2025-06-11 Growth Committee Agenda Packet - Open Session
Growth Committee Meeting
Open Session
May 13, 2025
MINUTES - OPEN SESSION GROWTH COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 13, 2025 @ 12:00 P.M.
nd
2 FLOOR BOARDROOM, CITY HALL
Present: Mayor Donna Noade Reardon
Deputy Mayor John MacKenzie, Chair
Councillor Barry Ogden
Councillor Gerry Lowe
Councillor Mariah Darling
Absent: Councillor Brent Harris
Also
Present: Chief Administrative Officer B. McGovern
Commissioner Growth & Community Services A. Poffenroth
Director Growth & Community Planning D. Dobbelsteyn
Director Development & Community Standards C. McKiel
Director Community Planning & Housing P. Nalavde
Growth Manager F. Lima
Manager Housing A. Reid
-Harrison
Manager Customer Service K. Molnar
Implementation Manager M. Dempster
Administrative Assistant K. Tibbits
1. Meeting Called to Order
Deputy Mayor MacKenzie called the Growth Committee open session meeting to order.
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Minutes of March 18, 2025
Moved by Councillor Darling, seconded by Councillor Ogden:
RESOLVED that the minutes of March 18, 2025 be approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
3. Approval of Agenda
Moved by Councillor Ogden, seconded by Councillor Darling:
RESOLVED that the agenda of May 13, 2025 be approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
No disclosures of conflict of interest.
5. Consent Agenda (Recommendation: Receive for Information)
6. Presentations / Delegations
Growth Committee Meeting
Open Session
May 13, 2025
6.1 Development Incentives Report
Commissioner Poffenroth stated that Parcel Economics Inc. was engaged to
development incentives. Staff is recommending implementation of the report findings and for staff to
come back to the Growth Committee at a future meeting with an Implementation proposal.
R. Taylor and C. Ferguson, Parcel Economics Inc., reviewed the Saint John: Development
The purpose of the study was to assist the City in better understanding how the
current suite of housing incentives is meeting its goal of delivering more housing, and whether new
incentives are required to increase the supply of housing. As part of their analysis, past development
incentives provided by the City were also reviewed.
Based on their analysis and development incentive review, Parcel Economics Inc. made recommendations
as follows:
1) Complete a detailed cost-benefit analysis for incentives based on desired housing
objectives/outcomes.
2) Do not incentivize multi-unit ownership housing or mid-rise rental housing at this time.
3) Maintain the Construction Challenges Grant to assist with the development of challenging sites.
4) Maintain the existing Affordable Housing Grant program and consider increasing the grant
amount, where possible.
5) Consider time-based incentives to stimulate additional development to address housing supply
challenges.
6) Index incentive amounts to ensure they remain relevant with changing market conditions.
7) Review incentives regularly to ensure they are achieving their intended results. A two-or three-
year review cycle is recommended, subject to staff capacity.
Moved by Mayor Noade Reardon, seconded by Councillor Darling:
RESOLVED that the Growth Committee:
1) Receive and file the Incentives Review Final Report and Presentation; and,
2) Recommend staff incorporate report findings into a new Large Scale Incentive Program and Policy
and consider amendments to other existing grant programs, as applicable, and return to Growth
Committee.
MOTION CARRIED.
7. Business Matters
7.1 Development Update
7.1.1 Growth at a Glance Infographic
Director noting unprecedented building permit
th
activity in the first four months of 2025. By April 30, 207 building permits were received, representing
$185.5M in construction value, nearly five times the 5-year average of $39.7M for the same period. To
5-year average of 126 units for the
same period. 14 additional residential developments are planned, adding more than 1,110 new housing
Saint John is positioned to reach its 3-year goal of 1,158 new units. Additional major developments in
2025 are anticipated that are not yet reflected in the permit values, including the Museum Development
on Douglas Avenue and the NextGen Pulp and Paper Expansion on Mill Street.
Moved by Mayor Noade Reardon, seconded by Councillor Ogden:
RESOLVED that the Growth at a Glance Infographic be received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
7.1.2 Developer Symposium Update (Verbal)
ndth
Director McKiel noted that the 2 annual Developer Symposium was held March 12. Presentations
included an overview of the recent Zoning By-updated land
Growth Committee Meeting
Open Session
May 13, 2025
divestment strategy, presentation from CMHC on funding programs available for developers, and a
regional markets insights update from Envision Saint John.
Key themes emerged with continued interest in development incentives particularly those that address
infrastructure gaps like water, sewer, road access, rock breaking or excavation, as well as enhanced grants
for non-profit housing sectors. Developers were catalogue due to the
potential of faster approvals and reduced design costs. The symposium strengthened key relationships
and delivered important policy updates, while gathering meaningful feedback.
Moved by Mayor Noade Reardon, seconded by Councillor Ogden:
RESOLVED that the Developer Symposium verbal update be received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
7.2 City Market Strategic Plan Implementation Update
Saint John City Market Strategic Plan
Mr. Lima discussed implementation considerations, completed action items,
th
and items that will be completed throughout 2025 and 2026. 150Anniversary plans are underway with
celebrations being planned throughout 2026 including cultural events at the market.
Moved by Mayor Noade Reardon, seconded by Councillor Ogden:
RESOLVED that ion
MOTION CARRIED.
8. Referrals from Common Council
9. Adjournment
Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Darling:
RESOLVED that the open session meeting of the Growth Committee be adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED.
The open session meeting of the Growth Committee held on May 13, 2025, was adjourned at 1:15 p.m.
GROWTH COMMITTEEREPORT
Report DateJune 03, 2024
Meeting DateJune 11, 2024
Service AreaGrowth and Community
Services
Chair MacKenzie and Members of the Growth Committee
SUBJECT: Housing Governance Reform Analysis Supplementary Report
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in Growth Committee Open Session.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary AuthorCommissioner/Dept. HeadChief Administrative Officer
Carrie SmithAmy Poffenroth/Pankaj J. Brent McGovern
Nalavde
d
RECOMMENDATION
That the Growth Committee:
1.Receive and file the City of Saint John Housing Governance Study report and
presentation.
2.Recommend staff move forward with creating an implementation plan for
the recommended model and return to Growth Committee.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is tobrief members of the GrowthCommittee on the
findings of the Housing Governance Study as it relates to Initiative 8 in the
Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF)Grant Agreement. In August 2024, the City
commissioned SHS Consulting and Re/fact Consultingto complete a housing gap
analysis presented to Growth Committee in November 2024 and the subsequent
analysisof housing governance models outlined in Attachment 1 that would best
address the gaps identified.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
On September 26, 2022, Common Council Resolved that the City Manager
investigate the creation of a Municipal Housing Entity (MHE) for the City of Saint
John to implement the Affordable Housing Action Plan and any other initiatives
that may address the housing crisis in Saint John.
- 2 -
On October 3, 2022, Common Council adopted the Affordable Housing Action
governance enhancements that could accelerate the outcomes of the Affordable
On April 11, 2023, Growth Committee gave direction to staff to delay
investigation of governance reform in favour of the City making an application to
CMHC for the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF), which included Initiative 8
Governance Reform.
On January 2, 2024, The City signed a HAF Agreement. An RFP was issued in May
to select a qualified consultant. SHS was selected to conduct a gap analysis of the
current non-profit housing sector and investigate possible governance reform
models, including an MHE.
On November 19, 2024, SHS presented the Existing Conditions Assessment and
Gap Analysis to Growth Committee and was received and filed.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
Council Priorities
Common Council has established five priorities for their 2021-2026 term.
Affordable Housing aligns with the following Council Priorities:
Belong: Livable Neighbourhoods
o Facilitate a mix of affordable housing in all of our neighbourhoods.
Action is needed to increase the supply of housing and meet anticipated demand
due to population growth goals and other demographic factors.
Municipal Plan
Governance Reform under the HAF Program supports the implementation of the
e comprised of mixed income living and offer a range of
diverse housing choices to meet different life cycle needs. The Plan further aligns
with the General Housing Policies of the Municipal Plan (HS-1-11) and Affordable
Housing (HS-12-16).
10-Year Strategic Plan
Governance Reform under the HAF Program supports the 10-Year Strategic Plan
(2023-2027+) catalytic growth initiative of affordable housing advocacy which will
drive transformational outcomes for Saint John.
Affordable Housing Action Plan
Governance Reform under the HAF Program implements the 2022-2027
as it relates to Theme 1 - Improving
- 3 -
system awareness and coordination, cultivating a more responsive housing
system and expanding the supply and range of affordable housing options.
REPORT
Staff commissioned SHS Consulting to investigate, at the municipal level, possible
governance reform models, including a Municipal Housing Entity, to achieve the
to improving housing affordability, while
balancing fiscal constraints. Attachment 1 includes the full report of these findings
and recommendations.
The primary focus of the Governance Reform Analysis is to identify ways to
improve housing outcomes and address gaps at the municipal level of
responsibility. Local governments have a limited number of levers and are faced
with uncertainties around the longevity of National Housing Strategy funding,
creating the need to coordinate with provincial funding
current operations, which include a dedicated Manager of Housing, have been
temporarily bolstered by the Housing Accelerator Fund. In 2024, the City moved
forward with a third-party review of the housing landscape, gaps, and available
governance models to best address the local context.
Current State and Gap Analysis
The City has taken clear steps to play a more facilitative housing role through a
variety of initiatives, supported by HAF funding and other federal funding
initiatives. Provincial funding initiatives have also helped to support these efforts,
however, uncertainty remains around the longevity of these funding sources
which are critical to addressing affordability issues.
The Gap Analysis conducted by the Consultant highlighted four gap areas including
Supportive/special needs housing; housing to address the needs of most
vulnerable households; affordable rental housing and affordable ownership
housing. It also identified that Saint John has a robust group of established and
new Community Partners who are already working to provide affordable housing
options.
Coordination of efforts and leveraging resources across the broader set of
community partners, regional agencies and other levels of government were
identified as integral to making meaningful differences in housing outcomes at the
local level.
Affordable Housing Action Plan.
The elements identified in the gap analysis were then leveraged to assess four
different governance models including:
1. Municipal Entity Model,
2. Local Commission Model,
- 4 -
3. Housing Secretariat Model, and
4. Advisory Committee Model.
Within Saint John, there are approximately 2,500 non-market housing units
(Housing NB, co-operative, and non-profit housing). These units comprise 7% of
almost 40% of all non-market housing units in the
Province, there is considerable depth of experience and expertise in the
community to draw on and opportunity to expand.
To ensure long-term affordability, it will be essential to leverage existing
organizations, set targets, and seek coordination with other levels of government.
The study found that continuing to play a facilitative role (Housing Secretariat
Model), rather than stand up a new organization, will be the most effective use of
City resources to respond to existing and future housing challenges.
This recommendation does not preclude the eventual possibility of the Housing
Secretariat playing a strong role in helping establish and/or support new
organizations. To this point, there have already been several new organizations
created (NB Land Trust Co-Op, NB Collaborative Housing Co-Op) or consolidated
at a provincial level (Habitat for Humanity).
Conclusion
Based on the comparative assessment, the Housing Secretariat offers the most
value and impact across all gap areas, building on local capacity by coordinating
internal and external efforts in a sustainable manner within the housing system.
This model also reflects to a significant degree the role the City has been playing
in the last 3 years in terms of concierge services and development facilitation,
policy and grants, delivery of federal housing initiatives and system planning and
coordination. The Housing Secretariat model would enhance and formalize that
role, creating a more sustained municipal presence.
Should the Committee recommend proceeding, next steps would include
engagement of external partners and development of an implementation plan.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
$700,000 in HAF funding* has been internally allocated to support the initial
implementation and operation of any recommended Governance Reform Model
up to the end of 2027. HAF funding is flexible, and eligible uses include delivery of
such as
creation of affordable units, acquisition of land, and other investments that
support housing.
*As a condition of the fourth advance in early 2027, the City must achieve the
Housing Supply Growth Target (HSGT) and the Additional Targets.
- 5 -
{ƷğŅŅ /ƚƒƒĻƓƷʹ źƓ ƷŷĻ ĻǝĻƓƷ ƷŷğƷ ƷŷĻ /źƷǤ ķƚĻƭ ƓƚƷ ƒĻĻƷ źƷƭ I{D ƚŅ ЊͲЊЋЍ ǒƓźƷƭͲ
/aI/ ŷğƭ ĭƚƓǝĻǤĻķ Ʒƚ ƭƷğŅŅ ƷŷğƷ ƷŷĻ ŅƚǒƩƷŷ ğķǝğƓĭĻ Ǟƚǒƌķ ĬĻ ƦƩƚƩğƷĻķ ĬğƭĻķ ƚƓ
ƦĻƩŅƚƩƒğƓĭĻ ğƓķ ƭƚƒĻ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻ ğķƆǒƭƷƒĻƓƷƭ ƒğǤ ĬĻ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻķ͵
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
A Steering Committee comprised of staff from Community Planning and Housing,
Growth, General Counsel Office, and the Chief Financial Officer was created to
recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 City of Saint John Housing Governance Study Report
Attachment 2 City of Saint John Housing Governance Study Presentation
f Click here to enter text.
.
.
.
City of Saint John
Housing Governance Study
May2025
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Acknowledgments
The consulting team would like to acknowledge and thank those whose participation
and contributions during the study wereinstrumental in developing, evaluating and
recommending governance options.
Firstly, we would like to thank the many community stakeholdersrepresenting local
housing agencies and organizations who participated in key informant interviews and
providedkey insights and perspectives.The time and invaluable contribution of
staff/officials from the four case study entities was also appreciated, helping to expand
awareness of established governance models in other municipalities.
We also wish to thank the project Steering Committee at the City of Saint John who
acted as a critical sounding board, providing feedback, advice and guidanceat key
milestones. This Committee was comprised of senior staff from Planning, Legal and
Finance branches, sharing key municipal perspectives on housing governance.
Finally, we would like to thank those City staff who were the primary liaisons to the
consulting team, helping to provide regular feedback and facilitate the study process:
Carrie Smith, Project Manager
Andy Reid, Manager of Housing
The Consulting Team:
Ed Starr, Partner –SHS Consulting
Ken Foulds, Principal – Re/fact Consulting
Christine Pacini, Partner –SHS Consulting
Lanxi Dong, Senior Design Researcher - SHS Consulting
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... i
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2Background......................................................................................................................................2
1.3 This Report ....................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 Methodology and Approach .............................................................................. 5
2.1 Study Process .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Consultations .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Model Development ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 The Local Landscape ......................................................................................... 8
3.1 The Housing Hierarchy ..................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Local Stakeholders and Their Roles .............................................................................................. 10
3.3 Needs, Gaps and Initiatives ........................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Stakeholder Views on the Local Housing System.......................................................................... 16
4.0 Housing Governance Models .......................................................................... 20
4.1 Governance Models ....................................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Profile of Selected Housing Models ............................................................................................... 20
4.3 Case Study Examples .................................................................................................................... 22
5.0 Evaluation of Models ........................................................................................ 27
5.1 The Preferred Future ...................................................................................................................... 27
5.2 Putting Models in A Saint John Context ......................................................................................... 27
5.3 Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 33
5.4 Best Fit Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 33
6.0 Preferred Model ................................................................................................ 39
6.1 Rationale for Selection ................................................................................................................... 39
6.2 Operationalizing the Model............................................................................................................. 40
7.0 The Path Forward ............................................................................................. 42
7.1 Implementation Considerations ...................................................................................................... 42
7.2 Key Success Factors ...................................................................................................................... 42
Appendices .................................................................................................................. 43
i
Executive Summary
For the past several decades,the City of Saint John has played a variety of rolesin
response to the changing housing needs of local residents. In light of persistent housing
market challenges, especially over the last five years, municipalities like Saint John
have increasinglytakena more active role in trying to address housing issues that are
prevalent in today's communities, especially housing affordability.
While the City has assumed a more active role in seeking housing solutions, questions
remain about the most appropriate governance approach to achieve meaningful local
housing outcomes. On the heels of the Affordable Housing Action Plan which was
adopted by the City in 2022, there was an express desire by Council to clarify an
appropriate municipal role that could enhance housing outcomes in the face of clear
challenges. Accordingly, the City embarked on a housing governance study to examine
and evaluate potential models that could support housing objectives as set out in the
Affordable Housing Action Plan.
The Study Process
The housing governance study was undertaken in two parts,the first being an existing
conditions assessment and gap analysis. This initial step was designed to document
where gaps in the local housing system were evident, and the responses the City and
community stakeholders have been taking to address them. As an integral part of this
step, consultations with a spectrum of local housing stakeholders were undertaken to
better understand their perspectives on local efforts to address priority housing issues
and the role the City could play.
The second part of the study involved the identification and evaluation of prospective
housing governance models that the City could use to address identified system gaps.
As an initial step, housing objectives and evaluation criteria were set out. Four distinct
models were then developed based on successfully employed examples from other
jurisdictions. The models reflected a spectrum of housing governance approaches
suitable to the Saint John context and were evaluated on a comparative basis. The
review culminated in the identification of a preferred governance model, the rationale for
the model and implementation considerations which are documented in this report
The Local Housing Landscape
The City of Saint John operates within a hierarchy of housing policy, one which sets out
a framework for the roles of various levels of government. While the legislated housing
role at the municipal level is primarily one of land use planning and development
approvals, there have been tangible efforts to encourage more impactful housing
outcomes through additional measures. Beyond it's more traditional roles, the City has
undertaken housing and homelessness planning in order to better align housing efforts
and outcomes. Using Federal and Provincial programs like the Housing Accelerator
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
ii
Fund, the City has also been able to facilitate the delivery of additional housing through
the use of various tools and incentives.
The efforts of many locally established housing stakeholdershave been instrumental in
this progress. These efforts reflect the work of a range of community partners, from
more traditional Community Housing providers to transitional and supportive housing
organizations and private sector builders. Collectively, this has resulted in a notable
uptick in activity to address the housing gap areas identified under the Affordable
Housing Action Plan. Despite this activity,there remains concerns about coordination of
efforts, functional roles and how these can be better aligned to achieve more impactful
housing outcomes.
Through study consultations, community stakeholdersindicated there have been
positive strides by the City in creating a more responsive system to address local
housing needs but that challenges with coordination remain a concern. There was also
recognition that greater facilitation by the City could lead to more positive outcomes in
terms of addressing local housing needs. While stakeholders felt there was a need to
increase capacity within the local ecosystem, there are established and successful
proponents that already exist in the community and any consideration for an expanded
City role in housing would need to respect this.
A clear message from the community was that the City should continue to build on its
role in facilitation but should not be a direct deliverer of housing, given the experienced
and active partners that already exist. Stakeholders also highlighted additional
challenges due to unknown factors associated with the mandate of the local regional
service commission, the shift in the Province’s approach to housing and how programs
and initiatives at the Federal level could change post of a federal election.
Housing Governance Models
As part of the study process, a number of aspirational objectives and guiding principles
were adopted by the Steering Committee for a preferred housing governance model,
noting that it should:
Improve housing affordability
Balance fiscal constraints
Utilize existing resources to maximize community benefits
Foster coordination and alignment
Complement existing infrastructure and the work of community partners
Be responsive to community priorities
Add value/capacity to the local system
Provide a stable and sustainable presence
To evaluate a broad range of prospective options for municipal engagement, four
potential models of housing governance were selected:
o Model 1 - Municipal entity (housing corporation)
o Model 2 - Local commission
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
iii
o Model 3 -Housing secretariat
o Model 4 -Advisory committee
Case studies for each of the models were developed as part of the study to help
illustrate how the models operate in other jurisdictions. Each of the governance models
were then translated into a Saint John context to help ensure they could be evaluatedin
a comparative way, accounting for prospective roles, target groups, governance
mechanisms, asset management, partner engagement and operations. General
financial and resource requirements were also developed to define the minimum
operating and capital resources that would be required to launch and sustain the
various models. Based on evaluation criteria established and vetted with the project
Steering Committee, each of the models wereassessed on a comparative basis in
terms of their fit with defined criteria.
