September 10, 2025, at 12:00 PM
Present:
E. Peloza, S. Stevenson, J. Pribil
Absent:
P. Cuddy, I. Cheema
Also Present:
S. Datars-Bere, A. Barbon, K. Dickins, D. Escobar, J. Ireland, J. Paradis, R. Patel (MNP), T. Pollitt, P. Racco (MNP), M. Schulthess, C. Smith.
Remote Attendance:
E. Bennett, G. Calder (MNP), M. Feldberg
The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM.
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 Summary Update from Internal Audit - MNP
2025-09-10 Submission - Summary Update from Internal Audit
Moved by S. Stevenson
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the communication from MNP, with respect to the summary update from internal audit BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
4.2 Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard - MNP
2025-09-10 Submission - Internal Audit Follow-Up Activities Dashboard
Moved by S. Stevenson
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 Housing and Homelessness Value for Money (“VfM”) Audit - MNP
2025-09-10 Submission - Housing and Homelessness Value for Money
Moved by J. Pribil
Seconded by E. Peloza
That the communication dated August 28, 2025 from MNP with respect to the Housing and Homelessness Value for Money (VfM) Audit report, BE RECEIVED; and that the communication from Councillor S. Stevenson dated September 8, 2025 BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
Yeas: (2) E. Peloza, J. Pribil
Nays: (1) S. Stevenson
4.3.a (ADDED) Councillor S. Stevenson
2025-09-10 - Submission - Audit Committee - Hub Value for Money Audit - S. Stevenson
5. Deferred Matters/Additional Business
None.
6. Confidential
None.
7. Adjournment
Moved by S. Stevenson
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.
Motion Passed
The meeting adjourned at 1:55 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 (2 hours, 9 minutes)
[9:58] Good morning, Mr. Calder, a brief audio test from Council Chambers. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone.
[15:00] This is the third meeting of the audit committee. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Nashbec, Haudenosaunee, Linapawak, 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, Maytean, and Inuit today. As a representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.
[15:41] Just for you know, in Chambers, I’m joined by Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Pribble. Councillor Cudi and Member Chima have both sent their regrets in advance today. For the meeting, but three members is quorum, so we are good to proceed. Looking to committee members for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, consent items today, we have none, scheduled items, we have none. Items for direction, we have three. As with any items for direction, and we’re going to go through them individually.
[16:17] And I’ll need a mover and a second who put each one on the floor. I’ll let you know that when we get to 4.3, there’s going to be a presentation before we commence on that one. But for item 4.1, this is the summary update in the internal audit from MNP. Looking for a mover and a seconder to put it on the floor, then we’ll take questions. Okay, I have Councillor Stevenson as a mover, Councillor Pribble as a seconder. So looking for any questions or comments for the summary update in the internal. I’ll start my speakers list with Councillor Stevenson.
[17:01] Thank you through you to whoever wants to answer this question regarding the performance measurement. Could we just hear a little bit more about the scope of that audit that’s currently underway? Thank you through you to MNP. Thank you for the question, good afternoon, everyone. Through you, Madam Chair. The scope as it, what is currently on there is the high level scope that is included in the memo. At this point, we are undergoing the process of working with civic administration to hone the scope to make sure that it’s focused and touching on the main objectives that we want to execute on.
[17:43] That process is underway. As that comes through to fruition, we will then create our audit program and then execute on that. So unfortunately at this time, I cannot provide any more clarity on that as we’re in the process of scoping. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I guess that just raises a bigger question around when that scope gets clarified and what role council plays in that to ensure that council gets the information that they’re looking for when the report comes back. So I’ll just keep that in mind.
[18:19] Thank you. I’ll note that your submission is due November 19th, which is also the next meeting of this audit committee. So any of those questions, please ask them now ‘cause next time we’ll be sitting here. My question, if committee will allow me, and for the community improvement plans, part of the review is value for money. Just looking to see if that will follow the same kind of format as value for money audit that we see later in this report or if it’s slightly something different.
[18:56] Through you, Chair, the concept of value for money is more of a subset of an internal audit process. So in short, yes, it will generally follow the same process, but it is very dependent upon subject matter area, how you walk through and do that. The concept of value can be a little bit ambiguous, but generally speaking from what you have observed and from the items that will be later on, there will be similar, yes. Thank you. As that one comes back to us in February 25th next year, when would your team commence work on that?
[19:33] Not if it’s already underway or looking to see if it would be post November should someone have questions that are more specific. Thank you for the question. Through you, generally speaking, the cycle that we’ve worked on is to approach the items as per the cycle that they’re done. So using the essentially the 12 weeks between meetings in order to execute on those, which includes planning, execution, field work, and then reporting. Generally speaking, that has been the process that we have run through. So with that being said, we would begin based on that schedule, we would commence the planning aspects as we’re closing out the reporting for the previous cycle.
[20:13] So in and around November. Thank you, I appreciate it understanding you’re behind the scenes, workings and timings. That’s all my questions on this, and I’m gonna circle back to the members of committee starting with Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. We raised the point that the performance measurement report will come back to us at November 19th. And so it’s hard for me to have any questions now because the scope hasn’t been clarified. And that’s been my issue. I think we’ve been talking about it a little bit, is that it seems prudent for this committee to agree on the scope so that everyone’s set up for success and that the committee then gets what they’re wanting.
[20:54] And this current process that we have isn’t allowing for that. So I guess I have bigger questions too that I wasn’t gonna get into right now, but it seems like maybe a good opportunity. This arrangement that we have, like the internal audit, the terms of reference, is the intention to provide the oversight of civic administration and agencies in terms of effectiveness and efficiency in terms of process and funding and all that kind of stuff.
[21:29] Or is this for management? Like your reports, are they for management or are they for council? Thank you. I happen to go to Ms. Barbone or MNP. And if there’s questions of the committee’s actual terms or reference, the clerk would be happy to tie that back in for us, Ms. Barbone. Thank you through the chair. So the external internal auditors report in basically and practical to the audit committee, they are directed, their work is approved and directed by the audit committee.
[22:11] So the audit committee, and that is reflected in the terms of reference, I believe, that that outset and that scope, that’s why the internal audit plan is brought here for council and ultimately through to council’s approval. And that discussion and the clarity would come and direction from the audit committee. MNP. Just to add up through you, just to add that to that piece, the general role of internal audit is to provide the concept of risk assurance. So at the end of the day, the question was posed with regards to who is the users of the information that comes out of it.
[22:46] It’s the entire governance structure of the city. It is an assurance mechanism for those in an oversight function to understand how well controls are in place the efficacy of the control environment and opportunities for improvement, but that also then cascades down to civic administration who can take that as an opportunity to have an understanding of where there are opportunities for improvement. So I would just impart upon everyone that the goal is to have observations and recommendations that provide value for both the oversight function, this committee as well as council, as well as civic administration, both are users of the information.
