Tenant and Community Services Committee (TCSC) Meeting - March 26, 2012

Public Agenda

Chair’s Poll re: Conflict of Interest

Confirmation of Tenant & Community Services Committee Public Minutes –  January 30, 2012 and amended November 24, 2011

Business Arising from the Minutes and Committee Action Item List

Approval of Agenda and Review of Agenda Order

Review of Agenda (all items not held will be voted together without discussion)

For Approval

1. Q4 2011 Quarterly Performance and Progress Reports
2. LeSage Update and Recommendation

For Information

3. Tenant Survey Results
   • Presentation by Ipsos Reid, 30 minutes

4. 2012 Clean Buildings and Maintenance Strategy
   • Presentation, 10 minutes

5. 2012 Community Safety Strategy Work Plan
   • Presentation, 10 minutes

6. Internal Transfer Policy Review
7. 2012 Tenant Engagement Strategy Update
8. 2012 Successful Tenancies Strategy

In Camera Agenda

A. Confirmation of Tenant & Community Services Committee In Camera Minutes –  January 30, 2012

Business Arising from the Minutes and Committee Action Item List

Public Meeting Minutes

The Tenant and Community Services Committee of Toronto Community Housing Corporation met on March 26, 2012, in the Main Floor Conference Room, 931 Yonge Street, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

Committee Directors present:

Councillor Cesar Palacio, Chair Munira Abukar, Vice Chair

Councillor Frances Nunziata

Regrets:

none

Additional Directors present:

Ms. Catherine Wilkinson

Also present:

Mina Bahgat, Manager, Community Engagement

Mary Boushel, Manager, Successful Tenancies

Steve Floros, Community Housing Director - Central

Nadia Gouveia, Social Investment Fund Coordinator

Michelle Haney-Kileeg, General Manager

Kemi Jacobs, Director Property Management

Len Koroneos, Chief Executive Officer (Interim)

Brian Laur, Manager, Risk Management and Insurance

Janice Lewkoski, Board Secretary

Deborah Simon, Chief Operating Officer

Terry Skelton, Director Community Safety

Councillor Cesar Palacio, the Chair, called the meeting to order and Mirela Bolentiru served as recording secretary

Declaration of Conflict of Interest

The Chair requested members of the Tenant and Community Services Committee to indicate any agenda item in which they had a conflict of interest, together with the nature of the interest. None were declared.

Confirmation of Agenda

The Tenant and Community Services Committee approved the agenda as presented. Agenda items 2 to 5 were held for discussion.

Deputations

The Committee Chair polled for any deputations to be heard at the meeting and explained the deputation process. He noted that one written deputation for agenda item 6 “Internal Transfer Policy Review” was received prior to the meeting and two deputants wishing to provide verbal deputations on agenda item 2 “LeSage Update and Recommendation”.

Minutes – Confirmation of Tenant & Community Services Committee Public Minutes – January 30, 2012 and Amended November 24, 2011

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Frances Nunziata, seconded by Ms. Munira Abukar, the Tenant and Community Services Committee confirmed the above-captioned minutes and recommended they be forwarded to the Board of Directors for information.

Item 1 – Q4 2011 Quarterly Performance and Progress Reports, TCSC:2012-09

The Tenant and Community Services Committee had before it the above-captioned report (TCSC:2012-09) from the Interim Chief Executive Officer.

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Frances Nunziata, seconded by Ms. Munira Abukar, the Tenant and Community Services Committee received the reports with the following recommendations and moved to forward the reports with performance measures that are below target to the Board of Directors for information.

The Committee Chair recommended that TCHC staff be instructed to implement the eviction prevention strategy by:

1. Engaging litigation clerks with appropriate skill set for rent collection.
2. Engaging outside rent collection expertise to ensure an aggressive timeliness for notification and eviction proceedings.
3. Senior management be instructed to attend Landlord and Tenant Board hearings to ensure that chronic cases be dealt with fairness and in a timely manner.
4. The Acting Chief Executive Officer be requested to report on the effectiveness of these recommendations in 4th quarter of 2013.