The Preferred Model
As a result of the analysis, the Housing Secretariat model was identified as the
preferred option, given its ability to:
Build on and add value to the existing housing ecosystem already established in
the City without creating a costly corporate entity that would compete for
resources with established local providers
Foster better coordination among internal and external housing stakeholders,
utilizing existing infrastructure and system resources to help advance outcomes
in gap areas and across the entire housing continuum
Add additional capacity to the local housing system without detracting from
existing resources and build on the work of valued community partners
Provide sound value in terms of the required investment and as part of the
municipal infrastructure, provide a more sustained way to respond to changes in
the housing environment
Ensure that a visible and active presence is maintained that can attract
investment, advocate for senior government resources and facilitate housing
outcomes
Embed a stable municipal function and provide for active facilitation of housing
outcomes without relying solely on community partners to achieve these
objectives
This model builds on the recent success that the City has achieved in leveraging
Federal and Provincial housing programs at the local level. As a secondary option, an
Advisory Committee approach could also be pursued but in light of recent progress, this
would be seen as a less impactful model and step backward. Both the Municipal Entity
and Local Commission models were considerably less attractive due to the need to
secure legislative authorities, the higher emplacement and sustaining costs, and the
negative impact they could have in diminishing resources available to established
partners in the community.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
iv
The Housing Secretariat model can effectively build on successful work to date and
could be positioned as a ‘centre of expertise’within the municipality, helping to align
municipal functions in support of housing initiatives and coordinate with the effortsof
established community partners to help them realize meaningful housing outcomesfor
the community. It is envisioned that the Housing Secretariat function would include
responsibility for:
Developing community housing plans as well as monitoring and reporting on their
progress
Helping to coordinate housing policy development
Developing and delivering housing-based programs using internal and external
resources
Working with planning staff to facilitate housing development with local
proponents
Providing advice to Council on all housing-related matters
Providing housing information and referral services to stakeholders and the
broader community
Building and maintaining relationships with community partners and stakeholders
to help advance housing initiatives
Maintaining inter-governmental partnerships and undertaking housing advocacy
Collaborating on regional housing-related issues and initiatives with the Fundy
Regional Services Commission
Implementation Considerations
In developing the models for the housing governance study, only general operational
parameters were set out to help comparatively assess the different governance options.
To establish a meaningful Housing Secretariat function, the City would need to further
refine the operational and financial framework for implementing thismodel. As an
important next step, the City would need to undertake this finer grain of implementation
planning, having regard for the key successfactors identified in this report.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
1
1.0 Introduction
The City of Saint John has had a varied role in the local housing sector for many
decades. While not a legislated obligation, there has been a recognition that the City
plays an important role within the local housing ecosystem. In response to housing
needs of the day, the City established a municipal non-profit housing corporation to
support these efforts in the 1970s.The Saint John Non-Profit Housing Corporation
(SJNPHC) has continued to play an important role in the local landscape since its
inception. With changes in senior government programs and the emergence of other
community housing organizations, the City’s role in andaffiliation with SJNPHC has
receded overtime. Today, SJNPHC is a wholly independent organization with no formal
ties to the City.
During this same period, the City has continued to play a role in housing, whether
through development approvals, land use planning or supporting the revitalization of
aging residential buildings. With recent changes in growth patterns and the emergence
of atypical housing trends in Saint John, there has been a shift in housing needs that
affect households across the housing continuum.
Like most Canadian cities, housing market challenges have become particularly acute
over the last five years, prompting municipalities to take an even more active role in
fostering housing outcomes. Several recent initiatives undertaken by the City of Saint
John underscore local efforts to address these emerging issues including:
Completion of a comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment (2022)
Adoption of a 5-year Affordable Housing Action Plan (2022)
Delivery of Affordable Housing Grants to help support new supply
Local delivery of Rapid Housing Initiative funding (Round 3) in 2023
Development and delivery of Housing Accelerator Fund initiatives (2024)
These efforts have been bolstered by generational housing investments at the federal
level, funded through a wide array of housing initiatives under the National Housing
Strategywhich was first launched in 2017.Several recent changes have also occurred
in the landscape at the provincial and federal level:
In 2022, the Provincial government announced reinvestment in public housing
through the construction of 380 new units and more recently in March 2023, the
renewal of the NB Housing Corporation
The launch of the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) in 2023 made substantial
resources available for municipalities like Saint John, creating the opportunity to
advance local initiatives like those outlined in the City’s Affordable Housing Action
Plan
In 2024, the Federal Government announced a new Housing Strategy to supplement
the 2017 NHS strategy, which included several new initiatives and funding programs.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
2
1.1 Study Purpose
With the election of a new provincial government in New Brunswick in the Fall of 2024,
the electionof a new Federal government in the Spring of 2025 and sustained housing
needs in communities across the country, it is clear there will be continued emphasis on
housing gaps at all levels of government. Within this backdrop, questions have been
raised about the most appropriate role for the City within the local housing ecosystem.
Local governments have a limited number of levers and resources to address these
issues. Whilethe City has taken clear steps to play a more facilitativehousing role
through a variety of initiatives, thesehave been enabled in large measure by HAF
funding and other federal funding initiatives. Provincial funding initiatives have also
helped to support these efforts, albeit to a lesser degree. However, uncertainty remains
around the longevity of these funding sources which are critical to addressing
affordability issues.
Coordinating efforts, leveraging resources and focusing on priorities are all integral to
making meaningful differences in housing outcomes at the local level. These themes
were prominent in the recommendations of the City’s Affordable Housing Action Plan,
especially in light of the most recent housing policy and program interventions by
governments at all levels. The Plan also noted the need to review the City’s role in
advancing recommendations of the Plan and whether creation of a municipal housing
entity would be beneficial, having regard for the housing landscape.
Accordingly in 2024, the City elected to explore potential municipal housing roles
through a housing governance study. The purpose of this study was to investigate, at
the municipal level, possible governance reform models, including a Municipal Housing
Entity, to achieve the City of Saint John’s goals related to improving housing
affordability, while balancing fiscal constraints. Terms for the study also underscored the
need for any governance reformsto result in improved outcomes thataddress housing
gaps at the local level.
1.2 Background
In 2022, a Housing Needs Assessment was completed for the City which demonstrated:
Challenges in the rental market, particularly among low-income households,
where 40% of renter households have incomes less than $20,000
Dramatic increases in resale prices of homes and rent increases corresponding
with an increased demand to access non-market housing that exceeds current
inventory (1,200 households on waitlist)
Aging of the housing stock and modest housing production levelsover the past
10 years, with the exception of the recent uptick in higher end rental apartments,
infill development and conversions
An increasing shift in housing starts towards apartments and the need for a
greater diversity in new housing stock. Apartment building housing starts
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
3
represented60% of all starts from 2010-2019 and 80% of all starts from 2020 to
present.
As a result of the Needs Assessment work, an Affordable Housing Action Plan was
developed by the City in response to the four gap areas identified across the City of
Saint John housing continuum, namely:
Supportive/special needs housing
Housing to address the needs of most vulnerable households
Affordable rental housing
Affordable ownership housing
The Action Plan and its 39 recommendations were tabled for Common Council
consideration in the Fall of 2023. About the same time, Common Council resolved that
the City Manager investigate the creation of a Municipal Housing Entity (MHE) for the
City of Saint John to implement the Affordable Housing Action Plan and any other
initiatives that may address the housing crisis in Saint John.
Shortly thereafter, Common Council adopted the Affordable Housing Action Plan, which
included Action 6b)which stated that“the City, along with the Housing Advisory
Committee, will investigate in 2023 potential governance enhancements that could
accelerate the outcomes of the Affordable Housing Action Plan”
With the advent of CMHC’s Housing Accelerator Fund program in 2023, the City’s
Growth Committee gave direction to staff to delay investigation of governance reform in
favour of the City making an application to CMHC for the Housing Accelerator Fund
(HAF). The application included several specific initiatives, including Initiative 8 –
Governance Reform.
In 2024 the City was formally awarded HAF funding and subsequently signed a
Contribution Agreement, securing funding for the Governance Reform initiative.
Thereafter, the City issued an RFP for a Housing Governance Review, selecting SHS
Consulting in association with Re/fact Consulting to complete this work.
The detailed objectives of the study as set out by the City were to:
Undertake a gap analysis to understand the community housing sector’s
strategic goals and what gaps may exist relative to addressing the four housing
gaps and goals of the Action Plan
Assess a wide spectrum of models based on best practice analysis, including but
not limited to the following:
o Develop, own and manage housing within the City organization or through
an arms length housing entity
o Develop housing only through an arms length entity
o Municipal task force or Housing Advisory Committee
Analyze potential models in accordance with several functional and operational
factors, identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
4
associated with each
Recommend a preferred model which included a detailed 3-year operating
budget containing projected revenue/expenditures and high-level targets
Prepare and present a summary report which included a summary of findings
and recommendations for a preferred housing governance model
This summary report is the main deliverable forthe studyand provides a best
practice analysis of different models, resource requirements, and outcomes,
resulting in the identification of a recommended model that includes
revenues/expenditures and targeted outcomes. The gap analysis of the local non-
profit and public housing sector that is included is intended to provide key insights
into the challenges and opportunities faced by the local housing sector, and through
best practice analysis, consider the potential value-added role a different form of
governance could play for the City.
1.3 This Report
This report first provides an overview of the methodology used for the study, including
the process, approach and consultations undertaken in the development of prospective
governance models. The report goes on to characterize the local housing landscape,
framing the broader housing system and situating the Saint John housing ecosystem
within that framework. Current local market gaps and the initiatives aimed at addressing
them are also summarized.
A general overview of the four housing governance models that were examined is
provided and case study examples are described to help illustrate how these models
work in practice. Each of the governance models are then translated into a Saint John
context to determine how they would function locally in terms of governance, operation
and required resources.
The report goes on to provide an evaluation of each of the four models, identifying the
criteria used to assess them and underscoring the results of the best fit analysis. Based
on thatanalysis, a preferred model is identified along withthe additional details around
how this model would work at an operational level. The report concludes with
considerations for implementation and key success factors necessary for adoption of
the preferred model.
In addition to the text of the report, a series of appendices are provided. These
document summary tables of the analysis and its results. Illustrative case studies for
each of the housing models are also provides as an appendix for reference purposes.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
5
2.0 Methodology and Approach
2.1Study Process
The study process was designed to build on the range of recent housing work and
engagement that has been undertakenby the City, including the development of the
AffordableHousing Action Plan. While this work provides a sound foundationfrom
which to work, therehave also been recent changes in the local housing system,
particularly with regards toprovincial and federal initiatives that support affordable
housing (e.g. HousingAccelerator Fund initiatives, Rapid Housing Initiative funding,
etc.). Accordingly, the methodology for the study accountedfor City roles and efforts
taken todate while having regard for thechanging environment in which these efforts
are being undertaken. In developing and evaluating prospective models, the study
maintained a clear focus on opportunities to improve affordable housing outcomes and
promotesustainable governance reform as a way to enhance the local housing system.
The study work wasundertaken in two distinct parts, as shown in the following diagram.
Figure 1
Part APart B
•Existing Conditions
•Housing Governance
Assessment and
Reform report
Gap analysis
•Confirm objectives and
criteria
•Identify/profile current
stakeholders
•Identify and summarize
potential housing
•Establish a preferred
governance models
future state
•Analysis of selected
•Identify functional gaps
governance models
•Document summary
•Operationalizing the
findings
preferred model
•Document findings in a
summary report
The first part of the study involvedan assessment of existing conditions and gapsbased
on work completed to date and pending or planned activities in the local housing
ecosystem. The results of the City’s Housing Needs Assessment (2022), Housing Action
Plan (2022) and work completed since their adoption provided a clear sense of
functional local gaps. As part of this exercise, mapping of gaps in the local housing
continuum and current responses was undertaken. Typical roles within the local housing
City of Saint John -Housing Governance Study| Final report
6
ecosystem were also mapped to help situate where various stakeholders are
functionally engaged. Through key informant interviews, details on stakeholder activity
and perspectives on preferred municipal roles were also gathered. This helped to
articulate a preferred future state and identify the functional gaps to achieving this state
based on current conditions.
Using the results of this gap analysis, the second part of the work focused on identifying
and evaluating potential municipal governance models suitable in a Saint John context.
At the outset, governance objectives and evaluation criteria were defined along with four
prospective governance reform models. After translating the models into a Saint John
context, abest fit analysis was undertakento determine the relative benefits and
challenges of each model. Based on the evaluation of analysis results against criteria
and objectives, a preferred municipal housing governance model for moving forward
was identified. Factors for consideration in implementing the preferred model were also
identifiedand included in the summary reportthat formed the main deliverable for the
study.
During the course of the study, the original scope of work was expanded to examine
specific case studies that illustrated each of the prospective models. This additional
work was intended to show how the respective models work in practice and how they
might inform/shape housing governance alternatives for Saint John. This deeper dive
enabled a more thorough understanding of the relative benefits, challenges and costs
associated with each model and the housing outcomes they fostered in their respective
jurisdictions. Publicly available information on each case was gathered and
supplemented with key informant interviews where necessary to help fully capture the
essence of the models and their local impact.
To provide feedback and advice during the study process, a project Steering Committee
was established. Members of the Committee included City staff who represented
several functional areas in the City with a direct or indirect role in housing, including
Planning, Legal and Finance. Over the course of the study, meetings were held with the
Steering Committee at key milestones to discuss findings to date, clarify information and
review recommendations.
2.2 Consultations
During the course of the study, consultations were undertaken with a number of local
housing system stakeholders to help develop a fuller understanding of local
perspectiveson issues, gaps, municipal roles, prospective governance models and
preferred outcomes. Key informant interviews were held with a cross section of local
stakeholders who are involved directly and indirectly with the delivery of housing in
Saint John. These included individuals representing community housing organizations,
supportive housing agencies, private sector developers and landlords. It also included
regional and provincial agencies involved in housing, homelessness or affiliated social
services. Key informant interviews were also held with key City staff in several functional
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
7
areas to help better understand City roles to date as well as the challenges and
opportunities looking forward.
As part of the expanded scope of work, consultations were also held with those
organizations identified as case study proponents for purposes of the study. Key
informant interviews with representatives from these organizations were most helpful in
identifying and characterizing how their respective models worked in practice and the
overall benefit in addressing housing needs locally. This approach was not possible in
all instances but did help to provide a more rounded perspective of how governance
models worked in their jurisdiction and what lessons might be applied in a Saint John
context.
In determining suitable case study candidates, several additional organizations were
investigated and information about them documented as part of the model development
process. While theseexamples were not selected as case studies, they did provide
valuable additional input and helped to shape the process of operationalizing selected
models in a Saint John context.
2.3 Model Development
Four generic governance models were developed based on a range of examples known
to exist in the municipal housing landscape across Canada. Their scanning and
selection wereintended to provide a cross section of examples illustrating varying
degrees of municipal engagement, from a direct housing delivery role to a more
facilitative advisory role under a community-based model. The selection of these
models was validated with the Steering Committee in Part A of the study and re-
confirmed at the start of Part B.
The generic models were defined based on scanning and were further augmented using
information developed from case study examinations. As a result of this work, selected
models were refined to set them into a SaintJohncontext, projecting how they could
work in practice locally. This facilitated a comparative assessment of the models based
on the criteria and objectives set out for the evaluation process. A high-level financial
work up with associated assumptions was also developed for each model. These
general estimates were used as part of the evaluation process. In order to develop more
formal cost comparisons between the models, a complete operational build out of each
model would be required which was beyond the scope of this study. That said, the level
of analysis employed did provide a reasonable means for comparatively evaluating the
four selected models against each other.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
8
3.0 The Local Landscape
3.1The Housing Hierarchy
To better understand the mechanics of the local housing ecosystem, it is first important
to understand how it aligns with the broader hierarchy of housing policy and mandated
roles. In Canada, there is an established framework that involves all levels of
government,each with scoped responsibilitieswhen it comes to housing. So while
federal policies and programs typically address housing at a national level,
municipalities are the ones most directly involved in the regulation and facilitation of
housing at a community level.
As policy makers, regulatorsand program providers, governments play a critical role
within the housing delivery system. In the case of Saint John, this hierarchy and some
of the more notable current functions can be illustrated as follows:
Figure 2
•National Housing Strategy and associated initiatives
•CMHC programs, research and data
Federal
•Social Development and Housing NB as primary leads
•Various other functional areas related to housing and homelessness
Provincial
•Regional Service Commissions (newer entities)
•Agencies, Boards, Commissions and organizations (Public & Non-profit)
Regional
•Land use planning and approvals
•Growth management and disposition of local lands
Municipal
There is also a recognition that senior levels of government have greater resources at
their disposal to assist in supporting resource-intensive initiatives. Despite traditional
areas of jurisdiction, there havebeen greater interventions from senior government in
recent years, creating a less hierarchical approach butin the process also generating
greater challenges in terms of coordination and lines of accountability. This is especially
true for federal/provincial /territorial relationships and has a direct impact on
municipalities and housing proponents trying to navigate this shifting system.
Current Context
The City’s Affordable Housing Action Plan(2022)provides adetailed description of
traditional policy roles, responsibilities and the evolving nature of the broader housing
system. While only recently adopted, the system of policies, programs and initiatives
outlinedin the Plan havecontinued to evolve since that time. This is a direct reflection
of the deepening affordability issues facing households across the country and the
efforts from all levelsof government to respond to sustained housing challenges.
City of Saint John -Housing Governance Study| Final report
9
Since the adoption of the City’s Affordable Housing Action Plan, changes in the housing
system continue to occur at all levels of government.
Federal
At the federal level, the NHS continues to drive a range of initiatives through a
generational investmentin housing. Under this strategic umbrella, there are a
wide variety of programs that have been launched to address housing issues at
various points along the housing continuum. There have also been a number of
bilateral agreements signed with the provinces and territories that support
housing initiatives and oblige cost sharing to leverage impact. While some
activities have been more effective than others, these offerings:
•Provide a wide range of funding and financing programstargeted at
community housing providers, non-for-profit housing proponents and
private sector builders
•Promote the expansion of partnership arrangements, both traditional and
non-traditional
• Assist municipalities in kickstarting supply and fostering systemic changes
at the local level through the HAF program
• Support homelessness initiatives through the Finding Home program
• Establish policy and regulatory measures aimed at protecting existing
stock, supporting development of new supply and expanding affordability
Provincial
The government of New Brunswick also plays an important role in the housing
system. As a legislated obligation, the Province plays a regulatory and program
delivery function. Through Housing NB, the province also has a direct roll in the
delivery and operation of deeply affordable community housing. Over the last
several years, there have continued to be changes in the approach to housing
and homelessness taken by the Province. During this period, Provincial activity
has included:
• Adoption of a New Brunswick Housing Strategy –‘A Home for Everyone
(2019-2029)’
•Delivery of initiatives under bi-lateral funding agreements with the federal
government
•Transition of Housing NB to a more distinct entity as a crown corporation
•Development of a plan to address homelessness and the emergence of
initiatives aimed at reducing homelessness
•Establishment of Regional Service Commissionswith social-oriented
mandates
•Utilization of the Regional Development Corporation to provideseeding
grants that assist with pre-development activities
The recent change in the Provincial government has signalled a further shift in
approach that may lie ahead.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
10
Regional/Local context
Since adoption of the City’s Affordable Housing Action Plan in 2022, there have
been sustained pressures in the Saint John housing market. The finite housing
supply and tightening affordability conditions are key drivers of these pressures.
Like other municipalities across Canada, these pressures have also resulted in a
notable expansion of encampments and unhoused. Within this backdrop, the City
has forged ahead to:
• Advance strategies under the approved Affordable Housing Action Plan
• Secure funding under the Rapid Housing Initiative to facilitate roll out of
local projects
• Secure a sizable HAF funding envelope and move forward with several
key initiatives
• Foster several housing projects that are ‘in the pipeline’, including
supportive units
• Create a functional role for responding to homelessness and adopted a
‘Housing for All’ homeless strategy
These actions and initiatives point to a more concerted effort on the part of all levels of
government to address persistent housing issues. This has resulted in a more
established housing presence at the City to take advantage of funding opportunities and
prompted action among more community partners who are pursuing options to address
housing and homelessness. However, these actions tend to be linked to specific
programs and initiatives which historically have not been sustained. There are also clear
challenges in coordinating the efforts of governments and those who deliver housing
and related services at the grassroots level. Navigating this complex system and
delivering housing outcomes in a continually shifting environment remain key
challenges for those seeking to provide housing ‘on the ground’.
3.2 Local Stakeholders and Their Roles
The local housing ecosystemis comprised of several different players, each with
differing roles and motivations. Whether developing policy, regulating development,
providing land, building housing or delivering housing-related services, these interests
all have a role in addressing local housing needs. Systems like this have many inter
dependent relationships within the ecosystem that collectively are geared to addressing
local needs. Through inter-dependent relationships, this system relies on the collective
action of those who participate in it to meet the range of needs across the housing
continuum. Where the system is unable to meet these needs,there are gaps that can
remain unaddressed.
While housing options at the market end of the continuum are traditionally addressed by
the private sector and governed by regulation, the needs of individuals at the opposite
end of the continuum require non-market interventions and public investment (see
Figure 1). As a result, there is a greater tendency for government and not-for-profit
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
11
entities to be actively involved at this end of the housing continuum. In between these
market and non-market poles of the continuum lie middle-market housing needs for
those with moderate incomes. Through collaboration, governments,the non-profit
sector and market housingproponentscan help to serve this segment of the market but
will typically relyon a combination of regulation and incentives to help deliver units.
