affordable housing residential rehabilitation assistance...

-1-

A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g

R e s i d e n t i a lR e h a b i l i t a t i o n

A s s i s t a n c e P r o g r a m

O c t o b e r 2 0 0 4

-2-

Preamble

This paper documents the research conducted as part of one of the projects approved by Calgary CityCouncil through the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. This paper identifies current RRAPoperations and analyses the existing obstacles related to maximising the potential funding available.Research conducted for this examination included key informant interviews, review of relevant literature,and information gathered through a review of best practices used by other municipalities. The paperconcludes with recommendations for revising the program. It should be noted, Canda Mortgage andHousing Corporation annually reviews and revises Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program criteria.Information in this report accurately reflects criteria at the time research was conducted, May throughAugust 2004.

This paper was composed by Erik Nilsen and Bruce Irvine, with the support of the Building RegulationsRRAP team. Should you have any questions regarding the materials in this document, please contacteither one of us as follows:

Bruce Irvine Erik NilsenSenior Business Liasion Planning Researcher Development and Building Approvals Development and Building Approvals Planning, Development & Assessment Planning, Development & AssessmentEmail: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: 403-268-6424 Telephone: 403-268-8080

R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e P r o g r a m R e v i e wD e v e l o p m e n t a n d B u i l d i n g A p p r o v a l s

-3-

RRAP

Table of ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................4

BACKGROUND: SITUATING THE RRAP REVIEW ..........................................................................................8

COUNCIL PRIORITIES............................................................................................................................................8

AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................8

DEFINING THE ISSUE ..................................................................................................................................................8A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH .................................................................................................................................8

RRAP PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................9

PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................................9THE ROLE OF THE CITY..............................................................................................................................................9

RRAP FUNDING QUALIFICATIONS AND GUIDELINES...............................................................................10

QUALIFICATIONS......................................................................................................................................................10GUIDELINES .............................................................................................................................................................10

RATIONALE FOR RRAP REVIEW ......................................................................................................................11

SERVICE DELIVERY RATIONALE ..............................................................................................................................11ECONOMIC/ OPERATIONAL RATIONALE...................................................................................................................11

RRAP REVIEW OBJECTIVE AND DIRECTIVES .............................................................................................12

BUILDING REGULATIONS INTERNAL REVIEW ...........................................................................................13

RRAP RESEARCH STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................14

ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND RELATED INFORMATION ................................................14TARGETED INTERVIEWS ..........................................................................................................................................14RRAP BEST-PRACTICE REVIEW ..............................................................................................................................15KEY FINDINGS .........................................................................................................................................................16RRAP NOT REACHING ENOUGH TARGET CLIENTS TO MAXIMISE FUNDING ...........................................................16APPLICATION PROCESS IMPEDING RRAP SUBMISSIONS AND APPROVALS ..............................................................19RRAP PERFORMANCE LIMITED BY EXISTING PROGRAM STRUCTURE .....................................................................20

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES............................................................................................................................23

ALTERNATIVE 1:MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.........................................................................................................23ALTERNATIVE 2: DISCONTINUE CITY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL PROGRAM..............................................23ALTERNATIVE 3; THE CITY FORMALLY REQUESTS CMHC TO REDRESS OPERATIONAL OBSTACLES AND PARALLELCITY INITIATIVES.....................................................................................................................................................24ALTERNATIVES 4,5,6; ENACT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT UNDER VARIOUS CITY STRUCTURES..............................24ALTERNATIVE 4:ENACT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT UNDER CURRENT CITY STRUCTURE........................................28ALTERNATIVE 5;ENACT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT UNDER REVISED CITY STRUCTURE..........................................29ALTERNATIVE 6:HOUSE RRAP WITHIN COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES ........................................30

RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................31

GAUGING SUCCESS ..................................................................................................................................................31IMPLEMENT PRESCRIBED PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS UNDER CURRENT CITY STRUCTURE.....................................31IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ..................................................................................................................................34EXPECTATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................34

Appendix A: RRAP Guidelines Matrix


-4-

AHIP

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

Residential Rehabil i tat ion AssistanceProgram (RRAP) BackgroundThe RRAP is a Federally funded programadministered in Calgary by the Municipal government.The RRAP presents an important opportunity for TheCity to assist in addressing the Affordable Housingsituation. Simply stated, the program can beinstrumental in maintaining the Affordable Housingstock and improving housing accessibility to low-income Calgarians.

Rationale for RRAP ReviewIn the past few years, monies made available byCanada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)have not been completely utilised. The City ofCalgary is undertaking a RRAP Review for two keyreasons: to consider improvements in service deliveryand to address economic/operational performances.

RRAP Review ScopeIn light of the Rationale for RRAP Review outlinedabove, the RRAP Review carries the followingobjective, as established by City Council:

� Encourage development of Affordable Housingby utilising Residential Rehabilitation AssistanceProgram funding to its fullest extent.

Research MethodologyThe research for this Review incorporated fourapproaches in order to ensure a broad spectrum ofunderstanding. The four main tools utilised included:

� Literature review of related information;� Targeted interviews of both internal and external

stakeholders;� Discussion with the Building Regulations RRAP

team; and� Best-practice reviews of other municipalities

using standardised interviews.

Principal FindingImportantly, the principal finding of this report is asfollows:

� Opportunities exist to improve Calgary’sperformance in RRAP maximisation.

This principal finding is supplemented by the followingreality, derived from the research:

� There is not one explicit tool, strategy, orapproach that can account for strongperformance in RRAP maximisation.

Key FindingsThree key findings suggest the following reasons whyThe City of Calgary is not currently maximisingavailable RRAP funding opportunities:

1. RRAP is not reaching enough target clients tomaximise funding allocations;

2. RRAP application process is impedingsubmissions and approvals; and

3. RRAP performance is limited by existing programstructure.

Details of these three key findings are outlined below.

RRAP is not reaching enough target c l ien tsto maximise funding a l locat ions

� Public awareness of the RRAP is limited;� Ambiguity regarding responsibility in the

provision of program promotions is hindering thedevelopment of a comprehensive marketingstrategy;

� Annual revisions to RRAP directives contributesto misunderstandings about the program; and

� Calgary has experienced limited success inengaging the private-sector.

RRAP appl icat ion process is impedingsubmiss ions and approvals

� RRAP application and approvals process isonerous, making access to available fundingdifficult; and

� Recent internal initiatives in application trackingpromise to address previous issues in efficiencyand monitoring.

RRAP per fo rmance is l imi ted by ex is t ingprogram s tructure


-5-

AHIP

� RRAP does not adequately account for unique,local housing circumstances in Calgary;

� CMHC can play a more assertive role incoordinating program stacking approaches; and

� The City can play a more assertive role in RRAPperformance by improving opportunities forconjunction funding.

Findings from Best-Practice ReviewIn addition to the above key findings, results from thebest-practice review require particular considerationin the development of a RRAP maximisation strategy.Best-practice research demonstrates that:

� Cities with strong performance in RRAPmaximisation variably apply a series of programenhancements that correspond with unique, localhousing circumstances; and

� There is not one explicit tool, strategy, orapproach that can account for strongperformance in RRAP maximisation.

RecommendationsRecommendations were derived in view of sixprogram alternatives considered for the RRAP.

The following recommendations identify how The Citycan maintain its commitment to Affordable Housingthrough enhancing the RRAP, while at the same timeimproving operational performances in the BusinessUnit administering the program.

Implement Prescr ibed ProgramEnhancements under Current Ci tyStructure

In order to maximise existing funding opportunities, itis recommended that the following programenhancements be implemented.

The enhancements will broaden the scope of theRRAP in a manner that efficiently yields moresuccessful applications. As a result, the program willreach more Calgarians and The City will augment itstake of available allocations, all the while generatinggreater revenues through program administration.

1. Leverage ex is t ing Ci ty resourcesthrough improved communicat ion wi th

Communi ty and Neighbourhood Serv icesand other in te rnal s takeholders;

2. Leverage external s takeholders such asCommuni ty Resource Groups andcontractors th rough greater communica t ionand a year end recogni t ion event ;

3. Incorporate geographic targe t ingtechniques to ass is t e f for ts in ra is ingawareness in those areas conta in ingconcentrat ions of poten t ia l qual i f iedappl icants;

4. Engage pr ivate-sec tor bui lders throughtargeted awareness campaigns andRequest For Proposals conducted inconcer t wi th CMHC;

5. Improve s ingle pro ject management fo rappl icat ion receipt , t rack ing, andinterdepartmenta l coord inat ion.

6. CMHC and The Ci ty shouldcol laborat ive ly engage in ra is ing publ icawareness; and

7. The Ci ty Requests CMHC to RedressOperat ional Obstac les and Paral le l Ci tyIn i t ia t ives

The City of Calgary recognises its role and acceptsthat the Corporation must contribute to achievingRRAP maximisation. However, RRAP goals ofproviding Affordable Housing are a Federalresponsibility. As such, CMHC should be asked torespond to the local context and assist in the reviewof identified process obstacles. Specifically, CMHCshould be asked to:

1. Reduce requirements for third party verificationon City inspected deficiencies;

2. Review potentially overly stringent interpretationof qualification criteria;

3. Participate in collaborative efforts to promoteawareness of RRAP in Calgary;

4. Permit greater utilisation of community serviceorganisations in finding potential applicants;


-6-

AHIP

5. Permit identification of areas of high potential inorder to most efficiently target awarenesscampaigns;

6. Collaborate with the City in efforts to engageprivate-sector participation, including the use oftargeted awareness campaigns and jointRequest For Proposals; and

7. Review ways to improve opportunities forprogram stacking.

The findings of this research report have beendiscussed with CMHC management. The City andCMHC have agreed to work more collaboratively inview of strengthening the RRAP in Calgary.

