; and THAT Council direct staff to amend the Community and Family Services Department and Housing Department’s 2013 Operating budgets as detailed in Exhibit A of Report 13-121; and THAT Council approve the deferral of 25% of the $1,113,869 of the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative one-time funding to the 2014 Housing Department and Community and Family Services Department Operating budgets. The funds should be allocated to each Department as detailed in Exhibit A of report 13-121; and THAT a Homelessness Plan Implementation Reserve be established with funding from the Housing Department and Community and Family Services Department Operating budgets as detailed in Exhibit A of Report 13-121.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 102 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-121 March 5, 2013

• Page 3 -

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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 103 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-121 March 5, 2013

• Page 4 -

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: In 2011, the Province advised that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing would undertake a consolidation of several existing homelessness funding streams into one new allocation. This allocation was to be administered by municipalities with additional flexibility provided to address individual local needs. The scope of the consolidation was to include:  Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program  Emergency Energy Fund;  Emergency Hostel Services;  Domiciliary Hostel Program (no program active in Kingston and Frontenac); and  Provincial Rent Bank The Province further announced in March 2012 changes to cost shared benefits under the ODSP and OW programs including:  Removal of the Community Start-up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) and home repair benefit from social assistance; and  Revision of the cost sharing formula for Ontario Works non-health and healthrelated discretionary benefits In July 2012, the City was advised it would receive an annualized allocation of $2,953,134 in funding for the replacement CHPI program. When combined with the impact of capping of OW discretionary benefit cost sharing this resulted in a reduction of $1.47M in total funding to the Service Manager. In September of 2012, advisement of the final April 2013-March 2014 provincial allocation for Kingston Frontenac included an adjustment in the allocation to $2,888,222, representing an additional funding reduction of $64,912. Through Report 12-244 Council approved a number of program changes to address this reduced funding and the new CHPI requirements while still providing an appropriate level of service:

1. Revisions to the 2012 capped OW discretionary benefit schedule to focus on health related benefits;
2. Creation of a new municipal Discretionary Residency Benefit to replace the previous CSUMB equivalent to 70% of previous funding level for social assistance recipients;
3. Redirection of Home Ownership Program funds to contribute to the municipal Discretionary Residency Benefit;
4. Reallocation of existing provincial Emergency Energy Fund, provincial Rent Bank, municipal Rent Bank, and Rent Deposit Assistance funding to the municipal Discretionary Residency Benefit to provide rent and utility arrears assistance to OW and ODSP clients only;
5. Creation of a new low income bank program to serve low income individuals for their rental and utilities needs.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 104 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-121 March 5, 2013

• Page 5 -

Through Report 13-005 an interim Emergency Hostels funding model was established for 2013 to replace the former per diem program. The Ministry of Community and Social Services announced on December 27, 2012 that in order to support municipalities in transitioning to the new consolidated CHPI that an additional $42M in one-time grant funding was being made available to Service Managers. Kingston is being allocated $1.113M in one-time grant funding through this announcement. The City received notification on February 1st of the guidelines governing use of these funds. The funds can be allocated to the range of housing and homelessness related services as outlined in the CHPI program guidelines, including up to 10% for administration of the grant itself. All funds must be used by March 31, 2014 at which time an audited financial statement indicating final expenditures is required by the Ministry. The City was provided with ten (10) days to submit an outline as to how the funds would be used. This timeframe did not allow staff sufficient time to prepare and submit a report to Council. Staff did submit a draft outline to the Ministry in order to meet the deadline which is the same as what being recommended in this report (See Exhibit B). Significant changes in both funding and programming resulting from CHPI and the reduction in overall provincial funding have been implemented by the Community and Family Services Department and the Housing Department beginning as scheduled on January 1, 2013. Since it is only two months into these modified programs staff are not yet able to properly evaluate the effectiveness of these programming changes. The Housing Department is currently developing the Provincially mandated 10 Year Homelessness Plan where the project work plan anticipates adoption by Council in July 2013 with implementation of the recommendations in the second half of 2013 and into 2014. This transitional funding is intended to provide funding to Service Managers to aid in the transition to a permanent funding and service level for homelessness programs. As the City proactively contributed municipal funding to help transition to the new homelessness programs, staff are recommending that these municipal funds be redirected to a new Homelessness Plan Implementation Reserve and that the one-time provincial funding be used towards 2013 and 2014 expenditures for the already implemented strategies related to the previous CHPP programs, emergency hostels, and the new Residency Benefit. See Exhibit A for the funding details. The Homelessness Plan Implementation Reserve will be available for the City and affected agencies to transition to the recommended new sustainable homelessness system. Overview of Recommended Use of Transition Funding Staff are recommending that the funds be used towards three programs. These are the general programs where the funds will be directed to:

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 105 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-121 March 5, 2013

• Page 6 -

Previous Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) services - $155,000  The services associated with the former CHPP include drop in centres for persons who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, financial assistance banks, support services for shelters, eviction prevention, and a housing help centre. Emergency Hostel services - $327,542  Funding is provided to six emergency hostel shelters operating over 80 beds in total. This funding represents the City and County municipal contributions for emergency hostels in 2013 and the first quarter of 2014. City of Kingston and County of Frontenac Residency Benefit program - $631,327  The Residency Benefit program assists OW and ODSP recipients in the City and County who are homeless, or who are at risk of homelessness with rent deposits or arrears, utility hook ups or arrears, eviction notices, heating fuel, moving costs, storage costs and telephone/ internet hook up A description of the means by which these funds will be allocated within the budget is described below in the Financial Considerations section. EXTERNAL CONSULTED: Marian VanBruinessen, Treasurer, County of Frontenac EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: There are no existing Policies/By-Laws concerning this subject, on record, to date. NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in an alternative format upon request. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: There are financial implications in this report related to the 2013 and 2014 budgets for both the Housing Department and the Community and Family Services Department. Exhibit A provides an analysis of amendments necessary to each Department’s approved 2013 Operating Budgets. Reimbursement of Local Service Realignment Reserve: The 2013 budget approved $155,000 to be used from this reserve to provide stabilization funding to Dawn House Women’s Shelter. This was a temporary measure until the Homelessness Plan was completed to guide the future direction of the municipally funded shelter system. An

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 106 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 13-121 March 5, 2013

• Page 7 -

additional $63,268 was to be transferred from the LSR to other CHPI programs. This report recommends that all funds ($218,268) remain in the LSR reserve. Deferral to 2014 Budget: The transition funding covers the Provincial fiscal year until end of the first quarter in 2014. This report recommends deferring 25% of the total funding to be used as revenue towards 2014 Housing and Community and Family Services Departments’ homelessness programs. Exhibit A provides the budget amounts. County Contribution to Residency Benefit Program and Hostels: The County’s revised cost share for 2013 will be $25,068 base on the LSR Agreement, a reduction of $61,654 due to costs being covered by the MCSS one-time transitional funding. Homelessness Plan Implementation Reserve: $555,479 of City of Kingston municipal funds will be placed into a new reserve to be used towards implementation of the Homelessness Plan in 2013 and 2014. This will reduce budgetary pressures in 2014 when implementing the Homelessness Plan recommendations. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department Adele Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services

613-546-4291 ext. 1231 613-546-2695 ext. 4957 613 546-2695 ext. 4801

OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Lee Campbell, Housing Programs Administrator Katie Clarke, Manager, Program Delivery Desiree Kennedy, Director of Financial Services and City Treasurer EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A - Financial Analysis and Proposed Strategy for Amendments to the CFS and Housing Department Operating Budgets Exhibit B - Outline for Use of Transition to the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) Funding to be Provided to Ministry of Community and Social Services

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 107 of 205

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit A: Financial Analysis and Proposed Strategy for Amendments to Operating Budget Table 1: 2013 Approved Operating Budget - Homelessness Programs Community & Family Services Program Budget Provincial CHPI Funding Recovery from County

$$ (949,265) (60,519)

CHPI - Residency Benefit 2013 Net Muncipal Expenditure

1,618,311 608,527

Housing Department Program Budget Provincial CHPI Funding Recovery from County Transfer from Reserves

$$ (2,850,689) (26,203) (314,132)

CHPI - Previous CHPP Program CHPI - Low Income Bank Program CHPI - Residency Benefit Emergency Hostels 2013 Net Municipal Expenditure

1,470,488 47,970 949,265 825,000 101,699

Housing Department Program Budget Prov MCSS Transition Funding Provincial CHPI Funding Recovery from County Transfer from Reserves

$$ -400,657 (2,850,689) (1,638) (95,864)

Table 2: 2013 Amended Operating Budget Community & Family Services Program Budget Prov MCSS Mitigation Funding Provincial CHPI Funding Recovery from County CHPI - Residency Benefit Municipal Contribution to new Hmlssness Reserve 2013 Muncipal Expenditure

-$ -$ -$

$$ 434,745 949,265 23,430

$ $ $

1,618,311 397,656 608,527

CHPI - Previous CHPP Program CHPI - Low Income Bank Program CHPI - Residency Benefit Emergency Hostels Municipal Contribution to new Hmlssness Reserve 2013 Net Municipal Expenditure

1,470,488 47,970 949,265 825,000 157,823 101,699

TOTAL 2013 Municipal Investment in New Municipal Homelessness Plan Implementation Reserve:

555,479

TOTAL Sparing of Previously Approved Contributions from the LSR Reserve:

218,268

Community & Family Services Program Budget Q1'14 Prov MCSS Mitigation Funding Total 2013-2014 Municipal Funding Impacts: Contribution to new Homelessness Reserve County of Frontenac 2013 Expenditure Reduction Sparing of LSR Drawdown Reduction to 2014 Municipal Operating Budgets

$$ -196,582

555,479 61,655 218,268 278,467 1,113,869

Housing Department Program Budget Q1'14 Prov MCSS Mitigation Funding Total 2013-2014 MCSS Transitional Funding: Residency Benefit Previous CHPP Emergency Hostel

$$ -81,886

$ 631,327 $ 155,000 $ 327,542 $ 1,113,869

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 108 of 205

Table 3: Contribution to 2014 Operating Budget

AgendaItem#5b)

Exhibit B

Outline for Use of Transition to the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) Funding to be Provided to Ministry of Community and Social Services

The City of Kingston, as Service Manager, intends to use the $1,113,869 to fund the following three initiatives:

1. Previous Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) services
2. Emergency Hostel services
3. City of Kingston and County of Frontenac Residency Benefit program The following is a description of each:
4. Previous Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) services The services associated with the former CHPP include drop in centres for persons who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, financial assistance banks, support services for shelters, eviction prevention, and a housing help centre.
5. Emergency Hostel services Funding is provided to six emergency hostel shelters operating over 80 beds in total. These shelters each have individual mandates and provide various unique services to the homeless.
6. City of Kingston and County of Frontenac Residency Benefit program The Residency Benefit program assists OW and ODSP recipients in the City and County who are homeless, or who are at risk of homelessness with rent deposits or arrears, utility hook ups or arrears, eviction notices, heating fuel, moving costs, storage costs and telephone/ internet hook up. Funding Distribution to Each Program Program Previous CHHP services Residency Benefit program Emergency Shelter services Total

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Funding $155,000 $631,327 $327,542 $1,113,869

Page 109 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

CITY OF KINGSTON

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-001 TO:

Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group

RESOURCE STAFF:

Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

DATE OF MEETING:

December 13, 2012

SUBJECT:

Housing Charter – City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Recommendation #34 found within the Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS) concerns the creation and adoption of a Housing Charter. The charter is intended to communicate policy principles regarding housing and homelessness, as set out in the Municipal Housing Strategy. A draft Housing Charter for the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac is attached as Exhibit ‘A’ for consideration and discussion by the Committee. The draft Housing Charter is being presented for review by the Committee, so that feedback can be offered to City staff for possible edits to the document. Staff will take the feedback gathered at the meeting and present a revised draft for formal recommendation by the Committee at the January 2013 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 110 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 13 2012

• Page 2 -

Report No.: HHC-13-001

AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner

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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 111 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 13 2012

• Page 3 -

Report No.: HHC-13-001

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: The draft Housing Charter (Exhibit ‘A’) has been developed by the Housing Department staff as a direct result of recommendations in the Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS). The intent of the charter is to communicate policy principles regarding housing and homelessness. The implementation instructions found within this MHS recommendation note that the charter should convey these principles in succinct, straight-forward language. The City of Kingston/County of Frontenac draft charter provides a one-page format and includes succinct references to housing being fundamental to the health and social well-being of our citizens, that local housing options should be varied, kept in a proper state of repair and that all citizens’ voices are crucial to the future of the community. On-line research was conducted by City staff to examine what types of housing charters existed elsewhere in Ontario. With the exception of Toronto, there were few examples to refer to in drafting a document for Kingston. The few examples found generally used a broad, mission statement-styled approach to housing in their City, including references to housing being fundamental to strengthening their local economy, a citizen’s right to live in a safe and secure home and in the neighbourhood of their choice without discrimination. These charters were designed to guide their City Council and the City’s public service in the provision of services and programs to its residents. The charter enhances the notion that housing is a right of all citizens and a basic foundation for the community’s on-going efforts to improve and sustain its quality of life. The document, if approved by City and County Councils, will stand as a mission-statement and vision for staff and volunteers who work within the housing and homelessness service sector. As per the recommendation, the charter was to be completed within the first year of implementation of the Municipal Housing Strategy. This document as presented is a joint statement for the City and the County and as such County staff have been consulted. Using this joint approach, both County and City Councils’ approval will be necessary. As a first step in the formal review of this draft charter, City and County staff are asking for feedback from the Committee on the document. Upon receipt of this feedback, the document will be adjusted and returned to the Committee for review at the next meeting and then subsequent reviews and approval by both Councils. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: Recommendation #34 of the Municipal Housing Strategy reads: “That the City and County adopt a Housing Charter as a means of communicating policy principles regarding housing and homelessness”. City staff were to develop background information/examples and draft a charter for Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committees’ (HHC) consideration that conveys principles in succinct, straight-forward language.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 112 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 13 2012

• Page 4 -

Report No.: HHC-13-001

The HHC Committee was to review and recommend the charter for Councils’ consideration and County staff were to develop a draft for County Council consideration. This task was to be completed within the first year of implementation of the Municipal Housing Strategy. NOTICE PROVISIONS: There are no notice requirements ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternate formats. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: No financial implications are to be considered in this report. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

613-546-4291 ext. 1231 613-546-2695 ext. 4957

OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Geoff Coons, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit ‘A’ Draft of the Housing Charter for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 113 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

Exhibit A City of Kingston and County of Frontenac - Housing Charter (DRAFT) The Housing Charter for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac is intended to communicate policy principles regarding housing and homelessness as set out in the Municipal Housing Strategy. Policy Statement: Access to a full range of appropriate, affordable and accessible housing options within a safe and welcoming community is fundamental to the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac’s’ economy and the health and social well-being of its residents. In order to have and appreciate a consistent and self-sustaining quality of life, reliable and secure living accommodations should be realized by all citizens of the City and County. All citizens should be able to live in their home and within their broader neighbourhood, without reservation, discrimination or fear for their personal safety or that of their families. All citizens are protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code that forbids discriminatory practises which could limit housing opportunities. The City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac does not condone nor allow discrimination based on age, gender, race, physical ability, sexual orientation or family structure. The City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac are sustained by a healthy range of housing options. All housing in the City and County should be maintained and operated in a proper and safe state of repair. Citizens of Kingston and the County of Frontenac, regardless of their home address, are entitled to an equal voice in contributing to the hopeful future of our region. Implementation: The Charter will focus the collective efforts of City and County elected officials, staff, committee members and community service providers, to ensure that permanent, sustainable and affordable housing remains the long-term solution to homelessness in this region. The City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac will monitor the changing needs of the housing and homelessness sector and in turn, adjust their services and provision of resources accordingly.