[23:33] Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, and then I’ll recognize Councillor Peri. Yeah, thank you, as a follow up. So that was my understanding was that this was, the audit committee is the one that is in charge of this. And so for us not to approve the scope seems like a really something that gets to be addressed in my opinion. So I guess through you to whoever wants to answer the question, I’m wondering what can we do to have this audit committee approve the scope of these reports and be the final sayer on that.
[24:11] And second question is what is the independence between the auditors and management? Because again, if this is, in my opinion, this audit committee is the only avenue that council has for oversight in this way, right? This is our oversight piece. And if management is determining the scope or directing the scope, it just seems, I’m not an expert in this area, but it just seems to me like that could be problematic in terms of you’re not going to direct to a problem.
[24:49] So I’m just wondering about that as well. I feel like there’s something not working in this setup and I’m open to whatever suggestions or comments people might have through you, Chair. So maybe you want to go first. Okay, so we have multiple speakers on this. And at any point, the clerk can also remind us of what the audit committee approved when we started sitting, realizing this committee sits for all four years of our term versus just one in some of these decisions and processes might have been put into place back and beginning of the term.
[25:27] So I will start with MNP, and then I’m gonna go to Ms. Marbo. Thank you through you and thank you for the question. So a couple of things I just wanted to highlight. The purpose of internal audit is again to provide that risk assurance avenue. So there’s a concept in risk management that’s referred to the three lines of defense, internal audit acts as a part of that three, the third line, which is meant to provide risk assurance. There’s actually various, there’s a number of ways that an entity such as this committee or council receives independent assurance.
[26:03] Your external financial statement auditors provide you assurance upon controls, upon the efficacy of the financial reporting control, all of these various things. Any independent, whether there is a report to council that is done via an external body. These are all avenues by which you’re getting assurance that is independent from civic administration. So that’s just the first thing I wanted to highlight. The second thing to highlight is that the current arrangement that does allow for where there is an outsource of your internal audit function through a firm like MNP, and previously it was via other firms, does create a natural independence in so far as it is not a member of the civic administration that is in that role of internal audit.
[26:55] So by the nature of an outsourcing, you naturally get some independence. There are professional practices that I am appalled into as being part of my firm, there’s quality assurance processes that I need to go through because that’s what we have in place from our perspective. So that arrangement inherently creates some independence that can be of benefit for an organization such as the city. And then the third thing to mention is that, generally speaking, my observation has been the manner in which the city and this committee has set up its process whereby there is a broader plan that is provided, that is approved by the committee, and there is general direction from the committee of yes, these are the areas that we wish you to focus in on is standard practice.
[27:48] There, the working through and developing the refined scope is something that has to naturally incur from my perspective as that internal auditor to work to make sure that the scope is viable, is doable within the timeframe that we have within the budget that is assigned all of those different types of things. So this is not a, from my perspective, this is not an atypical arrangement when it comes to the manner by which this committee has provided direction via the internal audit plan. Thank you, Mr. Racco.
[28:23] Ms. Burban, anything to add before I go back to the councilor’s list. Thank you to the chair. The only thing I would add is just going back to the understanding, originally when the audit committee, after an election, we do a bit of an orientation that would have outlined the roles with respect to the audit committee related to external audit as well as with respect to internal audit. And then as that contract was outsourced is based on the direction and the terms of reference that are tied to the audit committee. So one of the very first things that the external internal auditors do is determine what that risk-based audit plan is going to be at the start of that term and provide that to the audit committee for clarity on what those projects are going to be to create that work plan.
[29:11] And then obviously setting the scope is a component of that. And one of the things that the audit committee had requested was to have that information and show the status because some of the audits were slipping. So that is something that M&P has provided based on that request. So in terms of the scope, I mean, yes, it’s a high-level scope, the discussion with management is whether there are some other things that from a practical perspective, we have available or don’t have available to assist them in refining that scope. But that scope is what is ultimately guiding based on what the audit committee has set.
[29:45] So certainly if the audit committee wishes to set different scopes or expand that, that would need to happen out an audit committee so that M&P has time to go back and ensure that they can meet the timelines that are outlined by the audit committee by bringing forward those audits and the timeframe that they’ve identified. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, that’s all helpful because this conversation is really all about being proactive around avoiding the problem that we have in 4.3, right? Just I don’t wanna be in that situation where it’s either managing council expectations or changing the process so that everyone’s set up to win when we do this.
[30:28] I remember when we were looking at the scope for this originally, I wasn’t particularly happy with choosing the hubs because I felt that from a public perspective and from council, the hubs were the least of our concern, right? Like I think there was a general consensus this was gonna be a success. There was more concern around the 40% increase in shelter contracts without increasing bed capacity and maybe with the highly supportive housing. So I wasn’t even for the hubs and then when I read this high level scope, I agree with it.
[31:03] For me, it doesn’t align with the report. So I think I’ll just leave it at that for now. It’s something to think about ‘cause I hear the practicalities of viability and time space and I think we’ve had this conversation in this committee before around that, but ultimately the taxpayers are paying for this and it’s really for them to be reassured and to really be able to celebrate the good work that we do here with the precious tax dollars that we have.
[31:37] So ultimately that’s who I’m looking to serve in this and ensure that we get reports that help us validate and build goodwill with the citizens of London. Councilor Pervall. Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff or to MNP. You received the direction through this committee and through the council and then after it’s approved by the council goes your direction. What is the process and communication between MNP and our staff in terms of developing potentially the scope into the more detail?
[32:17] Thank you, Mr. Racco. Thank you for the question through you, Madam Chair. So generally the process would go and we can use an example as the two that are currently underway through the planning process if you can appease me with that. The process that we go through is we contact civic administration. Our, the main contact that we have is Ms. Barbone. So we work with her to understand and look at this specific scope who are the relevant owner, if I can kind of put it that way, right? The relevant member of, sorry? Service area, yeah, the owner of the service area in order to make sure that we are touching base with those individuals and then we work with them to go through a planning cycle.
[32:58] And essentially what we do in that planning cycle is we may have not worked with this area before so we make some introductions to understand who is doing what and where and what their responsibilities are. At that point we will host a meeting with them where we work, we present to them our intentions, what we’ve anticipated the scope to be and we work through to refine it because as Ms. Barbone’s point was made a little bit earlier, there may be certain things in flight, there may be timings that we have not necessarily considered that don’t necessarily align with certain things that are taking place.
[33:30] So we work with them based upon our view of things, our approach, what we want to achieve our general objectives to make sure that again given the various things, the timing, the direction of the high level scope as well as the resources available that we’re then able to come up with what we refer to as an audit planning memo and that documents, it’s essentially the front part of the reports that you’ve always received, the background, the key individuals responsible, the key risks that we want to focus on in the overall objectives. And then that is documented and then that is the guiding light throughout the remainder of the audit because that states the objectives so we work back towards that planning memo.
[34:15] I hope that answered the question if there are follow-ups. Yeah, I’m sorry. Thank you. I don’t know if our staff had anything to add to it or if they wanted to add anything. No, okay. So now when I look at, when I hear this and then when I look at page 17 and three, the number five which is the approach and when I look at the phase one and phase two, those are actually the two phases that when I look at the description that the scope should be more refined and more detailed. If you look at these phase one and phase two, I would imagine that those are the ones that you deal with our staff but it doesn’t come back to us.
