BUILDING INVESTEMENT, FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE … · Building Investment, Finance and Audit...

BUILDING INVESTEMENT, FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA

PUBLIC SESSION

Date: September 28, 2016 Time: 10:00 to 10:30 a.m.

Location: Ground floor boardroom, 931 Yonge Street

Agenda

Item Description Action Pre-read Presenter

1) Consent agenda

1 a) Approval of Public Meeting Agenda

Approval Agenda Chair

1 b) Chair’s Poll re: Conflict of Interest

Declaration Agenda and Conflict of Interest Policy

Chair

1 c) Confirmation of the Public Meeting Minutes of July 21, 2016

Approval

Minutes Chair

1 d) Business Arising from the Public Meeting Minutes and Action Items Update

Information Action item list Chair

PUBLIC AGENDA | BUILDING INVESTEMENT, FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE | September 28, 2016 of 2

Item Description Action Pre-read Presenter

1 e) Review of Board, President and CEO and Senior Management Expenses – Q2 2016

Information BIFAC:2016-118

Chief Internal Auditor

2) Chair’s remarks Information Verbal report 5 minutes

Chair

3) Follow Up Report on Access to TCHC Parking Facilities by Third-Party Service Providers

Information BIFAC:2016-130 Follow Up Report on Access to TCHC Parking Facilities by Third-Party Service Providers

4) Internal Audit Reports

Chief Internal Auditor

4 a) Semi-Annual Statistical Reporting on Complaints Received


4 b) Internal Audit Report: TCHC Employees Who are Also TCHC Tenants *[to be confirmed with CIA]


4 c) Internal Audit Report: Rent Geared to Income Calculation Review 2015 Supplementary Report * [to be confirmed with CIA]


Termination

Public Meeting Minutes July 21, 2016

Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee

Page 1 of 5

The Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee (“BIFAC” or “Committee”) of Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”) held a public meeting on July 21st, 2016 in the Main Floor Conference Room, 931 Yonge Street, Toronto, commencing at 11:08 a.m.

Committee Directors Present: Colin Lynch, Chair Councillor Ana Bailão, Vice Chair Vincent Gasparro Kevin Marshman

Other Director in Attendance: Catherine Wilkinson

Management Present:

Leslie Gash, Acting Vice President, Development Ismail Ibrahim, Director of Compliance and Legal Counsel Sylvia Kobal, Senior Director, Procurement Graham Leah, Vice President, Asset Management Rose-Ann Lee, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Interim) Ted Millward, Legal Counsel, Corporate Sheila Penny, Vice President, Facilities Management Kate Salter, Legal Counsel Greg Spearn, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer/ Chief Development Officer Cynthia Summers, Commissioner of Housing Equity Wayne Tuck, Chief Operating Officer

A quorum being present, the Chair called the meeting to order and Mr. Steven Iserhoff served as recording secretary.

ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA The Closed Meeting Agenda was discussed. It was agreed that items

6, 8, and 9 would be held for discussion and the remaining items would be consented to by the Committee.

Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Mr. Marshman, seconded by Mr.

Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee Public Meeting Minutes July 21, 2016

Page 2 of 5

Gasparro and carried, the BIFAC unanimously approved the agenda.

Second motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Mr. Marshman, seconded by Mr. Gasparro and carried, the BIFAC unanimously approved Item 3.

Third motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Mr. Marshman, seconded by Mr. Gasparro and carried, the BIFAC unanimously received Agenda Items 4 and 7 for information.

ITEM 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Chair requested members of the BIFAC to indicate any agenda item in which they had a conflict of interest, together with the nature of the conflict. None were declared .

ITEM 6 TCHC AND OCHE – VULNERABLE RESIDENT

IDENTIFICATION AND OCHE RECOMMENDATIONS

BIFAC:2016-106

The BIFAC had before it the above-captioned report (BIFAC:2016-106) from the Commissioner of Housing Equity and the Vice President of Asset Management. Ms. Summers and Mr. Leah presented the report and answered questions. Mr. Leah advised that TCHC and OCHE now meet on a monthly basis to discuss the issue of the identification of vulnerable residents. Management noted that the process and workflow of tracking recommendations and vulnerable residents will be further assessed and TCHC and OCHE will be meeting to review progress. Mr. Leah noted there are resource issues as there are some 500-600 referrals coming to Asset Management and there are only 23 CSCs to address them, and these referrals are in addition to the 4000 other cases that CSCs have to address. Management noted that while there has been progress, there is still more work to be done regarding the identification of vulnerable residents and that a report is planned for BIFAC and the Board in Q3 with an update on progress. The Committee enquired about duplication in the work performed by Asset Management and OCHE as it relates to vulnerable residents. Management advised that both of their mandates require that they be


Page 3 of 5

involved but that they intervene at different stages. If TCHC fails to resolve an issue and recommends eviction, then the file is referred to OCHE for resolution. The Committee requested that in future reports to the Committee on this issue that Management add the date of the recommendations and when they were implemented.

Motion Carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Mr. Marshman, seconded by Mr. Gasparro and carried, the BIFAC unanimously received the report for information.

ITEM 8 IMPACT OF CLERICAL S TAFF ADDITIONS BIFAC:2016-

108

The BIFAC had before it the above-captioned report (BIFAC:2016-108). The Interim President and Chief Executive Officer presented the report. Graham Leah, Vice President of Asset Management, presented the report and answered questions. The Committee enquired about ways to streamline the annual review process. Management advised that they are looking at the workflow to determine measures to streamline and what the impact would be on tenants. Management noted that adding staff to the division has helped workflow and enabled the TSCs to focus more time on arrears, as shown in the report. The Committee requested that TCHC confer with PWC regarding their comfort level with TCHC’s RGI calculations. ACTION ITEM: Management to confirm PWC’s comfort level with TCHC’s RGI calculations.

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Bailão, seconded by Mr. Gasparro and carried, the BIFAC unanimously received the report for information.


Page 4 of 5

ITEM 9 STAND-ALONE PROPERTIES: SA LES AND RELOCATION UPDATE

BIFAC:2016-112

Valesa Faria, Senior Manager of Commercial & Business Development, and Sheila Penny, Vice President of Facilities Management, presented the report and answered questions. The Committee asked why #2 Sylvan is not listed as being under renovation. Management responded that it is because #2 Sylvan is currently occupied at market rent. Management confirmed for the Committee that Official Plan Amendments (“OPA”) are required to proceed with the sale of those homes subject to regulatory restrictions, and that the process requires community meetings. Management advised that the replacement units will likely be in Regent Park. The Committee enquired as to why an OPA had not been submitted for the homes listed in group 1. Management responded by noting that based on their experience with the homes in groups 3 and 4 they wanted to confirm the replacement units before submitting applications. The Committee stated that in April 2015 the BIFAC was told that renovations on the vacant units would be complete by the end of 2015, and noted that the renovations are still not complete. Management advised the delay was a result of the need to re-scope the work to reduce costs. The Committee was advised that in 2015 there was a sample property that went through a design process and that was tendered. The costs for the one property came in at over $300,000, which Management determined was too high. Management noted that as a result they had to re-scope the work to come back with a more reasonable cost. Management advised that the repairs to the seven units are under way and are scheduled to be completed this fall. The Committee commented on the need for timely information on the delay to the repairs of the vacant units, the cause of the delay and the rental revenue that was lost. ACTION ITEM Management to report back to the committee with the following information:

• The length of time the properties have been vacant.


Page 5 of 5

TERMINATION The BIFAC resolved to terminate the public meeting at 11:38 a.m.

__________________ Secretary Chair, Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee

• The lost revenue from the vacant units.

Motion carried

ON MOTION DULY MADE by Mr. Marshman, seconded by Mr. Gasparro and carried, the BIFAC unanimously received the report for information.

1

BIFAC- Report on Business Arising from the Public M eeting Minutes and Action Item List

# Report No. Description Status Target Date Assigned to 1 BIFAC:2015 -143

November 16, 2015 Accessibility in the Built Environment Policy The BIFAC requested Management to report back to the Committee with respect to: • Modifying existing units for compliance with

the Standards. • Timelines to achieve full implementation of

the Standards by 2025 (as part of the 10 Year Financial Plan).

In progress. Management to report back on this item subsequent to completion of budget process and discussions regarding 10 Year Capital Financial Plan. Target date revised to November BIFAC meeting.

Nov 17, 2016 Vice President, Facilities Management; Acting Vice President, Development

2 BIC:2015-122 September 24, 2015

Access to TCHC Parking Facilities by Third -Party Service Providers Management will provide a supplemental report with the following additional information:

• Annual revenues from parking fees; • Costs or range of costs associated with

parking facilities; • Total number of parking spaces; • Rationale for TCHC offering parking

facilities and other options available; and • Parking strategies.

Completed. Report on agenda for September 28th BIFAC meeting.

Sept 28th, 2016

Senior Manager, Commercial & Business Development

3 BIFAC:2016 -108 JULY 21ST, 2016

Impact of Clerical Staff Additions Management to confer with PWC regarding the RGI calculations and their comfort level with the accuracy of the calculations.

In progress. Management to review RGI calculations with PWC at the end of September. Chief Internal Auditor’s report on RGI calculations from Q1 to Q3 2016 scheduled for the November BIFAC meeting

Nov 17, 2016

Chief Financial Officer

2

# Report No. Description Status Target Date Assigned to also to consider PWC’s review.

4 BIFAC:2016 -112 JULY 21ST, 2016

Stand -Alone Properties – Sales and Relocation Update Management to report back to the committee with the following information:

• The length of time the properties have been vacant.

• The lost revenue from the vacant units.

Information to be provided with the next update on Stand Alone Properties to be provided at the November 17th BIFAC meeting.

Nov 17, 2016

Manager, Business Development

Review of Board, President and CEO, and Employee Expenses Q2 2016 Item 2E September 28, 2016 Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee Report: BIFAC:2016- 118

To: Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee (BIFAC)

From: Chief Internal Auditor

Date: September 12, 2016

Strategic Plan Priority:

Service Excellence

• Demonstrate Value for Money and Public Accountability

PURPOSE:

To report on the expenses of the Board of Directors, the interim President and Chief Executive Officer, and certain TCHC employees for the second quarter of 2016.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that the Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee (“the Committee”) receive this report for information.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

At its March 9, 2011 meeting Toronto City Council passed the following motion1:

City Council request the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) to immediately post on the TCHC website, all expense records of all TCHC board members and all TCHC staff members whose salaries exceed $100,000.