Mark Gerretsen, Mayor City of Kingston

Janet Gutkowski, Warden County of Frontenac

Date:

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 114 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

CITY OF KINGSTON

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-003 TO:

Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

DATE OF MEETING:

December 13, 2012

SUBJECT:

Municipal Housing Strategy: 40 Recommendations Progress

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 20th, 2011, Council endorsed the Municipal Housing Strategy(MHS) final report encompassing three phases of work, collectively called “Municipal Housing Strategy for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac” prepared by “S.H.S. Consulting” in association with “re/fact Consulting”. The goal of the project was to develop a MHS for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac that contains projections, policies, and programs for affordable housing and unique approaches to creating diverse housing stock in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac in the short, medium and long term. It provides strategies to address housing issues, ensuring that they align with strategic community direction. As a result, the MHS has established formal recommendations on policies and programs in an actionable plan for the 2011 to 2015 period. The MHS includes 40 recommendations that are intended to guide the ongoing actions of the City of Kingston’s Housing Department and the County of Frontenac over the course of the plan’s duration. Recommendation #6 calls for the City of Kingston to report on MHS progress regularly. The 40 recommendations and actions taken by City and County staff to date are attached as Exhibit ‘A’. This information is being presented for review by the Committee so that members remain informed of progress and continued areas of need. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 115 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report #: HHC-13-003 December 13, 2012

• Page 2 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner

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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 116 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report #: HHC-13-003 December 13, 2012

• Page 3 OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: The Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS), adopted in 2011, was created to replace the previous housing strategy entitled The Kingston Model for Action prepared in 2005 which followed the earlier Kingston Area Housing Study created in 1990. The MHS re-evaluates the housing issues faced by the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac through a comprehensive assessment of housing demand and supply. It also refines strategies to address identified housing issues, ensuring that they align with strategic community direction. By establishing minimum targets for the provision of affordable housing, the MHS also aims to meet the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). The Municipal Housing Strategy contains 40 recommendations that are intended to guide the ongoing actions of the City of Kingston’s Housing Department and the County of Frontenac over the course of the plan’s duration. These recommendations are based on the housing needs identified in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac, through a comprehensive review of current relevant policy and effective practices, and feedback from a wide range of stakeholders. The recommendations reflect a broad three-pronged approach aimed at maintaining, enhancing and adding to the supply of appropriate and affordable housing in the community. To meet these objectives, five strategic directions were established and are listed as follows:

1. Managing the housing agenda – creating a clear, visible direction for housing that aligns efforts;
2. Creating a complementary regulatory environment – establishing a conducive environment that creates opportunities and minimizes barriers;
3. Leveraging resources and tools – using and maximizing available resources to help generate positive outcomes;
4. Building housing capacity – increasing knowledge, resources and support to better respond to needs, and;
5. Cultivating partnerships – building and harnessing the strengths of stakeholders The recommendations were established in Phase 3 of the MHS. They are organized under each of the five strategic directions, identifying implementation activities, core responsibility, timing and resources necessary for each item. An additional category, Action Taken, has been added to the reporting chart to indicate the level of progress to date (Exhibit A). Using the recommendations as a guide, the MHS status report will be completed annually and submitted to the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee for information and discussion. This document is a joint statement for the City and the County and as such County staff has been consulted, specifically concerning the recommendations in the MHS that are the responsibility of the County.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 117 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report #: HHC-13-003 December 13, 2012

• Page 4 EXTERNAL STAFF CONSULTED: Joe Gallivan, Manager of Sustainability Planning, County of Frontenac EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: Recommendation #6 of the Municipal Housing Strategy reads: “That the City report on MHS progress regularly and publish an annual report card identifying key indicator status.  Establish MHS monitoring table to show progress against approved recommendations  Define and develop key housing indicators  Create template for annual report card  Report annually to Council via report card on indicators and MHS status” This report focuses on the first and fourth sub bullets of this recommendation to establish an MHS monitoring table to show progress against approved recommendations and to report annually on MHS status. The annual report card document identified in the above recommendation is being created as a separate item which will be a more community focused document. The final draft of the report card document will be available for review in early 2013, once the 2012 year-end data is acquired by the City of Kingston’s Housing Department. NOTICE PROVISIONS: There are no notice requirements. ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternate formats. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: No financial implications are to be considered in this report. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

613-546-4291 ext. 1231 613-546-2695 ext. 4957

OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Geoff Coons, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit ‘A’ Reporting chart on each of the 40 recommendations found within the Municipal Housing Strategy for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac for 2012

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 118 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

CITY OF KINGSTON

REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-004 TO:

Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department Geoff Coons, Housing Programs Administrator

DATE OF MEETING:

January 10, 2013

SUBJECT:

Revised Housing Charter – City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A draft of the City of Kingston’s Housing Charter was submitted for review and feedback by the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee at their December 13, 2012 meeting. During that meeting, staff received feedback that the Housing Charter could be improved to include a reference to the importance of housing in relation to economic development in the community. Staff were to edit the document accordingly and resubmit it for consideration by the Committee at the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee meeting to be held on January 10, 2013. Staff have offered three sample references for consideration and possible insertion into the Housing Charter. Recommendation #34 found within the Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS) concerns the creation and adoption of a Housing Charter. The charter is intended to communicate policy principles regarding housing and homelessness, as set out in the Municipal Housing Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approve the Housing Charter for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac with the insertion of Option C as noted in report HHC 13-004.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 119 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: HHC-13-004 January 10, 2013

• Page 2 -

AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner

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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 120 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: HHC-13-004 January 10, 2013

• Page 3 -

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: Recommendation #34 found within the Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS) concerns the creation and adoption of a Housing Charter. The charter is intended to communicate policy principles regarding housing and homelessness, as set out in the Municipal Housing Strategy. In an attempt to review examples of housing charters that were created in other communities, City of Kingston staff, in consultation with County of Frontenac staff, conducted a period of on-line research. With the exception of Toronto, there were few examples to refer to in drafting a document for Kingston. Some communities completed similar housing and homelessness plans however a specific charter did not appear to be readily apparent in the examples that were researched. The Toronto example was a one-page document, sub-titled Opportunity for All. It appeared to be a broad, mission statement-styled approach to housing in their city, including references to housing being fundamental to strengthening their local economy, a citizen’s right to live in a safe and secure home, in the neighbourhood of their choice without discrimination. It was designed to guide their City Council and the City’s public service in the provision of services and programs to its residents. The instructions found within this MHS recommendation note that the charter would convey principles in succinct, straight-forward language. The City of Kingston/County of Frontenac draft charter would keep to the one-page format example and include succinct references to housing being fundamental to the health and social well-being of our citizens, that local housing options should be varied, kept in a proper state of repair and that all citizen’s voices are crucial to the future of the community. The charter enhances the notion that housing is right of all citizens and a basic foundation for the community’s on-going efforts to improve and sustain its quality of life. The document, if approved by City and County Councils, will stand as a missionstatement for staff and volunteers who work within the housing and homelessness service sector. A draft of the City of Kingston’s Housing Charter was submitted for review and feedback by the Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee at their December 13, 2012 meeting. During that meeting, the Committee requested that the Housing Charter should include a reference to the importance of housing in relation to economic development in a community. Staff have prepared three possible revisions to address this request for the Committee to review and consider. Options A and B are new clauses while Option C amends an existing clause: a) If a community is to experience continuous population growth, as well as achieve success in its economic development pursuits, then housing construction starts

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 121 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: HHC-13-004 January 10, 2013

• Page 4 -

must continue to meet the demand of its citizens, as well as those who may wish to relocate to this region. Ongoing local investment in new and diverse housing construction is a key component of economic development. b) A diverse housing market and healthy investment in housing is integral to the economic development of the City and the County. c) Access to a full range of appropriate, affordable, and accessible housing options within a safe and welcoming community is fundamental to the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac’s economic development and the health and social well-being of its residents. Staff are recommending Option C as the edit to the Charter. This amendment would see the removal of the word “economy” which was located in the second paragraph of the charter and replaced with the words: “economic development”. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: Municipal Housing Strategy - Recommendation #34 That the City and County adopt a Housing Charter as a means of communicating policy principles regarding housing and homelessness. City staff were to develop background information/examples and draft a charter for HHA Committee consideration that conveys principles in succinct, straight-forward language. The Housing and Homelessness Committee were to review and recommend the Charter for Council consideration. County staff were to develop a draft for County Council consideration. This task was to be completed within the first year of implementation of the Municipal Housing Strategy. NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternative formats upon request. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: N/A CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group

613-546-4291 ext. 1231

OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department Geoff Coons, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 122 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: HHC-13-004 January 10, 2013

• Page 5 -

EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit ‘A’ Draft of the Housing Charter for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac, indicating the recommended text edit for consideration by the Committee.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 123 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

Exhibit “A” – Draft City of Kingston and County of Frontenac – Housing Charter City of Kingston and County of Frontenac - Housing Charter The Housing Charter for the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac is intended to communicate policy principles regarding housing and homelessness as set out in the Municipal Housing Strategy. Policy Statement: Access to a full range of appropriate, affordable, and accessible housing options within a safe and welcoming community is fundamental to the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac’s economy economic development and the health and social well-being of its residents. In order to have and appreciate a consistent and self-sustaining quality of life, reliable and secure living accommodations should be realized by all citizens of the City and County. All citizens should be able to live in their home and within their broader neighbourhood, without reservation, discrimination or fear for their personal safety or that of their families. All citizens are protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code that forbids discriminatory practises which could limit housing opportunities. The City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac does not condone nor allow discrimination based on age, gender, race, physical ability, sexual orientation or family structure. The City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac is sustained by a healthy range of housing options. All housing in the City and County should be maintained and operated in a proper and safe state of repair. Citizens of Kingston and the County of Frontenac, regardless of their home address, are entitled to an equal voice in contributing to the hopeful future of our region. Implementation: The Charter will focus the collective efforts of City and County elected officials, staff, committee members and community service providers, to ensure that permanent, sustainable and affordable housing remains the long-term solution to homelessness in this region. The City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac will monitor the changing needs of the housing and homelessness sector and in turn, adjust their services and provision of resources accordingly.

Mark Gerretsen, Mayor City of Kingston

Janet Gutkowski, Warden County of Frontenac

Date:

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 124 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’

CITY OF KINGSTON

REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Adèle Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Programs

DATE OF MEETING:

September 4, 2012

SUBJECT:

Recommended Revisions to Funding Allocations and Service Levels for Emergency Hostel Services, Community Homelessness Programs and OW Discretionary Benefits

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On June 19th, Council was informed of upcoming changes in provincial funding related to: Consolidation of existing Homelessness Prevention funding into a new initiative including funding for Emergency Hostels previously provided as Ontario Works Hostel per diems; Capping of the cost sharing for OW Discretionary Benefits; and Elimination of the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) under Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and provision of replacement funding under the newly consolidated homelessness prevention initiative. At this same meeting, Council endorsed the following motion: 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. On July 17, 2012, Council was informed that the provincial guidelines on the consolidated homelessness funding had not yet been received and Council endorsed this motion: 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.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 125 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 2 -

On July 24th 2012, the City was advised by the Province that it would receive an annualized allocation of $2,953,134 in funding for the fiscal year of 2013-2014 (equivalent to $2,914,545 for calendar year 2013) under the new Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI). This allocation consolidates the former programs of Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP), Provincial Rent Bank, Emergency Hostel per Diems, Emergency Energy Fund and the OW and ODSP Community Start-up and Maintenance Benefit. This consolidation and change in funding represents a reduction of approximately $1.17M from the provincial funding level received in 2011 and budgeted in 2012. An additional provincial funding reduction of approximately $300,000 from the 2011actuals and 2012 budgeted figures level is estimated in relation to the new cost sharing cap for OW discretionary benefits. This is a total reduction of about $1.47M from the 2011-2012 funding levels. The purpose of this report is both to quantify the impact of this provincial funding reduction and to recommend adjustments to program allocations, service levels and interim municipal funding contingencies to mitigate the impact of this funding loss and to maintain 2013 and 2014 municipal operational budget targets. Summary of Changes:

1. Province revised and capped the cost sharing formula for OW and ODSP non-health and health related benefits at $10 per month, per case. This represents a reduction of about $300,000 in funding from the Province per year. City staff is recommending revisions to the service levels to focus on health related needs and to reduce of the overall allocation to fit within the new capped cost sharing formula. Exhibit C of this report provides details on proposed changes to service levels.
2. Province eliminated the OW/ODSP Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) and is providing about 46% of previous funding level to continue to support programs and services formerly funded through the CSUMB. City staff is recommending the creation of a municipal Discretionary Residency Benefit, with reduced level of service, for social assistance recipients residing in Kingston and the County of Frontenac to replace the previous CSUMB. City staff is also recommending that this municipal discretionary residency benefit be equivalent to 70% of previous funding level for City social assistance recipients, which requires an investment from the City and will be funded in part through internal reallocation of funding. Exhibit D of this report provides details on proposed changes to service levels.
3. Redirection of $260,000 from the existing 2013 Housing Department operating budget to finance contribution to the municipal Discretionary Residency Benefit. These funds had been budgeted to provide housing providers with additional support services and increase the Home Ownership Program. The funds have not yet been committed to any particular agencies or individuals and due to the need of OW and ODSP clients and to mitigate impacts on City budgets, staff is recommending the redirection of these funds.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 126 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 3 -

4. Reallocation of 50% from the existing provincial Emergency Energy Fund, provincial Rent Bank, municipal Rent Bank, Rent Deposit Assistance to the municipal discretionary residency benefit to provide rent and utility arrears assistance to OW and ODSP clients only. This reallocation forms part of the 70% funding level proposed for this program (70% of the former CSUMB). The remainder 50% of the rent and utility banks will be redirected to create one new low income bank program which will serve working low income individuals. The consolidation and creation of one low income bank will enable staff to be more flexible with allocation of funding between rental and utilities needs.
5. Reallocation of Local Services Realignment (LSR) Reserve Fund and from the National Child Benefit Reinvestment Reserve Fund to maintain anticipated OW upload savings in the 2013 and 2014 municipal operating budgets. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council direct staff 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 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; and THAT Council approve 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; and THAT Council approve the revised OW Discretionary Health Benefit service level schedule as detailed in Exhibit C of this report; and THAT Council approve 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.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 127 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 4 -

AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner

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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 128 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 5 -

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: In 2011, the City was advised by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that the Province would undertake a consolidation of several existing homelessness funding streams into one new allocation. This allocation was to be administered by municipalities with additional flexibility provided to address individual local needs. The scope of the consolidation was to include: Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program Emergency Energy Fund; Emergency Hostel Services; Domiciliary Hostel Program (no program active in Kingston and Frontenac); and Provincial Rent Bank On March 27th 2012, a memorandum was received from the Provincial Ontario Works Branch detailing changes to cost shared benefits funded under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works (OW) programs including: Removal of the Community Start-up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) and home repair benefit from social assistance; and Revision of the cost sharing formula for Ontario Works non-health and health-related discretionary benefits. The memorandum further advised that a portion of the provincial share of CSUMB funding would be included in the new consolidated homelessness funding allocation provided to municipalities by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, under the Long Term Affordable Housing Strategy. On July 24th 2012, the City was advised that it would receive an annualized allocation of $2,953,134 in funding for fiscal year 2013-2014 under the replacement Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (equivalent to $2,914,545 for calendar year 2013). This allocation represents a reduction of approximately $1.17M from the provincial funding level received in 2011 as well as the forecasted expenditure levels anticipated for 2012. When combined with the impact of the capping of OW discretionary benefit cost sharing and compared to the operating budget forecasts, the City would have to contribute an additional $549,132 and the County an additional $58,513 to provide the following level of services in 2013: Status quo funding levels for the majority of Homelessness programs per Exhibit B; Comparable funding for Emergency Hostels; Replacement of the former Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit at 70% of the previous level with a Discretionary Municipal Residency Benefit. In addition to the above provincially funded programs, the City has funded additional programs through annualized municipal budget allocations which include funding for a support services for housing providers, a homeownership down payment assistance program and the Municipal

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 129 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 6 -

Rent Bank. While these are entirely funded by the municipality and allocations are not impacted by provincial changes, they are noted in this report as staff is recommending changes in their use or scope of service as part of the funding solutions proposed in this report. Exhibit A of this report provides funding details for 4 cost analyses: 2011 actual provincial and municipal expenditures. 2013 forecast used in the 2012 multi-year budget forecast based on cost sharing and funding allocations at that time. 2013 forecast based on revised provincial funding and cost sharing and the recommended revised municipal funding to address the provincial shortfall. 2014 Budget forecast with recommended municipal funding to address the provincial shortfall Details of the funding changes and recommended municipal strategy are explained by program in the following sections: Emergency Hostel Funding: For the past several years, the City has funded shelter beds using a purchase of service for bed nights on a per diem basis through Ontario Works’ “Emergency Hostel Services” funding. Under this model, the funding was cost-shared with the province. The municipal cost-share portion was being reduced annually as OW allowance and benefit costs are slowly uploaded back to the province over a 9 year period ending in 2018. In 2011, the municipal cost-share with the Province was on an 81.2 /18.8 percentage basis. For 2012, the per diem rate is $43.50 with an additional $4.40 for added costs related to the provision of personal needs assistance (PNA). Hostels receive the shelter bed per diem based on client income and eligibility. Some hostels provide PNA funds back to the clients and absorb personal needs item provisions into other non-municipal/provincial resource lines. The OW emergency hostel service per diem rate has always been prescribed (capped) by the Province. Under the 2013 consolidated funding allocation, the Province has taken the three year average of shelter per diems from 2009 to 2011 to calculate the City’s shelter funding allocation. This allocation does not include the amount paid to shelters for PNA. In 2013, OW clients residing in emergency hostels will be eligible for basic allowance through OW therefore the province has removed the PNA portion from the consolidated funding formula. This has resulted in less funding being available for the shelters. The opening of 14 additional shelter beds in the City in 2012 has resulted in increased overall shelter bed utilization locally which was not taken into consideration by the Province in the calculation of the shelter funding allocation. Funding allocation recommended by City staff include an adjustment of the 2013 gross budget for shelter beds to reflect the current situation and need for shelter beds.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 130 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 7 -