Figure 3
Government of
Government of New
Canada
Brunswick
City of Saint John
Community
Community
Regional sector
Support/service
Housing-affiliated
developer
organizations
providersorganizations
agencies
agencies
Special needs
Other
HousingNB
Private
Community
housing
Emergency
housing
(provider)
Private
builders/
Special care
housing
providers
shelter
organizations
landlords
developers
facilities
providers
providers
As shown above (Figure 3), there is a complex and interrelated housing ecosystem in
Saint Johncomprised of many participants that are involved in the delivery of housing
and related services across the housing continuum. Some of the more notable players
in terms of housing delivery include:
Public sector housing providers–deeply affordable rental housing offered on a
rent-geared-to-income basis by government-based housing providers (e.g.
Housing NB)
Community housing providers–deep, below market and mixed market rental
housing offered by non-profit corporations (e.g. Saint John NPHC, Housing
Alternatives)
Emergency, transitional and supportive housing providers–shelters and
supported living environments with or without support services for vulnerable
households and those with no/low income, typically provided by non-profit
organizations (e.g. SJ Homeless Hub, Outflow, Coverdale, Partners for Youth)
Private building owners/landlords–For-profit businessesthat offer rental housing
at market rent rates
Private builders/developers–For-profit businessesthat develop and build
residential dwellings, providing rental, condominiumor ownership housing at
market rates
City of Saint John -Housing Governance Study| Final report
12
Other housing providers – Agencies/organizations that provide housing that
caters to specific groups, whether at market or below market rates (e.g.,
retirement homes, seniors care facilities, post-secondary student housing,
indigenous housing providers, etc.)
The City of Saint John, as a municipality, plays a significant role in facilitating housing
outcomes across the entire continuum. In that role, they interface with a range of
housing partners through differing roles and relationships. While certain of these roles
like land use planning are legislated responsibilities, othersare more discretionary in
nature.The City’s vision to create a healthy, vibrant and inclusive communityinvariably
means that it must consider alternative ways to work with housing partners and facilitate
housing outcomes that better meet the needsof householdsacross the continuum,
even where this may not squarely fall within the mandate of municipal government.
The City has assumed several roles, both mandated and discretionary, to help address
housing needs in the community. City roles currently include:
Policy development and regulation
• Establishing and enforcement of development regulations
• Streamlined approvals and processes (One-stop development shop)
• Property standards enforcement
Housing and homelessness planning
• Development and implementation of the Affordable Housing Action Plan
• Coordinating local responses under the Provincial umbrella of programs
• Actioning the SJ ‘Homes for All’ strategy
Program facilitation and delivery
• Dangerous & vacant building program
• RHI program delivery
•HAF program –various initiatives
• North end secondary plan
• Housing concierge program
• Unlock gentle density
• Capital affordable housing
• Leverage public/residential land
• Zoning bylaw reform
• E-permitting
• Governance review
Provision of tools/incentives
• Targeted HAF grants (e.g. construction challenges, missing middle,
revitalizing rental stock)
• Affordable housing soft cost grant
• Affordability housing grant
• Urban development incentive
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
13
While the City has been active in working to respond to current needs, the delivery of
programs and the provision of tools/incentives have been enabled primarily through
provincial or federal program funding/grants. Historically, programs like these have not
been sustained or are only offered for a limited time. Consequently, they cannot be
relied upon, requiring municipalities like Saint John to be flexible and adaptive to
program changes over timeand to set in place organizational structures that are
designed to deliver sustainable services and supports.
3.3 Needs, Gaps and Initiatives
The Housing Needs Assessment completed in 2022, identified four key housing gaps at
points along the housing continuum in Saint John. The issues faced by households in
these gap areas and their housing requirements were considered priorities under the
Affordable Housing Action Plan adopted later that year. The four gap areas can be
described as follows:
Supportive/special needs housingthat serves:
th
o Households with special needsthat have incomes < 30 income
percentile
o Those requiringemergency, transitional or supportive housing
o Those experiencingsupply, accessibility and support service issues
Housing to address the needs of most vulnerable households that serves:
th
o Low income renter households with incomes < 30 income percentile
o Those requiringcommunity or RGI housing
o Those experiencingsupply, income and housing condition issues
Affordable rental housing that serves:
th
o Mid-market households able to rent with incomes > 30 income percentile
o Those requiring rental housing that is at or below market rates
o Those experiencing affordability, supply and housing condition issues
Affordable ownership housingthat serves:
th
o Mid-market households able to own with incomes <60income percentile
o Those requiringowner accommodation that is at or below ownership
market rates
o Those experiencing affordability, supply and housing choice issues
Recommended actions were identified in the Plan to help address these gaps. Since
that time, the City has assumed several roles to help facilitate the delivery of housing
options through partners active in the local housing ecosystem. Using programs, tools
and initiatives, the City has been able to make progress towards addressing these gaps.
A more detailed description of the gaps and the activities undertaken to address them
can be found in Appendix 1.
Local housing initiatives
The City has taken steps on several fronts to address the recommendations of the
Affordable Housing Action Plan and help facilitate the development of more affordable
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
14
housing in the community. Using the tools at its disposal and by facilitating the delivery
of program funding, these efforts have started to yield results in terms of housing
developmentthat addresses gap areas. While the longevity of program funding from
senior government remains a concern, the work being done by the City with local
housing proponents points to promising future housing outcomes.
Estimated in-process and planned affordable housing development by these local
housing proponents can be summarized as follows:
Figure 4
Affordable Housing Activity in Saint John (2024 estimates)
Affordable Housing units/beds
Traditional community housing providersExisting In-processPlanned
Saint John NPHC500100
Housing Alternatives/ Rehabitat9003060
sub-total 1,40030160
Other housing providersExisting In-processPlanned
Kaleidoscope Social Impact*651200
Outflow Shelter6796
Habitat for Humanity2026
sub-total 9362212
Notable other entitiesExisting In-processPlanned
Housing NB (owned)**1,0008080
Housing NB (rent supplement)900
Steepleview Developments (NP)8556
Vacant to Vibrant (NP renovations)24
SJ Homelessness Hub60
Coverdale (shelter)21
Coverdale (transitional)12
Centre for Youth Care10
sub-total 2,08816080
Private sectorExisting In-processPlanned
Fundy Harbour Group***75 tbc
W/L Holdings***32
Vida Living (landlord)205
sub-total 280320
Total activity3,861284452
* Kaleidoscope also has a Building SJ fund it is growing to help support capital development
** Excludes Rifle Range units transferred in 2023 to Housing Alternatives
*** Affordable units are part of a larger planned development with mixed units
Source : Estimates based on information provided by organizations, public records or the City of Saint John
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
15
Affiliatedlocal entities
In addition to traditional housing providers, there are also entities operating in the local
housing ecosystemwhich are worthnoting. While they do not directly provide housing,
these entities can contribute towards housing outcomes through coordination with other
system partners.
Saint John Land Bank
Community-based corporation that is empowered to acquire and use land/
property for housing purposes
City has representation on the Board,and the City also has an active say in how
funding made available to the Land Bank is allocated via the CANF agreement
Recent activity has been geared to protecting/revitalizing aging rental stock
The recent emergence of a provincial Cooperative Community Land Trust that
has an affiliation to the Land Bank leaves lingering questions regarding roles and
the connection of the Land Bank with system outcomes
Fundy Regional Service Commission
This regional entity was established through legislation and is responsible for
coordination of designated services, including social services, within its defined
service area
As a recent addition to the landscape, the RSC is in the early days of
operationalizing its mandate which may include housing for vulnerable
households
Its role within the local housing landscape is as yet undefined but could add
additional administration functions within an already crowded ecosystem
Regional Development Corporation
This regional entity was established through legislation and is responsible for
coordination of designated economic and rural development type services
RDC has assisted community groups in undertaking housing development
through the provision of grants for pre-development activities
System observations and addressing gaps
The review of recent and planned system activity shows that proponents are accessing
housing funding and incentive programs, both locally and through other levels of
government. They have been successful in delivering affordable housing to date and
are advancing other projects, whether in the development pipeline or in the planning
stage. Housing being brought on-line is oriented to a variety of different groups/needs
and spans much of the affordability spectrum. While there are established community
partners delivering this housing, there has also been the emergence of smaller non-
profit entities with less development experience advancing projects geared to clients
with supportive needs, primarily in response to homelessness needs.
Overall, focus has tended to be on the development of new units rather than renovation/
rehabilitation of existing stock. Engagement with the private sector has also been
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
16
somewhat limited, although some mixed unit rental development has been advanced
which will result in the production of some affordable units. Agap area where
development activity is very low is mid-markethousing and affordable ownership. Action
in this segment of the market cantypically be fostered through regulatory changes or
relief. However, in the current housing market, affordability challenges remain,and
alternative measures may be warrantedto spur activity. The City’s recent offering of
HAF incentives to address the ‘missing middle’ may prove to be a helpful measure in
this regard.
3.4 Stakeholder Views on the Local Housing System
As an integral part of the study process, a number of one-one-one key informant
interviews were held with stakeholders engaged in or with the local housing system.
This included:
A cross-section of local community stakeholders representing organizations
involved with housing development, both in the non-profit and privatesectors (8
in total)
A cross-section of City staff working in areas of service related directly or
indirectly to housing (5 in total)
External stakeholders from regional/provincial agencies engaged in housing or
related services (3in total)
In addition to gathering general information related to these organizations, external
interviewees were asked about the housing work they are currently involved with and
the plans they have for expanding housing/services. They were also asked about:
Their experiences working with the City to deliver housing locally
The functions and roles they felt the City should be undertaking to help improve
the delivery of affordable housing
Their perspectives on the creation of a municipal housing entity as well as
successful municipal models they have seen elsewhere
Any housing roles/functions that would be better delivered by stakeholders rather
then the City
The most appropriate role for the City of Saint John when it comes to fostering
housing that is more affordable
Internal interviewees were asked a more scoped set of questions revolving around
appropriate municipal roles and responsibilities, service delivery gaps and functional
responsibilities that community partners should assume. The responses to these
questions provided a wealth of information and important perspectives related to the
municipal roles in housing. Following is a synopsis of the feedback gathered.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
17
General observations
Based on interviewee feedback, there was recognition that greater facilitation on the
part of the City has been helpful, but that system coordination was still an on-going
issue. Respondents also noted that:
•The recent infusion of external funding is helping to foster housing activity and
the creation of new units, less soin the area of renovation/rehabilitation
• City facilitation of programs and approvals is having an overall positive effect, but
coordination is required
• Efforts to streamline and support development are welcome but there is limited
appetite for additional bureaucracy that would result from setting up a new City
entity to develop and manage affordable housing units
• There remains a lack of clarity around defined roles, responsibilities, coordination
and alignment within the local housing system
Perspectives on the current City role
Respondents had clear opinions on the appropriate role of the City, citing:
Challenges
• Undertaking some programs have been more troublesome than expected,
others less so
• Coordination internally between departments is better but there is still room to
improve
• Private sector engagement remains a work in progress
• Homelessness has ‘absorbed a lot of oxygen in the room’
• Questions linger about having the necessary resources to get the job done
Opportunities
• Clear support for delivery of incentives and pre-development assistance
• Project facilitation and applicant advice are welcome
• More collaborative and inclusive engagement with community partners
• Connecting partners and development proponents
• Providing leadership/planning to address issues, focus on priorities
• Advocacy to higher levels of government
Perspectives on Community role
Respondents also had clear opinions on the appropriate role for community partners,
citing:
Challenges
• Capacity & knowledge among smaller proponents is lacking
• Program rules are not always suitable, especially for smaller project realities
• Only general system awareness & coordination is evident among
stakeholders
• There are limits to financial resources and the ability to assume risk
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
18
Opportunities
•Established proponentsare prepared to continue delivering housing
•Newer proponents are getting more actively involved
•There are more options available to access social investment and land
•Interest exists in having a broader mix of housing types developed
•There is room for greater dialogue and engagement with the City
Perspectives on creating a municipal housing entity
Interviewees tended to have strong opinions about the option of creating a municipal
housing entity, citing:
Challenges
•The City is not adequately resourced for undertaking discretionary work
•Concerns linger about adding further providers in a relatively small but
established ecosystem (i.e. diverting resources)
• Concerns about significantly increased ongoing expenses for the City to
operate a residential development entity
• Apprehension about the entity incorporating meaningful community feedback
and maintaining autonomy in setting agenda/direction
• Limited City housing experience ‘on the ground’, being highly reliant on
community partners
• Risk of shift in focus away from community capacity/investment
Opportunities
• Formalizing a municipal role would provide clarity on service boundaries/
focus
• Continuity and alignment with existing City functions would be more effective
• Gaining access to City resources not otherwise available
Other Perspectives
Respondents also offered other perspectives of note, including:
Challenges
• Local housing system issues persist with regard to coordination and
awareness
•Impediments exist due to the structure and misalignment of certain
government programs and initiatives
Opportunities
• Fundy Regional Service Commission may provide greater access to
provincial funding through the RSS program
• Creating a higher profile heightens awareness and brings attention to housing
issues
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
19
What this points to
Insights provided by respondents supported a clear role for municipal government in
housing but cautioned that the role should be scoped. Stakeholders engaged in the
local housing ecosystem are wary of adding more bureaucracy to an already complex
system. Respondents were also concernedabout the ability to sustain a municipal entity
role in the absence of senior governmentfunding. They felt that working collaboratively
with partners would yield more beneficial and sustained results.
Based on feedback provided, it was clear that there wasconsensus among
stakeholders about most appropriate municipal roles/functions:
Facilitation and project approvals
Fostering partnerships, connecting stakeholders
Advocating with other levels of government
Being strategic in planning and leadership, public education
Providing incentives, marshaling available resources
Do NOT be a developer entity or owner/operator
In other instances, stakeholders had a more diverse range of opinions about the
municipal role when it came to:
Long term engagement on homelessness
The degree to which the municipality should assume risk
An appropriate level of municipal investment
Scope of accountability measures
Degree and focus of capacity building
Stakeholders also cited the fluidity of the housing environment and a number of
unknown factors which could impact on the municipal role in housing. These included:
The non-defined role of the Fundy Regional Service Commission and how that
may impact local housing and homelessness services
The extent of changes in Provincial housing roles under the newly elected
government and how that may influence the range of programs/initiatives
available
The outcome of the federal election and how this could alter the offering of
federal programs/initiatives, both today and in the future
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
20
4.0 Housing Governance Models
4.1 Governance Models
The stated purpose of the study was to investigate, at the municipal level, possible
governance reform models, including a Municipal Housing Entity, to achieve the City of
Saint John’s goals related to filling housing gaps and improving housing affordability,
while balancing fiscal constraints.
At the outset of the project, a working set of housing governance models was identified
for review purposes. Through an iterative process, models were narrowed down to four
options which reflected a range of governance oversight and municipal service
mechanisms. These four generic options were presented, discussed and vetted with the
project Steering Committee prior to embarking on analysis.
Several case study options were also identified to help illustrate how each model works
in practice. From these, an appropriate case study example was selected to represent
each housing model and formally documented. To provide a comparative base for
assessment, each of the models was translated into a Saint John context to understand
how they would generally function at an operational level. Where necessary, additional
refinements were made to the four models to facilitate evaluation. While this entailed a
theoreticalprocess based on a number of assumptions, the exercise did help to weigh
the comparative benefits and challenges associated with each model.
As part of the initial model framing process,a number of objectives and guiding
principles were developed around a preferred housing governance model and vetted
with the project Steering Committee. Based on these attributes, the preferred model for
Saint John would ideally:
Improve housing affordability
Balance fiscal constraints
Utilize existing resources to maximize community benefits
Foster coordination and alignment
Complement existing infrastructure and the work of community partners
Be responsive to community priorities
Add value/capacity to the local system
Provide a stable & sustainable presence
These objectives and guiding principles were re-examined during the evaluation
process to support the best fit analysis.
4.2 Profile of Selected Housing Models
Initial selection of models was based on scanning of housing governance models used
elsewhere in Canada and the consultant’s knowledge of how typical municipal
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
21
governance structures are deployed. As set out in the study Terms of Reference, the
generic governance typologies needed to represent a range of municipal control
structures, from direct municipal ownership and operation to an autonomous advisory
structure that was distinct and independent from the City. The four options to be
selected also needed to have regard for their general fit within a Saint John context.
As a result, the following four governance models were selected for assessment:
1. Municipal Entity (Housing Corp.)
2. Local Commission
3. Housing Secretariat
4.Advisory Committee
The generic models as first conceived can be described in basic terms as follows:
Model 1 – Municipal Entity (Housing Corp.)
This model represents a high degree of municipal involvement in the direct
delivery and operation of housing. The main characteristics of the model are:
Wholly owned and operated municipal legal entity
Board of Directors is appointed by City Council
Staffing is done with City employees
The corporation maintains full control and ownership of its assets
Operations involve the direct delivery of housing
Responsibilitiesinclude development, management and landlord functions
Model 2 - Local Commission
This model represents a high degree of municipal involvement in the delivery of
housing services. The main characteristics of the model are:
Semi-independent, municipal legal entity
Board of Directors is appointed by City Council (e.g. commissioners)
Staffing is done by independentemployees
The organization may or may not hold fixed assets
Operations involve the deliveryof housing services rather than housing
itself
Responsibilities include program delivery, advocacy and coordination
functions
Model 3 - Housing Secretariat
This model represents municipal involvement in the facilitation of housing
development and delivery of housing services. The main characteristics of the
model are:
Secretariat as an internal service unit within the City structure
Directed by Council with community engagement
Operates as part of municipality but across City functions
Staffing is done by City employees
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
22
Operations involve direct & indirect service delivery
Responsibilities include program delivery, facilitation, advisory and
coordination functions
Model 4 - Advisory Committee
This model represents direct municipal involvement in the facilitation of housing
development and delivery of housing services. The main characteristics of the
model are:
Independent non-legal advisory entity
Self-directed committee structure, ideally with joint chairs (City +
community)
Wide cross-section of participating community representatives
No employees(support resources only)
Operations involve indirect service delivery/coordination
Responsibilities include system planning, advisory and coordination
functions
4.3 Case Study Examples
As part of the expanded study scope, illustrative case study examples were developed
for each housing governance model. Initially, several examples of case studies were
identified for each model and through investigation, the most appropriate example was
selected for documentation. Information was gathered through publicly available
sources and augmented by key informant interviews in most instances.
These case studies provide helpful insights as to how the governance models they
represent work in practice. Wherever possible, relevant local examples were identified
in order to take advantage of similar operational context. In other cases, examples had
to be drawn from jurisdictions that have different operating parameters. In these
instances, contextual differences were highlightedin the case study to qualify
comparisons.
Collectively, the case studies provide concrete examples of how different housing
governance models work in practice. They also help to inform how models could be
applied in a Saint John context and in that regard, were instrumental in helping to
support comparative assessment during the evaluation stage of the study.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
23
Each of the four models, their respective structures and the case study used to illustrate
them are highlighted in the following chart:
Figure 5
ModelGeneral structureCase study
Municipal Entity Model Conventional arm’s Durham Region –
(Housing Corp.)length housing NP Housing Corp + Local
corporationHousing Corp.
Local Commission Municipal corporate HarbourStation
Modelentity with commission Commission (TD Station)
oversight
Housing Secretariat Internal ‘center of City of Hamilton-
Modelexpertise’ within the City Housing Secretariat
structure
Advisory Committee Independent advisory City of Fredericton
Modelbody affiliated with City(FAHC)
NOTE: Several affiliated examples were also examined at a general level as part of case study
development.
Following is a general overview of each of the case studies. More detailed descriptions
for each case study can be found in Appendix 2 to this report.
Durham Region – Housing Corporations
This case study is unique in that it illustrates two variations of the municipal housing
corporation model. Durham Region is situated at the east end of the greater Toronto
area (GTA). As a regional government entity, Durham Region is comprised of a number
of lower tier municipalities that serve residents across a large geographic area
comprised of both highly urbanized and rural settlement areas. Housing has been a
municipal function within the region for several decades due in part tothe legislative
responsibilities that municipalities have in Ontario. That said, the Region has been
active in developing, operating and facilitating housing, both directly and indirectly.
There are two operating municipal housing entities within the region. The first is the
Durham Region Local Housing Corporation which was established through transfer of
assets from the Province of Ontario under legislation more than 20 years ago. This non-
profit housing corporation has share capital but the Region is the sole shareholder and,
in that regard,has full ownership and control of the entity. In terms of characteristics, the
corporationis part of the Region of Durham organizational structure, with staff being
direct employees of the Region and offices within the Regional Headquarters. They
employ a team of property managers and building maintenance workers, as well as
tenant relations workers and financial and administrative staff.