Implementat ion StrategyA comprehensive implementation strategy will beprovided to Building Regulations. The strategy willoutline in detail the administrative actions required toeffectively execute the above programenhancements.

ExpectationsIt is anticipated that funding utilisation will increasebetween 40-60% or $500,000 over 3 years. Thismeans that the RRAP will support approximately 100-125 additional housing units.

Furthermore, the program enhancements will allowBuilding Regulations to reduce operating costs byroughly $150,000 over 3 years.

-7-

RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATIONASSISTANCE PROGRAM REVIEW


RRAP

B A C K G R O U N D :S I T U A T I N G T H E R R A PR E V I E W

C o u n c i l P r i o r i t i e sLooking Ahead – Moving Forward

Calgary City Council identified its prioritiesfor 2002 – 2004 in the document LookingAhead – Moving Forward. This directivedefines Council’s priorities and serves as aroad map for the Corporation’s direction.

Looking Ahead – Moving Forward supportsadvancing ‘smart growth’ in responding tothe ambition for accessible, affordable, anddesirable communities. This broad visionestablishes Affordable Housing as anintegral part of better communities.

In defining its priorities, Council hascommitted to confirming and implementing acomprehensive, long-term AffordableHousing strategy, with the intent ofachieving an increased supply of safe andaffordable housing.

A

D eOnCoideop

Importantly, this strategy defines AffordableHousing as follows:

Affordable housing adequately suitsthe needs of low- and moderate-income households at costs belowthose generally found in the Calgarymarket. It may take a number offorms that exist along a continuumfrom emergency shelters, totransitional housing, to non-marketrental (also known as social orsubsidized housing), to formal andinformal rental and ending withaffordable home ownership.

Affordable Housing projects are targeted tohouseholds with 65 percent or less of thearea median income. The CorporateAffordable Housing Strategy has definedCalgary’s vision and instituted strategies todeliver Affordable Housing to those in need.

A C o m p r e h e n s i v e A p p r o a c hIn 2003 January, an Affordable HousingImplementation Team (AHIT) was formedby bringing together housing-relatedresources across City Business Units.Based on this collaborative approach, theimplementation program for the CorporateAffordable Housing Strategy wasdeveloped.

On 2003 June 9, Council endorsed anAffordable Housing Implementation Plan,designed to utilise all of the Corporation’sAffordable Housing resources. Ten priorityprojects are recommended as an

In addressing social change,Council’s priority is to “work towarda safe, inclusive community … thatresponds to the needs of itsvulnerable and disadvantagedcitizens, and where diversity isembraced and valued as acommunity asset”.

– Looking Ahead, Moving Forward

-8-

f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g C o n t e x t

f i n i n g t h e I s s u e 2002 July 23, Council endorsed therporate Affordable Housing Strategy tontify Affordable Housing efforts andportunities across the Corporation.

implementation plan that contribute to thegoal of increasing Calgary’s AffordableHousing supply. Residential RehabilitationAssistance Program (RRAP) Maximisationis one of the ten identified projects of theAffordable Housing Implementation Plan.


-9-

RRAP

R R A P P r o g r a m O v e r v i e w a n dO b j e c t i v e s

P u r p o s eThe RRAP is a Federally funded programadministered by CMHC. Established in1973, the RRAP was originally designed toalleviate the problem of a deterioratinghousing stock for low-income Canadians.While the RRAP has undergone slightprogram modifications over time, itsprincipal focus remains on maintaining thelow-income rental and owner-occupiedhousing stock across Canada. Specifically,the objectives of the RRAP are to:

� Repair or rehabilitate units occupied bylow-income households to minimumlevels of health and safety;

� Help maintain the stock of AffordableHousing; and

� Improve the accessibility of unitsoccupied by low-income occupants withdisabilities

The RRAP is targeted at five key needsareas, organised around the followingprograms:

� Homeowner RRAP� Rental RRAP� RRAP for Persons with Disabilities� Rooming House RRAP� RRAP for Conversions

T h e R o l e o f t h e C i t y The City of Calgary’s Development andBuilding Approvals (DBA) currently acts asthe program delivery agent in Calgary. Thiswork falls to staff within DBA’s BuildingRegulations Division. Primarily responsiblefor ensuring that buildings within the city aresafe and healthy for occupancy, BuildingRegulations inspectors offer an expertise inconstruction and building methods wellsuited for RRAP qualifying inspections.

In the completion of their work, staff arebound by the ethical obligations as SafetyCodes Officers to enforce both Federal andProvincial legislation related to health andsafety of buildings.

As the RRAP delivery agent for Calgary,Building Regulations performs the following:

1. Assist in filing RRAP applications;2. Evaluate the condition of housing units

or buildings with respect to health andsafety standards; and

3. Manage the financial components of theRRAP.

A contract between Building Regulationsand CMHC is established each year. Thecontract outlines duties of The City –including its responsibilities and obligations- and details the manner in which it mustcomplete RRAP work.

In exchange for this service, The Cityreceives a small stipend based onsuccessful RRAP applications. The Cityreceives no compensation for any otherassistance granted to applicants, or forthose applications judged by CMHC as notmeeting Federal program requirements.

As much of the RRAP service is notcompensated for, RRAP is not designed inaccordance with Council’s mandate of cost-recovery.


RRAP

R R A P F u n d i n gQ u a l i f i c a t i o n s a n dG u i d e l i n e s

Q u a l i f i c a t i o n sGenerally speaking, to qualify for RRAPfunding, individual homeowners or buildingoccupants must have an income level belowa certain threshold established by CMHC.Furthermore, property values of a housingunit or building must fall under designatedvalues.

More specifically, RRAP fundingqualifications require that a housing unit orproject must be substandard or deficient inone or more of the following categories:

� Structural � Electrical � Plumbing � Heating � Fire Safety � Overcrowding

Often referred to as the ApplicationsQualifier, one deficiency in the abovecategories must constitute a pre-set repairvalue. If there is an acceptable qualifyingitem, it is a requirement that all items on theproperty return to Code Standards (asdetermined by a Safety Codes Officer) afterthe rehabilitation of the housing unit orbuilding.

G u i d e l i n e sThe RRAP is organised around specificProject Eligibility, Funding, and Repairguidelines. Appendix A provides detailedcharts outlining RRAP funding guidelines foreach of the five identified RRAP programs.

The Five Identified Include:

Homeowner RRAPHomeowner DisablRentalRooming HouseConversion

RRAP Programs

ed or Rental Disabled

-10-


- 11 -

RRAP

R a t i o n a l e f o r R R A P R e v i e w

The City of Calgary is undertaking a RRAPreview for two key reasons: to considerimprovements in service delivery and toaddress economic and operationalperformances.

S e r v i c e D e l i v e r y R a t i o n a l eThe City of Calgary recognises that housingfactors importantly in the health and vitalityof its residents and the communities theylive in. As such, The City has a vestedinterest in contributing strategically to theprovision of Affordable Housing.

The RRAP presents an importantopportunity for The City to assist inaddressing the Affordable Housing situation.Simply stated, the program can beinstrumental in maintaining the AffordableHousing stock and improving housingaccessibility to low-income Calgarians.

In the past few years, monies madeavailable by CMHC have not beencompletely utilised. It is difficult to state withcertainty that local demands for RRAPfunding could have exhausted availablefunding allocations. However, CMHC(2003) data indicates that housingaffordability issues are pervasive andincreasing, signaling that The City may notbe taking full advantage of RRAPallocations.

According to Research Brief #8 of The Cityof Calgary’s Research Brief Series onHousing Needs, 1.5 percent of households

in Calgary require major housing repair andpossess incomes that meet RRAPqualifying criteria. This translates to 4990households. In 2003, The City utilised$753,311 of allocated RRAP funds onapproximately 125 to 150 units. Thesefigures suggest that Calgary can heightenits RRAP delivery.

E c o n o m i c / O p e r a t i o n a lR a t i o n a l eCity efforts need to be directed from a cost-benefit position in order to provide a positiveimpact on the Affordable Housing situation.

The current RRAP contract stipulates thatThe City processes applications, butreceives funding only for those applicationsapproved. RRAP initiatives in Calgaryshould be targeted to yield an increase inapplications that have a reasonable chanceof approval.

Development and Building Approvals is acost-responsible unit funded largely fromindustry fees associated with applications.The nature of the current program contract– paid for approvals, not applications –makes the RRAP a peculiar departmentalfit.

It cu

Non-specific increases inapplications will increase costs toThe City, without necessarilydelivering more Affordable Housing.

A RRAP review will assist The Cityin determining the best corporate fitfor the service, such that RRAPdelivery can be strategicallysupported in a cost-effectivemanner.

A RRAP review will assist theCorporation in determining whetheror not it is maximising fundingallocations, such that The City canstrategically position itself toaddress the Affordable Housingsituation to the best of itscapabilities.

should be noted that agency fees arerrently under review by CMHC.


- 12 -

RRAP

R R A P R e v i e w O b j e c t i v e a n dD i r e c t i v e s

In light of the Rationale for RRAP Reviewdiscussed above, the RRAP Review carriesthe following objective, as established byCouncil:

� Encourage development of AffordableHousing in Calgary by utilisingResidential Rehabilitation AssistanceProgram funding to its fullest extent.