One of the main objectives of the new Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) funding is to better address need by shifting focus from temporary to more stable housing solutions. It is the vision of MMAH that the CHPI provides a better coordinated and integrated service delivery system that is people-centred, outcome-focused and reflects a Housing First approach to prevent, reduce and address homelessness in communities across Ontario. Under the CHPI, Service Managers will be measured against two outcomes: People experiencing homelessness obtain and retain housing; and People at risk of homelessness remain housed; The homelessness Plan that the City is currently undertaking will include ways to better meet these outcomes locally by reducing shelter bed usage over the longer term. The consolidated funding model provides municipalities with more flexibility and as of 2013, municipalities can amend the current per diem funding formula for shelter beds. City staff will be working with shelter providers on a 2013 interim funding model. The funding model will ensure a formula that does not exceed the annual funding noted in Exhibit A. The previous funding model is no longer compatible with the fixed funding envelope of CHPI. The City would be at risk of exceeding its budget should it retain the existing funding model. Homelessness Funding: Exhibit B provides details on the agencies and services funded through the former Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP), the current Municipal Housing & Homelessness Strategy Fund (MHHSF) and temporarily through Local Services Realignment Reserve Fund. This Exhibit also details the amount of funding currently provided by the Province to fund the Provincial Rent Bank and the Provincial Utility Bank. The funding allocation received from the Province indicated that the amount of funding for the CHPP, Rent Bank and Utility Bank would remain the same for 2013. On July 17th 2012, Council endorsed a motion directing staff to report back on funding existing programs once the provincial guidelines and funding allocation were announced. Considering that the funding level of the former CHPP program is the same in 2013 and that there will be considerable changes to all programs in 2014 with a new homelessness plan, staff is recommending to maintain status quo funding of both CHPP and MHSSF for 2013, except for the Rent Deposit Assistance Program. Rent and Utility Banks In 2009, the Province reduced its allocation to the Provincial Rent Bank and in response the City approved an annual municipal contribution of $146,000 to create a municipal rent bank. In the past, clients in receipt of OW and ODSP have accessed funds from multiple sources for rental and utility costs support including the CSUMB, the municipal rent bank fund, the provincial rent bank, the rent deposit assistance program and the utility bank. In order to streamline services

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 131 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 8 -

and create easier access to services, City staff is proposing to consolidate a number of programs into one (1) low income bank which will be available to low income individuals and to redirect some of the funding to the new municipal discretionary residency benefit which will be available to OW and ODSP clients. The low income bank and the municipal discretionary residency benefit will provide support with costs related to rent arrears, utility arrears and rent deposit assistance. In order to streamline these programs and funding, staff is proposing to reduce the municipal rent bank, the provincial rent bank, the utility rent bank and the rent deposit assistance program by 50% and redirect these funds into the new low income bank program. The eligibility criteria for the low income bank will not include OW and ODSP clients. In 2011, approximately 50% of the municipal rent bank recipients were OW and ODSP clients. During that same year, about 68% of the provincial rent bank, utility bank and rent deposit assistance program recipients were OW and ODSP clients in 2011. OW and ODSP clients will continue to have this support through the municipal discretionary residency benefit and non recipients low income individuals will now have access to a higher level of funding. Traditionally, County residents have required more funding from the utility bank as opposed to the rent bank. Under the current delivery model, municipalities do not have the flexibility to transfer funds from one bank to another. This flexibility is provided to municipalities under CHPI and the proposed CHPI low income bank program will allow this flexibility. Dawn House Women’s Shelter Dawn House Women’s Shelter received CHPP funding from 2007 until 2011. In 2012, Dawn House received funding from the Stabilization Reserve Fund to allow the agency an opportunity to address deficiencies identified during operational reviews and the financial viability of the agency. The agency is working diligently to improve operations and City staff recommends that Dawn House Women’s Shelter, continues to receive stabilization funding in 2013. Support Services and Home Ownership Programs In 2011, City staff worked with social housing providers to identify challenges and potential solutions to reduce evictions and provide supports which would enable individuals to stay in their units. In response to feedback from social housing providers, the Housing Department included funding in its 2012 – 2014 operational budgets to support this need. Although the funding has not been committed to any agencies or programs, its intent was to cover the services of support services that could work with social housing providers. In 2012, the Frontenac Community Mental Health and Addiction Services received funding through the federal Homelessness Prevention Strategy (HPS) for a worker who would provide support services to social housing tenants. The Local Housing Corporation, Kingston & Frontenac Housing Corporation, has also recently hired a support worker for this purpose. The second largest provider, Kingston Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation has also indicated that they are hiring a support worker.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 132 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 9 -

Considering that many social housing providers have access to this support service and considering the need to reinvest in the former CSUMB, staff is recommending that the budget allocation of $200,000 for support services be redirected towards the municipal contribution for Discretionary Residency Benefit. In addition, City Council had endorsed an increase of $60,000 to the Home Ownership Program in 2013. City staff is recommending that the Home Ownership program be maintained at its current funding level of $60,000 and that the additional $60,000 included in the draft budgets be reallocated to the Discretionary Residency Benefit to assist social assistance recipients to remain housed or to find and secure housing. The Home Ownership Program was set up as a revolving fund and there have been contributions back to the fund each year. Currently there is $62,350 available for down payments in 2013 but as homeowners who purchased in prior years sell their houses, this is expected to increase. OW Discretionary Benefits and Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit: While it is recognized that both OW Discretionary Benefits and the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefits available to OW and ODSP recipients provide important and often essential assistance to Social Assistance recipients, it is also recognized that municipalities do not have the capacity to independently fund social assistance programs. Maintenance of the original service levels provided by these benefits would exceed the entire 2013 Social Assistance upload savings for Kingston and Frontenac. The proposed benefit revisions recommend that the additional municipal investment be focussed on mitigating the shortfall in funding for residency related benefits (including the current Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit and the OW Discretionary Residency benefit) and that the capped OW discretionary benefit schedule be focussed on Health Benefits and adjusted to serve within the new provincial cost share limits. This recommended approach is in keeping with Council’s Affordable Housing Priority and the Municipal Housing Strategy as the majority of the additional municipal funds expended will go directly to keeping people housed, stabilizing residency and reducing homelessness. The recommendation to adjust the OW Discretionary Benefit schedule to the $10/case/month service level is also supported by data provided by OW Branch including the range of actual discretionary benefit expenditure across the Province spanning from $2.40/case/month to $26.60/case/month with Kingston’s rate being $13.51/case/month. Likewise, City representatives were advised in their delegation meeting at AMO with MCSS Minister Milloy, that the $10/case/mo rate was selected because it was the average actual expenditure rate province wide. As an adjunct to the proposed revisions to the service levels for OW Discretionary Health Benefits and the new municipal Discretionary Residency Benefit, local OW business processes will be amended to increase economy and accountability of benefit payments including but not limited to: mandatory supervisory approval for all Discretionary Residency Benefits, direct

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 133 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 10 -

payment to service providers/suppliers except with supervisory approval, use of gift card/certificates from local thrift shops for clothing, furnishings and related household items and negotiations with same vendors to leverage higher goods value to extend the purchasing power of gift cards purchased where possible. Exhibit C details and compares service levels for the current OW Discretionary Benefits to a reduced schedule which will permit ongoing provision of the most essential discretionary health goods and services (Dental, Vision and Health devices) without exceeding the provincial cost sharing cap. The recommended service level when combined with the amended business processes will allow ongoing provision of a cost shared health benefit without requiring 100% municipal contributions from the city and the county. Exhibit D details and compares service levels for previous residency related benefits and programs to a recommended (reduced and consolidated) municipal Discretionary Residency benefit dedicated for Social Assistance recipients. Previous benefits and programs available to Social Assistance recipients included OW/ODSP Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefits (CSUMB), OW Discretionary Residency Benefits and approximately 50% of Provincial Rent bank, Provincial Emergency Energy fund, CHPP Rent Deposit allocation and Municipal Rent bank funding. The recommended service level schedule detailed in Exhibit D consolidates and reduces benefits to reflect an overall funding allocation of 70% of the previous CSUMB level. Even with the reduced service level detailed in Exhibit D, and the reallocation of 50% of the Rent and Energy funds detailed above, a significant additional municipal contribution of approximately $262K above the 2011 contribution level will be required for the city to maintain the 70% CSUMB investment level. While Exhibit A depicts a similar sizable municipal contribution from the County (approximately $40K above 2011 contribution level), based on a 10% caseload apportionment, this contribution would be at the County’s discretion and could be lower if the actual demand and uptake by County Social Assistance recipients is less. Local Services Realignment cost sharing is further discussed below in the Financial Section of this report. Consultation Undertakings: While informal discussions and information sharing has occurred with stakeholders over the course of the past year, two information sessions were held in August with current CHPP funded agencies, emergency hostel providers and a broader group of community agencies. These sessions included sharing the recent provincial advisements, along with the proposed funding reallocation and adjusted service levels detailed in this report. City Staff have provided related information and progressive cost impact analysis to Frontenac County staff, County Council and RULAC. County staff were provided a draft copy of this report for input and further discussions regarding County contribution are anticipated.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 134 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 11 -

In June 2012, staff presented the City’s concerns regarding this component of the 2012 Provincial Budget to the provincial Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. On August 21, 2012 Mayor Gerretsen, led the City of Kingston Delegation before MCSS Minister John Milloy at the AMO conference regarding the changes related to Discretionary Benefit and Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit. EXTERNALS CONSULTED Susan Beckel, Deputy Clerk, County of Frontenac EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: Ontario Works Act, 1997 City of Kingston, Ontario Works, Local Policy Manual, Tab 4, Benefits NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: There are no financial implications in this report related to the 2012 Housing or Community and Family Services operating budgets. It is noted that both City Council and County Council previously approved contributions of municipal funds to maintain status quo OW Discretionary Benefit service levels for the balance of 2012. Time Limited Financial Mitigations: One time municipal contributions from the Local Services Realignment (LSR) Reserve Fund and the National Child Benefit Savings (NCBS) Reinvestment Fund are recommended for 2013 and 2014 as a means of mitigating the impact of this provincial funding reduction on the City. These limited time reserve contributions will assist the City in maintaining 2013 and 2014 operating budgets for the Housing and Community and Family Services Departments close to the levels forecasted for Council during the 2012 budget process and again in the May 2012 strategic planning session. Therefore, there are still anticipated operational savings of about ($390,000) in 2013 and ($734,000) in 2014 in Community and Family Services due to OW upload. For 2015 and future years, the ongoing municipal contributions for these programs will be included as annualized operating expenses and off-set by savings yet to be realized from the ongoing upload of Social Assistance cost sharing. Based on information included in Exhibit A and should Council maintain the same level of service as recommended in this report, it is anticipated that the savings from the OW upload as of 2015 would be about $161,000 less than expected. The following table provides a summary of the balance of each of these reserves:

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 135 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 12 -

Reserve Description

LSR Reserve NCBS Reserve Total Drawdown

Estimated Recommended Recommended Remaining 2012 Year 2013 2014 Balance End Balance Contribution Contribution $218,268 $218,268 $0 $0 $297,850 $70,864 $161,193 $65,793 $289,132 $161,193

Local Services Realignment (LSR) Cost Sharing Implications: The respective municipal contributions detailed in Exhibit A estimate a 10% municipal contribution from the County based on the combined OW-ODSP caseload apportionment where appropriate. While the current Local Services Realignment agreement addresses municipal cost sharing for the previous OW Emergency Hostel per diems and OW Discretionary and CSUMB Benefits based on residency apportionment, it does not detail a cost sharing formula for the previous homelessness funds (CHPP, Emergency Energy Fund and Provincial Rent Bank) as these programs were 100% provincially funded and previously required no municipal contribution. The provincial reallocation of previous CSUMB and Emergency Hostel per diem funding from OW to the new Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative requires no prescribed municipal contribution. As such, any municipal contribution by the County to either of these programs will require discussions between the City and County. As cost sharing for Discretionary (Health) Benefits remains prescribed under the OW Act, the County contribution continues to be prescribed under the current Local Services Realignment (LSR) Agreement and as such the County contribution will continue to be estimated based on apportioned based on recipient residency location. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department, Adèle Lafrance, Director, Community and Family Services Department,

ext 1231 ext 4957 ext 4801

OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: Katie Clarke, Manager, OW Program Delivery, Community and Family Services Lee Campbell, Housing Programs Administrator, Housing Department Melanie Bale, Financial Analyst, Community and Family Services Alan McLeod, Senior Legal Counsel Desiree Kennedy, Director of Financial Services & City Treasurer EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit ‘A’ Financial Overview of Previous and Proposed Funding Exhibit ‘B’ 2013 Recommended Funding Allocations for Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program and Municipal Housing & Homelessness Strategy Funds

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 136 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ REPORT TO COUNCIL

Report No.: 12-244 September 4, 2012

• Page 13 -

Exhibit ‘C’ Exhibit ‘D’

Recommended OW Discretionary Health Benefit Service Level Schedule Recommended Discretionary Residency Benefit Service Level Schedule

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 137 of 205

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit A: Financial Analysis of Benefit Changes and Proposed Strategy on Municipal Budget

Report #: 12 - 244 Date: Sept. 4, 2012 Recommended Social Assistance Benefit Revisions

New Provincial CHPI Funding

Provincial Funding $ 2,914,545 $ 2,953,134

2013 Calendar 2014 and ongoing annual funding 2011 Operating Budget Actuals Benefit Type ODSP CSUMB Note 1 OW CSUMB OW Discretionary Benefits Emergency Energy Fund (Utility Bank) Provincial Rent Bank Municipal Rent Bank Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) Emergency Hostel Per Diems TOTAL 2011 HMLN Budget

2011 Actual Gross $1,100,000 $1,211,873

$1,520,615 $23,770 $66,824 $146,000 $1,352,987 $687,818

$6,109,887

2011 Provincial Cost $1,100,000 $984,041 $1,234,739 $23,770 $66,824 $0

$1,352,987 $558,508 $5,320,869

2011 City of Kingston $0 $209,487 $265,232 $0 $0 $146,000 $0 $118,107 $738,825

2011 County of Frontenac $0 $18,345 $20,644 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,203 $50,192

2013 Preliminary Budget (before funding change) Benefit Type

$1,211,873 $1,520,615 $23,770 $66,824 $146,000 $1,352,987 $825,000

$6,247,069

2013 Provincial Cost $1,100,000 $1,039,787 $1,304,688 $23,770 $66,824 $0

$1,352,987 $707,850 $5,595,906

2013 City of Kingston $0 $158,230 $195,630 $0 $0 $146,000 $0 $107,717 $607,577

2013 County of Frontenac $0 $13,856 $20,297 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,433 $43,586

Note 1- ODSP was uploaded by Province in 2010 therefore was not included in 2011 - 2013 City of Kingston budgets. Estimate has been included for comparison purposes and is based on ODSP 2011 actual.

Page 1

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 138 of 205

ODSP CSUMB Note 1 OW CSUMB OW Discretionary Benefits Emergency Energy Fund (Utility Bank) Provincial Rent Bank Municipal Rent Bank Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) Emergency Hostel Per Diems TOTAL 2013 Preliminary HMLN Budget

2013 Budgeted Gross $1,100,000

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit A: Financial Analysis of Benefit Changes and Proposed Strategy on Municipal Budget

Report #: 12 - 244 Date: Sept. 4, 2012 Recommended Social Assistance Benefit Revisions

2013 Revised Budget (Proposed Strategy to Maintain CSUMB at 70%) Benefit Type

2013 Budgeted Gross $1,152,000 $73,000 $1,470,488 $1,618,311 $47,970 $800,000

OW Discretionary Benefits Municipal Rent Bank CHPI - Previous CHPP programs CHPI - Residency Benefit (CSUMB replacement) CHPI - Low Income Bank Programs Emergency Hostel Per Diems TOTAL 2013 Revised Budget

$5,161,769

2013 City of Kingston

2013 Provincial Cost $988,416 $0

$1,315,488 $1,013,121 $47,970 $537,966 $3,902,961

Increase over 2013 preliminary budget: Additional City funding sources: Unallocated City funding (support services & downpayments) LSR Reserve contribution NCB reserve contribution Estimated increase in 2013 Budget:

2013 County of Frontenac

$148,207 $73,000 $155,000 $544,671 $0 $235,831 $1,156,709

$15,377 $0 $0 $60,519 $0 $26,203 $102,099

$549,132

$58,513

-$260,000 -$218,268 -$70,864 $0

$58,513

2014 City of Kingston $118,983 $73,000 $0 $509,941 $0 $235,831 $937,755

2014 County of Frontenac $12,345 $0 $0 $56,660 $0 $26,203 $95,208

$421,193

$60,216

-$260,000 -$161,193 $0

$60,216

2014 Revised Budget (Maintaining CSUMB at 70%) 2014 Budgeted Gross $1,152,000 $73,000 $1,315,488 $1,618,311 $47,970 $800,000

$5,006,769

Increase from 2014 preliminary budget: Additional City funding sources: Unallocated City funding (support services & downpayments) NCB reserve contribution Estimated increase in 2014 Budget: Page 2

2014 Provincial Cost $1,020,672 $0 $1,315,488 $1,051,710 $47,970 $537,966 $3,973,806

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 139 of 205

Benefit Type OW Discretionary Benefits Municipal Rent Bank CHPI - CHPP CHPI - Residency Benefit CHPI - Low Income Bank Programs Emergency Hostel Per Diems TOTAL 2014 Budget

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’

Exhibit B: Homelessness Services Funding 2012 Funding Source

Agency and Program Funded 2012

Consolidated Housing & Homeless Prevention (CHPP) Consolidated Housing & Homeless Prevention (CHPP) Consolidated Housing & Homeless Prevention (CHPP) Consolidated Housing & Homeless Prevention (CHPP) Consolidated Housing & Homeless Prevention (CHPP), Social Services Stabilization Fund, Local Services Realignment Consolidated Housing & Homeless Prevention (CHPP)

Salvation Army – The Gathering Place Salvation Army – Progress Assistance Program (RDAP) John Howard Society Support Services

Consolidated Housing & Homeless Prevention (CHPP)

Home Base – Eviction Prevention Worker (Early Intervention) Home Base – Fresh Start Program Youth Net Program Home Base – Lily’s Place

Consolidated Housing & Homeless Prevention (CHPP) Consolidated Housing & Homeless Prevention (CHPP) Municipal Homeless/ Housing Strategic Funds (MHHS) Municipal Homeless/ Housing Strategic Funds (MHHS) Municipal Homeless/ Housing Strategic Funds (MHHS) Utility Bank

