Windsor-Essex HARS Special Initiative Study Background ... · List of Tables Table 1: A Comparison...

Windsor-Essex HARS Special Initiative Study

Background Report Two: Rationalizing the Social Housing Stock

Final June 2010

Prepared by:

Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) ii Background Report Two: Rationalizing the Social Housing Stock

Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) iii Background Report Two: Rationalizing the Social Housing Stock

Table of Contents 1.0 Identifying the Best Use of Housing Stock ................................... 1

1.1 Opportunities to Better Utilize Social Housing Stock .............................. 1

1.1.1 Comparing the Demand and Supply of Social Housing ........................ 1

1.1.2 Vacancies in the Public Housing Stock .......................................... 7

1.1.3 Accessibility within the Social Housing Stock .................................. 8

1.1.3.1 Accessibility for Ontarians Disability Act .................................... 9

1.1.3.2 Accessible Built Environment (ABE) Standard ............................... 9

1.1.4 Energy Efficiency in the Social Housing Stock ................................10

1.1.5 Leveraging the Social Housing Stock ...........................................11

1.2 Opportunities to Better Utilize Private Rental Stock .............................12

2.0 Directions in the Rationalization of the Social Housing Stock .......... 16

2.1 Rationalization Tool ...................................................................17

Appendices ............................................................................... 25

Appendix A: Comparison of Available CHC Public Housing Units and Number of

Applicants on the Windsor-Essex County Central Housing Registry for Social Housing

in Essex County, April 2009 ...................................................................26

Appendix B: Windsor Multi-Residential Advisory Committee Session (Focus Group D)

....................................................................................................30

Appendix C: Bibliography .....................................................................33

Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) iii Background Report Two: Rationalizing the Social Housing Stock

List of Tables Table 1: A Comparison of Public Housing Demand and Supply in Windsor-Essex County by Mandate, 2009 ................................................................. 2

Table 2: A Comparison of Public Housing Demand and Supply in Windsor-Essex County by Unit Size, 2009 ................................................................ 2

Table 3: A Comparison of Public Housing Demand and Supply in the City of Windsor by Building, April 2009 ......................................................... 4

Table 4: A Comparison of Public Housing Demand and Supply in Essex County by Building, April 2009 ........................................................................ 5

Table 5: City of Windsor's WINHOME Units and Waiting List Applicants, 2009 .... 6

Table 6: Single and Semi-Detached Units in the Social Housing Portfolio ......... 6

Table 7: Potential Costs for Municipally-Initiated Rent Supplement Program (Per Unit, OW Recipients) .............................................................. 14

Table 8: Potential Costs for Municipally-Initiated Rent Supplement Program (Per Unit, ODSP Recipients) ............................................................ 14

Table 9: Residential and Multi-Residential Tax Rates Throughout Essex County ............................................................................................. 15

List of Figures

Figure 1: Average Vacancies in Windsor Essex Community Housing, 2004-2008 .. 7

Figure 2: Average Rent in Windsor Essex Community Housing, 2004-2008 ........ 7

Figure 3: Vacancy Loss in Windsor Essex Community Housing, 2004-2008 ........ 8

Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) 1 Background Report Two: Rationalizing the Social Housing Stock

1.0 Identifying the Best Use of Housing Stock

This Background Report outlines the key challenges determining the best use of the social housing stock (see also Background Report One: Housing Needs Analysis). This has been completed through the analysis of any mismatches in the demand and supply for this type of housing in Windsor/Essex, and through the analysis of gaps within the private rental housing market. 1.1 Opportunities to Better Utilize Social Housing Stock

The following section examines the opportunities to better meet the needs of persons living in social housing within Windsor/Essex. The following sections provide an analysis of the demand and supply of social housing as well as outline challenges with respect to accessibility and energy efficiency within the current social housing portfolio. 1.1.1 Comparing the Demand and Supply of Social Housing

A comparison of the demand and supply of social housing will assist in determining, overall, the best use of the social housing stock. The following section provides an overview of the social housing portfolio and highlights some of the mismatches in supply and demand. The analysis of supply and demand has been conducted for mandate, unit size and location. Demand, for the purposes of this analysis, is based on the Central Housing Registry waiting list data as of December 2009 overall, and as of April 2009 for project-specific data. By mandate, most of the supply is comprised of senior (35%), and family (39%) units. Looking at the demand, however, 47% of applicants waiting are families while just 7.8% are seniors. This is reflected in wait times where seniors experience the shortest wait times of approximately one to six months. For families, on the other hand, wait times can be much longer. Discussions with local housing providers, including staff of the WECHC, found that there are some vacancies in seniors units being carried over on a monthly basis. These vacancies, however, do not seem to be as much of a challenge where the age requirements have been lowered to 50 years. Indeed, this helps address the shortfall in supply of units for younger singles, which is the largest gap in the social housing stock in Windsor/Essex. With comparatively lower rents in the Windsor area, many seniors are able to afford the average market rents even on their fixed incomes. Stakeholders commented that seniors are in need of both affordable and suitable/accessible seniors‟ units. As identified in the Needs Analysis, the population in the Windsor/Essex area is aging; this trend should be considered when looking at rationalizing the housing stock. A brief review of the portfolio of Windsor-Essex Community Housing Corporation demonstrates the difference in the nature of demand and supply


for the City‟s largest operator of social housing units. Much the same situation also holds for other social housing providers in Windsor-Essex. Table 1 shows the demand and supply comparison for former public housing units now operated by CHC.

Table 1: A Comparison of Public Housing Demand and Supply in Windsor-Essex County by Mandate, 2009

Unit Size Units Applicants

# % # %

Adults 788 22.3% 917 45.0%

Family 1,516 42.8% 963 47.2%

Seniors 1,236 34.9% 159 7.8%

Total 3,540 100.0% 2,039 100.0%

Note: Units in projects mandated "families/adults" were separated by unit size, with the assumption that adults required smaller units

while families would need at least two bedrooms. The only exception was in Wheelton Manor, which only has bachelor and one-

bedroom units. Here, it was assumed that families would use the larger units, while adults would occupy the bachelor units. This

process led to 134 additional adult units and 135 more family units.

Source: Windsor-Essex County Central Housing Registry, April 2009

By unit size, most applicants (48%) are waiting for one-bedroom units. Wait times for one-bedroom units are generally a minimum of five years. Three-bedroom units have the shortest wait time at about six months to two years. Staff noted that often three-bedroom units are difficult to fill, in particular those located in row housing. Such units tend to have high utility costs, which are excluded from the rent. Larger bedroom sizes (i.e. four bedrooms and more) are in comparatively high demand. Approximately 4% of the supply is comprised of four and five bedroom units, while 11% of the waiting list is comprised of families waiting for these larger unit sizes. Wait times for such units are a minimum of three years.