Furthermore, the Review centers on severalkey Council directives, as follows:

� Review RRAP administration processfor applications to ascertain the best fitwithin the Corporation in administeringthe program on an ongoing basis;

� Develop a plan tosolicit/advertise/encourage potentialapplicants to apply; and

� Conduct a review of how RRAP fundshave been utilised in other municipalitiesfor Affordable Housing projects.


RRAP

B u i l d i n g R e g u l a t i o n s I n t e r n a lR e v i e w

BuintpeThincpro

�

�

Barev

�

� Among other issues, it is hoped that thisreview will ameliorate difficulties relatedto the operation of new CMHC computerprograms that have exacerbatedapplication processing;

� RRAP office staffing and operationshave been revised; and DBA hascommitted to reviewing theeffectiveness of these changes by 2004

“Affordable Housing for mostCalgarians is a fundamental aspectof maintaining and enhancingquality of life”.

– Calgary Plan

- 13 -

ilding Regulations recently completed anernal review to evaluate operationalrformance in the delivery of the RRAP.e essence of that review has beenorporated into this report. The reviewduced the following key findings:

RRAP funding is not being maximised.

$1,890,000 was made available byCMHC for RRAP initiatives in Calgary in2003. The City used $753,311 of thisavailable funding; meaning $1,136,689of potential funding was not appliedtowards RRAP initiatives.

There are operational difficulties, bothwithin and between the Corporation andCMHC, which may be inhibiting RRAPmaximisation.

Research is required to investigate therelationship between The City andCMHC in the delivery of the RRAP. Inparticular, CMHC’s involvement inRRAP approval structures requiresassessment.

sed on the outcome of the internaliew, the following steps have occurred:

A dialogue between The City andCMHC has been initiated; and CMHChas agreed to complete its own internalRRAP review and share findings withThe City;

October; and

� Building Regulations has recognisedthat increased efficiencies arenecessary to positively effect the costsof the program. Building Regulationsimplemented initiatives in May 2004designed to address existing operationalshortfalls. These initiatives werereviewed in September 2004. Thefollowing results/successes wereobserved:

� Improved Efficiencies andIncreased Number of ApprovalsThere has been a 60% reductionin the number of files returned byCMHC due to application formerrors and omissions. Also,budget data indicates anincrease in the number ofsuccessful applications.

� Budget TrackingDetailed application trackingsystem is in place, enabling staffto better manage files.

� Improved CommunicationImproved communication withCMHC representatives andexternal stakeholders isheightening understanding ofprogram directives and qualifyingcriteria.

� Improved Relations withContractorsAll outstanding payments fromthe 2003 budget year have been


- 14 -

RRAP

addressed, and currentpayments are being delivered ina timely manner.

R R A P R e s e a r c h S t r a t e g y

The research methodology employed for theRRAP Review combined three approachesin order to ensure a broad spectrum ofunderstanding. The three main tools utilisedincluded:

� Literature review of related information;� Targeted interviews of both internal and

external stakeholders; and� Best-practice reviews of other

municipalities using standardisedinterviews.

E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c a n o fR e l e v a n t L i t e r a t u r e a n dR e l a t e d I n f o r m a t i o nInvestigations focused on accessingrelevant literature and related informationthrough an environmental scan of librarycatalogues and government web-sites.Preliminary research efforts yielded fewvaluable resources, indicating that readilyavailable information on the RRAP islimited. Most catalogued resources aredated and/or irrelevant to the currentinvestigation. Information on Federal andProvincial government web-sites isgenerally limited to brief media releases oncase-specific RRAP projects.

Several CMHC documents were alsoreviewed in the initial research stages.These resources were used primarily toassist the research in acquiring a contextualunderstanding of RRAP administrationprocesses. Reviewed materials includedCMHC’s Delivery Agent Training Manual(2004) and Strategic Initiatives Guidelines(2003).

While RRAP resources were generallylimited, two CMHC publications proved

particularly useful. Several key findings ofthe Residential Rehabilitation AssistanceProgram Evaluation (2003) helped to informthe direction of the research. The keyfindings are as follows:

� RRAP can be used as a catalyst in abroader strategy of neighbourhoodimprovement; and

� Targeted neighbourhood approaches toRRAP generally have positive effects onthe supply of housing and reduction inthe loss of lower-priced housing.

Renovation Consultation Report: PublicConsultation on Housing RenovationPrograms (2002) also provided usefulinsights. The report summarises findings ofa comprehensive, national consultation onthe Federal government’s housingrenovation programs, including the RRAP.A number of the report’s key findings alignwith results of this study’s targetedinterviews. The key findings, expressed asstakeholder inputs, are as follows:

� Program awareness is an issue with theRRAP; and

� The RRAP should closely target areasof need to achieve broader public policyaims.

T aIn cuRRcosta

“A large majority of respondents feltthat there was a problem with(RRAP) program awareness.Almost all program componentswere mentioned”.

– Renovation Consultation ReportCMHC, 2002

r g e t e d I n t e r v i e w s order to ensure that past experiences andrrent frontline perspectives informed theAP review, targeted interviews were

nducted with internal and externalkeholders.


- 15 -

RRAP

In ternal Stakeholders

Initial interviews were conducted with Citystaff from Development and BuildingApprovals involved in RRAP administration,including a Business Coordinator, aConstruction Liaison Officer, Safety CodesOfficers, and Customer Service Assistants.Interviews were used in conjunction with theliterature review to assist the research inacquiring a contextual understanding ofRRAP administration from an explicitCalgary perspective.

Supplementary interviews were conductedwith City staff from various Business Units,as respondents from the initial interviewseries provided contacts for individualseither directly or indirectly involved in RRAPadministration. Such interviews included aProperty Tax Mitigation Worker, a ResearchSocial Planner, and a Heritage Planner.

External Stakeholders

Interviews were conducted with externalstakeholders, including a past RRAPapplicant in Calgary and local contractors.Discussions were also held with severalcommunity resource groups (CRGs) ofinterest. CRGs contacted included:

� Calgary Seniors Resource Society� Calgary Accessible Housing Society� Kerby Centre� Alexandra Centre Society

These interviews functioned to broaden thescope of the RRAP review, allowing for amore comprehensive and criticalunderstanding of RRAP delivery.

R R A P B e s t - P r a c t i c e R e v i e wStandardised interviews were conductedwith municipalities recognised by CMHC forstrong performance in RRAP maximisation.CMHC representatives were also contactedin order to obtain a regional administrativeperspective. The interviews yieldedinformation that informed The City’s currentRRAP Review, particularly with respect tothe development of the Alternatives andRecommendations components includedlater in this report.Cities participating in the best-practicereview included:

� Toronto� Hamilton� Windsor� Winnipeg� Edmonton� Vancouver

CMHC contacts included:

� Prairie, Nunavut, and NWT BusinessCentre

� CMHC Regional, British Columbia� CMHC Regional, Ontario� CMHC Audit and Evaluation Services

Results of the best-practice review arediscussed in detail in the Key Findingssection of this report. In general, best-practice interviews conveyed the following:

� There is not one explicit tool, strategy,or approach that can account for strongperformance in RRAP maximisation;and

� Cities with strong performance in RRAPmaximisation variably apply a series ofprogram enhancements that correspondwith unique, local housingcircumstances.

“Those in need of AffordableHousing are in stressful situations.Part of our role is to help alleviatethose stresses by assisting clientsaccess needed support”.

- External Stakeholder, Local CRG


- 16 -

RRAP

K e y F i n d i n g s

Several key findings were derived from theresearch methodology outlined above.

The findings suggest the following threeprincipal reasons why Calgary is notmaximising RRAP funding opportunities:

1. RRAP is not reaching enough targetclients to maximise funding allocations;

2. RRAP application process is impedingsubmissions and approvals; and

3. RRAP performance limited by existingprogram structure.

These three key findings are discussed indetail in the following section.

In addition, a fourth key finding can besummarised as follows:

4. Opportunities exist to improve Calgary’sperformance in RRAP maximisation.

This fourth key finding is conveyedthroughout the Review, but is discussedextensively in both the Key Findings andAlternatives components of this report.

R R A P N o t R e a c h i n g E n o u g hT a r g e t C l i e n t s t o M a x i m i s eF u n d i n gThe RRAP is not reaching enough targetclients to maximise funding allocations.This may be attributed to limited andsometimes inaccurate awareness about theprogram.

Limi ted Awareness

Public awareness of the RRAP is limited.According to CMHC’s RenovationConsultation Report (2002), this is an issuein cities across Canada. Locally, CRGsindicated that the public at large is generallyunaware of the program. Further,knowledge of the RRAP amongst CRGsvaries considerably. This latter point iscritical, as CRGs operate on the communityfrontlines, where opportunities for RRAPapplicant recruitment are enhanced throughdirect client contact. Indeed, one particularCRG indicated that most of its clients meetthe qualifying criteria for the program.However, the same CRG stated that few ofthose clients have accessed RRAP funding.

Building owners, like the general public andCRGs, also have limited awareness of theRRAP. This lack of awareness contributesto Calgary’s relatively poor performance inRental and Rooming House RRAP. Best-practice research indicates that buildingowners have actively pursued RRAPfunding in other municipalities.Administrators in these municipalities haveconnected with Industry Resource Groups(IRGs) to raise the awareness of RRAP andto facilitate more project applications. Thereare opportunities for Calgary to improveRRAP performance through similarinitiatives.

Lack of public knowledge of the RRAP canbe attributed, in part, to the absence of acomprehensive marketing strategy. As theRRAP is a Federal program administered inCalgary by the Municipal government, thereare ambiguities regarding responsibility inthe provision of promotions. The City has

“Concerted advertising efforts haveshown to enhance the visibility ofRRAP.”