[34:56] If you can maybe clarify this because again, the concerns that were raised or mentioned today or during the previous ones has to do actually with phase one and phase two. Starting Council approval, what page are you on? Oh, it is the report 17 MMP3 and it’s number five approach and we have the four phases there and the phase one and phase two when I read the description, those are the ones that— Sorry, your item 4.2 or are you still on 4.1?
[35:31] No, I’m just using it because we already talking about it. This has to do with 4.2 but it’s still, it’s relevant to what we are talking about right now. Okay, thank you. Sorry, as I flip, I just wanted to make sure that we’re— Yeah, it is released. Go ahead. Thank you for the question through you Madam Chair. So yes, and it’s a good illustration. So what I was trying to describe earlier is outlined within those four steps. So if you look at it, phase one is focused on defining that engagement and making sure that that planning memo, that’s the main outcome from there. Phase two is focused more on, and so actually everything that I described is more focused in phase one.
[36:08] Phase two is where based upon the general direct, the specificity of that planning memo, which we’ll touch on background, audit objectives, the risks that we’re looking to, timing all those different things, what phase two is actually focused on is the development of what’s referred to as an audit program, and this is where we’re looking to lay out and then use this as the basis for our working papers. So phase two is actually the beginning of the field work that we do. It’s the planning that we have to do based upon phase one, all the planning that we’ve done in phase one, that then sets us up for phase three, which is where we actually execute it.
[36:47] So I think to your specific question, Councillor, our interaction is actually mainly with civic administration in phase one, to refine the scope and to do that planning, and in phase three, because we interact with them in order to gather information, conduct interviews, clarify things. Phase two is quite insular, it’s mainly us, because we’re putting together the working papers and the program that we’re gonna use for execution. So I hope I did not further muddy the waters, but that would be my explanation.
[37:20] Councillor? Thank you for that, and what my follow up is, if I look at the phase one and phase two, it’s not, phase two is actually the last one, developed detailed audit program, because that’s actually, so when I look at the process, I believe, and I don’t think I heard the answer for this, I don’t believe that you come back to this committee or to any one of us once you hit the road and you start on phase one to phase four. And I see a nod, so thank you for that. But I believe, and you can tell me what processes you have with other municipalities or other organizations, but I believe that after the phase one, two, or parts of it, if you were to come back to us, then we can review it and we can see if it’s the depth that we feel, it’s the scope that’s described very brief, if it’s sufficient and if it’s answers our questions, and if it’s not, we have an opportunity to say before you start running with the ball, we can say these areas, we feel it’s covered, but these are not.
[38:28] But so I think that this is the issue in terms of our process, and I believe, and please tell me what experiences you have with other clients of yours, and maybe even if you don’t have those experiences, if you can tell me if my thinking is accurate and if it would make sense. Mr. Racco. Thank you, and for the question through you, Madam Chair. So to the second point, yes, and I was nodding just to acknowledge it. So generally, the process goes that through phase one, we go through and we do not revert back to audit committee with the detailed scope.
[39:06] So I just wanted to confirm that for you. That is true. As far as general process and what I’ve seen, typically that is not the case. There is not the revision back, the reverting back to the oversight body in order to clarify the planning memo. And just to be very transparent, I guess, it would, it just, the timing, with every organization that I worked through, it creates an interesting bottleneck with regards to timing. So that is generally speaking, the process that follows is with the broader piece of the direction of the internal audit plan that’s set.
[39:42] And there can always be adjustments to internal audit plans, right? ‘Cause they’re never static. They can be dynamic documents. But the process by which to revert back to committee with the more detailed scope and specifically the audit planning memo would be a departure from the standard practice that I usually see. However, I mean, that’s what I’ve seen. Councillor Perbault, a follow-up? I do. Based on where we are, and we are looking again, yes, you’ll be dealing at 4.3 with another point and the results of your audit.
[40:20] But looking in terms of the future, in terms of how we can improve this process and make it more sense so potentially, will be then your suggestion then when we, because again, at this committee, we really, I don’t think it would make sense for us to go into the more depth, because it’s not even approved by the council. So for us to go into the depth and starting to lay out what we are expecting, I don’t think that would make much sense. It goes to the council. It’s approved. Let’s say if it is approved, then where would it make sense for us to go more into the depth?
[40:58] What is the expectations? You have the scope, and then going, doesn’t matter if it’s up or down, all these legs that we want you to report on to audit and deliver the results. Mr. Racco? Through Madam Chair. So I do not want to, so I’m just going to, I don’t want to be counter to anything as far as the terms of reference or any of the specificities from that the clerk would be able to opine on. However, in hearing what you’re saying, I feel that the, an option that we may have going forward, and particularly with the, our intention is for the briefing note that is item 4.1 to be, to be the standard layout that we now have with the plan appended to the back.
[41:51] If there is an opportunity as this memo comes forward, seeing now the items that are either underway or planned for the future, to have that opportunity to solicit the committee’s feedback on points of interest within those pieces that can then inform our understanding, and then that helps to inform our understanding when we’re developing our specific piece, and then going through the process that I was mentioning earlier with phase one. So again, I don’t want to make any presumptions, but there may be an opportunity there if we utilize the table that is on the back end of the briefing note.
[42:29] If the briefing note is the first item that we generally speak to as we meet collectively, there can be opportunity, from my perspective, through the discussion here for any members of the committee to either ask questions on the items themselves or provide guidance on points of interest that they would want to focus on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That opportunity sounds really good to me. I do think we should explore it.
[43:01] And then just one last question. I hope we take this kind of an approach. I think it would be very proactive. And then if I look at, again, the bottom of phase two, to develop detailed audit program, once you develop it, is it a possibility for you to share it with us, even without being at this committee, that you could share it with us by email sending it to us. And for us to review it, if it does answer the questions that we are expecting.
[43:39] Mr. Aco. Through you, Madam Chair. So just to clarify, so the detailed audit program is more the working papers that we use. So it’s basically like various Excel workbooks and whatnot that we go through. I feel, because I don’t want to make an assumption, Councillor, what you’re looking for would probably be the bottom part of actually phase one, which is that approved planning memo. That planning memo was what I was mentioning, forms generally the first part of the report itself, the background, the objectives, the approach, the timing, that type of thing.
[44:18] So I’ll just river. Is that more what you’re looking for? Because the audit program is the working papers, the specifics, I don’t feel that would provide much value to anyone unless you wanted to do the audit for us. But I feel the question you may be asking is more for the planning memo, but I don’t want to make any assumptions. Councillor. Do we are describing it? Then yes, it would be the bottom of phase one, if that’s what it is, because I don’t see the description, right? I just see the titles. So again, going back, moving from phase two to phase one to the bottom, do you see an opportunity there that before when you are at that stage, that you will be able to send it to us?