Pursuant to this motion, reference to ‘TCHC Employees’ and/or ‘Employees’ in this report and in the public disclosure of employee expenses is defined as those employees whose annual salary exceeds $100,000 per annum.

1 This was actually Part 6 of an eight part decision approved by Council. The other parts of the decision are not germane to this report.

Review of Board, President and CEO, and Employee Expenses Q2 2016 Report: BIFAC:2016-xx Page 2 of 3 All expenses submitted by the interim President and Chief Executive Officer (“President and CEO”) are approved by the Chair of the Board of TCHC. The Chair’s expenses are signed off by the President and CEO as a check and balance at the point of reimbursement.

Expenses of the Directors are approved by the Chair to ensure the expenses claimed are incurred in the performance of duties related to TCHC.

Employee expenses are reimbursed pursuant to TCHC’s Expense Reimbursement Policy and Expense Reimbursement Procedures.

All Board of Directors, the President and CEO, and Employee expenses had been posted, by month, on the TCHC website as the upgrades to the website have been completed.

Expenses Incurred Q2 2016

As set out in the attachments to this report, the total expenses for Q2 2016 are summarized as follows:

Q2 2016

Board of Directors (Attachment 1) $0.00

President and CEO (Attachment 2) $0.00

Employees (Attachment 3) $22,402.09

Total $22,402.09

Comparative Summary of Expenses

The following table shows the 2016 and 2015 comparative amounts of these expenses for the second quarter and year to date ending June 30, 2016:

Quarter Comparison

($) Year to Date

Comparison ($)

Q2 2016 Q2 2015 2016 2015

Board of Directors (Attachment 4) 0.00 0.00 13.00 75.13

President and CEO (Attachment 5) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Employees (Attachment 6) 22,402.09 18,277.92 36,329.15 32,160.21

Total 22,402.09 18,277.05

36,342.15 32,235.34

Review of Board, President and CEO, and Employee Expenses Q2 2016 Report: BIFAC:2016-xx Page 3 of 3 IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS:

The reimbursement of expenses for the Board of Directors, President and CEO, and Employees in Q2 2016 were included in the 2016 operating budget.

“Michael Vear” Michael Vear, CPA, CA, CPA (Illinois) Chief Internal Auditor Attachment: 1: Board of Director Expenses Q2 2016 2: President and CEO (interim) Expenses Q2 2016 3: Employee Expenses Q2 2016 4: Board of Director Expenses 2016 Comparative Analysis Q2

2016 5: President and CEO Expenses 2016 Comparative Analysis Q2

2016 6: Employee Expenses 2016 Comparative Analysis Q2 2016

Staff Contact: Michael Vear ................................................................... 416-981-4065

Chief Internal Auditor [email protected]

L. Diptee .......................................................................... 416-981-4052 Employee Expense Control Clerk [email protected]

Review of Board, President and CEO, and Employee Expenses Q2 2016 Attachment 1

Total Q216

Expenses

Cumulative

2016 Expenses

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Norman (Bud) Purves 0.00 0.00

Councillor Ana Bailão 0.00 0.00

Robert Carlo1 13.00 0.00 13.00

Councillor Raymond Cho 0.00 0.00

Councillor Joe Cressy 0.00 0.00

Councillor Frank Di Giorgio 0.00 0.00

Vincent Gasparro 0.00 0.00

Linda Jackson 0.00 0.00

Joseph Kennedy 0.00 0.00

Colin Lynch 0.00 0.00

Kevin Marshman 0.00 0.00

Pamela Taylor 0.00 0.00

Catherine Wilkinson 0.00 0.00

Total 13.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00

1 Board member was on leave from the Board from May 3, 2016 to June 16, 2016.

Current Board Members

BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES Q2 2016

Board Member

Business Travel

(mileage, taxi, parking, other non-

conference travel)

Other Expenses

(any expense not included in the

other categories)

Hospitality and Protocol

(policy-approved business meals

when not attending a conference)

Conferences and Training

(all costs to attend conferences including travel,

registration, meals, etc)

April 1, 2016 - June 30, 2016

Item 3 - Review of Board, President and CEO, and Employee Expenses Q2 2016 September 28 BIFAC Public Meeting Report BIFAC:2016-118


Total Q216

Expenses

Cumulative

2016

Expenses


Greg Spearn 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

PRESIDENT AND CEO (Interim) EXPENSES Q2 2016

Board Member

Business Travel


conference travel)

Other Expenses


other categories)






registration, meals, etc)

April 1, 2016 - June 30, 2016



Total Q216

Expenses

Total 2016

YTD

Expenses


Abbas, Aymen Senior Construction Manager 11.02 4.42 4.42 15.44

Abells, Alana Legal Counsel 101.70 101.70 101.70

Adey, Virginia Director, Services Integration & Delivery (interim) 0.00 0.00

Anckle, Daniel Director, Resident Access and Support Services 39.00 150.00 39.00 189.00

Araujo, Tony Director, Payroll and Benefits 59.00 0.00 59.00

Arellano-Chua, Joy Director, Treasury 140.00 140.00 140.00

Arpadzic, Arej Senior Director, Information Technology & Services (interim) 291.10 426.39 426.39 717.49

Asturi, Marta Legal Counsel and Assistant Corporate Secretary 77.70 0.00 77.70

Atungo, Simone Vice President, Resident and Community Services (interim) 46.25 2,858.97 46.25 2,905.22

Audi, Saji Design Manager, Structural ` 0.00 0.00

Barei, George Operating Unit Manager 346.80 686.07 686.07 1,032.87

Barker, Catherine Vice President, Human Resources 0.00 0.00

Bond, Jennifer Director, Labour Relations and Legal Counsel 28.25 28.25 28.25

Cassim, Saira Legal Counsel, Legal Services Division 918.41 918.41 918.41

Chen, Jason Director, Development 72.23 17.89 17.89 90.12

Coito, Ilidio Senior Construction Manager 0.00 0.00

D'Souza, Cheryl Senior Legal Counsel 819.25 418.10 418.10 1,237.35

DeVito, John Manager, IT Business Systems Services 0.00 0.00

Dyer, Boyd Director of Smart Buildings & Energy Management 39.15 218.63 1,447.30 1,665.93 1,705.08

Fox, Nancy Director, Community Housing 52.10 296.46 296.46 348.56

Garrett, Kimberley Operating Unit Manager 34.74 34.74 34.74

Gash, Leslie Vice President Development (interim) 259.54 100.58 1,740.03 1,184.24 1,284.82 3,284.39

Goldvine, Sara Manager, Media Relations & Issues Management 0.00 0.00

Gorel, Jason Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 20.00 73.45 0.00 93.45

Grey-Wolf, Heather Development Director 0.00 0.00

Harb, Fadi Manager, Elevator Services 381.52 292.19 292.19 673.71

Henderin, Christina Legal Counsel, Legal Services Division 66.75 709.64 101.70 168.45 878.09

Howard, Leslie Director, Program Management and Systems Integration 201.11 179.15 179.15 380.26

Ibrahim, Ismail General Counsel and Corporate Secretary (interim) 638.45 638.45 638.45

Jacques, Stephen Director, Revitalization & Renewal Communities 147.46 204.21 370.92 204.21 722.59

Jeffers, Marva Operating Unit Manager 0.00 0.00

Johnson, Gail Director, Resident Engagement & Community Services (interim) 37.44 37.44 37.44

Johnson, Mark General Counsel and Corporate Secretary 0.00 0.00

Keddy, Jason Director, Community Safety Unit 0.00 0.00

Kobal, Sylvia Senior Director, Procurement 268.37 304.15 4,853.35 5,157.50 5,425.87

Koke, Albert Project Change Manager, Procurement 0.00 0.00

Kraljevic, John Operating Unit Manager 72.00 54.00 54.00 126.00

Kurzemnieks, Kalvis Design Manager, Architectural & Building 582.02 582.02 582.02

Lam, Linda Manager, Structural and Parking Garages 15.00 158.00 173.00 173.00

Lawson, William Director, Strategic Planning & Stakeholder Relations 0.00 0.00

Leah, Graham Vice President, Asset Management 0.00 0.00

Lee, Rose-Ann Senior Director, Finance 762.75 949.20 949.20 1,711.95

Liu, Wei Manager, Property Accounting 0.00 0.00

Malloch, Bruce Director, Strategic Communications 0.00 0.00

McKenzie, Andrew Director, Client Care, Dispatch & Vendor Management 0.00 0.00

Millward, Ted Legal Counsel 0.00 0.00

Moledina, Rahim Director, Learning & Organization Development 0.00 0.00

Mosieh-Zahraei, Hamid Design Manager, Structural 32.24 685.88 685.88 718.12

Murray, James Allen Director, Operations Delivery 123.08 113.50 113.50 236.58

Narine, Patricia Director, Program Services - Operational Initiatives 0.00 0.00

Nicolaou, Mara Senior Construction Manager 91.53 152.55 0.00 244.08

Pannunzio, Flora Facilities Manager 172.48 286.16 286.16 458.64

Penny, Sheila Vice President, Facilities Management 408.26 1,672.12 2,080.38 2,080.38

EMPLOYEE1 EXPENSES Q2 2016

April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016

Employee Name Current Position

Business Travel


conference travel)


(all costs to attend conferences including

travel, registration, meals, etc.)