Item 2 – LeSage Update and Recommendation, TCSC:2012-10

The Tenant and Community Services Committee had before it the above-captioned report (TCSC:2012-10) from the Interim Chief Executive Officer.

Miguel Avila and Clive Williams provided verbal deputations in relation to this item.

Catherine Wilkinson joined the meeting at 9:10 a.m.

A question was raised by the Vice-Chair as to whether has it ever been offered to the tenant representatives any formal training on Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) concept and the way it is calculated. In response, Ms. Deborah Simon informed the Committee that such formal training was offered in the prior years.

Ms. Catherine Wilkinson informed the Committee that she never received any formal training with respect to the calculation of the RGI within a period of nine years as a tenant representative. She raised a question as to whether the City is developing a new program to review RGI status for tenants who are in arrears and are about to lose their RGI status. In response, Ms. Mary Boushel explained that the City has directed housing providers to implement some changes as a result of the new legislation. This applies to RGI, not arrears. In response to the City direction and as anticipated in the Eviction Prevention Work Plan, the Corporation is implementing a new process to appeal RGI decisions that will allow tenants to appeal RGI decisions to a more independent decision maker or panel of decision makers. This will be implemented later in 2012 along with the new Housing Services Act requirements.

Catherine Wilkinson pointed out to the Committee that the Corporation was ranked the 7th in the Ombudsman’s report with respect to the number of complaints received. A policy on eviction prevention for non-payment of rent was developed in 2002, which may not work for the Corporation under the current circumstances. The purpose is to better manage the tenants’ complaints internally. She raised a question with respect to the Eviction Prevention Policy, bullet 1: what the red flag is for staff to move to resolving the issue. In response, Ms. Deborah Simon informed the Committee that since the LeSage review, management has implemented measures that would cover the responsibilities intended for the Commissioner of Housing Equity, such as:

• additional “checks and balances” that are now part of the rent collection process. A checklist is used to determine that staff have complied with the Eviction Prevention Policy. A similar checklist and a higher level of approval are required before asking the Sheriff to enforce an eviction ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board. The checklists do not cover entirely all issues and processes; staff are self-auditing the process (check on the checklist).
• an administrative audit function is now in place to monitor compliance with rent-related policies and practices.

Ms. Mary Boushel informed the Committee that a checklist is being implemented for Eviction for Cause Policy, which is very different from the checklist used for the Eviction Prevention Policy.

In response to a question raised by the Vice Chair with respect to the staff who have authority to provide eviction notices for cause and arrears, Ms. Mary Boushel informed the Committee that the TSC staff are responsible for notices with respect to arrears. For non-arrears, it depends on the nature of each case and the relationship with tenants (it should be flexible).

In response to a question raised by the Vice Chair as to whether the parking fees are included in arrears, Ms. Deborah Simon explained that not more than 1% of the arrears are due to parking.

The Committee Chair requested more information with respect to the creation of the Commissioner of Housing Equity office since it would create a bottleneck effect before matters go to the Landlord and Tenant Board. It would also create an unnecessary bureaucratic layer and would be less effective than earlier local interventions. In response, Ms. Mary Boushel informed the Committee that the recommendation is against the implementation of the Commissioner of Housing Equity office as early intervention is the best way to prevent eviction and collecting rent. The longer it takes to get to the Landlord and Tenant Board the more arrears build up and it becomes harder for tenants to pay their arrears.

The Committee Chair pointed out that during the Board meetings and consultation process, feedback received from legal clinics and staff disagrees does not support with the creation of this office, while tenants were very supportive of an independent office, subject to the office dealing with complaints, dispute resolution and appeals of RGI calculations. He also mentioned that the legal clinics showed duplication of efforts. Ms. Mary Boushel explained to the Committee that the legal clinics recommended that the Corporation should focus on early intervention and better RGI subsidy administration. The appeal body will address the rent calculations only, while the Ombudsman Office of the City of Toronto and Landlord and Tenant Board will address other types of complaints.

In response to a question raised by the Committee Chair as to whether there is enough protection without creating another bureaucratic body, Ms. Deborah Simon explained that the new office’s purpose is not to address complaints and satisfy the tenants. There are other avenues available and processes that might work better in this respect.

