housing and emergency medical services committee meeting ... and ems... · housing and emergency...

HOUSING AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA

Proactively enabling inclusive, healthy, & prosperous communities

within the District of Nipissing through a focus on prevention, innovation, & accessible quality human services.

A G E N D A

Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 Time: 2:15PM Location: Guillemette Rankin Board Room

Members: Representative George Jupp, Mayor Jane Dumas, Councillor Chris Mayne, Councillor Jeff Serran, Councillor Carol Lowery, Mayor Leo Jobin, Mayor Bill Vrebosch, Councillor Jamie Restoule

Item Topic Lead Allotted Time

1.0 1.1 Call to Order

1.2 Declaration of Conflict of Interest CAO 1 min.

2.0 Elect Chair and Vice Chair of the Housing and Emergency Medical Services Committee CAO 5 min.

3.0 Opening remarks by the Chair Chair

4.0 Approval of Agenda February 10, 2015

Recommendation Resolved THAT the Housing and Emergency Medical Services Committee members accept the Agenda as presented.

Chair 1 min.

5.0 Nipissing District Calls and Response Times HEMS05-15 Recommendation Resolved THAT the Board accepts the Emergency Medical Services Report HEMS05-15 as information.

Jean Guy Belzile

10 min.

*Note: All meeting participants are asked to turn off cellular devices while the meeting is in progress.


6.0 Results of RFEI to Build and Lease an EMS Station in North Bay HEMS06-15 Recommendation Resolved THAT the District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board (DNSSAB) approves the report HEMS06-15 Results of the RFEI to Build and Lease an EMS Station in the City of North Bay and Financial Analysis of Potential Options Available, and instructs staff to go back to the short listed proponents who made submissions to the RFEI to request further information. Furthermore, upon considering the additional information, staff is instructed to report back to the Board the recommended proponent for approval to build and lease an EMS station in North Bay.

Jean Guy Belzile/

Sara Tonks

15 min.

7.0

Investment in Affordable Housing for Ontario 2014 Extension HEMS07-15 Recommendation Resolved THAT the District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board approves the funding allocations set out in Report HEMS07-15 for the Nipissing Investment in Affordable Housing for Ontario 2014 Extension Program Delivery and Fiscal Plan for 2015 to 2020 as follows: 1. Capital Components

a. Rental Housing - $3,443,240 b. Homeownership - $300,000 c. Ontario Renovates - $900,000

2. Operating Component a. Housing Allowance – Direct Deliver $486,000

3. Administration funding to deliver programs - $269,960 Total Program Funding - $5,399,200

Debbie Mills 15 min.

8.0 CHPI 2014-15 Q4 Expenditure Plan HEMS08-15 Recommendation Resolved THAT the District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board instructs staff to initiate Request for Proposals for homelessness preventions services and community housing support services, and furthermore, approves staff to enter into contracts for these services with total costs no greater than $163,000 for homelessness prevention services, and $152,000 for community housing support services as outlined in report HEMS08-15.

Debbie Mills

/Pierre Guenette

15 min.

9.0 CORRESPONDENCE 9.1 February 3 From MMAH re IAH 7-unit rental housing component


9.2 February 3 From MMAH re IAH 12-unit rental housing component

10.0 OTHER BUSINESS

11.0 NEXT MEETING DATE Wednesday, March 10, 2015

Chair

12.0 ADJOURNMENT

Resolved THAT the Housing and Emergency Medical Services Committee meeting be adjourned at p.m.

Chair

BRIEFING NOTE HEMS05-15

☒ For information or ☐ For Decision or ☐ For Approval

Date: February 10th, 2015 Purpose: Nipissing District Calls and Response Times

Prepared by: Jean-Guy Belzile, Manager, Emergency Medical Services

Reviewed by: Joseph Bradbury, CAO

Recommendation: That the Board accepts the Emergency Medical Services Report HEMS05-15 as information.

Executive Highlights: Thorne Eldee and Wyse Emergency First Response Team We have 15 interested individuals in the Thorne, Eldee and Wyse area that are willing to volunteer to form an emergency first response team. Protective Personal equipment and outwear such as winter parkas with proper reflectivity in accordance to the Health & Safety act will also be provided. We anticipate the team to be prepared to be able to respond in that area within 90 days of initiating the training schedule for the said group. The trainer’s availability date is mid-April. We awaiting outcomes from Criminal Check from OPP to set up the course. Expression of Interest See report HEMS07-15.

Report On Nipissing District Calls & Response Times: See new ambulance dispatch reporting system summary on page 2 and 3; data received from MOH. See definition of the priority codes listed below.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

'

# Ca

lls

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20> Minutes

Number of 'Priority 4' Calls by Response Time - Nipissing District EMS, Jan-Dec 31,2014

Legend: Code 1 “Deferrable” – a routine call that may be delayed without being detrimental to the patient (e.g. a non-scheduled transfer; a minor injury.) Code 2 “Scheduled” – a call which must be done at a specific time e.g. because of special treatment or diagnostic facilities are available at a specific time (e.g. inter-hospital transfers for MRI, a scheduled meet with an air ambulance). Code 3 “Prompt” – a call that should be performed without delay (serious injury or illness e.g. stable fracture). Code 4 “Urgent” – a call that must be performed immediately where the patients “life or limb” may at risk (e.g. Vital Signs Absent patient; unconscious head injury). Code 8 “Stand-by” – a call where an ambulance is dispatched to a predetermined location in order to stand-by for further call reassignment.