Other Expenses

(any expense not included in

the other categories)



when not attending a

conference)

Page 1Item 3 - Review of Board, President and CEO, and Employee Expenses Q2 2016 September 28 BIFAC Public Meeting Report BIFAC:2016-118


Total Q216

Expenses

Total 2016

YTD

Expenses


EMPLOYEE1 EXPENSES Q2 2016

April 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016


Business Travel


conference travel)




Other Expenses

(any expense not included in

the other categories)



when not attending a

conference)

Raubfogel, Orna Senior Legal Counsel, Litigation (interim) 0.00 0.00

Rhynold, Maria Manager, Technology and Business Support 276.41 197.75 197.75 474.16

Robson, Heather Legal Counsel, Employment and Privacy 0.00 0.00

Roknic, Mary Director, Program Services 245.19 84.30 84.30 329.49

Salter, Kate Legal Counsel, Legal Services 53.80 401.15 692.41 692.41 1,147.36

Sharp, Jeffery Director, Property Accounting 0.00 0.00

Sheps, David Facilities Manager, Architectural 117.04 140.11 140.11 257.15

Shewchuk, Andy Manager, Grounds and Waste Management 215.74 215.74 215.74

Spearn, Greg Interim President and CEO 0.00 0.00

Strohmeier, Debbie Senior Business Systems Manager 63.96 9.54 9.54 73.50

Summers, Cynthia Commissioner of Housing Equity 294.14 529.41 529.41 823.55

Tong, Vincent Director, Development (interim) 70.24 90.15 90.15 160.39

Trajanos, Helen Director, Insurance & Risk Management 0.00 0.00

Tramontozzi, Anna Corporate Controller 949.20 949.20 949.20

Tuck, Wayne Chief Operating Officer 256.18 256.18 256.18

Turner, Roy Director, Design & Engineering 78.69 0.00 78.69

Uzelac, Danny Manager, Talent Acquisition 0.00 0.00

Vear, Michael Chief Internal Auditor 166.08 155.95 50.00 155.95 372.03

Warsame, Abdul Director, Community Housing 295.21 178.62 178.62 473.83

Williamson, Kenneth Manager, End User Computer Support 172.74 172.74 172.74

Wolbaum, Tracy Director, HR Talent Acquisition 0.00 0.00

Wong, Daisy Facilities Manager 343.41 286.88 286.88 630.29

Wong, Jessica Manager, Financial Reporting 80.00 80.00 80.00

Xiao, Wei Senior Construction Manager 129.21 172.48 745.00 62.15 234.63 1,108.84

Yip, Raymond Director, Expenditures & Financial Controller 0.00 0.00

Yung, Cindy Director, Financial Planning and Analysis 0.00 0.00

Zhang, Fred Manager, Business Analysis 241.54 418.52 418.52 660.06

Quarterly Totals 5,015.65 8,087.51 0.00 0.00 8,911.41 14,314.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,402.09 36,329.15

1 Pursuant to a Toronto City Council motion approved on March 9, 2011, 'Employees' are defined to be those TCHC employees whose annual salary exceeds $100,000.

Shaded area identifies employees who left TCHC's employ between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016.



Q215 Q2162015

YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216

2015

YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216

2015

YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216

2015

YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216

2015

YTD

2016

YTD

Norman (Bud) Purves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Councillor Ana Bailão 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Robert Carlo 1 13.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00

Councillor Raymond Cho 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Councillor Joe Cressy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Councillor Frank Di Giorgio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vincent Gasparro 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Linda Jackson 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Joseph Kennedy 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Colin Lynch 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kevin Marshman 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pamela Taylor 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Catherine Wilkinson 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Munira Abukar 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Zahir Bhaidani 4 37.13 0.00 0.00 37.13 0.00

Christian Buhagiar 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Brian Kwan 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Karen Newman 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Jennifer Wood 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Audrey Wubbenhorst 5 38.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 75.13 13.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.13 13.00

Total All Categories

BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES 2016

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Q216 and 2016 Year to Date

1 Board member's term began June 15, 2015, Board member was on leave from the Board from May 3, 2016 to June 16, 2016

2 Board member's term began December 10, 2015

3Board member's term ended June 14, 2015

4 Board

member resigned June 2015 5 Board member resigned November 2015

6Board member's term ended December 10, 2015

7 Board member resigned March 2015

Board Member

Business Travel


conference travel)

Other Expenses


other categories)







Current Board Members

Former Board Members



Q215 Q2162015

YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216

2015

YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216

2015

YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216

2015

YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216

2015

YTD

2016

YTD

Current President and CEO (interim)

Greg Spearn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


PRESIDENT AND CEO EXPENSES 2016



President and CEO

Business Travel


conference travel)

Other Expenses

(any expense not included in the other

categories)


(policy-approved business meals when

not attending a conference)






Q215 Q2162015

YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216

2015

YTD2016 YTD Q215 Q216 2015 YTD 2016 YTD Q215 Q216 2015 YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216 2015 YTD 2016 YTD

2016 Employees

Abbas, Aymen* Senior Construction Manager 4.42 15.44 0.00 4.42 0.00 15.44

Abells, Alana* Legal Counsel 101.70 101.70 0.00 101.70 0.00 101.70

Adey, Virginia* Director, Service Integration & Delivery (interim) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Anckle, Daniel Director, Resident Access & Support Services 39.00 39.00 150.00 0.00 39.00 0.00 189.00

Araujo, Tony Director, Payroll & Benefits 59.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.00

Arellano-Chua, Joy Director, Treasury 140.00 140.00 0.00 140.00 0.00 140.00

Arpadzic, Arej* Sr. Director Information Tech & Services (interim) 426.39 717.49 0.00 426.39 0.00 717.49

Asturi, Marta Legal Counsel and Assistant Corporate Secretary 96.05 77.70 0.00 0.00 96.05 77.70

Atungo, Simone Vice President, Resident and Community Services (interim ) 46.25 46.25 555.00 555.00 2,858.97 555.00 46.25 555.00 2,905.22

Audi, Saji* Design Manager, Structural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barei, George Operating Unit Manager 467.47 686.07 882.47 1,032.87 467.47 686.07 882.47 1,032.87

Barker, Catherine Vice President, Human Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bond, Jennifer Director, Labour Relations and Legal Counsel 28.25 237.30 28.25 0.00 28.25 237.30 28.25

Cassim, Saira Legal Counsel, Legal Services Division 918.41 113.00 918.41 0.00 918.41 113.00 918.41

Chen, Jason* Director, Development 17.89 90.12 0.00 17.89 0.00 90.12

Coito, Ilidio* Senior Construction Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

D'Souza, Cheryl Senior Legal Counsel 418.10 474.60 1,237.35 0.00 418.10 474.60 1,237.35

DeVito, John Manager, IT Business Systems Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dyer, Boyd Director of Smart Buildings & Energy Management 218.63 257.78 1,447.30 339.00 1,447.30 0.00 1,665.93 339.00 1,705.08

Fox, Nancy Director, Community Housing 489.39 296.46 744.30 348.56 489.39 296.46 744.30 348.56

Garrett, Kimberley Operating Unit Manager 117.40 34.74 212.03 34.74 117.40 34.74 212.03 34.74

Gash, Leslie Vice President Development (interim) 523.47 100.58 1,242.61 360.12 1,590.87 1,184.24 1,929.87 2,924.27 2,114.34 1,284.82 3,172.48 3,284.39

Goldvine, Sara* Manager, Media Relations & Issues Management 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Gorel, Jason Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 20.00 898.35 2,155.48 73.45 898.35 0.00 2,155.48 93.45

Grey-Wolf, Heather Development Director 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Harb, Fadi Manager, Elevator Services 294.49 292.19 619.02 673.71 294.49 292.19 619.02 673.71

Henderin, Christina Legal Counsel, Legal Services Division 66.75 66.75 101.70 811.34 0.00 168.45 0.00 878.09

Howard, Leslie Director, Program Management and Systems Integration 122.00 179.15 283.00 380.26 122.00 179.15 283.00 380.26

Ibrahim, Ismail General Counsel and Corporate Secretary (interim) 638.45 638.45 0.00 638.45 0.00 638.45

Jacques, Stephen Director, Revitalization & Renewal Communities 176.28 204.21 276.09 351.67 1,955.89 1,955.89 370.92 2,132.17 204.21 2,231.98 722.59

Jeffers, Marva* Operating Unit Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Johnson, Gail* Director, Resident Engagement & Community Services (interim) 37.44 37.44 0.00 37.44 0.00 37.44

Johnson, Mark* General Counsel and Corporate Secretary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Keddy, Jason Director, Community Safety Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Kobal, Sylvia* Senior Director, Procurement 304.15 572.52 4,853.35 4,853.35 0.00 5,157.50 0.00 5,425.87

Koke, Albert Project Change Manager, Procurement 19.08 19.08 339.00 19.08 0.00 358.08 0.00

Kraljevic, John Operating Unit Manager 114.50 54.00 114.50 126.00 114.50 54.00 114.50 126.00

Kurzemnieks, Kalvis* Design Manager, Architectural & Building 582.02 582.02 0.00 582.02 0.00 582.02

Lam, Linda* Manager, Structural & Parking Garages 15.00 15.00 158.00 158.00 0.00 173.00 0.00 173.00

Lawson, William Director, Strategic Planning & Stakeholder Relations 1,081.40 0.00 0.00 1,081.40 0.00

Leah, Graham Vice President, Asset Management 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lee, Rose-Ann Senior Director, Finance 212.99 949.20 212.99 1,711.95 212.99 949.20 212.99 1,711.95

Liu, Wei* Manager, Property Accounting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Malloch, Bruce Director, Strategic Communications 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

McKenzie, Andrew Director, Client Care, Dispatch & Vendor Management 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Millward, Ted Legal Counsel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Moledina, Rahim Director, Learning & Organization Development 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mosieh-Zahreai, Hamid* Design Manager, Structural 685.88 718.12 0.00 685.88 0.00 718.12

Murray, James Allen Director, Operations Delivery 204.40 113.50 434.90 236.58 204.40 113.50 434.90 236.58

Narine, Patricia Director, Program Services - Operational Initiatives 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nicolaou, Mara* Senior Construction Manager 91.53 152.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 244.08

Pannunzio, Flora Facilities Manager 100.71 286.16 243.86 458.64 339.00 100.71 286.16 582.86 458.64

Penny, Sheila Vice President, Facilities Management 408.26 408.26 1,672.12 1,672.12 0.00 2,080.38 0.00 2,080.38

Raubfogel, Orna Senior Legal Counsel, Litigation (interim) 185.58 227.93 185.58 0.00 227.93 0.00

Rhynold, Maria Manager, Technology and Business Support 123.34 197.75 239.09 474.16 123.34 197.75 239.09 474.16

Robson, Heather* Legal Counsel, Employment and Privacy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Roknic, Mary Director, Program Services 44.64 84.30 72.12 329.49 44.64 84.30 72.12 329.49

Salter, Kate Legal Counsel, Legal Services 48.29 53.80 692.41 1,093.56 0.00 692.41 48.29 1,147.36

Sharp, Jeffery Director, Property Accounting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sheps, David Facilities Manager, Architectural 115.09 140.11 222.65 257.15 115.09 140.11 222.65 257.15

Shewchuk, Andy Manager, Landscape and Waste Management 215.74 215.74 339.00 0.00 215.74 339.00 215.74

Spearn, Greg Interim President and CEO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Strohmeier, Debbie* Senior Business Systems Manager 9.54 73.50 0.00 9.54 0.00 73.50

Summers, Cynthia Commissioner of Housing Equity 383.58 529.41 742.81 823.55 1,446.33 2,369.16 1,829.91 529.41 3,111.97 823.55

EMPLOYEE EXPENSES 2016 1




Business Travel

(mileage, taxi, parking, other non-conference

travel)

Other Expenses


categories)






registration, meals, etc.)