– Result from Internal Interviews

“One particular CommunityResource Group indicated thatmost of its clients meet thequalifying criteria for the program,however, few have ever accessedfunds”.

- Result from External Interviews


RRAP

been hesitant to overstep CMHC incommunicating program messages.

In light of the above, promotional efforts onbehalf of the administrator have been moread hoc than formalised communicationsstrategies. Safety Codes Officers, forexample, have in some instancesestablished a rapport with CRGs andinitiated communication through site visits.In other cases, City staff have madepresentations at community meetings,facilitating qualified RRAP applications.While such practices show promise inpromoting the program, they are notinstitutionalised. Subsequently, not allCRGs or community stakeholders havebeen equally exposed to RRAP information.

Best-practice research shows theambiguities regarding provision ofpromotions are negated in cases whereCMHC acts as the RRAP delivery agent. InVancouver, for example, CMHC serves asthe city’s agent and is at liberty to carry outan active advertising campaign. Indeed,CMHC targets CRGs, IRGs, and otherexternal stakeholders through newspaperadvertisements, the distribution ofpromotional literature such as pamphlets,and community consultations. It isinteresting to note that whereas CMHCengages a comprehensive marketingstrategy when it functions as an agent, itdiscourages contracted agents fromfollowing suit.

In thasucund

broader community need for the RRAP.However, they generally feel that they arenot sufficiently prepared to assist clients inaccessing the program. Several CRGsindicated that both The City and CMHChave made only limited contact with them interms of promoting the RRAP. Others citeda lack of promotional literature that theycould distribute to clients in need as anissue.

Best-practice research indicates thatmunicipalities maximising RRAP fundinghave frequently garnered qualifiedapplications through client referrals fromCRGs and municipal community outreachworkers. In these situations, municipalitieshave made a concerted effort to disperseRRAP information to the aforementionedstakeholders.

There is evidence suggesting that morestructured advertising activities canheighten awareness. For example, The Cityperiodically advertises the RRAP in a localhousing renovation publication. Accordingto City staff, there is a notable increase inthe frequency of RRAP applications inconjunction with the publication, though nostatistical measurements have been taken.In short, concerted advertising efforts haveshown to enhance the visibility of the RRAP.Best-practice research further verifies thispoint.

It is also worth noting that word-of-mouthadvertising was cited by best-practice

Effectively, operational protocolsdiffer between contracted agentsand CMHC agents. This realityplaces limits on the capacity ofcontracted agents to heightenpublic awareness of the RRAP intheir jurisdictions.

- 17 -

Calgary, CRGs unanimously expressedt they would appreciate outreach efforts,h as to heighten their awareness anderstanding of the RRAP. CRGs see a

coto buAfmolik

“Community Resource Groupshave expressed a willingness toparticipate in promoting the RRAP”.

- Result from External Interviews

ntacts as an important factor contributingRRAP maximisation. RRAP successes

ild upon themselves in the local context offordable Housing. That is to say that there people access the program, the more

ely they are to tell others of funding


- 18 -

RRAP

availability. This presents promise forCalgary. Once it has implemented anapproach for heightening programawareness, The City is likely to increaseapplications as a result of word-of-mouthadvertising.

In format ion Discrepancies

City staff, CRGs, and contractors expressedconcern regarding their ability to obtainaccurate information on the RRAP. Thisraises issue with respect to RRAPrecruitment and application processes.Misunderstandings about the program’sprocedural framework may impede effectiveprogram delivery.

Program directives can be constantlymodified, contributing to a lack ofuncertainty regarding RRAP guidelines andqualifying criteria. It is evident that CMHC’scurrent arrangement for setting strategicinitiatives requires an administrativeresponse. Specifically, this entails a moreformalised approach for informing City staffof program modifications. The currentapproach may account formisunderstandings internal stakeholdersexpressed through the interview process. Inoccasional cases, staff provided differentresponses to inquiries concerning RRAPguidelines. Such instances support theposition expressed by City staff that CMHCcan play a role in heightening coordinationand improving cooperation in the dispersalof information. Best-practice researchshows that in some municipalities, CMHChas taken the initiative to arrange annualinformation sessions with RRAPadministrators.

Pertinent to the information discrepanciesdiscussed above are the recent revisedRRAP staffing requirements at The City.There is an adjustment period required fornew staff to obtain a comprehensiveworking knowledge of RRAP directives.This is a temporary issue, however. And itis worth noting that one CRG complimentedThe City on service improvements followingthe staff revisions.

Externally, CRGs indicated that they are notadequately updated on revisions to RRAPguidelines. One CRG was in fact unawarethat CMHC modifies program directives.Further, contractors conveyed that theywere not adequately informed of programdirectives. These points raise cause forconcern, as CRGs and contractors are notuniformly informed of the most currentRRAP guidelines and qualifying criteria asthey connect with the community at large.

Limi ted Engagement of Mul t i -Uni t Dwel l ingOwners

Best-practice research shows thatmunicipalities maximising fundingallocations in Rental and Rooming HouseRRAP have successfully engaged theprivate-sector. This engagement isfrequently the result of the activeinvolvement of the regional CHMC office inrecruiting project applicants.

In Hamilton and Toronto, for instance,CMHC assists the administrators inadvertising a Request for Proposals (RFP)for Rental and Rooming House RRAP. InVancouver, CMHC functions as the deliveryagent and therefore issues the RFP itself.RFPs heighten private-sector awareness ofthe program, resulting in project applicationsthat meet CMHC qualifying criteria.Research interviews also indicated thatprivate-sector engagement is easier tosustain when CMHC plays a role infacilitating program awareness on anongoing basis.

“The yearly change in RRAPdirectives contributes tomisunderstandings about theprogram”.

- Result from Internal Interviews


RRAP

At present, Calgary has experienced limitedsuccess in engaging the private-sector. Thecollaborative approach undertaken in othermunicipalities is not currently exhibited inCalgary. However, best-practice researchsuggests that there are opportunitiesavailable for Calgary to improve RRAPperformance.

A pR RA p

ThRRapobhotrarol

On

ExRRthadifdidapgeRRpaun

ThprostaareproCRsta

�

Many applicants experience difficultycompleting the RRAP application formbecause they find it is written in complexlanguage and/or they find the organisationof the form too complicated. CRGsindicated that seniors and citizens withspecial needs frequently require assistancein completing applications.

� Stringent Application ProcedureStringent application procedures presentobstacles in the overall application process.For example, CMHC’s (2004) DeliveryAgent Training Manual stipulates that

Best-practice research shows thatmunicipalities maximising fundingallocations in Rental and RoomingHouse RRAP have successfullyengaged the private-sector.

- 19 -

p l i c a t i o n P r o c e s s I m p e d i n gA P S u b m i s s i o n s a n dp r o v a l s

e current application process is impedingAP submissions and approvals. The

plication process was deemed anstacle primarily due to its onerous nature,wever, efforts towards applicationcking were also found to have played ae in under-utilisation of funding.

erous Appl icat ion Procedures

ternal stakeholders are adamant that theAP application process is onerous, andt accessing available funding is made

ficult as a result. Interview respondents not point to one explicit factor impedingplication processes. However, there is aneral consensus that applying for theAP can be – and frequently is - a

rticularly trying and time consumingdertaking.

e onerous nature of the RRAP applicationcess is perhaps best expressed throughkeholder experiences. Detailed below selected critiques of the applicationcess, drawn from discussions withGs, a former RRAP applicant, and Cityff:

Complex Application Form

application forms must be completed in pen.City staff indicated that RRAP applicationshave been rejected on account of thisprovision. City staff also conveyed thatthere are instances where a lack of effectivecorrespondence between CMHC and TheCity has delayed the application submissionprocess.

� Limited Applicant Follow-UpCRGs indicated that their clients wouldappreciate improved notification withrespect to the status of their RRAPapplication once it is submitted. Accordingto some CRGs, it is not uncommon thatapplicants wait several months until theyreceive a status update from either The Cityor CMHC. It is important to note thatBuilding Regulations is currently working ontracking initiatives to help alleviate thisconcern. � Difficulty Obtaining Contractor EstimatesCMHC requires applicants to obtain multiplecontractor estimates in completing theRRAP application. This is often problematic,as applicants either do not know whom tocontact for an estimate, or contactedcontractors are not interested in RRAPwork. Difficulties obtaining estimates arecompounded by the fact that The City canonly provide limited assistance to applicantsin identifying contractors.

� Stringent Qualifying Criteria


- 20 -

RRAP

Stringent qualifying criteria can presentobstacles to RRAP access. For example,Calgary RRAP applicants could not qualify afurnace that is functioning, even if it is closeto requiring repair or replacement. WhileCMHC has since reviewed this particularpractice, such criteria serve to postponeapplication processes, inhibiting immediateand needed access to the program.

� CMHC Schedule InterruptionAs part of its operational protocol, CMHCannually interrupts its schedule for receivingand processing RRAP applications. TheCity does not maintain a similararrangement. CMHC’s scheduleinterruption dictates that The City acceptsapplications with no certainty that thoseapplications will be approved withinparticular time requirements. This adds todelays and general uncertainty in theapplication procedure, making the processmore onerous for applicants and theadministrator alike.

� Third-Party Verification on InspectionsCMHC requires third-party verification oninspections completed by The City’s SafetyCodes Officers. Best-practice researchindicates that other regional CMHC officesdo not require such verification, or requireverification only in certain instances. Third-party verification can slow RRAP approvalprocesses. Therefore, it is important thatCMHC and The City open a discourse todetermine which, if any situations requirethird-party verification. One best-practicecontact suggested that CMHC identifytraining or certification requirements for Cityinspectors. This would eliminate the needfor third-party verification, and ensureinspections meet industry requirements.