High priority call response time from January 1 to December 31, 2014

77.9%

District of Nipissing Ambulance Services Response Time Standard Performance Plan 2015

This performance plan addresses the response time commitment that the First Nations Ambulance Service is targeting to achieve for the calendar year of 2015 from January 1 to December 31

Service Number Service Name

Community Name District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board

Mailing Address 200 McIntyre Street East North Bay , Ontario P1B 8J8

Telephone 705-474-2151 ext. 3316 Facsimile 705-474-2455

____ ___[Chief Administrative Officer/ Band Chief/ Manager]

Joseph Bradbury Email [email protected]

Telephone 705-474-2151 ext.3116

Name & Title of Party Responsible for Completing Submission

Jean Guy Belzile Email [email protected]

Telephone 705-474-2151 ext. 3316

i. Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SCA) The ambulance service will endeavour to have a responder equipped and ready to use an AED at the location of a patient determined to be in SCA within 6 minutes from the time ambulance dispatch conveys the call information to the paramedic 40% (e.g. 80) percent of the time.

ii. CTAS 1 The ambulance service will endeavour to have a paramedic as defined by the Ambulance Act and duly equipped at the location of a patient determined to be CTAS 1 within 8 minutes from the time ambulance dispatch conveys the call information to the paramedic 70% (e.g. 80) percent of the time.

iii. CTAS 2, 3, 4, 5 The ambulance service will endeavour to have a paramedic as defined by the Ambulance Act and duly equipped at the location of a patient determined to be CTAS 2, 3, 4, 5 within the amount of time specified in the table below. The percentage of time the target time will be achieved is also specified in the table below.

CTAS Target time* % of target**

2 15.45 90%

3 15.45 90%

4 15.45 90%

5 15.45 90%

*Target time: the amount of time (minutes) from paramedic notification (T2) until on scene (T4)

** % of target: percentage of time the target time will be achieved

Summary of all Pickups January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014

Frequency Distribution of Call Volume January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014

Frequency Distribution of Reaction Times (T2-T4) by Number January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 – Priority Code 4


For information or X For Decision or For Approval Date: February 10, 2015 Purpose: Results of the RFEI to Build and Lease an EMS Station in the City of North Bay

and Financial Analysis of Potential Options Available.

Prepared by: Jean Guy Belzile, Manager EMS, Sara Tonks, Director of Finance and Administration.

Reviewed by: Joseph Bradbury CAO RECOMMENDATIONS: That the District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board (DNSSAB) approves the report HEMS06-15 Results of the RFEI to Build and Lease an EMS Station in the City of North Bay and Financial Analysis of Potential Options Available, and instructs staff to go back to the short listed proponents who made submissions to the RFEI to request further information. Furthermore, upon considering the additional information, staff is instructed to report back to the Board the recommended proponent for approval to build and lease an EMS station in North Bay.

BACKGROUND:

• In May, 2014 it was brought to the attention of the Board the deteriorating condition of the EMS station located at 890 Beatty Street, North Bay, as presented in the report HEMS18-14 (please refer to that report for additional background information).

• The aging of the building (built in 1973), coupled with the growth of EMS services and the lack of additional available space to accommodate over flow since the demolition of the adjacent Civic hospital has resulted in some of the issues of inconvenience being elevated to health and safety concerns that must be addressed.

• The areas of concern and risks identified include: Issue Identified Associated Risk(s) Lack of vehicle space in the garage

Increased risk of damage to vehicles

Lack of space (crew quarters, workspace, training space, storage space)

Congested work and rest space, increased risk of injury Limited space to properly store supplies and equipment (e.g., oxygen tanks).

Inadequate washrooms, showers, lockers Infection Control – very limited ability to effectively reduce risk of contamination Staff unable to change, shower at station. Lack of appropriate facilities for co-ed crew; privacy concerns (men and women using one shower, changing room, etc.)

Water table under the building

Damage to foundation.

Condition of the building (siding and windows) Poor air quality, ventilation and temperature control

• The building housing the EMS station at 890 Beatty Street is owned by the North Bay

Regional Health Centre. All EMS stations in the District are leased. Leases are held with the Municipality of West Nipissing for the station in Sturgeon Falls, and the NBRHC for the two stations in North Bay (890 Beattie and 35 Ferris Drive).

• Under the funding agreement with the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, duly executed on January 1, 2014, it is noted in section 4.4 “No Capital Costs: The Parties acknowledge that capital costs are excluded from this Agreement and that the Grant cannot be utilized towards any capital cost that may be incurred by the UTM/DDA” (note DDA is the District Delivery Agent, or DNSSAB in this case).

• This restriction of using MOH funding for capital expenditures has been in place for many years which is why the EMS stations are leased, not owned, by DNSSAB.

• The DSSAB Act restricts borrowings to operating loans for the purpose of covering current expenditures of the Board until current is received and total borrowings shall not exceed 25% of the estimated revenue 1

• The Housing Services Act, 2011, Section 16(2) Powers of the DSSAB service manager re debentures, allows DSSAB’s to direct a municipality within its service area to issue and sell debentures on the credit of the municipality to raise such sums as the service manager requires to make improvements to their social housing stock. This power is further restricted under Ontario Regulation 367/11 section 7 to a list of DSSAB service managers. Since Nipissing is not a direct delivery service manager for social housing, it is not on the list and therefore not able to access the authority under Section 16(2).

• As per the lease agreement for the Beattie street station, section 5, “The Landlord reserves the right to determine whether the extent of the work that is being contemplated shall be completed by the Landlord’s own forces or contracted out. In either scenario, all costs pertaining to the lease hold improvements shall be borne by the Tenant. The cost of any improvement deemed necessary for compliance with health and safety legislation shall be borne by the Tenant by an order under any such applicable legislation.”

• Such wording is standard in all our commercial leases including the one with the City of North Bay.