Q215 Q2162015

YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216

2015

YTD2016 YTD Q215 Q216 2015 YTD 2016 YTD Q215 Q216 2015 YTD

2016

YTDQ215 Q216 2015 YTD 2016 YTD

EMPLOYEE EXPENSES 2016 1




Business Travel

(mileage, taxi, parking, other non-conference

travel)

Other Expenses


categories)






registration, meals, etc.)


Tong. Vincent* Director, Development (interim) 90.15 160.39 0.00 90.15 0.00 160.39

Trajanos, Helen Director, Insurance & Risk Management 4.11 51.22 333.35 4.11 0.00 384.57 0.00

Tramontozzi, Anna Corporate Controller 949.20 949.20 0.00 949.20 0.00 949.20

Tuck, Wayne* Chief Operating Officer 256.18 256.18 0.00 256.18 0.00 256.18

Turner, Roy Director, Design & Engineering 788.13 1,597.06 78.69 788.13 0.00 1,597.06 78.69

Uzelac, Danny* Manager, Talent Acquisition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vear, Michael Chief Internal Auditor 144.32 155.95 293.09 322.03 3,175.10 3,215.10 50.00 3,319.42 155.95 3,508.19 372.03

Warsame, Abdul Director, Community Housing 111.93 178.62 111.93 473.83 339.00 111.93 178.62 450.93 473.83

Williamson, Kenneth Manager, End User Computer Support 172.74 172.74 734.50 734.50 734.50 172.74 734.50 172.74

Wolbaum, Tracy* Director, HR Talent Acquisition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Wong, Daisy Facilities Manager 261.32 286.88 431.50 630.29 276.96 2,117.73 538.28 286.88 2,549.23 630.29

Wong, Jessica Manager, Financial Reporting 80.00 80.00 0.00 80.00 0.00 80.00

Xiao, Wei* Senior Construction Manager 172.48 301.69 0.00 172.48 0.00 301.69

Yip, Raymond Director, Expenditures & Financial Controller 62.15 807.15 0.00 62.15 0.00 807.15

Yung, Cindy Director, Financial Planning and Analysis 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Zhang, Fred* Manager, Business Analysis 418.52 660.06 0.00 418.52 0.00 660.06

2015 Employees Not On 2016 List

Babcock, Glenys Sr. Manager, Planning and Business Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bradburn, Lenna Vice President, Resident and Community Services 19.31 60.51 19.31 0.00 60.51 0.00

Chisholm, Paul General Manager, Housing Connections 29.25 0.00 0.00 29.25 0.00

Hoppe, Daniel Director Capital Planning 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maharaj, Anand Vice President, Human Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mohamed, Kamrool Director, Community Safety Unit ( interim) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Musgrave, Michelle Director, Community Housing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nacua, Danilo Director, Treasury (interim) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Payne, Laurie Development Director 60.90 156.30 2,482.69 2,482.69 2,543.59 0.00 2,638.99 0.00

Petralito, Sam Senior Director, Procurement (interim) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Reid, Elizabeth Vice President, Information Technology & Services 26.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00

Scott, Ken Senior Director, Strategic Procurement 41.70 95.27 41.70 0.00 95.27 0.00

Spencer, Pamela General Counsel and Corporate Secretary 36.10 56.10 868.12 36.10 0.00 924.22 0.00

Steidl, Lori Manager, Payroll, Benefits & Compensation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Quarterly Totals 4,949.24 8,087.51 9,532.98 13,103.16 13,328.68 14,314.58 22,627.23 23,225.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,277.92 22,402.09 32,160.21 36,329.15

1 Pursuant to a Toronto City Council motion approved on March 9, 2011, 'Employees' are defined to be those TCHC employees whose annual salary exceeds $100,000.

Shaded area identifies employees who left TCHC's employ between January 1, 2016 and June 30,2016. * Employee was not on the list in Q215.


of 6

Access to TCHC Parking Facilities by Third-party Se rvice Providers – Supplemental Report Item 3 September 28, 2016 Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee Report: BIFAC:2016-130


From: President and Chief Executive Officer (Interim)



Quality Homes:

• Improve Building Conditions

• Maximize Land Value and Expand Housing Options for current and Future Residents

• Maintain the Condition and Quality of New and Repaired Buildings

Vibrant Communities:

• Neighbourhood Building and Improved Community Safety

• Economic Opportunities

• Supporting Housing Stability

Service Excellence:

• Provide Excellent Customer Service

• Increase Revenues

• Demonstrate Value for Money and Public Accountability

PURPOSE: To provide the BIFAC with additional requested information related to Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) parking facilities.

of 6

RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Committee receive this report for information purposes.


BIFAC Request

At the September 26, 2015 meeting, Management presented the BIFAC with a report on options for providing free parking to third-party users that deliver services within TCHC communities.

The BIFAC received the report for information and requested a supplemental report with details on annual revenues generated from parking fees, costs or range of costs associated with parking facilities, total number of parking spaces, rationale for TCHC offering parking facilities and parking strategies.

BACKGROUND:

Overview of TCHC Parking Program

TCHC’s parking program, governing over 32,000 parking spaces, was rolled out in 2008 with the intent of managing parking effectively, improving customer service and generating much-needed revenues. The program covers all users of TCHC parking facilities including residential tenants, retail tenants, non-tenants, visitors, staff, contractors, community agencies, other non-profit organizations and the general public.

Under the existing delivery model, local Operating Unit offices handle all tenant parking registrations and ongoing management of accounts. Non-tenant/commercial parkers, including members of the general public, have the option to register for parking at Operating Unit offices or at 931 Yonge Street and all application processing and ongoing account management are overseen centrally by 1 dedicated administrative staff.

In terms of enforcement of parking lots, TCHC has a dedicated team of 6 parking enforcement officers. Besides promoting community safety across the City, the parking enforcement team supports coordinated enforcement efforts resulting in more efficient and effective use of both TCHC and Toronto Police Service resources.

Parking tickets issued by TCHC officers are City of Toronto tickets and 100% of all revenues generated through these efforts, estimated to be about $1 million per year, go directly to the City Shareholder.

of 6

Parking Utilization

Of the approximate 32,000 parking spots managed by TCHC, about 69% are actively used, 5% are un-rentable for a variety of reasons outlined below and 26% are currently vacant.

Parking vacancy in the portfolio is predominantly due to excess inventory in low demand areas particularly in the east and west suburban regions of the City, plus residential apartment vacancies.

Below is a summary of the current parking inventory and utilization details:

Category No. of Spots Percentage of Total Portfolio

Tenant Parking 12,090 37.7% Non-tenant/Commercial Parking 2,994 9.3% Pay & Display/ Transient Parking 1,164 3.6% Non-paid Visitor 2,108 6.6% Vacant Spots 8,261 25.8% *Un-rentable Spots 1,561 4.9% **Other 3,860 12.0% Total 32,038 100% *Un-rentable spots include spots affected by capital repair issues, revitalization, and those used for storage of TCHC equipment like tractors, snow plows, etc. **Other includes agencies and support services, contractors and staff parking.

Parking Revenues

Revenues generated from parking activities are reported under two main categories – tenant parking and non-tenant/commercial parking.

The chart below provides an overview of the revenues generated at the end of Q4 2015 and the average rate per spot:

Parking Stream Annual Revenue (2015)

# of Parkers (Dec. 2015)

Annual A verage Rate/Spot/Month

Tenant $7,794,161 11,996 $54 Non-tenant/Commercial

$2,685,392 2,885 $78

Total $10,479,553 14,881 $59 (blended)

With respect to year-over-year financial performance, in 2015 parking revenues grew by about 2.3% or $238,000 over 2014, with the majority of the growth attributable to the non-tenant/commercial stream as outlined below:

of 6

Parking Stream Annual Revenue (2015)

Annual Revenue (2014)

Year-Over-Year Variance ($)

Year-Over-Year Variance (%)

Tenant $7,794,161 $7,764,085 $30,076 0.39%

Non-tenant/Commercial $2,685,392 $2,477,858 $207,534 8.38%

Total $10,479,553 $10,241,943 $237,610 2.32%

Tenant Parking Rates

As noted above, the average residential tenant parking rate is less than the average commercial rate. This is largely due to differences in the way various predecessor companies managed their parking inventories pre-amalgamation. In an effort to standardize rates, TCHC has been gradually implementing annual increases and will continue to do so.

For clarity, TCHC is not obligated under legislation to provide subsidized parking rates for tenants. However, special arrangements for tenants requiring frequent onsite supports, as well as agencies working out of our buildings, will continue to be accommodated.

Non-tenant/ Commercial Rates

Commercial parking rates are based on market conditions and vary by location. In general, parking fees range from $70.00 per month in low demand areas up to $250 per month in the prime downtown areas.

Cost of Maintaining Parking Facilities

Over the past two years, roughly $7.6 million in capital and operating expenses were incurred to repair and maintain TCHC parking facilities.

Over the next 3 to 5 years it is estimated that an additional $30 million will be required to address urgent capital repair needs in parking facilities across the portfolio. For clarity, most of these facilities are underground garage structures that support buildings and need to be maintained as an integral part of the assets. Furthermore, addressing these capital repair needs is contingent upon securing appropriate levels of funding and requisite budget approvals. However, the estimated $30 million in repair costs are embedded within the 10 year capital repair plan approved by City Council.

of 6

Parking Strategies

As previously stated, in 2015, non-tenant/commercial parking revenue increased by about 8.4% or $208,000 year-over-year despite revenues losses as a result of lot closures due to revitalization and capital repair projects across the portfolio.

The growth in this area mainly reflects ongoing business development efforts which have resulted in the following partnerships:

a) Toronto Parking Authority (TPA)

Over the past two years TCHC and TPA have been actively working to transfer management responsibilities of TCHC’s paid visitor parking lots to TPA. As of today, 48 lots have been transferred and average net revenues to TCHC are now about $40,000 per month in line with targets originally presented to the Building and Investment Committee in September 2013. In 2015, year-over-year revenue increases in ‘Pay & Display’ parking was about $150,000 ($350,000 total) due to this change in parking provider. For clarity, although these lots do not display the “Green P” brand, all installation and maintenance of equipment, revenue collections and customer service issues are managed by TPA and reflected in the business arrangement between both parties.

b) WhereiPark

WhereiPark is a company that connects people looking for monthly parking with available spots in lots across the City. For consumers, WhereiPark is a simple, web-based way to find monthly parking, compare rates, and book a spot.

