Open Council

The 17th Meeting of the Community Protective Services Committee

Open Council

The 17th Meeting of the Community Protective Services Committee

November 14, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Items 2.1 to 2.3 and 2.5 to 2.7 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   7th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

2023-10-26 ACAC Report

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the 7th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on October 26, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   11th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

2023-11-02 AWCAC Report - Full

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 2, 2023:

a)    Paul Yeoman, Patrick Donnelly and a member of Civic Administration with knowledge of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) BE INVITED to the December 2023 meeting of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee to give an update on the status of the Clear Your Gear initiative;

b)    a member of Civic Administration from the Communications division BE REQUESTED to assist the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (AWCAC) in producing library displays related to how to safeguard windows for birds; it being noted that the AWCAC will finalize the information for the display for approval at the next meeting of the AWCAC;

c)    a budget expenditure BE APPROVED, as outlined on the attached document, from the 2023 Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee to pay for three displays for libraries related to ways to safeguard windows for birds, including carrying cases for the displays; it being noted that, if there are funds left after the above-noted purchase, said funds will be used to purchase bird-friendly window collision tape; and,

d)    clauses 1.1 and 3.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   2023 Annual Emergency Management Program Update

2023-11-14 - Staff Report (2.3) - Annual Emergency Management Program Update 2023 - Full

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 14, 2023, related to the 2023 Annual Emergency Management Program Update:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting, to be held on November 28, 2023, to amend By-law No. A.-7657-4, as amended, being “A by-law to repeal By-law No. A.-7495-21 and to adopt an Emergency Management Program and Plan” in order to repeal and replace Schedule “A” to the by-law; and,

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2023-P03)

Motion Passed

2023-11-14 - Staff Report (2.5) - PS Related Demolitions (V2)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated November 14, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 2023, to permit the potential demolition of the abandoned buildings and structures in the City of London, located at the following addresses: 712 Adelaide Street North, 1803 Bradley Avenue, 19 Redan Street, and 188 Wharncliffe Road South; it being noted that the properties may be cleared of all identified buildings, structures, debris and refuse and left in a graded and levelled condition in accordance with the City of London Property Standards By-law and the Ontario Building Code Act, if required. (2023-P10D)

Motion Passed

2.6   Building Safer Communities Fund Grant Recipients and Agreement Template

2023-11-14 - Staff Report (2.6) - Building Safer Communities Fund Grant Recipients and Agreement Template

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 14, 2023, related to the Building Safer Communities Fund (BSCF) Grant Recipients and Agreement Template:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 28, 2023, to:

i)    approve the standard form Grant Agreement (London’s Building Safer Communities Fund), as appended to the above-noted by-law, to be entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and corporations who have applied to the City for a grant;

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement; and,

iii)    delegate authority to the City Manager, or their designate, the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services to act as City Representative for the purpose of this standard form Grant Agreement and to amend the standard form Grant Agreement as outlined in the above-note by-law; and,

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2023-F11)

Motion Passed

2.7   Review of Water Servicing in City Parks

2023-11-14 - Staff Report (2.7) - Water Servicing Parks Report

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 14, 2023, related to the Review of Water Servicing in City Parks:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the practice of including outdoor drinking water infrastructure with the construction of new field houses and community centres BE MAINTAINED;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a prioritized plan to add drinking water to appropriate locations as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update work commencing in 2024 in order to inform investments and budgets beyond 2027;

it being noted that Parks and Forestry staff will continue to review opportunities for low cost/low maintenance drinking water installations in the regular consideration of parks infrastructure renewal projects in the interim. (2023-E08)

Motion Passed

2.4   Housing Collaborative Initiative Follow-Up and Next Steps

2023-11-14 - Staff Report (2.4) - Housing Collaborative Initiative - Follow-Up and Next Steps

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated November 14, 2023, related to the Housing Collaborative Initiative Follow-Up and Next Steps:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED close out all existing financial obligations related to the Housing Collaborative Initiative;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on next steps to implement a platform to manage housing data following business readiness and project planning;

c)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the financial costs (by municipality and the total cost); and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on monies collected and the details on any that remain uncollected;

it being noted that existing software and systems continue to be used by city staff, housing providers and clients. (2023-S11)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to amend the staff recommendation to add the following:

“d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the financial costs (by municipality and the total cost); and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on monies collected and the details on any that remain uncollected.”

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve the motion, as amended.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Community and Protective Services Committee convene In Closed Session for the purpose of considering the following:

6.1    Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Community and Protective Services Committee convened In Closed Session from 5:11 PM to 5:14 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:16 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (1 hour, 30 minutes)

[17:28] Good afternoon, everyone. This is the 17th meeting of the community and protected services committee. We’re here in the council chambers. All members of the committee are present with Mayor Morgan being absent. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Dzhnashbeq, Haudenosaunee, and Le’Nawak and Adwandran. We honor and respect the history, language and the culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation Métis and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

[18:01] The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact CPSC@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. I now look to committee for disclosures of pecuniary interest, noting that we are working off the added agenda today with the only revision being a date on the first page of item 2.3. So nothing else has been added, just one minor clerical change with a date.

[18:35] So looking to committee to see if there’s any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none on our consent items, we have 2.1 through to 2.7. Looking to see if anyone would like anything pulled in order to vote separate or have alternate motions, if it’s gonna be a longer discussion, they can still just live on consent and we’ll take the time we need. Councillor Stevenson, something you’d like pulled, 2.4, please. Okay, so that leaves us 2.1 to 2.3 and 2.5 to 2.7. Looking for a mover and a seconder of consent items moved by Councillor Ferrer to put on the floor, seconded by Councillor ramen.

[19:15] Starting my speakers list for any of those items excluding 2.4. No one else has their hands up, so Councillor Ferrer will start with you and I know where that Councillor ramen has questions as well. Councillor Ferrer. Somebody just get the mic, there we go, perfect. Thank you, through you. I did want to go to staff about the Building Safety Communities Fund Grant Program. I just wanna see if we can get a brief description. I do know that this is a pretty good initiative funded by the federal government, so no municipal tax levy or municipal funds at all, so I just wanna know if we can get a quick overview on that.

[19:57] Okay, thank you, so that was item 2.6 for questions and Councillor Ferrer, you’re just a little bit faint, so maybe just move the microphone or be louder next time. Okay, to staff, please. Thank you and through the chair, we’re happy to answer the question. You’re right, this is Building Safety Communities Fund, is through the federal government and public safety Canada, and the City of London has approximately $2.7 million in federal funding that we will allocate over the next three years to the six successful organizations identified in this report. And these organizations are looking at targeting young people.