[44:59] And again, not waiting as we meet quarterly. Not waiting, but when you are at that stage to send it to us for a review, is that a possibility? I’ll go to Mr. Rocco and then Ms. Barbara. So from my perspective, without speaking to the process and anything that we would have to figure out, I think it is a viable consideration, but I don’t want to make any presumptions with regards to how the flows of committee and communication usually works.
[45:31] So I will not try to make any of those assumptions. Ms. Barbara, if you have comment? I thank you through the chair. So I might defer to the clerk on this one because that work would be likely, most likely in between audit committees. So I’m not sure what the rules are to govern and would defer to Mr. Shultis to advise. Okay, Mr. Shultis. Thank you through the chair.
[46:03] One way communications from an external auditor or internal auditor may be fine. The concern that may be raised is where there’s perhaps decisions being made without going through a public meeting and a decision-making process that of course our rules would apply to. Council, are you satisfied? Yes, I’m in to sort of the answer, but not in to sort of process out moving forward. It will be your then suggestion recommendation for us because I know we are taking time for trying to resolve this, but we are trying to actually make it so our next meetings reports are more to potentially covering the larger base.
[46:48] So what I’m trying to say is the scope that you receive from us is not as detailed or doesn’t cover all the angles, all the aspects that we would like to receive. So if this is the case, we’ll be your recommendation if you look at your faces and if you just heard the clerk and our CFO what they had to say, we’ll be your recommendation then. Mr. Racco, I would also, I don’t know if it’s, as the report in front of us has the high-level scope, if it’s possible to expand it more versus at what point could you, I know that we’re always running from your team 12 weeks out, but then we meet quarterly of realizing what’s in progress is in progress, but how to get ahead of that and how much of a really preliminary scope or something can come to help address the counselor and my colleagues’ concerns.
[47:49] That’s okay, through you Madam Chair. So I do feel, so there’d be two things that I think can be viable options for it. I really do feel that using the time for the item, the agenda item as it is now to gather any particular insights or points of interest when talking about the brief you know, seeing the plan going forward. I’ll be honest, that would just be helpful in general if there are points of interest that the committee is thinking about. It’s all important for us as we go through our planning and our decision-making process.
[48:21] So I would view that piece and to the suggestion that was just made a little bit earlier, if we have generally been working towards that, doing work within the quarters to make sure that we’re not overly burdensome from any individual’s perspective with the work that we’re doing. But if there is a desire to advance some of those conversations, again, looking at the, just as an example, what’s on there now, if we wanted to have some discussions with regards to the June 2027 or the June 2026 items earlier, right, two quarters in advance, that would be viable.
[49:00] But I do think it would make sense to do it in these meetings for you to share your perspectives of we see this one as upcoming in June. We would love, we have a key interest in X, Y, Z. And then myself and my team, we can take that back and then we can factor it in as we go through that planning. So I really, I do feel that that open communication via this avenue and hearing the clerk’s perspective of we want these to be open communications. I feel my, but that would be my recommendation that I think can solve for the issue.
[49:34] Thank you, Councillor Permeau. Thank you, no more questions? Councillor Stevenson. Just a quick one, I just wanna bring up the issue of fraud and I’m in no way insinuating that anything is happening here, but of course it’s in the public’s mind more with what’s happened with LHSC. And the external auditors are clear that’s not something that they’re looking for. I’m not even sure that it’s part of your engagement, but if you could just address that and then address the issue of with the input of civic administration on the scope, how, you know, how reassured are we sort of that you wouldn’t be directed in an area of no issue.
[50:17] Like, for instance, with the hospital, right? You’d be like, look at the doors, not the windows or something like that. I’m going to Mr. Rocco and then also mindful of the time that we’ve almost been on this for 40 minutes. Through you, Madam Chair. So thank you for the question. So to address the, so a couple of things, to address the first part of your question, generally speaking, and again, this goes back to the professional practices that myself and my firm are bound by. If there are any situations where we observe or even have an inkling of fraud, misappropriation, misconduct, those types of things, it’s incumbent upon us to bring those pieces up.
[50:56] So I just wanted to state that specifically ‘cause it’s not as if we do not look for it, but we are bound by our professional practices to make sure that we talk about those things as we go. With regards to the second point, which I believe was more about the communication that we have with civic administration, particularly on the scope aspect and making sure that we are not, that we focus on the right things and we are not adjusted and told to look on X when we should be looking on Y. That’s just incumbent upon me and my team, right?
[51:30] At the end of the day, and I really do feel that it is a benefit, and again, this can appear as if I have bias for this. It is a benefit of having an outsourced arrangement in something like this where I am bound by certain things with regards to my own personal work, my own liability, those types of things to make sure that I do the right thing and be bound by the professional practices that I have. So there are points regularly when we talk to whether it be with the city or with any of my other clients where it’s natural for us to challenge and to push back on items, right?
[52:10] This should be included. This should not be included, right? And something that we specifically focus on and a purpose, a specific focus that MMP has as a firm is that it’s not myself and my colleague Reena who work on every single audit. We bring in subject matter experts that know the space, that way there can be an equal set of knowledge on either side of it. And that naturally brings that challenge function. So I’m just highlighting some pieces of, I can appreciate the question with regards to how do we make sure that we have appropriate coverage of the risk, but that’s why we do what we do and we have those professional practices to make sure that we focus on the right things.
[52:56] Thank you for that. Okay, I have no further speakers on my side. Would staff like to make any final comments before I call the question? Thank you through the chair. I think it might be helpful to direct the counts or the audit committee to a report that was done to the audit committee on May 30th, 2016. They reviewed the various models of compared internal audit that was done in house, internal audit that was outsourced, which is the current model that we have versus the auditor general model there.
[53:32] That report highlights in great detail the benefits and risks of going with either model. And so in that report, there was a chart that highlighted the independence, a degree of control by council, degree of control by administration, as well as the cost between those different models. And one of the things that that report showed was that when you go inherently to an external internal audit model, the perceived independence is much higher than it would be had internal audit been in house. So just to solidify that conversation, that review was done when this model was implemented and provided to the audit committee at that time.
[54:11] So it would be a good reference. I believe for the audit committee members that tie exactly to this discussion. Thank you. Can I ask the copy of that report? You sent me sent to all members of audit, realizing part of our colleagues are away today and would have missed that information. And some would have a hard time finding it as a member of the public. Hey, this was a move to receive. It’s been moved and seconded. All in favor, we see this report. Motion carries. Thank you.
[54:44] Next on our list is the internal audit follow-up activities dashboard by MNP. We’d need a mover and a seconder to get this one on the floor. And then I’ll start a speakers list, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Pribble. And then I will start a speakers list. I know Councillor Pribble had questions was provided in advanced MNP. I’ll start there. Thank you, sir, the chair to MNP or our staff. Page two or six of the report, two of MNP, a follow-up related to wait list selection will be going to the upcoming governance working group. Is that the one November 14th?