For TCHC, WhereiPark provides an opportunity for increased exposure and marketing of parking spots under a pay-for-performance model i.e. WhereiPark is paid based on actual revenues collected on a monthly basis. All customer service aspects are also managed by WhereiPark under this arrangement.

TCHC and WhereiPark have been actively working to secure new clients and streamline operations to improve the customer experience. This new partnership has proven to be quite successful and as of Q2 2016, net revenues generated for TCHC are in excess of $10,000 per month, with continued growth expected in the future.

c) Other

In addition to offering regular monthly parking, TCHC also provides ‘bulk’ parking at select sites. These sites are typically used by dealerships and car sharing companies for storing

of 6

excess inventory. Where possible, TCHC also connects with real estate developers to offer parking for construction vehicles as a means of acquiring new business.

IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS:

Over the past two years the organization has keenly focused on better leveraging its real estate assets for the benefit of its tenants. In terms of parking facilities specifically, effective management is an important tool in maintaining community safety, improving access to services and increasing revenues. The new partnerships with third-party parking providers outlined above have proven successful in helping to achieve these objectives. As such, over the upcoming months Management will assess whether increased third-party management of TCHC parking facilities is a feasible option across the portfolio. In assessing this option, efforts will focus on finding ways to enhance customer service for all users of TCHC’s parking facilities and optimization of parking operations including the leveraging new technologies to increase profitability.

Moreover, as the organization continues to focus on holistically improving service delivery, it is likely that increased third-party management of parking operations would support these efforts by enabling front-line resources to focus primarily on their core objectives of supporting tenants and maintaining buildings.

SIGNATURE:

“Greg Spearn”

Greg Spearn President and Chief Executive Officer (Interim) STAFF CONTACT: Valesa Faria, Senior Manager, Commercial & Business Development 416-981-4317 [email protected]

of 6

Internal Audit Report: Complaints Received January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 Item 4A September 28, 2016 Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee Report: BIFAC:2016-123





Service Excellence:

• Provide Excellent Customer Service

• Demonstrate Value for Money and Public Accountability PURPOSE: To provide the Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee (“the Committee”) with a statistical report with respect to complaints received by the Internal Audit Department for the period of January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016.

RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Committee receive this report for information.


Complaints Received

The Investigations Unit of the Internal Audit Department is tasked with the responsibility of reviewing and investigating complaints received about Toronto Community Housing (“TCHC”) staff, tenants, and contractors. Complaints are received from several sources, including:

• The ‘Do What’s Right’ Hotline (“the Hotline”);

• EasyTrac;

of 6

• The City’s Fraud and Waste Hotline;

• Staff and/or other internal sources; and

• Other means (e.g. letters, emails, telephone calls).

Complaint Data

Previous iterations of the Committee requested that complaint data be reported to the Committee on a semi-annual basis.

Attachment 1 to this report sets out an overview of the nature and scope of complaints that have been received for the first six months of 2016 (“2016 YTD”), with comparative data for the same time period in 2015 (“2015 YTD”).

The attachment sets out a number of reporting parameters with respect to the complaints received, as discussed below.

Source of Complaints – Gross (Table 1)

The data shows that for 2016 YTD there has been decrease in the gross number of complaints received – a decrease of 49 or 10.4%. For approximately 4 – 5 weeks in the early spring of 2016 the link to the Hotline portal on the TCHC website was not functioning properly – this explains the decrease in the gross amounts of complaints received.

There was, however, a significant increase in the number of complaints by Letter/Email (from 23 in 2015 YTD to 70 in 2016 YTD). We have no explanation for this increase.

The Hotline consistently produces approximately 55% of the complaints received (2015 YTD 67%). This is in line with previous years’ results. What this tells us is that there are numerous ways complaints reach us.

Net Complaints Received (Table 2)

Following previous years trends, approximately 26% of the gross complaints received:

• Are not fraud related; or

• Were reported more than once; or

• Do not pertain to a TCHC tenant, building or staff member; or

• Reported an unidentifiable address or tenant.

For the information of the Committee about some of these items:

• Were reported more than once I – it is not unusual for a complaint to be submitted to the Hotline, the City’s Fraud and Waste Hotline, and EasyTrac;

• Were reported more than once II – for complaints received from the Hotline we record every time a complaint is received. There have been a number of instances where a Hotline complaint from the internet portal was submitted 3 – 6 times within a couple of minutes of each other. Though we do not know exactly why these occurred, we suspect that the complainant may have pushed the

of 6

‘submit’ button several times in a row resulting in numerous duplicate submissions. Such actions will skewer the number of duplicate complaints received; and

• Do not pertain to a TCHC tenant et al – we often receive complaints about units that are not TCHC units. Speculating, we suspect that with the sheer size of TCHC the public may think that TCHC is the only social housing provider in Toronto, which it is not. So if they have a complaint about a non-TCHC social housing tenant, they contact us. Such complaints are forwarded to the appropriate housing provider.

It should be noted that the 284 complaints about tenants represent approximately 0.483% of TCHC’s units (less than ½ of 1%).

Who the Complaints are About (Table 3)

This identifies, on a net complaint basis, who the complaints were about – staff, tenants, contractors or other. Approximately 91% of net complaints received in 2016 YTD were about tenants. This statistic has been consistent since the inception of the Hotline on January 1, 2012.

There was an inexplicable small spike in 2016 YTD in the number of complaints received about TCHC staff.

Nature of Complaints (Table 4)

This sets out, on a net complaint basis, the broad subject matter of the complaints received. For staff and tenant complaints, the data is further broken down to more specific subject matters:

Staff

A ‘Staff Performance Complaint’ is one which relates to a performance issue about a staff member (e.g. the hallway floors are not being cleaned). These complaints are not reviewed by the Investigations Unit – they are forwarded to the appropriate Operating Unit or department for follow up.

‘Staff Complaints – Other’ include all other complaints received about a staff member. These complaints are reviewed by the Human Resources Department. The Investigations Unit assists with the review of these matters on request from Human Resources.

Tenants

Complaints about tenants have been broken down into five main subject areas. The three main tenant complaint subject areas are set out in the following table:

of 6

Nature of Tenant Complaint 2016 YTD 2015 YTD

No. %1 No. %

Unreported members in a unit 112 36.0 139 43.3

Unit/Room being sublet 89 28.6 67 20.9

Unreported income 51 16.4 58 18.1

Subtotal 252 81.0 264 82.3

These three complaint categories have consistently been the ‘top three’ types of complaints received since we started to keep these records.

Market Rent Units operate under different rules and regulations than RGI units. As such they are forwarded directly to the appropriate Operating Unit for follow up.

Distribution by Operating Unit (Table 5)

This shows the number of net complaints received within a particular operating unit (“OU”).

This allows the reader to compare (i) an OU’s % of Complaints Received to (ii) that OU’s number of units as a % of Total TCHC units. For example, Operating Unit C (Weston/Rexdale) contains 4.5% of TCHC’s units and for 2016 YTD it has 2.6% of the complaints received.

Because approximately 91% of the complaints received are about tenants, this table is in no way whatsoever a reflection of the quality of service provided by TCHC staff or the third party vendors who manage the contract managed buildings.

We are not aware of any particular reason why one OU has more complaints (on a % basis) than other OUs. Nor do we know why a particular OU is in the ‘red’ (more % of complaints than their population) for one time period and be in the ‘green’ (less % complaints than their population) for the next time period.

In addition, though the results do fluctuate from year to year, there appears to be a pattern of some of the operating units being either consistently in the ‘green’ (less % of complaints than their population) or in the ‘red’ (more % complaints than their population). The reason(s) behind this phenomena is unknown.

Hotline Usage (Table 6)

Actually two tables (Table 6a and Table 6b), they show how complainants have been accessing the Hotline.

Nearly 83% of the Hotline complainants have chosen to remain anonymous in YTD 2016 (Table 6a). This consistent with that for YTD 2015.

1 % of all Net Complaints received by TCHC.

of 6

There has been a significant decrease in the number of complaints received from the Hotline internet portal. As noted above, for 4 – 5 weeks in early spring of 2016 the link to the Hotline portal on the TCHC website was not functioning properly. We believe that is the reason for the decrease in complaints received via the internet.

Status of Complaints Received (Table 7)

This table sets out the status of complaints received 2016 YTD and 2015 YTD, as at September 1, 2016.

It should be noted that these are cumulative status results for the time periods in question. For example, if a 2015 complaint was closed in 2016, that status will be reflected in the 2015 column. As such, there will always be a difference between the current year’s results and the previously reported results.

There were only two unassigned files as at September 1, 2016. The reason why they were still unassigned is that we have yet to determine what TCHC address is being complained about.

Due to the volume of complaints received the Investigations Unit has to rely on the good work of operating unit staff to conduct the review and investigation of most of the tenant complaints received. This allows for the timely resolution of the complaint. Though this is not shown in Table 7, 2016 YTD nearly 72% of net complaints received were referred to Operating Unit and other departmental staff. We are very much appreciative of the assistance and work conducted by field staff in this regard.

Complaint reviews generally take some time to be completed. As such, a mid-year analysis of the outcomes of complaints received generally would not be reflective of the activities that are underway. A more detailed analysis of the results of complaints will be presented in my 2016 Annual Report.

Future Complaints Statistics Reports to the Committ ee

I seek guidance from the Committee with respect to the following items:

• Frequency of Reporting to the Committee – Complaints statistics are currently reported to the Committee on a semi-annual basis. Would the Committee like this reporting frequency to (i) decrease to annually, or (ii) increase to quarterly, or (iii) remain at semi-annually?

• Nature of Information Reported On – o Is there any information currently being provided that the Committee finds

redundant or not meaningful? o Is there any other information or data that the Committee would like to see

in future reports?

of 6

IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: The review and investigation of complaints about staff, tenants and contractors is an integral part of TCHC’s risk management strategy. It also serves to ensure that there is accountability with respect to the actions of tenants and staff. Regular updates to the Committee about complaints received will assist in the identification and mitigation of risks faced.