Table 2: A Comparison of Public Housing Demand and Supply in Windsor-Essex County by Unit Size, 2009

Unit Size Units Applicants

# % # %

Bachelor 196 5.5% 8 0.4%

1 bedroom 1,845 52.1% 980 48.1%

2 bedrooms 357 10.1% 447 21.9%

3 bedrooms 1,008 28.5% 379 18.6%

4 bedrooms 113 3.2% 177 8.7%

5 bedrooms 20 0.6% 48 2.4%

Comm. 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 3,540 100.0% 2,039 100.0%



Properties showing comparatively higher levels of demand (i.e. more applicants on the waiting list) include Cameron Montrose Apartments (334 applicants), Ford Ferndale Apartments (356 applicants), Bridgeview (113), Glengarry Row (108) and Wheelton Manor (289 applicants). The scattered units also have a high number of applicants at 191. Properties which appear, based on the data below, to be experiencing lower levels of demand include Maplewood (both properties), Palmer Court Division, Victoria Street, Prince Albert Street, Ouellette Manor, Arthur J. Reaume, Chateau Masson, Foutainbleau Tower, Raymond Demaris and St. Joseph. Maplewood at 109 Brien Avenue is the only property in the County with no applicants waiting. St. Joseph and 346 Victoria in the City also had no applicants on the waiting list as of April 2009. Locations that have more applicants than units include:

- Nancy Avenue - Bridgeview - Cameron Montrose - Fountainbleau Singles - Nancy Court & Pearl Street - Riverside Families - Warren Park

There is currently a plan to redevelop Chateau Maison to better address the needs. The five to six year plan includes increasing unit sizes to end up with 45 units as opposed to 80. The plan also includes 12 units to be transitional with supports provided, possibly through a partnership with the University of Windsor. The plan would further include a cafe (run by residents), piazza, multi-use centre and possibly a CHC office. Table 3 below shows the demand-supply comparison for CHC buildings by location, including both former public housing units and WINHOME units.


Table 3: A Comparison of CHC Social Housing Demand and Supply in the City of Windsor by Building, April 2009

Building/Project Units Applicants

# % # %

Arthur J. Reaume (605 Mill St) 130 2.8% 5 0.2%

Bloomfield 77 1.7% 72 2.3%

Bridgeview 100 2.2% 113 3.7%

Cameron Montrose Apartments 132 2.9% 334 10.8%

Central Avenue (Rosewood Court) 49 1.1% 36 1.2%

Chateau Maison 80 1.8% 2 0.1%

City of Windsor - WINHOME (Central) 767 16.8% 375 12.1%

City of Windsor - WINHOME (East) 220 4.8% 232 7.5%

City of Windsor - WINHOME (West) 299 6.5% 23 0.7%

Curry/McKay 200 4.4% 111 3.6%

Dr. Roy Perry Apartments 80 1.8% 415 13.4%

Essex Court 207 4.5% 24 0.8%

Ford Ferndale (Apartments) 22 0.5% 297 9.6%

Ford Ferndale 198 4.3% 59 1.9%

Fountainbleau Row 175 3.8% 85 2.8%

Fountainbleau Singles 40 0.9% 98 3.2%

Fountainbleau Tower (2455 Rivard) 684 15.0% 21 0.7%

Glengarry Row 57 1.2% 108 3.5%

Lauzon 108 2.4% 90 2.9%

Ouellette Manor 400 8.8% 38 1.2%

Raymond Demaris (255 Riverside) 300 6.6% 9 0.3%

Riverside Families 16 0.4% 35 1.1%

Riverside Senior 20 0.4% 17 0.6%

Scattered Units 56 1.2% 191 6.2%

Villages of Riverside 14 0.3% 11 0.4%

Wheelton Manor 135 3.0% 289 9.4%

Total 4,566 100.0% 3,090 100.0%



Table 4: A Comparison of CHC Social Housing Demand and Supply in Essex County by Building, April 2009

Building/Project Municipality Units Applicants

# % # %

340 Victoria St Amherstburg 41 7.5% 0 0.0%

346 Victoria Amherstburg 26 4.8% 0 0.0%

Victoria Street Amherstburg 67 12.2% 18 6.1%

Warren Park - Fort and Main Streets Amherstburg 25 4.6% 30 10.2%

Ellroy Manor Essex 24 4.4% 7 2.4%

Maplewood Apts - 109 Brien Essex 65 11.9% 0 0.0%

Maplewood - 111 Brien Avenue Essex 72 13.2% 10 3.4%

Palmer Court Division Kingsville 30 5.5% 10 3.4%

Prince Albert Street Kingsville 22 4.0% 7 2.4%

St. Charles Street Lakeshore 20 3.7% 11 3.7%

1905 Delmar Street LaSalle 15 2.7% 27 9.2%

Cedars - Talbot St. Leamington 41 7.5% 30 10.2%

Lutsch Avenue Leamington 34 6.2% 29 9.8%

Nancy Avenue Leamington 11 2.0% 36 12.2%

Nancy Court Leamington 12 2.2% 29 9.8%

Pearl Street Leamington 4 0.7% 14 4.7%

Arbour Court Tecumseh 38 6.9% 37 12.5%

Total 547 100.0% 295 100.0%


The WINHOME (West) properties have vacancy issues. With the exception of their one-bedroom units there were no applicants waiting as of April 2009.


Table 5: City of Windsor's WINHOME Units and Waiting List Applicants, 2009

Location Unit Size Units Waiting List

CENTRAL:

- Campbell - Cherniak

- Cottages – Campbell - Devon Estates

- McPhail Manor (Mercer) - Hallmark

- MacDonnell Manor - Slater

- Woodward Boulevard/Chaviva Development

Bachelor 128 7

1 bdrm 242 36

2 bdrm 186 117

3 bdrm 199 141

4 bdrm 4 73

Modified* 5 2-Bdrm 3 3-Bdrm

1 - 1 BR SC

EAST:

- Jefferson I - Jefferson II

- Meadowbrook Lane - Jos. Janisse

- Queen Elizabeth - Riggs Manor

Bachelor 0 1

1 bdrm 49 40

2 bdrm 35 68

3 bdrm 133 79

4 bdrm 0 43

Modified* 3 2-Bdrm 1 - 1 BR SC

WEST:

- Ashgrove Manor

- Cottages – Partington

- St. Joseph

Bachelor 8 0

1 bdrm 136 23

2 bdrm 80 0

3 bdrm 63 0

4 bdrm 12 0

Source: Windsor-Essex Community Housing Corporation, 2009; Windsor-Essex County Central Housing Registry, April 2009

Table 6 below shows that WECHC owns a number of older, scattered units. Discussions with staff indicate that many of these are proving expensive to maintain and heat. Several LHCs in other cities have successfully sold such units to home buyers and used the equity to help replace these units with more energy efficient and low-maintenance units in more suitable locations. This would expand the availability of low cost homeownership units while also enabling CHC to upgrade its social housing stock.

