June 18, 2025, at 12:00 PM
Present:
E. Peloza, P. Cuddy, S. Stevenson, J. Pribil, I. Cheema
Also Present:
S. Datars-Bere, G. Bagga (MNP), A. Barbon, S. Chapman-Pusiak, I. Collins, K. DenBok (KPMG), K. Dickins, D. Escobar, M. Espinoza, S. Govindaraj, D. Jaswal (MNP), S. Mathers, J. Paradis, K. Pawelec, E. Pellarin (KPMG), T. Pollitt, P. Racco (MNP), M. Redden (KPMG), M. Schulthess, M. Shears, C. Smith, S. Swance.
Remote Attendance:
E. Bennett, E. Hunt.
1. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.
2. Consent
None.
3. Scheduled Items
None.
4. Items for Direction
4.1 2024 Financial Audit
2025-06-18 Submission - 2024 Financial Audit
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by J. Pribil
That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, KPMG BE PERMITTED to speak an additional ten (10) minutes with respect to this matter.
Motion Passed
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by J. Pribil
That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Financial Audit:
a) the 2024 Financial Report of The Corporation of the City of London BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Audit Committee received a presentation from the Director, Financial Services with respect to this matter; and
b) the Audit Findings Report as prepared by KPMG for the year ending December 31, 2024, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Audit Committee received a presentation from KPMG with respect to this matter.
Motion Passed
4.1.a Presentation - 2024 Consolidated Financial Report
2025-06-18 Presentation - 2024 Presentation
4.1.b Presentation - Audit Findings Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2024 - KPMG
2025-06-18 Submission - Audit Findings Report-KPMG
4.2 Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard - MNP
2025-06-18 Submission - Internal Audit Follow-Up Activities Dashboard
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the communication from MNP, with respect to the internal audit follow up activities update dashboard, BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
4.3 Community Grants Program Value for Money (VfM) Audit - MNP
2025-06-18 Submission - Community Grants Program VFM
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the communication dated June 3, 2025 from MNP with respect to the community grants program value for money (“VfM”) audit BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
Moved by S. Stevenson
Seconded by P. Cuddy
That in relation to the Community Grants Program, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report recipient outcomes and results to Council on an annual basis, effective 2026.
Motion Passed
4.4 Safe London for Women, Girls and Gender-Diverse and Trans People Compliance Audit - MNP
2025-06-18 Submission - Safe London for Women, Girls
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the communication dated June 5, 2025 from MNP with respect to safe London for women, girls and gender-diverse and trans people compliance audit BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
Yeas: (4) E. Peloza, P. Cuddy, J. Pribil, I. Cheema
Nays: (1) S. Stevenson
5. Deferred Matters/Additional Business
None.
6. Confidential
None.
7. Adjournment
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by S. Stevenson
That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.
Motion Passed
The meeting adjourned at 1:35 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, 51 minutes)
[9:09] Audio test, council chambers. Can you hear you? Thank you. We’re just gonna need a couple of minutes before we get started ‘cause I just built a beverage on the control system.
[19:13] Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for your patience as I attended to my accident. The city of London is situated on traditional lands, the Nashbec, Haudenosaunee, the Napuac, and Adewandran. We honor and respect the history and languages and 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. This is the third meeting of the audit committee. I am joined in chambers by Councillor Cuddy, as a voting member, and Councillor Per bevel.
[19:50] And Councillor Stevenson and Member Chima is online virtually with us today. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide an alternate format and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact accessibility at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. I will look to members for disclosures of pecuniary interest. We have nothing in chambers or online. There’s no consent items, there’s no scheduled items.
[20:27] Under items for direction, we do have four items. The first one is 4.1, being the 2024 financial audit. We have a presentation that’s included with it. So looking for a member of committee to move this item, noting that KPMG requests a 15-minute presentation to the five that we default to. So I have a mover and Councillor Cuddy, a seconder and Councillor Per bevel, calling that question in eScribe.
[21:06] Nope, sorry, this one’s a hand boating. So Councillor Stevenson and I would need your screen on for this one, perfect. So all in favor, hands up. Motion carried. - Thank you. So this would put 4.1 on the floor. Looking to Mr. Collins, if you would like to give an overview from the C’s perspective before we go into our guest from KPMG. Thank you, Chair and to the committee. I would just like to walk through very briefly the presentation that was prepared for audit committee, which is consistent with what audit committee has seen in years past.
[21:39] But I would want to flag a couple of key items of interest for the committee that makes the 2024 presentation of our audited financial statements different from 2023. So in going through the presentation that was presented to you, I just would like to re-articulate that the financial consolidated report that was provided represents consolidation of the city with 1420 entities altogether, 14 boards and commissions, three proportionately consolidated entities and three government business entities.
[22:17] So within the binder or the document that you see within the agenda, our financial report is close to 563 pages long involving all those entities. The one page I’d like to draw your attention to on the presentation is slide number three, which talks about highlights and adjustments for the 2024 financial report. And as KPMG noted back in February as part of the audit planning report, there were three new public sector accounting standards that were adopted as part of this statement before you.
[22:54] One of them was PS3400, which relates to revenue. And council would recall that as part of the fourth quarter or year-end operating budget status report presented back in April 30th, there was an increase in revenue as a result of the application of PS3400, which looked at parking revenues, parking fine revenues, administrative monetary fines for four street and parking, which also required an administrative review of all revenues that the city takes, reviewing their bylaws and where an obligation is satisfied upon receipt of that money, which recognized an additional $4 million in 2024 that may not have been based on previously standard.
[23:41] The second item that we looked at was PS3160 related to public and private partnerships, management reviewed any agreements or arrangements that the city may have with a number of the arrangements that we have in place. The one item that we determined needed to attention was the arrangement between the city and the downtown arena, currently Canada Lifeplace. And in reviewing the consideration set out in PS3160 and looking at all the parameters to deem from an accounting perspective, whether or not it’s a public-private partnership or not, management believes and has arrived at that it’s just not a public-private partnership due to the amount of control that the city has over the pricing, over who can access the facility, as well as risk associated with that building.
[24:40] So consistent with how we’ve treated that investment before, we still have that arrangement identified as a loan and long-term receivable as identified on note six of our financial statements. Finally, the other public sector accounting standard that we had to take in consideration was purchased in tangibles and we looked at reviewed items that would be considered purchased in tangibles such as trademarks and easements with the city. And we’ve determined that for those that we hold, they’re not material and at this time, we have not recognized any purchased in tangibles.
[25:21] Whoever administration will be monitoring potential any growth related to easements or trademarks that have a very material financial value to our financial statements. Last on that page slide three relates to two items that were identified through the external audit. One relates to the recognition of a capital asset, the Elgin Middlesex Pumping Station, which was an asset that was created back in 1996, well before the implementation of tangible capital assets in 2008, based on some clarity received in late 2022 based on a joint occupancy agreement.
[26:06] And after further clarity was looked at, it was determined that that asset should have been recognized on the city’s books. So based on what was brought forward to management’s attention, that will be recognized on the city’s financial statements. And the other identified item that KPMG brought to management’s attention, we’ll be bringing forward to you, is issue that we had with the allocation of interest revenue between our reserve funds. So throughout the year we allocate interest revenue to the number of our reserve funds, both discretionary and obligatory reserve funds.
[26:45] It was identified that in one of the spreadsheets that we used to make that allocation, there was a formulaic era in that allocation. And it was determined that we would need to do a reallocation of the reserve funds that interest earned between our discretionary reserve funds and our obligatory reserve funds. The next slide that I’d like to bring to audit committee’s attention would be slide number five, which looks at the statement of financial position. And once again, it just wants to highlight that our financial balance sheet is strong.