2012 Amount

Recommended 2013 Funding

$115,560

$115,560

$ 74,998

$ 37,499

$ 43,066

$ 43,066

Southern Frontenac Financial Assistance Banks Dawn House Support Services

$ 81,128

$ 81,128

$175,412

$175,412

Elizabeth Fry Society Support Services

$185,307

$185,307

$ 57,074

$ 57,074

$610,442

$610,442

$142,083

$155,000

$ 50,000

$ 50,000

$ 45,000

$ 45,000

$ 55,000

$ 55,000

Home Base – Eviction Prevention Worker (Imminent Risk) Home Base In from the Cold Shelter: Safety and Security Ryandale Shelter: Day Shelter Staff and Services Salvation Army: Bank funding (City)

$ 19,125

50% part of CHPI – Low Income Bank Program / 50% CHPI Residency Benefit

W:\CLERKS (no purge)\2012 REPORTS\Community Services\Community & Family Services\Report 12-244 Recommended Revisions to OW Discretionary and CSUMB\Exhibit B Summary of Homelessness Prevention Funding.docx

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 140 of 205

AgendaItem#5b) EXHIBIT ‘A’ 2012 Funding Source

Agency and Program Funded 2012

Utility Bank

Southern Frontenac Bank funding (County)

Provincial Rent Bank

Provincial Rent Bank

Salvation Army Bank funding (City) Southern Frontenac Bank funding (County)

Municipal Rent Bank

Salvation Army Bank Funding (City)

CHPI - Low Income Bank Program

Salvation Army: Low Income Bank Program Southern Frontenac Community Services: Low Income Bank Program

CHPI - Low Income Bank Program

2012 Amount

$ 4,645

$ 53,764

$ 13,059

$146,000

N/A –proposed new program for 2013 N/A –proposed new program for 2013

Recommended 2013 Funding 50% part of CHPI – Low Income Bank Program / 50% CHPI Residency Benefit 50% part of CHPI – Low Income Bank Program / 50% CHPI Residency Benefit 50% part of CHPI – Low Income Bank Program / 50% CHPI Residency Benefit 50% part of CHPI – Low Income Bank Program / 50% CHPI Residency Benefit

$111,369

$9,601

W:\CLERKS (no purge)\2012 REPORTS\Community Services\Community & Family Services\Report 12-244 Recommended Revisions to OW Discretionary and CSUMB\Exhibit B Summary of Homelessness Prevention Funding.docx

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 141 of 205

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Report 12-244 – Exhibit C – Revised OW Discretionary Health Benefits Schedule

September 04, 2012

Recommended OW Discretionary Health Benefit Service Level Schedule: While the previous discretionary benefit schedule provided maximum funding levels for each benefit category, the revised schedule sets an upset funding limit for one merged group of OW Discretionary Health Benefits. The upset funding service level determined to be affordable under the new capped cost sharing formula of $10 per case per month (based on combined OW & ODSP caseload) reflect upset limits of: $200/calendar year for single recipients; $400/calendar year for families, including, couples, couples with children and sole support parents with children. Prioritization of Eligible Discretionary Health Benefits: As a means of managing benefit issuance within the new capped cost shared allocation, eligible benefits described within the Discretionary Health schedule are prioritized within two (2) categories: Priority 1 service level benefits will be issued upon approval by the case manager within the maximum funding allocation per benefit unit. Priority 2 service level benefits will only be considered for funding when sufficient funding remains in the monthly cost shared allocation after Priority 1 items have been funded; Recommended eligible Priority 2 benefit requests received in the previous month, will be accumulated, then screened and assigned a rating, with most essential items being rated highest for funding. Where insufficient funds remain, less essential requests will be declined, regardless of whether the individual recipient has available benefit entitlement. The following table compares the previous discretionary benefit schedule to the recommended schedule:

Previous OW Discretionary Benefits Schedule

Recommended OW Discretionary Health Benefits Schedule Dedicated $250/recipient/calendar year PLUS Top Up Option as Priority 1 item in merged Health Related Benefit

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 142 of 205

Discretionary (Adult) Dental: $600/recipient/calendar year Includes emergency, restorative and preventative care as well as denture related services/treatments

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Report 12-244 – Exhibit C – Revised OW Discretionary Health Benefits Schedule

Previous OW Discretionary Benefits Schedule

Recommended OW Discretionary Health Benefits Schedule Include as Priority 1 Items in the above merged Health Related Benefit

Include prosthetic devices, orthotics, aero-chambers, epipens, breast pumps, support hose and hearing aid batteries & repairs as Priority 1 Items Include grab bars, mouth guards, beds for children, lotions and shampoos for skin conditions, over the counter medication, chiropractic services, cost of completing medical forms, and other verified or supervisory approved health related items as Priority 2 Items

Include prescription medications not covered under the ODB Schedule as Priority 1 Items where all other alternate funding sources have been investigated or exhausted Does not include prescribed medications which are available over the counter (these are Priority 2) Include car seat, crib, stroller and breast pumps only as Priority 1 items per above allocation Utilize thrift store & retail gift cards for clothing, supplies and furnishings as Priority 2 items per above allocation Priority 1, no changes proposed, This benefit would be provided in addition to the “merged” health benefit grouping

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 143 of 205

Discretionary (Adult) Vision: $250/recipient/24 month Includes lenses and frames OR contact lenses were more appropriate or economical Does not include eye examinations as these are covered by Ministry of Health through direct billing by vision care practitioners Health & Well-Being Benefit: $300/single recipient/calendar year $500/ family of 2 & sliding scale up to $1300/family of 6/ calendar year Includes prosthetic devices, orthotics, aero-chambers, epi-pens, breast pumps, support hose, grab bars, mouth guards, beds for children, lotions and shampoos for skin conditions, chiropractic services, cost of completing medical forms, top up toward dental care or dentures, hearing aid repairs and batteries (not covered under ADP below) and any other health related items, verified by a health practitioner or approved by supervisor Prescription Medications (not covered under ODB plan): $125/recipient/month for no more than 2 months in a 12 month period Only in extreme cases for medications not covered under the provincial Drug (Ontario Drug Benefit) card Where all other funding sources have been explored/exhausted and a listed substitute medication is not suitable Newborn/Child Benefit: $200/(new) child/one time Includes car seat, crib, stroller, furnishings, clothing, baby gates, monitor, breast pump, layette items, diapers, other related heath items for the (new) child Assistive Device Program (ADP) Excess Hearing Aid/FM Device cost: The amount in excess of ADP grant plus consumer co payment ($666.50) per hearing aide No maximum, but only funded where ADP eligibility is confirmed (average top up approximates $1000-$1500 for a pair of devices)

September 04, 2012

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Report 12-244 – Exhibit C – Revised OW Discretionary Health Benefits Schedule

Previous OW Discretionary Benefits Schedule Vocational Benefit: $500/ participant/ one time basis …only after 3 months on assistance AND where a sustainable employment is achievable Includes tuition, specialized training and related fees in excess of all other available funding sources including the mandatory OW Employment & Training Start Up Assistance and dedicated Employment Related Expense benefit Other (non-health) Discretionary: $75/single recipient/calendar year $100/ family of 2 & sliding scale up to $200/family of 6/ calendar year ID Replacement, Compassionate Travel, Will Preparation, Bank Statements/Tax Returns/ School Trips/Camps/Sports Teams, and other as assessed appropriate by case manager

Recommended OW Discretionary Health Benefits Schedule Elimination recommended, Limit supports to those provided by the Mandatory Employment & Training Start Up Benefit ($253/participant/year) and the OW Employment Related Expense benefit ($100/participant twice per year or monthly transportation assistance to same upset amount) Include ID Replacement and Tax Returns only as Priority 1 items per above allocation Include non medical Transportation to repatriate or relocate recipient(s) for health or safety using most economical form of transportation as Priority 2 Utilize thrift store & retail gift cards for clothing and furnishings as Priority 2 items per above allocation Priority 1, no changes proposed This benefit would be provided in addition to the “merged” health benefit grouping

Priority 1, no changes proposed This benefit would be provided in addition to the “merged” health benefit grouping

Recipient Eligibility: No changes to the eligible recipient scope are proposed for the revised OW Discretionary Benefit Schedule. In keeping with the previous scope, eligible recipients would reflect:

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 144 of 205

Psychological Assessments for ODSP Applicants: $500/recipient/ one time basis Assessment fees for credentialed psychologist to assist in a Social Benefits Tribunal appeal of an ODSP ineligibility decision rendered by the provincial Disability Adjudication Unit; the appeal must be supported by representation from legal service agency (KCLC, Queens Legal Clinic etc) Funerals: $ 2,925/recipient plus up to an additional $1,000 for a plot where required Includes casket, embalming, death certificates, out of town transportation if required, internment fees, burial or cremation and one death notice in local newspaper, clergy honorarium

September 04, 2012

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Report 12-244 – Exhibit C – Revised OW Discretionary Health Benefits Schedule

September 04, 2012

OW Discretionary Benefits, including the new merged Health Benefit Group, the psychological assessment benefit and the ADP Hearing Device Top Up are principally available to OW recipients; The Discretionary Dental and Vision Benefit are provided to adult OW recipients only, (including 16 & 17 year old youth in receipt of assistance in their own right) as more fulsome dental and vision benefits are available to dependent children under the age of 18 as Mandatory OW Benefits; Dependent adults of ODSP benefit units who have at least one open employment or education activity underway in an active OW Participation Agreement are also eligible for Discretionary OW Dental and Vision benefits only. Disabled heads of ODSP benefit units and their dependent children under the age of 18 years are not eligible for OW Discretionary Dental and Vision Benefits as they have access to more fulsome mandatory Dental and Vision Benefits under the ODSP program; The Discretionary Funeral Benefit is provided to OW and ODSP recipients who are without any other means of paying for related costs; this benefit does not include reimbursement or subsidy to next of kin who enter into service agreements with service providers; all sources of cost recovery are pursued, including but not limited to: assets in any bank accounts of the deceased, and assignment of the CPP death benefit. Excluded Goods and Services: The following items previously funded as discretionary benefits will no longer be within the scope of eligible items: All residency related items including: utility hook ups and arrears, rent arrears, 1st and or last month rent, moving costs, storage fees, home repairs, telephone/internet hook up, replacement furnishing, household items; these items are detailed within Exhibit D, the recommended New Residency Support Benefit Vocational Training and OSAP application & deferral fees (in excess of Employment related benefit funding) Fees cancelled or missed appointments, including medical and dental appointments All previously “paid for” goods and services for any of the recognized eligible items All previously rendered goods and services for any eligible items (with the exception of emergency dental treatments where benefit entitlement exists and the work was completed within the previous 30 day period)

Benefit procurement and payment processes will be streamlined to ensure maximum effectiveness and economy and a reliable tracking system will be maintained to ensure optimum use of available cost shared subsidy without over expenditure.

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 145 of 205

Standard Payment Process:

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Report 12-244 – Exhibit C – Revised OW Discretionary Health Benefits Schedule

September 04, 2012

Administrator’s Authority: Any item falling outside of the eligibility scope or maximum funding level detailed in the schedule, and recommended by a Supervisor will be referred to a Manager or Director for approval. Exceptional approvals will be granted without precedent and principally where imminent threat to the personal safety of members of the Benefit Unit is evident. In the event that in year benefit issuance are well under the cost shared allocation and all recommended Priority 2 requests have been approved, the upset service level (allocation) per benefit unit may be increased for Priority 1 requests and monitored on a monthly basis to remain within the cost shared allocation; Where there is consistent under utilization of the cost shared allocation for more than a year, or conversely if Priority 1 funding approvals are exceeding the cost shared allocation, staff will report this experience to Council with recommended adjustments to the service level schedule.

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 146 of 205

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Report 12-244 – Exhibit D – Recommended OW/ODSP Discretionary Residency Benefit Schedule

September 04, 2012

Recommended Discretionary Residency Benefit Service Level Schedule: Social Assistance recipients previously received residency related assistance (including for rent deposits, rent arrears, eviction notices, utility hook ups, utility arrears, home repairs, moving expenses and residency establishment costs including furnishings and even clothing when necessary) from a number of different funding programs including both OW/ODSP benefits and community service agencies. The maximum service level entitlement determined to be affordable under the new municipal discretionary “Residency Benefit” funded by provincial CHPI funding and an additional municipal contribution is: up to $500/rolling 36 month period for single recipients and couples with no children up to $1000/rolling 36 month period for families (sole support parents with children and couples with children) Entitlement Determination: Global funding available for all residency requests in month of request History of Residency Benefit receipt by recipient in past 36 months including previous CSUMP benefit The following table compares the previous discretionary benefit schedule to the recommended schedule:

Recommended Discretionary Residency Benefit Schedule

Mandatory OW/ODSP Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit: $799/single recipient/24 months $1500/family/24 months Includes moving expenses, last month’s rent, rent arrears, eviction notices/utility arrears / utility disconnect/ heating fuel emergency/ hydro and telephone deposit/ home repairs when residence is owned by recipient/ services to ensure the residence remains safe and healthy for human habitation/furnishings/clothing in limited circumstances/ other items demonstrated to be necessary to establishment or maintenance of suitable residence. All Eligibility Criteria must be in place: Applicant/recipient must be eligible for OW/ODSP Assistance or OW Emergency Assistance Verification of re-location to new residence for eligible situations, or eviction/disconnect notice or arrears statement or premise uninhabitable

Proposed Consolidated Service Level: up to $500/rolling 36 month period for single recipients and couples with no children up to $1000/rolling 36 month period for families (sole support parents with children and couples with children) Eligible Expenses: Includes essential residency related expenses only: Rent deposits or arrears, utility hook ups or arrears, eviction notices, heating fuel, moving costs, storage costs and telephone/internet hook up; other related expenses in exceptional circumstances only (such as essential health &

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 147 of 205

Previous Residency Related Benefits Schedule

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Report 12-244 – Exhibit D – Recommended OW/ODSP Discretionary Residency Benefit Schedule Benefit is necessary for the health and or wellbeing of the individual to either relocate or remain in present residence Benefit Request must be within 1 month of the causative event OW(only) Discretionary Residency Benefit : $400/benefit unit /calendar year Includes: moving expenses, rent deposits, storage fees, other costs related to relocation/ rent arrears, purchase or maintenance of appliances/ home repairs for owned homes, energy conservation efforts where recipient owns home or is responsible for paying heat/utilities/ septic pumping/ de-infestation costs Above Mandatory CSUMP benefit is used first when available and appropriate eligibility exists Only eligible if rent costs are within 25% of monthly OW Shelter Max. Not for Heat and Utility related expenses Not available to ODSP recipients OW Discretionary Heat and Utility Benefit: $500/household/12 months Includes costs associated with hook up and maintenance of heat and utility services Generally only issued once per address Only eligible if accommodation costs are within 25% of monthly OW Shelter Max. Not available to ODSP recipients

safety) and with managerial approval. Eligible Expense Criteria: residency costs (whether for residence being retained or relocated to), should be within 25% of maximum SA shelter benefit rate available benefit must fully resolve the residency issue OR the recipient must be able to demonstrate additional resources secured to fully resolve the issue requires recommendation of OW Case Manager (or screening, recommendation and referral by ODSP Case Manager) and approval by OW Supervisor or designated approver Where insufficient funds are available in the global monthly allocation for requests recommended to supervisors for approval, entitlement determination will be based on criticality of request and history of benefit unit`s related benefit receipt in past 36 months.

50% of previous funding provided Community Agencies will be redirected to the new Discretionary Residency Benefit for Social Assistance Recipient as described above The balance of these funds will continue to be allocated to Community Agencies with their scope of service focussed on serving low income (non-social assistance recipient) residents.

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 148 of 205

Additional Municipally Funded Community Agency Assistance: Emergency Energy Fund Provincial Rent Bank Municipal Rent Bank CHPP Rent Deposit Assistance Includes assistance for rent and utility deposits and arrears as in accordance with eligibility criteria and assistance entitlement established by Community Agencies administering the respective funds

September 04, 2012

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Report 12-244 – Exhibit D – Recommended OW/ODSP Discretionary Residency Benefit Schedule

September 04, 2012

Recipient Eligibility: The new discretionary Residency Benefit will be dedicated exclusively to Social Assistance recipients. While the City of Kingston previously administered CSUMP benefits for OW recipients only (and the ODSP office administered CSUMP directly for their recipients), the new Municipal Residency Benefit will be provided solely by the OW office. In order to apply for this benefit, recipients will be required to meet the following criteria: Ongoing OW or ODSP benefit recipient at time of benefit request; Screening and recommendation of the benefit provision by case manager (ODSP recipient applications will require screening, recommendation and referral to OW office by ODSP case management staff) Experiencing homelessness and seeking to obtain housing OR At imminent risk of homelessness and seeking to remain housed or to relocate to more affordable accommodation Maximum Residency Benefit service level has not been received in past 36 month period Excluded Goods and Services: All other ancillary residency items previously funded including clothing and furnishings Direct payments to recipients, except with manager approval All previously paid goods and services for any of the recognized eligible items All previously rendered goods and services for any eligible items Administrator’s Authority: Any residency related requests outside of the eligibility scope, criteria and/or maximum funding levels detailed in the schedule, AND recommended by a Supervisor will be referred to a Manager or Director for approval. Exceptional approvals will be granted without precedent and principally where an order to vacate has been issued or similar circumstances exist AND no member or associate of the benefit unit has any culpability in causing the accommodation to become uninhabitable.