Since the responsibility for owning and managing the former Provincial units was
transferred to them in the year 2000, they have focused almost entirely on managing
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
24
their existing portfolio, which consists of approximately 1,100 rent-geared-to-income
units located across the Region. More recently, they have begun to examine the
redevelopment potential of some of the existing projects to determine whether they can
expand the supply of affordable housing in some locations.
They are funded directly by the Region of Durham and also carry out a number of other
functions that were legislated under the Ontario Social Housing Reform Act (which was
eventually replaced by the Housing Services Act), including administering and enforcing
funding agreements of other community housing providers governed by the Act and
ensuring that the supply of affordable housing units within their jurisdiction meets the
performance standards set out in the Act.
A sister corporation is also actively operating in Durham Region. This arms length entity,
incorporated as Durham Region Non-profit Housing Corporation in the 1980s, has a
similar functional role but is constituted as a private non-profit housing corporation
without share capital. It operates more autonomously, and municipal influence can only
be exercised through board appointments by Regional Council through Service
Manager authorities. Under this framework, the corporation operates independently
from the Region but still maintains a minor governance connection to it.
The corporation runs under the direction of a leadership team comprised of a CEO, a
Manager of Asset Management, a Manager of Finance and a Manager of Tenant
Relations. The CEO reports directly to the Board of Directors, which is comprised of a
combination of Regional Council members and community volunteers. They occupy
offices that were developed on the ground floor of an affordable rental apartment they
built in downtown Oshawa. They are fully independent in all decision making on
procurement policies, staffing, financing and development of affordable housing
projects. acquisition of property, borrowing and property management policies.
Since their inception in the mid-1980’s, they have gone on to develop approximately
1,400 rental housing units in 19 locations across Durham Region, mainly under legacy
senior government housing programs. Their day-to-day operations are financed through
funding agreements with the Region (as Service Manager), together with revenues
generated by project rents, parking charges and laundry revenues.
In both instances, these housing corporations illustrate variations on how municipal
housing governance could be exercised. Each is successful in addressing local housing
needs, largely based on legacy housing programs of past decades and the assets they
have accumulated. That said, each organization is pursuing new development and
portfolio renewal of their existing assets in order to preserve and expand the supply of
affordable housing in the community. The legislative framework under which they each
operate does provide funding for operations and capital renewal which helps support
the on-going viability of their respective portfolios. However, the examples do illustrate
how municipal entities like these can impact on the local housing market.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
25
Harbour Station Commission -City of Saint John
This case study is unique in that it illustrates the governance aspects of a non-housing
commission entity. The commission structure is one that has been used throughout New
Brunswick and which was specifically requested for examination in the analysis. That
said, it is not a common housing governance model elsewhere. A few case study
options were identified for this model, all of which were difficult to contextualize in a
housing framework. That said, the Harbor Station Commission was selected as a more
straight-forward example for illustrative purposes.
The Harbour Station Commission was established by the City but its corporate
authorities are derived from legislation. Harbour Station (alsocalled TD Station) is a
multi-purpose recreational and trade show facility situated in the heart of Saint John. It
includes a 6,600 seat arena that is home to a major junior hockey team. The
Commission, who's Board is constituted of appointed municipal representatives,
oversees the operation and management of the facility. Ownership of the commission’s
assets are vested with the City of Saint John and the City maintains amajority share of
appointed representatives on the Board of Directors. Three other local municipalities are
represented on the Board and the City maintains ex officio positions for the Mayor and
staff with the commission.
The commission model is unique in that it requires legislative authorities in order to
exercise meaningful corporate functions. While the City maintains ownership of the
asset and responsibility for its on-going upkeep, it must operate under the Board
governance structure and rely on the authorities granted to it under the legislation. In
the absence of that legislation, the semi-autonomous authorities of the Commission
would be greatly diminished and essentially reflect those of city departments. In this
way, the commission model is highly reliant on legislative authorities and municipal
direction to fulfill its mandate.
City of Hamilton -Housing Secretariat
This case study illustrates the unique governance aspects of a housing secretariat
approach. The housing secretariat model does not have a legal structure per se and
rather, is a defined function within a traditional municipal service framework. The City of
Hamilton only recently adopted this housing governance model but has been able to
make strides in realizing positive housing outputs in its short tenure.
The City of Hamilton is situated on the eastern end of the Greater Toronto Area \[GTA\]
and is a large single tier entity serving a broad geographic area that also includes rural
settlements. The housing secretariat function was established to create a dedicated
centre of expertise, designed to drive results in terms of affordable housing using a
‘whole of city’ approach. Situated within the planning department, the secretariat
function actually operates across several functional areas in the City to help coordinate
internal and external resources to address priority housing needs. Like Durham Region,
the City falls under the auspices of housing legislation but the Hamilton model is unique
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
26
in that it does not derive sustaining funding under the Service Manager role (that is
addressed elsewhere in the organization).
Under the housing secretariat, elements of the municipal structure are essentially
reorganized and re-tasked to support the affordable housing objectives that have been
set out by City Council. In addition to playing a coordinating function among city
department's, the secretariat model also delivers key programs, convenes advisory
panels and engages community stakeholders, all in service of its mission.
The secretariat function has no legal status and as such,cannot hold assets nor
exercise authorities other than those granted to it by City Council. As such, the
secretariat has a highly facilitative role in coordinating efforts and fostering outcomes
that align with Council's approved housing strategy. This model has enabled Hamilton to
advance the development of affordable housing units, increase community capacity,
integrate municipal decision-making on housing and attract funding from senior
government.
Fredericton Affordable Housing Committee(FAHC)
This case study provides an example of the advisory committee model based on an
example from Fredericton. The FAHC does not have a legal structure and instead, relies
on a community advisory group comprised of a wide cross-section of motivated housing
stakeholders in the community. These individuals represent key housing organizations
and related service entities in the local housing ecosystem.
FAHC operates under a formal Terms of Reference that sets out mandate, roles and
responsibilities. In terms of accountability, FAHC reports to a standing committee of
council and in that way, provides advice on key housing matters. Like Hamilton, the
FAHC is guided by a City housing strategy but as a community-driven entity, is highly
consultative in its approach with stakeholders. The work of the Committee is supported
in part by a City staff position that is engaged with other housing coordination activities.
While the work of the Committee is tied to the City in some cases, FAHC members and
the organizations they represent play a significant role in advancing housing outcomes
in the community. In that way, FAHC harnesses and aligns the efforts of its members
while providing advisory services to Council and building awareness in the broader
community on critical housing issues.
The success of the FAHC is in large measure a product of its members and the high
level of engagement they and the organizations they represent have on housing issues.
FAHC is also recognized by Council as a trusted advisor and consequently, is able to
influence municipal decision-making with regards to affordable housing. From a
financial perspective, the footprint of FAHC is very small and is easily scalable to
address needs. However, the lack of legal authority means that FAHC must rely heavily
on its facilitation powers, working through community partners and City staff to facilitate
housing outcomes.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
27
5.0 Evaluation of Models
5.1 The Preferred Future
The Housing Needs Assessment undertaken by the City in 2022 identified four gap
areas along the housing continuumwhere needs were not being adequately addressed.
The Affordable Housing Action Plan that was subsequently adopted by Council set out
actions to respond to these priority needs. The Plan also recognized that clarity around
roles and challenges with system coordination were contributing factors to these gaps.
The housing governance review provides a unique opportunity to reconsider the role the
City plays in the local housing ecosystem. Accordingly, objectives and guiding principles
were established at the outset of the study as a way to help assess prospective
governance models. These same objectives promote a preferred future, one where a
refined municipal role would help improve housing outcomes.
From a system enhancement perspective, the ideal model would:
Improve housing affordability
Foster coordination and alignment
Complement existing infrastructure and the work of community partners
Be responsive to community priorities
From an efficiency and effectiveness perspective, the ideal model would
Balance fiscal constraints
Utilize existing resources to maximize community benefits
Add value/capacity to the local system
Provide a stable and sustainable presence
5.2 Putting Models in A Saint John Context
Toenable the comparative assessment of governance options, each of the generic
models was translated into a Saint John context.To facilitate this, several assumptions
were developed around each model, drawing on the examples reviewed as part of the
case study work. Operational assumptions were also established to reflect the
estimated minimum requirements around emplacement, staffing, on-going costs and
capital funding. Ultimately, this helped to refine the governance models which are
outlined below and summarized in table format in Appendix 5.
NOTE: Unit development estimates provided under each model are assumed to be
additional units beyond the non-HAF baseline of growth. Consideration was given
to both the City’s Action Plan and HAF targets in deriving these estimates.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
28
As part of this process, it was also necessary to consider the authorities permitted under
provincial legislation in the case of two of the housing models.Municipal authority to
establish housing-based corporations or commissions is referenced primarily in the
Local Governance Act and the New Brunswick Housing Act. Given that delivery of
housing is considered a provincial mandate, legislative provisions around municipal
involvement are an important considerationwhen comparing models.
A cursory review and investigation of legislative provisions was done as part of the
contextualizing exercise. It was determined that several limiting conditions may exist
with regards to municipal authority and the direct delivery of housing. Given thatthe
opinions developed by the consultant around municipal authorities do not reflect a
formal legal analysis, theyshould be considered in that light. Where the municipal entity
(Model 1) or local commission (Model 2) optionsare consideredfor implementation, a
more detailed legal review would be requiredto identify any specific obligationswith
regard to enabling municipal authority.
Model 1 - Municipal Entity (Housing Corp.)
How the model works in practice
This model would involve the establishment of a new autonomous non-profit municipal
1
housing corporation to deliver and operate affordable housing. It would be governed at
arm’s length from the City in a ‘sole member’ capacity and focus on developing,
delivering and operating affordable rental housing.
Model variations could include operating as a:
Shell corporation
Municipally directed corporation
Arm’s length corporation with municipal control
Housing services only corporation (alternate authorities)
Typical functions/rolesunder this modelwould include:
Housing development
Housing operations
Asset ownership/management
Delivery of capital programs
Delivery of housing services (alternate authorities)
Target housing groups/gaps would include:
th
Low-income renter households (<30 income percentile)
th
Mid-market renter households able to rent (>30 income percentile)
1
To empower direct delivery and operation of housing by a municipal non-profit corporation, it is
interpreted that enabling legislation would be required. By contrast, where a service-based municipal
housing corporation is contemplated, existing provisions under the Local Governance Act may provide
sufficient authority.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
29
Governance authoritiesunder the model would include:
An independent Board of Directors appointed by Council
Full decision-making authority and control within corporate powers + ‘sole
member’ oversight
Assets:
No assets would be available initially but as added,they would be owned by
thecorporation with full authority for disposition
Stakeholder engagement/partners:
Engagement would involve corporate-focused service delivery with
opportunities for external partnerships
Operational assumptions:
Emplacement costs would be required for set up of the corporation
Initial staffing of 4 FTE’s with an additional maintenance FTE added as units
are brought online
Use of AHF funding/financing but additional capital funding would be required
to help offset the capital cost gap
Ongoing operating subsidies would be required to support deeper affordability
Development of new supply would happen at a projected rate of 50 units
every 2 years
As additions to the portfolio occur over time, operational and administrative
staff commitments would also grow
Model 2 - Local Commission
How the model works in practice
This model would involve the establishment of a new semi-autonomous non-profit
2
municipal housing services company to deliver/facilitate affordable housing. It would be
governed by a City-appointed Board of Directors (Commissioners)under legislation
enacted by the Province and focus on facilitating development and delivering affordable
housing services.
Model variations could include operating as a:
Municipally controlled Board (Council members as Board)
Municipally directed service company (via appointed Board)
Direct delivery housing commission (alternate authorities)
2
Like the Municipal Entity model, enabling legislation would be required to provide authority to the local
commission. However, in this instance, it is interpreted that legislation would be required whether the
corporation was mandated for only housing services or for direct delivery of housing.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
30
Typical functions/rolesunder this model would include:
Program delivery
Advisory and coordination
Development facilitation
Housing advocacy
Housing development, operation and management (alternate authorities)
Target housing groups/gaps would include:
Households with special needs (<30th income percentile)
Low-income renter households(<30th income percentile)
Mid-market renter households able to rent (>30th income percentile)
Governance authorities under the model would include:
A Board of Directors appointed by Council
The Board has full decision-making authority to guide commission activities
within legislated authorities
Assets:
No assets would be assumed initially but if added, they would be owned by
the commission with full authority for disposition
Stakeholder engagement/partners:
Engagement would involve commission-focused service delivery with external
collaboration opportunities
Operational assumptions
Emplacement costs would be required for set up of the corporation,
commission and enabling legislation
Initial staffing of 3 FTE’s with 2 additional project officer FTEs added for
delivery of programs
Ongoing operating funding would be required to support program delivery but
with option to access program funding to help defray delivery costs
Capital funding required to support grants and fee relief programs
Facilitate development of a projected 100 new units per year under grant
programs
Operational and administrative staff commitments could grow over time,
depending on the scope of programs/services provided
Model 3 – Housing Secretariat
How the model works in practice
This model would entail expanding the current roles that City staff play in housing to
create a more coordinated ‘whole of City’ approach that facilitates housing outcomes
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
31
across the continuum. This would create an accountable ‘centre of expertise’within the
City structure, cutting across functional areas to advance the housing agenda.
Model variationscould include operating as a:
‘Centre of expertise’ within municipality (cross-sectoral)
Multi-departmental staff committee
Typical functions/roles under this model would include:
Advisor to Council
Development of a housing plan, monitoring, reporting
Policy development
Development and delivery of programs
Development facilitation
Housing advocacy
Target housing groups/gaps would include:
Households with special needs (<30th income percentile)
Low-income renter households(<30th income percentile)
Mid-market renter households able to rent (>30th income percentile)
Mid-market households able to own (<60th income percentile)
Governance authoritiesunder the model would include:
Municipal staff, under direction of Council/CAO
Decision-making authority of staff would be within powers delegated by
Council
Assets
No assets would be held by the secretariat, but the City could elect to hold
land, etc. with disposition determined by Council
Stakeholder engagement/partners
Engagement would focus on delivery of programs and services, recognizing
that success is highly reliant on coordinating internal partners and engaging
external partners
Operational assumptions
Minor emplacement costs would be required for set up of secretariat
Initial staffing of 3 FTE’s with 1 additional project officer FTE added for
delivery of programs (lower net addition of staff could be facilitated by re-
positioning existing staff)
Ongoing operating funding would be required to support program delivery
costs net of program funding secured to help defray delivery costs
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
32
Capital funding required to support grants and fee relief programs
Facilitate development of projected 50 new units per year under grant
programs and up to an additional projected 75 units per year via community
partners
Staff commitments could grow over time, depending on the scope of
programs/services provided
Model 4 – Advisory Committee
How the model works in practice
This model would entail the expansion of the advisory group envisioned under the
Affordable Housing Action Plan to a more formal ‘recommend and report’ body
responsible for Action Plan implementation. The advisory committee would focus on
facilitating housing outcomes across the continuum through cross-sectoral engagement
of system stakeholders.
Model variationscould include operating as a:
Advisory committee of Council
Community-based advisory body
Typical functions/roles under this model would include:
Advisor to municipality
Housing plan oversight, monitoring, reporting
System coordination and facilitation
Sectoral planning & capacity building
Housing advocacy
Target housing groups/gaps would include:
Households with special needs (<30th income percentile)
Low-income renter households(<30th income percentile)
Mid-market renter households able to rent (>30th income percentile)
Mid-market households able to own (<60th income percentile)
Governance authorities:
Community committee with cross-sectional representation from key housing
stakeholders
Reporting structure to community stakeholders and/or Council (chair or co-
chairs)
Advisory body bound by Terms of Reference (‘recommend and report’
function)
Assets:
No assets would be held by the committee
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
33
Stakeholder engagement/partners:
Engagement would be high collaborative under this model, connecting with all
facets of the local housing ecosystem
Operational assumptions
Minimal emplacement costs would be required for set up of the committee
Staffing of 1 FTE to provide committee support and assist with project
coordination (lower net addition of staff could be facilitated by re-positioning
existing staff)
Minimal ongoing operating funding would be required to support committee
No capital funding required envisioned
Facilitate development projected of up to 50 new units per year via
community partners
Staff commitment unlikely to grow over time based on committee support role
5.3 Evaluation Criteria
A fundamental part of the governance review study was the comparative assessment of
models to determine their best fit with City goals and objectives. To support this
assessment, several evaluation criteria were identified and validated with the Steering
Committee at the outset of Part B of the study process. These evaluation criteria
considered:
Function/fit within the local housing system
Ability to address identified housing gaps
Operational flexibility/agility
Emplacement and transition costs
On-going operating costs
Ability to leverage external funding and partnerships
Community engagement in decision-making
Each of the models, as set within a Saint John context, were assessed against the
evaluation criteria to determine the model(s) which represented the ‘best fit’. The
results of this rating process are summarized in table form in Appendix 3of this report.
The alignment of each model with study objectives and guiding principles was also
undertaken as an added assessment step. The results of this alignment assessment are
summarized in table form in Appendix 4of this report.
5.4 Best Fit Analysis
The comparative assessment of housing governance models against each other
provided a way to understand the relative benefits and challenges of each. Using the
agreed evaluation criteria, it was possible to weigh each of the models in a consistent
fashion and determine the best fit with agreed criteria. Likewise, assessing the
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
34
alignment of each model with the objectives and guiding principles for the study helped
provide an additional measure of fit with City expectations.
To support this comparative assessment, high-level cost estimates and projected
impacts were developed for each model. These were based on operational assumptions
developed to translate generic models into a Saint John context. As estimates, the
figures below are provided for the purposes of comparing models to one another and to
better understand their relative costs and benefits. To provide a more detailed cost
evaluation, each of the models would have to be developed out in much greater detail
which was not within the scope of this report. However, the financial estimates are
suitable for evaluating models onthis comparative basis.The summary results of this
analysis are as follows:
Figure 6
Housing Corp.CommissionSecretariatAdvisory
Emplacement cost$130,000$200,000$20,000$10,000
Initial annual costs of operation
Corporate (fixed)$380,000$305,000$280,000$100,000
Net operating (project/program)$625,000$325,000$95,000$0
Net capital (project/program)$4,500,000$1,150,000$575,000$0
Total commitment (initial)$5,505,000$1,780,000$950,000$100,000
Annualized initial commitment$2,942,500$1,780,000$950,000$100,000
Incremental additional oligation$312,500$0$0$0
Projected annual impact (units)
Direct delivery25
Indirect010050
Community 7550
Total2510012550
Notes:
Incremental obligation for rent subsidy under housing corp. model
Additional corporate costs savings for conversion of one existing FTE in Secretariat model
Capital costs dependent on access to external programs for Commission and Secretariat models
Projected annual impacts are based on estimated additional units beyond non-HAF baseline
For those models involving creation of a corporate entity, there were notably higher
emplacement costs as well as higher fixed corporate costs and capital funding
requirements. By contrast, the advisory model had the lowest costs, which is a reflection
of the modest municipal role and support required for this model. In all instances, the
provision of capital funding is directly related to the programs that the City elects to
deliver. In that regard, capital costs can be scaled up or down, depending on available
offerings.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
35
It should be noted that model evaluation and costs have been developed at a time when
a number of significant unknown/undefined factors remainthat could influence model
assessment. These include things like:
The continuity of federal/provincial programs and initiatives going forward post
election
The shift in Provincial housing strategies and the Housing NB mandate
Positioning of the Fundy Regional Services Commission with regard to housing
and the local housing ecosystem
Evaluation results for each model are highlighted below and summarized in table format
as part of the model summaries in Appendix 5.
Model 1 - Municipal Entity (Housing Corp.)
Alignment/fit with study criteria and objectives
The model scored moderately across evaluation criteria and was strongest in
terms of the impact it can bring in the delivery of affordable rental housing but
was weakest in terms of cost, system fit and community engagement
Likewise, the model did not rate as highly among governance objectives due to
cost, use of resources and sustainability factors, but did provide a strong level of
alignment and accountability to the City
Prospective benefits
Direct impact in the supply of affordable housing via focused mission
Agility to take independent action but in alignment with City objectives
Opportunity to build additional local delivery capacity
City affiliation allows for access to certain municipal tools and resources
Potential challenges
Requires legislated authority to enable direct delivery of housing, less so if
mandate for corporation is housing services only
Substantial emplacement costs and on-going financial obligations to maintain this
presence
No assets initially, would take time to acquire expertise and critical mass to have
meaningful impact
Adds another local entity in an already established environment, diffuses funding/
financing/resources available in a finite ecosystem
Risk of alienating other providers/stakeholders where housing priorities are not
aligned
Overall synopsis
This model represents a substantial intervention into the local market that would take
considerable time and substantive resources to realize, creating undue risks to the
established ecosystem. If pursued as a housing services only entity, there would be
more a more direct route to implementation but a diminished role/mandate. Once
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
36
established, sustaining the entity in a finite ecosystem would present financial
challenges, especially where funding resources ebb/flow.The legislative obligations to
create the entity are considered a clear impediment to this model, especially when
compared with other options available.