[27:26] We’ve identified that our financial assets in 2024 increased 254.6 million. That increase was attributable to our investments, as well as other loans or other accounts receivables. Our financial liabilities increased by 77.9 million, related to deferred revenue brought on by development charges. However, that was offset by reductions in accounts payable and long-term debt. So overall, our net financial asset position is 176.7 million dollars higher than it was in 2023.
[28:02] From our non-financial assets, those increased by 272.2 million. And that recognizes our capital assets or our infrastructure, the work that you see get done on a daily basis to update roads, better to roads, parks and buildings at the city. So overall, in 2024, the city finished with an increase in our accumulated surplus of 448.8 million. The majority of that accumulated surplus reflects the value in our capital assets, our infrastructure with the city of London.
[28:42] The next slide is a slide that we put together. It’s slide number six. It relates to what are some of the notable capital assets that the city recognized on its books for 2024. And just to walk through, we recognize the Adelaide Street Grade Separation, 67.5 million, the Downtown Loop, Victoria Bridge, Dingman Creek Pumping Station, East Link, as well as assets assumed from developers, where we took on 12.1 kilometers of additional roadways, 12.1 kilometers of additional sidewalks, 97 streetlights, seven kilometers of water pipe, as well as other water wastewater infrastructure as well.
[29:23] And that total is about 68.8 million dollars. Following that slide, we do provide a five-year review and highlights of some of the key financial indicators that we’ve had and monitored for a number of years, where we look at tax rears, long-term debt, debt principal payments debt issued, our increase in tangible capital assets, our annual surplus and assessment growth. The only one item that really stuck to our attention was the increase in tax rears.
[30:00] It went from a five-year average of 4.5% up to 5.5%. What I’d like to advise the committee is that 5.5% while it’s high, it’s not the highest that it has been at the city of London. When I look back in 2010, we had tax rears of 6.3%, 6%, 5.7%, 5.6% and 5.7% between ‘28, around 2009 to about 2013. So it’s not necessarily the highest that tax rears have been at the city.
[30:36] When looking at some of our comparator municipalities, I’ve noticed that in looking at 2023, 2022 and 2021 data, our tax rears as a percentage of our overall levy is low. I’ve seen municipalities with a 5.42% in 2023 versus our 4.41%. Another community was at 8.72%, followed by another community at 6.93. So when you looked at 2023, tax rears, we’re in a decent position, nothing overly alarming.
[31:12] There is a trend that we’ve seen, not just in the city of London, but with other municipalities, that tax rears are growing. So it’s nothing alarming or unique to the city of London. The last item on this slide that I’d like to draw attention to is our long-term debt. Our long-term debt has decreased. On average, it was $228 million for the past five years. It’s now down to 194.6 million. What does that mean per household? Back in 2020, the debt per household was $1,533.
[31:49] At the end of 2024, it was $1,012. So the debt per household has come down. Moving to our next slide, which compares our 2024 budget versus our actual, there was a surplus, as reported out back in April. This surplus reflects the adjustments needed for public sector accounting standards. The predominant drivers of this surplus have been investment income, developer contributions, potential capital assets, lower provisions for uncollectible taxes, and the savings that we’ve seen in some of our programs here at the city.
[32:33] The other next couple of slides kind of walks through the difference between how we budget for the multi-year budget, which is based on a modified cash basis budget, and the financial statement adjustments that we need to do in order to reflect public sector accounting standards. And then we walk through what was reported back to Committee and Council back on April 30th of the $59.5 million surplus between the property tax-supported budget and water rate-supported budget, and show what adjustments are needed for the public sector accounting standards to arrive at the $418.1 million surplus that you see before you in the consolidated financial report.
[33:18] And last and certainly not least, I just want to recognize the cooperation and the work that’s been done by all the civic service areas in helping to compile our financial report, as well as our external boards and commissions. Last year, we were challenged with some of our boards and commissions not being able to provide audited financial statements in a timely manner. I can say that the majority of them managed to comply and met their obligations, particularly with the business improvement areas.
[33:54] There was a concerted effort made by not only the BIA administration, but also by our audit team, as well as civic administration, to ensure that they’re able to comply with the city’s bylaws when they’re to provide that information. We do have partial financial information contained in our consolidated report related to the Middlesex London Health Unit. You will observe that within the BIA provided, we did not have draft financials at the time of consolidation. Management felt that it was low risk to consolidate without the draft financials from the Middlesex London Health Unit, so we consolidated based on estimates looking at the prior year experience of the health unit, recognizing that they’re proportionally consolidated within our books, so we felt it was safe to, this time, bring forward our financial report without those statements at this time, as opposed to holding up presenting our financial report to audit committee into the city and delaying it to September.
[35:01] So with that, I’d like to turn it over to KPMG and— Sorry, Mr. Collins. Committee has questions, so I’m just going to stop and do questions of your report before we get into KPMGs for people who aren’t trying to remember their question was that they had from half an hour ago. So I will start my speakers list with Councillor Stevenson. The floor is yours. Thank you very much, and thanks for the presentation. Could you just quickly remind us who the three proportionately consolidated entities are in the three government business entities?
[35:38] Councillor, do you know what slide you’re on? Just for a committee can follow along with you. I am on page 2. Do you say 2? OK, Mr. Collins. Through the chair to the committee. So we consolidate the three proportioned consolidated entities are Lake Huron and Elgin, joint water boards, as well as the Middlesex One and Health Unit. From the equity perspective, we consolidate with London Hydro, the Fair City joint venture, and the City YMCA joint venture.
[36:16] Councillor? That’s perfect. Thank you. And then on page 8, it talks about budget to actual variance. And so we had, you know, we’re saying that the budget was 58.8 million surplus. And yet this shows $163 million surplus. So if you could just explain that to the public. Mr. Collins. Through the chair to the committee. If you refer to page 10 of the slide deck presentation, there’s a reconciliation that takes us from the $58.8 million surplus that was reported on the property tax side back on April 30.
[37:04] And walks and steps you through how we arrived at the overall surplus where you take into consideration the transfers to capital reserves and reserve funds from a financial statement perspective. You don’t consider those expenses that we have in our modified cash basis of budgeting as an expense. So you’ve got to look at those. So you transfer into those items. Debt principal payments, you don’t consider as an expense, as well as you look at the contributions coming in from developers for assumed tangible capital assets.
[37:42] Those items aren’t incorporated into the budgets that go before council as part of the multi-year budget. So that kind of steps you through how you take go from the $59.5 million when you look at property tax and water. Once you do all the transfer to reserves, you end up at a zero ending position. But then you look at all the contributions that gets you to the $418.1 million that you see on the slide that you referenced on page 8, where you took revenue less expenses to arrive at $418.1 million.
[38:19] Councillor. Thank you very much. I guess what I was looking for was a reconciliation between $59.5 million surplus and $163 million surplus. But I’ll follow up with that online because that’s kind of a more detailed question. My last one, that’s actually it for now. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Collins, did you want to reply to that or follow up offline? So the $163.1 million that is being— look, it’s taking clarification on, relates to the budget variance, not the surplus.
[39:04] So our overall surplus was $418.1 million. What we have in the budget relates to other items that were budgeted, such as the developer contributions, which was identified in MYB and other items. And that’s— so we ended up with a surplus budget in our financial statements of approximately $254.9 million compared to the ashes of $418 to arrive at that $163 million. But once again, that takes into consideration what was budgeted for some items, such as investment income. You’ll see in near statement of operations that the budget that we had for investment income was less than what we actually realized in terms of investment, which takes into consideration interest or investment income related to our reserve funds.