Table 6: Single and Semi-Detached Units in the Social Housing Portfolio

Unit Size Semi-Detached Singles

1 bedroom 131 161

2 bedroom 44 39

3 bedroom 152 40

4 bedroom 3 1

Total 330 241

Source: Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation


1.1.2 Vacancies in the Public Housing Stock

The following figure illustrates the increases in vacant units within the public housing stock. From 2005 to 2008, the average number of vacant units increased by 111 units. Discussions with other local providers found that they encounter some vacancies from time-to-time as well. It has been suggested that the severe economic downturn experienced in the past couple of years has resulted in many tenants and potential tenants leaving the area in search of job opportunities elsewhere, resulting in growing numbers of vacancies in many cases.

Figure 1: Average Vacancies in Windsor Essex Community Housing, 2004-2008

9278

93

128

189

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ave

rage

Vacan

cie

s

Year

Source: Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation The increase in the number of vacant units has resulted in increasing vacancy losses for the Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation (WECHC). In 2008, the WECHC experienced a vacancy loss of $642,253; an increase of $202,953 from 2007 and $366,966 from 2005.

Figure 2: Average Rent in Windsor Essex Community Housing, 2004-2008

$299

$294

$290

$286

$284

$280

$285

$290

$295

$300

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ave

rage

Re

nt

Year

Source: Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation


Figure 3: Vacancy Loss in Windsor Essex Community Housing, 2004-2008

$328,369

$275,287$322,385

$439,300

$642,253

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Vacan

cy L

oss

Year

Source: Windsor EssexCommunity Housing Corporation 1.1.3 Accessibility within the Social Housing Stock

Approximately 2% of the WECHC stock is modified to accommodate persons with physical disabilities. Some of the newer private non-profit stock tends to have a little higher proportion of modified units due to program requirements at the time these were built, compared to the lack of such requirements when the original public housing stock was built by the Ontario Housing Corporation prior to the transfer to CHC. While the number of applicants on the waiting list is low (2 as of April 2009), community consultation results indicate a need for more accessible units. The lack of applicants on the waiting list is in part due to the inadequacy of the modified units in relation to the needs of disabled individuals in the area. In particular, there is a need for more ground floor units; as often stairs are the main barrier to someone living in a second floor unit. Alternatively, consideration could be given to installing elevators in two-storey walk-up buildings where feasible in order to improve accessibility. Participants of consultation activities conducted as part of this study noted that modified units do not always meet the needs of persons with disabilities. For example, units are often modified for persons with mobility impairments; however, there is also a need for modified units to meet the needs of persons with visual impairments. It was also observed that support services should be tied to modified units and that the location of modified units can be an issue. The age of the current social housing stock in many cases has resulted in a level of accessibility which is inadequate to meet the housing needs of persons with a higher level of disability. The 2004 HARS report recommended expanding the supply of modified units to 5% of the overall social housing portfolio. Sources emphasize that support services that are tied to modified units are one of the


biggest keys to achieve a successful living environment for someone with a disability, but often this is extraordinarily difficult to achieve. 1.1.3.1 Accessibility for Ontarians Disability Act

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), passed in 2005, builds on the ODA with the creation of Standards Development Committees. The AODA sets as one of its goals to “develop, implement, and enforce accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025.” Provincially, the Act mandated the creation of Standards Development Committees which will develop mandatory standards on a regional basis. There are currently three Standards Development Committees in place: transportation, customer service, and information and communications. The two additional Standards Development Committees, built environment and employment, are currently underway. The terms of reference for the Built Environment and Employment Committees indicate that proposed standards will be drafted by early 2009. These standards will define measures, policies, and steps needed to remove barriers for persons with disabilities. A barrier means anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, information or communication barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice. Municipalities are required to prepare accessibility plans with the consultation of persons with disabilities, and make the plans public. Section 29 of the Act stipulates that “every municipality having a population of not less than 10,000 shall establish an accessibility advisory committee” or that any such existing committees continue to exist. Small municipalities, of less than 10,000 “may” establish or continue with any such existing committees. The impending new standards will greatly improve accessibility in Ontario, however it is unclear as to what financial impact these standards will have on existing and future social/affordable housing buildings. The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) estimated that the costs for social housing providers could be as high as $10 million to $60 million annually just for the implementation of the Information and Communication Standards component.

1.1.3.2 Accessible Built Environment (ABE) Standard

The Initial Proposed Accessible Built Environment (ABE) Standard sets out requirements that will help Ontario become accessible by 2025. It proposes accessibility requirements for new construction, extensive renovations and


retrofits. The Standard was developed by the Accessible Built Environment Standard Development Committee. The proposed standard has 11 groups of building elements: common access and circulation, interior accessible routes, exterior spaces, communication elements and facilities, plumbing elements and facilities, building performance and maintenance, special rooms, spaces and other elements, transient residential, recreation elements and facilities, transportation elements and housing. For each building element, there are technical requirements that explain how to make these elements accessible for persons with disabilities. If the Standard becomes the law, new construction would have to comply within 12 months after the Standard is law. Extensive renovations and changes in the use of a built environment would have to comply within 12 to 36 months. Buildings constructed before the Standard becomes the law would have to comply within 5 to13 years, with publicly funded institutional buildings and assembly-type buildings being among the first to have to comply while industrial buildings would have the longest time to comply.1 1.1.4 Energy Efficiency in the Social Housing Stock

Background Report One found that approximately two-thirds of the housing stock in Windsor/Essex is over 30 years old; including 38% that is 45 years old. The social housing stock operated by WECHC follows much the same pattern, having been built primarily during the 1960‟s and 1970‟s. Similarly, most of the private non-profit housing stock was developed prior to current improvements in energy efficient construction methods. An important aspect of meeting housing needs is the ability of the existing stock to continue to provide adequate and acceptable living standards to residents. Consultation activities conducted as part of this study indicate significant concerns with the aging of the housing stock, in particular the social housing stock. Increasing repair and maintenance costs as well as increasing energy costs are concerns to homeowners and landlords as well as social housing providers. Although difficult to quantify, the rising cost of utilities in Ontario is having considerable impact on individuals and families in all communities. For low-income and even moderate income households these costs can put many families at risk of homelessness. According to the Statistics Canada Survey of Household Spending (2003), “in Ontario, the lowest income quintile – one in every five households – spends an