[20:33] I believe my staff just told me the projects will directly serve approximately 2,370 high-risk youth annually that are targeted to prevention intervention and transformational projects that will address gun and gang violence in London. Follow-up, Councillor Ferrer. No follow-ups, I appreciate that. I think this is a great initiative and I’m pretty excited to see what comes out of it, so thank you. Thank you, Councillor Roman. Thank you and through you.

[21:06] I actually wanted to start with the property standards related demolition report. And I’m just wondering, I know that we’ve seen these, I believe we’ve seen these before. Yeah, I believe we’ve seen these before, but not these properties, but different properties. I just wanted to get an idea of timeline around and next steps as it relates to the recommendation. Through the chair. Sorry, just one second, Mr. Kellogg. Which also do you need information on how long it took these to get here, the process to get here as well?

[21:39] Okay, just, it is, we see them, it’s a legal process. Mr. Kottola, can you just outline how it gets to be here and then the Councillors, questions of where we go from here? Yes, thank you, through the chair. These are all in response to property standard orders that were issued this past summer. And it takes approximately two to three months for the demolition process to work its way through. We do a designated substance survey to identify any hazardous materials and that goes to the demolition contractor to ensure that they demolish the properties in a safe fashion.

[22:21] Thank you, just to follow up. So how long would it take for these properties to then be actually demolished? Are we talking about next summer? Are we talking about sooner? Mr. Kottola? Through the chair, it’ll take about two to three months because these are not in any historic areas. So we do a designated substance survey first. That takes about a month. And then two to three months after that for the demolition process. But it all depends on the contractors’ schedule as well. Okay, Councillor.

[22:58] Thank you. And my next question is actually related to the Water and Parks report. So I know that this report came about from communication from a previous Councillor. And it was more with respect to dog parks. I believe at the time that the report was put forward. And I noticed that in the report it doesn’t, it basically says that for the master parks plan that that’s when we’ll really take a look, you know, park by park and really determine what we’re able to do.

[23:34] Right now we don’t have any off-leash dog parks that have water or would we be considering those on a priority basis and from the initial request, I believe it was because of a desire to have water and dog parks. So I just wonder how we’re addressing that. If the only way that we’re addressing it is through this report and it’s not recommending it. Mr. Yeoman, realizing this report did come as the Councillor said from the prior council and our desire to look at not, we started off absolutely with water for dogs.

[24:08] And then it was like, well, what about everybody having access to water? So Mr. Yeoman, if you want to give some background or anything that you think might be helpful for the Councillors, please do. Thank you through your Madam Chair. So the report is fairly comprehensive. The resolution is in the report. And as the council indicated, it did start off fairly tight and it did expand to looking at the system more comprehensively, which is what we brought before you here. We have noted that there are 36 parks that we do think could accommodate it. And we’ve articulated the different ranges of parks there. Yes, dog parks are obviously something we get a lot of feedback on quite a bit.

[24:40] We do not have funding that’s available right now for the installation for dog parks though. And so that’s why we’re recommending it to be part of the Parks and Rec Master Plan where we can set the priorities. We can work with the community through the consultation that will be involved in that and come back to council with the suite of service improvements that we’re anticipating through the Parks and Rec Master Plan update that’s starting next year. Councillor Ramen. Thank you. I think that when I was reading this report, I thought this is a balanced approach to addressing a need. However, one of the things I struggled with this report is the how we’re viewing this from an equity perspective as well.

[25:20] And I’m just wondering outside of this report, when it’s thought through in terms of the Parks Master Plan, how will that plan access to water is so important? We have to find ways to make it as accessible as possible to people. How does this report and the Parks Master Plan really entertain that? And I know there’s a cost here, but again, I think it is in line with our strategic plan. So I’m trying to wrap my head around that a little bit more. Mr. Chairman.

[25:54] Through the Chair, I appreciate your raising that, Councillor, because the last Parks and Rec Master Plan did begin to look more at equity and inclusion matters at that time. Since then we have evolved a course as a corporation as a community with the equity tool and the considerations that we have. It will be a very important part of the next Master Plan update. And those lenses will be applied and will be definitely informing the recommendations that will be before you. Councillor? Councillor Pribble. And just Councillor Trove, so welcome to committee. And everything is on the floor right now with the exception of 2.4.

[26:29] Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. It’s regarding the 2.5 to property standards-related demolitions. I wanted to ask you, in terms of the code, property standards order, is it planned to revisit this? Because, for example, in my area, I have a couple of houses that are kind of deteriorating really fast. And it’s actually a danger. There are kids around playing, et cetera. Are we planning to kind of revisit this and see if this order is kind of, I guess, where I would restrict enough or that we can move on faster with such initiatives?

[27:04] Mr. Catolek? Through the Chair, through the Building Code Act, we have various enforcement tools that we can use. One of them is laying amps, administrative monetary penalties, and we do do that. We also have the ability to repair properties and in certain situations, we do do that as well. The four properties in this report are likely beyond their economic life to do any repairs. So, and I know that I could have a sidebar conversation about the properties you’re talking about.

[27:40] Those properties, we could be doing other enforcement actions that do not involve demolitions, because they do have some economic life still within those buildings. It’s just that the property owners are not adhering to the property standards by-law. Okay, Councilor Preble? Just to follow up, I totally agree that we are doing the steps and I totally agree that the owners are not responding to us. The question is, is it a time for us to introduce additional tools? So, we can move on faster and have the owners respond to us or make the decision for them.

[28:19] Mr. Tullock? Through the chair, the property standards by-law, the jurisdiction comes under the Building Code Act, and I believe that in Ontario, there are enough necessary tools to seek compliance. One of them is issuing properties, or administrative monetary penalties. Others involve fees to property owners. And in my experience, when there’s property owners that ignore our orders, as soon as there is a fee associated, monetary penalty associated with the order, or an administrative penalty issued, they start taking action.

[28:57] With respect to demolitions, our experience is every time we come to this committee and then Council, with properties that we’re ordering for demolition. When the property owners get that resolution of Council, at times, that’s the first time they make contact with the municipality and take it upon themselves to demolish the properties. And then the properties are then sold, or that owner improves the property by building new on that vacant property. Councilor Preble?

[29:35] Last follow up, the Provincial Building Code Act. Do we have the power in terms of municipality to make a by-law that would be more stricter? Or do we have to play by the provincial one? Mr. Catolek? Through the chair, the jurisdiction comes under the Building Code Act, and I believe that the enforcement tools under the Building Code Act are adequate because each property is unique in its level of non-compliance with the property standards by-law. Councilor Preblek, you’re satisfied for now?