[39:53] Which you’re not going to see as part of the operating budget status report that was presented to council on April 30, 2025. Thank you. Councillor Per bevel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have four questions to the staff. First one is on page seven, developers. It’s state 68.8 million. And then on page 11, in the financial statements surplus, it’s state 77.6. I know last year when we had the same report, it matched at 44.1.
[40:29] So I’m just curious what’s the difference between these two reports. Thank you. Mr. Collins. Through the Chair’s Committee, good question. And it is unique for 2024. Generally, the revenue taken in from developers are predominantly city. The discrepancy this go around was that the city recognized revenue from a contributed asset from HDC, property dilute that was transferred at nominal dollars.
[41:06] And when we split out the amount, we show it unconsolidated on that slide that you referenced on page 10. We showed the city’s component above the line. And then as part of the board’s commission surplus, we showed that deficit for HDC netted in that amount. So when you do the subtraction of the 1.8 million, the netted out in that way would have been consistent. In 2023, we did not have a transfer of contributed asset from HDC to the city.
[41:39] It was very unique for 2024. That’s why you see that discrepancy from what you’ve seen prior years to what you’ve seen in 2024. It’s a difference between— Councillor Perma. 1.8. Excuse me, you also included the boards and commission, but I was just strictly looking at the— I was strictly looking at the developers contribution, right? I was just looking straight at that. I just want to make sure that we were talking about the same thing. Yes, we’re correct. So when it comes to the developers’ contributions, typically it’s just including city proper.
[42:16] But with HDC’s contribution, we’ve categorized that as a developer. And as such, as it’s part of the boards and commissions, we’ve identified that $1.8 million within the boards and commissions, $32.1 million, I believe that’s on that slide. The contributions from developers above the line is purely city-only. So it’s not an added amount, whereas in our financial statements, we consolidate both boards and city proper. That’s why it’s a different number. Thank you for that.
[42:51] And by the way, thank you to the developers, because that’s a great number. And that certainly helps us tremendously. Assessment growth. And this year— or last year was 1.68. Last— the previous year, 1.82. And I was actually surprised to do it. I was wondering what contributes to the decrease. Mr. Collins? Through the chair, assessment growth is based on information coming from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.
[43:22] And they assessed the property values of a multitude of properties across the city, which could range from residential properties, multi-residential properties, commercial properties, and industrial properties. And when those assessments occur, each year properties could vary, in terms of which there could be more residential getting assessed in 2023, and less so in 2024. So the composition of what properties are getting assessed could change the valuation and what that percentage means.
[43:58] Plus, as we’ve identified in our assessment growth report on an annual basis, we also know that assessment growth can be a lagging measure of economic activity. Often, impact will reassess new property builds a year or two after property has taken occupancy. So generally, assessment growth tends to be a lagging indicator of the economy. And we’ve seen that over a number of years, where the economy is doing well, but assessment growth is low. But in the following years, we see assessment growth spike up.
[44:39] Councilor? Thank you, slide 11. And at the bottom, boards and commissions. Now, I’m talking about directly the surplus, 32.1 million surplus. If I can have received comments on this surplus last year, it was actually 1 and 1/2 loss. Mr. Colin? Through the Chair’s Committee, those amounts are based on surplus identified as part of the financial statements that the city receives from the boards and commissions.
[45:11] So the major contributors to the boards to that item would be the London Middlesex Community Housing Corporation. I believe a committee, the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, would have taken receipt of the London Middlesex Community Housing Corporation financial statements yesterday, and in that they would have reported a $16.3 million surplus. So that— or financial statement surplus. So that accounts for $60.3 of the $32.1 million. London Transit from their financial statements reported a $14.3 million surplus.
[45:45] So that goes into that $32.1 million. And then we also had the city’s proportionate share of the here on joint water board and the elegant joint water board who, too, also had surpluses. It should also be noted that that $32.1 million is a net amount, because there were some boards and commissions that that deficited from a financial statement reporting purposes that would have brought the overall boards and commissions surplus down.
[46:16] And a prime example would have been the Housing Development Corporation, I believe, yesterday at SPPC. The Housing Development Corporation financial statements were received, and in that the financial statement deficit reported was $5 million. So this is a consolidated amount, which is reflected in that consolidated binder that was the for audit committee by each individual board and commission. Councillor. Thank you, sir, the chair. This is the first 16.3. What was it from?
[46:48] Because maybe I heard two different organizations. The first one, the 16.3 surplus. Through the chair to the committee, that would be London Middlesex Community Housing, LMCH. I’m sorry. Thank you. And last question, the accumulated surplus of 276.64. And now we even— it was higher last year. You know, we almost double it, $4.48. And I see the broader explanation, which is below this. But can you give me kind of more tangible examples? Because it’s a great increase.
[47:23] But I was just wondering, last year, increased to 76. This year, increased $4.48. Those are very large numbers. Just some specific examples. I know below, it just says broadly what it is in terms of the infrastructure assets. But can you give me some examples? Mr. Collins. Through the chair to committee, contained within consolidated financial statements, there are a number of notes that pertain to various components of the financial statements. I believe note 21 revenues would be very informative for committee to see where there have been changes year over year and the revenues recognized by the city.
[48:07] And it breaks down the revenue classifications from municipal taxation. So we know with the tax increase last year, there was increased revenue coming in from taxes. User charges increased that we recognized, close to $30 million in 2024. There was also increase in transfer payments coming from other levels of government to support our infrastructure initiatives, as well as our operating grants for some of our programs, such as Ontario Works and Child Care. We also recognized investment income, which was a big item in 2024, which we identified also in our financial statements as a contributor to that overall accumulated surplus.
[48:47] So I would suggest one area that committee could look to to see where that change came from, would be note 21 in our financial statements. Sir, you good? Thank you for answering my questions. I just wanna make a comment. Congratulations again to the play rating, and again the balance sheet and the financial indicators, which are certainly positive and makes very strong balance sheets. Thank you. Thank you. I have no further questions at the time.
[49:20] We can always go back to more questions, but we’ll roll into KPMG’s presentation. It’s just gonna be up with some technology as well. For those in chambers, you can hit your screen button to be able to see without turning around. And we’ll start in one moment. And Ms. Denbach, if you want to introduce your team, feel free to do that when you start your presentation. For you, Madam Chair and to the committee, thank you very much for having us here this afternoon.
[50:06] As a reminder, my name is Katie Denbach, external audit partner for the City of London and its boards and commissions. And I have with me here today Melissa Reden, audit senior manager and Emily Pelerin, audit manager, who have both been heavily involved in the audit of the consolidated financial statements that are before you today. We are going to walk you through the highlights of our audit findings report that has been contained within your package. When we refer to page numbers, they will be the page numbers at the bottom right-hand side of our audit findings report, just to help you follow along more easily.
[50:39] And so I’m going to start just by giving a quick reminder, there are certain items we are required to communicate with those charged with governance. So those items have all been contained within this report. And we’ve also provided some additional information for you for further interest and discussion. So we’re gonna speak to the highlights of our audit findings, including areas of significant risk, uncorrected audit misstatements, which Ian has already referenced here, as well as other control deficiencies that we’ve identified.
[51:15] And so I’m going to scroll through here to the status page, which is slide six of our presentation. At the time that this report was prepared on June 3rd, we had a number of items, a small number of items I will say that we’re outstanding. These are well underway with just bits and pieces here to wrap up as noted. So nothing of major concern in order to complete our audit. Having our discussion with the audit committee here today, the completion of these procedures, as well as subsequent events procedures, receiving the sign management representation letter, which will be done once council has approved the financial statements, are the final remaining items before we are able to issue what we expect will be a clean or an unmodified auditor’s report once again this year.