1 Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services (n.d.). Summary: Initial Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard. Accessed from: www.mcss.gov.on.ca

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/


average of 12% of their income on utilities while the average Ontarian spends only 4%”2. Moreover, low income housing generally has higher energy costs as a result of lower quality housing, such as lack of insulation and draft-proofing and less efficient furnaces and other appliances3. Concern over high utilities was identified as a concern by stakeholders. As a result of increasing utility costs, some families are unable to afford other necessities for the month such as food and clothing. The deposits required for utilities are also a barrier for many households looking for permanent housing. As part of Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP), the Ontario Energy Board reported that throughout their consultations stakeholders reported that affordability is an increasing problem due to the rising energy prices (Ontario Energy Board, 2009). The Social Housing Services Corporation (SHSC) notes that many social housing units were built “in the era of cheap energy and now require major retrofits to more modern standards” (Overview, 2006). The 1980s requirement that new social housing being constructed be heated by electric baseboard heaters (in order to minimize costs) has resulted in energy inefficiencies that with rising costs are making such units no longer affordable. WECHC inherited many such buildings as a result of the transfer of social housing from Ontario Housing Corporation in 2000/2001. It has moved forward with a number of initiatives to help improve the energy efficiency of this housing stock. Other social housing providers we consulted are also highly aware of the importance of energy efficiency to building operations and are looking for approaches to incorporating greater levels of energy efficiency within existing buildings. New social housing stock arising out of recent programs is paying much greater attention to energy efficient design. Continued efforts are needed to ensure the sustainability of these buildings over time as energy costs continue to rise. 1.1.5 Leveraging the Social Housing Stock

Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation has a unique opportunity arising from the original financial structure of its buildings. From our discussions with CHC, it is evident that a number of its buildings are nearing their payout of final loans and mortgages. This creates a potential opportunity to raise capital by leveraging against the equity in these buildings, i.e. borrowing against these buildings. It is our understanding that Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation is one of only a handful of non-profit housing corporations in Ontario in this position. This Corporation, therefore, should carefully review potential leveraging opportunities and apply the funds where most needed in

2 As reported in CHRA Affordable and Efficient Towards a National Energy Efficiency Strategy for Low-

Income Canadians. February 17 2005.

3 Ibid.


terms of new development or redevelopment, repairs and renovations, and improved accessibility and energy efficiency. 1.2 Opportunities to Better Utilize Private Rental Stock

Opportunities to better address the housing needs of Windsor/Essex residents, in particular low-income residents, may also be found in the private rental stock. As discussed in Background Report One: Needs Analysis, there are a total of 36,755 renter households in the Windsor/Essex area; most of which are living in private rental housing (approximately three-quarters). The Windsor CMA had the highest apartment vacancy rate in Ontario in 2007 and 2008. Given the vacancy rate of 14.6%, many local landlords are struggling to find ways to attract renters and keep the tenants they have. The private rental housing stock, therefore, may provide further opportunities for low cost rental housing. In March of 2009, as part of this study, a special meeting of the Windsor Multi-Residential Advisory Committee was held to discuss the challenges facing the private landlords in the community. The purpose of the session was to discuss the challenges facing the multi-residential community and to explore opportunities for the City and the multi-residential sector to work together to address high vacancy rates and the need for affordable housing. Results from the session are summarized below. A detailed summary of the session is found in Appendix B. The biggest challenge currently facing the multi-residential sector is the high vacancy rates. As stated, the overall vacancy rate stood at 14.6% in 2008, with a rate even higher for one-bedroom units at 15.7%. It is anticipated that these rates have further increased and may be approaching 20% in some areas. Rents over the past few years have remained fairly flat. Even with rents at relatively „affordable‟ levels, compared to other regions in the province, households are still grappling with the current economic situation and their growing inability to afford any form of market housing due to job loss and declining incomes. This is further illustrated by long wait times for social housing. Landlords are unable to lower rents below a level which would allow them to properly maintain a unit. Opportunities for more rent supplement units were expressed as a positive approach for landlords. Landlords participating in the consultation session agreed that there is an opportunity, given the high vacancy rates in one-bedroom units alongside a long waiting list for social housing for one-bedroom units (wait times vary from 5-8 years). Rent supplements are successful in providing affordable housing to persons of low-income; a partnership with the multi-residential community in the provision of more such units would also assist in helping to minimize the impact of high vacancy rates.


The Housing Services Division does currently offer rent supplements to the private sector; however, historically there has been about a 45% take-up with remaining units going to the non-profit sector. Given the current economic climate, however, it is believed that if the City received more rent supplement units the take-up in the private sector would be greater. The City currently engages in 1-5 year commitments from landlords. Rent supplement units provide a much needed affordable form of accommodation for low-income households. There is a need in Windsor/Essex for more affordable housing options. Accordingly, the City of Windsor and County of Essex should strongly advocate to the provincial government regarding the need for more long-term funded rent supplement programs. Participants commented that the Affordable Housing Program should allow for more flexibility with regard to where funds are allocated; vacancy rates are high in Windsor‟s private sector, yet the waiting list for social housing is long. Ensuring a large portion of funding goes to rent supplement programs would help address this issue. This is actually part of a wider issue whereby municipalities should be given greater flexibility to determine how best to spend housing assistance dollars, rather than simply administering prescribed provincial and federal programs. The City and County should strongly advocate to senior levels of government for block funding for social housing in order to have the flexibility to drive social housing budgets where the need is proven. Some municipalities in Ontario have implemented municipally-funded rent supplement programs. For example, the Region of Waterloo provides 100% municipally-funded rent supplements to approximately 140 affordable rental units. This program mirrors the guidelines outlined in the Social Reform Act. The one exception is that the Region charges the maximum shelter allowance, which is higher than the beneficiary allowance. As a result of this, however, the Region only signs agreements with landlords that pay for the utilities themselves so that tenants are not responsible for these costs. There is no specified term for this program. Applicants for this program come from the Social Housing Waiting List. The program costs the municipality approximately $550,000 annually. The following table illustrates the potential costs of a City of Windsor fully funded rent supplement program. If the City decided to fund 50 rent supplement units, for example, it would cost an average of approximately $2,100/unit or $150,000 annually for 50 units. This represents an estimate and would vary depending on unit size and whether tenants were receiving OW or ODSP.