• Recently extensive repairs have been done to the foundation and washrooms at 890 Beatty Street by the landlord.

• In addition, the landlord also commissioned Architectural, Air Quality, and Building/Functional Analysis reports.

1 District Social Services Administration Boards Act, R.S.O 1990, CHAPTER D.15, Section 9. Powers of the board to borrow for current expenditures.

• All of this information confirmed upgrades are required to the building air handling system to improve the poor ventilation, and windows and siding needs to be replaced to improve insulation, and most importantly more space is required.

• To accommodate the need for additional space at the current site, the options considered are to:

1. Renovate and expand on second floor of the building 2. Renovate and expand on the first floor of the building 3. Demolish and rebuild to the appropriate size on the same site.

• Through the report HEMS18-14 the Board instructed staff to examine more options by issuing a Request for an Expression of Interest (RFEI) to build and lease an EMS station.

• The RFEI issued two options: 1. To build and lease an EMS station that would replace the Beatty Street station. 2. To build and lease a bigger EMS station that would replace both the Beatty

Street and Ferris Drive station. • The purpose of the second option was to be able to assess (financially) the opportunity

to move to a consolidated EMS station within the City of North Bay. • Upon gathering all this information, the Board further instructed staff to complete a

financial analysis of all available options. The current report, HEMS06-15, presents that analysis.

CURRENT STATUS/STEPS TAKEN TO DATE:

• Through the Purchasing Manager of the City of North Bay an RFEI was issued. • Five submissions were received. • The members of the Evaluation Committee were:

o Jean Guy Belzile, Manger EMS Land Ambulance, DNSSAB o Sara Tonks, Director of Finance and Administration, DNSSAB o Jim Stewart, Manager Paramedic Services, NBRHC o Paul Valenti, Manager of Purchasing, City of North Bay (non voting)

• Exploratory and preliminary discussions have taken place with the Manager of EMS Land Ambulance Services and the Fire Chief of the City of North Bay to consider the option of housing ambulances in the fire stations.

• This option is presented in the current report; however, please note figures relating to potential costs of housing ambulances have not been disclosed so the analysis is based on reasonable assumptions and market rates.

• A full financial analysis has been completed with all the information gathered. • The current report presents eight options for consideration.

OBSERVATIONS / ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Results of the Request For Expression of Interest:

• Five submissions were received. • Four of the submissions expressed interest in building and entering into a long term

lease of an EMS station. All four submissions were interested in providing both the small and larger EMS station.

Evalutation Categories

Points1 2 3 4

Proponent Information 10 9.50 7.00 8.00 9.50

Current Premises 25 22.50 17.50 16.25 22.50Proposed Premises 15 15.00 12.75 11.25 15.00Proposed Lease Terms and Costs 45 29.75 35.43 45.00 33.94Other Information 5 5.00 2.50 2.50 4.00Total Points 100 81.75 75.18 83.00 84.94

Proponent Scores

• One submission did not express an interest in building or leasing an EMS station but rather expressed interest in establishing a committee to look for common interests and requirements amongst emergency services.

• As this submission did not express interests in meeting the requirements for physical space, it was not evaluated by the committee.

• Of the remaining four proponents all were considered to be good submissions, three of which scored quite closely to one another, as shown in the table below:

• The items evaluated in the categories listed in the table above are shown in appendix A. • Although importance was given to costs and location (under current premises), other

elements included experience with similar projects, qualifications of the project team, and the quality of the conceptual plan and proposed building.

• The information presented in the submissions has been incorporated into the analysis of the options presented below.

Evaluation of EMS Station Options: • Based on all the information gathered thus far, eight options are presented for

consideration. o Option 1 Consolidated EMS station with preferred proponent o Option 2 Consolidated EMS station with lowest cost proponent o Option 3 Smaller EMS station with preferred proponent o Option 4 Smaller EMS station with lowest cost proponent o Option 5 Renovate & expand 2nd floor of Beatty St. station o Option 6 Renovate & expand 1st floor of Beatty St. station o Option 7 Demolish & rebuild on site of Beatty St. station o Option 8 Renovate Ferris Drive and house ambulances in fire stations

• The financial analysis of each option takes into consideration the net annual or incremental cost, the portion of that incremental cost to be shared by the municipal members, and the potential year over year impact on the levy.

• Other factors included in the analysis or evaluations of the options include: positive impacts on operations, improved work flows, and other enhancements and efficiencies.

Options 1 and 2 consider entering into a long term lease on a build-to-suit EMS station that would be large enough to accommodate both the Beatty St. and Ferris Dr. sites. Both stations would relocate to one central base. The differences between these two options are cost, and location.

Advantages of these options: • Both options result with a long term lease that fit the MOH funding formula. As a result,

50% of the annual lease cost could be paid with provincial funds significantly reducing the impact on the municipal levy.

• Neither option would require a capital outlay, or the incurrence of long term debt. • Both options would result with cancelling current leases reducing the incremental costs

by almost $86,000. • For DNSSAB both options would remove all risk associated with construction such as

project cost over runs. • No internal resources would be required for construction project oversight. • The table below shows the incremental impacts of options 1 and 2. In terms of the levy,

the year over year impact is potential 0.51% or 0.28% for options 1 or 2, respectively.

Financial Evaluations of Options 1 and 2

• Consolidating the EMS stations will result in efficiencies that include reduced inventory carrying costs for medical supplies, and a reduction in some administrative costs (less phones, computers, copiers, office supplies inventory).

• Other advantages of consolidating the stations include improved work flows, communications will be streamlined, better access to additional vehicle and equipment in times of emergencies, and reduced workload of staff and vehicles in maintenance coverage.