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 149 of 205

Benefit Evaluation: The demand, issuance and outcomes of the revised benefit schedule will be monitored and input gathered from related stakeholders to assess and adjust the service level to ensure that it serves most critical needs as effectively as possible. Likewise, priorities and recommendations from the Homelessness Service Plan will be considered in determining any required benefit schedule adjustments and staff will report back to Council with any recommended service level adjustments as required.

AgendaItem#5b)

CITY OF KINGSTON

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-006 TO:

Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

RESOURCE STAFF:

Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

DATE OF MEETING:

March 7, 2013

SUBJECT:

Housing Programs Reporting

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee have a standing request to receive an information update report from the Housing Department on a regular basis. At the February 16, 2012 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 second half of 2012. It should be noted that the most recent statistics from CMHC indicates that Kingston CMA currently has a vacancy rate of 1.7% compared to 1.1% last year. Based on CMHC rental market survey report, it is anticipated that the vacancy rate will rise to 1.8% in 2013. A healthy market usually has a vacancy rate of 3%. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 150 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-006 March 7, 2013

• 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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 151 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-006 March 7, 2013

• 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. Kingston Frontenac Renovates Program statistics g. Homeownership program 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 in Report No.: HHC-12-009 at the March 8, 2012 meeting and should be referred to in order to obtain further 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 31, 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. Staff are also 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.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 152 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-006 March 7, 2013

• Page 4 – Program information such as Eligibility Rules, Program Guidelines and Application forms are available on the City of Kingston’s Housing Department website and the County of Frontenac website. Applications are also be available for pick-up at the Housing Department (362 Montreal Street) or arrangements can be made to have the application and program information mailed to interested persons by contacting the Housing Department. As of December 31, 2012, the Housing Department received fifty-four (54) applications. Twentyseven (27) applications met eligibility criteria. The remaining applications either did not meet eligibility criteria or they lacked required information to confirm eligibility. All twenty-seven (27) of the eligible applicants have had a home visit completed. Of the $200,000 made available for the first year of the program (July 2012 to March 31, 2013), $190,000 had been committed at the end of 2012. A small amount of funds has been left to address emergency items that may come up during the winter such as failed furnaces. Update on Affordable Housing Land Acquisition and Disposition Program Since the inception of the program in June of 2012, two properties have been acquired under the Affordable Housing Land Acquisition and Disposition program. 1326 Princess Street is a vacant site and is currently subject to ongoing environmental investigations. Once complete, the Housing Department will be preparing development scenarios and options for consideration by Council. The Housing Department is currently undertaking a land development process for 7 Wright Crescent which will offer the property for development to non-profit and private sector developers. The disposal process will ensure purchase offers include a component of affordable housing. In order to ensure an open, transparent disposal process and work within the guidelines of the Affordable Housing Land Acquisition and Disposal policy, staff will implement the following Council approved process:

1. Issue information on property and provide a site visit;
2. Issue a Request for Information (RFI);
3. Report back to Council on the RFI results and recommend criteria for issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP); and
4. Report back to Council on the results of the RFP and recommended property redevelopment, disposal process and successful proponent. To date, step 1 of the disposal process has been completed. The site visit was attended by eleven different organizations including four non-profit housing providers and seven private sector developers. The next step in the disposal process will include the preparation and issuance of an RFI (likely in March). The purpose of the RFI process will be to gather additional information and qualify interested proponents who will be invited to respond to a subsequent RFP.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 153 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-006 March 7, 2013

• Page 5 –

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 fund another project in 2013 if an appropriate project is identified. In 2012, the following allocations were made from this capital program:    

$485,550 to the Engcon project on Canatara Court for 10 affordable seniors units $590,000 towards the purchase of 7 Wright Crescent $10,000 from 2012 program and $263,000 from the 2013 program to fund 2 units at Abbeyfield seniors facility (part of $300,000 in total City funding) $92,100 to Kingston Co-op Housing towards an 8 unit project (part of $1.12M in total City funding)

Secondary Suites Program Based on the direction from the Municipal Housing Strategy and Council, the City’s Housing Department submitted applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments which would permit Second Residential Units within particular areas of the City as a pilot project. At its February 5th meeting, Council approved by-laws which implement the proposed amendments. The Housing Department is currently preparing a public information guidebook which is intended to assist the public in feasibility evaluation and the subsequent development of Second Residential Units. Based on Council’s direction, staff will periodically assess and report on the impacts of Second Residential Units as they continue to be developed. Also in accordance with direction from the Municipal Housing Strategy, staff from the Housing Department will work with other City Departments to streamline approvals processes and expand the locations where Second Residential Units are permitted across the City. Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) in Ontario On December 18, 2012, Council approved IAH funding of $1.65M to Frontenac Community Mental Health and Addictions Services (FCMHAS). This funding is for the development of fourteen (14) affordable rental units and further approved funding in an amount up to $45K 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 14 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 $45K will be used towards their completion of the planning process, in particular Site Plan Control approval. Council has approved the full funding of this $1.12M project from various sources once Site Plan Control approval has been granted. Units will be provided at 60% of CMHC market rent through their agreement with the City.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 154 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-006 March 7, 2013

• Page 6 –

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. This is essentially used as a loan for anyone meeting income eligibility standards in the agreement. Any funds not used towards assisting low income purchasers are 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 these sizes of units, especially for low income purchasers. Some minor amendments to the original agreement were approved by Council in December and the construction of the foundation commenced in January. At this point it is not known the total number of units that are to be purchased by low income households. Rideau Heights Renewal Strategy Request for Proposals The RFP for consulting services has been prepared by the Housing Department and was posted on February 19, 2013. The proposals are due in late March at which time the top firms will be evaluated and interviewed based upon the scoring criteria set up in the RFP. This project is anticipated to be completed in mid 2014. General Update on Other Projects of Interest Transfer of 610 Montreal St to Town Homes Kingston: Council declared surplus the former Depot property located at the corner of Montreal and Railway Streets and agreed to sell it to Town Homes Kingston for a nominal fee. The property will be used for Town Homes Kingston offices allowing their former office space to be converted into two (2) new affordable housing units. This sale is expected to close in late March or early April. Sale of 58 Leroy Grant for Affordable Housing: Council declared surplus an undeveloped park at 58 Leroy Grant Drive in 2011 and agreed to sell it to Homestead Land Holdings in the Fall of 2012. The agreement requires that sixteen (16) units in the Homestead portfolio of properties be provided at 80% of market rent for 15 years. The specific Homestead properties are identified in the agreement. The finalization of the agreement and the availability of the sixteen (16) affordable units are conditional on the property being rezoned. Part of the agreement allows for Homestead to seek rezoning of the property which is currently underway and expected to be at the Planning Committee in late March. Abbeyfield Kingston: In November 2012, Council agreed to funding two (2) units in the Abbeyfield project on Portsmouth Avenue. Abbeyfield provides units to seniors with additional supports such as meals. Two (2) of the thirteen (13) units will remain affordable for 20 years.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 155 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING & HOMLESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-006 March 7, 2013

• Page 7 –

EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: N/A NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternative formats upon request. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: N/A CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services

613-546-4291 ext. 1231

OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: 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 Hostel Usage Report on Single Individuals (not including spouse or children) Exhibit I Homeownership Program

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 156 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

Exhibit A

Registry Applicant Income Distribution Applicant Status: Eligible

SUMMARY Income Category Ont. Disability Support Program Ontario Works C.P.P. (Canada Pension Plan) Full Time Employment Old Age Security/G.I.S. Part Time Employment Other Income Employment Insurance (E.I.) Other Pensions O.S.A.P Support Payments Company Pension Gains -Aged Self Employment W.S.I.B. (Long Term) W.S.I.B. (Short Term) Immigrant/Government Sponsorship Annuity (R.I.F) Other Spouses Allowance Income from Assets Other Country Social Security Total

Applicant Income Records 519 367 189 117 93 90 71 30 21 13 8 10 7 10 8 5 3 1 2 4 1 5 1574

% 33.0 23.3 12.0 7.4 5.9 5.7 4.5 1.9 1.3 0.8 .5 0.6 .4 .6 .5 0.3 .2 .1 0.1 .3 0.1 .3

Note: Some households have more than one income source and are therefore listed in more than one category

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 157 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

Exhibit B - page 1- Eligible Households on the Wait List for RGI – Household Size & Type July to September 2012 SP-Special Priority HP-Homeless Priority CHChronological Bedroom(s)

July

August

September

S P

H P

C H R

Total on CWL

S P

H P

CH R

Total on CWL

S P

H P

C H R

Total on CWL

1 Bedroom

23

64

619

706

21

61

631

713

17

63

636

716

2 Bedrooms

16

14

214

244

14

12

215

241

16

15

207

238

3 Bedrooms

6

10

64

80

3

8

65

76

4

8

66

78

4 Bedrooms

1

5

29

35

0

4

29

33

0

5

27

32

5 Bedrooms

2

1

11

14

2

0

12

14

3

0

11

14

Senior

0

0

80

80

0

1

82

83

1

2

82

85

Total

48

94 1,017

1,159

40

86 1,034 1,160

41

93 1,029

1,163

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 158 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

Exhibit B- page 2 – Eligible Households on the Wait List for RGI– Household Size & Type October to December 2012 SP-Special Priority HP-Homeless Priority CHChronological Bedroom(s)

October

November

S P

H P

C H R

Total on CWL

1 Bedroom

20

62

628

2 Bedrooms

18

16

3 Bedrooms

6

4 Bedrooms

December

SP

H P

C H R

Total on CWL

S P

HP

C H R

Total on CWL

710

21

64

638

723

26

67

631

724

207

241

17

17

195

229

22

22

188

232

10

67

83

7

10

79

96

9

9

76

94

0

4

28

32

0

3

26

29

0

3

29

32

5 Bedrooms

3

0

10

13

3

0

10

13

3

0

11

14

Senior

1

3

81

85

0

2

77

79

1

1

78

80

Total

48

95

1,021 1,164

48

96

1,025

1,169

61

102 1,013

1,176

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 159 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

Exhibit C Households Housed From, Removed or Added to Wait List Kingston & Frontenac - 2012 Households Housed from RGI Wait List by Month Jul Chronological Special Priority Homeless Priority

8

TOTAL

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 6 12 5 12 13 106

% 46%

7

15

12

10

5

3

104

45%

4

1

0

1

0

2

20

9%

19

22

24

16

17

18

230

Total Applications Received Jul 2012

Total Applications

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 89 95 76 70 79 45 950 5 6 -1 -21 4 -6 -658 5.95 6.74 1.30 23.08 5.33 -11.76 -65.7 89

95

76

70

79

45

950

Reasons for Households Removed from CWL Reason Jul Aug Sep Cancelled 9 26 13 Ineligible 75 60 50 Housed 19 22 24 TOTAL 103 108 87 Cancelled = Incomplete - pending over one year; deceased; as per request; joining of files/duplicate record; administrative – overhoused / supportive transfers i.e. moved out. Housed = Housed.

Oct Nov Dec TOTAL 30 16 9 196 71 61 51 739 16 17 18 230 117 94 78 1165 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

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 160 of 205

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

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#5b)

Page 161 of 205

Proponent

Target Group

Housing Capital Projects

Total # of Units In Project Total # of Affordable Units

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit D – page 1

4

Jay Patry Inc

Blackburn Mews

65

20

disabled & VDV

Sharbot Lake

5

5

seniors

Elliot Avenue

1

1

Central Frontenac Housing Cataraqui Co-op

families in poverty

Home Ownership 5 - 80% CMHC 15-RGI 2 – RGI 3 - 80% CMHC

Home Ownership

100,000

52,876

Oct-09

Rented

AHP

2,400,000

108,630

Oct-10

Rented

625,000

0

Apr-11

Rented

disabled

RGI

DOOR

128,500

0

Jun-13

RGI

DOOR

859,914

0 Nov-11

AHP

Montreal Street

9

9

men released from prison

K&FHC

Queen Mary Rd

27

27

seniors

10 – RGI 17 - 80% CMHC

DOOR

3,240,000

118,205 Aug-12

J. Fern Inc.

Canatara Court

77

10

seniors

RGI

Municipal Funding

539,500

0

May 2013

Home Base Housing

Montreal Street

10

10

singles

6 - RGI 4 - 80% CMHC

DOOR

814,500

0

2013

14

mental illness

FCMHAS

Lyons St

49

RGI

Building Permit

Rented Rented

AHP

1,651,662

0

2013

Under Construction Remediation Plan w/MOE Contribution Agreement signed Dec. 2012

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 162 of 205

John Howard Society

Status

Completion Date

4

Construction Reserve Fund Allocation (Development Charges)

Division Street

Capital Amount

Habitat for Humanity

Rent Levels

Location

Target Group

Proponent

Capital Funding Source (AHP or DOOR)

Housing Capital Projects

Total # of Units In Project Total # of Affordable Units

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit D – page 2

Capital Funding Source (AHP or DOOR)

Capital Amount

Portsmouth Ave

13

2

seniors

80% CMHC

Municipal Funding

$300,000

2014

8

8

singles

60% CMHC

Municipal & DOOR

$1,120,000

2014

Kingston Coop

Town Homes Kingston

Homestead

TOTAL

Princess Street Cassidy Street (2 units resulting from 610 Montreal sale) 58 Leroy Grant

2

2

206

16

523

341

families

singles

RGI

Municipal Funding

80% CMHC

Municipal (sale of surplus land)

$45,000

$350,000 value

$25,735,234

2013

2013

Status

Rent Levels

Abbeyfield

Completion Date

Location

Construction Reserve Fund Allocation (Development Charges)

Proponent

Target Group

Housing Capital Projects

Total # of Units In Project Total # of Affordable Units

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit D – page 3

Not yet signed Not yet signed Awaiting sale of 610 Montreal St closing

Planning public meetings

$1,680,019

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 163 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

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: KFHC 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 Base 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: KFHC Ongoing Rent Calculation: KFHC Maintains Tenant File: KFHC Pays Rent Subsidy: KFHC Homestead, Skyline, Realstar

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 164 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

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 April 2013) Number of Units:

Approx 45 including above STRSP units (2013-2021) Approx. 20 (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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 165 of 205

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Exhibit G - Emergency Shelter Usage 2012 Ryandale Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy Dawn House Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy Harbour Light Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy Youth Shelter Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy In From the Cold Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy Lily’s Place Actual Bed Nights Approved Bed Nights % of Occupancy

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Total

409 465 88%

383 435 88%

399 465 86%

375 450 83%

424 465 91%

428 450 95%

408 465 88%

426 465 92%

362 450 80%

374 465 80%

396 450 88%

433 465 93%

4817 5490 88%

254 310 82%

247 290 85%

284 310 92%

312 300 104%

274 310 88%

213 300 71%

272 310 88%

224 310 72%

269 300 90%

256 310 83%

217 300 72%

218 310 70%

3040 3660 83%

183 217 84%

117 203 58%

185 217 85%

75 210 36%

165 217 76%

130 210 62%

145 217 67%

126 217 58%

106 210 50%

88 217 41%

156 210 74%

82 217 38%

1558 2562 61%

222 248 90%

168 232 72%

271 248 109%

147 240 61%

213 248 86%

260 248 240 248 108% 100%

182 248 73%

163 240 68%

257 248 104%

230 240 96%

188 248 76%

2549 2928 87%

522 744 70%

328 696 47%

469 744 63%

542 720 75%

505 744 68%

471 720 65%

564 744 76%

469 744 63%

558 720 78%

620 744 83%

663 720 92%

513 744 69%

6224 8784 71%

163 420 39%

261 434 60%

315 420 75%

283 434 65%

323 434 74%

333 420 79%

397 434 91%

260 420 62%

275 434 63%

2610 3850 68%

1614 2340 69%

1842 2418 76%

1817 2340 78%

1920 2418 79%

1750 1791 2418 2340 72% 77%

1992 2418 82%

1922 1709 20798 2340 2418 27274 82% 71% 76%

Grand Totals - 2012 Actual Bed Nights 1590 1243 Approved Bed Nights 1984 1856 % of Occupancy 80% 67%

1608 1984 81%

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 166 of 205

Jan

AgendaItem#5b)

Exhibit H - Hostel Usage Report on Single Individuals (Not including spouse or children) January - December 2012 = 365 days

Count

Unique Individuals

818

Average Length of Stay (days)

28

Stay = 1 day

98

12%

< 6 days

256

31%

6 – 30 days

307

38%

31 – 90 days

207

25%

91 – 300 days

47

6%

301 days

1

0%

818

100%

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

%

Page 167 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

Exhibit I HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS

Municipal Homeownership Program (available only to City residents) Down Payment - 5% of purchase price to maximum of $12,500 April 2012 – August 2012 6 households Total funding: $60,000

AHP Revolving Fund (available to both City and County residents) Down Payment - 5% of purchase price to maximum of $12,500 April 2012 – September 2012 5 households Total funding: $61,000

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 168 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

CITY OF KINGSTON

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-007 TO:

Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group

RESOURCE STAFF:

Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

DATE OF MEETING:

March 7, 2013

SUBJECT:

Housing Department Communications Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Recommendation #33 found within the Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS) concerns the development of a Communication Plan by the City of Kingston’s Housing Department “to drive out main messages from the MHS in a simple, visual way – reinforcing the issues and the need to work collectively”. A draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department, servicing the County of Frontenac, attached as Exhibit A, for consideration and discussion by the Committee. This draft plan is being presented for review by the Committee so that feedback can offered to City staff for possible edits to the document. The document will be used to guide Housing Department staff when communicating new and existing programs, as well as housing issues, to various stakeholders. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 169 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