Table 7: Potential Costs for Municipally-Initiated Rent Supplement Program (Per Unit, OW Recipients)

Unit Size CMHC

Average Market Rent

Maximum OW Monthly Shelter

Allowance

Municipal Subsidy Requirement

(Per Unit)

Municipal Annual Subsidy Requirement

(Per Unit)

Bachelor $503 $356 $147 $1,764

1 Bedroom $645 $356 $289 $3,468

2 Bedroom $772 $560 $212 $2,544

3 Bedroom $883 $607 $276 $3,312

Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Rental Market Report – Windsor, 2008; Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Shelter, Dir 6.2-2, December 2008; Windsor-Essex Community Housing

Corporation

Table 8: Potential Costs for Municipally-Initiated Rent Supplement Program (Per Unit, ODSP

Recipients)

Unit Size CMHC

Average Market Rent

Maximum ODSP Monthly Shelter

Allowance

Municipal Monthly Subsidy Requirement

(Per Unit)

Municipal Annual Subsidy Requirement

(Per Unit)

Bachelor 503 445 58 696

1 Bedroom 645 445 200 2,400

2 Bedroom 772 700 72 864

3 Bedroom 883 759 124 1,488

Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Rental Market Report – Windsor, 2008; Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Shelter Calculation, 6.2, ODSP Branch, July 2009; Windsor-Essex Community

Housing Corporation

The tables above illustrate that the potential costs to the City of Windsor for a municipally initiated and funded rent supplement program range from $696 to $3,468 per unit per year or an average of $2,067 per unit/year ($172.25/unit/month). Should the City, therefore, decide to fund 50 units through such a program, it would cost on average $103,350 per year on an ongoing basis. Given the high vacancy rates in the private market and the number of applicants on the social housing waiting list, an expanded, City-funded rent supplement program would help address the affordability challenges experienced by many individuals and households. Property owners further recognized that utility costs and maintenance costs are high. It was suggested that more education around energy conservation would be positive and help reduce costs. Another key theme to emerge from the session with private landlords was the issue of municipal taxation policies. Multi-residential rental housing in most Ontario communities is taxed at a much higher rate than ownership housing, which thereby creates a barrier to offering affordable housing. The Table below illustrates the current multi-residential and residential tax rates and the ratio of the multi-residential rate to the residential rate for each


of the municipalities in the County of Essex as well as for the City of Windsor. There is an opportunity for municipalities to make rental housing more affordable by equalizing the multi-residential tax rate to that of the residential tax rate. In many municipalities this has been done only for new affordable rental housing developments in return for agreements by developers to keep rents within defined affordable rent levels. This is a requirement of the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program.

Table 9: Residential and Multi-Residential Tax Rates Throughout Essex County

Municipality Residential Multi-Residential Ratio

Amherstburg 0.01376828 0.02451500 1.78054194

Essex 0.00698475 0.00624900 0.89466337

Kingsville 0.00521081 0.01018921 1.95539849

Lakeshore 0.00475000 0.00928800 1.95536842

LaSalle 0.00760400 0.01486500 1.95489216

Leamington 0.98155500 1.91933200 1.95539934

Tecumseh 0.00535300 0.01046700 1.95535214

Windsor 0.01477741 0.03915205 2.64945278

Essex County 0.00405450 0.00792817 1.95540017

Source: Municipal websites, 2008 and 2009

Under the Assessment Act, a new 35-year multi-residential property tax class may be adopted by municipalities (by October 31 in any given year for the ensuing year) and the rate set lower than the existing multi-residential rate. In this case all new multi-residential buildings, including those under the Affordable Housing Program, would benefit. Alternatively, municipalities, through a municipal housing facilities bylaw, may provide grants-in-lieu of property tax reduction on specific properties. This would enable the municipality to reduce the effective property tax only for those buildings receiving incentives specified in the bylaw.


2.0 Directions in the Rationalization of the Social Housing Stock

From the above discussion, a number of key challenges are highlighted with respect to rationalizing the social housing stock. These apply to both the Windsor-Essex Community Housing Corporation and all other social housing providers. The key housing issues include: 1. There is a need to create an improved balance within the social

housing portfolio (of unit sizes, mandate, and location) to better meet demand.

Wait times for one-bedroom units can in general be a minimum of five years

Wait times for larger units (i.e. 4+ bedrooms) can be a minimum of three years

Seniors have the lowest wait times at approximately one to six months

Many seniors units are currently vacant

Three-bedroom units are a challenge to fill

Several locations have vacancies and are difficult to fill

Initiatives should be undertaken to increase the number of one bedroom units for low income singles and 4+ bedroom units for larger families

2. There is a need for more accessible units within the social housing stock.

There is a need for more accessible units within the social housing stock

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act will have a significant impact on the accessibility requirements within the social housing stock

Several consultation participants noted long wait times for modified units

The age of the social housing stock has resulted in a level of accessibility which is inadequate to meet the needs of persons with a higher level of disability

3. The quality of the social housing stock needs to be maintained and enhanced.

An important aspect of meeting housing needs is the ability of the existing stock to continue to provide adequate and acceptable living standards to residents

Community consultation revealed several concerns with respect to maintenance issues within social housing properties

The existing social housing stock, in many cases, is old and in need of updating. Older scattered units are a particular concern in terms of the cost of utilities and maintenance


There is a need to examine closely the funding opportunities to facilitate improved energy efficiency within the social housing portfolio in order to reduce costs for both social housing providers and residents

2.1 Rationalization Tool

The above directions for rationalizing the stock indicate that opportunities exist for potentially redeveloping or selling some existing social housing stock to better match the needs of Windsor/Essex residents. While it is not the mandate of this report to advise on specific properties that might be sold or redeveloped, the following rationalization tool has been designed to help all social housing providers determine rationalization strategies for each specific property in their portfolios. The following Table outlines criteria and variables social housing providers should consider when deciding whether to sell, replace or redevelop a social housing property. Using the social housing profile in conjunction with this Management Tool, this tool provides a means of analyzing the status of the current housing stock and its ability to meet current housing needs.


Management Tool for the Rationalization of the Social Housing Stock

Criteria Variables Measurement Tool Considerations

STEP 1

Consider the condition of the building

Is the building in need of major capital repairs?

Building condition assessment (based on 5-year Capital Plan)

Staff opinion/evaluation –

Financial evaluation

Need to establish a guideline or threshold for identification of “major capital repairs” (to be identified by review of Building Condition Assessment)

What are the estimated costs for undertaking the identified major capital repairs?

Are there sufficient funds in the short and long term to undertake the major capital repairs?