[55:20] Believe that be to our staff then, looking to see if there’s an answer available. Through the chair, I believe at the time of writing that governance review working group date was not known. So whatever agenda that’s going to fall on, if that’s the date of the next committee, that was the intent. Okay, thank you. The upcoming means the next one, like coming up, November 14th. Point two, three, four, management is on track to submit a report to CPSC in September.
[55:58] Can you just confirm it’s September 29th that we will be receiving it? Mr. Felberg, is this one you? Sorry, just saw you on screen, welcome. Yep, thank you. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. Yes, that’s our plan. We’re currently working on the final touches for that report. So our plan is September 29th at this point. Thank you. Thank you for that. Page four, eight of the report, depending when the performance management guidance, currently in draft form pending the final review.
[56:33] Can we have the deadline timeline for this to be completed? Staff, thank you through the chair. So that’s with respect to the implementation of the updated procurement policy that Council approved. So the implementation date is October 1st, and we are on track to finalizing all the documents for that implementation. Thank you. Thank you, thank you for that. Page five, nine of the report, then the performance reporting will be standardized across solidizations by when is at the same date.
[57:11] Ms. Barbara. Thank you through the chair. So those schedules that are identified there are part of the updated Council approved procurement policy. So those schedules outline exactly what the requirements are and were before Council in May. So those are on track and are part of the new policy that Council approved. Thank you for that. Page six, 10 of the report, opportunity to enhance program administrative procedures. Is it a accurate date that we gave it for the for 2027 through the chair to the staff?
[57:49] Yeah, in the back, please go ahead. Thank you, and through the chair, that is correct Council directed us to do a review of the city of London Community Grants Program and the Community Grants policy, and they directed us to do that in 2027. So following that review, and part of that review includes the outcomes coming out of this audit. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, no more questions to this point. Thank you. Mr. Stevenson.
[58:25] Thank you, I do have a couple of questions as well. So page two or page six, number one, it talks about the procurement pre-qualified a number of affordable housing development partners. So this was about the tenancy profile saying that partners are being brought in as part of the design phase to have input in terms of the tenant mix that they intend to serve. But what I’ve seen is that we’re moving and have been moving in the direction of non-profit developers rather than for profit.
[59:02] And what I have seen come back to us is a request for more money when things go sideways, because they’re a non-profit. We seem to cover those losses that we don’t in a for-profit developer. So I just wondered staff or the auditor’s comments are on that in terms of risk, that by bringing the development partner in, and if it’s a non-profit, and they say that they’re willing to say, put in the tenants that were put into 122 baseline, it ends up coming back to the taxpayers to make up that shortfall.
[59:45] So just how can we, any thoughts on how to mitigate that risk, start with staff? Yeah, thank you. And through you, Madam Chair, that’s actually one of the key parts about the affordable housing development process, that it is quite nuanced. There are a number of different risks throughout the process that we try to mitigate. We do a very detailed review of the operating capital performer prior to agreeing to move forward with any contributions from the city.
[1:00:24] There’s always a risk that financing may not be available from either traditional mortgage lender or CMHC, which is one of the challenges that some of our providers are having right now. So it is part, it is one of those things that is very difficult for us to mitigate, but through those reviews, through that work that we do to ensure that they have as much of the financing in place as possible. That’s how we try to limit the risk to the city. Over time, there may be opportunities for us to stack on additional funds if there are other government programs, as you’ve seen with programs like the Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative or OFI, which was something that we did with the Cross Cultural Learning Center.
[1:01:13] But a big part of the work that nonprofits have to do is they have to go out and do some fundraising. They have to make sure that they are financially viable in order to work with a project. And that’s a commitment they make to us during the procurement process. They commit to say that they can do this and that they can continue to move forward. Hope that answers the question. Councilor? Thank you. Just to clarify there, my question was around damages. So the tenancy profile, the tenant mix in buildings has caused a lot of damages.
[1:01:48] And so here we’re saying this suggestion was to help mitigate that, to have the development partners be part of the process in terms of the tenant mix that they intend to serve. But my concern is that when they’re non-profit developers, we have seen them come back to us and say, we’ve got these extra costs. Can you help us out because we’re stuck? And if we are gonna move more in this direction and have more non-profit developers, and if as it appears that they seem to want to take a lot of the high risk tenants, ultimately we seem to be backfilling that.
[1:02:30] And so if we’re expanding this program and doing more affordable housing and using more non-profit developers, I’m just concerned about the risk to taxpayers as we see what we’ve been seeing in terms of damages in the buildings. Okay, I’m gonna pause for a moment. We’ve got a couple of things going on. Mr. Feldberg, that report’s coming to CAPS on the 29th as you stated.
[1:03:02] Not sure how much of this information’s gonna be detailed in there, just thinking about the most appropriate place to get the actual data and how that falls some discussion. That once coming on the 29th, the clerk just confirmed the next government working group as is a prior question, is November 14th, and I know the same item has information being sent to there for a discussion. So Mr. Feldberg, I’ll leave it to you to tell us what reports are going where and when, and to advise that that information and questions will be identified in those reports in the best place to have this conversation.
[1:03:40] Thank you, Madam Chair. I think some of the questions from the counselor would probably be best around that weightless conversation that we’re planning to have the governance working group. That allows us to talk about the tenant mix and some of the policies and procedures that we have in order to identify tenants for a particular property. We’ll say that a lot of work has been done to streamline and to work with the nonprofits and the for-profit developers on identifying tenants that work for their buildings in particular. So they have a very significant role in a guiding hand in identifying who it is that they want to have in those buildings.
[1:04:17] So as we talked about a governance working group, a lot of work has been done to try and mitigate some of the challenges that we’ve seen at 122 baseline. The context at the time was we were coming off a hunger strike at the time and we were looking for a place to help house some of our most vulnerable people coming directly out of homelessness. And we recognize that that has caused some challenges at baseline and that’s something that a report is gonna tackle as we move forward. I think it might be best if the counselor and I sat down and chatted a little bit further about exactly what it is she’s after ‘cause I think there might be a sequencing issue here on the timing of when some of those matters occur and I’d be happy to do that and take that offline.
[1:05:08] Thank you. And as you said, the reports come in the 29th. So we quite haven’t seen it yet, but some of the stuff might be in there and behind the scenes heads up might help you prepare. The clerk has advised that the November 14th meeting of government’s working group might be focused on our governance versus this, he doesn’t know yet, but that is what the next meeting is. Councilor, I’ll return to you. Thank you, through you to the auditors, then just a question around that because this is a suggestion. It says that the recommendation has been action and formally built into the management’s processes.
[1:05:45] Is there an awareness that we’ve had these non-profit developers come back and say that could we help us out with 100,000, 300,000 here or there? And do you feel that this is gonna be covering that? Not sure, but I’m not getting a little bit off track versus on track ‘cause I believe certain things come back to council for approval, but happy to throw it to staff or MNP whoever would like to jump in on this one. I can clarify my gut question in that the issue of being the non-profits being part of the design process and not having the wherewithal to afford the consequences.