• Option 1 would provide the best location for an EMS station and the location of the station in option 2 is considered to be better than the current location of the station on Beatty St.

• Under both options the new EMS station would be fully accessible.

New Build - long term lease(preferred)

New Build - long term lease

(lowest cost)

Costs - annual 272,891$ 188,475$ Savings from rents (Beatty and Ferris) (85,863) (85,863) Net additional costs 187,028$ 102,612$

Fits with Program Funding Formula Yes Yes

Potential Ministry Share 50% 50%

Impact on Levy 93,514$ 51,306$

Year over year % increase total levy 0.51% 0.28%

The table below lists advantages of options 1 and 2:

2. Options 3 and 4 consider entering into a long term lease on a build-to-suit EMS station that would replace the Beatty St. site. Once again, the differences between these two options are cost, and location. Advantages of these options include:

• Both options result with a long term lease that fit the MOH funding formula. As a result, 50% of the annual lease cost could be paid with provincial funds significantly reducing the impact on the municipal levy.

• Neither option would require a capital outlay, or the incurrence of long term debt. • For DNSSAB both options would remove all risk associated with construction such as

project cost over runs. • No internal resources would be required for construction project oversight. • Option 3 would provide the best location for an EMS station and the location of the

station in option 4 is considered to be better than the current location of the station on Beatty St.

• Under both options the new EMS station would be fully accessible. Constraints and lost opportunities of these options include:

• Both options would result with cancelling only one current lease thereby only reducing the incremental costs by about $43,000.

• Since the new station would only accommodate the Beatty St. station, there would continue to be two separate stations in North Bay. As a result none of the advantages of consolidating the stations would be available with either of these options.

The table on the following page shows the incremental impacts of options 3 and 4. In terms of the levy, the year over year impact is potential 0.55% or 0.35% for options 3 or 4, respectively.

2 The number of stars shown on the table denotes degree of preference with more stars meaning more preferred

New Build - long term lease(preferred)


(lowest cost)

Optimal location **** **Able to fund within existing Legislation & By Laws Yes YesFully Accessible Yes YesBetter operational flow Yes YesCommunication streamlined Yes YesBetter access to equipment/vehicles Yes YesBetter inventory management Yes YesImproved vehicle deployment and coverage maintenance Yes Yes


(preferred)


(lowest cost)

Costs - annual 243,892$ 170,525$ Savings from rents (Beatty and Ferris) (42,865) (42,865) Net additional costs 201,027$ 127,660$

Fits with Program Funding Formula Yes Yes

Potential Ministry Share 50% 50%

Impact on Levy 100,513$ 63,830$

Year over year % increase total levy 0.55% 0.35%


(preferred)


(lowest cost)

Optimal location **** **Able to fund within existing Legislation & By Laws Yes YesFully Accessible Yes YesBetter operational flow No NoCommunication streamlined No NoBetter access to equipment/vehicles No NoBetter inventory management No NoImproved vehicle deployment and coverage maintenance No No

Financial Evaluations of Options 3 and 4

The table below lists advantages and the lost opportunities of options 3 and 4:

Advantages and lost opportunities of options 3 and 4:

Options 5, 6, and 7 consider renovating and expanding or demolishing and rebuilding on the Beatty St. site. These options require significant capital funding. Advantages of these options include:

• Under options 6 and 7 the EMS station would be fully accessible.

Constraints and lost opportunities of these options include: • All options would require capital funding and result being a capital expenditure that does

not fit with the MOH funding formula. The resulting repayment of any debt principal would have to be fully funded by the municipal members.

• The ownership of the building would need to be transferred to DNSSAB, or NDHC. • No capital funding is readily available to either DNSSAB or the current landlord. • The DSSAB Act restricts ability of the organization to incur long term debt as noted in

the background section of this report. • The powers of the DSSAB re debentures under the Housing Services Act, 2011 Section

16(2) is not available to Nipissing DSSAB, as noted in background section above. • Our subsidiary corporation, NDHC, as a housing services corporation is able to incur

long term debt. Using NDHC as our financing arm for an EMS station will encumber that organization limiting its ability to raise additional debt for social housing regeneration.

• Given NHDC is our solely owned subsidiary, the debt repayment or any other lease or rental arrangement would not be considered arms-length and therefore eligible for cost sharing under the MOH funding formula.

• DNSSAB would be exposed to construction related risks such as project cost over runs. • Internal resources would be required for project management and oversight. • Under all three options there would continue to be two separate stations in North Bay.

As a result none of the advantages of consolidating the stations would be available with these options.

• The location of the station on Beatty St. is considered to be the least desirable of all locations evaluated.

To be able to compare the annual incremental financial impact of all eight options considered, the costs of options 5, 6, and 7 have been calculated as annual costs over a 10 year period (to match the period of a long term lease). The discount rate, or interest rate, used in that calculation is 4.5%, representing a conservative borrowing rate. If the ownership of the building was transferred to DNSSAB, the amortization costs associated with the building would be eligible for MOH 50/50 cost sharing. As would the interest carry costs of any long term debt incurred. This impact is shown in the financial analysis. As such the impact on the levy is considered a best case scenario, as matched funding would reduce significantly if the building was not owned by DNSSAB. The table on the following page shows the estimated annual incremental impact of options 5 through 7.

Financial Evaluations of Options 5, 6, and 7

The table below lists advantages and the lost opportunities of options 5, 6 and 7:

Option 8 considers renovating the Ferris Drive station to be able to accommodate more staff and functional area as a single station, but house 8 of the vehicles in the fire stations throughout the city of North Bay. It has been difficult to evaluate this option as very little tangible and relevant information has been provided. The cost assumptions of this option include the cost to renovate the Ferris Drive station based on a marketplace renovation cost per square foot (sf) (is presented in some of the RFEI submissions), and the cost to house ambulances in the fire stations. This cost is based on the required space and average commercial market rent. No costs have been provided by the City of North Bay.