[30:08] No more questions, thank you. Thank you, I’ll just, I do have one question on this, just as we’re on the same one, it’s for Mr. Catolek. I see within the report that proactive inspection fees and any actions regarding securing the building are invoiced to the property owners. Do you know if this is a full cost recovery that they get invoiced back, or is it just set maximums that we can bill as per legislation? Through the chair, it’s a full cost recovery for any actions taken. The cost of our inspection fees are set under the fees and charges by-law, at $125 per officer per hour.

[30:49] Thank you for that clarification. Councilor Trovceau, you had a question? Yes, I do, and thank you for letting me participate in your meeting as a guest and through the chair. I have some very, very serious concerns that the enforcement orders are not being applied consistently, that they’re not being applied with enough, well, I’d like to see them, I’d like to see them applied a little stricter. And I think even though this comes under the jurisdiction of the building act, the municipality under section 10 subdivision two of the municipal act has a number of by-law powers that it could use, including health, safety, environment, I won’t read them verbatim.

[31:39] But I think that the Councilor Pribble asked a very, very important question. And I think, in my view, I would like to see a little bit more critical thought given to how you would respond to Councilor Pribble’s question. ‘Cause I think the answer is yes, separate and apart from the Building Codes Act, which is provincial, we do have a variety of tools that we have under municipal jurisdiction, which, or does the fact that there’s a Building Codes Act sort of totally preempt any other enforcement activities?

[32:15] I’ll take that as a question for Mr. Catolic, or Mr. Mathers, or both of you. I’ll just begin through the chair. So as far as the property standards by-law, that’s a municipal by-law, that’s something that’s within Council’s purview to review and to make changes to. I’d be very interested to know, and not in this format, but just some of the issues that are happening. I think there’s probably some specific ones out there that we can look at how we address those more proactively. So I’m happy to meet with the two Councillors and try to understand that, to ensure that we, ‘cause we always do take a balanced approach.

[32:51] Ideally, we can have a approach where people will rectify those situations in a timely way, and when they don’t, then that’s where we have to come up with some more punitive measures. And there’s a bit of a balance in implying those measures, but if the balance isn’t being struck appropriately, then I’d like to have a little bit more conversation on those specific properties, and then bring something back to Council, if that’s appropriate. Councillor. Thank you, and I will take you up on that. Now, my next question is, once a building has been identified as derelict, or not in substantial compliance with your codes, what happens progressively to make sure that it does not get to the point where it deteriorates and deteriorates, and needs to be demolished?

[33:48] Mr. Catolic? Yes, through the chair, the properties that we’re dealing with, we do not proactively identify those. They come to us as complaints from, likely from neighbors. Also, another source of complaints are real estate agents that are attempting to sell properties down the street. So, we assess the violations, we issue orders, and in these cases, orders are totally ignored. So, we could lay charges. This could end up in court.

[34:20] It could sit in the court docket for a year and a half. Our preference is to take proactive actions because of the neglect of the property owners, and demolish the properties because each property is unique in its own way of being in non-incompliance with the property standards by-law, which is under the Building Code Act, and the Building Code Act allows the municipality to either repair the property or demolish the property, and because of the uniqueness of the violations, the recommendations we’re making is to demolish these four properties.

[34:58] Councillor? Thank you, I know in this case it’s gotten to the point. There has been such widespread neglect that you now have to demolish. My specific question is, what can be done to improve the process? So, it does not get to the point where you have to demolish it. For example, once you have a violation that’s not being addressed, don’t you have the authority to fix it, to do the repairs, and put that on the tax bill? Yes, through the chair, we do have that authority, and we do use that authority.

[35:36] However, in these four circumstances, it does not make economic sense to fix a roof on a building when the entire inside of the building is not worth fixing. So, in these four circumstances, we are recommending demolition. In other situations, we do repair properties. We do not need to come to council for approval for those repairs, because it is a administrative and operational decision. Yes, I’m not specifically— Sorry, through the chair, please.

[36:09] Through the chair, of course. I’m not talking about these four properties. I’m talking about your general policies. Why do we let it get to the point where we have to consider demolition when once you know that there are violations that are not being remedied, why do you not take a more aggressive stand with the property owner? As you’ve also stated that, your questions are not an actual relation to the items before us today in these properties, and staff have said they’ll meet with you before behind the scenes. I do respect it as a complicated process with some tools of the make safe that they can do, and the issues with trying to find the actual property owners, especially if it’s gone to a state matters, making sure the municipality can reclaim its money.

[36:50] So, if you just please keep your questions too. Yes, I agree. Before our properties before us. I’ll rephrase that through the chair. In these cases, understanding that what’s done is done. How did it get to the point where we have to be looking at a demolition? Why were we not using progressive remedies throughout? Through the chair. Sorry. Yep, Mr. Mather ties hand up too. So, whoever, sorry. I’ll just start. So, just going back to how we flag these properties. So, we don’t have a proactive program to go out and identify properties.

[37:24] If we did have something like that, or even had a better way of advertising to folks, that there’s an opportunity that you see a property in your house, in your street that’s having issues that come to us and we can help you rectify that. So, there’s maybe a couple of different ways that we can look at it right now. We’re just complaint based. So, it’s very likely that you’re not gonna get complaints until you see shingles falling off and holes and roofs. So, that’s one likelihood. But, there might be other remedies that we can consider, but that’s what our current policies conclude. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the latitude you’ve given me.

[37:57] Just to say, I think we need to be doing a better job. So, we don’t implicitly encourage owners to engage in this type of neglect, because it may be really what they want is the demolition order. Through the chair, a property owner does have the rights to demolish the property without coming through council, unless of course it is a historic property. So, these are all very good questions, but I think some of these questions could be better directed at the property owners, asking them why are they letting their properties not comply with the property standards of I-law.

[38:36] It is really the neglect of the property owners that are leading to the proactive approach that we’re taking to demolish these properties. Yeah, yeah. Can you follow up question then? Is it actually a question? Like, I don’t wanna get too much back and forth as you’re also a visiting counselor. This is a question that’s based on what you just said. Fair enough. How would award counselor or a neighbor or a neighborhood association ascertain the identity and whereabouts and contact information of the property owners so they could do exactly what you just said? Mr. Catolic.

[39:10] Through the chair, we always suggest when property owners have issues within their neighborhood, usually the common sense first step is to try to contact that property owner to try to solve it without getting city interaction. So there are ways finding out who owns properties, simply leaving a letter in the mailbox. Sometimes we’ll resolve a problem without any city interaction. Thank you. Through the chair more specifically. No, this is not in relation to these four items before us. This is a consent item.