SIGNATURE:

“Michael Vear”

Michael Vear, CPA, CA, CPA (Illinois) Chief Internal Auditor ATTACHMENT:

1. Internal Audit – Complaints Received January 1, 2016 – June 30, 2016 (with comparatives for 2015)

STAFF CONTACT: Michael Vear, Chief Internal Auditor 416-981-4065 [email protected] Siu On Wong, Manager of Investigations 416-981-4229 [email protected]

Table 1Source of Complaints - Gross

- this shows the sources of ALL complaints received

No. % No. % No. %

Fraud Hotline 234 55.6 317 67.4 (83) (26.2)

EasyTrac 55 13.1 71 15.1 (16) (22.5)

Other City Fraud Line 3 0.7 4 0.9 (1) (25.0)

Call In - Telephone 0 0.0 2 0.4 (2) (100.0)

Staff/Internal Emails 59 14.0 47 10.0 12 25.5

Letter/External Emails 70 16.6 28 6.0 42 150.0

Walk In/Person 0 0.0 1 0.2 (1) (100.0)

Fax/Other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

421 100.0 470 100.0 (49) (10.4)

Attachment 1Internal Audit - Complaints Received

January 1, 2016 - June 30, 2016 (with comparatives for 2015)

2015 Change 2015 to 20162016

Page 1

Internal Audit Report: Complaints Received January 1, 2016 to June 30 2016 September 28, 2016 BIFAC Public Meeting Report: BIFAC:2016-123

Attachment 1



Table 2'Net' Complaints Received

- this table eliminates duplicate complaints, complaints about non-TCH properties, and non-fraud related complaints toto arrive at the 'true' (or 'net') number of complaints received

No. % No. % No. %

421 100.0 470 100.0 (49) (10.4)

Other Matters

Item Reported is Not Fraud 18 4.3 24 5.1 (6) (25.0)

Item Reported More Than Once 68 16.2 99 21.1 (31) (31.3)

Not a TCH Tenant or Unit 24 5.7 26 5.5 (2) (7.7)

Address Unknown 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total Other Matters (B) 110 26.1 149 31.7 (39) (26.2)

'Net' Complaints Received 311 73.9 321 68.3 (10) (3.1)(A) - (B)

'Gross' (Table 1) (A)Total Complaints Received

20152016 Change 2015 to 2016

Page 2


Attachment 1



Table 3'Net' Complaints Received Were About

- this table identifies if the 'net' complaints received were about Staff, Tenants, Contractors, or Other

No. % No. % No. %

Staff 26 8.4 10 3.1 16 160.0

Tenants 284 91.3 304 94.7 (20) (6.6)

Contractors 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Other 1 0.3 7 2.2 (6) (85.7)

311 100.0 321 100.0 (10) (3.1)Total 'Net' Complaints

20152016 Change 2015 to 2016

Page 3


Attachment 1



Table 4Nature of Complaints

- this sets out the general nature of the 'net' complaints received

No. % No. % No. %

StaffStaff Performance Complaints 6 1.9 3 0.9 3 100.0

Staff Complaints - Other 20 6.4 6 1.9 14 233.3

Waste 0 0.0 1 0.3 (1) (100.0)

Total Staff Complaints 26 8.4 10 3.1 16 160.0

TenantsUnreported Extra Members in Unit 112 36.0 139 43.3 (27) (19.4)

Unit/Room Being Sublet 89 28.6 67 20.9 22 32.8

Unreported Income 51 16.4 58 18.1 (7) (12.1)

Miscellaneous Fraud 16 5.1 10 3.1 6 60.0

Over housed Unit 7 2.3 14 4.4 (7) (50.0)

Market Rent Units 9 2.9 16 5.0 (7) (43.8)

Total Tenant Complaints 284 91.3 304 94.7 (20) (6.6)

Contractor 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Other 1 0.3 7 2.2 (6) (85.7)

Total 'Net' Complaints 311 100.0 321 100.0 (10) (3.1)

20152016 Change 2015 to 2016

Page 4


Attachment 1



Table 5Distribution by Operating Unit

- this shows the distribution of the 'net' complaints received by Operating Unit (OU)- it also compares (i) the OU's % of Complaints Received to (ii) the OU's number of units as a % of Total TCH units

means the OU's % of Complaints Received is LESS than it's % of Total TCH units

% of Total Units

% of Total Units

No. %

OUA - Seniors & Single Family East 8 2.6 11.6 6 1.9 13.3 2 33.3OUB - Seniors & Single Family West 10 3.2 11.0 19 5.9 11.0 (9) (47.4)OUC - Weston/Rexdale 8 2.6 4.5 15 4.7 5.4 (7) (46.7)OUD - York Black Creek 8 2.6 6.1 14 4.4 6.1 (6) (42.9)OUE - Etobicoke South High Park 16 5.1 7.3 20 6.2 7.3 (4) (20.0)OUF - Yorkdale Lawrence 25 8.0 3.7 17 5.3 3.7 8 47.1OUG - Willowdale Don Valley 13 4.2 4.1 29 9.0 4.1 (16) (55.2)OUH - Scarborough 15 4.8 3.9 13 4.0 5.1 2 15.4OUI - Scarborough Southwest 17 5.5 5.8 31 9.7 5.8 (14) (45.2)OUJ - Grange Bathurst St Lawrence 22 7.1 6.3 18 5.6 6.3 4 22.2OUK - Central Sherbourne 49 15.8 5.8 22 6.9 6.7 27 122.7OUL - Don Valley Beaches 16 5.1 5.2 25 7.8 5.2 (9) (36.0)OUM - Central Parliament 19 6.1 3.2 14 4.4 3.2 5 35.7

26 8.4 6.6 15 4.7 5.7 11 73.321 6.8 4.8 16 5.0 4.0 5 31.330 9.6 10.1 32 10.0 7.1 (2) (6.3)

Corporate Offices/Staff 1 0.3 N/A 5 1.6 N/A (4) 0.0Rent Supplement 5 1.6 N/A 7 2.2 N/A (2) (28.6)Non-TCHC 2 0.6 N/A 3 0.9 N/A (1) (33.3)Other Unknown 0 0.0 N/A 0 0.0 N/A 0 0.0

Total 'Net' Complaints 311 100.0 100.0 321 100.0 100.0 (10) (3.1)

OUW - Contract Managed WestOUX - Contract Managed CentralOUY - Contract Managed East

Complaints No. %

2016

Complaints No. %

2015 Change 2015 to 2016

means it is GREATER than

Page 5


Attachment 1



Table 6Hotline Usage

- these two tables show how complainants have been accessing the Do What's Right Hotline- Table 6a analyzes whether or not complainants choose to remain anonymous- Table 6b shows how complainants access the Do What's Right Hotline (e.g. internet, telephone etc.)- Tables 6a and 6b are based on the 'gross' number of complaints received on the Do What's Right Hotline (refer Table 1)

No. % No. % No. %

Table 6a - Anonymous vs. Not Anonymous

Anonymous 194 82.9 262 82.6 (68) (26.0)

Not Anonymous 40 17.1 55 17.4 (15) (27.3)

234 100.0 317 100.0 (83) (26.2)

Table 6b - Method Used to Access Hotline

Internet 61 26.1 138 43.5 (77) (55.8)

Telephone 172 73.5 179 56.5 (7) (3.9)

Email 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 100.0

Letter 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

234 100.0 317 100.0 (83) (26.2)

2016 2015 Change 2015 to 2016

Page 6


Attachment 1

Table 7Status of Complaints Received

'- for 'net' complaints received up to June 30th of the year noted, this sets out the status of the complaint as atSeptember 1, 2016

No. % No. % No. % No. %Tenants

Unreported Extra Members in Unit 2016 44 39.3 22 19.6 46 41.1 0 0.0

2015 81 58.3 43 30.9 15 10.8 0 0.0

Unit/Room Being Sublet 2016 23 25.8 26 29.2 39 43.8 1 1.1

2015 25 37.3 32 47.8 10 14.9 0 0.0

Unreported Income 2016 21 41.2 2 3.9 28 54.9 0 0.0

2015 25 43.1 18 31.0 15 25.9 0 0.0

Miscellaneous Fraud 2016 7 43.8 3 18.8 5 31.3 1 6.3

2015 4 40.0 4 40.0 2 20.0 0 0.0

Overhoused Unit 2016 4 57.1 3 42.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

2015 9 64.3 5 35.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

To Be AssignedComplaints Received

10

14

112

51

89

58

16

7



139

67

Unfounded FoundedClosed In Progress


Attachment 1



Table 7 (cont'd)Status of Complaints Received

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Staff

Other 2016 11 55.0 4 20.0 5 25.0 0 0.0

2015 6 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Waste 2016 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

2015 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Contractor 2016 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

2015 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

Other 2016 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 - 0 -

2015 2 28.6 5 71.4 0 - 0 -

Total 2016 110 37.2 61 20.6 123 41.6 2 0.7

Total 2015 153 50.7 107 35.4 42 13.9 0 0.0

NB: 2016 and 2015 Total Complaints Received will not agree to Table 4 because this table does not include Staff Performance Complaintsnor Market Rent Complaints. These complaint types are automatically referred to an Operating Unit.

302

20

0

0

7

296

6

1

1

0

In Progress To Be AssignedComplaints Received Founded

ClosedUnfounded


Attachment 1

of 3

Internal Audit Report: TCHC Employees Who Are Also TCHC RGI Tenants Item 4B September 28, 2016 Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee Report: BIFAC:2015-124





Service Excellence:

• Demonstrate Value for Money and Public Accountability PURPOSE: To provide the Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee (the Committee) with the Internal Audit report TCHC Employees Who Are Also TCHC RGI Tenants. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Committee receive the Internal Audit report TCHC Employees Who Are Also TCHC RGI Tenants for information. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Background

There are a number of Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) employees who are also TCHC Rent-Geared-To-Income (RGI) tenants (Employee/Tenants).

The Internal Audit Department (IAD) wanted to determine if there are situations where Employee/Tenants do not declare:

• They were part of the RGI household; or • Their income from TCHC despite being on the TCHC lease.

Such a situation would pose a risk of fraud, as well as non-compliance with the Housing Services Act, if RGI households that include TCHC staff are misrepresenting their income. There would also be a reputational risk to the organization.

of 3

Findings

A very small sample of Employee/Tenants did not declare their TCHC salary, or increase in TCHC salary, for the purpose of their household’s RGI rent calculation. IAD reported those exceptions TCHC management for resolution.

IAD also came across a number of administrative errors with respect to some Employee/Tenant household RGI calculations and reported them to TCHC management for resolution.