[1:06:34] Has that been factored in at all or is there any concern from the auditor perspective? Okay, Mr. Racco. Through you, Madam Chair. This actually ties back to a little bit of what I was alluding earlier. This is not my, housing is not my area of expertise. I can circle back if there is a specific question that you wanted to share with me. I can circle back to my subject matter expert in order to round that out for you. Councilor? Okay, thank you. I think I’ll wait and see what happens on September 29th and see if there’s questions after that.
[1:07:06] The other, only other question I had on this was the vendor risk management. So page three or seven, depending on what we’re looking at, it talks about a pilot program assessing contractor health and safety performance. I’m wondering if there are, like when I guess when I think of vendor performance or vendor due diligence, I think of quality of product, timeliness of delivery and that kind of thing, not so much health and safety performance. So are those other things factored in? Like when we’re evaluating the performance of vendors, are we looking at the quality of the product, any issues in the past, delays in terms of delivery and then even potentially, well, I’ll just leave it there for now.
[1:07:56] Okay, do you staff? And Madam P, thanks. Thank you, through the chairs. So the broader schedules that have built in all of the expectations that include a number of the things that the councilor mentioned are a part of the appendices that are part of the new procurement policy. The specific pilot that we tested was very specific to health and safety as one of the risks that we are trying to address in a number of areas as a result of other events. So it was a test to see how it would work and to pilot that in preparation for how we develop the templates and the work that went into the updated procurement policy.
[1:08:35] Thank you. Perfect, thank you. Further questions on 4.2? Seeing none, calling the questions that’s been moved and seconded for receipt. The motion carries. Thank you, that moves us on to 4.3 being the housing and homeless value for money audit by MNP. Percedurally, I know this has questions and potential motions. So I’m gonna look for a move for a seconder to get it on the floor. It’s gonna be moved by Councilor Pervil and seconded by myself.
[1:09:09] And then MNP has an overview that prepared for us. They’re gonna walk us through that. And then we will commence with questions, knowing that we’ve already had some other information leading to this point and we will go from there. The floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll keep my overview brief. With regards to the background of the report in accordance with the internal audit plan, we looked to conduct this, MNP looked to conduct this audit, specifically with regards to the city’s progress, with regards to the implementation and execution of the hubs, which are a program which helps to enable Londoners to move safely towards supportive and sustained housing.
[1:09:51] The scope focused on, and it followed the standard approach which we’ve just discussed, and focused on the effectiveness in hubs connecting individuals and families to housing. Additionally, which is a slight departure from our usual process. Due to the subject matter area, MNP adopted a more of a human-centered approach to this audit by conducting in-person visits to both the youth community hub and the El Solta Family Healing Services hub and lodge.
[1:10:31] So during those visits, we had the opportunity to touch base with HUD partners, frontline delivery staff, individuals who live with experience, as well as those with either partners or city management to gain an understanding from their perspective with regards to how this fairly complex, this very complex topic so that we can gather insights beyond just quantitative data. There were several strengths that were identified in going through and reviewing the implementation of the hubs, which are on pages three and five of the report.
[1:11:09] I won’t go through everyone specifically, but the main thing that was a takeaway was the successes that this program or this implementation has had on helping to support high-cuity individuals move through the housing continuum. The findings that were of note were specifically three principal findings. Two of them were rated as in the moderate range or a medium finding that focused namely on the opportunity to increase the capacity and the resources of the hubs and the opportunity to implement additional hubs.
[1:11:50] And the reason we specifically highlighted those is if we look towards the plan and what was looking to be achieved and to attain value from the hubs program, these two opportunities really present the city with something to move forward and gain greater value to move those that needed through the housing continuum. The third finding, which was rated as a low, is focused more on the opportunity to enhance the coordinated access system. And I really wanted to mention this one specifically, mainly because just as a reminder to individuals on the committee as well as the civic administration, when we look and we go through the risk-ranking process of our findings, anything that is a medium or moderate and high is something that we track on our, and we report back to council on the progress that civic administration is making to address it, whereas those that are scored as a low risk are not reported back.
[1:12:54] It’s not part of the quarterly reporting process that we do. Hey, I’m not sure if Mr. Felberger, Mr. Dickens would want to say anything that’s coming in the CAHPS report that might relate to some of this, or if you would just prefer to wait to see where questions might take us and chime in with a hand wave at any point in that term. Okay, I’m seeing a nod. So if we get into questions related to this, that’s coming in that CAHPS report, staff to us is coming in a couple of weeks, staff will wait and kind of loot that information.
[1:13:29] It will be located there for a more in-depth conversation. I will start my speaker’s list with Councilor Pribble. I know we’re thinking different things at different points. So I’ll be fluid here. I know Councilor Pribble had a bunch of questions he sent in advance, so maybe we could start there and we’ll see where the conversation takes us. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to MNP. Point four, the risks, financial data collected is not accurate and reliable. Can you please comment on that? So, Jerry, you’re just sorry, Councilor Pribble.
[1:14:04] You’re on four under risks on page 16 or two. Sorry, I’m just trying to follow myself. Okay. - Yeah, so page 16, MNP, report page two risks number four, and it’s the second bullet point, financial data collected, it’s not accurate and reliable. Thank you, to MNP. Through you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question, Councilor. Yes, so, and again, this is actually a nice example of what we were talking about a little bit earlier with regards to the planning memo that we prepare. As we go through, we look to make sure and that we understand that we are appreciating the risks that we have to consider in any time that we’re conducting our audit or going through a review.
[1:14:47] The specific one that you’re noting there with regards to the financial data collected is not accurate, is a risk that we have to, particularly for something that has a financial focus, that we have to be mindful of as we go through. So, we state these risks as it is something that we have to consider as we’re going through our review process, we have to make sure that we understand and appreciate the efficacy of data, its accuracy and whatnot in our review and in our process. So, that is the purpose of stating those, ‘cause it’s an inherent risk to the process that we have to think about and maintain and think about as we go through our review.
[1:15:23] Thank you for that, follow up or another one. Regarding the hubs, it states there that it has been served over 100 individuals that have helped 40. The hubs were meant for the high-accuity individuals. If I go to a page five where it says range of services, it says barriers for high-accuity individuals experiencing homelessness while still facilitating supports for low to moderate-accuity individuals. As per above, out of the 100 were some low or medium or all 100 high, and I was wondering if this was considered or if we’d know how many acuity levels were within the 100.
[1:16:10] I’ll start with MNP. Thank you for the question through you, Madam Chair. So, from my understanding, and I’m just gonna look to Grant in a quick second nod, the 100 that are stated there are high individuals, high-accuity individuals. My apologies if I stumble over some of these terms, high-accuity individuals. The process established at the hub is to go through and basically help to categorize or understand somebody’s needs, whether they be low-medium, high-accuity, and then help to work through and give them the services that they need.