[39:44] And this is more of an intricate back and forth with staff as I truly recognize that sometimes the property owners are not even on that property and nobody’s actually in it. Looking to committee members to see if there’s anything else on the consent items, 2.1 to 2.3 or 2.5 to 2.7. Okay, nothing from my left, looking this way, saying nothing, calling the question on 2.1 to 2.3. Everything excluding 2.4 as Councillor Rama would approach me. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[40:35] Thank you, that leaves us item 2.4 being the housing collaborative initiative follow-up and next steps. Looking to committee as it was pulled, I’m not sure if you have alternate wording from anyone on committee. If so, I would like that tabled sooner just to phrase our conversation or if it’s a matter that we just would maybe like to vote a different way on this one. Staff is also prepared with an intro on this one if we would like to receive it just to frame the conversation. Okay, Mr. Feldberg is our go-to on this one. We would like you to frame this conversation. I know it’s a complicated, long-standing, intricate one. So I will have more leeway on this one with questions as we go ‘cause it’s technical.

[41:13] I’ve also asked Mr. Feldberg to use as few acronyms as possible as there is many within the industry and to keep us on track. Mr. Feldberg. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just checking my notes to make sure there’s no acronyms and I think we’re good. So last fall, when I took on the municipal housing portfolio, it was obviously a very complex portfolio. Almost every project, every initiative that we work on relies on us stacking funding from the province, the federal government or the city as well. Each subsequent agreement is then intertwined with another one that in some cases relies on the terms of some of those other agreements that we’ve also entered into.

[41:51] And additionally with each project, we need to try and understand the decision-making at the time and how the context may have changed through regulation, policy updates or leadership changes. So as you know, in May, following the question posed by local media, we brought forward a preliminary report to identify a gap in reporting and deliverables for a project that has been around since 2014. At the time, there were many questions still to be answered on what happened and what we’d received from the project. The report tonight provides both an account of what happened to get us here and proposes some next steps for civic administration to pursue and deliver on our service obligations to the tenants and housing providers with a goal of providing service to those living in housing that can’t afford an open market rent.

[42:38] In the case of this initiative, based on this review, this project is following that very complex agreement arrangement that’s very typical in the housing space. Because of that, we can’t just look at the cost without measuring the contractual obligations and the needs of the sector. Before Mr. May, there’s an eye can take some questions this evening. I’d like to also provide a bit of clarity on the recommendations, what they mean, as it seems that there may be an opportunity for them to be misinterpreted. On the recommendation to close out obligations. We’re proposing to work with our legal counsel and the respective councils of our agreement partners to identify the conditions to complete our contractual obligations.

[43:15] This does not mean that the expenditures would cease immediately. It would mean that we would assess the conditions and then we’d work towards closing out the contracts in 2024. If there are mutual conditions to exit that the parties can agree on, then we would take subsequent action to exit sooner. This work has not started yet. On the recommendation report back, this will definitely take some time for us to do correctly and in alignment with our project management best practices. To do this well, we need to ensure that we understand our business needs and those of the housing providers. A big part of our project planning will be to identify internal resources needed and the appropriate levels of change management to bring in a new software to support our work.

[43:55] And that is regardless of whether it’s this software and other software. With that, Madam Chair, I’ll turn it over to you and take any questions from the committee. Thank you. It’s a looking to committee. They’re happy to give more feedback. Realizing LMCH is aware of this as our fellow counselors who service on the board, but there’s also a large continuum of other housing providers, as Mr. Felberg had mentioned that we need to reach out to.

[44:28] So looking to see if you had a specific question, if you were referencing something within the document, please just mention the page to help from the conversation if you remember where you read it. Mr. Felberg, something to add? Just if I could, Madam Chair, could you reference the section of the report rather than the page? I don’t have the same agenda package you do. There you have it. If we know what section we’re questioning, we will all start there and I will start my speakers list. I am timing us just to make sure that we all share this space and some questions. Councillor Ferrer will start us off.

[45:03] Thank you, Chair and through you. So I do appreciate the clarification on what the directions are or what is being requested by staff here of closing out the financial obligations rather than closing out, I guess, the whole thing. I guess my first question would be is with respect to the other municipalities. And I do see, I think I saw York that is pulled out last year, but I just wanted to know if there’s been any conversation with the other municipalities part of the agreement on our intention to close out the financial obligation.

[45:39] Mr. Felberg? Through you, Madam Chair. So if you look in section 2.7 of the report where it says governance group update, there is a reference to an MOU between the different municipalities and the software developer. So what the consortium is doing, so the consortium is that group of eight municipalities now minus York. The governance group is the group that provides governance over the consortium. And that group, that governance group of the consortium is looking to close out the contractual obligations. So we’re working with the software developer to establish the expectations for both sides of the table so that we can get through and complete the actual software development and close out that contract with the developer.

[46:22] And that’s intended for some time in 2024. Councilor Ferra? Thank you, thank you for that, through you. So if we were to be closing out the financial obligation just to confirm with the products that I do see that have already been available as modules, I think I saw the weightless module and the tenant supplement module, would those still be within the property of the city? Would we still be able to utilize those if we choose to? Mr. Felberg? Through you, Madam Chair.

[46:54] My understanding is that if we were to exit the consortium agreement, we would not have the direct entitlement to those modules anymore. So then we would go to open market if we were to go out and search for another software. Councilor Ferra? Thank you for that, okay. So I guess with respect to like the integrated housing software and I did see some mentions of the yardy system and that is a system that we’re currently using. I just wanted to know, is the intention or is there a possibility moving forward that we would be using the yardy system across everything that we’re doing?

[47:31] Mr. Felberg? Through you, Madam Chair. So the yardy system is something that our housing access center is using right now. There are some modules available that could expand the portfolio of that particular software. What we’re proposing through our next steps here is based on our current business requirements and current needs is to go out and ensure that there is no other software out there or identify the software that best suits those business requirements and business needs for the city. And then at that point, we’d come back to this committee, we would identify what the project plan is and then we would take next steps to implement.

[48:07] Councilor? Thank you. Those will be my questions for now, but I probably just hold my time. I’ll probably be asking more. Okay, you’re right. I’m in it in eight seconds, just to let you know. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. My question, the first one is around 2.3 where it talks about the expenses. And I’m wondering what the budget was. We’re seeing what the totals are, but I’m wondering what the budget was. Mr. Felberg, if there was different budget updates that come throughout the way, feel free to answer as comprehensively as possible. Certainly, and through you, Madam Chair.