[52:11] One item we did want to bring to your attention, because it represents a change from the audit plan that we delivered to audit committee back in February. You may recall this is considered a group audit, meaning we have a consolidated level of materiality, as well as a component level of materiality for significant components. So we did just want to let the committee know we had initially communicated a materiality number of 22.5 million for the non-consolidated city of London component.
[52:44] Upon actual finalization and our group scoping that we do as part of the group audit, we revised this number to be 24.5 million. So it resulted in an increase in the components performance materiality from 16.8 million to 18.3 million, but did not change our audit misstatement posting threshold for this component, which is $900,000. There was also no impact to the group materiality that had previously been communicated at $25 million.
[53:24] Pages eight through 13 highlight areas of risk where audit findings have been noted or where we’ve highlighted the new standards which management has discussed previously. So I’ll go through these at a relatively high level with the assumption that you had a chance to read through this and I know management has also walked us through many of these areas at this point as well. Starting on page eight, we’ve noted the risk around the public-private partnerships and through the procedures we performed as well as discussions with management and assessment of their analysis.
[53:57] We did not identify any findings nor any relationships that fall under this standard. Pages nine and 10 discuss the risks addressed in relation to tangible capital assets. We performed the audit procedures that were identified to you through our audit planning report and we did not note any significant findings other than the one matter relating to the Elgin Middlesex Pumping Station joint occupancy agreement where one of the buildings was determined to be owned by the city but not recorded in the asset registry.
[54:31] As mentioned by management, this was corrected through 2024 for a total netbook value of 1.3 million. As this does relate to a prior period error, we have also noted an uncorrected error in relation to that as well. Pages 11 and 12 discuss the risks around revenues and receivables and notably the implementation of PS3,400 for other revenue. As noted, management assessed the various qualitative aspects when looking at the various revenue streams that they have and what the impact may be mostly relating to fines, penalties, user fees and permits.
[55:13] Those were larger focus areas and the appropriate analysis was performed and reconciliations made by management and we performed work over that. As Katie did note earlier, we do still have procedures that are being wrapped up but as of today, there have been no significant findings. Page 13 looks at the general deferred revenue as well as the obligatory reserve funds. Through our procedures, we did note an error in the interest allocation workbooks which were noted earlier which are between obligatory and discretionary reserve funds.
[55:51] It was determined that the error was through September, through to December 2024 and this resulted in an uncorrected misstatement of 1.3 million overall this year which will be discussed further. On pages 14 and 15, we discussed the accounting policies and practices at the city of London. As noted by management, there were three new accounting standards that became effective for fiscal 2024. These were all applied prospectively.
[56:26] We have included information on page 15 of our report relating to the actions taken by management to determine the impact of the standards on the financial statements. Ultimately, the revenue standard was the only one that required an adjustment upon adoption beyond disclosure. Page 16 of the report discusses some other financial reporting matters but just to note that the presentation and disclosure in the consolidated financial statements is in accordance with the required standards and the procedures completed over the implementation of the new accounting standards were consistent with those communicated in our audit planning report and no matters to report in relation to these.
[57:06] Moving on to page 17, as Emily noted, there were uncorrected misstatements. This page provides some additional information on these including the overall impact. The annual surplus is overstated by 2 and 1/2 million which is less than 1% of that balance and total assets are understated by 71,000. These are not considered to be material and have no effect on our auditor’s report. Page 18 shows the individual and aggregate impact of those two uncorrected misstatements noted which were greater than our audit misstatement posting threshold of 1.25 million at the group level.
[57:48] As just discussed, these are not considered to be material. Page 19 of our report has information on control deficiencies including what would elevate a deficiency to a significant deficiency. Page 20 notes are one control deficiency relating to the interest allocation error along with the plans that management has in place to remediate this for 2025. On page 21, we have included information on audit quality and our framework. And on page 22 are the audit quality indicators that were included in our audit planning report that we had indicated we report back on.
[58:29] So this is just us reporting back on those now and no areas of concern to raise. Page 23 is just include some information on independence and to confirm that we are independent of the city which brings us to our appendices which includes some required communications, the draft auditor’s report, management representation letter as well as some information on new auditing and accounting standards that are upcoming. And that concludes the highlights of the audit findings report.
[59:10] Thank you. That was just nine minutes and a few seconds, good job. Looking to committee or including those online, happy to start my speaker’s list. I will start with Councilor Pribble. Thank you and sort of chair to KPMG. Thank you for the report and actually your explanations are very detailed. So I actually don’t have additional questions on this one. I wanted to ask though and to the staff as well, actually very happy that we have no significant risks.
[59:44] So that’s really good positive. Last year we had two of them. And one of them was risk of material misstatement due to fraud resulting from management of right of controls and PS3 to 80 asset retirement obligations. And I just want to make sure and I was comparing the two year ends, potentially there was a progress during the year which I haven’t reconciled it with. But can you give me an update on these two if they have been addressed and closed? Ms. Dunbock?
[1:00:16] Yes, absolutely, through you Madam Chair. That’s a good question. So the risk to clarify, the risk of material misstatement relating to management over right of controls is always present. So it does still exist and we do perform procedures around it. It has not been highlighted in this report because we had no findings to report as a result of it. But in our audit plan, you will see that it has been communicated as a significant risk. It is in every single audit that we do. So nothing, there’s nothing that the city could do to remove that risk.
[1:00:51] It always exists. We did perform procedures to address and assess that and don’t have any findings to report on that matter. With respect to the significant risk over the asset retirement obligation standard, you may recall last year was the year of implementation of that standard and there was quite a lot of work, quite a lot of estimates involved in coming up with the city’s liability for the asset retirement obligation. And it was because of that, that it was assessed to be higher risk in year one in that year of implementation. Now for fiscal 2024, the liability has been set up and really it’s just adjusting for any changes in that liability year over year.
[1:01:34] And so we did not assess that to be high risk in 2024 because of that. Councillor Pervall. Thank you very much, no more questions. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, just a question on page 12 where it talks about the accounting practices and forceability and collectability on accounts receivables. It says that it was noted that fines should be recorded when they become enforceable.
[1:02:07] And I just wondered what the policy was prior to this. Do you, Mr. Collins or KPMG? Yes, through the charity committee. Previously for some of the revenues such as POA fines, we’ve recognized the revenue based on the cash basis when we actually took the receipt of the money.
[1:02:40] Now through the analysis that was done as articulated through the requirements under PS3,400, it was when the obligation is put forward to the pay and to the city. So now once a POA fine has been issued, that’s when we start recognizing the revenue. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, yes, ‘cause it’s an interesting thing around the accounts receivable.
[1:03:18] And I guess, and staff can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe council has any overview of accounts receivable other than these audited financial statements. And I wondered through you, chair to the auditor, are there best practices around governance in terms of maybe, I know some cities get an annual report each year outlining beyond the net receivables, the amount that was written off and that kind of thing? Mr. Denmark, through you, Madam Chair.
[1:03:52] I wouldn’t say I’m aware of any best practices per se. It would all depend from organization to organization on both the materiality level of the accounts receivable. And I would say the risk associated with it. So when it comes to the audit procedures that we perform, we really focus on the statement of financial position. What is there? Does it meet the definition of an asset? And we perform tests around the various assertions relating to that, the completeness, the accuracy, the valuation of it. But in terms of best practices, I would suggest it would vary from organization to organization.