In response to a question raised by the Vice Chair with respect to the level of accessibility of the complaint process to tenants (flyers, on line, etc.), Ms. Deborah Simon informed the Committee that the recommendation is related to the eviction process and not to general complaints. Staff will review the complaint policy to identify ways to improve the process.

Councillor Frances Nunziata did not support the creation of the new Commissioner of Housing Equity Office as it will not reduce the arrears. The money should be invested where it is needed. She recommended that there should be an aggressive policy to address the eviction for cause since it is not fair to all the other tenants to suffer unnecessarily. Staff should look into each building, for resources at low cost, in partnership with local agencies.

The Committee Chair disagreed with the creation of the Commissioner of Housing Equity office due to scarce resources, including funding. He recommended that there should be a renewed focus on rent collection and dealing with maintenance issues in a more proactive manner.

The Committee Chair made the following recommendations:

• Delete “2012” in recommendation a) of the report.
• Delete the entire recommendation b) of the report and replace it with: “Forward to the Board of Directors ongoing updates on rent arrears for its consideration.”

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Cesar Palacio, seconded by Councillor Frances Nunziata, the Tenant and Community Services Committee adopted the report and resolved to:

1. Opt against the creation of the Commissioner of Housing Equity.
2. Forward to the Board of Directors ongoing updates on rent arrears for its consideration.

Item 3 – Tenant Survey Preliminary Results, TCSC:2012-16

The Tenant and Community Services Committee had before it the above-captioned report (TCSC:2012-16) from the Interim Chief Executive Officer.

The Vice President and Project Manager of Ipsos Reid, the consultants who undertook the Tenant Survey for Toronto Community Housing presented the preliminary results to the Committee in a PowerPoint presentation, including the following highlights:

• Methodology:
  • Sample size and composition: 1108 head of household tenants, randomly selected.
  • Note: tenants living in single family homes were excluded from the survey sample.
  • The interviews were conducted by telephone.
  • 97 residents out of 1108 preferred to complete the survey in Mandarin, Cantonese, Somali, Russian, Spanish.
  • Fielding dates: January 16 to February 20, 2012.
  • The data has been weighted by region, gender and age.
• Overall Satisfaction – 67% of the tenants interviewed said they are satisfied with the level of services provided by the Corporation, while 25% of the tenants interviewed said they are dissatisfied with the service, including 12% who said they are very dissatisfied.

In response to a question raised with respect to the level of response and the method used for interviews, Mr. Hugh Lawson informed the Committee that the telephone survey had a higher level of response than the paper format survey used in the prior years.

In response to a question raised with respect to whether pest control was included in the tenant survey, Mr. Hugh Lawson informed the Committee that pest control was not identified as a key item and it is more appropriate to discuss it at the focus group level than during a telephone interview.

A question was raised with respect to the rationale of recruiting a different company to undertake the survey, versus the same company that completed the survey in 2008, as there is a risk of not having the benefit of some previous data. In response, Mr. Hugh Lawson informed the Committee that data from the previous tenant survey was shared with Ipsos Reid to ensure consistency with respect to the language and wording used. Ipsos Reid undertook the tenant survey project subsequent to a fair request for proposal process.

The Vice Chair raised a question with respect to the reasons the single family homes were excluded from the survey and whether there was an equal representation by region. In response, Mr. Hugh Lawson informed the Committee that the single family homes were excluded from the survey due to their very small percentage of the Corporation’s properties (one tenth of 1%). Therefore, there is no guarantee that the single family homes were ever included in past surveys. The Project Manager of Ipsos Reid further informed the Committee that the survey is based on equal representation by region.

Councillor Frances Nunziata’s opinion was that the numbers presented in the survey’s results were confusing. On page 4 of the Ipsos Reid report the overall satisfaction should be 26% instead of “Very satisfied” and 74% should be considered as “Not satisfied”. There are too many unnecessary sub-categories that should be condensed. On page 6, the “Overall satisfaction” was analyzed against data from Ipsos MORI London Boroughs, U.K. Councillor Frances Nunziata raised a question with respect to the rationale of choosing London Boroughs and whether it has the same funding system as the Corporation. In order to compare two companies they should be equal, in identical circumstances. The Ipsos Reid representative explained to the Committee that both companies are comparable in size, region and have similar data available. Both companies are also publicly funded.