[48:42] So there was a budget originally for the software development, and that was shared amongst the consortium. And London’s share of that was that 228,000 that you see in the report. As for the implementation, I am not aware of a specific number that was approved at the beginning. It was based on the activities in order to connect back to the project through the HCI agreement back to the governance group and with the software developer. Councilor, so I’m not sure where the funding came from for all of this if we didn’t have a budget to start with.

[49:22] Mr. Felberg. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair. So as you indicated, there’ll be annual updates where we talk about the expenditures that we’re expecting. We have the contracts that we have in place with the HCI coordinator, and those would have been updated through our annual budget updates, and that’s where the budgets would have been aligned based on that contract. Councilor Stevenson. I’m not sure I follow. So there was an additional budget request each year to cover the extra.

[49:56] Mr. Felberg, if this was like wrapped into operating somehow, or if it was just a set reserve fund that it come out of, or if perhaps we’re looking for like the source of funding of where it was drawn down from. If we don’t have a clear answer today, we could always make sure staff comes back with that for Council. Madam Chair, if you’d indulge me, I’d like to take that back and assess the various budget asks over the year and be able to bring that back.

[50:32] Councilor, you’re satisfied that will not be provided in writing an advance of Council, just for we good to have a chance to see it. Okay, thank you. We just need your mic, Mr. Felberg. Thank you. And I was wondering if we could hear from IT as to what their participation has been in since 2014. Mr. Peterson. Through the Chair. And we do try to highlight this, that IT has not been involved in this to any kind of measurable degree.

[51:07] That’s one reason why we’re trying to take this back through appropriate project management process, ‘cause they did not have a significant coordination of any of the work here. So that was one of the things that we’ve highlighted in the previous report that that’s one of the reasons why we’ve gotten to the process that’s over 10 years and we still not have a deliverable product. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I guess I’m just wondering when you say appropriate project management, I’m wondering what went wrong in these seven or eight years that there’s no report back to Council.

[51:42] There’s all this money on a consultant without any, like just, can you tell us what went wrong and how we’re gonna fix it? So what doesn’t happen again? So that would be an opportunities for improvement for process? Through you, Madam Chair. So in a typical project, what we would do is we would go out and we would look for, we would establish what it is we need, then we would go out, look for a particular, we would establish our business requirements, we would establish our business readiness.

[52:15] So those are different steps within the project planning in order for us to prepare for execution. In this particular project, given the consortium, the consortium came together to identify a customized piece of software designed by service managers, four service managers to operate under the Housing Services Act. We went out and procured and identified a software, started building a software. We then skipped two or three steps. We skipped the business readiness step and then the project planning step and went straight to the execution.

[52:48] And so where the gap is that we have in our best project management best practices is those two steps. And that’s what we’re proposing to do here today. We’re gonna take a step back, we’re gonna go out, assess that there is no other software out there that can provide or identify what software it is that we need. And then undertake the proper business readiness and project planning so that we can get to an implementation stage. And then actually deliver on a software that will suit and be able to provide service to our housing providers, tenants and the city.

[53:25] Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. And I know there were no reports to Council, but what activities like oversight or project management, have happened in that eight-year gap because like who was overseeing it and what kind of discussions were happening? Would this also be a who of what department or where it fell versus maybe a specific individual? Is it an individual we need to go on camera to staff? Through the chair, there has been a lot of change over this last 10 years.

[53:58] We’re also trying to untangle all of that work. At the same time, it’s trying to like reestablish a housing development in the city of London. So if that’s something that we’d like to have more work on, we can do that. However, we’ve really focused on how we’re gonna move forward, how we’re gonna make sure that we actually make this into a tenable project. But the folks that are still in the city right now haven’t worked involved at that time, that time to be able to give a blow-by-blow of what happened. So at this point, we’ve just focused on the next steps and how we can receive.

[54:38] Thank you. I’m also collecting more people from my speakers list of looking to see if anyone else would like a first term before I go back to Councilor for Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. Thank you for the report. I appreciated the timeline, especially because I think it helped to better understand or get a sense of where some of the decision points were and perhaps take a look at where maybe we could have looked at other options to change course as well. Looking at 2020, where project coordination consulting cost increased, at the time when those costs were increasing, we were still at the point where it seems like we didn’t have a lot in hand yet.

[55:23] And I’m just wondering how, you know, if we were to look back at it, how might we have potentially looked at it differently being that we were being asked for a cost increase, but we were not getting any real deliverables at that point. Mr. Felberg. Through you, Madam Chair. So I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to say that there wasn’t anything provided. So if you go to the table, table one and 2.2, you’ll see that there are a number of deliverables that were provided early in the project.

[55:58] The back end system was created. It was developed and there was a lot of work on that. After that, what we had was we had a series of a couple of the modules that were developed in 2018. So the wait list and the rent supplement module were created as well. We were also able to, the applicant portal was available in 2019. There were some decisions made as I understand it, based on looking at some of the project documentation that the city of London wanted to have a full package available to us to implement at the time. So given that some of the modules were in process of being worked on and being developed, the city decided made a decision that we wanted to have the entire thing so that we could provide service to the housing providers, ourselves, and the tenants all at once.

[56:42] So some of those project decisions were made and additionally what I would also offer is that there is incredibly detailed, incredibly valuable information that is not throw away that the consultant has provided us. Assuming that we can establish, assuming that this software is the software that we developed through our, or identify as the product that we want to implement, all of that information could be used for us as we move forward to an execution.

[57:15] So there’s testing requirements, there’s test cases that have been developed, there’s a significant amount of information and project data that’s available to us and that has been provided by our consultant. Councilor? Thank you, just to follow up. So thank you, I appreciate that. Just to comment, I’m supportive of the recommendations that are in front of us as these are kind of the only things that we have as a governance body to really work with. I think at this point, it’s critical that we find a way forward so that we have the ability to manage this data appropriately.

[57:53] However, I’m sure there are other thoughts and considerations that need to be made on the operational side. And so I’m sure that that will be something that will be happening. But on the governance side, this is, I think, what we can do with the information that we’ve been given. Thank you. I’m gonna go to Councilor Pribble first for first comments and then Councilor Ferra. Thank you. I’m sure to chair and actually I see our city manager and I actually have a question for her.

[58:26] What internal procedures and controls have been or can be introduced so we minimize this issue and potential losses to the corporation? Thank you. Welcome Ms. Livingston to committee. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess the first thing I’d like to say is that when HCI was introduced a number of years ago, we didn’t have in place the procedures and controls that we do today. And I’m gonna walk through a number of that we have in place. I would also like to note that once the issues were with HCI were discovered a few months ago, we also undertook an enterprise-wide review to ensure that we had no other legacy projects like this and based on that review we do not.