Information Report to Housing and Homelessness Committee Report No.: HHC-13-007 March 7, 2013

• Page 2– AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner

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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 170 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

Information Report to Housing and Homelessness Committee Report No.: HHC-13-007 March 7, 2013

• Page 3– OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: A draft Communications Plan (Exhibit A) has been developed by Housing Department staff as a direct result of Recommendation #33 found within the Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS).The intent of the Communications Plan is “to drive out main messages from the MHS in a simple, visual way – reinforcing the issues and the need to work collectively”. To properly implement an approved Communications Plan, the Housing Department will work with the Communications Division to develop MHS summary messaging to be used for building broader community awareness and promoting partnerships. In addition, the audience will be linked back to an expanded presence in the Housing Department’s page on the City of Kingston’s website to reinforce the contact point for housing information. The draft Communications Plan focuses on key messages that will be shared with stakeholder target audiences. These audiences have been separated into six categories:

1. The general public
2. Housing and homelessness service providers
3. The County of Frontenac
4. Client and user groups
5. Senior government
6. Local developers/not-for-profit organizations Under each category, the draft Communications Plan outlines messages that are targeted to the specific stakeholder and the approaches that will be taken to achieve its intended result. The draft plan also contains a strategy for communicating new information to the community as a whole, as well as the intention to build a stronger relationship with traditional local media organizations. The final section of the plan outlines each deliverable, the person or role responsible to complete that deliverable, the timeline to achieve the deliverable and the expected outcome of the action taken. As per the MHS recommendation, the Communications Plan was to be completed within the first year of implementation of the Municipal Housing Strategy. This document will direct external communications activity from the City of Kingston’s Housing Department, as the service manager to the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac for housing and homelessness services. County of Frontenac staff have been consulted on the content of this document. As a first step in the formal review of this draft plan, the Housing Department is seeking feedback from the Committee on its content. Upon receipt of this feedback, the document will be edited for use and implementation by the Housing Department.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 171 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

Information Report to Housing and Homelessness Committee Report No.: HHC-13-007 March 7, 2013

• Page 4– EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: Recommendation #33 of the Municipal Housing Strategy reads “That the City, in collaboration with the County, develop a communications plan to drive out main messages from the MHS in a simple, visual way – reinforcing the issues and the need to work collectively”. NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternate formats. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: No financial implications are to be considered in this report. CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

613-546-4291 ext. 1231 613-546-2695 ext. 4957

OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: N/A EXTERNAL STAFF CONSULTED: Joe Gallivan, Manager of Sustainability Planning, County of Frontenac EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 172 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department Purpose Articulate, explain and promote the programs and initiatives of the Housing Department. Oversee and streamline communications to/from stakeholders and various audiences. Offer communications support to working groups and other stakeholders. Create a consistent process that links departmental initiatives, programs and goals to community service providers, user-groups/clients, as well as the general public. Provide a communication link between the Housing Department, our community partners, the user groups/clients, the general public and the local media. Establish a consistent process of sharing information with the public, to avoid duplication and provide consistency, through traditional channels (press release, City website) as well as developing new channels to communicate (social media, email newsletters, the annual Report Card, etc.). Communication Tools with Stakeholders

General Public

City website

H&H Service Providers Regular monthly/ quarterly meetings

Annual Report Card

County of Frontenac

Client and User Groups

Senior Government

Local Developers

Regular meetings and communication to increase and strengthen partnership as service managers

362 Montreal St. on-site customer service

Advocacy by Mayor, Warden, County and City Councils

Incentive Programs

One-on-one engagement Increased media frequency

Community signage

On-site direct advertisements

On-on-one meetings Community Signage in strategic County locations

Signage and notifications at local service providers

Speaking engagements

1

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 173 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department Key Messages Shaping the Future of Housing: the focus will be on reporting new and innovative ways in which the Service Manager is creating affordable housing opportunities in relation to the 40 recommendations in the Municipal Housing Strategy. o How are the important investments being used in the community? o What are the housing service providers and local developers doing to make affordable housing opportunities? How is the Service Manager assisting in this effort? Communicate positive financial investments for affordable housing and homelessness to the general public. o Tax dollar investment. o Community partner initiatives that may include the promotion of new projects, local fundraising campaigns or the ongoing need for seasonal service level increases. o The need for continued public funding to sustain services. Focus messages on promoting the importance of housing services and how it works to improve the quality of life in our community, while reversing negative stigma typically attached to these services. Alerting and educating the community about housing issues faced by the City and County (i.e.: low vacancy rates, senior government funding cutbacks to the sector). Increased communication between the Service Manager and the community partner network can help build collaboration and a more effective system. Messages to General Public and Communications Approach Recognize benefits and importance of appropriate, affordable and accessible housing to all members of society. How housing can help create healthy, sustainable and “complete” communities. Educate the public on current and ongoing housing issues/changes. Promote new housing strategies (i.e.: mixed-income housing vs. 100% RGI) as outlined in the Municipal Housing Strategy. It is crucial that information concerning housing and homelessness be shared with the wider community, including the majority of the population who does not use or need these programs and services. The wider community must be aware of why the programs and services are crucial to a sustained and improved quality of life for some of the most vulnerable citizens in the region. 2

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 174 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department This communication can be achieved through: o Regular updates to the Housing Department’s tab on the City of Kingston’s website. The tab will highlight and profile new and renewed programs and services. o Publication of the annual “report card” document which will highlight local activity, new programs and services, as well as monitor annual data trends within the local housing and homelessness sector. The document will also feature testimonials from people with affordable housing experiences. o The Department will make a concerted effort to engage the traditional local media outlets to attempt to continuously keep them apprised of housing and homelessness issues. If the media remain engaged on these issues and report on them consistently, then newspapers, television and radio can continue to be a valuable outlet for informing and engaging the public. The Department must engage the media to help the media engage the public. o The creation of community signage and other advertising: i.e.: bus shelters, side-of-bus-banners, images on the City’s digital screens in municipal spaces, radio public service announcements, etc. o The City of Kingston News Mailing List. o In 2013, the Department will explore the creation of a social media policy, which can communicate housing and homelessness issues in a more modern format. o Advertisements that are applicable only within the rural community can be created and targeted at County-specific locations so that more rural-based citizens can take advantage of the opportunities that are available to them (i.e.: rural public consultation for the 10-year Homelessness Plan, seniors housing development public meetings/consultations). o This information can be shared through the County of Frontenac’s website and regularly distributed community e-newsletter, corporate social media accounts, digital or traditional signage (posters/banners) inside County buildings to announce new programs/services/meetings/events. Messages to Housing and Homeless Service Providers and Communications Approach Maintain a strong communication link between the Service Manager (City) and the Service Providers; stressing the need to continue to work together to communicate new programs, services and legislative changes that will affect clients and user groups. Service Providers’ full understanding and implementation of new initiatives, new funding decisions, and new policies is crucial to their overall success so that they are viewed positively by clients and user groups. The need to build and sustain multi-level communication streams to clients and user groups who need to know more about the programs and services so that they might make better use of them. The service providers have direct and daily access to clients and can be the most immediate source of information to clients. 3

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 175 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department The service manager (City) must continuously nurture this communication link to ensure that the service providers are able to aid their clients with the most up-todate and accurate information available to them. This communication can be achieved through: o Regularly-scheduled monthly and quarterly meetings between the service manager and the service providers to allow free-flowing discussion and information sharing on new information, legislation, programs and services that can impact clients. o One-on-one, on-site engagement at the service provider location as required. Where necessary, City staff’s presence and support on-site can enhance the relationship between the two parties, while providing a more private forum for discussion on issues that require more discreet attention than the monthly meetings. o On-site advertisements at the service provider locations can help communicate new programs and services from the Housing Department, along with having hard copies of the report card document available as a resource for service manager staff, volunteers and clients. Messages to County of Frontenac and Communications Approach Build and maintain a stronger, two-way communication link between the City of Kingston’s Housing Department and applicable County departments. There are housing and homelessness needs that are unique and applicable to the County that are different than urban issues in Kingston. The City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac are neighbouring communities. Input from both urban and rural citizens is important to staff’s ability to understand and tailor programs and services to the people that live in these neighbourhoods. There are no borders to housing and homelessness issues. Ensure that County staff and Council are informed of new initiatives through staff reports and presentations and are offered in adequate time to provide feedback and responses to the Service Manager. This communication can be achieved through: o Continued, frequent communications between the two parties that can help focus the required needs in the rural community. This can be achieved simply as an exchange of email to maintain appropriate transparency, to regularlyscheduled meetings throughout the calendar year to ensure both parties remain informed with on-going housing and homelessness issues that can affect both the local urban and rural communities. Formal communication at RULAC meetings as well as Housing Department staff appearing at County Council/Committee meetings will form part of this strategy.

4

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 176 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department Messages to Clients/User Groups and Communications Approach What are the changes, innovations, and trends that are emerging within the local/provincial/national housing and homelessness sector? o How do these changes impact or affect the service the clients receive? o How do these new programs, services or changes in legislation impact the client? This communication can be achieved through: o Appropriate and timely updates to the Housing Department page on the City of Kingston website. o Distribution of the annual report card to individual residences and also available as a resource at the service provider locations, 362 Montreal Street and other municipal spaces. o The communications approach for this user group can be similar to the approach utilized with the general public i.e.: traditional media such as newspapers, television and radio news stories, community signage and other advertisements, digital screens inside municipally-owned buildings, public service announcements, possible communication through social media. Messages to Senior Government and Communications Approach Funding from the Provincial and Federal governments is crucial to the effectiveness and sustainability of Housing Department programs and areas of responsibility. The City and County are increasingly required to augment senior government funding reductions to maintain programs and services. Housing and homelessness programs, while administered by the City, are more appropriately funded by senior government due to their role in the redistribution of wealth through income taxation. This communication can be achieved through: o Providing information and proposals to the Mayor and Kingston City Council and the Warden and Council of the County of Frontenac to enhance their ongoing efforts to advocate to Provincial Ministries on the importance of continuing to fund housing and homelessness programs at appropriate levels. o Coordination through the Manager, Intergovernmental Relations, to have a comprehensive approach to ensuring this issue is brought to the attention of Provincial and Federal Ministries. o Attendance at Ministry functions, training sessions, and conferences to ensure Provincial officials understand the need for housing funds and that City staff become aware of all funding opportunities when they arise.

5

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 177 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department Messages to Local Developers and Communications Approach As a targeted community partner in the efforts to create more diverse affordable housing opportunities in Kingston, local developers must remain engaged regarding the ongoing needs within the sector. Developers must also remain informed about new and ongoing City programs that provide incentives for them to include affordable housing units as a whole or part of their future residential development plans. This communication can be achieved through: o Promotion of developer incentive programs through the distribution of brochures and additions to the Housing Department tab on the City of Kingston’s website. o Email distribution of developer-specific programs through the local Homebuilders Association, to further awareness. o Housing Department staff can coordinate one-on-one meetings with local developers to magnify the need for affordable housing to be included in their future construction plans of residential units. The one-on-one approach provides a more personalized communication experience while allowing for an immediate opportunity for the developer to ask questions of staff, regarding their construction plans and how the incentive program might benefit them and the community. o Housing Department staff can coordinate speaking engagements before the Kingston Homebuilders Association meetings to promote the existence of incentive programs to the broader development community, to reinforce the need for affordable housing development in Kingston. Strategy for Communicating New Information When new programs are due to be released to the public, the Housing Department management team will convene to discuss the program’s purpose, its key messaging and target audience. The team, with additional consultation and resources provided by the Communications Division, will consider the best communication approach to support the program such as: Media release to local media outlets. Promotional materials to be created for user groups or developers. Permanent link to the departmental page on the City website. Digital information boards inside municipally-owned spaces. Advertisements in the Kingston Whig Standard. Possible inclusion as a future submission to the report card document. 6

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 178 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department Social media. Advertisements for programs that target potential client groups, such as local seniors who may make use of Kingston Frontenac Renovates to make emergency repairs to be able to stay in their home, or potential new homeowners who might make use of the Home Ownership program to make the initial down-payment on a new purchase. Advertisements or notifications could be created through partnerships with appropriate local associations (i.e.: the Seniors Association for that demographic and the local real estate associations who target potential homebuyers). The Department may also explore advertising housing programs and services in Kingston Homebuilder Association communications to their members and customers; advertisements in communications sponsored by local service clubs and professional organizations, such as the Rotary Club, the Chamber of Commerce and others whose network spans throughout our community. Best Practices for Communicating New Information New programs need public exposure and general awareness to succeed. Targeting a message to a specific group can increase awareness and participation, and use scarce advertising funds more efficiently. City and County staff, especially front-line staff who have direct contact with clients and user groups, must be updated and knowledgeable about new programs so that proper information can be distributed to the client. Appropriate training should be made available where necessary. Programs such as the Home Ownership Program and the Kingston Frontenac Renovates Program must deliver key messaging to include the benefits of the program to clients and community. Public Engagement The Housing Department will endeavour to engage the public on an ongoing basis, to continuously bring housing issues, in general, to their attention. If housing is to be perceived as a right and a foundation for a sustained and an ever-improving quality of life in this region, the Department must endeavour to keep housing issues in the minds of the public. The Housing Department, with additional consultation and resources provided by the Communications Division, will consider the best communications approach to engage the public, such as: Continuous and refreshed advertisements and notifications on the Housing Department’s tab on the City of Kingston’s website that inform the reader of new programs and services, new affordable or social housing starts, new internal and external reports concerning the housing market place and trends, general housingrelated issues, new opportunities/strategies, etc. 7

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 179 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department The Department’s “report card” will be released in hard copy form, annually each spring. This document will be made available to every household in the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac. The document will also be on-display in appropriate municipally-owned spaces and local housing and homelessness service provider locations for clients, tenants and customers to review. A complimentary “e-copy” of the report card will be available and accessible on the Housing Department’s link on the City’s website. This item will be updated and refreshed throughout the year and will link City housing and homelessness programs and services to appropriate community partners. This link will be shared and resourced by providers, agencies, committees and all other interested citizens. The Housing Department should appear at local service clubs or professional organization meetings, such as Rotary or the Kingston Homebuilders Association, to inform community leaders about the value of public and private investment in affordable housing. The Housing Department will explore the value of using traditional sign advertising within the Kingston community and the County of Frontenac (bus shelter billboards, side-of-bus advertisements, newspaper advertisements in the Whig Standard, Kingston and Frontenac EMC, Kingston and Frontenac This Week, Frontenac News, etc.) to educate the public about the types of projects that are available to specific user groups, including awareness of housing issues, new programs, etc. The Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee is a standing committee whose membership includes elected officials from the City of Kingston and the County of Frontenac, as well as members of the public. The committee meets on a monthly basis and those deliberations are open to the public. The committee provides a transparent and democratic forum for input, analysis and recommendations to the Arts, Recreation & Community Policies Committee on local housing and homelessness issues, which is a further example of increased public engagement. Local Media Engagement Engage the local media to a greater extent to improve media attention on new and ongoing programs by creating a direct connection between the Department and the local media outlets. A proactive approach to relationship-building with the media can increase the profile of housing and homelessness services in Kingston, by increasing the probability that stories related to housing and homelessness services will be covered in the local media outlets. This can be accomplished by: Adding newsroom editor’s email addresses to all future media advisories and updates to the Housing webpage (i.e.: insertion of new testimonials to the report card).

8

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 180 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department Continue to work in partnership with the City’s Communications Division. Indentify interesting and positive news stories to send to media outlets for their review and consideration to cover within a broader local media context.

9

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 181 of 205

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department Deliverables Action Review and update the Housing Department page(s) on the current City website, in advance of the roll out of new City website and submit to IS&T

Review and update the Housing Department page(s) on the new City website and submit to IS&T (beginning January 2013)

Communicate testimonials from citizens who are utilizing the housing and homelessness programs and services in the annual report card as per recommendation #6 in the MHS, including a process that will monitor progress and key indicators

Person Responsible

Timelines

HPA, Housing Admin

complete

HPA

quarterly

HPA

on-going annually, initial draft; November 30, 2012 November 30

Send committee report and approved draft to HAHAC for approval including an update on indicators (by January committee meeting)

January 31

Obtain Council approval

February 28

Publish final draft to community

March 15

Update website info to reflect content

March 15

Promote report card through media release and other?

March 31

Set up meetings with service providers to discuss common issues, explain and promote new projects and programs and receive feedback and respond to concerns. Ensure all service

HPAs

monthly

Ensure all current public information is correct, prior to the website change-over Ensure that the public information is reviewed on a more regular basis to ensure it remains accurate Demonstrates to the public examples of who uses and benefits from the City’s programs and services. Monitors the City’s progress on MHS recommendations Feedback and appropriate edits to the draft Feedback and appropriate edits to the draft Inform the public about local housing projects, programs and services Inform the public about local housing projects, programs and services Maintain a housing profile within the local media outlets Maintain communication link with this key

10

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 182 of 205

Send draft to Director

Expected outcome

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

EXHIBIT ‘A’ Draft Communications Plan for the City of Kingston’s Housing Department providers throughout the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac are invited to all meetings. Host 3 meetings per year at locations in the County of Frontenac to ensure the rural perspective is represented.

community stakeholder

Set up meetings with shelter providers to discuss common issues, explain and promote new projects and programs and receive feedback and respond to concerns

HPA

quarterly

Organize Symposium for community stakeholders with a goal to create new ideas and discussion on finding solutions to local housing and homelessness issues

HPA

annually

Create and review marketing materials that promote affordable housing (City) programs and events (i.e. Affordable Housing Capital Investment Program)

HPA, Communications

ongoing

Develop a social media plan for publishing information on City housing programs

HPA, consultant, Communications

2013

Establish and maintain a housing information e-centre on the City of Kingston’s website to provide housing information and establish a virtual contact point for inquiries (as per MHS recommendation #39)

HPA, Communications staff

2013

Maintain communication link between the Housing Department and this key community stakeholder group Keep the topic of housing and homelessness within the local dialogue and suggest subsequent action for improvement within our community Better promote programs and services so that more citizens make use of them Continue to find new ways to promote programs, services and testimonials to the wider community Better promote programs and services so that more citizens make use of them. More accessible source of Housing Department news and resources.