[1:04:29] Councillor. Thank you, and that’s fair. And in terms of netting out the receivables and showing that on the financial statements, is there value in having a note that clarifies what the gross amount was and the amount not collected? To Ms. Denmark. Yeah, happy to respond to that. I believe that that disclosure is included within the financial statements. In terms of the accounts receivable and any valuation taken against it should be reported in the note to the financial statement.
[1:05:03] And I don’t have the note in front of me, the exact note number. That’s fine, yeah. Councillor. I don’t. Councillor, you’re muted. Yeah, sorry. My last question is again, and it might be the same answer, but it’s around the reserve funds. And I understand that seeing the details in and out wouldn’t impact what happened here in terms of a calculation error. But I just wondered again, actually, I think I’m just gonna leave it.
[1:05:41] I’m good. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chima. Thanks, Madam Chair, through you. The follow-up question I had was on the reserve fund as well. So it’s great to see that there are mitigation actions that management has committed to. Wondering if there were additional procedures that were performed to ensure that this is not a pervasive issue and it’s limited to one specific Excel workbook in terms of the review, their review of journal entry or the review of the preparation of these workbooks.
[1:06:20] The staff working, oh, to KPMG please. So with regards to the error that was identified, we did take a look, and this was a sample that we performed. So we did take a look at the different types of items that were within the detail for this account, noting that the error related to a specific type of workbook, we obtained all of the workbooks for the year relating to that to confirm and check the mathematical accuracy of all of those workbooks in order to conclude that we did not need to extrapolate that error further to additional balances in that population.
[1:07:02] Thank you, Member Chima. Thank you, and just a follow-up. So that’s at the account level. KPMG, yes, that’s correct. Okay, thank you. Okay, looking to members online or in chambers to see if there’s anything further. Okay, I would need a motion to receive the report that was in A, and the report that was in B. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Pribble.
[1:07:38] Okay, so it’s gonna be a hand vote. All in favor of receiving those reports? Motion carries. Thank you, and thank you to KPMG. That concludes your time with us here today at Audit Committee. We’re gonna give just a brief moment as we transition into our partners with MNP as they come forward. So just one moment. Thank you, so this brings us on to item 4.2, being the internal audit follow-up activities dashboard.
[1:08:47] Mr. Racco, did you wanna give a brief overview? And then for committee, I’ll be looking for a motion to receive the presentation and the information, the report. So to receive is gonna be Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Pribble. So we’re gonna hold off on that, but we’re gonna do a brief presentation, then I’ll take Q&A from committee members. And welcome in chambers with us today. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair, to the committee. Thank you for the welcome. It’s good to be here with everyone today.
[1:09:20] So we would be going through items 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 on the agenda. The brief overview is that 4.2 will be the standard dashboard that you have seen with regards to the progress made and follow-up on activities. And then 4.3 and 4.4. Just 4.2 at this moment. My apologies. Then no overview, we can just, that’s my overview. Perfect, that was concise. So we’re in 4.2, starts on page 58, looking to see if there’s any questions from committee online or in chambers.
[1:09:57] I’ll give you a moment just to flip through those pages to see your notes. Yeah, so this starts on page 58, and I will start my speakers list with Councillor Stevenson. Thank you very much. My questions are regarding the vendor risk management audit section, so the bottom of page 59 and onto page 60.
[1:10:34] It talks about the periodic, so point number two on page 60 is periodic performance evaluation of vendors. And I just wondered if, given that we didn’t fund the business case, I wondered if there was a prioritization in terms of evaluation of vendors, and I’m specifically wondering about the limited tender or the untender contracts that we might have versus tendered ones. I’m happy to go to our guests with MNP and staff, just surround the answer.
[1:11:15] It’s up to you to see who starts it off. Through the chair of the committee, recognizing the observations made by MNP with respect to vendor management and evaluation of vendors, and notwithstanding that the business case that we put forward in order to address these observations, we obviously had to scale back what our intention was. However, just recently, through the infrastructure and corporate services committee, civic administration put forward an update to the procurement of goods and services policy, and contained within that policy is we’ve increased some language and sections related to vendor management, specifically section 29 of the procurement of goods and services policy.
[1:12:02] We have a section talking about contract management and supplier performance. Section 30, we have a item there with respect to supplier suspension, followed by schedule C, that talks about supplier code of conduct, and a schedule D, speaking about suspension protocol. Also within the contained, within the updated procurement of goods and services policy, we did highlight expectations on contract management and what expectations need to be identified within any agreements that go before the city and a third party, sending out those expectations, how those would be monitored, and what’s the ramifications.
[1:12:42] So hearing from MNP about where things could be tightened up, we looked to tighten up through the policy, and in the event that council moves forward with the policy, we’ll look towards implementation and preparing guidance documents for the number of service areas, particularly of this change, to make them aware of the expectations of the agreements that they set forth with our vendors and suppliers. Thank you. Councilor, sorry. Yeah, anything from the other.
[1:13:18] All right, I’d promise to give MNP an opportunity if there was anything to add in. Yeah, no, I would just say that given the funding limitation on the business case, I think management has done well to kind of produce some workarounds and the revised policy should definitely help tie in up the contract management components and address a lot of the risks that were identified from a third-party risk management perspective. So hopefully that policy’s approved, and then the supporting tools and templates will help with that guidance. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, and through you to the auditor, any recommendations there on terms of oversight and governance by council in terms of the vendor evaluations and that type of thing in terms of reporting out and oversight to MNP?
[1:14:03] That’s a great question. I think once that policy’s in place and once we can understand what tools and templates can be developed by management, we’d love to work with them to understand what type of reporting could be produced. Most likely there could be some form of annual reporting on some of the higher risk vendors, but obviously this would be in discussion and consultation with management. So once that policy is approved, we definitely would work with them to understand what could be provided. Councilor Stevenson. Okay, that’s great, thanks. I also wondered if the provincial and federal auditor general reports in regards to homelessness services in particular, if that was addressed through the changes made to the policies through the ICSC that just came through for procurement or what might be coming through with subsequent follow-ups with the auditor.
[1:15:03] Through the chat, yep. So we have not reviewed the final iteration of the policy as it’s coming through some small changes and will be provided for approval. Once approved, we can work in consultation with management to see if council has preferences around certain standards. From our viewpoint, we’re looking at it from a lens of more leading practices and what we’re seeing across other municipalities in terms of how they’re managing their high vendors in terms of risk. But if there is a preference or council does have any views in terms of what they see as leading practice, we’d be happy to discuss that with management and hold that as a standard as well.
[1:15:36] Councilor. Thank you. If I could just have an answer from staff as well around that, that would be great. Yep, to our finance team. Thank you, through the share. So the draft policy is before the committee earlier this week and we’ll be going to council for approval. Certainly we have tried to implement as many things in relation to being able to report out to the council through a regular process as part of that policy update.
[1:16:11] So in looking at the policy review and taking into account very, very significant recommendations from the Collinwood Judicial Inquiry where there were a significant number of best practices and recommendations made through that inquiry, specifically with respect to procurement. That has been our guide not withstanding the additional recommendations that have come forward, that we have tried to address through the policy update that were through the M&P internal audit. So many different factors that have fed into that procurement policy, as well as looking at a number of municipalities across Ontario and what their procurement policies are and what those best practices are.
[1:16:53] So certainly that is what has informed the revised policy and modernization of the policy before the council that will be looked to be approved next week. So that is basically how we have taken all that information and put forward the best recommendation of what the best practices are to ensure that all of our legalities and essentially a fair and transparent process has been implemented and can be implemented within the resources that we currently have at the city of London. Thank you, Councillor.