Add to 2nd floor

Add to 1st floor

Demolish & rebuild

Costs - annual 1,613,700$ 1,936,150$ 2,519,035$ Savings from rents (Beatty and Ferris) (42,865)$ (42,865)$ (42,865)$ Additional Rents (estimate)Net additional costs 1,570,835$ 1,893,285$ 2,476,170$

Comparable cost over 10 yr period $198,520 $239,271 $312,935

interest 37,150 45,656 61,032

Amortization 80,685 96,808 125,952 Potential ministry share of amortization and interest costs 58,918 71,232 93,492

Impact on Levy 139,603$ 168,039$ 219,444$

Year over year % increase total levy 0.77% 0.92% 1.21%

Renovate Beatty St.

Add to 2nd floor

Add to 1st floor

Demolish & rebuild

Optimal location * * *Able to fund within existing Legislation & By Laws No No NoFully Accessible No Yes YesBetter operational flow No No NoCommunication streamlined No No NoBetter access to equipment/vehicles No No NoBetter inventory management No No NoImproved vehicle deployment and coverage maintenance No No No

Renovate Beatty St.

To be able to compare the costs of this option on an annual incremental basis, the cost of the renovation of about $222,000 has been annualized over 10 years using a discount rate (or interest rate of 2.3% representing lost interest income. It is assumed the cost of the renovations will be paid with reserve funds currently invested. The renovations would be capital expenditures and not eligible for the MOH cast share funding formula. The table below shows the estimated annual incremental impact of options 8. Financial Evaluations of Option 8

Advantages of these options include:

• The additional cost to house the ambulances in the fire stations would fit the MOH funding formula and be eligible for 50/50 cost sharing.

• The EMS station would be fully accessible Constraints and lost opportunities of these options include:

• Although this option considers one main EMS station, the advantages of the consolidated station noted above in options 1 and 2 are lost because in this option the ambulances are going to be scattered throughout the City.

• Housing the ambulances in fires stations in the city is an extremely fragmented approach. This will add complexity and workload to staff and vehicles in maintaining coverage, and create an operating environment vulnerable to errors and miscommunications.

• It is not possible to fully assess the locations as none have been decided. • It is uncertain if this idea or suggestion is fully developed and could implemented in the

timely manner required to address the health safety concerns that have been raised with the current station on Beatty St.

• There is considerable doubt any forth coming proposal would provide or supersede the advantages that would be achieved in moving to one large consolidated EMS station.

Renovate Ferris Dr.

Costs - annual 222,288$ Savings from rents (Beatty and Ferris) (42,865)$ Additional Rents (estimate) 93,993 Net additional costs 273,416$

Comparable cost over 10 yr period $76,264

Potential ministry share costs 25,564

Impact on Levy 50,700$

Year over year % increase total levy 0.28%

The table below lists advantages and the lost opportunities of option 8:

RECOMMMENDED OPTION: After evaluating all 8 options, the best option is considered to be Option 2. Compared to options 1 through 7, it is the one with the lowest incremental impact on the levy year over year of about $51,000 or 0.28%. Although this impact is slightly higher than that of Option 8, which is $50,700 or 0.28%, option 2 achieves many more advantages than option 8. The overall best option, not considering incremental impact on the levy, is option 1 by having a better location than option 2. See appendix B to the comparison of all options on one table. Based on the evaluation of the options, moving to one large EMS station appears to be much more advantageous than remaining with two stations, or scattering the ambulances amongst fire stations. To move forward, staff is recommending the top three proponent of the RFEI be considered short listed for further evaluation to be able to achieve best pricing and value. CONCLUSION The purpose of issuing an REFI was to determine if there was an appetite in the local area for a new build or renovate long term lease project. The results of the RFEI have confirmed there is ample competition offering potential locations far superior than the station on Beatty St. Being able to enter into this type of long term lease arrangement suits the program funding available, and consequently curtails the year over year incremental impact on the levy. It is recommended the short listed proponents be further evaluated, with staff reporting back to the Board a recommended proponent for approval to build and lease an EMS station in North Bay.

Renovate Ferris Dr.

Optimal location ?Able to fund within existing Legislation & By Laws YesFully Accessible YesBetter operational flow NoCommunication streamlined NoBetter access to equipment/vehicles NoBetter inventory management NoImproved vehicle deployment and coverage maintenance No

Appendix A

Items evaluated within the categories:Proponent Information:---

Current Premises

-

-Proposed Premises

---------

Proposed Lease Terms and Costs

-

-

-Other Information

-

Anticipated construction and deliver timelinesConfirmation of compliance with zoning by-law

Monthly lease rate, including escalation, for the proposed Premises for a term of ten (10) years with an option in favour of DNSSAB to extend for two (2) additional terms of five (5) years

Detailed breakdown of all services (e.g. utilities, maintenance, operating) included or optional in the monthly lease rate and the applicable costs or savingsAny other potential costs that may be incurred by DNSSAB

Any other information that may be beneficial in evaluating the Proponent, options, and proposed Premises

Design/outline brief that includes proposed architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systemsConceptual floor plansConceptual site planConceptual exterior elevationsDescription of proposed mechanical and electrical systemsDescription of the work necessary for the proposed Premises to meet the specified requirements

Description of Proponent’s organization along with a corporate profileList of other commercial properties, if any, which are owned and leased by the Proponent and, for each property, a list of the current commercial tenants together with their contact information Identify the proposed contractor to be retained to carry out construction and/or renovation of the proposed Premises

Detailed description of the premises or lands as currently exists. Provide any available information including architectural, mechanical, and electrical drawings, floor plans, site plan, pictures, etc.Location and legal description of the premises or lands

Detailed description of the proposed Premises

Appendix B

Renovate Ferris Dr.





