Answers to REOI Questions (Until September 6Th)
Answers to REOI Questions (until September 6th)
Question 1: For the single and multi-family portfolio:How many RGI households get OW/ODSP and pay the scale?How many RGI households pay based on income calculation?How many RGI households get OW/ODSP and pay that amount?
Answer:We are still gathering this information. Answer will be included with next week's questions
Question 2: What is the level of arrears in the single and multi-family portfolio? What is the level of arrears in the rooming house portfolio?
Answer: The arrears level (rent past 60 days due) is currently at
- 14 units in the rooming house portfolio
- 37 units in the scattered portfolio
Question 3: How does TCHC expect to hand off the arrears issue? Will the new entity be expected to pursue the arrears with LTB?
Answer: This has not been determined. We will ensure that this is covered in any follow up RFP should Council direct us to move forward with an RFP.
Question 4:Are there any non-arrears legal claims by or against TCHC regarding the scattered portfolio that won’t be resolved by the time of the transfer?
Answer: This has not been determined. We will ensure that this is covered in any follow up RFP should Council direct us to move forward with an RFP.
Question 5: For both REOIs, What info are you looking for in section d) regarding partners?Do you want sources of revenue for them?Do you want annual reports?
Answer: As noted in the REOI, for potential partners we are looking for:
- Organization name, address, contact information
- Board member list
- Senior staff list
- Organization name, contact information of any partner or consortium involved with thisproposal
- Existing portfolio details of proponent or partner
- Sources of revenue
Question 6: If a not-for-profit corporation wishes to express interest in units on both the lists, does it have to send in a complete response for each REOI, or is it sufficient to submit a response for the single and multi-family portfolio plus a list of rooming houses it is interested in?
Answer: It can be one submission that identifies the rooming houses as a separate category to answer the specific questions related to supports for vulnerable tenants.
Question 7: Average Market Rent for Rooms in Rooming Houses: How did you come up with the figure of $1,088 used for most of the rooms – this matches the bachelor apartment CMHC AMR, is that the basis?
Answer: Since there is no AMR published for rooming houses the bachelor unit figure was used.
Question 8: I note that some of the rooming houses have AMR given at lower rates ($858-900) and one (Rose Ave) at a very low rate, why is this?
Answer: AMR was stated at Zone rate for bachelors, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. There is a variance in the rates used which is dependent on the Zone. For 41 Rose Ave. the numbers were calculated as follows:
5 rooms x $1,088 = $5,440
4 bachelors x$1,088 = $4,352
2 one-bedroom units x $1,336 = $2,672
Question 9: As an agency that leases rooming house properties from TCHC, we know that the AMR figures provided bear no relationship to the actual rent collected in such buildings. Most tenants of these buildings are on social assistance, so the rents available are easily calculated. For example, if the building is an RGI building, the rent collected would be in the $89-120 range for clients on social assistance. Even if the building is not RGI, the rents collected are likely to be in the $450-480 range for those on social assistance. Does the City intend to provide resources to community agencies running buildings to bridge the gap between rent collection and the AMR?
Answer: We are looking to respondents to tell us how much funding is required to bridge the gap between market rent and rent paid, based on proposed operating budgets and capital expenditure/repair plans. As noted in Section 3 of the REOI, a) The City will provide rent supports so that current RGI tenants continue to live in their homes and continue to receive a subsidy, for as long as they continue to qualify for a rent subsidy.
Question 10: If the answer to 9 is no, what will the City do to generate a more realistic estimate of actual building revenues between now and the RFP proposed for 2018?
Answer: See above (Question 9).
Question 11: If the answer to 9 is yes for some buildings (i.e. those with rent supplement dollars attached), which buildings?
Answer: See above (Question 9).
Question 12: Capital: In the RFP for 15 Selby, the City has proposed providing $200,000 for capital reserve and maintenance to the successful applicant. Given that the capital back logs on the rooming houses are very substantial (and much higher than the capital requirements for Selby), is the City’s intention to (a) provide capital supports to the organizations proposing taking on these buildings or (b) that this will be done entirely by the agency leveraging the value of the property to borrow funds as the REOI appears to suggest?
Answer: We are looking to REOI respondents to propose what is realistic in terms of support for operational expenses and capital expenditures/repairs. The responses to the REOI will be used to develop a plan which will go beforeCity Council in Fall 2017 for consideration of a potential RFP in 2018.
Question 13: Given that the AMR as described in questions 1-3 are not realistic in their estimate of the revenues that can be generated by these buildings and given that the utilities/taxes/basic maintenance costs identified in the REOI for these buildings would use up all or almost all of the actual rents that can be collected from the individuals in these buildings, how does the City propose to bridge the gap to allow buildings to be maintained effectively?
Answer: See answer above (Question 12)