Are there concerns with the physical condition of the building (i.e. energy efficiency of building, accessibility, functionality)?

Building condition assessment

Evaluation by management

Can the concerns regarding the physical condition of the building be addressed within the current budgetary parameters either in the short or long term?

Given the age of the building, is it cost-effective to undertake major capital repairs or improvements to the physical condition of the building (i.e. energy efficiency, accessibility, functionality)?

Building condition assessment

Cost estimates from building consultant or contractors

Projections of operating cost reductions, as appropriate

Tenant survey or other method to identify needs such as accessibility

Factors to consider are:

- age of building

- life expectancy as per building condition assessment

- extent of capital repairs to be undertaken and cost

- added life expectancy of the building

- extent of improvements to be undertaken and cost

- benefits of incorporating the improvements in the building (i.e. reduce operating costs, address needs of tenants)




Considerations After STEP 1:

If the building is in need of major repair, the life expectancy of the building is limited, and functionality and physical condition of the building is a concern, further evaluation to determine if the property is fulfilling a need in the community is required (STEP 2) before reaching a decision.

If the building is not in need of major repair an analysis of the properties’ ability to meet current housing needs (STEP 2) will assist in determining whether or not a property may be in need of redevelopment and/or if new units are required.

STEP 2

Consider if the property is currently meeting a housing need

Is there a waiting list for units in this location?

Is there a waiting list for modified units in this location?

Do needs studies identify future need for this type of housing?

Windsor/Essex Central Housing Registry provides information on waiting lists by property and bedroom type

Waiting list data for modified units

Needs analysis information

Analyze building turnover rates, as well as the waiting list for the building by unit type and consider:

- Is there a particular unit type that is less desirable?

- What has been the waiting list trend (i.e. has the waiting list been increasing or decreasing?)?

- What do the needs studies tell us?

- What are the waiting list trends showing for modified units?




Does the property have vacancies?

Vacancies and length of time that units are vacant by property should tracked by social housing provider

For social housing, a high vacancy would generally mean a unit was vacant for longer than the time needed to move in a new tenant from the social housing waiting list (i.e. approximately 60 days)

Analyze trends in vacancies for the building, in particular:

- is a particular unit that is experiencing vacancy problems

- is the issue cyclical (i.e. related to job postings, school year)

- has the building been experiencing vacancy problems for at least a year

Compare vacancies in the building to the general market area. Is the vacancy issue prevalent in the rest of the area?

Is the location of building problematic?

Anecdotal information from Property Manager, tenants, etc.

Results from Focus Group C.

Is there a crime issue or other negative issue in the neighbourhood where the building is located?

Is the building inaccessible to services, transportation, etc.




If the building has vacancies, have mitigation strategies been considered?

Examine strategies undertaken by Property Manager to reduce vacancies

Focus Group C

Has a marketing strategy been undertaken? If yes, describe the strategy, length of time in place and results.

Have any of the following strategies been considered?

- Explore possibility of renting units to others at full market rents

- Explore option of subleasing to support service providers (i.e. Community Living) to respond to waiting lists for housing for persons with disabilities

- Change occupancy standards (i.e. allowing more families to qualify for 3 and 4 bedroom units thus alleviating any vacancies in larger units)

DECISION POINT:

1) If the building is in need of major repair, the life expectancy of the building is limited, and functionality and physical condition of the building is a concern, and the building is experiencing ongoing high vacancies, the location of the building is problematic and mitigation strategies have been employed. Move to STEP 3.

2) If the building is not in need of major repair, is experiencing high vacancies and current mitigations strategies have been unsuccessful. Move to STEP 4.

3) If the building is not in need of major repair, and is not experiencing vacancies. Move to STEP 5.




STEP 3

Identify how the RGI units would be replaced if the property is sold

What is the property worth if sold?

An appraisal by a certified appraiser should be conducted

An opinion from a realtor should be obtained on saleability of property, i.e. market, length of time to sell, etc.

What are options for use of resulting funds?

Determine what the property is worth and how long it would take to sell the property.

Evaluate possibility of refilling units through rent supplement program

Estimates would need to be developed on costs of a municipally funded rent supplement program

Determine if the equity gained in selling a property can sustain an on-going municipally funded rent supplement program.

Evaluate the feasibility of constructing a new building in a different location

Develop estimates on the costs of constructing new project

Identify any existing funding programs that might be able to help defray the costs of new construction.

Potential new sites would be needed. The services of a realtor could be retained to undertake this work.

Determine if there are any suitable sites for a location of a new building.

Determine if the equity gained in selling a property is sufficient to construct a new building

If it is not sufficient, what is the short fall?

Are there any existing government funding programs to defray the costs of constructing a new building?




STEP 4

Identify how the existing social housing portfolio may be enhanced

Evaluate redevelopment opportunities of current building

Social housing stock profile


Identify any existing funding programs that might assist in the costs of renovations.

Need to ensure a positive balance of supply and demand.

Redevelopment strategies to consider may include:

- altering the unit mix (i.e. replacing two and three-bedroom units with more one-bedroom units)

- changes to occupancy standards

- Changes to age requirements for seniors units

- adapting modified units and/or adding accessibility features

Evaluate the possibility of intensifying current property


Identify any existing funding programs that might assist in the costs of renovations.

Determine whether current building can be intensified (i.e. adding new units to current structure)

Determine if a new structure can be developed on the existing property.

STEP 5

Identify potential to increase the supply of affordable housing

Evaluate the feasibility of constructing a new building in a new location

Identify surplus units/property that are suitable for affordable housing


The services of a realtor may need to be obtained.

Determine if there are any suitable sites for a location of a new building.

Identify any existing funding programs that might be able to help defray the costs of new construction.