[59:14] So there’s a number of internal procedures and controls and processes that we have in place to try and enhance our management practices and also minimize or eliminate any issues or losses. So I’m gonna go through a number of them and they include adoption of best practices. So all of our city of London technology projects are now aligned with the best practices of the Project Management Institute and according to our folks, the PMI is the International Authority on Project Management so we follow those standards.

[59:47] We also have much stronger governance in place in that all city of London technology projects are governed and reviewed and prioritized by an inter-departmental committee that we call the Technology Investment Strategy Committee. So there isn’t any project that goes through the organization that doesn’t go through that committee and receive approval and then it is signed off by the senior leadership team. All of our city of London technology projects are monitored and reported on a weekly basis and that helps us to decrease the probability of unexpected project outcomes.

[1:00:24] We also have very clear resource management expectations for both internal and external resources and on a weekly basis those external vendors are reviewed by our project managers in accordance with the technology project plan. We have formal processes in place to manage change in scope, schedule, resources and this is a standard approach through our technology projects now. As well we have a focus on training and capacity building so that we can strengthen our project management skills.

[1:00:59] I’m gonna talk about that again in a second. You will also be aware if you’ve looked at our audit committee agenda that we have recently undertaken a vendor management internal audit and there are a number of recommendations through that audit that can assist us in terms of managing how we manage vendors that we will benefit from that will assist with a problem like this. As well we have an initiative underway across the organization that we call organizational capabilities where we identify a number of core competencies that we expect to have across the organization and project management is one of those.

[1:01:38] This will allow us to leverage expertise and ensure consistency on how we manage projects across the organization so that work is currently underway. And finally the last part of our strategy is we have a regular review, annual review of our goods and services policy and that can also assist us in terms of ensuring that if there are things we need to address on how we procure that we do that and our current review is being undertaken by a third party. So if there’s any recommendations there that could assist us then we would be implementing those as well.

[1:02:15] So I just wanna close by saying when we started with HCI things were very different than what they are today and we do have a number of controls in place today. Thank you for that update of processes that we were working on to do better and have been doing better going forward in this being the only legacy project that we found that was outstanding. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, just to follow up and thank you for this and I think that those are great actions and initiatives to control our, to improve our internal controls. One thing is, and I think I’m quite sure you mentioned it but I think you mentioned that even the legacy projects that have been, could have been started years ago or that we undertook this review as well and it’s included in these internal controls.

[1:03:02] Yes, just for everyone there was a head nod from the city manager for those watching. Does that conclude your, did you wanna answer Vibberly from Ms. Livingston? Just for the viewers, the city manager not yes and I’m very satisfied, thank you very much. For those who are joining us virtually and in chambers. Councillor Ferrera, please proceed. Thank you through you. I do appreciate what the city manager has told us and it’s just moving forward on how we can mitigate issues like this, it will happen to the best of us, especially when you’re doing the amount of business that the city is doing.

[1:03:40] I did want to speak back to the deliverables and what the modules that have been created. I just wanted to know, the modules themselves, like I understand that I did read in the report that the modules may not apply directly to the landscape that we’re in right now but I did want, and I did also see that there are other municipalities using some of the modules, I see the weightless modules being used by Waterloo and Hamilton. So from what my assumption is and after reading this report, we’re not using any of the modules from HCI currently.

[1:04:16] Okay, I see shaking the head there from Mr. Felberg. So I’ll just take that as an answer, I appreciate that. I would like to see if we can mitigate our costs a little bit more than the report and I understand that this is a consortium and there’s probably a whole bunch of different stipulations within the agreement but I wanted to know, is there any way that we could, especially considering we paid I think 1.2 million which is more than half of the total amount? Is there any way that there could be some discussion with the other municipalities within the agreement to pull the modules that have already been completed now and to bring it back within the city because ultimately it would be code and I just want to know if that’s a possibility that we could take it back and have our ITS department in-house when they, when we move forward and if there’s any possible development of that to use that code that’s already been built moving forward just so we can reduce the work that we have to put into this.

[1:05:15] Thank you to staff. Thank you and through you Madam Chair. So based on all the information that the city managers just provided on all the different project steps that we need to take, if we were to kind of cut around the process and take other steps, we could end up in the same space we are today. I think what ideally what the best approach for us to do is to go back, assess our business readiness, assess our business requirements, make sure that the software is going to provide us what we need to provide, then take steps to come back to this committee, identify the resources that are required, identify the costs for us to implement and then the committee can make a decision on what we do with our next steps.

[1:05:58] And just for a timeline for when you come back, when are we anticipating this comes back? End of 2024 or? To you Madam Chair, if we’re doing it well and we’re able to, the plan is to do it in 2024. But what we need to do is make sure that we properly cost it, properly resource it. We need to discuss with the other housing providers, the 63 social housing providers, ensure that they’re getting what they need in order to run their business and then we’ll come back to this committee with a recommendation.

[1:06:37] So we’ll assume late next year that we’ll see us back to finish the conversation. Councillor Ferriero, anything to follow up on that? Thank you, just one follow up, thank you for that answer. The one thing that I feel like we really lost here, obviously on top of the money and the time would be also that integration piece with the other service managers and the sharing of data and communication. From what I know, the other service managers, because there is overlap and individuals can request to be on, for example, the housing wait list, the RGI wait list in different areas.

[1:07:10] And I just wanted to know moving forward with anything that we build or use from a third party, would that, would there be integration as well with the other service managers or plugging into the integrated housing software as the consortium parties are using? To staff or even if that’s part of the conversation, you need to go find out. Through you, Madam Chair. So what I think I think what you’re asking is if we can align with what the other service managers are doing around the province.

[1:07:44] That’s essentially why this software was put together. It was a way for us to align with other service managers around the province to create a consistent reporting tool so that all of those service managers would be able to report back to the province in the same way with the same information. And then you can start comparing apples to apples. Councillor? Thank you, so just for the sharing part, I don’t know if we would need to do that but just to confirm, moving forward, there would still be, depending on the information, if we need to, if it’s within our benefit and individuals that were serving their benefit, there would be kind of some data sharing just so we can have some coordination.

[1:08:28] To staff? Through you, Madam Chair. That’s the intention of this, take the software, yes. Councillor, are you satisfied? Yeah, that’s it. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. I believe Councillor Stevenson was next. Thank you. I’m referring to 2.5, the local cost sharing and I wonder if you could tell us more about that and when the most recent cost sharing arrangement agreement would have been, Chair Felder? Through you, Madam Chair. So this is really the biggest and most complex part of this entire project. So we have the consortium agreement where we went out and identified a software developer and we have a contract between the consortium and the software developer.