The main concern, however, is how should TCHC, which in these cases is both employer and landlord, treat employees who are also members of a TCHC RGI household with respect to disclosure of their employee’s income to their landlord.

This review raised a number of questions. For example, should TCHC:

• As the employer, automatically disclose to TCHC, the landlord, the Employee/Tenant’s annual income for RGI rent calculations? Or not?

• Perform an annual review of all Employee/Tenants to ensure that the appropriate income amounts have been reported?

• Require all TCHC employees, regardless of where they live, to acknowledge an obligation to disclose their income to TCHC if they are, or become, RGI tenants in a TCHC unit?

• Treat Employee/Tenants with the same privileges as other TCHC RGI tenants with respect to reporting income (which is self-reporting income as opposed to the tenants’ employer directly providing income information to TCHC)?

• Receive a complaint (e.g. through the TCHC Do What’s Right fraud hotline) that alleges an Employee/Tenant has not declared their TCHC income for RGI rent calculations, should this be reviewed as an HR/employee matter or a landlord/tenant matter?

These are complex issues for which IAD does not have a solution. This report recommends that management find them.

This report includes two Recommendations related to the queries noted above. Management has agreed with our Recommendations. Management’s Action Plan with respect to these Recommendations are included in this report.

IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: It is a risk of fraud, as well as non-compliance with the Housing Services Act, if RGI households that include TCHC staff are misrepresenting their income. There would also be a reputational risk to the organization.

In addition, it is important that TCHC, the landlord and the employer, set out protocols that will treat TCHC employees who are also RGI tenants with the same level of respect accorded to other RGI tenants.

of 3

SIGNATURE:

“Michael Vear”


1. Internal Audit Report: TCHC Employees Who Are Also TCHC RGI Tenants STAFF CONTACT: Michael Vear, Chief Internal Auditor 416-981-4065 [email protected] Genevieve Ségu, Manager Internal Audit 416-981-4397 [email protected]

Toronto Community Housing Corporation Internal Audit Department 1700 Finch Avenue East, Toronto ON M2J 4X8

TCHC Employees Who Are Also TCHC RGI Tenants

REPORT

September 7, 2016

Internal Audit Report: TCHC Employees Who Are Also TCHC RGI Tenants September 28, 2016 BIFAC Public Meeting Report: BIFAC:2016-124 Attachment 1

TCHC Employees Who Are Also TCHC RGI Tenants September 7, 2016

Page 1

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

1.0 BACKGROUND ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

2.0 ENGAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE -------------------------------------- 4

2.1 Engagement Objectives ------------------------------------------------------------- 4

2.2 Engagement Methodology and Scope ------------------------------------------ 4

3.0 DETAILED FINDINGS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

3.1 Non-Compliance with Income Reporting Requirements ----------------- 5

3.2 Sharing Payroll Information Between TCHC Departments -------------- 6

3.3 Complaints About TCHC Tenants Who Are Also TCHC Employees - 7

APPENDIX A: MANAGEMENT’S ACTION PLAN ---------------------------------------- 8



Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

There are a number of Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) employees who are also TCHC Rent-Geared-To-Income (RGI) tenants (Employee/Tenants).

The Internal Audit Department (IAD) wanted to determine if there are situations where Employee/Tenants do not declare:

• They were part of the RGI household; or • Their income from TCHC despite being on the TCHC lease.

Such a situation would pose a risk of fraud, as well as non-compliance with the Housing Services Act, if RGI households that include TCHC staff are misrepresenting their income. There would also be a reputational risk to the organization.

Findings

A small sample of Employee/Tenants did not declare their TCHC salary, or increase in TCHC salary, for the purpose of their household’s RGI rent calculation. IAD reported those exceptions TCHC management for resolution.

IAD also came across a number of administrative errors with respect to some Employee/Tenant household RGI calculations and reported them to TCHC management for resolution.

The main concern, however, is how should TCHC, which in these cases is both employer and landlord, treat employees who are also members of a TCHC RGI household with respect to disclosure of their employee’s income to their landlord.

This review raised a number of questions. For example, should TCHC:

• As the employer, automatically disclose to TCHC, the landlord, the Employee/Tenant’s annual income for RGI rent calculations? Or not?

• Perform an annual review of all Employee/Tenants to ensure that the appropriate income amounts have been reported?

• Require all TCHC employees, regardless of where they live, to acknowledge an obligation to disclose their income to TCHC if they are, or become, RGI tenants in a TCHC unit?

• Treat Employee/Tenants with the same privileges as other TCHC RGI tenants with respect to reporting income (which is self-reporting income as opposed to the tenants’ employer directly providing income information to TCHC)?

• Receive a complaint (e.g. through the TCHC Do What’s Right fraud hotline) that alleges an Employee/Tenant has not declared their TCHC income for RGI rent calculations, should this be reviewed as an HR/employee matter or a landlord/tenant matter?



Page 3

These are complex issues for which IAD does not have a solution. This report recommends that management find them.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank staff and management of the Legal, Asset Management and the Human Resources Departments for their cooperation and assistance during this audit.

CONTACT

Barb Kapeluch Business Analyst Internal Audit Department 416-981-4209 [email protected]

Genevieve Segu, CPA, CMA, CIA, CRMA, CISA Manager, Internal Audit Internal Audit Department 416-981-4397 [email protected]

Approved

Michael Vear, CPA, CA, CPA (Illinois) Chief Internal Auditor Internal Audit Department 416-981-4065 [email protected]



Page 4

1.0 BACKGROUND

According to the Housing Services Act (the Act), Housing Providers are required to review income of RGI households at least once every 12 months. The Act also states that households receiving RGI assistance must report any changes to the household composition, income and/or assets within 30 days of the change occurring.

There are a number of TCHC employees who are also TCHC RGI tenants (Employee/Tenants).

2.0 ENGAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

2.1 Engagement Objectives

The objectives of this assignment were to determine if:

• Employee/Tenants in RGI units are declaring themselves as part of the household;

• Employee/Tenants are reporting TCHC income;

• Rent is being calculated properly for Employee/Tenant households; and

• There are opportunities for improvement, as appropriate.

2.2 Engagement Methodology and Scope

Our methodology included:

• Reviewing policies, procedures and forms relevant to the process;

• Analyzing data;

• Examining a sample of Employee/Tenant tenancy files; and

• Performing an analysis on our findings.

In 2014, out of the 1,540 employees working for TCHC, 5% (76) lived in a RGI unit managed by TCHC.

Internal Audit reviewed the tenant files of 15 units where an Employee/Tenant was identified. This represented approximately 20% of the identified Employee/Tenants. Since Internal Audit used a risk based approach to select the tenant files, the results of the audit are not to be extrapolated over the population of 76 employees that are also TCHC tenants.



Page 5

3.0 DETAILED FINDINGS

3.1 Non-Compliance with Income Reporting Requirements

Six of the fifteen (6/15) files reviewed were non-compliant with the income reporting requirements under the Act.

3.1.1 Salary Not Reported

Two households did not report the salary of the TCHC employee in the household’s income. IAD referred these two files directly to the Human Resources (HR) Department for review and follow up. 3.1.2 Increase in Income Not Reported

One household did not declare the increase in income of the TCHC employee included in the household.

Management has informed Internal Audit that they have updated the household’s rent calculation retroactively.

3.1.3 Delay in Reporting Increase in Income

Three households waited until their next rent review date to declare the income or increase in income of the TCHC employee included in the household instead of the required 30 days. Since then, two of the employees have left TCHC’s employment.

For these three files, Management has informed Internal Audit that they have updated the household’s rent calculation retroactively.

Risk of Data Manipulation

As a compensating exercise, we reviewed the names of the Employee/Tenants and compared them to the names of employees who have the ability to make changes in the system that charges the tenant’s account, Housing Management System (HMS).

None of these Employee/Tenants had or have access to changing data in the HMS system.

Lost Revenue

For the households in 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, Internal Audit estimated a potential revenue loss of approximately $15,300 for the year 2015.

Though the dollar amounts are not material to TCHC’s operations, there is a potential reputational risk, and also a possible loss of confidence from our clients and other stakeholders.



Page 6

3.2 Sharing Payroll Information Between TCHC Departments

As noted above, there were three instances where a TCHC employee who is a member of a TCHC RGI household did not follow the income reporting rules set out in the Act.

This raises the following questions:

• How does the corporation mitigate this risk? • Alternatively, should the corporation even be trying to mitigate this risk?

Direct Exchange of Information

By mitigating the risk, should there be an automatic exchange of the TCHC employee’s annual income information from the Payroll Department to the household’s Tenant Services Coordinator (TSC)1 to calculate the Employee/Tenant’s household’s Annual Review? When the employee receives an increase in salary, should this information be automatically shared with the TSC so that they can revise the rent calculation for the household?

The Honour System

Alternatively, the reporting of annual income by an RGI household, or increases in income, for purposes of RGI rent calculations is essentially based on the honour system. Within certain reporting requirements, RGI tenants will submit the requisite documents and information to their TSC. TCHC does not receive this information directly from the source of this income.

As such:

• Why should TCHC employees, who are also members of a RGI household, be treated any differently?

• Why should there be an automatic exchange of income information from their employer, which happens to be TCHC, to their landlord, which also happens to be TCHC. Should there not be an expectation that the Employee/Tenant will fully and timely report their income?

Another consideration, should all TCHC employees, regardless of where they live, be required to acknowledge an obligation to disclose their income to TCHC if they are, or become, RGI tenants in a TCHC unit?

We do not have the answer to these questions.

There are currently no policies or procedures in place to address the sharing of information about employees who are also RGI tenants of TCHC.

Recommendation #1

Management develop a policy and/or protocol with respect to the internal identification and sharing of annual income information between TCHC

1 Tenant Services Coordinators are responsible for calculating a household’s RGI rent amount.



Page 7

departments of TCHC employees who are also TCHC RGI tenants, if appropriate.

3.3 Complaints About TCHC Tenants Who Are Also TCHC Employees

Where it comes to management’s and/or staff’s attention that allegedly a RGI household:

• Does not appear to be declaring all of the household income; and/or • Includes a person who is not on the lease,

there are mechanisms and procedures in place to review such allegations.

If such a complaint is made about, or is related to, a TCHC employee who is also a member of an RGI household, the review of such an allegation becomes problematic, as there are no policies/procedures in place to follow. Is it a:

• Landlord/tenant matter (following the normal processes of a tenant complaint)? or

• Human Resources/Professional Conduct complaint?

And, depending on the answer, how and by whom should such a complaint be reviewed?