Evaluate the possibility of adding more affordable housing units to existing private rental housing (e.g rent supplements)

Identify opportunities in the private sector to create more affordable housing (Multi-Residential Housing Committee – Focus Group D)

Cost estimates on costs of adding more affordable housing units

Determine whether subsidizing more affordable rental housing is sustainable

OVERALL FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN RATIONALIZATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING PROPERTY

1) Current condition of existing social housing stock has been examined

2) Current vacancy rates of existing stock, location and functionality of current stock, and current mitigation strategies have been evaluated

3) A cost-effective method has been identified to replace the RGI units that will be lost if the building is disposed

4) Redevelopment strategies have been identified to enhance existing stock

5) Opportunities to create new affordable housing have been explored


Appendices

Appendix A: Comparison of Available CHC Public Housing Units and Number of Applicants on the Windsor-Essex County Central Housing Registry for Social

Housing in Essex County, April 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Meeting with the Windsor Multi-Residential Advisory Committee

Appendix C: Bibliography


Appendix A: Comparison of Available CHC Public Housing Units and Number of Applicants on the Windsor-Essex County Central Housing Registry for Social Housing in Essex County, April 2009

Property Municipality Mandate Unit Size Units Waiting List

11934 Tecumseh Tecumseh Adults 1 bdrm 37 37

11934 Tecumseh Tecumseh Adults 2 bdrm 1 0

17 Nancy Avenue Leamington Adults Bachelor 7 6

17 Nancy Avenue Leamington Adults 1 bdrm 4 30

1905 Delmar LaSalle Adults 1 bdrm 15 27

29 Lutsch Leamington Adults 1 bdrm 34 29

32 Prince Albert Kingsville Adults 1 bdrm 22 7

340 Victoria Windsor Adults 1 bdrm 40 18

340 Victoria Amherstburg Adults 2 bdrm 1

346 Victoria Amherstburg Adults 1 bdrm 26 0

642 St. Charles Lakeshore Adults 1 bdrm 20 11

Arthur J. Reaume (605 Mill St) Windsor Seniors 1 bdrm 129 5

Arthur J. Reaume (605 Mill St) Windsor Seniors 2 bdrm 1 0

Bloomfield Windsor Family 3 bdrm 58 17



Bloomfield Windsor Family Comm. 1 0

Bridgeview Windsor Family 2 bdrm 15 76

Bridgeview Windsor Family 3 bdrm 85 37

Cameron Montrose Apts (445 Glengarry) Windsor Family/Adult 1 bdrm 84 288

Cameron Montrose Apts (445 Glengarry) Windsor Family/Adult 2 bdrm 48 46



Property Location Mandate Unit Type # of Units Waiting List

Central Ave Windsor Family 3 bdrm 44 9

Central Ave Windsor Family 4 bdrm 5 27

Chateau Masson (415 University Ave E) Windsor Adults Bachelor 80 2

Curry Mckay Windsor Family 2 bdrm 50 76



Ell-Roy Manor Essex Adults 1 bdrm 24 7

Essex Court Windsor Family 3 bdrm 184 7

Essex Court Windsor Family 4 bdrm 23 17

Fontainbleau Row Windsor Family 2 bdrm 79 47



Fontainbleau Singles Windsor Family 3 bdrm 28 37



Ford Ferndale Windsor Family 1 bdrm 22 297



Fountainbleau Tower Windsor Seniors 1 bdrm 384 12

Fountainbleau Tower Windsor Seniors 2 bdrm 2 9

Glengarry Row Windsor Family/Adult Bachelor 15 0




Glengarry Row Windsor Family/Adult 1 bdrm 38 0





Lauzon Windsor Family 2 bdrm 30 51



Maplewood Apts - 109 Brien Essex Adults 1 bdrm 64 0

Maplewood Apts - 109 Brien Essex Adults 2 bdrm 1 0

Maplewood Apts - 111 Brien Windsor Adults 1 bdrm 72 10

Nancy Court & Pearl Street Windsor Family 2 bdrm 6 16

Nancy Court & Pearl Street Windsor Family 3 bdrm 10 27

Ouellette Manor Windsor Seniors 1 bdrm 400 38

Palmer Court Kingsville Adults 1 bdrm 30 10

Raymond Demaris Windsor Seniors 1 bdrm 298 9

Raymond Demaris Windsor Seniors 2 bdrm 2 0

Riverside Families Windsor Family 3 bdrm 12 9

Riverside Families Windsor Family 4 bdrm 4 26

Riverside Seniors Windsor Seniors Bachelor 14 0

Riverside Seniors Windsor Seniors 1 bdrm 6 17




Scattered Windsor Family 2 bdrm 4 67




St. Joseph Windsor Family 3 bdrm 63 0

St. Joseph Windsor Family 4 bdrm 12 0

The Cedars Leamington Adults 1 bdrm 41 30

Villages of Riverside Windsor Family 3 bdrm 14 11

Warrenn Park Amherstburg Family 2 bdrm 5 20

Warren Park Amherstburg Family 3 bdrm 20 10

Wheelton Manor (333 Glengarry Ave) Windsor Adults Bachelor 80 2

Wheelton Manor (333 Glengarry Ave) Windsor Adults 1 bdrm 55 287

Total 3,540 2,340



Appendix B: Windsor Multi-Residential Advisory Committee Session (Focus Group D)

Date: March 26th 2009

Time: 9:30 to 11:00 am

Location: Windsor

Participants: 5 members of the Multi-Residential Advisory Committee

Summary:

Participants strongly emphasized that the multi-residential tax rate is

much higher than the residential rate making it increasingly difficult for

private landlords to continue to operate and to offer affordable rents.

Some property owners are taking steps to convert to condominiums in

order to avoid paying such high taxes.

Utility costs and maintenance costs are high. It was suggested that more

education around energy conservation would be positive.

Participants commented that the Affordable Housing Program should

allow for more flexibility with regards to where funds are being

allocated; vacancy rates are high in Windsor‟s private sector yet the

waiting list for social housing continues to grow. Ensuring a large

portion of the funding went to rent supplement programs would help

address this issue.

In Windsor, there is a distinction between “affordable housing” and

“household affordability”. While there may be, by comparison,

affordable housing in Windsor, households are still grappling with the

current economic situation and their growing inability to afford any form

of market housing due to job loss and declining incomes.

Session Notes

Question 1: Discuss and identify challenges faced by the multi-residential rental sector.

Property tax is a major issue/challenge; bringing the multi-residential

tax rate closer to parity with the single residential rate would make a

big difference in affordability

Utility costs – have to educate more tenants about energy conservation

Properties are old and it costs a lot to maintain them

Vacancies are a major issue, one bedroom units have the highest

vacancy rate

Property owners/landlords try to keep units full even if it means lower


rents in some cases to accommodate renters with low incomes; there is

a point, however, where rents have to remain high enough to be able to

operate/maintain the unit

Property owners/landlords felt there must be a way to address vacancy

rates while at the same time addressing the long waiting lists for social

housing, in particular for one-bedroom units

Representatives from Housing commented that take-up in the private

sector of rent supplement units has generally been 45% and that in the

past there has been some resistance to taking rent supplements,

landlords acknowledged that this would likely be different in today‟s

environment

Question 2: Discuss and identify opportunities for the multi-residential rental sector