[1:17:27] Thank you, I appreciate that. And just for clarity, if staff wouldn’t mind confirming whether the recommendations in the provincial and federal auditor general reports regarding value for money and homelessness were taken into consideration. Thank you. I’m just gonna flag that some of the stuff isn’t actually before us in this report and our member online would have no information or knowledge of this as it’s still coming through committee and council. Fair enough. Okay. Maybe what I could say then is through you to the auditor in doing the review of these new policy updates.
[1:18:14] Will they be looking at the recommendations from the provincial and federal auditor general reports regarding the value from money on homelessness? To MMP. Yeah, through the chair. Councillor Stevenson, can I ask specifically what aspects of the homelessness value for money you’re referring to in terms of the vendor risk management component? Yes, thank you. I’m referring to the vendor performance. Okay, again, like I said, we had definitely considered some of the leading practices also in consultation with management, understanding the resource constraints that they may have, but absolutely, like I said, we’re more than happy to take a look at that and see how that can be factored into the actual policy.
[1:18:57] So not a problem with us to work with management on that, but thank you for clarifying that. Thank you, Councillor, anything further? Yeah, just one follow-up question then in hearing that MMP is looking at the policies that have come before the infrastructure and corporate services committee, is there some value in us waiting until we hear back from the auditor prior to approving those? Through the chair now, I think the policy is actually pretty well established and it is for your review.
[1:19:33] What we could do is look at it from the lens you’ve suggested from the valley for money piece and maybe provide management with some guidance in terms of how maybe they may want to enhance certain procedures, but I think that’s pretty well established at this point, but I would pass off to management to see if they had any additional comments on that. Ms. Barbara? Thank you through the chair. So certainly where we would be looking to provide that additional support is the specific implementation tools that would look to actually do those reviews after the fact when the policy’s been implemented.
[1:20:08] So certainly we’ve put our run date, there is a significant modernization of this policy to align with trade agreements as well as to take into account the very robust recommendations that came forward from the calling with judicial inquiry. And certainly by looking at how we can mitigate the risk with respect specifically to the contractor performance pieces, that is not only set out in policy, but it’ll be the procedures that we then follow through.
[1:20:41] Given that we’re still in a decentralized model, what we would have envisioned to be able to implement a robust performance management for contractors specifically will be decentralized. So it will not operate in the same manner and will be subject to providing the guidance and the processes in place so that all of the areas in respect to their contracts that they put forward are then following through with that process. So the procurement process and the policy sets the framework and the guidelines then that the expectations of what then needs to be actually transpire and followed through with the process and with the direction.
[1:21:22] So just to, it will not be the implementation tool, it will be the policy guidelines and the framework which that set out the expectations that we would then deliver on. So from a policy perspective, we have that well in hand and have a great deal of robust backup for why we’re making those changes and recommending those changes. The actual follow through with the implementation and the tools and techniques for which we then follow through with the policy direction will be what we are working to implement as soon as that policy framework is actually approved by Council.
[1:21:56] Thank you. Looking to see if there was other questions or comments. Okay, MNP. Yeah, sorry through Madam Chair and Councillor Stevenson, what we would be doing then is one way supporting that management has required with some of the evaluation of those tools and templates and procedures. That’s where we would factor in some of those additional leading practices and see if they could be incorporated into the practices that they would adopt. The policy itself, like we said, is pretty much well in hand. Thank you. Okay, in chambers, Council approval. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[1:22:30] And I think this question is actually to our staff. Under the vendors, we have five management action plans and I just want to make sure that all of them have, of course, the Q2 2025. I just want to make sure that all five are included what was presented to us and what’s gonna be in front of the Council. Mr. Collins? Through the Chair to Committee, a lot of our responses to the observations may be taking into consideration. Our capacity is being brought through to the policy. So we put Q2 2025 because our anticipation was that we would put forward the draft policy to committee, which was done this past Monday.
[1:23:13] And as the Deputy City Manager of Finance supports indicated that it would go to Council for approval next week. So upon that approval, we’re within line with what we’ve set forward in this document. So subject to Council, by the next time this rolls around, it would be approved for the next audit committee, except for vendor management reporting. Thank you for Q3 2025. We wanted to ensure that the policy gets approved before we identify how we’re gonna report on some of the practices.
[1:23:51] Councillor Provost. Thank you for that. And through the Chair to MNP, I wanted to ask you, last year we had two high maturity ratings for government, government structure and for risk assessment and business impact analysis. Both of them are ongoing, but as they’re ongoing, they’re not currently in the report and the update. How do you work with our staff and they are ongoing in terms of, there are certain steps, certainly done in recommendation and consideration, management response, but how does MNP work with our staff to make sure that it still goes back to it and reviews these ongoing issues?
[1:24:32] The MNP. Yeah, through the Chair and thank you, Councillor Pippur for that. What we do is have discussion with those members to see exactly what’s gonna be incorporated within the policy. And then from our viewpoint in our lens, see how that risk is gonna be managed. So from our perspective right now, given that management had to kind of circumvent on the original management recommendations based on the business case not being approved with management now taking, I guess, alternate action plans. We’ve worked with them to ensure that some of those risks are gonna be encapsulated within the policy. The next step would be once the policy is approved, as management has alluded to, we’ll make sure that the appropriate tools and templates in place and they consider the appropriate factors.
[1:25:10] Some of those things would consider materiality, different types of risk, how they’re quantified, qualitative aspects to make sure that those high vendors would be considered. So we’re working in conjunction on that quarterly basis. We do have these discussions. Like I said, management did have to move around a little bit. So the reason for some of those delays obviously is because we did have to come up with an alternate action plan. But I think we’ve been very pleased in terms of what we’ve been seeing and what that dialogue looked like. Councillor? Thank you for the detail answer and one quick follow up.
[1:25:43] So if it’s certain things that are ongoing, and if there’s no report included now, am I assuming correctly that the staff is working according to the plan to accomplish those results? Yeah, through Madam Chair. Yes, that’s exactly what we look to. At the end of the day, we want to provide the update here. So if management is not going according to the action plan, that’s something that we would flag in this committee. But the due diligence done behind the scenes is captured. It’s just obviously we’re reporting against what we see in anomaly.
[1:26:16] And I’m obviously happy to have those conversations during this council meeting. Councillor, are you good? Thank you very much for no more questions. Okay, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just had one quick follow up and not to belabor this point. But I just wondered in terms of vendor performance and evaluation and knowing that the homeless service contracts are multi-million dollar and tendered contracts, is it reasonable for us to assume that that will be sort of a top priority as this gets implemented or there are other areas that are more of a priority.
[1:27:01] I’m not sure who would like to start that one off. Sorry, just through Madam Chair. So I think once the policy is obviously approved, to answer your question, I think that would be management would do an evaluation to see where the priorities lie. And at that point, obviously, they apply the new policy and roll out those procedures accordingly, but happy to have management comment on that. Yeah, thank you through the chair. So certainly the first step is the policy framework.
[1:27:36] And then as we do not have an implementation date until later this fall, which gives that time to complete the tools and the templates and that work that then has to be put into place as we move forward. So certainly from a risk management perspective, that’s something that we would need to define what that criteria is and start to look at, what kinds of risks and how that factors into some form of a matrix to identify what would be identified as risky and trying to look to mitigate those.