Again, we do not have the answer to these questions.

Recommendation #2

Management develop a policy and/or protocol with respect to the review of complaints received involving RGI tenants who are also TCHC employees and who allegedly:

• Did not disclose their TCHC income for RGI calculation purposes; or

• Have not been included on the household’s lease.



Page 8

APPENDIX A: MANAGEMENT’S ACTION PLAN

# Recommendation Agree/Disagree

Management’s Action Plan

Timeline

1 Management develop a policy and/or protocol with respect to the internal identification and sharing of annual income information between TCHC departments of TCHC employees who are also TCHC RGI tenants, if appropriate.

Agree A policy and/or protocol will be developed, taking into consideration such things as the Ontario Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

Q2-2017

2 Management develop a policy and/or protocol with respect to the review of complaints received involving RGI tenants who are also TCHC employees and who allegedly:

• Did not disclose their TCHC income for RGI calculation purposes; or

• Have not been included on the household’s lease.

Agree A policy and/or protocol will be developed, taking into consideration such things as MFIPPA.

Q2-2017


of 3

Internal Audit Report: Rent Geared to Income Calculation 2015 Supplementary Report Item 4C September 28, 2016 Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee Report: BIFAC:2015-125





Service Excellence:

• Demonstrate Value for Money and Public Accountability PURPOSE: To provide the Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee (the Committee) with the Internal Audit report Rent Geared to Income Calculation 2015 Supplementary Report. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Committee receive the Internal Audit report Rent Geared to Income Calculation 2015 Supplementary Report for information. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Background

During their audit of Toronto Community Housing Corporation’s (TCHC) 2014 year-end financial statements, TCHC’s auditors (PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)) noted errors made in Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) rent calculations in 2013 and 2014.

Management rectified the identified errors and created an action plan approved by the Board to prevent such errors from occurring in the future.

The Board also requested the Chief Internal Auditor to include RGI rent calculation reviews as part of the Internal Audit Work Plan. The intent of the review was to conduct

of 3

an independent review of RGI calculations and support PwC’s 2015 year end audit work.

PwC selected a sample of 100 RGI calculations throughout 2015 for their and IAD’s review that was conducted in two phases:

• First tranche, 75 files: In our October 20, 2015 report, Rent Geared to Income Calculation Review 20151, we reported on RGI calculations of 75 tenant files over the period of January 2015 to August 2015, inclusive; and

• Second tranche: 25 files: This supplementary report sets out the results of our review of the remaining 25 RGI calculations for the period of September 2015 to December 2015.

Findings

In the current sample of 272 RGI calculations we found:

• No instances where the RGI calculation resulted in an overcharge of rent to the tenant;

• 2 instances where the RGI calculation resulted in an undercharge of rent to the tenant; and

• The net $ error rate amounted to 0.46% ($39 per month on a sample of $8,520 per month).

Similar to our previous report, we continued to find deficiencies in the availability of supporting documentation for RGI calculations.

These findings were communicated to management.

No further recommendations are made in this report as we will follow-up in the fall of 2016 on the recommendations made in the October 2015 report.

IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: The 2015 RGI calculation review program was developed to decrease the following risks to the Corporation:

• Overcharging tenants; • Incurring revenue loss by undercharging tenants; and • Losing confidence from tenants, shareholders, and the public if all tenants are

not treated fairly and not in alignment with its mandate.

1 This report was presented at the November 16, 2015 meeting of the Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee. 2 This supplementary review was based on 27 tenant files with a RGI calculation during the time period of September 2015 to December 2015, inclusive. The sample size and actual files were selected by PwC and included 2 additional files to make up for the first sample where two tenants were market rent at the time of the review rather than being RGI tenants.

of 3

SIGNATURE:

“Michael Vear”


1. Internal Audit Report: Rent Geared to Income Calculation 2015 Supplementary Report

STAFF CONTACT: Michael Vear, Chief Internal Auditor 416-981-4065 [email protected] Genevieve Ségu, Manager Internal Audit 416-981-4397 [email protected]

Toronto Community Housing Corporation Internal Audit Department 1700 Finch Avenue East, Toronto ON M2J 4X8

Rent Geared to Income Calculation Review 2015

Supplementary Report

September 6, 2016

Internal Audit Report: Rent Geared to Income Calculation 2015 Supplementary Report September 28, 2016 BIFAC Public Meeting Report: BIFAC:2016-125

Attachment 1

Rent Geared to Income Calculation Review 2015 Supplementary Report

September 6, 2016 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

During their audit of Toronto Community Housing Corporation’s (TCHC) 2014 year-end financial statements, TCHC’s auditors (PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)) noted errors made in Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) rent calculations in 2013 and 2014.

Management rectified the identified errors and created an action plan approved by the Board to prevent such errors from occurring in the future.

The Board also requested the Chief Internal Auditor to include RGI rent calculation reviews as part of the Internal Audit Work Plan. The intent of the review was to conduct an independent review of RGI calculations and support PwC’s 2015 year end audit work.

PwC selected a sample of 100 RGI calculations throughout 2015 for their and IAD’s review that was conducted in two phases:

• First tranche, 75 files: In our October 20, 2015 report, Rent Geared to Income Calculation Review 20151, we reported on RGI calculations of 75 tenant files over the period of January 2015 to August 2015, inclusive; and

• Second tranche: 25 files: This supplementary report sets out the results of our review of the remaining 25 RGI calculations for the period of September 2015 to December 2015.

Audit Objectives

In agreement with senior management, the objectives of this audit were to:

• Determine whether tenant RGI calculations were made in accordance with TCHC policies and procedures and relevant legislation;

• Ascertain the error rate of RGI calculations, based on a sample; • Assess the completeness of the rent review documentation; and • Identify opportunities for improvement, as appropriate.

Methodology and Scope

Our methodology included:

• Examining documents in a sample of tenant files; • Using an Audit tool designed by Internal Audit to verify RGI calculations; and • Performing an analysis on our findings.

This review was based on 27 tenant files with a RGI calculation during the time period of September 2015 to December 2015, inclusive. The sample size and actual files were selected by PwC and included 2 additional files to make up for the first sample where two tenants were market rent at the time of the review rather than being RGI tenants.

In making their sample selection PwC excluded tenant files from contract managed buildings (approximately 21% of TCHC’s tenants).

1 This report was presented at the November 16, 2015 meeting of the Building Investment, Finance and Audit Committee.


Attachment 1



Terminology

For purposes of this report:

• An overcharge means that the RGI rent calculation resulted in the tenant being charged rent greater than what was supposed to be; and

• An undercharge means that the RGI rent calculation resulted in the tenant being charged rent less than what was supposed to be.

When this was first brought to management’s and the Board’s attention for fiscal 2014, it was decided that tenants reviewed in the sample who were:

• Overcharged would receive a refund of the amount overcharged retroactively for a two year period; and

• Undercharged would be charged the correct amount of rent on a go forward basis.

Findings

In the current sample of 27 RGI calculations we found:

• No instances where the RGI calculation resulted in an overcharge of rent to the tenant;

• 2 instances where the RGI calculation resulted in an undercharge of rent to the tenant; and

• The net $ error rate amounted to 0.46% ($39 per month on a sample of $8,520 per month).

Similar to our previous report, we continued to find deficiencies in the availability of supporting documentation for RGI calculations.

No further recommendations are made in this report as IAD will follow-up in the fall of 2016 on the recommendations made in the October 2015 report.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank staff and management in the following areas:

• Asset Management; • all of the Operating Units; and • Finance

for their cooperation and assistance during this audit.

Prepared by: Barb Kapeluch Business Analyst Internal Audit Department 416-981-4209 [email protected]

Reviewed by: Genevieve Segu, CPA, CMA, CIA, CRMA, CISA Manager, Internal Audit Internal Audit Department 416-981-4397 [email protected]


Attachment 1



Approved

Michael Vear, CPA, CA, CPA (Illinois) Chief Internal Auditor Internal Audit Department 416-981-4065 [email protected]


Attachment 1



DETAILED REPORT

1.0 RGI Calculations Compliance

Findings:

Errors Per Number of RGI Calculations Reviewed

With respect to the number of RGI calculations reviewed for the second stage review:

• No overcharges were detected; and • 2/27 files were noted as the TSC having undercharged the rent calculation.

Dollar Value of Errors Noted

• The following table summarizes the dollar value of the errors made in the second stage of the 2015 sample for undercharges, showing that the undercharges of $39 represent a 0.46% error rate ($39 per month on a sample of $8,520 per month).

In this table:

• $ Sample Error means the dollar amount of the rent calculation error for all of the errors noted for a one month period; and

• $ Sample Population means the dollar value of the monthly rent for all tenants included in the sample tested.

$ Rent

Undercharged

$ Sample error ($39)

$ Sample population $8,520

% Error (0.46%)

The nature of the errors found have been communicated to management for rectification and further training to staff.

Mitigation Strategy

When the matter of errors in RGI calculations arose with respect to the TCHC 2014 fiscal year end, the Board approved an action plan to address the issues raised.

Included in that action plan was the creation of the role of Administrative Audit Assistant (AAA) for each TCHC operating unit. The responsibilities of this position includes the review of all annual RGI calculations prior to the tenant being notified of same.

Although at the time of our review the AAAs were not yet fully deployed, management indicated that, as part of the AAA implementation, they are also tracking the nature of the errors in order to identify training needs.

2.0 Completeness of Rent Review Documentation

In our October 2015 report we noted a number of deficiencies in the availability of supporting documentation for RGI calculations.


Attachment 1



In this supplementary review we continued to find deficiencies in appropriate documents to support the RGI calculations, such as:

• Missing documentation; • Documents other than those prescribed by the RGI Manual were used for rent

calculations; and • Missing signatures on the Income and Assets Review Form.

Although the poor documentation is not a direct link to calculation errors, we had to rely on previous rent reviews.

Mitigation Strategy

During the current review we obtained the necessary documentation to rectify some of those documentation deficiencies.

We also understand that the AAAs’ responsibilities includes obtaining adequate supporting documentation prior to processing Annual Rent Reviews.

3.0 Previous Recommendations Made

In our October 2015 report we made a number of recommendations with respect to RGI calculations and tenant file documentation.

We will report on the status of those recommendations as part of our annual follow up review of recommendations made in Internal Audit reports.


Attachment 1

BUILDING INVESTEMENT, FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE … · Building Investment, Finance and Audit...

Documents

Transcript of BUILDING INVESTEMENT, FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE … · Building Investment, Finance and Audit...