Model 2 -Local Commission
Alignment/fit with study criteria and objectives
This model also scored moderately across evaluation criteria. It was strongest in
terms of the impact it can bring through the housing services it delivers but was
weakest in terms of emplacement cost, system fit and community engagement
The model did not rate as highly among governance objectives due to overall
costs, use of resources and sustainability factors, but did provide a strong level of
alignment and accountability to the City
Prospective benefits
Ability to impact the supply of affordable housing via a service-based mission
Can take direct action in alignment with City objectives and legislated authorities
Opportunity to expand and complement local delivery capacity
City-affiliated role allows for direct access to municipal tools and resources
Could take on a more impactful role if positioned as a direct delivery entity
Potential challenges
Requires legislated authorities to establish and have meaningful impact,
otherwise just an extension of City functions with limited authorities
Extensive work required to secure legislated authorities, especially if positioned
as a direct delivery entity
Considerable costs for emplacement and on-going financial obligations (scope-
dependent)
No assets initially, but if pursued, would take time to acquire expertise and
sufficient resources to have meaningful impact
Additional local entity risks diffusing available resources
Complications where City and stakeholder priorities do not align – dependent on
level of City oversight adopted
Overall synopsis
This model represents an intervention in the local market that would take considerable
time and resources to realize. While the commission could pursue a more service-
oriented focus, there would still be risks to the established ecosystem. The same
process could be used to create a direct delivery entity and would take more resources/
effort but would also be more impactful in terms of housing outcomes. The ebb/flow of
funding resources would impact on sustainability and effectiveness of the entity. The
legislative obligations to create the entity are considered a clear impediment to this
model, especially when compared with other options available.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
37
Model 3 –Housing Secretariat
Alignment/fit with study criteria and objectives
This model scored well across many evaluation criteria. It was strongest in terms
of system fit, impact across the housing continuum and cost but was weaker in
terms of operational agility and community engagement
The model rated highly across most governance objectives due to use of existing
resources, adding system value, complementing the work of partners and City
alignment, but was weaker in terms of responsiveness to community priorities
Prospective benefits
Enhanced ability to focus on priority housing issues across the full housing
continuum over time
Builds on existing in-house skills and resources as well as those already
established in the broader ecosystem
Relatively modest costs to implement, ability to effect significant housing impact
Capability to scale with available resources over time, more resilient to system
changes
City function allows for access to municipal tools, resources and regulatory levers
to effect impact
Potential challenges
Direct role is limited in some instances, more facilitative in nature and reliant on
cooperation of system partners
Position within City structure is subject to municipal control, can lead to
perception of City agenda versus community agenda
Decision-making authority within municipal structure is subject to layers, reliant
on streamlined accountability to make model work
Overall synopsis
An engaged and streamlined municipal secretariat function has the ability to bring a
range of tools, resources and influence to local housing issues. Expanding on the
existing facilitation model is an efficient way to generate impacts with mature sector
partners. Success is reliant on being responsive and engaging partners.
Model 4 –Advisory Committee
Alignment/fit with study criteria and objectives
This model scored well across a number of evaluation criteria. It was strongest in
terms of community engagement, cost, system fit and addressing needs across
the housing continuum but was weaker in terms of ability to directly address gaps
and operational agility
The model rated highly across many governance objectives due to use of
existing resources, complementing the work of partners and responsiveness to
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
38
community priorities,but was weakestin terms of City alignment and direct
impact on affordability due to itshighlyfacilitative approach
Prospective benefits
Ability to address priority housing issues across the full housing continuum
through collaboration of system stakeholders
Capitalizes on the range of skills, roles and resources already established in the
local housing ecosystem
Minimal costs to implement and support, capitalizes on existing system
resources/tools
Capability to scale with available resources over time in response to system
changes
Potential challenges
As a ‘recommend and report’ entity, there is no formal legal authority to direct
outcomes
Responsibility for progress on the housing agenda is vested with a committee
that has only indirect municipal accountability
Highly reliant on the sustained participation and collaboration of community
stakeholders
Requires a clear, approved Housing Plan to help coordinate and drive action
Overall synopsis
The advisory committee is a highly participatory model which maximizes the resources
and efforts of system stakeholders to advance housing outcomes across the continuum.
This collaboration-based model relies on stakeholder cooperation to effect meaningful
impact, focusing on facilitating outcomes due to its limited powers/authorities.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
39
6.0 Preferred Model
6.1 Rationale for Selection
A number of objectives and guiding principles were developed as part of the study
around a preferred housing governance model. These were vetted with the project
Steering Committee earlier in the study process. These identified the traits that a new
governance model should aspire to. Ideally, the preferred housing governance model for
Saint John would:
Improve housing affordability
Balance fiscal constraints
Utilize existing resources to maximize community benefits
Foster coordination and alignment
Complement existing infrastructure and the work of community partners
Be responsive to community priorities
Add value/capacity to the local system
Provide a stable & sustainable presence
Each of the four selected housing models were assessed by these objectives and the
evaluation criteria vetted with the project Steering Committee. On the basis of that
assessment, the preferred housing governance option for the City of Saint John is the
housing secretariat model. On a comparative basis, this model offers a number of
advantages in that it:
Builds on and adds value to the existing housing ecosystem already established
in the City without creating a costly corporate entity that would compete for
resources with established local providers
Fosters better coordination among internal and external housing stakeholders,
utilizing existing infrastructure and system resources to help advance outcomes
in gap areas and across the entire housing continuum
Adds additional capacity to the local housing system without detracting from
existing resources and builds on the work of valued community partners
Provides sound value in terms of the required investment and as part of the
municipal infrastructure, provides a more sustained way to respond to changes in
the housing environment
Ensures that a visible and active presence is maintained that can attract
investment, advocate for senior government resources and facilitate housing
outcomes
Embeds a municipal function and provides for active facilitation of housing
outcomes without relying solely on community partners to achieve these
objectives
Based on the comparative assessment, the housing secretariat offers the most value
and impact across all gap areas, building on local capacity by coordinating internal and
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
40
external efforts in a sustainable manner.This model is also reflective of the role the City
has been playing over the last 3 years in terms of concierge services, development
facilitation, delivery of federal housing initiatives andsystem planning. The housing
secretariat model would enhance and formalizethat role, creating a more sustained
municipal presence.
While a secondary option, the advisory committee model provides a cost-effective and
sustainable approach that embodies several of the housing secretariat traits. However,
it relies primarily on the collective efforts of community partners and existing local
capacity to drive housing solutions. Given the current engagement by the City in
housing programs and services, this would be deemed a step backwards.
6.2Operationalizing the Model
The housing secretariat model for Saint John would best be positioned as a ‘centre of
expertise’ within the municipality, providing a cross sectoral approach to coordinating
internal efforts on housing issues. The structure would concentrate on a small cluster of
staff situated in the Planning Department or affiliated with the City Manager’s office. This
would help to streamline decision-making and provide clear lines of accountability as
the secretariat works across departmental functions within the City. Building off existing
resources already providing housing services, the structure would be consolidated and
re-shaped to meet functional requirements, mindful of the ebb and flow of prospective
funding/programs. Contract staff could be used to augment core resources for the
delivery of specific, time-limited programs.
It is envisioned that the secretariat function would include responsibility for:
Developing community housing plans as well as monitoring and reporting on their
progress
Helping to coordinate housing policy development
Developing and delivering housing-based programsusing internal and external
resources
Working with planning staff to facilitate housing development with local
proponents
Providing advice to Councilon all housing-related matters
Providing housing information and referral services to stakeholders and the
broader community
Building and maintaining relationships withcommunity partners and stakeholders
to help advance housing initiatives
Maintaining inter-governmental partnerships and undertaking housing advocacy
Collaborating on regional housing-related issues and initiatives with the Fundy
Regional Services Commission
As set out in Section 5.2 and 5.3 of this report, a number of operational assumptions
have been developed for this model:
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
41
Minor emplacement costs would be required for set up of the secretariat model,
largely related to management consulting services
Initial staffing of 3 FTE’s are assumed with a director/manager, project officer and
administrative support but at least one position could be re-worked from existing
3
functions, provided that at least 2 new FTEs are added
One additional project officer FTE would be added for delivery of programs and
ideally could be funded under program sources
Modest ongoing operating funding would be required to support program delivery
costs but offsets for these costs would be pursued through external program
funding
Some internal capital funding would be required to support local grant and fee
relief programs but it is assumed that more substantive capital funding for
housing development would be pursued through external sources
Staff commitments could grow over time, depending on the scope of
programs/services that are provided but wherever possible, these would be offset
by external program funding
While general cost estimates were provided as part of the evaluation process for this
study, a more formal budget would need to be developed once the actual secretariat
structure and areas of functional responsibility are confirmed.
During the model evaluation process, areas where the secretariat model rated lower
were identified. To help provide for a more robust housing secretariat model, the City
should:
Have a clear community housing plan in place to help guide work plan priorities,
encourage stakeholder participation and foster community support
Promote collaboration, alignment and focus of efforts among stakeholders in the
local ecosystem to ensure that identified housing gaps are addressed in an
appropriate way
Provide for meaningful stakeholder engagement in setting priorities by using an
advisory body to help provide ongoing dialogue and feedback to the secretariat
These measures will help to strengthen the secretariat model and make it an effective
resource for advancing collaborative solutions within the local housing ecosystem.
3
As an interim measure, HAF funding could be used to resource these new positions for the short term
and converted to formal FTE’s as that funding sunsets.
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
42
7.0 The Path Forward
7.1 Implementation Considerations
The housing governance study has evaluated several governance models and identified
apreferred go-forward model for City consideration. Operational suggestions have also
been provided with regard to possible structure, function and resourcing requirements.
While these identify a broad approach to implementing the secretariat model in a Saint
John context, instituting the model ‘on the ground’ would require additional
consideration. Accordingly, it is recommended that staff, working with a management
consultant, design a customized operational and financial framework for implementing
the housing secretariat model.
This finer level of implementation planning would help to ensure that the proposed
model could be adequately integrated into the existing municipal structure and help to
map out transitional requirements, for the benefit of both internal and external
stakeholders. This would also allow additional time to consider the implications of
external factors where uncertainty remains (e.g. federal program continuity post of the
federal election) and how planning might need to account for these within the new
governance model.
7.2 Key Success Factors
As part of the finer detail implementation planning, there will be some key
considerations as the housing secretariat model is operationalized. These factors are
important to the success of the model going forward and should be given due regard as
part of the planning process. These factors include:
Providing the necessary authority to enable agility in decision-making
Assigning adequate resourcesto fulfill the secretariat mandate
Buildingin flexibilityto respond to inevitable changes in the housing landscape
over time
Identifying areas of potential risk and measures for mitigating them
Integrating a meaningful advisory structure to help align with priorities and build
support among stakeholders through collaboration
Fosteringstrong stakeholder relationshipsin the community to help build
collective capacity
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
43
Appendices
The following appendices provide additional reference materials and summary tables in
support of the main report:
Appendix 1 – Continuum gaps and current responses
Appendix 2 -Case studies of select governance models
Appendix 3 - Evaluation of models versus Study Criteria (summary table)
Appendix 4 - Model alignment with Objectives/Principles(summary table)
Appendix 5 – Governance model synopsis (summary tables)
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study | Final report
1
ed
aim
Appendix
–
d
–
standards
Final report
policies/regs
Housing Governance Study
-
sector engagement
permitting
income percentile
t missing middle an
market households
th
limited supplylack of choice/ optionsallow alt. forms/modelsstronger policy regimeprivate coord. regional planningZoning bylaw reformE-Habitat for Humanitycredits/incentivesGST/HST reliefLand
use a
-
Midable to own< 60Owner accommodation that is at/below market
City of Saint John
-
–
–
program
market
density forms
-
nd
initiative
2
ibrant
/vacant
-
V
households
mismatched supply
revitalize and CIP
income percentile
market
th
limited/reliance on quality of stockeducate/enforce standardspromote miduse of surplus propertyNorth end secondary plan Housing Concierge programfacilitationincent midZoning bylaw reformFundy
Harbour GroupW/L HoldingsVacant to Vida LivingAHF (CMHC)ACLP (CMHC)HAF incentivesHAF incentivesProcess facilitationLand use policies/regs
-
Midable to rent>30Rental accommodation that is at/below market
-
NB
view
households program (prov.)
P Housing Corp.
incentives
-
income percentile
fund, facilitate and build
RHP
th
limited supply and sizable waitlistcondition of stocklack of income supportsencourage leveragingfoster joint devp’t optionsHousing Concierge programfacilitation–capacity + incentivesLeverage
public landSJ NHousing AlternativesHousingSteepleARHI programHAF incentivesHAF RHI administrationProcess facilitation
ommunity housing, RGI housing
Housing for most vulnerable
Low income renter HH’s< 30C
resources
Housing Continuum Gaps and Current Responses
housing
transitional or
,
–
special needs
added
Housing Hub
income percentile
th
limited supplylack of accessibilitylack of support servicesseek encourage prog. support diversion strategiesKaleidoscopeSJ Coverdale ShelterHousing for All strategyRHI programCity landRHI
administrationProcess facilitation
Supported/special needs
HH’s with < 30Emergencysupportive housing
gap
artners
Target groupIncome levelHousing typeIssuesAction Plan responsehighlightsHAF initiativesLocal pactive in spacePrograms/toolsMunicipal roles(current)
SJ Housing Governance
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Case Study 1: Municipal Entity (Housing Corporation)
Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation
Н ŏ϶ ŵŎЪŹ϶xđŏĩƂİ϶~ƇŏijąijŲêň϶EŏƂijƂƢО϶
Overview
Location Durham Region, ON
Year 1985
Established
Mandate Durham Region Non-Pro ǎ t Housing Corporation (DRNPHC) helps to meet the
İŗƇŹijŏĩ϶ŏđđċŹ϶ŗĨ϶Ƃİđ϶ŵđĩijŗŏЪŹ϶ċijƚđŵŹđ϶ŲŗŲƇňêƂijŗŏ϶ƂİŵŗƇĩİ϶Ƃİđ϶ŲŵŗƚijŹijŗŏ϶ŗĨ϶
practical, well-maintained and aordable housing.
Housing Aordable and market rental housing
Types
Website https://www.durham-housing.com
About
Key Features
Durham Region Non-Pro ǎ t Housing Corporation (DRNPHC) was
Independent non-pro ǎ t
housing corporation
developed to meet the housing needs of low- and moderate-
Over half of the Board of
income residents whose needs were not being met by the private
Directors is comprised
sector. Given the need for aordable rental housing, which could
of Councillors from the
be produced through capital grants and operating subsidies being
Regional Municipality of
made available by senior levels of government, on January 24,
Durham
1985, the Province of Ontario issued the Letters Patent creating
Plays a role in the
DRNPHC as a non-pro ǎ t housing corporation without share
development and
capital to deliver below-market rental accommodation in Durham operation of non-pro ǎ t
housing
Region.
Governance and Operations
Municipal Role Relationship to City ŵŎЪŹ϶ňđŏĩƂİ϶İŗƇŹijŏĩ϶ąŗŵŲŗŵêƂijŗŏ϶
(Region)
Accountability Board of Directors includes 5 Region-appointed
structure with City Councillors (de facto control)
(Region)
People Key Personnel Tracy Greig, CEO
Sta 46 FTEs
Key Partners Region of Durham, Habitat for Humanity
Financials Revenue $20,059,863 (project operations); $274,974 (admin)
(2023)
Operating budget $2,490,111 (salaries, material, purchased services)
Capital budget $19,753,960 (project expenses)
Portfolio/Assets Sites 19
Units in operation 1,100+
A2-1
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Governance Model
The Corporation is managed by the CEO who reports to the Board of Directors. The CEO is
responsible for the human, ǎ nancial, facility management and program implementation of
DRNPHC.
While the corporation is not directly controlled by the municipality, the Regional Municipality of
Durham Region played a key role in the creation of DRNPHC and maintains a strong presence
within its Board of Directors. In 2023, the Region requested DRNPHC to amend its governing by-
laws to expand its Board of Directions to ensure representation from all Durham municipalities
served by the Corporation. CurrentlƢϽ϶?¤¡c9ЪŹ϶ăƢЎňêƜŹ϶ŎêŏċêƂđ϶ƂİêƂ϶ǎ ve of its nine Board
members be elected oicials appointed by the Regional Municipality of Durham. The remaining
four members are individuals from the external community with the requisite skills and expertise to
ŹƇŲŲŗŵƂ϶?¤¡c9ЪŹ϶Ɯŗŵńϼ϶϶
Operations Model
DRNPHC operates independently from the Regional Municipality, as a private non-pro ǎ t
corporation.
Under the CEO, the senior leadership team is comprised of the Manager of Facility Operations, the
Director of Tenant and Housing Services, the Director of Finance, and the Director of Development
and Capital Assts. The organization employs approximately 46 FTEs, which includes managers,
superintendents, and specialists.
A2-2
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Financial Model
Project operations:
Revenues: $20,059,863
Expenses: $19,753,960
Administrative:
Revenues: $274,974 (bank deposit interest, fee for service)
Expenses: $2,490,111 (salaries, material, purchased services)
Note: All ǎ gures are based on 2023 Statement of Operations
Asset Portfolio
DRNPHC currently owns and manages 19 sites throughout Durham Region, consisting of over 1100
units spread across townhouses and apartment complexes. Its portfolio includes a mix of
subsidized and market rent units.
Functional Roles and Activities
Asset Land or Property
DRNPHC owns land and housing assets, undertakes
Ownership
Housing assets
housing development, and operates housing.
Asset leveraging
Housing Pre-development
On the development side, DRNPHC has a Director of
Development
Development
Development and Capital Assts and one project
Renewal/Renovation
specialist. They also work with partner organizations
Housing Asset management
and external consultants on their development
Operation
Property
projects.
management
On the operations side, DRNPHC has extensive in-
Support services
Policy and Policy research and
house divisions responsible for tenant services and
Programs program
housing operations.
development
Its Tenant Services division is responsible for:
Program Delivery
Program Evaluation
Updating and maintaining the Durham Access to
Funding &
Social Housing (DASH) waitlist
Incentives
Providing information to residents and applicants
Financing
Supporting resident engagement
System-level Coordination &
Connecting residents to other community-based
Support and Communication
service providers Coordination
Capacity building
Engagement
The Housing Operations division is responsible for:
Advisory & Advocacy
Asset management of housing projects, including
maintenance and capital improvements
Day-to-day property management
A2-3
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
DRNPHC also provides property management services to other non-pro ǎ t housing organizations on
a fee-for-service basis.
Outcomes
Creation of over 1,100 aordable housing units in Durham Region over 40 years; the
majority of these builds were created under legacy federal and provincial housing programs
(pre-2000)
Largest private non-pro ǎ t housing operator in the Region
Partnerships with other community housing organizations
p E.g. 50-unit development in Oshawa (known as Normandy) developed in
partnership with Habitat for Humanity, which includes 24 aordable rental units
operated by DRNPHC
Sources
https://www.durham-housing.com
https://pub-durhamregion.escribemeetings.com/ǎ lestream.ashx?DocumentId=567
\[+ background documents received by SHS\]
A2-4
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Durham Regional Local Housing Corporation
\[Municipal-owned Entity\]
Overview
Location Durham Region, ON
2001
Year
Established
Mandate Operate and expand portfolio of aordable housing that was transferred from
Provincial ownership under the Social Housing Reform Act in the year 2001
Housing Aordable and market rental housing
Types
Website https://www.durham.ca/en/living-here/durham-regional-local-housing-
corporation.aspx
About
A unique model to Ontario, Local Housing Corporations (LHCs)
Key Features
are non-pro ǎ t housing corporations wholly owned by municipal
Owned by the Region as
sole shareholder
Service Managers as sole shareholder. Until 2001, public housing
Operated by Housing
units were owned by the provincial government. The Social
Services Division
Housing Reform Act, 2000 transferred these assets and the
Board reports to Council
responsibility of maintaining housing programs to 47 local Service
Plays a role in the
Managers, including the Regional Municipality of Durham. Under
development and
provincial legislation, the Service Managers are responsible for the
operation of subsidized
funding and administration of social housing, while the LHCs
housing
serve as the vehicle through which these units are owned and
operated.