Issues Rela ted to Appl icat ion Tracking

Application tracking can make theapplication process less onerous. This is tothe extent that the status of RRAP files canbe readily identified, facilitating ease ofcorrespondence between applicants, The

City, and CMHC. Tracking can also assistRRAP administrators in monitoringapplication progress, and ensuring qualifiedapplications are attended to expediently.

Building Regulations has recently embarkedupon a comprehensive application trackinginitiative in view of improving the overallapplication process. Specifically, theinitiative involves a detailed filemanagement system that updates RRAPapplication progress from the submission-to-approval stages.

R RE x

AsstaofflimRRto circova

Ca

CuarenaTh

�

Recent application trackinginitiatives promise to assist TheCity in addressing previousefficiency and monitoring issueswith respect to the applicationprocess.

A P P e r f o r m a n c e L i m i t e d b yi s t i n g P r o g r a m S t r u c t u r e

the national CMHC office establishesndard RRAP guidelines and the regionalices interpret those guidelines, there isited flexibility in program design. TheAP is therefore not adequately structuredrespond to unique, local housing

cumstances. This is of particularncern, as municipal housing situationsry across the region.

lgary Context

RRAP performance will show thegreatest opportunity forimprovement if the programrecognises the local context.

rrently, several unique Calgary conditions not adequately considered by the

tional standards established by CMHC.ese include:

There are situations in Calgary’s inner-city where housing stocks are


- 21 -

RRAP

deteriorating; yet due to factors oflocation, property values remainrelatively high. In these uniquecircumstances, housing units that wouldnormally qualify for RRAP funding arenot meeting qualifying criteria.

� RRAP qualifiers have not beenadequately amended to correspond withrecent, general increases in Calgary’sassessed property values. As propertyvalues have risen, the pool of qualifiedapplicants has effectively diminished.

� Calgary does not possess aconsiderable inventory of buildingssuitable for residential conversion.Therefore, Calgary cannot be expectedto compare favourably with otherCanadian cities in Conversion RRAPperformance.

Program Stacking

Additional structural difficulties with theprogram exist in relation to the utilisation ofother funding sources concurrently withRRAP.

� CMHC recognises the value of programstacking or RRAP conjunction funding.As cited in CMHC’s ResidentialRehabilitation Program Evaluation(2003), the approach has in some casesbeen instrumental in leveragingresources for the development ofAffordable Housing. While theconjunction funding approach presentsimportant opportunities, it is difficult tooperationalise.

Case-studies conducted by CMHC(2003) indicate that the programstacking approach can be successfulwhen it is incorporated into a broadercommunity development strategy. Thisis particularly true of RRAP stackingwith the Supporting CommunitiesPartnership Initiative funding, forexample. However, in the absence of a

coordinated development strategy,leveraging funding for the RRAP canprove difficult. This is an importantissue, as the program should ideally bestructured to accommodate RRAPapplications that are submittedindependently, as well as thosesubmitted as part of a morecomprehensive development strategy.

CMHC (2003) acknowledges thatutilising stacking initiatives for RRAP isboth complex and challenging tocoordinate. Indeed, a former applicantexplicitly expressed frustration overlosing RRAP funding that waspreviously approved due to securingfunds from another Federal program.Best-practice interviews also indicatedthat other municipalities haveexperienced difficulty in coordinatingconjunction funding. Furthermore,discussions with CMHC revealed thatthe opportunities available for programstacking are rather limited.

CMHC does not have guidelines orestablished procedural criteria forassisting delivery agents in facilitatingconjunction funding. While CMHCsupports stacking, its vision for how theapproach could be morecomprehensively applied requiresgreater consideration.

While CMHC can play a more assertiverole in coordinating the conjunctionfunding approach, restraints to utilisingstacking are not solely CMHC related.

The most likely way tomaximise program fundingwould require the creation ofadditional municipal grants thatcould be stacked with RRAPfunding.


- 22 -

RRAP

Best-practice research indicates thatcities have most frequently experiencedsuccess with stacking when RRAP hasbeen combined with other municipalfunding initiatives. In Calgary, there arepotential avenues for stacking, such asteaming RRAP with Municipal Heritagefunding. However, in contrast to othercities, opportunities for municipalconjunction funding in Calgary areparticularly limited.

“Some barriers to the impact ofRRAP… are the reluctance oflandlords to apply for funding, thedifficulties of carrying outconversion projects within the dollaramounts available, and thecomplexities of coordinatingfunding from different sources”.

- RRAP EvaluationCMHC, 2003

- 23 -

A l t e r n a t i v e A p p r o a c h e sThe Primary objectives of the RRAP reviewwere to investigate alternative approachesthat would both improve service deliveryand resolve economic/ operationalperformance issues. After initialinvestigations were completed, sixalternative approaches were consideredand are discussed below.

A l t e r n a t i v e 1 : M a i n t a i n t h eS t a t u s Q u oWhile findings suggest that improvements tothe program could occur, RRAP issuccessful in delivering assistance to themost needy and helps Calgary preservesome of its low income housing stock.Maintaining the program in its current formremains the easiest alternative. However, inmaintaining the status quo, Calgary wouldfail to capitalise on opportunities to reachmore clients and rehabilitate additionalhousing stock. This alternative presents thefollowing outcomes:

Pros� The City continues to provide an

Affordable Housing service to the public;� Familiarity of the program is maintained;

and� The City resumes administration of a

program that functions to benefit thegeneral public.

Cons� Continued under-utilisation of

allocations; and� The City incurs a financial loss in

administering the RRAP.

The negatives associated with maintainingthe status quo in relation to the RRAPoutweigh any potential positives. In 2002-2003, The City utilised approximately 43percent of its total funding allocation. Underthe current administrative structure, RRAPfunding is not being maximised. This under-utilisation is particularly unappealing in light

of the fact that according to the BuildingRegulations Internal Review completed inMay, projected operating costs for theRRAP in 2004 could be as high as$300,000; however, this includes some one-time costs associated with performanceimprovements. Only a partial offset of thisexpense occurs as application processingrevenues amount to roughly $100,000 peryear. Under the current structure, The Citywill incur a financial loss up to $200,000 inadministering the RRAP. While RRAP has asocial benefit to the city, BuildingRegulations is a cost-recovery division.Operational shortfalls in 2005 will be offsetby application funds from regularapplications. The shortfall is recoveredindirectly through industry fees.

A l t e r n a t i v e 2 : D i s c o n t i n u eC i t y I n v o l v e m e n t w i t h t h eF e d e r a l P r o g r a m

The RRAP is a Federally funded programadministered by CMHC. The City ofCalgary’s Development and BuildingApprovals’ Building Regulations divisionacts as the program delivery agent inCalgary. It must be understood that TheCity’s role is in fulfillment of a contractedservice to assist the senior level ofgovernment meet its responsibilitiestowards Affordable Housing. The City is notlegislatively responsible to provideAffordable Housing.

One alternative would be for The City todiscontinue its role as a service agent forthe RRAP. The results of such analternative are presented below:

Pros� The City would no longer incur a

financial loss in administering theRRAP;

� Building Regulations would be able toadhere to its cost-recovery operationalprotocol; and

- 24 -

� RRAP staff would be available tosupport other programs and initiatives.

Cons� External stakeholders are likely to be

disheartened as CRGs are anxious topartner with The City and serve asupport role in recruiting RRAPapplicants;

� A potential lost opportunity would occuras CRGs believe the programaddresses an important communityneed; and

� External stakeholders are likely to losefaith in The City if it elects to abandonpromising directives in expanding thereach of the RRAP.

In examining this alternative rationally, it isimportant to understand that CMHC wouldbe compelled to secure a new administrator,or offer the program under a revisedadministrative structure. In short, RRAPwould not be lost to the City. However, thecurrent scope of local support The Cityprovides for the RRAP would be lost, aswell as opportunities related to potentialimprovements.

A l t e r n a t i v e 3 ; T h e C i t yF o r m a l l y R e q u e s t s C M H C t oR e d r e s s O p e r a t i o n a lO b s t a c l e s a n d P a r a l l e l C i t yI n i t i a t i v e s

While RRAP goals of providing AffordableHousing are a Federal responsibility, TheCity recognises its role and accepts that theCorporation must also be part of thesolution. In the delivery of the RRAP, bothThe City and CMHC have areas ofindividual and joint responsibility.Subsequently, improvements to one aspectof the program will not succeed unlessimprovements to all program areas occur.

Recognition of joint-responsibility inaddressing RRAP maximisation is anecessary step in improving program

performance. However, such action must bemore than just talk. Through a formalrequest by City Council, CMHC and TheCity should explore opportunities forenhanced stakeholder engagement inaddressing RRAP maximisation.Specifically, CMHC should be asked torespond to the local context and assist inthe review of identified process obstacles.The results of such action are detailedbelow:

Pros� Application process obstacles are

addressed;� Conjunction funding framework is

addressed; and� Improved communication and

coordination in RRAP delivery.

Cons� Reliance on CMHC in addressing RRAP

maximisation may contribute to a failureto comprehensively explore internalalternatives for RRAP maximisation; and

� CMHC may not be receptive toaccepting joint-responsibility inenhancing program administration.