11

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 183 of 205

*HPA – Housing Programs Administrator

AgendaItem#5b)

CITY OF KINGSTON

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-008 TO:

Chair, Housing and Homelessness Advisory Committee

FROM:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group

RESOURCE STAFF:

Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

DATE OF MEETING:

March 7, 2013

SUBJECT:

2012 Report on Housing and Homelessness

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Recommendation #6 found within the Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS) refers to a number of methods by which the City should report on progress in meeting the expectations of the MHS and working towards various housing indicators. The Housing Department has previously provided a monitoring table to show progress against approved MHS recommendations (Report 13-003). The draft 2012 Report on Housing and Homelessness in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac (Exhibit A) has been prepared with the intent of reporting on key housing indicators, projects completed in 2012, programs which operated in 2012, highlights of partner agency programs, as well as being an education tool for informing the public about general housing and homelessness issues in the City and County. The intent is to make this document available for the public in early April. Feedback from the Committee will be incorporated into the final version. RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 184 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-008 March 7, 2013

• Page 2– AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:

Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner

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)

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 185 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-008 March 7, 2013

• Page 3– OPTIONS/DISCUSSION: Recommendation #6 in the Municipal Housing Strategy (MHS) requires that the City report on MHS progress regularly and publish an annual report card. The Housing Department has previously provided first year progress on the MHS recommendations through Report 13-003 on December 13, 2012. The 2013 Housing Department work plan includes the development of formalized housing performance indicators which will be presented to the Committee later in

2013. As these indicators are approved it is intended that they will form the basis of future annual reports. The draft 2012 Report on Housing and Homelessness in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac seeks to provide a sample of statistics, performance indicators, City programs, housing projects completed and general housing information. For the most part, the information is specific to data and events that occurred in 2012. It is also intended as an education and information tool to bring housing and homelessness issues in the City and County to the attention of the general public. This draft report represents a balance between information and education while also being written for a wide ranging audience including service providers, clients and the general public. The Housing Department is seeking feedback from the Committee on the general approach and content of this draft report. The intent is to publish this document at the beginning of April and to incorporate comments received from the Committee. Printed versions will be sent to households in the City and County while a more interactive online version will also be created. EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW: Recommendation #6 of the Municipal Housing Strategy reads “That the City report on MHS progress regularly and publish an annual report card identifying key indicator status”. Recommendation #6 is intended to be implemented as follows:  “Establish MHS monitoring table to show progress against approved recommendations  Define and develop key housing indicators  Create template for annual report card  Report annually to Council via report card on indicators and MHS status” NOTICE PROVISIONS: N/A ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS: This report is available in alternate formats. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: No financial implications are to be considered in this report.

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 186 of 205

AgendaItem#5b)

INFORMATION REPORT TO HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report No.: HHC-13-008 March 7, 2013

• Page 4– CONTACTS: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Group Sheldon Laidman, Director, Housing Department

613-546-4291 ext. 1231 613-546-2695 ext. 4957

OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED: N/A EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A Draft 2012 Report on Housing and Homelessness in the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

Page 187 of 205

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

City of Kingston Analysis - OW, CHILDCARE & HOUSING: LSR YTD 2013 Budget YEAR: 2013

Final Budget

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

2013 2012 Consolidated Consolidated Net Net Budget Budget

2012 City Net Budget

2013 City Net Budget

Variance

% Change

Comments

ONTARIO WORKS OW Administration

$

3,671,409

$

3,764,036

$

3,014,410

$

3,063,436

$

49,026

2% Based on 81.387% blended cost share of net

OW Program Delivery OW Allowances Employment Assistance Delivery Residency Benefit Subtotal OW Program Costs

$ $ $ $

4,267,247 76,272 4,343,519

$ $ $ $

3,297,756 63,616 669,046 4,030,418

$ $ $ $

3,864,356 69,222 3,933,578

$ $ $ $

3,007,392 58,145 608,527 3,674,064

$ $ $ $

(856,964) (11,077) 608,527 (259,514)

-22% Municipal cost share at 14.2% in 2013. -16% Top up to 70% of previous CSUMB. -7%

Total OW Admin & Program Costs

$

8,014,928

$

7,794,454

$

6,947,988

$

6,737,500

$

(210,488)

-3%

Childcare Admin. (Reg & ELCC)

$

288,233

$

288,200

$

231,904

$

230,520

$

(1,384)

-1%

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

$ $ $ $ $ $

822,220 3,000 523,937 128,004 1,477,161

$ $ $ $ $ $

823,221 2,000 523,938 128,004 1,477,163

$ $ $ $ $ $

770,170 2,811 421,544 118,276 1,312,801

$ $ $ $ $ $

767,653 1,920 419,077 117,354 1,306,004

$ $ $ $ $ $

(2,517) (891) (2,467) (922) (6,797)

0% -32% -1% -1%

Total Childcare Costs

$

1,765,394

$

1,765,363

$

1,544,705

$

1,536,524

$

(8,181)

-1%

Housing Administration Housing Program Costs Emergency Hostels Total Housing Admin & Prog Costs

$ $ $ $

996,806 9,568,221 141,900 10,706,927

$ $ $ $

1,092,967 9,596,825 262,034 10,951,826

$ $ $ $

804,969 9,037,100 130,474 9,972,543

$ $ $ $

877,283 9,069,680 235,831 10,182,794

$ $ $ $

72,314 32,580 105,357 210,251

9% Admin costs @ 79.986 City / 20.014 County 0% 81% Assuming County cost sharing on Hostels. 2%

Total City-County LSR Soc Serv Costs

$

20,487,249

$

20,511,643

$

18,465,236

$

18,456,818

$

(8,418)

0%

CHILDCARE SERVICES

-1%

HOUSING SERVICES

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 188 of 205

Housing: City staff members will provide a briefing on these reports

County Analysis - OW, CHILDCARE & HOUSING: LSR YTD 2013 Budget YEAR: 2013

0

Final Budget

2013 2012 Consolidated Consolidated Net 2012 County Net Net Budget Budget Budget

2013 County Net Budget

OW Administration

$

3,671,409

$

3,764,036

$

656,999

$

700,600

$

43,601

7% Based on 18.613% blended cost share of net

OW Program Delivery OW Allowances Employment Assistance Delivery Residency Benefit Subtotal OW Program Costs

$ $ $ $

4,267,247 76,272 4,343,519

$ $ $ $

3,297,756 63,616 669,046 4,030,418

$ $ $ $

402,891 7,050 409,941

$ $ $ $

290,364 5,471 60,519 356,354

$ $ $ $

(112,527) (1,579) 60,519 (53,587)

-28% Municipal cost share at 14.2% in 2013. -22% Top up to 70% of previous CSUMB. -13%

Total OW Admin & Program Costs

$

8,014,928

$

7,794,454

$

1,066,940

$

1,056,954

$

(9,986)

-1%

Childcare Admin (Reg & ELCC)

$

288,233

$

288,200

$

56,329

$

57,680

$

1,351

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

$ $ $ $ $ $

822,220 3,000 523,937 128,004 1,477,161

$ $ $ $ $ $

823,221 2,000 523,938 128,004 1,477,163

$ $ $ $ $ $

52,050 189 102,393 9,728 164,360

$ $ $ $ $ $

55,568 80 104,861 10,650 171,159

$ $ $ $ $ $

3,518 (109) 2,468 922 6,799

7% -58% 2% 9%

Total Childcare Costs

$

1,765,394

$

1,765,363

$

220,689

$

228,839

$

8,150

4%

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Variance

% Change

Comments

ONTARIO WORKS

CHILDCARE SERVICES

4%

HOUSING SERVICES $

996,806

$

1,092,967

$

191,837

$

215,684

$

23,847

12% Admin costs @ 79.986 City / 20.014 County

Housing Program Costs

$

9,568,221

$

9,596,825

$

531,121

$

527,145

$

(3,976)

-1%

Emergency Hostels Total Housing Admin & Prog Costs

$ $

141,900 10,706,927

$ $

262,034 10,951,826

$ $

11,426 734,384

$ $

26,203 769,032

$ $

14,777 34,648

5%

Total City-County LSR Soc Serv Costs

$

20,487,249

$

20,511,643

$

2,022,013

$

2,054,825

$

32,812

2%

In 2012, Hostels were included in OW budget.

AgendaItem#5b)

Page 189 of 205

Housing Administration

AgendaItem#5c)

Report 2013-008 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:

January 3, 2013

Date of meeting:

January 16, 2013

Re:

Emergency and Transportation Services - 2012 4th Quarter Activity Update

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 4th Quarter Activity Update report for information only.

Background This report is presented to Council to provide an update on the various ongoing activities and special projects during the 4th quarter of 2012.

Comment Meetings Attended Dates County Council – Regular Meeting November 21, December 19 County Council – Special Meeting December 11 County Council – Joint Council Joint Management and RULAC November 19 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 October 25 Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 4th Quarter Activity Update January 16, 2013

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 1 of 2

Page 190 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

CUPE Local 109 Labour Management Committee County Health & Safety Committee EMO Loyalist Sector Meeting Regional Acute Care Stroke Protocol Committee

December 13 November 27

Committee Activities

1. Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs (OAPC) Board: EHSB/OAPC Quarterly Meeting, October 31
2. OAPC - Eastern Ontario Chiefs:
3. Emergency Medical Services Chiefs of Canada (Executive/Board): December 10 Special Projects/Other Activities
4. Wolfe Island Medical Centre Board Meeting (November 6, 2012) The Deputy Chief of Performance Standards and I attended the Board of Directors meeting of the Wolfe Island Medical Centre to present an overview of Community Paramedicine (CP) initiatives and receive input from the members of the Board thoughts on what CP initiative they would feel appropriate for Wolfe Island.
5. EMS/CACC/Hospital Meeting (October 24, 2012) The Deputy Chief of Performance Standards and I attended a meeting of five (5) county land ambulance services, the Kingston Central Ambulance Communications Centre and five (5) hospitals from across the region to discuss and educate each other regarding the challenges each entity faces in moving patients between regional hospitals. A Working Group was established to connect with the South Eastern LHIN to further discussions regarding “Regional Transportation”.
6. Rehabilitation of Transfer Ramps at Marine Services The Marine Services Supervisor and I attended several meetings regarding the project to rehabilitate the ramps at the Frontenac-Howe Islander Ferry operation. It was scheduled to have fourteen (14) night closures to complete the work. The commencement of the project was delayed from early September to early October due to fabrication issues for galvanized components. When the work commence however, the work was completed in only eight (8) nights rather than fourteen (14). During the nightly closures, FPS stationed an ambulance on Howe Island. The Howe Island Fire and Rescue assisted by housing the unit at the fire hall.
7. Emergency Management Program Committee The County Emergency Management Program Committee completed its mandated work in September and in October the CEMC and Alternate CEMC completed all the required paperwork for filing with Emergency management Ontario as required by The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER E.9. All requisite components have been met and the County of Frontenac is compliant under the Act.

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2012 4th Quarter Activity Update January 16, 2013

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 2 of 2

Page 191 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

Report 2013-015 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:

January 8, 2013

Date of meeting:

January 16, 2013

Re:

Emergency and Transportation Services – Election to Paramedic Chiefs of Canada Board of Directors of the Chief of Paramedic Services

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – Election to Paramedic Chiefs of Canada Board of Directors of the Chief of Paramedic Services report for information; AND WHEREAS the Council of the County of Frontenac Paramedic Service is a longstanding member of the Paramedic Chiefs of Canada; AND WHEREAS both the Chief of Paramedic Services and other staff members have engaged in the business of the Association in many roles over the years; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the County of Frontenac support the Chief of Paramedic Services’ election to the position of “President-Elect” of the Paramedic Chiefs of Canada for the period of January 16 to June 13, 2013.

Background The County of Frontenac Paramedic Services has been a member of the Paramedic Chiefs of Canada (PCC) since 2004. The Chief of Paramedic Services has been an elected member of the Board of PCC since 2007 and has served on various committees and as Treasurer of the association for two years. Additionally, Deputy Chiefs have served on various working groups and task forces in support of national initiatives such as Emergency Medical Services Week, AED placement and rank insignia commonality across Canada. Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Election to Paramedic Chiefs of Canada Board of Directors of the Chief of Paramedic Services January 16, 2013 Page 1 of 2

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 192 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

Comment Chief Michael Nolan of Renfrew County, President of the PCC, resigned his position on December 27, 2012. The President-Elect, Darren Sandbeck of Alberta Health Services – Calgary, has moved up to fill the position until the next Annual General Meeting in June 2013. At a PCC Board of Directors meeting, held by teleconference, on January 4, 2013 a call for nominations was held and Chief Paul Charbonneau was nominated and acclaimed to the position of President-Elect to fill the position until the next PCC Annual General Meeting in June 2013. Chief Charbonneau has informed the PCC Board he would accept the nomination and acclamation, only with approval and support of his County Council and only if no expenses were incurred by the County of Frontenac for the work undertaken on behalf of the PCC.

Sustainability Implications Being active in and having influence with the PCC allows staff to provide that first person reporting back to County Council on developments within the industry provincially and nationally, thereby better enhancing the service provided to the community.

Financial Implications There will be no costs associated with this election as the PCC will cover any costs for any work undertaken by the President-elect on behalf of the PCC.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Election to Paramedic Chiefs of Canada Board of Directors of the Chief of Paramedic Services January 16, 2013 Page 2 of 2

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 193 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

Report 2013-027 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:

January 23, 2013

Date of meeting:

February 20, 2013

Re:

Emergency and Transportation Services – Capital Purchase of Two Ambulances and One Emergency Response Vehicle

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – Capital Purchase of Two Ambulances and One Emergency Response Vehicle report for information; AND FURTHER the Council of the County of Frontenac approve the purchase of two new replacement ambulances and one new replacement emergency response vehicle in 2013.

Background At its meeting of January 16, 2013 Council received a report regarding useful life cycle of an ambulance and approved the following resolution:

Motion #: 36-13

Moved By: Seconded By:

Deputy Warden Clayton Councillor McDougall

RESOLVED THAT Council for the County of Frontenac adopt a By-law revising the Tangible Capital Asset Useful Life Schedule to amend the useful life of an ambulance from 6 years to 4.5 years; AND FURTHER THAT all replacement of vehicles must be authorized by Council. CARRIED Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Capital Replacement of Two Ambulances and One Emergency Response Vehicle February 20, 2013 Page 1 of 2

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 194 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

Comment By reducing the useful life of an ambulance from six to four and one-half years, there is an opportunity to reduce maintenance costs of $30,000 in the sixth year to budgeted maintenance costs of $7,500 in the first year, by reviewing maintenance expenses of five year old vehicles for consideration to be replaced. The potential savings of $22,500 per vehicle will result in an estimated $240,000 saving in maintenance costs over the next seven year period. Under the previous vehicle replacement schedule, ambulances 71529 and 71530 would have been replaced in 2014. A five year review of the maintenance expenses for these two ambulances is presented below:

LA-Veh. 529-08 LA-Veh. 530-08

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

0 0

0 0

3,441 2,343

9,060 10,343

9,033 14,682

22,683 24,246

16,683 20,007

It is recommended that these two ambulances be replaced in 2013 to realize the estimated savings of $45,000 in maintenance costs to the 2013 County of Frontenac budget. The replacement life cycle of a land ambulance emergency response vehicle is six years. One emergency response vehicle is due for replacement in 2013 under the scheduled life cycle. 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

2,528

1,900

5,721

14,434

14,283

11,131

LA-Veh. 526-07

0

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 cost of this capital purchase is transferred from the Land Ambulance Vehicle Reserve. The opportunity for maintenance savings are only realized if the new ambulances are purchased.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Marian VanBruinessen, Treasurer

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Capital Replacement of Two Ambulances and One Emergency Response Vehicle February 20, 2013 Page 2 of 2

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 195 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

Report 2013-021 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:

January 23, 2013

Date of meeting:

February 20, 2013

Re:

Emergency and Transportation Services – Community Paramedicine

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – Community Paramedicine report for information; AND FURTHER the Council of the County of Frontenac reaffirm its support of the pilot project on Wolfe Island not to exceed a cost of $1,500 paid 100% by the County of Frontenac.