Governance and Operations
Municipal Role Relationship to City Owned by Regional Municipality of Durham as sole
(Region) shareholder
Accountability ~êŏêĩđċ϶ăƢ϶Ƃİđ϶¤đĩijŗŏЪŹ϶cŗƇŹijŏĩ϶¨đŵƚijąđŹ϶?ijƚijŹijŗŏ϶
structure with City Budgets approved through Council
(Region)
People Key Personnel Elaine Baxter-Trahair, Chief Executive Oicer
Sta 34 FTEs
Key Partners
Financials Revenue $39,548,000 (2023)
Operating budget $17,446,000 (2024)
Capital budget $12,203,000 (2024)
Portfolio/Assets Sites 25
Units in operation 1,290
A2-5
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Governance Model
As per legislation, Durham Regional Local Housing Corporation (DRLHC) is wholly owned by the
municipality, with the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham assuming full control over the
entity.
As Service Manager, the Regional Municipality of Durham is responsible for providing DRLHC with
suicient funding to ensure the maintenance of its housing portfolio and that housing is made
available to eligible households by approving its annual Business Plans and Budget. The regional
ĩŗƚđŵŏŎđŏƂ϶êňŹŗ϶ŲŵŗƚijċđŹ϶ŹƇŲŲŗŵƂ϶Ƃŗ϶?¤xc9ЪŹ϶ŵđċđƚđňŗŲŎđŏƂ϶ijŏijƂijêƂijƚđŹϼ϶϶
Operations Model
°İđ϶ŗŲđŵêƂijŗŏ϶ŗĨ϶?¤xc9϶ijŹ϶ŗƚđŵŹđđŏ϶ăƢ϶Ƃİđ϶¤đĩijŗŏЪŹ϶cŗƇŹijŏĩ϶¨đŵƚijąđŹ϶ċijƚijŹijŗŏϼ϶
DRLHC has 34 FTEs, including 28 cross-charged from Social Services, 5 from Finance, and 1 from
Works.
Financial Model
Total budget: $29,649,000
Operating budget: $17,446,000 (including $4,038,000 in services purchased from
Durham Region)
Capital budget: $12,203,000
Total revenues and ǎ nancing: $14,658,000
Projected operating revenue: $7,910,000
Capital ǎ nancing: $6,748,000 in federal grants
Funding requirement: $14,991,000
Note: Figures from 2024 budget
Asset Portfolio
DRLHC currently owns and manages 1,273 units of public housing stock across 23 sites which
were downloaded from the province in 2001, in addition to 17 units at 2 sites developed under the
Canada-Ontario Aordable Housing Program: Rental and Supportive Component. Currently,
DRLHC is pursuing redevelopment at two sites with support from Council.
A2-6
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Functional Roles and Activities
DRLHC owns land and housing assets, undertakes
Asset Land or Property
housing development, and operates housing. Its primary
Ownership
Housing assets
activities are organized into three branches of programs
Asset leveraging
and services: Public Housing, Aordable Housing, and
Housing Pre-development
Tangible Capital Assets.
Development
Development
Renewal/Renovation
Public Housing
Housing Asset management
Provide eđąƂijƚđ϶ŲŵŗŲđŵƂƢ϶ŎêŏêĩđŎđŏƂ϶ŹđŵƚijąđŹ϶А϶
Operation
Property
including preventative and restorative property
management
maintenance, capital planning and asset
Support services
management across 23 sites
Policy and Policy research and
Rent-geared-to-income program delivery
Programs program
2 units designated to provide community support
development
services
Program Delivery
Program Evaluation
Aordable Housing
Funding &
Provide eđąƂijƚđ϶ŲŵŗŲđŵƂƢ϶ŎêŏêĩđŎđŏƂ϶ŹđŵƚijąđŹ϶А϶
Incentives
including preventative and restorative property
Financing
maintenance, capital planning and asset
System-level Coordination &
Support and Communication
management for 2 sites
Coordination
Capacity building
Tangible Capital Assets
Engagement
Consolidated capital program for its housing
Advisory & Advocacy
portfolio
Outcomes
Maintenance of more than 1,200 social housing units downloaded from the Province of
Ontario
Creation of 17 new aordable housing units
Advancing the development of two underutilized sites to increase the amount of aordable
housing units
Alignment with Regional strategic priorities (e.g., climate action, community vitality, service
excellence)
Sources
https://www.durham.ca/en/living-here/durham-regional-local-housing-corporation.aspx
https://pub-durhamregion.escribemeetings.com/ǎ lestream.ashx?DocumentId=3613
A2-7
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Case Study 2: Local Commission
Harbour Station Commission
Overview
Location Saint John, NB
Year 1992
Established
Mandate The Commission was created to operate the Saint John Regional Exhibition
Centre (known as Harbour Station or TD Station) under the authority of the Saint
John Regional Exhibition Centre Commission Act.
Housing N/A
Types
Website https://saintjohn.ca.granicus.com/boards/w/1c8752566a6a0e6b
About
The Saint John Regional Exhibition Centre Commission (more
Key Features
commonly know as the Harbour Station Commission) is a legal
Ownership of the facility
is vested with the City
entity established under legislation with authorities as granted.
Independently operated
The primary role of the commission is to oversee the management
Majority of Board of
and operations of Harbour Station, a 6,600 seat multi-purpose
Commissioners are
facility situated in Saint John. It was founded in 1992 and today, is
appointed by the Mayor
the principal sports, entertainment and trade show venue in the
and Council
region.
Established to operate
Harbour Station multi-
purpose facility in Saint
John
Governance and Operations
Governance Model
Harbour Station Commission is a legislated entity that was originally constituted under the Saint
John Regional Exhibition Centre Commission Act of the Province of New Brunswick. It later fell
under the authority of the Greater Saint Regional Facilities Commission Act. In addition to its
legislative provisions, the corporation is guided by its duly adopted By-Laws.
Its governing body consists of a Board of Commissioners, the majority of which are appointed by
the Saint John Common Council. The balance of Commissioners are appointed representatives
from three municipalities in the Greater Saint John area. The Board is comprised of a Chairperson,
Vice-Chairperson, Secretary/Treasurer and four Commissioners, as well as ex-oicio positions for
the Mayor, City Manager and the Commissioner of Finance for the City of Saint John. The
Commissioners are ultimately responsible for approving policies, plans and directions to guide the
management and operations of the Harbour Station facility.
A2-8
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Municipal ¤đňêƂijŗŏŹİijŲ϶Ƃŗ϶9ijƂƢ϶Ɯŏđċ϶ăƢ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢϽ϶ŗŲđŵêƂđċ϶êƂ϶êŵŎЪŹЎňđŏĩƂİ϶
Role
Accountability Board of Commissioners appointed by City Council
structure with City
People Key Personnel
Sta (FTE) Contracted out
Key Partners City of Saint John, along with municipalities of Rothsay,
Quispamsis and Grand Bay-West ǎ eld
Financials Operating budget +/- $3.2M
Capital budget Appropriated as needed under cost-sharing
Operations Model
The Commission was originally managed and operated by a senior management team which at its
peak included a sta of about 250. In 2023, the management and operation of the facility was
contracted out to OCG360, a division of the Oak View Group, a private facility and event
management company.
Financial Model
Total expenses: $3,202,072
Wages and bene ǎ ts: $1,731,112
Other operating expenses: $1,470,960
Total revenues: $3,202,072
Net revenue: $2,257,957
Investment in community: $944,115 (cost-shared)
Note: All ǎ gures from 2020 ABC Report to Council, based on 2019 actual ǎ gures
Assets
Primary asset is the Harbour Station facility, a 6,600 seat multi-purpose facility located in
the heart of Saint John
Ownership of the facility and responsibility for the net operating and capital costs vests with
the City of Saint John
Outcomes
Since opening its doors in 1993, the facility has been the home to QMJHL hockey teams,
hosted countless entertainment events and multiple trade shows
Despite a recent shift in operational day-to-day management to a private sector ǎ rm, the
Commission continues to oversee and guide the organization under its mandate
Sources
Council Report #2020-192, dated July 23, 2020
https://saintjohn.ca.granicus.com/boards/w/1c8752566a6a0e6b/boards/538
https://tdstation.com/about/
A2-9
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Case Study 3: Housing Secretariat
Hamilton Housing Secretariat
Overview
Location Hamilton, ON
Year 2023
Established
Mandate Work with housing stakeholders to identify and facilitate housing solutions that
result in safe, aordable, rental and ownership housing for lower-income
residents
Housing Aordable rental and ownership housing, supportive housing, student housing
Types
Website https://www.hamilton.ca/build-invest-grow/housing-secretariat
About
The Housing Secretariat Division of the City of Hamilton was
Key Features
established by City Council in April 2023 as a foundational action
Internal service unit
item from the adoption of the Housing Sustainability & Investment
within City
Roadmap (HSIR). The establishment of an aordable housing
Operated by City sta
Directed by City Council
secretariat within city government with the ability to work across
with community
divisions and with the community was seen as a critical step to
engagement
coordinate, resource, and implement strategic actions set out in
Plays a coordination,
Ƃİđ϶c¨f¤БċđŹijĩŏđċ϶Ƃŗ϶êċċŵđŹŹ϶cêŎijňƂŗŏЪŹ϶ĩŵŗƜijŏĩ϶İŗƇŹijŏĩ϶ąŵijŹijŹϼ϶
policy and program
development, program
The primary role of the Housing Secretariat is to coordinate and
delivery, and funding
ŹƂđƜêŵċ϶ê϶ЧËİŗňđ϶ŗĨ϶cêŎijňƂŗŏШ϶êŲŲŵŗêąİ϶Ƃŗ϶ijċđŏƂijĨƢijŏĩ϶êŏċ϶
role
facilitating aordable housing solutions. The Secretariat team
ƜŗŵńŹ϶İŗňijŹƂijąêňňƢ϶ƜijƂİ϶ąŗŎŎƇŏijƂƢ϶ňđêċđŵŹ϶êŏċ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢЪŹ϶ċđŲêŵƂŎđŏƂŹ϶Ƃŗ϶đŏŹƇŵđ϶êňijĩŏŎđŏƂϽ϶
improve processes, and reduce barriers - supporting the building, acquisition, and preservation of
aordable and supportive housing.
Governance and Operations
Municipal Relationship to City Internal division
Role
Accountability
Reports to the General Manager, Healthy & Safe
structure with City Communities
Annual work plan approved by City Council
People Key Personnel Justin Lewis, Director
Sta 4 FTEs, 5 temporary sta
Key Partners Housing Services and other City divisions
HSIR Advisory Committee
Coalition of Hamilton Indigenous Leadership
Community Partnership Action Tables
Hamilton Community Fund
A2-10
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Financials Gross budget $15,200,000 total
(2025)
$4,714,687 operating budget funded by the City of
Hamilton
$10.34 million from the supportive housing reserve
fund
$0.2 million in funding from the Hamilton Community
Fund
Governance Model
As an internal division of the municipal government, the Housing Secretariat reports to the General
Manager of Healthy & Safe Communities, who then reports to City Manager. The City Council
provides overall strategic oversight for the Housing Secretariat Division by approving its annual
program of work.
The work of the Housing Secretariat work is rooted in the Housing Sustainability & Investment
Roadmap. The Division plays a key role in the governance structure for the implementation of the
HSIR by working with:
A Steering Committee (comprised of Directors across City divisions)
The Coalition of Hamilton Indigenous Leadership
An Advisory Committee (including researchers, the Hamilton Community Foundation,
representative of local housing providers), and
Subject-based community tables.
Within the governance structure of
the HSIR speci ǎ cally, the Secretariat
serves as the link between these
groups, elevating recommendations
to the Executive Committee
(comprised of the City Manager, the
General Managers of Healthy & Safe
Communities, Planning & Economic
Development, and Corporate
Services Department) which has
further authority to make program
decisions.
Within the HSIR governance
framework, the Housing Secretariat
has delegated authority to make
decisions on contracts up to $2.5
million dollars.
A2-11
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Operations Model
The Secretariat currently has four full-time sta: a Director, Program Coordinator, Administrative
Assistant, and Senior Policy Advisor. The oice also has ǎ ve temporary sta, funded through the
Housing Accelerator Fund. As the Secretariat continues to grow and evolve, they envision reaching
a sta complement of 13 FTEs to fully take on the work, as noted below.
Financial Model
In 2025, the Secretariat received a gross budget of approximately $15.2 million which includes:
an operating budget of $4,714,687
$10.34 million from the supportive housing reserve fund
$0.2 million in funding from the Hamilton Community Fund (covers one FTE position)
The budget does not include the temporary positions funded through HAF.
The Housing Secretariat also manages the distribution of funding allocated by the City for the
construction of aŗŵċêăňđ϶İŗƇŹijŏĩ϶ЙѦͰ϶ŎijňňijŗŏК϶êŏċ϶ƂİŵŗƇĩİ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢЪŹ϶c \[϶ijŏijƂijêƂijƚđŹϼ϶
Functional Roles and Activities
The Housing Secretariat plays several key roles at within City of Hamilton. It plays an oversight and
coordination role in the implementation of the HSIR, while carrying responsibility for annual
reporting on all housing-related initiatives across City divisions and departments.
Aside from its facilitation role, the Secretariat is responsible for the creation of new housing units;
this work is overseen by its Infrastructure Planning and Development Team. The Housing
Secretariat plays a key role in the allocation of funding through the Aordable Housing
A2-12
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Development Project Stream and the delivery of program incentives under the Housing Accelerator
\[Ƈŏċϼ϶~đêŏƜİijňđϽ϶Ƃİđ϶cŗƇŹijŏĩ϶¡ŗňijąƢ϶êŏċ϶¤đňêƂijŗŏŹ϶Źijċđ϶ŗĨ϶Ƃİđ϶¨đąŵđƂêŵijêƂ϶êąƂŹ϶ňijńđ϶ê϶ŲŗňijąƢ϶ЧƂİijŏń϶
ƂêŏńШϽ϶Ŏêńijŏĩ϶ŵđąŗŎŎđŏċêƂijŗŏŹ϶Ƃŗ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢ϶ŗŏ϶ŏđƜ϶ƂŗŗňŹϽ϶ŹƂŵêƂđĩiją϶êąƂijŗŏŹϽ϶êŏċ϶ŲŵŗĩŵêŎŹϽ϶ijŏ϶
addition to playing a role in inter-governmental relations and advocacy.
Some of the roles and activities led by the Secretariat include:
System-level Support and Coordination
Asset Land or Property
Ownership
Overseeing the integration of eorts across City
Housing assets
Asset leveraging
divisions and fostering alignment across community
Housing Pre-development
stakeholders with respect to housing priorities and
Development
Development
initiatives
Renewal/Renovation
Conducting engagement with diverse stakeholders
Housing Asset management
including other levels of government, community
Operation
Property
housing providers, and the private sector
management
Support services
Developing and sharing resources on how to mobilize
Policy and Policy research and
community-level advocacy on housing issues to
Programs program
higher levels of government
development
ċƚijŹijŏĩ϶Ƃİđ϶~êƢŗŵ϶êŏċ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢЪŹ϶¨đŏijŗŵ϶xđêċđŵŹİijŲ϶
Program Delivery
Team on housing and homelessness issues
Program Evaluation
Funding &
Policy and Programs
Incentives
Researching and developing recommendations for
Financing
innovative policy and program solutions (e.g.,
System-level Coordination &
acquisition of existing private market aordable
Support and Communication
housing)
Coordination
Capacity building
Reviewing and improving existing processes and
Engagement
programs at the City
Advisory & Advocacy
Ensuring eective and eicient use of City, provincial,
and federal investments
Collaborating with other City divisions on housing-related activities (e.g., disposition of city-
owned properties)
Reviewing aordable and supportive housing funding proposals and maintaining an overview of
projects coming through the pipeline (Aordable Housing Development Project Stream)
Outcomes
Key Achievements and Impact on Housing Priorities
Each year, the Housing Secretariat reports on its achievements and progress made against its
annual plan of work. Some highlights from 2024 include:
Expanded governance for the Housing Sustainability & Investment Roadmap to include
Indigenous providers and stakeholders
A2-13
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Creation of an Aordable Housing Communications Plan to facilitate action on strategic
initiatives, including a Community Engagement Plan
Implementation of a multi-year supportive housing fund
Implementation of an online Aordable Housing Development Project Stream to create a
clear and consistent process for allocation of funding to supportive and aordable housing
projects
Development of an HAF Housing Action Plan that comprises seven strategic initiatives
Allocation of $8.2 million to 11 housing projects, which will result in 440 aordable housing
units and 435 supportive housing units
Impact on Local Housing System
fŏ϶Ƃİđ϶ąŗŎŎƇŏijƂƢϽ϶Ƃİđ϶¨đąŵđƂêŵijêƂ϶İêŹ϶İêċ϶ê϶ŎêŁŗŵ϶ijŎŲêąƂ϶ijŏ϶ŵêijŹijŏĩ϶ƚijŹijăijňijƂƢ϶êŵŗƇŏċ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢЪŹ϶
housing initiatives, as well as facilitating stakeholder participation. The Secretariat engages with
ċijƚđŵŹđ϶ŲđŵŹŲđąƂijƚđŹБĨŵŗŎ϶İŗƇŹijŏĩ϶đơŲđŵƂŹ϶êŏċ϶İŗƇŹijŏĩ϶ŲŵŗƚijċđŵŹ϶Ƃŗ϶ąijƂijƬđŏŹ϶Ɯİŗ϶êŵđ϶ijŏƂđŵđŹƂđċ϶ijŏ϶
ňđêċijŏĩ϶ąİêŏĩđБijŏĨƇŹijŏĩ϶Ĩđđċăêąń϶ijŏƂŗ϶ijƂŹ϶Ɯŗŵńϼ϶϶
Lessons Learned
As a recently established division, the Housing SecrđƂêŵijêƂЪŹ϶Ɯŗŵń϶ąŗŏƂijŏƇđŹ϶Ƃŗ϶đƚŗňƚđ϶êŏċ϶êċêŲƂ϶Ƃŗ϶
meet emerging needs. Some of the early learnings from their implementation of this model include:
The role of being the central point for all housing work in a municipality can be challenging;
it takes time and eort to build strong relationships and internal ways of working
A more direct reporting structure with senior leadership enables quicker decision-making
Better coordination with the homelessness division can help ensure that new housing built
is serving people in greatest need
A housing secretariat must be properly funded and staed for its intended role
The scope and roles must be Ǐ đơijăňđ϶êŏċ϶êċêŲƂêăňđБĨŗŵ϶ijŏŹƂêŏąđϽ϶ijƂ϶ŎijĩİƂ϶Ŏêńđ϶ŹđŏŹđ϶Ĩŗŵ϶
the Hamilton Housing Secretariat to support with building condition assessments in the
future for existing community housing providers.
Keys to Success
1. A clear strategic workplan to ground the work of the division
2. Active support and engagement from senior leadership at the City
3. Flexibility and adaptability within the model to respond to emerging needs/opportunities
4. Strong connection and engagement with stakeholders across the housing system
5. Having a committed operating and capital budget from Council, with the ability to leverage
other funding sources
Sources
https://pub-hamilton.escribemeetings.com/ǎ lestream.ashx?DocumentId=435242
https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/ǎ les/2025-02/housing-sustainability-investment-roadmap-
nov2024-update.pdf
https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/ǎ les/2023-12/housing-secretariat-governance-structure.pdf
A2-14
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Case Study 4: Local Advisory Board
Fredericton Affordable Housing Committee
Overview
Location Fredericton, NB
Year 2006
Established
Mandate Provide recommendations to City Council on matters that deal with the
provision of aordable housing in Fredericton
Housing Aordable rental and ownership housing
Types
Website https://www.fredericton.ca/en/your-government/mayor-
council/committees/aordable-housing-committee
About
϶°İđ϶9ijƂƢЪŹ϶ ordable Housing Committee (FAHC) was created
Key Features
because the Mayor and City Councillors saw the need for the
Formal advisory
availability of more aordable housing units in Fredericton. The
committee to City
Council (via standing
ąŗŎŎijƂƂđđЪŹ϶ŵŗňđ϶êŏċ϶ŎêŏċêƂđ϶İêŹ϶đƚŗňƚđċ϶ŗƚđŵ϶ƂijŎđϿ϶Ɯİijňđ϶ijƂ϶
committee)
used to encompass both housing and homelessness, today, it
Chaired by Mayor, with
focuses on the aordable rental and ownership segment of the
involvement from 1 City
housing continuum, where there is a pertinent gap.