Add to 2nd floor

Add to 1st floor

Demolish & rebuild

Costs - annual 272,891$ 188,475$ 243,892$ 170,525$ 1,613,700$ 1,936,150$ 2,519,035$ 222,288$ Savings from rents (Beatty and Ferris) (85,863) (85,863) (42,865) (42,865) (42,865)$ (42,865)$ (42,865)$ (42,865)$ Additional Rents (estimate) 93,993 Net additional costs 187,028$ 102,612$ 201,027$ 127,660$ 1,570,835$ 1,893,285$ 2,476,170$ 273,416$

A Comparable cost over 10 yr period 187,028$ 102,612$ 201,027$ 127,660$ $198,520 $239,271 $312,935 $76,264

interest 37,150 45,656 61,032

Amortization 80,685 96,808 125,952 B Potential ministry share costs 93,514 51,306 100,513 63,830 58,918 71,232 93,492 25,564

A - B Impact on Levy 93,514$ 51,306$ 100,513$ 63,830$ 139,603$ 168,039$ 219,444$ 50,700$

Year over year % increase total levy 0.51% 0.28% 0.55% 0.35% 0.77% 0.92% 1.21% 0.28%

Optimal location **** ** **** ** * * * ?Able to fund within existing Legislation & By Laws Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No YesFully Accessible Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes YesBetter operational flow Yes Yes No No No No No NoCommunication streamlined Yes Yes No No No No No NoBetter access to equipment/vehicles Yes Yes No No No No No NoBetter inventory management Yes Yes No No No No No NoImproved vehicle deployment and coverage mainten Yes Yes No No No No No No

Consolidated EMS BaseTwo EMS Bases

(only replace Beatty Street)Renovate Beatty St.


☐ For information or ☐ For Decision or ☒ For Approval

Date: February 10, 2015 Purpose: Investment in Affordable Housing for Ontario 2014 Extension

Program Delivery and Fiscal Plan

Prepared by: Debbie Mills, Director, Housing Services

Reviewed by: Joseph Bradbury, Chief Administrative Officer RECOMMENDATION: That the District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board approves the funding allocations set out in Report HEMS07-15 for the Nipissing Investment in Affordable Housing for Ontario 2014 Extension Program Delivery and Fiscal Plan for 2015 to 2020 as follows:

1. Capital Components a. Rental Housing $3,443,240 b. Homeownership $300,000 c. Ontario Renovates $900,000

2. Operating Component a. Housing Allowance – Direct

Deliver $486,000

3. Administration funding to deliver programs $269,960

Total Program Funding $5,399,200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Since 2006, the DNSSAB has committed all program funds ($23,684,211) allocated under the previous versions of the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program. Our communities have benefitted greatly from these housing initiatives.

Of note, thirteen (13) new affordable housing projects received $19,143,224 resulting in the creation of 260 affordable rental housing units. In addition, program funding of $2,656,987 was directed to 141 low income homeowners to repair their homes, while seven (7) low income renter households received loans totaling $261,000 to help them purchase their first home. The programs also allowed approximately 100 low income renter households to receive housing allowance making their rent affordable ($1,623,000). On August 11, 2014, the Federal Minister of State for Social Development and the Provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing jointly announced an extension to the Investment in Affordable Housing agreement. On December 18, 2015 the DNSSAB received a notional funding allocation of $5,399,200 from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the Investment in Affordable Housing for Ontario 2014 Extension (IAH 2014 Extension). This is a 6-year allocation which commenced August 2014 and will end March 31, 2020. Each Service Manager’s annual notional allocation must be committed with the established deadlines of each program year. Funding that is not committed by these deadlines may not be carried forward and will be re-allocated to other Service Managers. Like its predecessors, the IAH 2014 Extension allows Service Managers flexibility in targeting the program dollars to those initiatives which will best address local needs and priorities as identified in our 10 Year Housing and Homelessness Plan. CURRENT STATUS/STEPS TAKEN TO DATE: The DNSSAB is required to develop and submit a Program Delivery and Fiscal Plan (PDFP) that will outline how the funding allocation will be used over the 5-year life of the program. This PDFP must be completed and submitted to the Ministry by February 27, 2015. The purpose of the PDFP is to outline how the annual funding allocations will meet local objectives through identifying:

• The IAH 2014 Extension components that we will deliver in each year • The number of units that are expected to be developed under the selected

components • The number of households that are expected to be assisted under the selected

components • The client groups that will be targeted under the selected components • The amount of funding from each year’s funding allocation that will be used for

the selected components • The amount of funding from each year’s funding allocation that will be used for

administration fees

The Board’s “A Place to Call Home” 10 Year Housing and Homelessness Plan identifies six strategic objectives, and the IAH 2014 Extension will provide the Board an opportunity to work towards achieving these objectives while continuing to invest in the affordable housing needs of our citizens. As is required, the PDFP must address the current and projected housing needs of our communities and must reference directly to our Housing and Homelessness Plan. Also it has been developed in collaboration with our community partners. THE PROGRAM DELIVERY AND FISCAL PLAN, 2014/15 TO 2019/20 The Program Delivery and Fiscal Plan (PDFP) for the next five years is shown in the table below.

It can be noted that investments are being made across the IAH program’s four components at various times during the period. The components and sub-components are described below.