Background At its October 17, 2013 County Council meeting a report was presented regarding the introduction of a Community Paramedicine Pilot Project on Wolfe Island. The following Motion was supported:

Motion #: 290-12

Moved by: Seconded by:

Councillor Clayton Councillor McDougall

RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac receive the Emergency and Transportation Services – Community Paramedicine report for information only; AND FURTHER that the introduction of community paramedicine be limited to Wolfe Island at this time. CARRIED Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Community Paramedicine February 20, 2013

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 1 of 2

Page 196 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

Comment The report received for information in October 2012 indicated that there were no financial implications at this time. In September 2012 the Region of York presented a proposal to Emergency Health Services Branch (EHSB) regarding a pilot Community Paramedicine program. The EHSB responded on November 15, 2012 to the Chief of York EMS and in part stated:

The ministry’s Emergency Health Services Branch undertakes the Minister’s legislated responsibilities under the Ambulance Act with respect to ambulance and ambulance dispatching services. Additionally, the ministry provides funding to municipalities for the provision of land ambulance services; it is important to note that this funding is to be used solely for the provision of land ambulance services. We are always willing to collaborate, where appropriate and possible, with our health care partners to identify and explore opportunities for improving the delivery of health care to all our residents. However, the services proposed with Community Paramedicine programs are not considered ambulance services, and therefore, they fall outside the mandate of the Ambulance Act and its regulations. The possibility now exists that the EHSB may “claw back” 50% funding utilized for any program not considered land ambulance.

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 region’s hospitals, thereby contributing to the containment of costs throughout the health care system.

Financial Implications The costs to initiate the pilot project on Wolfe Island will be $1,500. The potential mitigation of resource demands attributable to a decrease in the number of ambulance calls as a result of the Paramedicine program cannot be estimated at this time.

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Wolfe Island Medical Centre Board of Directors MOHLTC EHSB

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Community Paramedicine February 20, 2013

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 2 of 2

Page 197 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

Report 2013-039 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:

January 23, 2013

Date of meeting:

February 20, 2013

Re:

Emergency and Transportation Services – Operational Agreement Flagging Hazardous Addresses

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – Operational Agreement – Flagging Hazardous Addresses report for information; AND FURTHER the Council of the County of Frontenac authorize the CAO/Clerk and Warden to execute the “Operational Agreement – Flagging Hazardous Addresses” between the County of Frontenac and the Religious Hospitalliers of St. Joseph of the Hotel Dieu of Kingston.

Background During a medical response by FPS crews to an address in Kingston, the patient pulled a gun on the crew. The crew was able to get the gun away from the patient and extricate themselves. No pre-warning that the call was to an address of concern was received from any source. The Chief of Paramedic Services contacted the Director of the Kingston Central Ambulance Communications Centre (KCACC) to request that the address be “flagged” so that paramedics would be informed of the potential danger. The KCACC Director informed the Chief that he had contacted the local Emergency Health Services Branch (EHSB) Field Office of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) and was instructed that he could not “flag” the address. The Chief contacted the EHSB Field Office to inquire as to why the request for a “flag” was denied, when “flagging” has been instituted in many areas of the province. The response, several days later, was that the EHSB in Toronto was waiting for the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs (OAPC) review of the “Hamilton Pilot”. Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Operational Agreement – Flagging Hazardous Addresses February 20, 2013

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 1 of 2

Page 198 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

When it became apparent that no resolve was imminent, the Chief of Paramedic Services recommended to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) that the County call the Ministry of Labour (MOL) itself and be proactive regarding its statutory requirements to protect its paramedics. MOL responded promptly following the initial telephone call made by the Chief and Occupational Health Nurse. Its Investigator spent a number of hours meeting with staff, attending an Occupational Health and Safety Committee meeting, and requesting and receiving further information and documentation from the County. The MOL Inspector met with County staff on November 1, 2012 to review his ongoing investigation findings. An internal plan was developed regard “flagging” however the MOL Inspector acknowledged that the definitive solution was for all Central Ambulance Communications Centres (CACCs) in the province institute the same or similar “flagging” programs as Windsor CACC and Hamilton CACC. It was anticipated that the Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling from February 2010, which is being referenced during this investigation, will influence the final decision as will the forms, practices, and protocols in use in other areas of the province where flagging is being practiced.

Comment Several meetings have occurred between the EHSB Toronto office and the Ontario Association of Paramedic Chiefs (OAPC) regarding this issue. The Chief of Paramedic Services at the County of Frontenac has been the lead on this file for OAPC. The EHSB and OAPC have agreed on the final format of an “Operational Agreement” regarding the flagging of hazardous addresses and the related forms. All agreements will be between the land ambulance operator and its local CACC responsible for the dispatching of that service.

Sustainability Implications The agreement will assist the County of Frontenac in meeting its legislated duties under the Occupational Health & Safety Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 0.1 to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker.

Financial Implications None

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Ministry of Labour, Kingston Office MOHLTC EHSB, Toronto Office MOHLTC EHSB, Eastern Field Office, Almonte Office

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – Operational Agreement – Flagging Hazardous Addresses February 20, 2013

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 2 of 2

Page 199 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

Report 2013-040 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:

January 23, 2013

Date of meeting:

February 20, 2013

Re:

Emergency and Transportation Services – 2006-2012 Vehicle Maintenance Expenses

Recommendation RESOLVED THAT the Council of the County of Frontenac accept the Emergency and Transportation Services – 2006-2012 Vehicle Maintenance Expenses report for information only.

Background At its meeting of January 16, 2013 Council received a report regarding the useful life cycle of an ambulance and at its Special Budget session on January 17, 2013 approved the following resolution:

Motion #: 47-12

Moved By: Seconded By:

Councillor Davison Councillor Doyle

BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to provide the maintenance records of all vehicles over the last 6 years. CARRIED Treasury and ETS staff has prepared the following information for Council review.

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2006-2012 Vehicle Maintenance Expenses February 20, 2013

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 1 of 3

Page 200 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

Comment County of Frontenac Land Ambulance Vehicle Maintenance Costs 2006 - 2012

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

AMBULANCES LA-Veh. 501-00 LA-Veh. 502-00 LA-Veh. 503-00 LA-Veh. 504-02 LA-Veh. 505-02 LA-Veh. 506-03 LA-Veh. 507-01 LA-Veh. 508-03 LA-Veh. 509-04 LA-Veh. 510-04 LA-Veh. 511-05 LA-Veh. 512-05 LA-Veh. 513-05 LA-Veh. 522-06 LA-Veh. 523-06 LA-Veh. 527-07 LA-Veh. 528-07 LA-Veh. 529-08 LA-Veh. 530-08 LA-Veh. 531-09 LA-Veh. 532-09 LA-Veh. 535-10 LA-Veh. 536-10 LA-Veh. 537-09 LA-Veh. 538-09 LA-Veh. 540-10 LA-Veh. 544-11 LA-Veh. 545-11 LA-Veh. 546-11 LA-Veh. 547-11 LA-Veh. 548-11

5,688 9,962 469 8,619 6,417 13,649 2,197 14,497 21,322 22,452 10,568 9,721 13,148 7,983 2,579 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

49 7,271 0 10,876 15,750 25,409 4,302 19,754 26,777 7,867 26,568 16,438 15,533 15,435 9,340 3,806 4,581 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 11,495 4,429 19,858 0 11,172 14,688 20,762 19,595 33,083 20,572 20,218 13,837 2,616 11,671 3,441 2,343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 7,219 0 8,743 0 24,127 17,918 23,662 20,561 42,936 36,257 18,519 19,106 5,241 22,792 9,060 10,343 6,769 2,916 0 0 1,080 744 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,538 13,887 20,546 0 28,096 36,507 26,995 25,615 5,257 26,522 9,033 14,682 5,153 7,382 2,195 4,635 10,483 7,764 7,891 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 6,124 0 0 23,986 29,392 23,064 30,913 3,897 18,058 22,683 24,246 13,621 29,898 11,299 15,174 20,053 25,593 17,219 80 1,196 639 326 -146

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 385 0 0 453 10,533 24 175 13,697 24 16,683 20,007 21,722 24,941 38,196 26,681 29,351 27,063 20,397 8,702 6,867 13,468 8,988 9,916

5,737 17,233 469 38,209 26,596 67,659 6,499 81,269 101,101 95,289 77,292 154,713 161,942 112,238 101,565 34,514 83,648 60,900 71,621 47,265 65,137 51,690 46,490 60,967 61,164 45,507 8,782 8,063 14,107 9,314 9,770

April 18, 2006 May 24, 2007 April 24, 2006 April 30, 2009 July 17, 2008 Accident - August 12/09 October 31, 2007 November 15, 2010 January 16, 2012 November 15, 2010 Accident - August 12/09 January 16, 2012 January 16, 2012 January 16, 2012 January 16, 2012

ERVs LA-Veh. 514-02 LA-Veh. 515-03 LA-Veh. 516-05 LA-Veh. 524-06 LA-Veh. 526-07 LA-Veh. 533-09 LA-Veh. 534-09 LA-Veh. 541-10 LA-Veh. 542-11 LA-Veh. 543-11 La-Veh. 549-12

725 4,986 4,466 1,173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 9,170 4,782 13,198 2,528 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 13,999 5,963 15,431 1,900 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 7,764 10,869 26,321 5,721 1,813 1,961 0 0 0 0

676 18,296 17,649 18,240 14,434 1,999 3,030 5,797 0 0 0

0 9,485 7,109 10,919 14,283 2,023 2,917 1,966 14,351 9,216 4

0 422 687 1,778 11,131 2,641 1,110 3,042 13,333 14,493 6,605

1,401 64,122 51,525 87,060 49,997 8,476 9,018 10,805 27,684 23,709 6,609

September 30, 2006 June 10, 2011 June 10, 2011 November 30, 2012

ADMINISTRATION VEHICLES LA-Veh. 517-05 ESU 1,897 LA-Veh. 518-04 662

4,379 4,592

14,005 5,503

4,626 1,675

4,680 0

13,699 0

10,679 0

53,965 12,432

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2006-2012 Vehicle Maintenance Expenses February 20, 2013

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

TOTAL

OUT OF SERVICE DATE

2006

January 16, 2012

August 1, 2009

Page 2 of 3

Page 201 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

LA-Veh. 519-04 LA-Veh. 520-05 LA-Veh. 521-93 LA-Veh. 525-06 LOGISTICS LA-Veh. 539-09 SIMLAB La-Veh. 554-12 (IS

766 484 2,707

3,916 1,917 382

1,415 3,459 0

2,819 930 0

1,934 11 0

1,616 428 0

335 0 0

12,801 7,229 3,089

0 0 0

3,689 0 0

3,596 0 0

3,242 0 0

3,874 1,526 0

5,820 7,031 0

9,198 5,455 764

29,419 14,012 764

January 1, 2009 January 1, 2008 September 30, 2006

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 None

Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Marian VanBruinessen, Treasurer

Administrative Report Emergency and Transportation Services – 2006-2012 Vehicle Maintenance Expenses February 20, 2013

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

Page 3 of 3

Page 202 of 205

AgendaItem#5c)

County of Frontenac 2013 DRAFT Budget Frontenac Paramedic Service Summary 2013 Budget

2012 Budget

Budget Variance

% Budget Change

2012 Actuals

$

$

$

%

$

REVENUE Provincial/Federal Funding User Fees Other Revenue City of Kingston Contribution Recoveries Internal Transfers

7,541,214 0 0 6,011,164 0 0

7,170,118 67,000 28,000 6,033,823 0 0

371,096 -67,000 -28,000 -22,659 0 0

5.18% -100.00% -100.00% -0.38%

7,439,300 102,364 2,286 6,021,259 3,084 35,175

TOTAL REVENUE

13,552,378

13,298,941

253,437

1.91%

13,603,468

OPERATING

Transfer from Reserves

0 0 0 25,823 ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== TOTAL REVENUE AND RESERVE TRANSFERS 13,552,378 13,298,941 253,437 1.91% 13,629,291 EXPENSE Salaries 9,115,868 9,172,658 -56,790 -0.62% 9,601,984 Benefits 2,883,643 2,677,745 205,898 7.69% 2,583,261 Office Supplies and Repair 101,000 112,865 -11,865 -10.51% 92,506 Medical Supplies and Repair 317,000 370,000 -53,000 -14.32% 314,813 Equipment Supplies and Repair 92,900 115,400 -22,500 -19.50% 82,763 Public Relations 13,100 20,600 -7,500 -36.41% 15,453 Travel, Training, Conference fees 69,500 84,500 -15,000 -17.75% 75,454 Professional, Contracted Service, Insurance 180,021 207,943 -27,922 -13.43% 198,729 Building Mainenance 150,875 147,875 3,000 2.03% 181,255 Communications Supplies, Service and Equipment 230,336 246,092 -15,756 -6.40% 185,912 Vehicle Service and Suppllies 658,740 597,493 61,247 10.25% 717,355 Rentals, Leases, Penalties and Interest 232,074 180,700 51,374 28.43% 181,502 Utility Costs 79,960 76,335 3,625 4.75% 68,710 External Transfers 233,768 160,250 73,518 45.88% 228,496 Prior Year projects committed 0 0 0 8,230 Other 5,500 1,000 4,500 450.00% 5,211 Internal Transfers - Reserve 737,275 637,263 100,012 15.69% 637,263 Depreciation 903,396 532,470 370,926 69.66% 593,606 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 16,004,956 15,341,189 663,767 4.33% 15,772,503 ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== TOTAL OPERATING LESS NON CASH DEPRECIATION 15,101,560 14,808,719 292,841 1.98% 15,178,897 NET OPERATING EXPENSE

1,549,182

1,509,778

39,404

2.61%

1,549,606

CAPITAL REVENUE City contribution to capital 12,137 City contribution to capital - prior year 11,998 Reserve transfer 1,078,362 TOTAL CAPITAL REVENUE AND RESERVE TRANSFER 1,102,497

62,389 0 528,660 591,049

-50,252 11,998 549,702 511,448

-80.55%

51,305 0 227,016 278,321

CAPITAL

CAPITAL EXPENSE

103.98% 86.53%

NET CAPITAL EXPENSE

1,105,624 606,660 498,964 82.25% 291,476 ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== 3,127 15,611 -12,484 -79.97% 13,155

NET OPERATING AND CAPITAL LEVY

============== ============== ============== ============== ============== 1,552,309 1,525,389 26,920 1.76% 1,562,761

LONG TERM DEBT ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== ============== ==============

COUNTY OF FRONTENAC

1,552,309

Emergency Services: County staff members will provide a briefing on

1,525,389

26,920

1.76%

1,562,761

Page 203 of 205

AgendaItem#5d)

CITY OF KINGSTON INTEROFFICE MEMORAND UM TO:

RULAC

FROM:

HAL LINSCOTT, CITY SOLICITOR AND DIRECTOR OF LEGAL SERVICES

SUBJECT:

POA 2012 FOURTH QUARTER

DATE:

4/4/2013

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

$433,008

$1,795,669

$1,939,000*

1

$160,229

$235,345

$187,669

$228,772

$812,055

$798,545

$12,440,460

$12,566,976

$12,533,193

$12,720,675

$12,720,675

Expenditures Outstanding 2 Receivables

1. Expenditures are shown net of the county’s share of revenues in order to reflect the actual costs of operating the POA
2. 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

$433,008

2,891

$1,795,669

14,787

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE POA UNCOLLECTED FINES1 Uncollected Fines

2

2011

2012

$10,710,985

$12,179,509

$12,720,675

$ 260,050

$ 559,641

$343,595

$204,924

$225,370

$263,125

$ 291,707

$523,864

$186,625

$8,640,897

$9,249,092

$9,859,638

$11,312,050

$12,329,125

S1,387,158

$1,268,527

$ (108,469)

$118,631

2007

2008

2009

2010

$8,115,399

$9,100,676

$9,772,267

60 days or less

$ 243,105

$ 243,409

60 -120 days

$7,872,294

Outstanding

3

Over 120 days Collected During Period

$ 1,456,544

$ 1,162,882

$1,246,749

$1,278,689

+/- Collected

$ 637,068

$293,662

($83,867)

$(31,940)

1. 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

2012

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

9,438 2,372 948 381 1,648 14,787

*Note: Previous 2012 Quarterly Reports listed Fine Revenue for 2012 to be $1,973,829. The correct amount is $1,939,000.

Provincial Offences POA 2012 4th quarter report

Page 204 of 205

Provincial Offences POA 2012 4th quarter report

2013 Provincial Offences Act (POA) Budget Summary

Program

2012 Budget

2013 Budget

Variance

80.457%

19.543%

79.986%

20.014%

2012 Budget City

2012 Budget

2013 Budget

2013 Budget

Net

County Net

City Net

County Net

Budget (80.457%)

Budget (19.543%)

OPERATING Revenue

$

(38,000) (1.470,983)

$

(368.067)

$

?

(378,949) $ (1,508,983)

$

(368.067)

108,590

Parking Collection Fees

$

$

(2,300)

$

(35.700)

Provincial Offences

$ (1,939,050) S (1.839.050) $

100,000

$

(1.560.101)

S

(378.949)

Subtotal

$ (1,974,750) $ (1.877.050) $

97,700

$

(1.595.801)

(35.700)

$

(38,000)

Expenditures

Administration

$

518,720

$

542.570

$

23,850

$

417.347

$

101,373

$

433,980

$

Court/Prosecution

$

279.825

$

284.331

$

4.506

$

225.139

s

54.686

$

227,425

$

56,906

Subtotal

$

798,545

$

826,901

$

28.356

$

642,485

$

156,060

$

661,405

$

165,496

Net Revenue

$ (1,176,205) $ (1,050,149) $

126,056

$

(953,316)

$

(222,889) $

(847,578)

$

(202,572)

AgendaItem#5d)

Page 205 of 205

Help support independent journalism

If NFNM’s reporting matters to you, Buy Me a Coffee is a simple way to help keep local watchdog coverage going.