Councillor and 1 City
Sta member
The committee is chaired by the Mayor of Fredericton, with
Diverse membership of
participation from a diverse group of cross-sectoral housing
community
ŹƂêńđİŗňċđŵŹϼ϶ËijƂİ϶ŹƇŲŲŗŵƂ϶êŏċ϶ijŏƚŗňƚđŎđŏƂ϶ĨŵŗŎ϶Ƃİđ϶ąijƂƢЪŹ϶
stakeholders
Aordable Housing Development Coordinator, the committee has
Plays an advisory and
been successful in providing key recommendations to Council
sector capacity building
and elevating housing issues overall at the municipal level.
role
Governance and Operations
Governance Model
The FAHC is formally an advisory sub-committee to the Mayor and Council on aordable housing
issues. The committee reports its work to Council annually through the Economic Vitality Standing
9ŗŎŎijƂƂđđϽ϶Ɯİijąİ϶êňŹŗ϶ŗƚđŵŹđđŹ϶Ƃİđ϶\[ c9ЪŹ϶ŎđŎăđŵship, ensuring a balanced representation of
sectors connected to housing.
Operations Model
The committee, which meets monthly, is chaired by the Mayor of Fredericton, with additional
support from one Council representative and one City sta member. The makeup of the FAHC
includes representation from:
A2-15
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Non-pro ǎ t housing providers
Private sector developers and landlords
The provincial government
CMHC
Real estate professionals
Public health
Research and academia
Advocacy groups for student housing, senior housing, newcomers, and tenants.
Having these multi-sectoral perspectives at the table enables the FAHC to play a key advisory role
in municipal decision-making, as well as capacity-building within the local housing system.
°İđ϶\[ c϶ЩŹ϶Ɯŗŵń϶ijŹ϶ijŏĨŗŵŎđċ϶ăƢ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢЪŹ϶ ordable Housing Strategy and has close ties with the
¡ňêŏŏijŏĩ϶ċđŲêŵƂŎđŏƂϽ϶ƂİŵŗƇĩİ϶Ƃİđ϶ŲêŵƂijąijŲêƂijŗŏ϶ŗĨ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢЪŹ϶êordable housing development
coordinator.
Municipal Relationship to City Advisory Committee of the Mayor and Council
Role
Accountability Reports to Council through the Economic Vitality Standing
structure with City Committee
People Key Personnel Chaired by Mayor Kate Rogers
Councillor Jason LeJeune
Sta Involvement of 1 FTE from the Planning Department
(Aordable Housing Development Coordinator)
Key Partners St. Thomas University, CMHC, John Howard, NB Dept of
Social Development , Pine Valley Co-op, Public Health NB,
Senior Wellness Action Group & Age-friendly Committee,
Gorham Real Estate, BMO Financial Group, Horizon Health
Network, Multicultural Association of Fredericton Inc.,
Habitat for Humanity, Fredericton Non-Pro ǎ t Housing
Corporation, Greater Fredericton Social Innovation, United
Way of Central N.B., Youth in Transition, Inclusion NB,
RE/MAX, Skigin Elnoog Housing Inc., UNB Student Union
Financial Model
While there is no formal ongoing operating budgđƂ϶êŹŹŗąijêƂđċ϶ƜijƂİ϶Ƃİđ϶\[ c9Ͻ϶Ƃİđ϶9ŗŎŎijƂƂđđЪŹ϶
resources include basic costs for meals and the time dedicated by the Aordable Housing
?đƚđňŗŲŎđŏƂ϶9ŗŗŵċijŏêƂŗŵϼ϶fƂ϶ŲňêƢŹ϶êŏ϶êċƚijŹŗŵƢ϶ŵŗňđ϶ijŏ϶İŗƜ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢЪŹ϶ǎ nancial resources for housing
(including funding through the Housing Accelerator Fund), which Ǐ ows through the Planning
Department, is spent. The FAHC was instrumental in advocating for the allocation of $500,000 per
Ƣđêŵ϶ĨŵŗŎ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢЪŹ϶ăƇċĩđƂ϶Ƃŗ϶êċƚêŏąđ϶İŗƇŹijŏĩ϶ŲŵŗŁđąƂŹϼ϶
A2-16
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
Functional Roles and Activities
The overall purpose of the FAHC is to provide advice to City Council and sta on issues related to
the aordable housing need, contributing recommendations towards the development of policies,
programs, and initiatives.
Asset Land or Property
Some of the roles and activities of the FAHC
Ownership
Housing assets
include:
Asset leveraging
Putting forth researched and vetted
Housing Pre-development
recommendations to Council (e.g. Single
Development
Development
Room Occupancy by-law)
Renewal/Renovation
Housing Asset management
Providing expertise and support to broader
Operation
Property
housing initiatives (Imagine Fredericton:
management
The Municipal Plan; Canada's National
Support services
Housing Strategy, Homelessness plan;
Policy and Policy research and
HAF initiatives, etc.)
Programs program
Leading public education initiatives (e.g.,
development
ŗŏ϶Ƃİđ϶ŎƇŏijąijŲêňijƂƢЪŹ϶ŵŗňđ϶ijŏ϶İŗƇŹijŏĩК϶Program Delivery
Program Evaluation
Providing input on local developments;
Funding &
êąƂijŏĩ϶ê϶ЧĩŗЎƂŗШ϶ĩŵŗƇŲ϶Ĩŗŵ϶ąŗŏŹƇňƂêƂijŗŏ϶ŗŏ϶
Incentives
aordable housing projects
Financing
Building capacity within the community
System-level Coordination &
housing sector to be a stronger player in
Support and Communication
addressing housing needs
Coordination
Capacity building
Engagement
Advisory & Advocacy
Outcomes
Key Achievements and Impact on Housing Priorities
The FAHC has been successful in elevating the importance of housing issues to be a focus area for
Fredericton City Council, reactivating the desire for a municipal role in housing from a leadership
and coordination perspective, while providing evidence-based advice to steer this work.
In recent years, the FAHC played a key role in moving forward the following actions:
Completion of a Housing Needs Assessment
Creation of an Aordable Housing Strategy
Allocation of City budget towards advancing aordable housing projects ($500,000 per
year)
Waiving of development charges for non-pro ǎ t housing creation
Creation of the Single Room Occupancy by-law
Impact on Local Housing System
The work of the FAHC has been instrumental in helping the City achieve its goal of being a facilitator
and coordinator in the housing space, bringing key players together to develop new solutions and
A2-17
City of Saint John - Housing Governance Study
\[ijŏêňϼŵđŲŗŵƂϼЖϼ ŲŲđŏċijơϼʹϼ
êąİijđƚđ϶ĩŵđêƂđŵ϶ijŎŲêąƂϼ϶°İđ϶9ŗŎŎijƂƂđđ϶İêŹ϶êňŹŗ϶ŵêijŹđċ϶Ƃİđ϶9ijƂƢЪŹ϶Ųŵŗ ǎ le in the housing space,
demonstrating and educating the public on how the City is working to address aordable housing
needs. Over time, the FAHC has gained legitimacy and within the housing system, being invited to
advise on key planning initiatives across the City.
Keys to Success
1. The participation of a dedicated City staff member with a focus on housing
2. \[Ƈŏċijŏĩ϶ĨŵŗŎ϶Ƃİđ϶cŗƇŹijŏĩ϶ ąąđňđŵêƂŗŵ϶\[Ƈŏċ϶Ƃŗ϶ŹƇŲŲŗŵƂ϶ijŎŲňđŎđŏƂêƂijŗŏ϶ŗĨ϶Ƃİđ϶\[ c9ЪŹ϶
recommendations
3. Participation from an informed group of multi-sectoral experts, with real understanding of
how to create affordable housing to meet diverse needs
Sources
https://www.fredericton.ca/sites/default/ǎ les/2025-01/COF-OrgChart14x85-JAN2025-V6_1-1.pdf
https://pub-fredericton.escribemeetings.com/ǎ lestream.ashx?DocumentId=18533
A2-18
3
Appendix
direct
–
Housing
Governance Study
based model,
-
Final report
ability to build on
–
Housing
, very scalable and
Committee Model
-
activities across the
s
Advisory
Formalizes a role already envisioned throughAction Plan recommendationsLimited to facilitative role but supportwhole of continuumAutonomous function with within a ‘recommend & report’
structureAs a volunteervery limited Minimal support costs for Committeenot as reliant on funding to maintain its functionsAbility to advocate for dollars and recommend disbursement
foster partnerships across the housing continuumSubstantial options for community involvement based on committee structure
City of Saint John
roles
Model
calable
, s
support from
making but within
facilitating -
framework of
centric model with
-
going costs dependent on
City
-
Housing Secretariat
role which is outcomes in several areasAble to set policy, programs and facilitation to support outcomes across the continuumProvides for more responsive City decisionthe authoritiesSome
initial outlay with Onsenior govt programsand more resilient due to across several departmentsAbility to attract some dollars and stack with municipal tools/ resources, potential to
foster partnerships across the housing continuumCityopportunities for public and stakeholder engagement
Criteria
local
in
groups
Model
legislate,
services
Study
structure
need
housing
ies
and/or
within
and then
making with
centric model with
-
-
priority
authoritauthorities but
function
+ legislated authorities
facilitate attract, retain and
housing
services
initial outlay to
deliver housing
the system and enables
on
autonomous
-
or senior govt programs
decision
in
going costs dependent on
islated-islated
Local Commission
bility to
Creates a new type of entity withfocus Aand/or Semiallows for and legSizable get establishedintegrate commission with systemOndefrayed by generated revenues and/Ability toleverage dollars
legsomewhat reliant on government funding to sustain, some potential for partnershipsCommissionpotential for stakeholder engagement, subject to City direction
to address
,
,
where
Model
within
for priority
highly
generated
going costs,
-
operating
system
lready
making
a
going commitment
-
Evaluation of Select Models vs
local system with
-
centric model with
–
to sustain
local
-
to
on
government funding
are
get established
sponsored entity
for range of authorities
-
,
s and other sources
attract, retain and
groups
Municipal Entity
Would add another provider within the providers established and Direct ability to deliver housing and related services need Arm’s length option provides and decisionlegislated authoritieslegislatetra
nsition new CityConsiderable onideally defrayed by revenuereliant on and funds Could leverage dollars but reliant onto sustain, some potential for partnershipsCorporatepotential for
stakeholder engagement, subject to City/shareholder direction
making
-
going
-
within local housing systemAbility to address housing gapsOperational Emplacement and transition costsOnoperating costsAbility to funding and partnershipsCommunity engagement in decision
SJ Housing Governance
4
Appendix
–Model
system
Governance Study community
system
ess
utilization and
Final report
Housing
priorities
-
Committee
-
Advisory
community partnerMost costsupporting housing outcomesHighly reliant on leveraging of community resources to achieve goalsBetter alignment of system, partner roles and resources across
continuumHelps coordinate the work of partners, addressgaps and improveDriven by community plan and implementing partners around the committee tableHelps provide a critical leadership
role in coordination, gives visibility to community Role of committee is fairly stable, reliant on members to maintain an active presence/ impact over time
capacity
City of Saint John
Model
and
ity
C
municipal gaps
s
build community
conscious approach to
-
helps
Housing Secretariat
Opportunities to directly/ indirectly deliver on housing Costscale up on existing functionsWorking with existing partners and resources, augmented with new tools and resources to enhance
impactBetter alignment of functions and resources to impact on housing outcomesHelps build on work of and Ideally driven by community plan, external engagement Creates a more coordinated
and robust municipal response on issues across the continuumFunctional role within City is scalable up/down, more resilient to changes over time
capacity
,
Model
Objectives & Guiding Principles
delivery
-
where
approved
-
ity
ive
C
can be costly,
with
partner but
, requires
, reliant on legislated
of housing services
service
once established
Local Commission
mplementation
Ability to directly/indirectly Idependent on scope of rolesubject to legislationCreation of new entity adds another provider within the establishedenactment of legislationAlignment with
Cityhousing priorities in terms of deliveryCreates an additional entity within the local housing landscape that is instance, responscommunity interests alignCreates an additional and/or
resources with the local systemOnce established, a stable presence is provided if it can down
directedauthorities
-
,
,
of Select Models
driven
Model-
approved
e where
-
iv
outcomes
ed authorities
on
partner but
reliant on
direct model
,
Alignment
–
once established
subject to legislation
Municipal Entity
Ability to directly deliver Most challenging option costwise to deliver role Creation of new entity adds another provider within the establishedrequires legislatAlignment with Cityhousing
priorities in terms of housing deliveryCreates an additional entity within the local housing landscape that is citydirect modellegislated authoritiesAccountable to City instance, responscommunity
interests alignCreates an additional deliveryand/or serviceresources with the local system Once established, a stable presence is provided if it can down
.
work
/
s
partners
housing
a stable &
.
s
s
existing
s
s
s
value/capacity
ing
structure
s
comm
responsive to
ImproveBalanceconstraintsUtilizeresources to maxFostercoordination and alignmentComplementexistinfraof Iscommunity prioritiesAddto the local systemProvidesustainable presence
SJ Housing Governance
5
-
A5-1
Appendix
–
If a service
income
th
Final report
Housing Governance Study
roups/gaps
-
intervention into the
income percentile)
The legislative obligations
income renter households
market renter households
th
-
Low(<30Mid-able to rent (>30percentile)
City of Saint John
ubstantial
Target housing gOverall Synopsis A slocal market that would take time creating undue risks to the established ecosystem. somewhat easier to implement. especially where funding resources
are considered a clear impediment to compared with other options available.
/roles
evelopment
-
Housing dHousing operationsDelivery of capital programsOption to deliver only housing servicesRequires legislated authorities to do direct housing deliverySubstantial emplacement costs
and onobligations to maintain this presenceNo assets initiallytime to acquire expertise and critical mass to have meaningful impactAdds another local entity in an ecosystemRisk of alienating
other housing priorities are not aligned
Typical functionsPotential Challenges
under a
. Secondary
complement
only option
municipal housing
-
to expand
-
Direct impact in the supply of missionAgility to take independent action but in alignment with City objectivesOpportunity to build additional local delivery capacityAbility local delivery
capacityserviceto certain municipal tools and resources
non
capacity. Focus would be on
of Governance Models
oversight
corporation
making authority
-
directed
Synopsis
-
as added they are
- s
-
‘
focused service delivery
-
initially
Shell corporationMunicipallyIndependent Board of Directors appointed by CouncilFull decisionand control within corporate powers +
Municipal Entity Model (Housing Corp.)How the model works in practice The establishment of a new autonomous length from the City in a Model variations:Governance/authoritiesAssets None
owned by corporation with full authority for disposition Stakeholder engagement/partners Corporationwith opportunities for external partnerships
option to only provide housing services more easily implemented.
SJ Housing
5
A5-2
Appendix
time
–
Final report
Housing Governance Study
roups/gaps
-
considerable
The legislative obligations
income renter
market renter households
-
-
Households with special needs (<30th income percentile)Lowhouseholds(<30th income percentile)Mid-able to rent (>30th income percentile)
City of Saint John
Target housing gOverall Synopsis An intervention in the local market that would take and resources to realize. While the commission could pursue a more servicestill be risks to the established
ecosystemhousing delivery mandate was pursuedresources would impact on the entity.are considered a clear impediment to compared with other options available.
-
going
-
(scope
to have
required to
/roles
facilitation
dependent on level of City
Program deliveryAdvisory and coordinationDevelopment Housing advocacy Option to do direct delivery of Requires legislated authorities to have meaningful impactExtensive work secure legislated
authoritiesConsiderable costs for emplacement and ondependent)time to acquire expertise and meaningful impactAdditional local entity risks Complications where City and stakeholder priorities
do not align– oversight adopted
Typical functionsPotential Challenges
-
-
Option
role allows for
municipal housing
-
-
non
. Focus would be on
)
Ability to impact the supply of based missionCan take direct action in alignment with City objectivesand legislated authoritiesOpportunity to expand and complement local delivery capacityCitydirect
access to municipal tools and resources
(via appointed Board)
autonomous
(Council members as Board)
-
Commissioners
Directors (
works in practice
-focused service
making authority to
-
appointed Board has full
-
-
Municipally controlled BoardMunicipally directed service company Board of Directors appointed by CouncilCouncildecisionguide commission activities within legislated authorities
Local Commission Model How the model The establishment of a new semiappointed Board of Model variations:Governance/authoritiesAssets None initially owned by entity with full authority
for disposition Stakeholder engagement/partners Commissiondelivery with external collaboration opportunities
also to move to a full delivery model.
5
A5-3
Appendix
–
Final report
Housing Governance Study
roups/gaps
-
income renter
market renter households market households able to
-
Households with special needs (<30th income percentile)Lowhouseholds(<30th income percentile) Mid-able to rent (>30th income percentile)Mid-own (<60th income percentile)
City of Saint John
Target housing gOverall Synopsis An engaged and streamlined municipal secretariat function has housing issues. Expanding on the existing facilitation model is an with mature sector partners.
Success is reliant on being responsive and engaging partners.
City structure is
/roles
facilitation
making authority within
-
Challenges
Advisor to CouncilPolicy developmentDevelopment and delivery of programsDevelopmentHousing advocacy Direct role is limited in some nature and reliant on cooperation of system partnersPosition
within lead to perception of City agenda vs. community agendaDecisionmunicipal structure is subject to accountability to make model work
Typical functionsPotential
house skills
-
sectoral)
-
Enhanced ability to focus on priority housing issues across the full housing continuum over timeBuilds on existing inand resources as well as those already established in the broader
ecosystemRelatively modest costs to Capability to scale with available resilient to system changesCity function allows for access impact
ting across functional areas to
making authority of
-
model works in practice
-
Centre of expertise within municipality (crossMultiDecisionCouncil
Housing Secretariat Model How the across the continuum. This would create an accountable “centre of advance the housing agenda. Model variations:Governance/authoritiesAssets disposition
by Council Stakeholder engagement/partners Service focus that is highly reliant on coordinating internal partners and engaging external partners
5
A5-4
based
Appendix
-
–
on
Final report
Housing Governance Study
roups/gaps
-
income renter
market renter households market households able to
Synopsis
-
Households with special needs (<30th income percentile)Lowhouseholds(<30th income percentile) Mid-able to rent (>30th income percentile)Mid-own (<60th income percentile)
City of Saint John
Target housing gOverall A highly participatory model that maximizes the of system stakeholders to advance housing outcomes across the continuum. This collaboratimodel relies on stakeholder
outcomes due to its limited
/roles
Advisor to municipalitySystem coordination and facilitation Sectoral planning & capacity buildingHousing advocacydirect outcomesResponsibility for progress on the housing agenda is vested
with a committee that has only indirect municipal accountabilityHighly reliant on the sustained participation and collaboration of community stakeholders Housing Plan to help coordinate
and drive action
Typical functionsPotential Challenges
housing
Ability to address priority housing issues across the full continuum through collaboration of system stakeholdersroles and resources already established in the local housing ecosystemMinimal
costs to implement and Capability to scale with available resources over time in response to system changes
sectoral engagement of system stakeholders.
-
based advisory body
chairs)
-
-
Advisory committee of CouncilCommunityCommunity committee with (chair or coAdvisory body bound by Terms of Reference (recommend and report)
Advisory Committee Model How the model works in practice Expansion of the model envisioned in the Housing Action Plan to a more implementation. Focus on facilitating housing outcomes
across the continuum through crossModel variations:Governance/authoritiesAssets No assets held by committee Stakeholder engagement/partners High collaborative model for engaging all
facets of the local housing ecosystem
City of Saint John
Housing Governance Study
Prepared by:
OBJECTIVES &
GROWTH COMMITTEE REPORT
May 29, 2025
Report Date
June 11, 2025
Meeting Date
Service AreaGrowth and
Community Services
Chair MacKenzie and Members of the Growth Committee
SUBJECT:Succeed and Stay Immigration Strategy
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed inGrowthCommittee Open Session.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary AuthorCommissioner/Dept. HeadChief Administrative Officer
Ronald Amy Poffenroth/David J. Brent McGovern
Moncada/Fabricio LimaDobbelsteyn
RECOMMENDATION
That theGrowth Committee:
1.endorse the Pathways to Belonging Regional Immigration strategy as presented by
Envision Saint John; and
2.direct staff to report back to the Growth Committee with a plan to transition from the
to the Regional Immigration Strategy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2022, the City of Saint John adopted the Succeed and Stay Immigration Strategy
(2022
through collaboration with key partners such as Envision Saint John, Saint John Local Immigration
Partnership (SJLIP), YMCA Newcomer Connections, governmentdepartments and education
stakeholders, the strategy identifies immigration as a vital tool for long-term growth. It is built on
four strategic pillars: promoting the Saint John immigration story, improving workforce and
economic integration, supporting attraction, settlement and retention, and fostering community
inclusion and belonging. Since its launch, the City has led andsupported multiple initiatives, such
as newcomerswelcomingevents, job fairs, service navigation tools, and a regional newcomers
website; the Cityis directly responsible for five of 26 strategy tactics.