[1:09:08] Within that consortium agreement, they also identify the need for a project manager and then somebody to work on the technical components of the software development. In 2015, LMCH and the city both had a need to implement software. LMCH was doing something different and we entered into a shared service agreement with LMCH in 2015. That work finished sometime in 2016 and then in 2017, we entered into, we carried on that shared service agreement with LMCH, working with that same consultant who is providing us with the city staffer for the consortium agreement.

[1:09:53] So I don’t, the cost sharing that we have with the, through the consortium agreement, it identified that we would then share costs for that project manager and the different, the consulting work for the consortium agreement. I think I’m probably confusing you a little bit more, but that is really where the complexity comes in. It’s this additional agreement with the shared service agreement with LMCH that is really causing some of that complication.

[1:10:31] Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I guess my confusion is I’m looking at an MOU dated January 16th, 2023 that outlines all of the costs and the breakdowns by city and everything. So if we were signing one in January of 2023 or actually issue that, like at that time, what was the plan and how often was this looked at? ‘Cause my understanding was that the consultant, there was a new contract every two years.

[1:11:15] My understanding also is that the last time we signed one was January of 2023. So there was a recent point, a decision point. And so I’d love to know more about that. Like what were we thinking at that time to stop? Through you Madam Chair. So in January 2023, that cost sharing component of the consortium agreement. York region was officially out of the consortium at that point. So what that required was that the consortium reallocated cost amongst the seven municipalities as opposed to the eight.

[1:11:49] So that MOU or that document that you’re looking at really reflects what that new sharing of cost is as the resource that’s required under the HCI. So it’s independent of that LMCH shared services agreement. However, the LMCH shared services agreement was our agreement with our consultant who was also providing the service back to the HCI. Sorry, yeah.

[1:12:21] So, but again, my question is we reentered agreements in early 2023. And now all of a sudden we’re saying it’s not good to go forward, which is fine. But I’m wondering why the change? Why did we move forward with multi-year commitment in January? And then now we’re saying, like what has been the change? Do we just need to know what section you’re, what page or section number? It is the 2.5, the cost sharing. Okay, thank you. Steph.

[1:12:52] So that cost sharing that we’re referring to from 2023, that is the cost sharing of the costs within the consortium agreement. So there’s a consortium agreement requires cost sharing between the member municipalities. That agreement, we’re not recommending at this point that we exit that agreement necessarily. We want to close out the development of the software. So that cost sharing that we’re talking about, that document that you’re looking at reflects what’s required under the consortium agreement for us to deliver on the software. Would it be possible to get the copy of the MOU, the cost sharing agreement and the last consultant contract, even in a confidential envelope before council?

[1:13:39] I’m just checking my stop to see if that’s available to us as our property and if it could be made available. Looking to legal? Sorry, we’re gonna need a microphone just for it’s on the record. Sorry, I introduced yourself as well. Mr. Felberg, can you turn your mic off for, we can share your phone. It’s Kelly Daugherty from legal. And I don’t know, I have not reviewed all of these agreements. So it would probably be prudent if I said we would need to review it from legal to ensure that there’s no concerns about disclosing it, given it would also contain information.

[1:14:20] I would assume of other municipalities as well. So we’d be happy to do that in legal and report back on that by council. Mr. Felberg, anything to add? I’m Chair. I’d be happy to meet with the councilor one on one and take her through the agreement. It might help to ask some really pointed questions about some of the things that are going on and I can try and explain a little bit differently. Perfect. I’d just take that opportunity as well before committee, just knowing it was integrated to try and help facilitate the conversation.

[1:14:52] So it was worthwhile. Those still convoluted. Councillor Stevenson. In addition to getting that before council, ‘cause I think all of the councilors should be able to access that as well. The other question is on page two point, or not page, but section two point three. It says civic administration at the very bottom. It says civic administration is still working with the government group, governance group, to validate all amounts owing from other municipalities, ensure that they’ve been invoiced and collected. So I was wondering if somebody could comment to that.

[1:15:26] Like how often were we building the other municipalities and how long before we would know that validation of all the amounts? To Mr. Felberg or Mr. Maynard? Through you, Madam Chair. So again, this goes back to that cost sharing agreement that you were looking at from January 2023. My understanding is we’re billing, I believe it’s monthly, but we still need to, now that we understand the intricacies of these different agreements, we can now start asking some of those questions to make sure that there are no gaps in what we’ve received from the member municipalities.

[1:16:03] So that’s what we’re identifying here is that we still have a bit of work to do to identify and make sure that we’ve received everything that we’re entitled to. And that’s certainly one of the pieces of closing out or contractual obligations. Okay, so those answers and that question left unanswered will be answered in the report back when it comes back in 2024. Okay, good to know. Do we have a ballpark of what we might expect to get back? Is it small or big? I’d also, I know legally, sometimes we’re advised not to guess ‘cause if other municipalities are guessing, they know publicly what we’re expecting and if we’re expecting just a little, they’ll aim that way.

[1:16:42] I’m just gonna caution that ‘cause we’ve been warned in the past, sorry, Councilor didn’t need to. Madam Chair, I was actually gonna say I don’t wanna venture a guess. I wanna be able to do an assessment and then report back with the actual number. So Councilor Anderson? I still have other speakers on the list in case, just for, let you go and then I’m still collecting names for anyone else who wants on the list. Okay, so you want me to do one more or? One more and then Councilor Ferra has something else. When we hire consultants as the City of London and we sign contracts, do what rules or anything do we follow in terms of office space or parking or whatever it is, like any concerns about employee versus contractor type consultant contracts?

[1:17:27] Mr. Felberg or Mr. Mathers, if you want to talk to— I’ll just speak super high level. I don’t know if we have anyone from here from finance. So we do have our procurements of goods and services policy. It dictates how we go through any kind of a procurement process. And so they would highlight what would be able to be chargeable or not in those cases, but I can’t answer specifically to the specific items that were mentioned there. Councilor. - Pull up on that then. The consultant, were they hired to be a full-time, well, working full-time on this project?

[1:18:01] Full-time hours to staff, if you know? Through you, Madam Chair. So yes, they were hired to be in lieu of a city staffer and that was something that a few other member municipalities did as opposed to bringing on a new budget ask and adding a staff member, and it chose to go with the consulting. Thank you. Councilor Ferreira, you’re next, and you’re at four minutes and eight seconds. Thank you, through you. I won’t take you up too much time. I don’t have any questions. I just realized that I did forget to put the motion on the floor.