A l t e r n a t i v e s 4 , 5 , 6 ; E n a c tP r o g r a m E n h a n c e m e n t U n d e rV a r i o u s C i t y S t r u c t u r e s

Program Enhancements

Interviews with key stakeholders, best-practice research, and a review of relevantliterature suggested that several programenhancements could be implemented

Improvements to one aspect of theprogram will not succeed unlessimprovements to all program areasoccur. CMHC and The City mustacknowledge that improvingperformance in program deliveryrequires collaborative action.

- 25 -

which, as a whole, have a strong chance ofimproving RRAP maximisation. Theseenhancement strategies are discussed indetail below. Following the discussion,three additional program alternatives thatincorporate the enhancements are identifiedand described.

Enhancements Designed to Secure MoreQual i f ied RRAP Appl ican ts.

Basis for EnhancementsRRAP is not reaching enough target clientsto maximise funding allocations.

Enhancement 1Institute an approach that leverages internalstakeholders in promoting the RRAP.

Key IssueCMHC reports that targeted neighbourhoodapproaches to RRAP generally havepositive effects on the supply of housingand reduction in the loss of lower-pricedhousing. Furthermore, CMHC researchstresses that stakeholders believe theRRAP should closely target areas of need.Best-practice research also indicates thattargeted approaches can prove useful. Atpresent, Calgary administers the RRAPstrictly on a first-come first-served basis,meaning The City does not strategicallyidentify or target areas of need.

Implementation� Engage community outreach workers in

RRAP delivery by developing a clearermandate for their administrativeinvolvement; and

� Provide community outreach workerswith necessary information and programsupport.

Existing OpportunitiesThe City’s community outreach workers canserve as important frontline points of contactfor potential applicants. Indeed, somecurrently perform a role in RRAP, thoughthat role is not formalised in administrativeprotocols.

Enhancement 2 Institute an approach that leveragesexternal stakeholders in promoting theRRAP.

Key IssueSee Key Issue for Enhancement 1.

Implementation� Engage external stakeholders in RRAP

delivery by increasing their programunderstanding and awareness throughformalised communication strategies;and

� Encourage external involvement byrecognising stakeholder participationand achievements in RRAP delivery.This involves an annual awards eventattended by CRGs and Councilmembers, which would serve the dualfunction of recognising successes inAffordable Housing and heighteningRRAP awareness.

Existing OpportunitiesCRGs maintain frontline contact withqualified applicants and have repeatedlyexpressed an interest in assisting clientsaccess the RRAP. Also, contractors haveconveyed that they are willing to assume asupport role by disseminating information toclients in perceived need, and heighteningpublic awareness of the RRAP moregenerally. Conflict of interest issues mustbe considered in leveraging contractors.However, this should not undermine thepotential contributions of contractors inextending the reach of the RRAP. Finally,there are a number of IRGs serving thehousing industry. These IRGs can assist inheightening the profile of the RRAP inCalgary’s private-sector.

“Where RRAP has been targeted tospecific neighbourhoods, casestudies illustrate positive impactson neighbourhoods”.

- RRAP EvaluationCHMC, 2003

- 26 -

Enhancement 3Incorporate basic geographic technologiesto assist efforts in raising awareness.

Key IssueSee Key Issue for Enhancement 1.

Implementation� In order to assist both internal and

external participants, a GIS map can beprepared that identifies RRAP qualifiersby community. While Federalregulations specifically prohibit isolatingany one group of individuals overanother, a GIS map would simplyidentify the geographic areas whereCMHC’s own criteria are most likely tobe found. The RRAP would of course beavailable to all who qualify, regardless ofwhere in Calgary they reside. However,by isolating CMHC RRAP criteria(assessed value of house, householdincome, age of house) a map can beproduced that identifies whichcommunities have the most potentialapplicants.

Enhancement 4Implement a new program approachdesigned to target and leverage the private-sector in the development of Rental,Rooming House, and Conversion RRAPprojects.

Key IssueResearch indicates that Calgary has notadequately engaged the private-sector inAffordable Housing initiatives. Further,best-practice research shows thatmunicipalities with strong RRAPperformance have derived outreach

strategies geared to promoting RRAP in theprivate housing industry. Programenhancements targeted at the private-sectorcould assist Calgary in improving itsperformance in Rental, Rooming House,and Conversion RRAP.

Implementation� Request that CMHC partner with

Calgary and issue a public Request forProposals on Rental, Rooming House,and Conversion RRAP projects;

� Develop a strategy to secure marketinformation for the purpose ofdeveloping a building inventory toidentify larger rental projects anddetermine availability of convertibleprojects; and

� Develop a strategy directed at identifiedbuilding owners to voluntarily comply tobring buildings to code standards, andadvertise RRAP as a funding option.

Existing OpportunitiesAs other CMHC regional offices andmunicipalities have partnered in the RFPapproach, there are precedents Calgary candraw upon to inform a contextuallyappropriate local strategy.

Further, Edmonton has employed acompliance approach in buildingrehabilitation that Calgary can also use as atemplate to inform its private-sectorengagement approach. This approach hassignificantly influenced Edmonton’s successin maximising Rental, Rooming House, andConversion RRAP. The City of Calgarypossesses the resources and expertiserequired for the development of such aninitiative. There is currently an inventory ofbuildings and housing units older than thirtyyears that can be made available to BuildingRegulations.

Constraints to Enhancement ImplementationEnhancements 1,2,3 and 4 are geared totargeting communities of interest, in additionto more conventional, geographically

Calgary’s Municipal DevelopmentPlan includes, “Emphasis targetinghousing solutions to those most inneed”

- Municipal Development PlanPolicy 2-3.2.2B

- 27 -

defined communities or neighbourhoods.The regional CMHC office may not bereceptive to or support the targetedapproach in Calgary. Enhancements Designed to Raise ProgramAwareness

Currently, neither the City nor CMHC areresponsible for raising awareness of theRRAP. As a result, few public awarenessefforts are conducted. Collaborativedevelopment of a formalised,comprehensive RRAP advertising campaignby The City and CMHC is required to raiseprogram awareness.

Enhancement 5CMHC and The City should collaborativelydevelop an explicit mandate for enhancingpublic awareness of the RRAP, includingclearly articulated roles in the provision ofpromotions.

Basis for EnhancementPublic awareness of the RRAP is limited.

Key IssueAs the RRAP is a Federal programadministered in Calgary by the Municipalgovernment, there are ambiguitiesregarding responsibility in the provision ofpromotions. The City has been hesitant tooverstep CMHC in communicating programmessages, and has therefore not developeda formalised advertising strategy, despitebeing well situated to connect with thepublic. External stakeholder interviewsindicated that heightened public awarenessof the RRAP will likely result in morequalified applications.

Implementation� CMHC and The City develop a cost-

sharing and resource-pooling protocolfor RRAP advertising strategies.

Existing OpportunitiesConcerted advertising efforts on behalf ofThe City, though not formalised, have

shown to enhance the visibility of the RRAP.Periodic promotional efforts such ascommunity consultations and magazineadvertisements have resulted in notableincreases in the frequency of qualifiedRRAP applications.

Constraints to Enhancement ImplementationJoint financing of the advertising strategymay prove problematic, and the publicreach of promotions may be dependentupon financial commitments. Further, it isunclear whether or not CMHC believespromotions falls within their jurisdiction inthe management of the RRAP.

Enhancement 6Enhance the single project contact withinone division of The City to manage RRAPinquiries in terms of tracking applicationsand coordinating interdepartmentalresources in service delivery.

Basis for EnhancementImproved coordination of interdepartmentalresources is required to enhance publicaccess to the RRAP.

Key IssueExternal stakeholders have expressedconfusion as to whom to contact for RRAPinquiries and assistance. The RRAP iscurrently accessed through a variety ofcontacts within The City, and applicationassistance is provided by several of TheCity’s Business Units. Further, a search ofThe City’s web-page provides links tomultiple contact numbers for RRAPinquiries.

Implementation� IT review of public access points to

RRAP to ensure web-sites, promotionalliterature, and telephone directoriesdirect clients to a single project contact;

� Develop annual interdepartmentalRRAP information session to clearlyarticulate RRAP delivery roles toengaged Business Units; and

- 28 -

� Support and strengthen tracking effortsto ensure the RRAP project contacthandles all files once they have beensubmitted to the administrator.

Existing OpportunitiesThe City currently possesses the capacityfor effective public outreach. The existingRRAP access and delivery framework hasadvantages, particularly with respect toprogram scope and utilisation of availableresources. Program enhancements canensure existing resources are used in anefficient and effective manner.

Constraints to Enhancement ImplementationThe sheer number of potential points ofcontact for RRAP within the Administrationraises two key issues with respect to thesingle-window approach. First, there areconsiderable internal resource requirementsfor ensuring contact points are aware ofprogram directives. Second, becauseRRAP directives and criteria are subject toannual amendment, further resourcerequirements are needed to ensure staff arecontinually aware of program revisions.

Next Steps

Generally, those municipalities performingwell with the RRAP program are using somevariety of the above listed enhancements.Combined with considerable cooperationand flexibility from the regional CMHCoffice, the program enhancements listedabove can be expected to deliversignificantly higher utilisation rates.

In order for these enhancements to succeedit is crucial that The City identify the bestcorporate fit for the RRAP. While all of theabove listed enhancements can be enacted,there are three possible structures The Cityshould consider. The following models formthe basis of the final three alternativesdiscussed:

� Enact Program Enhancements UnderCurrent City Structure;

� Enact Program Enhancements UnderRevised City Structure; and

� House RRAP Within CommunityStrategies

The preceding alternatives are discussedbelow.