A key recommendation of the strategy was to move toward a coordinated, region-wide
approach. This has now materialized as Pathways to Belonging, a Regional Immigration Strategy
led by Envision Saint John in collaboration withthe City and othermunicipalities, the Fundy
Regional Service Commission, SJLIP, and other community and government partners.
The City played an active role in shaping this plan and supports its inclusive, collaborative vision.
As the transition unfolds, decisions must be made about which responsibilities will remain with
the City and which will shift to regional oversight. Staff will return to the Growth Committee with
detailed recommendations on roles, responsibilities, and next steps to ensure that the City
continues to attract and retain newcomers as a key part of its growth strategy.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
Council resolution of November 28, 2022:
RESOLVED that:
1. Common Council adopt the Saint John Succeed and Stay Immigration Strategy as our
to the Immigration Strategy as part of
3. The City Manager be directed to bring to Council a negotiated funding agreement to support
the delivery of the Immigration Strategy over the next three years with partners such as the
Federal and Provincial Government, as well as Envision Saint John, and that up to $135,000 be
contribution to the immigration strategy.
4. The City Manager be directed to prepare a public roll out of the Immigration Strategy and the
results of the City led Succeed and Stay study immediately following Council approval of the
immigration strategy.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The strategy is essential to
ensure that Saint John and the broader region remain competitive, welcoming, and well-
positioned to attract and retain newcomers in the years ahead.
REPORT
In 2022, the City of Saint John adopted the Succeed and Stay Immigration Strategy (20222032)
to
through extensive engagement with multiple stakeholders, including Envision Saint John, SJLIP,
YMCA Newcomer Connections, SJ Newcomers Centre(SJNC), Prude, Working NB, school districts,
post-secondary institutions and government departments, the strategy identified immigration as
a key driver of long-term population and economic growth.
The strategy is anchored on four strategic pillars: 1. Promoting the Saint John immigration story;
2. Improving workforce and economic integration; 3. Targeting support for attraction,
settlement, and retention; and 4. Fostering community inclusion and belonging.
The strategy outlined eight strategic priorities, including improving coordination among service
providers, enhancing communications, expanding core settlement services, and regionalizing
immigration efforts. Since its launch, the City has directly led 5 of 26 tactics which are:
Priority 1:Establish a no wrong door approach to immigration support services.
-Tactic 3 Immigration Website. Status: Operational
Site launched as a "no wrong door" gateway.
Regular updates are ongoing.
Transition planning is pending.
Priority 2:
-Tactic 4 Collaborative Welcome Events. Status: Operational (with Envision)
Ongoing smaller events (Food shop, Market Mingle, etc.).
Partners encouraged to co-deliver events.
Largeannual event in Welcome Week planned by Envision.
Partners include SJNC, PRUDE, and YMCA.
-Tactic 5 Emergency Services Communications Strategy. Status: Nearing Completion.
The City developed a communication strategy.
Developed pilot campaign with Police (video, infographic, blog, toolkit).
Strategy to be shared with additional organizations.
Priority 5:Expand and improve core settlement services that address key gaps in journey.
-Tactic 4 Improve Access to Housing Information. Status: Progressing.
Supporting SJNC with the housing expo.
Goal: Keep information current and accessible to newcomers.
-Tactic:Dedicated Resource to Support the Strategy. Status: Complete
Strengthens
Priority 8:Regionalize the Immigration Strategy
-Tactic:Regionalize the Strategy. Status: Nearing Completion(lead by Envision)
The City has supported actively the development of the regional strategy with
the goal to Integrate "Succeed and Stay" into abroader regional plan.
Recognizing the importance of a region-wide approach, the strategy called for the development
of a broader regional plan. This has now resulted in Pathways to Belonging, a new Regional
Immigration Strategy led by Envision Saint John: The Regional Growth Agency, in partnership with
the City of Saint John and other municipalities, Fundy Regional Service Commission, SJLIP,
ethnocultural community groups, immigration ecosystem (school districts, settlement agencies,
etc.) and government departments. The City actively contributed to its development and fully
supports its vision of creating inclusive, equitable, and sustainable communities.
The RegionalImmigration Strategy reflects a refreshed understanding of the current social and
economic landscape, recognizing that the original data informing the 2022 plan, collected before
the COVID-19 pandemic and recent policy shifts, could not be capturing the full scope of today's
newcomer experience. Changes in the labor market, housing availability, and integration needs
have reshaped priorities, prompting a need for more responsive and up-to-date planning. This
update aims to ensure that strategic actions reflect current realities and are prepared to address
emerging challenges and opportunities in a more meaningful and timely way.
As the region transitions to this new framework, key decisions remain on 1) division of
responsibilities across municipalities and partners; 2)which tactics from Succeed and Stay will be
maintained and what will transition to regional oversight under Pathways to Belonging.
framework and a model for collaborative, regionally aligned planning. With over half of tactics
either completed or actively underway and a clear path toward regional coordination, the City
remains committed to immigrant success and sustainable growth.
A further report will return to the Growth Committee with a detailed update on roles,
responsibilities,tactical assignments, and a transition roadmap as part of the regional strategy
alignment.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The City has invested more than $150,000 in the development of resources for newcomers, such
as the Newtosaintjohn.ca site, the new resident guide, welcoming events and communications
campaigns. Since 2023, the annual budget allocation has been $67,500 for the implementation
of the Succeed and Stay strategy.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
Growth and Community Services, Communications, Saint John Newcomers Centre, YMCA
Newcomer Connections, PRUDE Inc., SJLIP, and Envision Saint John have been consulted.
ATTACHMENTS
Annex A: Succeed and Stay Tactics UpdatesJune2025
Annex A: Succeed and Stay Tactics Updates June 2025
Project Scale: 0-Not Started; 1-Started; 2-Progressing; 3-Nearing Completion; 4-Complete;
Operational
TACTIC STATUS UPDATE LEAD
tƩźƚƩźƷǤ Њͳ ğĭƷźĭ Њʹ 9ƭƷğĬƌźƭŷ ğ Envision has completed a stakeholder
ƭĻƩǝźĭĻƭ źƓǝĻƓƷƚƩǤ ƦƩƚĭĻƭƭ Ʒƚ directory and is actively distributing
źķĻƓƷźŅǤ ƌĻğķ inventory map to the public. They
Operational Envision
ƚƩŭğƓźǩğƷźƚƓƭΉĭƚƓƷğĭƷƭ ŅƚƩ have done a soft launch of the digital
ƭƦĻĭźŅźĭ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻƭ ğƓķ version of this on their site. To be
ƦƩƚŭƩğƒƭ updated every May and October.
Priority 1; Tactic 2: Create a General work LIP's working groups. LIP
model for newcomer 3 - Nearing staff will be revisiting this tactic late
Envision
navigation Completion 2025. Should be carried forward to the
regional strategy.
Priority 1; Tactic 3: Continue Site launched. Regular updates to
with the development of an information. Transition yet to be
City of Saint
immigration website that acts Operational completed.
John
as a no wrong door gateway
to the immigration ecosystem
Priority 1; Tactic 4: Continue Centres in Container Village & City
to pilot a physical welcome Market: agreement with CoSJ exists.
centre within Saint John LIP Will be asking for data to present
at the next WC meeting to see how
these centres are doing. As a result of
4 -
this tactic, there is a new project Envision
Complete
happening between Envision and the
CoSJ where they are going to create an
EDDY and move the Welcome Centre
there. To see if there is data from the
current welcome centres.
Priority 2; Tactic 1: Define a Value proposition has been created.
strong value proposition and Envision to share with all partners;
4 -
supporting key messages partners to integrate value proposition Envision
Complete
into their websites and marketing
efforts.
Priority 2; Tactic 2: Promote Envision has been promoting it
value proposition and key externally. To create a
messages across existing 2 - communications task force where an
Envision
channels Progressing inventory is put together so every
organization knows what they could or
should share.
Priority 2; Tactic 3: Promote SJLIP will be a convener of information
immigration services with and will develop a communication
simple marketing campaign strategy where every other
1- Started Envision
organization will share their services.
LIP staff will promote it as a one-stop
shop.
Priority 2; Tactic 4: Establish City of Saint John planning smaller-
collaborative welcome events scale welcome events (Food shop,
Market Mingle, Passport to Parks,
Multiculturalism Day). Partners are
Envision/City
Operational encouraged to collaborate on event
of Saint John
delivery; Envision will plan for (1) large
annual event in Welcome Week; City,
SJNC, PRUDE, YMCA Newcomer
Connections to collaborate.
Priority 2; Tactic 5: Develop a City and local partners worked with
specific communications Ginger agency on collecting data to
strategy for Emergency present as a strategy. Pilot Project
3 - Nearing City of Saint
Services with the Police completed with Video,
Completion John
Infographic, blog post and a toolkit for
community Partners. To be presented
to the other organizations.
Priority 3; Tactic 1: Establish Priority occupations at a provincial
comprehensive engagement level is available from Working NB.
with employers across core Chamber, Working NB and Envision to
employment sectors within Operational meet to discuss employers to sit on Envision
Saint John the group. The work continues to be
done by engaging the employers via
meetings using the Deloitte study.
Priority 3; Tactic 2: Develop a Discussion has begun on target sectors
sector targeted immigration and SJ story; the role of ONB vs
attraction campaign Envision in attraction is clear. SWP -
Strategic Workforce Partnership.
There is no attraction campaign
1- Started Envision
happening given the latest changes in
immigration policy. It is a challenging
topic, and we could only abide by the
number IRCC and the province would
define.
Priority 3; Tactic 3: Create a NEC, Chamber and Working NB to
SJNC and
skilled workforce retention reach out to employers to note trends
YMCA
program for identified sectors Operational they are seeing with challenges they
Newcomer
are facing. NEC expanding into Sussex
Connections
and Saint Stephen
Priority 3; Tactic 4: Develop a CoOp and BCP programs. No
UNB Saint
university and college intentions to create a new program.
1- Started John & NBCC
The intention is to strengthen the
Saint John
internship program for current programs and help with
identified sectors awareness. Part of the SWP
Priority 3; Tactic 5: Measure Results are being communicated in a
and communicate results to 0 - Not holistic way, sharing what is being
Envision
provincial and federal Started done with the whole strategy.
partners
Priority 4; Tactic 1: Measure, SJLIP Project Manager reported in
report and analyze current 4 - 2023.
SJLIP
campaign learnings. (See My Complete
Value)
Priority 4; Tactic 2: Improve Inclusivity Campaign launched in
communications campaign for March 21st. Our Region Our Home
citizens (See My Value) campaign. Has received good feedback
with about 5k. 4 billboards, post on
Operational Envision
socials, 5 full length videos and 1 clip
videos. Posters, and a website.
Ourregionourhome.com. Next flight in
June/July
Priority 4; Tactic 3: Develop Employment Training group to host 3
communications campaign for events where they'll present the
employers immigration landscape to employers.
CPHR NB breakfast, Hampton
Chamber and Immigration Minister in
October (The SJ Chamber). Employers
3 - Nearing
sit in the working group now. Envision
Completion
IRCC and Immigration NB sessions for
employers at job fairs. It was decided
not to do a campaign given that the
target audience for this tactic is
different to the one that would
respond to a marketing campaign.
Priority 5; Tactic 1: Expand This needs to be done by highlighting
services and corresponding what programs exist already that are
communications to families supporting families and spouses.
Funding has evolved and there are YMCA
2 -
now many programs for families that Newcomer
Progressing
settlement agencies are offering. A Connections
communication piece is to be
developed to pass the message along
through the LIP's channels.
Priority 5; Tactic 2: Ensure SJLIP Council is working to establish
immigration services are Francophone Advisory Panel; workplan
2 -
offered in both official will be created. Need to figure out
SJNC
Progressing
languages how the landscape has changed given
the allocation of funds and the
partners that were doing it. Who is
offering services now?
Priority 5; Tactic 3: Strengthen Some groups are doing this well, such
existing buddy programs and as the Nigerian Association, the
include ethnocultural groups Egyptian Group, the Filipino
Association, Thrive NB.
YMCA
1- Started Sharing best practices and the Newcomer
updated information. To meet with Connections
the leader and begin collection of
information to create a Toolkit that
could be shared with Ethnocultural
groups as well.
Priority 5; Tactic 4: Improve Collaborative approach with SJNC
access to available housing about their housing Expo, to leverage
information their experience and relationships
2 - City of Saint
with Realtors, Property Management
Progressing John
Agencies, among others.
Priority 5; Tactic 5: Integrate SJLIP partners to integrate what is
expanded settlement services being created; SJLIP Project Manager
into immigration ecosystem to work with Council in creating
2 -
workplan. To be updated every May SJLIP
Progressing
and October along with the services
map, website (New to Saint John) and
shared throughout LIP's channels.
Priority 6; Tactic 1: Develop an SJLIP /City working on year-end report
annual report with compelling 1- Started of strategy; Envision to provide report Envision
positioning (2024) about positioning.
Priority 6; Tactic 2: Engage Envision's Mandate
provincial and federal
partners and develop plans to 1- Started Envision
action key immigration
opportunities
Priority 7: Create a dedicated City's Growth Officer hired to support
City of Saint
resource to support the City's the implementation of the Succeed
4- Complete
John
accountabilities and Stay immigration strategy.
Priority 8: Regionalize the Envision working with consultant and
3 - Nearing Envision/City
strategy municipalities to regionalize this
Completion of Saint John
strategy.
GROWTH COMMITTEEREPORT
Report DateJune 02, 2025
Meeting DateJune 11, 2025
Service AreaGrowth and Community
Services
Chair MacKenzie and Members of the Growth Committee
SUBJECT: East Side Saint John Community Program and Services Review
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in Growth Committee Open Session.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary AuthorCommissioner/Dept. HeadChief Administrative Officer
Craig Ganong/ Jen Amy Poffenroth/David J. Brent McGovern
ReedDobbelsteyn
d
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Growth Committee receive and file the report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Saint John is conducting anevaluationto gather comprehensive data
on community services offered in Ward 4the East side of the City. The study will
aim to identifystrengths, gaps, and opportunities for strategic improvements.This
report outlines the approachbeing undertaken and next steps in this program
review.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
n/a
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
Evaluationsand recommendationspertaining to community services in Ward 4
alignswith Common Council's Priorities to support opportunities forGrowth and
prosperity, and to foster a vibrant city through investment in arts, culture, and
recreation experiences that create a sense of community pride; and Belong, to
enhance the quality of life and social well-being in a safe place to live; offering
recreation, arts, and cultural opportunities.
-2-
REPORT
City staff began working on the East Side community program and services
evaluation at the end of January 2025.Theevaluationaims to gather
comprehensive data on community services offered in Ward 4, identifying
strengths, gaps, and opportunities for strategic improvements.For the purposes
of this evaluation,the East McAllister region from Ward 3 will also be included
(Table 1.0)
In preparation for public engagement,City staff hascompleted the following;
1.Full demographic review of Ward 4and the East McAllister region of
Ward 3.
2.Comparativeanalysis of the North, South, and West sides of the City.
3.Developed an interactive map to visualize demographics, transit, and
service locations(Table 1.0). Through the evaluationprocess, service
providers will be inputted intothe map toidentify offerings.
4.Compiled a preliminary list of East Side service providers.
5.Engaged current neighborhood associations and community centre
representatives.
6.Created structured discussionframeworkfor data collection.
7.Public, Service Provider and Hybrid surveyshave been createdandwill
be administered through in person and online opportunities.
(Table 1.0)
- 3 -
Over the next few months city staff will be completing the following phases:
Phase 1: Service Provider Discussions and Data Collection Ώ LƓ tƩƚŭƩĻƭƭ
Finalize all scheduled meetings with identified service providers and
community groups using the structured discussion framework.
Document all service details, including:
o Programs and services offered
o Target demographics
o Frequency and location of delivery service
o Operational challenges and limitations
o Identified service gaps
Deliverable: Comprehensive dataset categorizing service offerings, challenges,
and needs.
Phase 2: Initial Data Interpretation and Comparative Analysis Ώ LƓ tƩƚŭƩĻƭƭ
Organize service provider data into structured categories, including:
o Service type (e.g., recreation, food security, education, health
services)
o Demographics served (children, youth, adults, seniors,
newcomers)
o Service frequency and accessibility levels
o Compare data against services available in the South, West, and
North regions
o Identify overrepresented and underrepresented services
o Geographic and demographic service gaps
o Disparities in funding, capacity, and outreach
o Quantify service availability where possible and identify
barriers to participation.
Identify preliminary trends, such as:
o Which services are most frequently offered?
o Where do the largest gaps exist?
o Emerging patterns in accessibility and community needs
Deliverable: Preliminary service landscape assessment, summarizing availability,
gaps, and emerging themes.
Phase 3: Drafting the Preliminary Findings Summary
Overview of Existing Services
Service Strengths
Identified Gaps
Challenges Identified by Service Providers
- 4 -
Preliminary Opportunities
report.
Deliverable: Findings Summary, organized to support further refinement and
validation.
Upon completion of Phase 3, a Common Council briefing will be scheduled for staff
to update Council on the findings to date.
Phase 4: Validation and Refinement of Findings
Cross-check findings against existing municipal reports and data sources to
validate accuracy.
Consult internal city stakeholders to gather additional context where
needed.
Conduct targeted follow-ups with service providers to clarify any
inconsistencies or missing details.
Refine key insights to ensure findings provide an accurate and
comprehensive picture of East Side service provision.
Deliverable: Finalized preliminary findings summary, ready for external
engagement
Phase 5: General Public Engagement
During this phase, city staff will engage directly with residents of East Saint John
and McAllister to validate findings and gather additional community insight.
Engagement activities will include the launch of a Shape Your City public survey,
attendance at community events, and the facilitation of open houses. These
sessions will serve to present preliminary findings, gather resident perspectives,
and identify further areas of opportunity based on lived experience. The feedback
collected will help refine the overall service delivery analysis and ensure that final
recommendations reflect service provider input and community voice.
Phase 6: Recommendations to Common Council
Following the completion of public engagement and validation of preliminary
findings, staff will develop a series of evidence-based recommendations. These
will address service delivery gaps, opportunities for cross-sector collaboration,
and considerations for future investment. It is estimated recommendations will
be presented to Common Council in October 2025, supported by comprehensive
data collected throughout the evaluation and informed by direct community
feedback.
- 5 -
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Future recommendations that may have an impact on the 2026 Operating
Budget will be a part of the budget analysis process.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
City staff has engaged with the following departments and community
stakeholders.
Geographic Information Systems- City of Saint John
Human Development Council
Vibrant Communities Saint John
Business Community Anti-Poverty Initiative (BCAPI)
Neighbourhood associations and community centre representatives
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A- Master Service Provider List
.
f Click here to enter text.
.
.
.
9ğƭƷ {źķĻ 9ǝğƌǒğƚƓ Α LķĻƓ ŋ Ļķ {ĻƩǝźĭĻ tƩƚǝźķĻƩƭ \[źƭƷ
1.BCG (Boys and Girls Club)
2.Bayside Middle School
3.Bayview Elementary School
4.Bee Me Kidz
5.Catena Jobs Plus Skills and Development Center
6.Champlain Heights Associaon
7. Champlain Heights School
8. Chroma
9. Compass Educaon Support Program
10. Forest Hills Bapst Church
11. Forest Hills School
12. Fresh Start Services
13. Glen Falls School
14. H.O.P.E. Centre
15. Harbour Church
16. Harmony United Church
17.Irving Oil Field House
18.Lakewood Headstart Associaon
19.Lakewood Heights Community School
20. Lamore Lake and Area Community Associaon
21. Loch Lomond School
22. Loch Lomond Villa Community Services
23. MAP Strategic Workforce Services
24. Muslim Associaon of New Brunswick
25. NBCC (New Brunswick Community College)
26. RCCG Pavilion of Redempon (+Free Tax Clinic)
27. Redhead Associaon
28. Saint John Ability Advisory
29. {ğźƓƷ WƚŷƓ 9ğƭƷ CƚƚķĬğƓƉ ğƓķ {Ʒ͵ ağƩǤƭ /ŷǒƩĭŷ ε Cƚƚķ tǒƩĭŷğƭĻ /ƌǒĬ
30. Saint John Exhibion Associaon
31. {ğźƓƷ WƚŷƓ CƩĻĻ tǒĬƌźĭ \[źĬƩğƩǤ Α 9ğƭƷ .ƩğƓĭŷ
32. Saint John Kings Adult Learning
33. Saint John Transit
34. Seniors Resource Centre
35. Shining Horizons Therapeuc Riding Associaon
36. Simonds High School
37. St. Ann's Church
38. Stella Maris Catholic Church
Strong progress in all areas, 2025 shows continued momentum.surpassed targets and is steadily increasing resolved cases.Minimum Property Standards impact continues to improve, although
pilot targets were not met.pace to do so in 2025.Results encouraging, given staffing constraints.