CAPITAL COMPONENTS

i) Rental Housing

The goal of the Rental Housing component is to increase the supply of affordable rental housing for households on, or eligible to be on, our social housing waiting lists. This is also a shared goal with the 10-year housing and homelessness plan, which aims to increase housing affordability and options along the housing continuum in Nipissing District.

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 62014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20563,100 1,082,100 1,081,400 1,080,700 1,078,100 513,800 5,399,200

563,100 0 0 2,880,140 0 3,443,24067,000 83,000 67,000 83,000 0 300,000

225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 900,000

0162,000 162,000 162,000 486,000

0SM Administration Fees % of Allocation

SM Administration Fees 5% 0 54,105 54,070 54,035 53,905 53,845 269,960563,100 346,105 362,070 3,388,175 523,905 215,845 5,399,200

0 735,995 719,330 -2,307,475 554,195 297,955 0VARIANCE

Planned Financial Commitment - $sTOTAL

PLANNED FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS BY YEAR

Enter your total SM allocation for each fiscal year

Streams

Homeownership

Rent Supplement

Operating ComponentOntario Renovates

Rental Housing

Housing Allowance - Shared Delivery

Program Component

Housing Allowance - Direct Delivery

Capital Components

TOTAL

To be eligible, a project must be new construction or acquisition/rehabilitation of projects that are in danger of being lost to the rental housing stock, or the conversion of non-residential buildings or units to purpose-built residential rental buildings/units. The IAH 2014 Extension requires Service Managers to solicit proposals and select rental housing projects to recommend to the Ministry for funding approval. All procurement processes must be in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 and the DNSSAB Purchasing Policy. Social housing redevelopment which involves building new affordable rental units/additions on social housing sites may be eligible provided that the appropriate ministerial or service manager consent, as applicable, is obtained as per the Housing Services Act, 2011. Recommended projects must meet a number of requirements including but not limited to all municipal planning approvals are to be in place, financially viable from a construction and operating cost perspective, have rents that are at or below 80% of CMHC Average Market Rent and address local housing needs and target tenant groups identified in our Housing and Homelessness Plan. ii) Homeownership In the Nipissing 10-year housing and homelessness plan, one of the action items for increasing housing affordability options is to increase opportunities for affordable homeownership. Thus, the IAH homeownership component plays an important role in implementing this part of the housing and homelessness plan. The goal of the Homeownership component is to assist low-to-moderate-income renter households to purchase affordable homes by providing down payment assistance in the form of a forgivable loan. To be eligible, a prospective purchaser must be a renter purchasing a principal residence and have income at or below the 60th percentile income level for our district. The purchase price of a home must not exceed the average resale price in our area. Service Managers must ensure education and training on home buying and homeownership is provided. Total funding must not exceed 10% of the sum of the purchase price (Habitat for Humanity affiliates are exempt from this calculation). In keeping with past practice, we will be delivering the homeownership component with our community partners. Staff have recently meet with representatives from Home Ownership Affordability Partnership (HOAP), and Habitat for Humanity, both organizations are grateful for the opportunity to participate in the program. iii) Ontario Renovates The goal of the Ontario Renovates component is to provide financial assistance to

renovate affordable ownership. The Home Repair program will assist low to moderate income home owner households to bring their homes to acceptable standards while improving the energy-efficiency. Also, as required, increase accessibility of homes for seniors through modification and adaptations. This is another component that is consistent with implementing the local 10-year housing and homelessness plan, as it improves housing stability by providing funding to maintain houses, that otherwise might deteriorate into poor living conditions. In keeping consistent with Nipissing’s past practices to be eligible, the household income must be $36,500 and the value of the home must not exceed $156,495. Eligible repairs may include the following activities: foundation work, roof, walls, floors and ceilings, septic systems, electrical systems, heating systems, plumbing, disability/accessibility modifications and well water drilling. The forgivable loan is secured by a mortgage registered on title. The homeowner must provide evidence that property taxes, insurance and mortgage payments are up-to-date.

OPERATING COMPONENT i) Housing Allowance Direct Delivery

The goal of the Housing Allowance Direct Delivery component is to address affordability issues of households in modest rental units. The DNSSAB has the flexibility to choose target clients as well as their benefit amounts.

Housing Allowance Direct Delivery funding is earmarked to cover the period from Year 4 to Year 6 of the IAH 2014 Extension. It is important to note that under the previous Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing program, DNSSAB invested $960,000 into a 5 year Housing Allowance Component. This component is set to expire on March 31, 2017, when the component under the IAH Extension program will begin.

The DNSSAB will continue to make payments on a monthly basis directly to client households to help offset their market rental costs. We currently assist approximately 100 households on a monthly basis. As households are housed in rent-geared-to-income units, the financial assistance will be allocated to the next eligible applicant on the Nipissing District social housing waiting list. A 3-year extension will provide significant sustainability and also help carry out further action items in the 10-year housing and homelessness plan. These include creating additional rent subsidies /housing allowances for certain family households and in municipalities without social housing.

RESOURCES REQUIRED: Costs, time, professional consultations, materials, etc.

RISK IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION: The delivery of Capital Component, Rental Housing initiative was placed in Year 4, 2017-18 to allow sufficient time for program participants to properly prepare their submission according to program requirements, build the required equity contribution and secure any additional funding they may require to make their projects viable. Staff will work the City’s Purchasing Manager to ensure that the RFP aligns with the DNSSAB’s Purchasing Policy, as is a requirement of the program, and that all proponents/organizations in Nipissing District have equal access to a fair and transparent process. It should be noted that the 10-year housing and homelessness plan also calls for housing development projects in the district’s rural municipalities. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/COMMUNICATION PLAN: Board approval is being requested in order to participate in the IAH 2014 Extension. Once approval is given, staff will begin ramping up activities so as to be well positioned to take advantage of the new programs/funding. With the provincial administration funding in place, staffing will be secured and program elements put into place. Staff will work with the Communication Officer to ensure effective communication and continued engagement with Community Partners and potential proponents.

RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN:

STAKEHOLDERS Enable Citizen Self-sufficiency and inclusion

Seamlessly deliver accessible, efficient services and solutions at the right time across the service network.

Create an agile and responsive service system.

INTERNAL PROCESS Focus on quality improvement

Assess and understand the service needs of Citizens in a holistic basis and across the service network.

Facilitate community planning with an emphasis on prevention and service system integration

Build public awareness of DNSSAB services and solutions Develop integrated service delivery via partnerships Build strong relationships and partnerships

Facilitate two-way communications ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITIES & FINANCIAL/RESOURCES Build a strong Board and partnerships

Align legislative policies and funding requirements to the needs of our Citizens Provide advocacy leadership Invest in our employees Demonstrate strong fiscal management

Leverage data, information and advanced tools and technologies Optimize resource acquisition, allocation and alignment CORE VALUES Putting people first

Pro-active Collaboration Innovation Empowerment

1

Briefing Note HEMS08-15

For information or For Decision or For Approval

Date: February 10th, 2015 Purpose: Nipissing Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI)

2014-15 Q4 Expenditure Plan Prepared by: Debbie Mills, Director Housing Services Pierre Guenette, Manager Housing Services Sara Tonks, Director of Finance and Administration Reviewed by: Joseph Bradbury, CAO

RECOMMENDATION: That the District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board instructs staff to initiate Request for Proposals for homelessness preventions services and community housing support services, and furthermore, approves staff to enter into contracts for these services with total costs no greater than $163,000 for homelessness prevention services, and $152,000 for community housing support services as outlined in report HEMS08-15. BACKGROUND:

• In 2014, DNSSAB received funding allocations from Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as follows:

April to March 31, 2015 MAH CHPI Q1 –Q4 allocation $ 835,583 January to March 31, 2015 one time funding $ 663,126

$1,326,252 • Program guidelines for CHPI include requirements that the funding has to be

expensed by March 31st, 2015. DNSSAB CHPI Investment Plan for 2014-2015 committed funding to the following service categories:

1. Emergency Shelter Solutions: $150,000 2. Services and Supports: $226,296 3. Homelessness Prevention: $459,287

• Under these categories DNSSAB is required to fund services and activities that

address both CHPI program outcomes:

2

People experiencing homelessness obtain and retain housing; and, People at risk of homelessness remain housed.

• The additional one time funding of $663,126 can be used to fund additional services and activities in the service categories noted above.

• At this time there is about $315,000 of uncommitted CHPI funds available for disbursement by March 31, 2015.

• Over the past two years it has been a challenge to balance CHPI expenditures between investments in homelessness preventative services and providing homelessness prevention supports and benefits directly to clients.

• The current uncommitted funds are considered to be available for further investments in homelessness prevention services.

• At the beginning of 2014 CHPI funds were used to purchase homelessness prevention services that included mobile housing support services, trusteeship services, crisis and homelessness prevention services, global emergency homelessness fund, and emergency shelter services.

CURRENT STATUS AND STEPS TAKEN TO DATE:

• All proponents awarded homelessness prevention services contracts are required to report service outcomes on a quarterly basis.

• The reports received in 2014 have affirmed the significant need for the services, as well as provide valuable feedback on some of our local practices and policies concerning CHPI client benefits and homelessness prevention initiatives.

• Over the past year service providers have been able to give immediate and/or preventative support to clients thereby lessening or avoiding crisis.

• The need for homelessness prevention services and supports continues to be high in both breadth and depth in the District of Nipissing.

OBSERVATIONS / ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: With a focus on prevention and to be able to provide stability to our service partners it is suggested the uncommitted funds be used to purchase additional homeless prevention services to provide not only continuity and stability but also expansion of these services. It is recommended that two Requests for Proposals (RFP) be issued for the provision of:

1. Homelessness prevention services for a total cost of up to $163,000 per year for up to three years, subject to availability of funding.

2. Housing support services for a total cost of up to $152,000 per year for up to three years, subject to availability of funding.

• The RFP for homelessness prevention services would seek to engage services for the delivery of: trusteeship services

3

housing stabilization services hoarding response and prevention services homelessness prevention services

• The RFP housing support services would seek to engage services for the

delivery of programs or provide supports for: housing eviction prevention promote housing stability assistance in accessing and sustaining permanent housing tenant support to prevent further episodes of homelessness

RISK IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION: Any unspent CHPI funds as of March 31st, 2015 will be returned to the Ministry. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND COMMUNICATION PLAN: The RFP will be issued through the purchasing department of the City of North Bay under the direction of the Manager of Purchasing. The RFP will be advertised in local papers, be posted on the websites of DNSSAB and the City of North Bay, a communique advising of the issuance of the RFP will be sent to all our community partners. The RFP will remain open for a period of three weeks. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Stakeholders Enable Citizen Self-sufficiency and inclusion Seamlessly deliver accessible, efficient services and solutions at the right time

across the service network. Create an agile and responsive service system.

Internal Process Facilitate community planning with an emphasis on prevention and service

system integration Develop integrated service delivery via partnerships Build strong relationships and partnerships

Organizational Capabilities and Financial or Resources Build a strong Board and partnerships Align legislative policies and funding requirements to the needs of our Citizens Optimize resource acquisition, allocation and alignment

Core Values Putting people first Pro-active Collaboration Innovation

housing and emergency medical services committee meeting ... and ems... · housing and emergency...

Documents