A l t e r n a t i v e 4 : E n a c t P r o g r a mE n h a n c e m e n t U n d e r C u r r e n tC i t y S t r u c t u r e

As discussed above, six key enhancementsare recommended for implementation. It isreasonable to assume that all of thefollowing could be implemented in the nearfuture:

1. Leverage internal stakeholders throughgreater program communication;

2. Leverage external stakeholders such asCRGs and contractors through greatercommunication and an annualrecognition event;

3. Incorporate geographic targetingtechniques to assist efforts in raisingawareness in those areas containingconcentrations of potential qualifiedapplicants;

4. Engage private-sector builders throughtargeted awareness campaigns andRFPs conducted in concert with CMHC

5. CMHC and the City shouldcollaboratively engage in raising publicawareness; and

6. Improve single project management forapplication receipt, tracking, andinterdepartmental coordination.

The implementation of these enhancementsunder the current operational structurepresents the following outcomes:

Pros� Based on performance in Canada’s

most successful RRAP programs, therecommended program enhancementsare likely to increase fund utilisation by40-60% over the next three years; and

- 29 -

� Program enhancements should result inheightened awareness and improvedservice delivery.

Cons� Administrative issue in corporate fit

remains unresolved;� Lost opportunities to capture funding, as

Building Regulations cannot optimiseformal or in the field opportunities aseasily as those Business Units thatalready have closer interaction withthose in need; and

� As a cost-recovery Business Unit,developers will indirectly subsidise theRRAP.

Organisations directly involved withassisting those in need in Calgary aremore closely connected with other CityBusiness Units than Development andBuilding Approvals. Situating the RRAPinside a Business Unit with no otherfunding or resource programs effectivelyorphans the RRAP and fails to takeadvantage of potential programsynergies.

Corporate structure is also influenced asBuilding Regulations is not designed toassist mill rate supported functions. AsRRAP applications must be reviewed -including in some cases on-siteinspections - costs are accumulated forapplications that will not be successful.The CMHC program does notcompensate the agent for theseactivities. In short, there will always beunrecoverable costs. As the RRAPagent, The City cannot charge for allapplications, change the fee structure,or influence the criteria. As a result,RRAP is incompatible with a cost-recovery Business Unit.

A l t e r n a t i v e 5 ; E n a c t p r o g r a mE n h a n c e m e n t U n d e r R e v i s e dC i t y S t r u c t u r e

Key findings indicate that implementation ofthe six key program enhancements shouldproduce a substantive improvement infunding utilisation. However, due to thesocial service nature of the program andThe City’s inability to effect revenues, someform of financial loss will occur if theprogram remains in Building RegulationsBest-practice research indicates that thereare opportunities for The City to increaseoperational efficiencies with regards tostaffing requirements. These efficiencies willreduce but not eliminate the operationalcosts of the program. As such, thedevelopment industry would indirectlysubsidise the program. An alternative is toimplement the six prescribed programenhancements and mill rate support theservice side of RRAP. The outcomes of thisalternative are as follows:

Pros� Improved RRAP performance, as

program enhancements are likely toincrease fund utilisation by 40-60%; and

� Improved program administration, asProgram enhancements result inheightened awareness and improvedservice delivery.

Cons� Failure to utilise natural synergies to

capture formal or in the fieldopportunities for funding.

Due to its high concentration on buildingand safety codes, Building Regulationsremains the most appropriate arm of the cityto administer the RRAP. However, asBuilding Regulations is not in any other wayassociated with social service provision,certain natural alignments that exist are notcaptured.

- 30 -

However, without recognition of the socialservice nature of the program, a lack of millrate funding seems incongruent with a cost-recovery division.

A l t e r n a t i v e 6 : H o u s e R R A PW i t h i n C o m m u n i t y a n dN e i g h b o u r h o o d S e r v i c e s

Council's directive under the AffordableHousing Implementation Strategy was toreview the RRAP to recommendimprovements to the program (secure morefunding in Calgary for rehabilitation ofresidential affordable housing units) and todetermine the best corporate fit foradministering the program.

Other Divisions of The City were examinedin response to Council’s directive. CorporateProperties’ Strategic Initiatives Division hascome to play a central role in the AffordableHousing strategy. Strategic Initiatives hasstaff who are knowledgeable about theissue – particularly from a Calgary context –and who have an established stakeholdernetwork. However, housing the RRAPprogram within Corporate Properties couldpotentially decrease funding utilisation.Corporate Properties has in the past appliedfor and received RRAP funding. However,under CMHC rules, Strategic Initiativescould not apply for and administer theprogram concurrently. In short, CorporateProperties would be in a conflict position.

An alternative would consider enacting allsix program enhancements and housing theRRAP function within Community andNeighbourhood Services.

Community and Neighbourhood Services isthe arm of The City best connected to bothCRGs of interest and those individuals mostin need of RRAP funding. A CommunityStrategies operation could better leverageexisting outreach workers and activate localknowledge to identify potential applicants.

Operations such as the Funders’ Tablewould also provide improved opportunitiesfor program stacking and awareness.

Program enhancements coupled with anadministrative reorganisation within The Citywould likely produce the following results:

Pros� Expected 40-60% increase from

program enhancements would bemaintained;

� Financial accountability maintained; and� Greater connectivity to target market

could increase utilisation.

Cons� Loss of continuity in program

management may affect the speed atwhich program performance improves;and

� Potential loss of single-window ofcontact if Community Strategies iscontracted out inspection function.

In order to carry out this new model,Community Strategies would have toemploy its own qualified Safety CodesOfficers. Under this model, a potentialinefficiency would exist, as these inspectorswould experience downtime without othernon-RRAP inspections to perform.

Alternatively, Community Strategies couldcontract inspections out to BuildingRegulations or a private operator. Thiswould maximise resource efficiencies, butwould severely restrict or eliminate programcontinuity and the single contact structure.

- 31 -

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N SThe objectives of the RRAP review were toinvestigate alternative approaches thatwould both improve service delivery andresolve economic/ operational performanceissues. After initial investigations werecompleted, six alternative approaches wereconsidered and are discussed above. Thereview concluded by reviewing thesealternatives with members of Calgary’sAffordable Housing Implementation Team,as well as management from Developmentand Building Approvals, CorporateProperties, and Community Strategies.

G a u g i n g S u c c e s s

In considering recommendations for theRRAP, participating stakeholders of thereview team were required to address theissue of how to define and gauge RRAPsuccess in the Calgary context. It wasdetermined that program success can beidentified in two ways: economically(according to operational performance) andsocially (according to the broader socialbenefits Calgary accrues through the scopeof the program’s reach).

The review concluded that no singlealternative generated by the RRAP reviewwould ensure that both the economic andsocial objectives of the RRAP would beentirely achieved. Therefore, the followingrecommendations aim at striking a balancebetween the economic realities of theprogram and the social benefits it produces.

The recommendations identify how The Citycan maintain its commitment to addressingAffordable Housing through enhancing theRRAP, while at the same time improvingoperational performances in the BusinessUnit administering the program.

I m p l e m e n t P r e s c r i b e dP r o g r a m E n h a n c e m e n t s u n d e rC u r r e n t C i t y S t r u c t u r e

This review concludes that considerableopportunities exist to improve the utilisationof RRAP funding in Calgary. In order to bestmaximise existing funding opportunities, it isrecommended that the following programenhancements be implemented.

The enhancements will broaden the scopeof the RRAP in a manner that efficientlyyields more successful applications. As aresult, the program will reach moreCalgarians and The City will augment itstake of available allocations, all the whilegenerating greater revenues throughprogram administration

1. Leverage Exis t ing Ci ty Resourcesthrough Improved Communicat ion wi thCommuni ty and Neighbourhood Serv icesand other in te rnal s takeholders

Implementation� Engage community outreach workers in

RRAP delivery by developing a clearermandate for their administrativeinvolvement; and

� Provide community outreach workerswith necessary information and programsupport.

As discussed in the Alternative Approachessection of this report, there are issues withrespect to maintaining the RRAP under thecurrent City structure. Namely, there maybe lost opportunities to capture funding, asBuilding Regulations is not positioned aswell as other Business Units to optimiseformal or in the field opportunities.

This review concludes that no singleBusiness Unit is perfectly structured toadminister the RRAP. However, it isrecognised that Building Regulationsremains the most appropriate arm of TheCity to administer the program because of

- 32 -

its considerable expertise in qualifyinginspections, and the value of maintainingadministrative continuity.

Administrative restructuring of the RRAP isnot endorsed by this review. However, it isrecommended that stronger linkages beestablished with frontline stakeholdergroups, such that community outreachefforts can be optimised, and more qualifiedapplicants can be recruited.

Enhanced coordination with Community andNeighbourhood Services addresses thecorporate fit issue, as the RRAP can takeadvantage of the Business Unit’scommunity frontline connections.

2. Leverage Ex ternal Stakeholders such asCommuni ty Resource Groups andContractors through GreaterCommunicat ion and a Year EndRecogni t ion Event

Implementation� Engage external stakeholders in RRAP

delivery by increasing their programunderstanding and awareness throughformalised communication strategies;and

� Encourage external involvement byrecognising stakeholder participationand achievements in RRAP delivery.

This initiative, combined with heightenedcommunication with Community andNeighbourhood Services, can help The Citytake advantage of existing communityresources and outreach efforts.