[1:18:35] I do appreciate the full-sum debate that we’ve had. I feel like the actions of staff has taken and the responses that we’ve had have been very good. So I am prepared to move the motion. Thank you for that, ‘cause as committee chair, I should have framed the conversation better with something on the floor that we were actually discussing this time. So the motion has been moved as in the staff report, looking for a seconder on it. Okay, I’ll second it. And noting as well that the council update, the source of funding update will come in writing before council, that was verbal from staff, and we don’t need to put it in here, ‘cause we need it before council.

[1:19:15] Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Given the acknowledgement that, you know, there was some project management, not best practices and concerns about some of the finances. Was it discussed at all to have the, put this under the management audit or internal audit to do a value for money on this so that we can get best practices going forward? Do you want any staff who would want this one?

[1:19:47] Yeah, sure, absolutely. So as part of the internal auditing process, we all as the senior managers have an opportunity to put in suggestions. We do have a suggestion in there that was before actually all of this came about, and it was very much focused on value for money for the construction of housing units for affordable housing, and just to ensure that our processes, so that was what we put into that process. It’s up to council if they would like to have this review. This is, in my thoughts, a kind of a wire of a project. We’ve had many audits that have focused on technology and provided best practices back to us.

[1:20:25] You’d be likely to see that they would say you should do your best practices, however, it would be up to council if they want to have a different direction. What we put forward is just actually focusing on actual housing units. Thank you, councilor. Thank you. If council wanted to do that, what would be the process? To staff. Yes, Madam Chair, at the audit committee when there’s a review of the upcoming audit plan, that would be the place to table in addition to that plan. Thank you for that, councilor Stevenson. Given the questions and some of the answers, I was hoping to add a couple of things to this report I sent an email to, ‘cause there’s nothing on here saying that there’ll be a report back on the total financial costs, knowing that we’re not stopping them right now.

[1:21:18] The costs are going into 2024. So I’m suggesting we add a D, that civic administration report back on the financial costs by municipality and the total cost, and E, that they report back on the monies collected and the details on any that remain uncollected. Which would just be reporting back on what’s already gonna be done. Okay, we’re just looking to see if you had a seconder for that. Okay, Councilor Robbins, the seconder, we’re just gonna put it up.

[1:21:52] Did you give it to staff beforehand? Okay, so the clerk is clerking. We’re gonna put it up and then we can go to staff once they’ve had a chance to see it in writing, to see if this also ties into their part of the report of that civic administration will validate all amounts owing from other municipalities, and ensure that they have been voiced and collected if that’s incorporated in this or contrary, or that everything’s in alignment with what we can actually do. So we’ll just wait a moment for this to get up. Hey, if you refresh your systems, it’s up and it’s up on the screens in chambers.

[1:22:55] Okay, that item has been moved and seconded, so going to staff to see if this wording, I don’t wanna say works ‘cause you do as directed by Council, but if it’s part of the reporting system, if this information is possible to come back with, and if that ties into the direction you were already given within, you are right up. Absolutely, up through the chair, and no problems with what’s been requested here, we’re gonna bring that forward and whatever information we have available from the different municipalities, that’s what we’ll be able to present to you.

[1:23:29] Okay, and that still can be done within the same timeline with your formal report and it comes back in once, not. Okay, perfect. So Councilor, you’re satisfied with that, looking for ideally a concise discussion on anything of this, realizing some of us are close to our end time, like I’ll still let you go more, but hey, any questions on this? Okay, so this is one of those, D and E, I have no speakers on my list of voting on this, and then we will get to the main motion as amended that would incorporate D and E should it pass.

[1:24:13] Okay, so calling the question on the added amendments for D and E, closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Perfect, so now we have A through E on the floor. Okay, so since this is a new vote, I need a new mover and a seconder, Councilor Ferrer is willing to maintain, and so is Councilor Raman. Perfect, so as amended, looking for any further speakers, calling the question.

[1:25:13] Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, that concludes our consent items. We have no scheduled items, no items for direction, deferred matters in additional business, because we do have a confidential item still to deal with tonight too. Councilor Stevenson had deferred matter or additional business? Well, under deferred matters, I’ve spoken to staff regarding getting the financial data for the winter response, and I understand it’s coming to the December 5th report, but I just wondered if there was, I guess I was hoping it was gonna come in this one so that it would be relevant before the cold weather response, but I guess maybe if there’d just be a comment as to why we’re waiting until December for that.

[1:26:09] Just one second. So that’s coming December 5th, looking at staff to see if that’s on-tracked, as I don’t have a deferred matters list on this agenda attached to it, that that could be connected to. So I’m told that that deferred matters list will come to us quarterly. So looking at staff, are we on-track for that? Is this one our last caps before that meeting? It was just recently passed, so I get that it’s really, really close, but I was just wondering, given the relevance with the winter response and the funding and the contracts, sort of why we have to wait till December.

[1:26:50] Yeah, so I’m good to ask the clerk, if there’s a deferred matters list that this would be referenced to, ‘cause if not, it’s emergent business, in which case, it’s coming anyway. So just going to staff with some leeway of, is it still coming on the third to answer the question the best you can? And if we go further from there, I’ll be seeking clerk advice. Thank you, Chair, and through you, we received the on the council resolution that came out Wednesday. It said that staff are directed to report back at a future caps meeting with the information.

[1:27:26] That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re coming to the, we couldn’t hit this cycle. We just had the council meeting on this topic. So the council resolution was received Wednesday. We’re coming to the next available caps, meeting December 5th. Thank you. So it’s coming just past. Looking to see if there’s any other, anything’s, as we do have confidential session, are we just going to stay here? Okay, so we’re going to stay here. For anyone viewing, the view will pause and then resume, as we will resume from public session, any staff that’s not related to this matter, please take your leave and enjoy your evening.

[1:28:02] Anyone who needs to stay, please stay. Just one moment as we secure chambers. Oh, moving into closed session, moved by Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Ferrer. All in favor? Councillor voting’s open in your system. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you as we resume in public session.

[1:29:28] Looking for a motion to conclude this meeting of the Committee for Service Committee, motion to adjourn moved by Councillor Stevenson. Do you want to report out Councillor Ramen? Thank you. I would like to report that progress has been made on the matters by which we went and came here for. Perfect, and that progress concludes our business of CAPS. Motion to adjourn moved by Councillor Stevenson. Seconded by Councillor Ramen. A hand vote of all in favor of adjournment. The clerk says it’s carried.

[1:30:01] Wishing you all a wonderful evening. Thank you.