Effective and short-term solution is rent supplement

o Rent supplement is “fastest” solution

Long-term strategy would be to wait for economy to rebound, for the

City to recover its tax base, and then reduce taxes

Historically, landlords have not been willing to commit to long-term rent

supplements

o City currently does 1 to 5 year contracts, with the most popular

being 2 – 3 years

o The City also pays on abandonment, though the rent supplement

moves with the tenant

Rent direct

o Participants had expressed interest in rent-direct for some

tenants

o Participants would like to see these changed, however there was

some uncertainly around whether this has been a human rights

issue

o Would like to lobby for this

Through OW/ODSP – Social Services

Utilities rent direct

o People often don‟t pay and the landlord ends up paying – need to

find a solution to this problem

Block funding for affordable housing would give the City more flexibility

to invest social housing dollars as needed

In Windsor, there is a distinction between “affordable housing” and

“household affordability”


o We have a highly affordable market; but people still aren‟t able

to afford it due to job loss, declining incomes and economic

uncertainty.

o The solution, therefore, is to increase incomes or provide housing

subsidies

Rental housing is no longer an income property – only a long term

investment

If landlords can‟t keep up, these buildings will start to become

abandoned

Question 3: Any suggestions on ways you think the City and the multi-residential rental sector can work together to address high vacancy rates and the need for affordable rental housing?

SMART meters are a good idea – individual metering

o Utilities average about $75 a month all-in in efficient buildings

There needs to be education about the fact that renters are paying the

tax base of the City though these are the lowest income individuals

Reduce tax rates

o Hamilton has done some work on equalization of the tax rate, this

should be looked at

Private landlords help create jobs

o Hiring contractors

o Maintenance of buildings

“Unprecedented times gives us unprecedented solutions”


Appendix C: Bibliography

Canadian Housing and Renewal Association. Affordable and Efficient: Towards

a National Energy Efficiency Strategy for Low-Income Canadians. February 17 2005. Discussion Paper. Available online at the Low-Income Energy Network website at http://www.lowincomeenergy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/affeff.pdf

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). Rental Market Reports –

Windsor. 2005-2008. 24 October 2008. Available online at the CMHC Order Desk at https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en

City of Windsor. Tax Rates. Accessed from the City of Windsor website at

http://www.citywindsor.ca/000006.asp County of Essex. Corporation of the County of Essex – By-Law Number 21-2008.

18 March 2008. Accessed from the County of Essex website at http://www.countyofessex.on.ca/countyservices/finance_propertytax.asp

Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services. Summary:

Initial Proposed Accessible Built Environment Standard. 25 April 2007. Accessed from the Ministry of Community and Social Services website.

Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Homelessness Prevention Program. 7 June 2006. Accessed from the Ministry of Community and Social Services website.

Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services. Ontario

Disability Support Program – Directive #6.2 – Shelter. July 2009. Accessed from the Ministry of Community and Social Services website.

Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services. Ontario

Works – Directive #6.3 – Shelter. December 2008. Accessed from the Ministry of Community and Social Services website.

Low-Income Energy Network (n.d.). Low-Income Energy Efficiency: Brantford

Power’s Conserving Homes Program. Presentation. Accessed via Google.ca Ontario Energy Board. Report of the Board: Low-Income Energy Assistance

Program. 10 March 2009. Accessed from Ontario Energy Board website at http://www.oeb.gov.on.ca/OEB/Industry+Relations/OEB+Key+Initiatives/Consultation+on+Energy+Issues+-+Low+Income

http://www.lowincomeenergy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/affeff.pdf

http://www.lowincomeenergy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/affeff.pdf

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en

http://www.citywindsor.ca/000006.asp

http://www.oeb.gov.on.ca/OEB/Industry+Relations/OEB+Key+Initiatives/Consultation+on+Energy+Issues+-+Low+Income

http://www.oeb.gov.on.ca/OEB/Industry+Relations/OEB+Key+Initiatives/Consultation+on+Energy+Issues+-+Low+Income


Social Housing Services Corporation (SHSC). Social Housing Overview. August 2006. Accessed from the SHSC website at http://www.shscorp.ca/content/Resources/DiscussionResearchPapers/OntarioSocialHousingOverview.pdf

Social Housing Services Corporation (SHSC). Windsor Regional Consultations

2009 Summary Report: Grassroots Solutions for an Affordable Housing Strategy. May 2009. Accessed from the SHSC website at http://www.shscorp.ca/content/Events/regionalconsultations/Windsor_regional_consultation_2009final.pdf

Toronto Environmental Alliance. A Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program:

Mapping the Sector and Program Design Principles. March 2006. Accessed from the Conservation Bureau, Ontario Power Authority at http://www.conservationbureau.on.ca/Storage/13/1834_Low_Income_Energy_Efficiency_Program.pdf

Town of Lakeshore. 2008 Tax Rates. Accessed from the Town of Lakeshore

website at http://www.townoflakeshore.on.ca/media/2008TaxRates.pdf Town of LaSalle. Tax Rates. Previously accessed from the Town of Lakeshore

website at http://www.town.lasalle.on.ca/Finance/finance-rates.htm Town of Leamington. Schedule 'B' to Bylaw 844-08: 2008 Tax Rates. Accessed

from the Town of Leamington website at http://www.leamington.ca/municipal/documents/taxrate.pdf

Town of Tecumseh. Schedule 'B' to Bylaw 2008-31: 2008 Tax Rates. 30 April

2008. Accessed from the Town of Leamington website at http://www.tecumseh.ca/files/Pages%20from%202008%20tax%20rates.pdf

http://www.shscorp.ca/content/Resources/DiscussionResearchPapers/OntarioSocialHousingOverview.pdf

http://www.shscorp.ca/content/Resources/DiscussionResearchPapers/OntarioSocialHousingOverview.pdf

http://www.shscorp.ca/content/Events/regionalconsultations/Windsor_regional_consultation_2009final.pdf

http://www.shscorp.ca/content/Events/regionalconsultations/Windsor_regional_consultation_2009final.pdf

http://www.conservationbureau.on.ca/Storage/13/1834_Low_Income_Energy_Efficiency_Program.pdf

http://www.conservationbureau.on.ca/Storage/13/1834_Low_Income_Energy_Efficiency_Program.pdf

http://www.townoflakeshore.on.ca/media/2008TaxRates.pdf

http://www.town.lasalle.on.ca/Finance/finance-rates.htm

http://www.leamington.ca/municipal/documents/taxrate.pdf

http://www.tecumseh.ca/files/Pages%20from%202008%20tax%20rates.pdf

Windsor-Essex HARS Special Initiative Study Background ... · List of Tables Table 1: A Comparison...

Documents

Transcript of Windsor-Essex HARS Special Initiative Study Background ... · List of Tables Table 1: A Comparison...