Councillor Frances Nunziata asked for a motion to refer this item back to staff to gather more information with respect to the terms of reference of the survey, specific information, questions, buildings surveyed, locations and individual response to each building, and bring it back to the Committee at a future meeting to be discussed in camera.

The Committee Chair raised a question with respect to the connection between the $750 million backlog in capital repairs and the high percentage of satisfied tenants, as mentioned on page 13 of the Ipsos Reid report. In response, the Vice-President, Ipsos Reid informed the Committee that what people may say is different from what mathematically the reality is. The tenants who are satisfied with the state of repairs and maintenance are satisfied overall and the tenants who are not satisfied with the state of repairs and maintenance are not satisfied overall. Ipsos Reid’s survey was not able to ask questions with respect to details in connection to an individual’s concern with repairs.

The Committee Chair raised a question with respect to the criminal activity, such as stabbing, shootings, etc. that are not justified in the report. In response, the Vice President, Ipsos Reid informed the Committee that the survey did include seven (7) safety questions. Some operating units had more concerns than others, but the report levelled out the results.

The Vice Chair raised a question as to whether it would be possible to do a smaller scale survey focused on a specific housing part, such as single family homes. In response, Mr. Len Koroneos explained to the Committee that cross section views were taken in consideration to show management where the Corporation is standing. If the survey had been focused on single family homes it would have been relevant to those homes only. The purpose of the tenant survey was to obtain an overview and feedback from tenants across the entire portfolio of the Corporation. The Vice Chair commented that the Corporation is missing that specific segment of population.

In response to the Committee Chair’s comment that the result numbers are not realistic, Mr. Len Koroneos explained that the survey’s scope was to bring to the management’s attention what the tenants’ perceptions are.

The Committee Chair raised a question as to whether there is information more accurate than the tenant survey’s results, such as Town Hall Board meetings. In response, Mr. Len Koroneos explained to the Committee that the nature of information is different as the two sources are not related. The tenant survey was aimed to the tenants’ feelings related to many key aspects of the buildings, while the Town Hall meetings are aimed to giving tenants an opportunity to speak in front of officials from City, police, Board of Directors of the Corporation, and other stakeholders. on first priority issues that are impacting their lives. Ipsos Reid representative expressed her opinion that there was a good cross section, relevant to the Corporation and not just a small, irrelevant pocket.

Ms. Catherine Wilkinson noted that 8,000 households were surveyed in 2004 and 3,206 responses were received. In 2008, 2,000 responses were received. She raised a question with respect to the rationale of comparing the 2012 survey results to London Boroughs 2008 results (page 7 of the Ipsos Reid report), rather than the Corporation’s previous survey results. “Safety Issues in the Community”, page 20 of the Ipsos Reid report, mentioned tracking indicators that the Corporation does not even use and cannot be compared to the quarterly performance measures in Q4 2011. Tenant participation is one of the Shareholder Direction’s requirements, no matter where tenants reside (including single family homes). Ms. Catherine Wilkinson recommended that next tenant survey be in paper format versus by telephone and the survey questions be reviewed firstly by the Committee.

Councillor Frances Nunziata did not accept the Ipsos Reid report and requested that the Committee pass the above mentioned motion proposed by her earlier.

The Vice Chair recommended that the emphasis be on tenants’ feelings and perceptions and staff have more concrete discussions with tenants.

Ms. Catherine Wilkinson raised a question with respect to whether the final survey results will follow since the results presented are just preliminary. In response, the Ipsos Reid representative informed the Committee that based on the discussion with the Committee and the feedback received, the final report will follow shortly and it will include more details than the preliminary version presented at the meeting.