[1:28:11] They’re, from a safety perspective, there’s many facets that we would look at as to how we put that forward with respect to whether it’s dollars, there’s many things. So we haven’t developed those tools yet, and those will be the next steps that we would look to bring forward. Thank you. Council, are you satisfied? Yeah, thank you. I’ll just say that, you know, to maybe keep in mind that we’ve got the two year shelter contracts coming up for renewal in February. So it’d be great as Council goes to make these big decisions again on multimillion dollars, having any extra information as we do, that would be great.
[1:28:48] Thank you, looking for further speakers. Nothing online, nothing in chambers. It’s been moved and seconded to receive the report that was before us, all in favor, by a hand vote? The motion carries. Thank you, this is 4.3 next, being the community grants program value for money audit, also from MNP. This is also going to be a motion to receive the report, looking to see if someone’s willing to put that report on the floor. I have a mover and Councillor Cudi, a seconder again, Councillor Pribble, turning it over to MNP if you want to provide a brief overview before we start Q&A.
[1:29:28] If not, we can jump into Q&A, your call. Through the chair, I think we’re comfortable to move into Q&A if we can treat them as right. Thank you. So I’ll give you a chance to turn to page 63 is where this report commences. I’ll give you a moment to flip to your page and I’ll start my speakers list. Should there be any questions? I will commence with Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and thank you for the report for me on page 69 in the summary of observations, two and three.
[1:30:10] So two talked about the overlap in strategic areas such as housing homelessness where funding is already provided through other specific programs and three where it talked, especially at the end where it says there is no interim reporting to City Council outside of this on the progress made by grant recipients in achieving expected outcomes and results. And so that part I’m very interested in and I’m wondering if staff or the auditors have anything further to add there. Thank you, I’ll start with MNP and then I’ll stock in that in a quick question.
[1:30:45] Thank you through Madam Chair and to answer your question Councillor Sieves and board number two around targeted funding. We want to make it abundantly clear that there are duplication checks that performed by management to ensure that we’re not double dipping in terms of the allocation of funds. The rationale of putting this forward was really around there are different program areas where applicants could have accessibility to receive funding. So there is an opportunity to refine that and what I’d like to do isn’t pass that over to management and then maybe they can speak a little bit more about that specifically. Staff, thank you and through the chair that is correct.
[1:31:22] We worked with the auditors as civic administration. We were very considered of the risk of right sizing the program scope. Currently in the community grants policy we have no duplication. So for example, if an ABC emergency shelter applies for funding through the community grants, they’re already receiving funding through the homelessness program. The policy says you can’t duplicate whether it’s a grant or a purchase a service agreement. So you can’t get your funding and double it into areas. So as part of we knew Council’s interest in when we reviewed the community grants program was to reduce the scope.
[1:32:02] Right now, if you align to the strategic plan you can apply through the city of London community grants program. So as a recommendation from the auditor is to narrow the scope. So for example, if you are applying for homelessness funding, then you would go to the homelessness service area and portfolio. If you were applying for arts and culture, you would go to the community arts investment program. So then it allows us to narrow the scope of our program moving forward so that we can look for those areas where there’s no other aspects of municipal funding available.
[1:32:38] Councilor? Thank you, that’s great. So then my questions just remain on number three. Maybe I can go through the chair. So number three was really around. We appreciate that currently, I believe a report is provided towards the end of the program, which is quite robust and it’s provided to Council. What we did know is that management does have their own interim reporting. They do obviously perform all the required tasks per the program and they are quite robust in terms of their review in terms of expected outcomes. However, there is a long period of time before Council does get that line of sight.
[1:33:14] So as one of the possible recommendations to allow Council to have that line of sight and visibility and given that the program does do that reporting internally itself, we suggested that should Council want to see that it’s a fantastic opportunity for them to display the work they’re doing, which obviously is taking place, but also for awareness purposes. And with that in mind, I’ll pass it back to management to respond. Just to staff. Thank you and through the chair, that is correct. Because we have a multi-year program that goes every four years and is tied to the multi-year budget, we report out on outcomes and impact every four years.
[1:33:50] So we take our annual stream and put all those four years and our multi-year stream in one. So the recommendation from the auditor suggested if Council wishes that we report out annually. As the auditor said, we do collect annually. Some we collect bi-annually and quarterly metrics and outcomes and impacts. So if Council so wishes, we could report out annually on the outcomes and the impact of the program. Part of this was part of our overall review of the Lining Community Grants Policy.
[1:34:23] And we’ve been directed to bring those changes to the policy back in 2027 to impact the next four years, 2028 to the next multi-year budget. But if Council wishes and directs us, so we’d be happy to report out annually for 2025 and 2026 if you wish. Councilor? Thank you. So I guess the follow up question is how would Council express that wish? Just one second, okay. I’ll let Ms. Smith comment and then I’ll provide Chair Marks.
[1:35:19] Thank you. And maybe the clerk can confirm with me, but I believe in the action plan under number three, additional program reporting opportunities, we have developed a more frequent reporting timeline to help assess the impact. And there we put the timeline to be the next multi-year budget. I believe Council could make a recommendation to implement that for beginning to report out 2025, we could report out 2025 in Q1 of 2026. So if so desired Council could make a recommendation then to change the timeline in the proposed audit document to start reporting it out in next year.
[1:36:06] Councilor Stevenson, the clerk has advised that audit committee can make that recommendation if we would like to do that today. I’ll just let that sit with you to see what your thoughts are. Well, I’d like to hear from my colleagues, but I would certainly support that. Just to help the conversation, just I didn’t have any immediate hands up.
[1:36:55] The clerk would read out what that would potentially look like for committee’s information, and then Ms. Smith can give a nod or a nay, and then we can go from there. Thank you through the Chair. Very simply, it could be an amendment to change the timeline in the proposed audit document to an annual reporting. Okay, and I see a nod from Ms. Smith. Councillor Stevenson, there have some nods and chambers, but looking to see— I’m happy to move that.
[1:37:30] Okay, so you’re moving that. I have a seconder and Councillor Cuddy. That amendment is on the floor, looking to see if we need a further discussion on it. If not, it would be calling the question just on the amendment of changing that to an annual report out instead of waiting the four years. Making sure I see no one online, no one in chambers so calling the question via hand vote of just those in favor of that annual report out. Okay, so the main motion is the amendment is to receive and receive that report annually going forward.
[1:38:05] Continue my speakers list as we go. Should there be any? My only question, if you’d allow me through the Chair, is just on page 68. It was outlining the composition, the community review panel, incited City of London staff, one to two members, just looking to Ms. Smith to see like, what staff is I, is it deputy city managers there in that space in the conversation, or is it just the staff who would normally, I shouldn’t say just the staff, or staff who would normally work front lines implementing this program work, just looking to see who would send into that discussion.
[1:38:46] Thank you, and through the Chair, it is one city staff member and it’s Ms. Pollack, the Director of Community Development and Grants. Thank you. Looking to see if there is further questions or comments on 4.3. Checking online one last time as I have no one in chambers. Okay, calling the question for the main motion is amended being to receive the report overall and the update annually. The motion carries.
[1:39:20] Thank you, that moves us on to 4.4, which is the safe one for women girls and gender diverse and trans people, compliance audit also via MNP, who’s with us today. This is gonna be a motion to receive their report. I have a mover in Councillor Cuddy, a seconder in Councillor Perbault, so that item is on the floor, looking to see if MNP would like to provide an overview on this one, and then I will turn to committee for any questions or comments. Through you, Madam Chair, we’re good with overview if you would like to move forward.
[1:39:52] Thank you. So that was no overview? Yes, no overview. Okay, so the report starts on page 77, give you a moment to flip to that, and then I’ll start my speakers list. Okay, colleagues and James are still flipping through their pages, looking to see if anyone wanted to start off as speakers.