[1:16:45] So, the 100 that are specifically being noted and referred to here are individuals that were high-accuity cases. Thank you. I’ll just highlight realizing our faces, our backs are to the screen, that Grant Calder of MNP is their engagement lead, and he is also online today. Should there be questions as a resource, Councillor? Thank you for that, and very happy to hear that the medium and lowest above the 100. Page 9, 2023 of the report, food and supplies. Staff and participants identified the provisions and the meeting needs of not being high in terms of the food.
[1:17:22] And when I look at the recommendation, it’s really more addressing kind of, it’s not addressing this part. And I consider it very crucial because for my own experience, I do know that, let’s say, if I talk to the neighbours who are close, let’s say to the encampments, the most issues are happening, let’s say crime, burglaries, whatever it is on the weekend. And I truly believe it is because there is lack of food and let people are desperate. And now, when I look at this, this was a big point, but it’s not addressed in the recommendations.
[1:17:58] Why not, or what could be done? Or if you can comment on that, please. Thank you to MMP. Through you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. So I will turn it over to Grant to give a bit of an overview of this specific observation. What it is, there’s a little bit of nuance around this one, Councillor. But Grant, can I just ask you to comment specifically on the Councillor’s question? Yes, thank you for the question and through you, Madam Chair.
[1:18:32] So essentially, what was identified in speaking with staff and participants at LOSA specifically is that there’s a lack of culturally appropriate foods for individuals to meet their cultural needs with indigenous foods and medicines in terms of the cost for food in that case and their impacts, their ability with other issues around diabetes and high proportion of diabetes and those on dialysis for the youth opportunities or the youth community hub. It was also noted, don’t quote me on this, but here’s the staff, that there’s about a dollar and 35 cents per head per day for food.
[1:19:06] And when I did focus groups with youth specifically, they had identified that unfortunately, some youth do feel that they go without food in the morning because it is anticipated that they will sleep in. So they wake up and do not have breakfast and have to wait till lunch or that the food doesn’t meet the needs of their hormonal growth and the state that they are at the time. So, you know, we do mention it as an observation and I think 0.5 exploring additional sources of long-term sustainable funding can focus more into that piece as well, but I’ll turn it back to Phil.
[1:19:41] Or anything else in chambers before our councilor? I think that there was— My apologies, just if you had anything further councilor, if that addressed your question or not, I just wanted to put it back to you, my apologies. No problem. Thank you and to a certain degree, I do feel higher level of comfort. Having said that, this is a tremendous investment for us and when I read this and there are no recommendations, and again, the investment is so huge, if you like the food there, then there would be certainly something wrong.
[1:20:19] So I just want to stress that and even though there is no recommendation, it would have been nice potentially to have more clarification, but I think it was granted, just mentioned. I have lost one for now and I’ll leave it to my fellow colleague now. The page 20, sorry, page 12 or 26 of the report, we do have the two bullet points there and when I look at them, they’re very important and their recommendations focus mainly on training and know how to improve those two points.
[1:20:53] So I was just wondering if there were some recommendations, if there was a discussion with our staff about it, because again, it’s not those two points, the training of the staff can go only to a certain level, but this is not just the training. This is actually how we will track it, how can we improve it? And I don’t see those recommendations there, so if you can please comment on that. Okay, it’s a racco. Through you, Madam Chair, my apologies, Councillor, can you, which specific two point, just ‘cause I want to make sure I’m focusing my efforts on your response?
[1:21:31] That’s, oh. Thank you, Madam Chair, so it’s on page 26 of the report, your MNP page 12, and there are five bullet points, and if you look at the top two, those are the ones that there is really no recommendations and all the recommendations, they are really focusing on training of the staff, but not really addressing the bigger picture. Through you, Madam Chair. So thank you for the clarification.
[1:22:04] And I will, again, this is not my area of expertise, but I want to give you my overview first, and then if there is more detail that you would like, I will pass it over to Grant. Observation number three focuses specifically on the use of the HIFIS system, which is something that is outside of the city’s control. It is a nationally used federally run system that is used for homelessness specifically. So there are, and again, this is not my area of expertise, but in speaking to experts in this field, there are very well-known limitations of the system that it does not necessarily allow for these five main bullet points that you see here.
[1:22:48] So one of the reasons that we put this as a low priority item and a low risk item is that one, the opportunity for the city to fundamentally address the issue is quite out of your control, unless you develop your own system, which would be costly, expensive, and quite untenable to be able to have to use for a system. And that is reflective of them in the recommendation pieces. So we view that the opportunity to address the risk and address the issue is more on the users using it as opposed to adjustments of the system itself, right?
[1:23:25] So it’s about how can we train our folks to as best as possible use a system that has limitations and flaws, but we use because it is the federal standard. So that is my perspective on it, but I pass it, can I please pass it back to you if you have any clarifications? And if not, I can seek them. Thank you for that. And you are quite accurate. I’m a little bit familiar with the high fees, but maybe I will ask our staff because when I was looking actually from the MMP, MMP, not just that the technology doesn’t take us as far as we would like or further, but also how can we cooperate with the organizations, with our staff to get more information in and more accurate information?
[1:24:10] And I was just wondering if this was, maybe if our staff can comment on that, if there are any recommendations or opportunities that from you as you work with it on daily basis. Hey, we can go to our staff. And then if Mr. Calder would like to say, I see some head nods, which my colleagues can’t see, but if you want the floor after staff, just chime in. Mr. Dickens, is this you or Mr. Felberg? Okay, all yours. Thank you, Chair, and through you. As was pointed out, this is the system we’re handed, the system we must use as all municipalities, service managers are required to use it.
[1:24:48] What you see in the management response is acknowledging that and it acknowledges the work that is ongoing. Over the last 12 to 18 months, we’ve onboarded more and more organizations into the HIFA system. So we’ve actually broadened that net of data points, data collection, user connections, so that we can actually start to map a bigger, more fulsome, robust picture of that system. When we talk about training, that is understanding how to work within the limitations of the system and to make sure everyone’s using it to the fullest extent of its capabilities.
[1:25:22] The management responses here are very fulsome and well thought out in terms of how we can ensure we continue to onboard, continue to train. We’re doing it across departments now to ensure that when we look at it from a human services perspective, that all areas that touch the system or support the individual are fully aware of the capabilities limitations and how to effectively use this tool. And we will continue to do that work with onboarding and with training. That’s all right.
[1:25:55] Thank you very much. There’s no more questions right now. Thank you. I have one quick question from the chair as that conversation went. I appreciate that the hubs, their staff, their users, their residents had engagement with you and knowing that that would be vulnerable for some of them and grateful for those conversations. Can staff tell me if the hubs have a copy of this report? I know it’s publicly available, but without them digging for it, do they have a copy?
[1:26:32] If not, I will make a motion if needed for them to receive a copy of this report. Just if we’re talking about them, want them fully aware of the outcomes for relationship building. Through you, chair, yes. The leadership teams at both youth opportunities unlimited and at Losa Family Healing Services have received a copy of this report. Thank you for that in advance. So thereby, motions needed. I will go to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I sent my submission in on this one. So my thoughts on this, I think, are pretty clear.