The Committee Chair made the following recommendations:

• The next tenant survey be in paper format and not by telephone.
• The survey format/questions be presented by staff to the Committee for its approval.
• Any information compiled at the Town Hall meetings be presented to the Committee.
• The second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 of the cover report, related to the Task Force, be deleted.

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Frances Nunziata, seconded by Councillor Cesar Palacio, the Tenant and Community Services Committee:

1. Referred this item back to staff to provide the terms of reference of the survey, specific information, questions and buildings surveyed, locations and the individual response to each building, to be discussed in camera when presented.
2. Requested that any information compiled from Town Hall Meetings be presented to the Committee.
3. Requested that the next tenant survey be conducted by paper format; and
4. Requested that the survey format be presented by staff to the Committee for its approval.

Item 4 – 2012 Clean Buildings and Maintenance Strategy, TCSC:2012-11

The Tenant and Community Services Committee had before it the above-captioned report (TCSC:2012-11) from the Interim Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. Steve Floros presented the Committee with a summary of the report, including the following highlights:

• The Corporation needs to adapt to building standards that are accepted industry wide and can meet independent external audits.
• Staff reviewed the Certified Rental Building Program, developed by the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario (FRHPO) and used province-wide, with a view of using this program for certification of the Corporation’s buildings. The FRHPO program is used to approve and classify multi-residential apartment buildings throughout the marketplace that meet a defined set of industry standards for rental housing. The Corporation was unable to qualify for this program due to FRHPO’s concern around the status and reputation of our buildings.
• Staff have opted to work with Housing Services Corporation to develop standards of practice based on the FRHPO model and will launch these prototypes for testing and learning between March and June 2012 in 10 buildings.
• The program will engage J.D. Power and Associates as its Auditor that will complete all building audits. The process will commence with mock audits to learn what the audit process is all about, followed by the final audits.
• The non-certified buildings should become “certified” under the building standards program and part of the performance evaluation of the operating unit managers.

Ms. Catherine Wilkinson raised questions with respect to what building and benchmarking standards are and what is the rationale that determined management to adhere to and implement this program, and to appoint an auditor. In response, Mr. Steve Floros explained to the Committee that management determined that proceeding with the use of a third party certification provides measurable indicators that reflect building performance as well as for transparency reasons. The third party will appoint J.D. Power and Associates as auditor, which has a very good reputation that brings the necessary respect and credibility to the process through their review of compliance and adherence to the program requirements. There will be a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Toronto Community Housing Corporation and Housing Services Corporation with respect to the building standards program.

The Committee Chair requested that the MOU be presented by staff to the Committee before being signed.

The Committee Chair raised the issue of the second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 of the report with respect to the Corporation’s aging stock of buildings, which requires significant capital funds to maintain in good repair. If the organization does not have the funds to repair buildings, it would be a major challenge to successfully meet the rigorous requirements of the building standards program. The Committee Chair raised a question with respect to the course of action to achieve this goal, in case the Corporation is in lack of funding. In response, Mr. Steve Floros informed the Committee that it is important the way staff will communicate with tenants making them aware of the situation and continuing the day-to-day cleaning activities.

Ms. Catherine Wilkinson raised a question as to whether the building standards program allows staff to set up specific timelines for certain repairs to be tracked and the staff’s performance measured, so staff can be held accountable for the program’s outcome. In response, Mr. Steve Floros explained to the Committee that the program’s results will be factored into the staff’s performance. This will be a process divided up in phases: phase 1 will relate to the energy projects and phase 2 will relate to measurements.

Ms. Catherine Wilkinson recommended that staff provide hard copies of the PowerPoint presentation to tenants and post the presentation on the website.

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Cesar Palacio, seconded by Councillor Frances Nunziata, the Tenant and Community Services Committee unanimously received the report for information.

Item 5 – 2012 Community Safety Strategy Work Plan, TCSC:2012-12

The Tenant & Community Services Committee had before it the above-captioned report (TCSC:2012-12) from the Interim Chief Executive Officer.