3. Incorporate Geographic Target ingTechniques to Assis t Ef for ts in Rais ingAwareness in Those Areas Conta in ingConcent rat ions of Potent ia l Qual i f i edAppl icants

Implementation� Develop a GIS map that identifies RRAP

qualifiers by community; and

� Target awareness campaigns to areascontaining concentrations of potentialqualified applicants

4. Engage Pr ivate Sector Bui lders throughTargeted Awareness Campaigns and RFPsConducted in Concert wi th CMHC

Implementation� Request that CMHC partner with

Calgary and issue a public Request forProposals on Rental, Rooming House,and Conversion RRAP projects;

� Develop a strategy to secure marketinformation for the purpose ofdeveloping a building inventory toidentify larger rental projects anddetermine availability of convertibleprojects; and

� Develop a strategy directed at identifiedbuilding owners to voluntarily comply tobring buildings to code standards, andadvertise RRAP as a funding option.

5. Improve Single Project Management fo rAppl icat ion Rece ipt , Tracking andInterdepartmenta l Coordinat ion .

Implementation� IT review of public access points to

RRAP to ensure directories link clientsto a single project contact;

� Develop annual interdepartmentalRRAP information session to clearlyarticulate RRAP delivery roles toengaged Business Units;

� Promote a single telephone numbercontact system by improving the RRAPoffice Telephone system; and

� Support and strengthen tracking effortsto ensure the RRAP project contacthandles all files once they have beensubmitted to the administrator.

6. CMHC and The Ci ty ShouldCol laborat ive ly Engage in Rais ing Publ icAwareness

- 33 -

Implementation� CMHC and The City develop a cost-

sharing and resource-pooling protocolfor RRAP advertising strategies.

7. The Ci ty Requests CMHC to RedressOperat ional Obstac les and Paral le l Ci tyIn i t ia t ives

Importantly, best-practice researchdemonstrates that despite variances inCMHC guideline interpretations andflexibility in program design, an individualmunicipality can achieve nearly 100 percentof its allocated funding. However, thisachievement is made much more likely andmore immediately with greater CMHCcollaboration.

The City of Calgary recognises its role andaccepts that the Corporation mustcontribute to achieving RRAP maximisation.To this end, Building Regulations initiatedoperational improvements in 2004 May.These improvements have resulted in thefollowing achievements:

� A 60% reduction in the number of filesreturned by CMHC due to applicationform errors or a lack of sufficientinformation.

� Budget data indicates an increase in thenumber of successful applications. Asoperational improvements have onlyrecently been initiated, comparativeannual performance data is unavailable.However, preliminary indicationssuggest that The City will increaseapprovals by approximately 35-65% inthe current year.

� Halfway through the budget year, TheCity has utilised approximately 60% ofits allocated funding for Disabled RRAP,and Building Regulations anticipatesthat funding for this program categorywill be maximised.

Current RRAP improvement initiatives andsuccesses will be further augmented byefficiencies achieved through theimplementation of the enhancementsadvocated by this program review.However, RRAP goals of providingAffordable Housing are a Federalresponsibility. CMHC should be asked torespond to the local context and assist inthe review of identified process obstacles.Specifically, CMHC should be asked tomeet with Building Regulationsrepresentatives in order to:

1. Reduce requirements for third partyverification on City inspecteddeficiencies;

2. Review potentially overly stringentinterpretation of qualification criteria;

3. Participate in collaborative efforts topromote awareness of RRAP inCalgary;

4. Permit greater utilisation of communityservice organisations in finding potentialapplicants;

5. Permit identification of areas of highpotential in order to most efficientlytarget awareness campaigns;

6. Collaborate with the City in efforts toengage private-sector participation,including the use of targeted awarenesscampaigns and joint Request ForProposals; and

7. Review ways to improve opportunitiesfor program stacking.

CMHC has indicated a desire to heightencooperation with The City. The findings ofthis research report have been discussedwith CMHC management. The City andCMHC have agreed to work morecollaboratively in view of strengthening theRRAP in Calgary. A renewed spirit ofcooperation will undoubtedly contribute tothe success of the program. It is imperativethat both The City and CMHC be directed towork collaboratively to remove processobstacles and respond to local contextissues.

- 34 -

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n S t r a t e g y

A comprehensive implementation strategywill be provided to Building Regulations.The strategy will outline in detail theadministrative actions required to effectivelyexecute the above enhancements. Further,the strategy will identify provisions ofresponsibility for carrying out theenhancements.

E x p e c t a t i o n s

Implementation of the prescribed programenhancements should increase RRAPfunding utilisation by 40-60%. Furthermore,it is anticipated that the enhancements willenable Building Regulations to increaseoperational efficiencies, thereby reducingeconomic losses in the administration of theprogram.

Building Regulations has recently madesignificant progress in upgrading RRAPdelivery. However, comprehensiveimprovements in RRAP performance cannotbe expected to occur immediately.Application of the prescribed programenhancements will require considerableinterdepartmental coordination, and a time-consuming process of external stakeholdercommunication and collaboration. As such,expectations for program improvementshould be monitored according to a 3-yeartimeline.

At the conclusion of the 3-yearimplementation period, RRAP performanceshould reflect improvements to bothoperational costs and utilised funding.Should these improvements not occur, asecond review will be necessary to identifyopportunities for program improvement or areassessment of the City’s role in theprogram.

APPENDIX A: RRAP GUIDELINES

HomeownerEligibility Funding Eligible Repairs

Homeowners may apply if the value oftheir house is below a specified figureand if their household income is at orbelow established ceilings which arebased on household size and area.Eligibility is limited to houses lackingbasic facilities or in need of major repairin one or more of the following:structural, electrical, plumbing, heating,and fire safety. Assistance may beavailable to alleviate overcrowding.

Assistance is given in the form of aforgivable loan. The maximum loanamount for a home in Calgary is$16,000.

The forgivable loan is availableonly for mandatory repairsrelating to health and safety andto extending the useful life of theproperty. Any additional costsare the responsibility of thehomeowner.

Homeowner Disabled and Rental DisabledEligibility Funding Eligible Repairs

Disabled homeowners may apply if theirdisability falls under the WHO definitiongiven above and if the value of theirhouse is below a specified figure. Aswith Homeowner RRAP their householdincome must also be at or belowestablished ceilings. Landlords mayapply for modifications to units withrents also at or below established levelsand occupied by disabled tenants withincomes at or below establishedceilings. Assistance is also available tolandlords owning rooming houses withrents below established levels.Properties must meet minimum healthand safety standards.

Assistance is provided as a forgivableloan. The maximum loan amount forrental suites in Calgary is $24,000. Fora homeowner or a rooming house, it is$16,000. For homeowners andlandlords, 100% forgiveness isavailable for accessible modificationsup to the maximum loan on eligibleunits. Landlords must enter into anagreement guaranteeing that units willbe kept affordable to tenants. In thecase of rental units, landlords mustalso agree to limit new occupancy tolow-income households.

The assistance is available foreligible modifications to improvethe accessibility of the dwellingunit for occupants withdisabilities. Modifications mustbe related to housing and bereasonably related to thedisabled occupant’s disability.Disabled individuals may also beeligible for funding for bothHomeowner repairs andDisabled repairs.

RentalEligibility Funding Eligible Repairs

Owners of affordable self-containedhousing units may apply if thehousehold incomes of the tenants are ator below the established ceilings whichvary based on household size and area.Eligibility is limited to projects havingpre- and post-RRAP rents at or belowthe median market rent for the localarea. In addition, the property must lackbasic facilities or require a major repairin one or more of the following:structural, electrical, plumbing, heatingand fire safety.

Assistance is in the form of a fullyforgivable loan of up to 100% of thecost of mandatory repairs. Onlymandatory repairs relating to unitsoccupied by tenants with incomes at orbelow the income ceilings are eligible.Landlords must enter into anagreement which places a ceiling onthe rents that may be charged afterrepairs are completed, and limits rentincrease. Occupancy must also berestricted to low-income tenants.Maximum amount per unit in Calgaryis $24,000.

Eligible repairs are limited tomandatory repairs required tobring properties up to minimumlevels of health and safety. Oncerepaired, the property shouldhave a further useful life of 15years, assuming normal careand maintenance.

Rooming HouseEligibility Funding Eligible Repairs

Owners of rooming houses containingmore than 3 bed-units intended aspermanent accommodations for theoccupants may apply if the rental ratesare at or below established levels for themarket area. In addition, the propertymust lack basic facilities or requiremajor repair in one or more of fivecategories: structural, electrical,plumbing, heating and fire safety.

The assistance is in the form of a fullyforgivable loan of up to 100% of thecost of mandatory repairs. Owners ofrooming houses must enter into anOperating Agreement which places aceiling on chargeable rent, as well aslimits rent increases during the term ofthe Agreement. The amount ofassistance available is based on themandatory repair costs. Maximumamount per bed in Calgary is $16,000.

Similarly to Rental RRAP,eligible repairs are thosemandatory repairs required tobring properties up to a minimumlevel of health and safety and topermit a further useful life of 15years. Repairs may includethose to both the shared livingarea and bed units.

ConversionEligibility Funding Eligible Repairs

Owners of convertible buildingsintending to create permanentaccommodations may apply if rentalrates are intended to be below theestablished levels for the market area.Potential occupants must also haveincome levels below the applicableincome threshold in order to qualify asrenters on any RRAP funded property.

The assistance is in the form of a fullyforgivable loan of up to 100% of thecost of construction. Owners ofconverted buildings must enter into anOperating Agreement which places aceiling on chargeable rent, as well aslimits rent increases during the term ofthe Agreement. The amount ofassistance available is based on themandatory repair costs. Maximumamount per unit in Calgary is $24,000.

All construction required tocreate new residential units inthe existing building is eligible.Modifications must meet modernbuilding standards and addressissues of health and safety in thenew residences.

affordable housing residential rehabilitation assistance...

Documents