[1:40:37] Sorry, just I look strange here on screens, I’m trying to see around other screens. Councillor Stevenson, you can start the speakers list if you wish. Thank you, we’ve had long discussions about this one in the past, and I’m not gonna go back through it, but as an overview, I’ve expressed my concerns around the strategic plan and how it was actioned, it in regards to a safe London for women and girls, and then to have this evaluate that does not seem like a good value for money thing from my own perspective.
[1:41:16] On page 79, 2.0, the objective, it states that the objective of this audit was to assess the city’s progress towards the execution of approved activities under the strategic focus area, and it was approved, not approved by council, though, because the activities, I believe, anyway, it could be incorrect, but I believe those were just received by council, not approved, and then it says this involved evaluating the progress made by key stakeholders against identified action plans and identifying any issues or delays.
[1:41:54] So I guess my question is, if we’re evaluating the progress made by stakeholders, are those all internal city staff, or are we looking at external stakeholders there as well? Wait, I meant to feel like to start this one, okay. Through you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. With regards to the specific question, with regards to the internal versus the external, as there’s a section 3.0 that follows directly after the objective, it highlights the scope.
[1:42:27] The second paragraph there notes some of the exclusions, number 200 of those exclusions highlights that contracted agencies or community partners were not included within the scope. So in short, it was focused internally on the city. They were the key stakeholders that we were looking towards the progress being made. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you. So I guess I’m gonna just keep my comments really short. I’m not going to, I’m gonna be voting against receiving this and it’s nothing against the auditors or the work that was done.
[1:43:07] I just feel that in a city that has some very serious public safety concerns, and especially regarding women, women feel very unsafe in our downtown, in our shelters, in our social housing, and walking around even taking the bus. And so I just really feel like we’ve missed the mark and an opportunity to take precious dollars and auditing time to just really focus on things that are more just not what the taxpayers that I represent want us to be focused on.
[1:43:43] So I just recently was at another board of governance training mechanism and it talked our training session and it talked about strategic plans and how there’s inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. And we so often, from what I’ve seen here in the city of London is we stop at outputs. We’re counting what we did, the surveys that we took, the trainings that we did, but Londoners are desperate for outcomes. We’re desperate for a safer London for women and girls.
[1:44:16] So as I said, no, I really don’t mean this, I’m gonna be voting no to receiving the report and it really doesn’t have anything to do with the report at all. But I thank you for your time. Thank you. Look, can you see there’s further speakers or comments? I will move to Councilor Perbal next. I will just make a comment. Look at the MNP report, the scope that was done. I truly believe that there was not as much opportunity to go any further. Having said that, I will certainly vote yes for this report.
[1:44:51] We do have caused the outcomes. We do have implementation plan, which includes the actions, timelines and responsibilities. And that is the part that I do believe that we certainly can improve. I would not totally agree that there’s a comment because I’ve spoken to a few people as well that actually safety and it’s not just for women and men overall and we hear it, especially downtown. I hear it that there is an improvement. So I do believe they are on the right track. Do we have a lot of still work to do? Absolutely, we do.
[1:45:23] So the only thing is what I would say is for MNP, I don’t know how far you go. We do have a strategic plan, the pyramid. And in the pyramid, we do have, it starts with the vision, vision, outcome. Send the bottom line is the implementation plan. And that’s the one that I always consider kind of the most important one that’s really is the accountability actions timeline. And this is a room certainly for improvement, that we can go further as a city, as management, as the council. And then for you to make more of a review and analysis. I think that right now when I looked at it and I just, I quickly went to our strategic plan.
[1:46:03] So with the scope, there was not as much opportunity for you. Having said that, when we’d have the more detailed ones, I really would like you to pay attention to the implementation plan and audit us towards those more details areas. So those are my comments. Thank you. Okay, sorry, I just want to give, sorry, through the chair, any feedback from actually MMP for what I said, if you were to increase this process, going forward, doesn’t matter if it’s just this area or any other area of focus.
[1:46:37] Thank you for the councilor’s comments to provide some feedback. Through the chair, thank you, Councillor Pribble. I agree, I think one of the interesting things here is we’re in the middle of the multi-year strategic plan. And as a part of that, some of these management action items are actually in the middle of the delivery. So when we’re coming in, again, we’re not at the end of the journey to see how successful they are. I believe if a lot of these action items are completed, we would get the desired outcomes. But given kind of the timing we came in, it was an opportunity to see if those were still the correct plans, have those dialogues for management, see what the tangible progress was to make sure that we’re kind of in line to achieve those outcomes.
[1:47:17] But I do agree with you, I think, coming back after the fact and looking and seeing that progress, I completely agree with the approach that you’ve outlined. Councillor. Thank you for that. And I just want to make one comment. And the comment would be when you said that you came at this timeline. One thing is, I would rather prefer if the opportunity is there to wait rather one cycle and to have it really completed audit, which would include these specifics and addressing the detailed implementation plan if that were to happen in the future.
[1:47:52] Thank you. Thank you. I meant if you’d like to comment or I’ll do others. Through you Madam Chair, just thank you for the feedback and we appreciate it. Councillor Cuddy, you had, no, okay. If the committee would allow, I have one question through, I guess I got one question, I can’t really go through myself. Ender page 82, it’s a delays in evaluation of city administered training. As this now follows, enter ARAO, which is in our city manager’s department.
[1:48:26] And it’s looking to see if a review of the mandatory responding to domestic violence and human trafficking as the city is doing that with employees, if it’s still efficient having the impact that we need. It was just wondering, ‘cause on page 81, it also mentions the bystander intervention training and the domestic violence training. So just, where’s the bystander intervention training? It seems to have, it’s mentioned on page 81, but it’s not mentioned in the details. Are we still looking at doing both or reviewing both? If staff would like to reply.
[1:49:04] I’m happy to start, Madam Chair, through you. We do both training and both continue throughout the organization as well. And then we’ll continue to audit to see if both are having the desired impact and uptake that we hope. So I see, Sanjay, behind you as well. Just sorry. Thank you for the question, Chair. We are going to be doing quite a comprehensive evaluation along with our learning and development team, especially looking at how we are responding to domestic violence and human trafficking. And we continue to do ongoing evaluation of our bystander training too.
[1:49:44] Thank you for that. Just as the work counselor in the South End, I’m aware of activities that go on in some of those hotels and that they’re still issues in our city, not denying them by any means, have recently done my police ride along. And we went to the hotels and watched some of the activities happening. So just, it’s important work and that we continue in that section. So thank you. Those are my questions and comments wanting to make sure that bystander training hasn’t dropped off somewhere. Looking for further speakers. I see none online.
[1:50:15] I see none in chambers. Sorry, Councillor Stevenson. And just for, you know, when we get to the vote, I will do yays and a post. That’s all I was going to ask was for a recorded vote. Yep, happy to do that. So I will do the yays first. It’s going to be a hand vote of all in favor of receiving this report. Okay, and all those opposed by a show of hands. Motion carries. And a recorded vote. Yes, that will be noted, Councillor.
[1:50:48] Okay. So that takes care of all our items for direction. That was concluded 4.1 through to 4.4. And our deferred matters additional business. I was not made aware of any. Okay, we have no confidential items that would move us to an adjournment. Sorry, I was just throwing a wrench in it just to make sure that September 10th is the next time we were back together for a meeting of audit, which would move us to adjournment for this meeting.
[1:51:44] I have a mover in Councillor Cuddy. I would need a seconder and Councillor Stevenson, a hand vote of all in favor of adjournment today. Motion carries. Thank you everyone for your time and I will see you September 7th, 10th.