Ms. Terry Skelton and Ms. Kemi Jacobs distributed a PowerPoint presentation to the Committee at the meeting and introduced the report to the Committee, including the following highlights:

• The current work plan focuses on the implementation of activities in five (5) key priority areas:
  • Engaging staff and tenants to build safer communities.
  • Implementing community standards.
  • Redeploying staff to high need areas.
  • Local responses to local issues.
  • Better integration and collaboration within Toronto Community Housing and with external partners.
• Test pilots of staff’s integrated approach to community safety were completed in six different communities. These pilots focused on the causes as well as the symptoms of community safety issues by addressing anti-social activity head-on.
• Staff evaluated these pilots and learned that the integrated team approach works well, tenants appreciated the community standards implementation processes especially the enhanced communication with them, and they also appreciated having more access to safety officers in their communities.
• The partnership with the Toronto Police Series was strengthened, culminating in a jointly sponsored symposium for staff of both organizations in the fall of 2011.

The Vice Chair left the meeting at 11:00 a.m.

Ms. Catherine Wilkinson had comments on the report:

• Page 3 of 4
  • There is an increased percentage of complaints received and acknowledged by staff.
  • Concerns with respect to having five (5) members of the staff attending a meeting with one tenant only.
  • Redeployment of safety resources, second bullet: was recommended that staff circulate the recommendations before proceeding as staff manages clusters of buildings.
  • Local meetings with police, third bullet: held in each Operating Unit at least three times per year; tenants and councillors should be involved.

Ms. Catherine Wilkinson requested a report from staff with respect to the organization of the Community Safety Unit and how community safety works, for a better understanding of the issues and strategy.

The Committee Chair mentioned that tenants like the idea of having a community safety unit on site. He requested details with respect to the locations of the pilots. In response, Ms. Kemi Jacobs informed the Committee that the pilots are as follows: Neptune Lawrence Heights, Eagle Manor, East York Acres, Gilder Drive, Rivertowne (in Regent Park). This is a good mix geographically, as well as by type of communities (seniors, families, etc.)

The Committee Chair recommended that this report be deferred and brought back concurrently with Town Hall meetings information.

Councillor Nunziata requested to be notified of the meetings with tenants and police. Staff will collect information and/or complaints from those meetings and will follow up with the results.

The Committee Chair recommended pooling resources with respect to community meetings and Health Promotion Officers (HPOs) inviting councillors from communities to attend their Monday meetings with tenants.

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADEby Councillor Cesar Palacio, seconded by Councillor Frances Nunziata, the Tenant and Community Services Committee resolved to defer the report and to refer the report back to the Committee with information collected at the Town Hall Meetings.

Item 6 – Internal Transfer Policy Review, TCSC:2012-13

The Tenant and Community Services Committee had before it the above-captioned report (TCSC:2012-13) from the Interim Chief Executive Officer.

Joy Connelly provided a written deputation in relation to this item.

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Ms. Munira Abukar, seconded by Councillor Cesar Palacio, the Tenant and Community Services Committee received the report for information.

Item 7 – 2012 Tenant Engagement Strategy Update, TCSC:2012-14

The Tenant and Community Services Committee had before it the above-captioned report (TCSC:2012-14) from the Interim Chief Executive Officer.

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Ms. Munira Abukar, seconded by Councillor Cesar Palacio, the Tenant and Community Services Committee received the report for information.

Item 8 – 2012 Successful Tenancies Strategy, TCSC:2012-15

The Tenant and Community Services Committee had before it the above-captioned report (TCSC:2012-15) from the Interim Chief Executive Officer.

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Ms. Munira Abukar, seconded by Councillor Cesar Palacio, the Tenant and Community Services Committee received the report for information.

In Camera Proceedings

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Cesar Palacio, seconded by Councillor Frances Nunziata, the Tenant and Community Services Committee resolved to meet in camera at 11:43 a.m. to consider item A.

Public Proceedings

At 11:44 a.m. the Chair announced the resumption of the public proceedings and the public meeting reconvened at that time.

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Cesar Palacio, seconded by Councillor Frances Nunziata, the Tenant and Community Services Committee ratified the actions authorized during the in camera meeting.

Adjournment

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Cesar Palacio, seconded by Councillor Frances Nunziata, the meeting of the Tenant and Community Services Committee was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.