[1:27:07] But if I go to page two of your report, page three of the audit report, where it gives that high level scope, that’s what Council and this audit committee saw, it says homelessness audit and assessment to determine if the city is realizing value from the investment made into the hubs implementation plan. So when I read that, although hubs wouldn’t have been my choice, I see the shelters and the highly supportive is more high risk. This seemed like a good thing to get because we’re going to do a lot more of them.
[1:27:40] And so getting that validation would be great. Then if you go to the scope on page two of this value for money audit and page 16 of the audit report, this is what we discussed earlier about, oh, if we got this more detailed scope, maybe this would help, okay? So in here, I see that number two is review of operational and administrative expenses for hubs and general expenses reported on a per individual basis. I don’t see that in this report anywhere.
[1:28:16] Comparative analysis of staffing, wage costs and operating days were practical and feasible. I don’t see that anywhere in this report. Cost benefit analysis of the impact of hubs employee wages, individual and family housing provision, I didn’t see that in this report. And it talks about the outcomes of in supporting individuals in achieving positive outcomes. And I really don’t see that here either. We see 100 served and 40 housed, but there is a lot of concern about housed.
[1:28:52] Was it permanent? Was it safe? Was it stable? Were there critical incidents? Did anybody die? You know, and it also talks about this will be assessed in comparison to the cost of homelessness on emergency departments, paramedic services, long-term, et cetera, et cetera. And again, I don’t see that anywhere in this report. So as we were having the earlier discussion and suggesting that maybe if we got an advanced copy of the detailed scope that would help this audit committee in reading this, I’m not seeing that that would be helpful at all. So I guess through you, and I don’t mean to sound harsh, but this matters, right?
[1:29:29] This really matters a lot. We as counsel in this audit committee need to know so that we can make great decisions going forward because there’s so many people depending on this service. And we wanna do a lot more hubs across the city. So through you to MMP, I’m wondering, help me understand the misalignment from my perspective on the scope that I’m reading and then the report that I have. Thank you to Mr. Rocco. Through you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. I feel that there is a, so appreciating in going through the scope there, I feel there is also a bit of a misalignment in the way that audit reports are typically written versus something that would be considered more of a consultative or an advisory report.
[1:30:17] So if we look at the scope items that we went through, these are and this goes to the conversation earlier that we had with Councillor Pribble when we think about our working papers and the work that we go through. So we go through and we have these conversations, but everything that is within our working papers doesn’t necessarily get presented in a report. Audit reports tend to be focused on, quite frankly, most audit reports that I prepared don’t even list out strengths. They are quite tight and only focused on an exceptions basis, right? When we have an observation that translates to a finding and a risk to the entity, that is what we focus on and that is why our reports are quite tight and move quite quickly from background scope risks to observations.
[1:31:03] You can look at that and have that as a difference from, if there is a program evaluation report or a more consultative report that actually goes through and lays out and documents for comparative analysis and that type of thing. The purpose of an audit report is to highlight the observable risks and the recommendations associated with that with civic administration’s response to that so that again, this committee can have assurance that those risks are being appropriately met. So I feel there, I don’t wanna say I feel my apologies, there may be a misalignment in so far as the expectations of this as an internal audit report vis-a-vis a more consultative or program evaluation report that is more explanatory or exploratory on some of these topics.
[1:31:58] I don’t know if that, can I turn it back to you, Madam Chair to- And Councillor, comments on that? I laid out the observational risk and program evaluation reports. I appreciate it, I’m gonna push back a little bit, okay? Because this council approved $12 million on two hubs and I read a report that says some people didn’t get breakfast. So from a risk assurance level, I feel like we’re in totally two different things. When I go through the recommendations, a lot of this looks like a program evaluation of a third party contractor, right?
[1:32:35] Because we’re talking about working with them so they can have appropriate staffing. I mean, some of the stuff in here honestly is quite disturbing. When we’re paying what on my calculations is $6,000 a month per bed and I find out that we’re estimating people aren’t gonna get up and so we don’t have food and that it’s not culturally appropriate. I mean, honestly, I wasn’t expecting this, right? At all, I thought the performance at the hubs wasn’t gonna be an issue. It was all about the investment of the $12 million. We had, and I put it in my report, we had those 28 beds in that same location for a much cheaper amount.
[1:33:15] But we all, or at least I understood that we were gonna have a completely different program, much higher level service, and so I was looking forward to hearing that, as much as I didn’t support the hubs, I was looking forward to being able to celebrate with Londoners what great things were being done with that $12 million, right? That this was a great investment because here’s the lives that were being changed, all the additional support and services that were gonna be offered at the hubs that weren’t offered in the cheaper model that we had. But instead the report says people didn’t even get breakfast.
[1:33:51] It says that there wasn’t even consistent staffing. Council are not supposed to be a question just you’re coming up on your time. Well, I’d like to ask for another five minutes then please. So, Councilor Stevenson’s asked for an additional five minutes. She would need a seconder. Seconded by Councilor Pribble. Okay, all in favor? Motion carries. Thank you. So I’m restarting your timer at five minutes. Did I have some time left there? I don’t wanna.
[1:34:23] 20 seconds. Oh, okay. If you want to, but I’m gonna start timing. So you’re welcome to you speak and finish using the rest of your time. You’re welcome to ask questions and answers as you know, don’t count towards your time. Proceed. Thank you, I appreciate that. And I did this submission in the written one and sent it to you in advance so that, you know, but really what we got were program recommendations for a third party contractor that really aren’t up to us. You know, the city staff even said we don’t get involved in their wages. So again, I just, I really feel like this missed the mark on something that would be so valuable for council and for the public.
[1:35:05] So I guess my question is, was there any look at the services that were being provided before versus now and the value? All of those things that you said were in your working papers, I don’t see it here. I don’t see that there were cost comparators. I don’t see the recommendations that truly say as this council goes forward making decisions, these are, this is how we can do even better going forward. Mr. Braco. Through you Madam Chair and thank you for the question. So there’s a couple of things that I’d like to unpack with that one.
[1:35:38] So time back to my previous response. Something that I do think is important to highlight here is that it is, I don’t want to say, it is fairly atypical for us to actually include or highlight a whole section of strengths. So I would actually point the committee members to that piece. If you are looking for some of the outcomes that have been highlighted there, within that piece, I would point to you to see some of the services that are provided, the range of them being the collaboration amongst partners and so on and so forth.
[1:36:13] I do, and again, that support for the high Q and E individuals. So I do, I would like to point that towards, again, something a little bit atypical within an audit report, but we specifically included that to highlight what we view as some of the benefits that have come, some of the observable benefits that we saw. The second piece with regards to, oh, the other piece that I would just like to highlight in hearing the comments and then questions is around something, and I’m being very transparent here, something that we struggled with, or something that at least I struggled with, ‘cause again, this is not my area of expertise, is falling into a dichotomy of comparing costing of the original model of shelter beds versus the hubs model.
[1:37:12] Quite frankly, it’s a false dichotomy because the work and the effort that goes into and the wraparound services that the hubs focus on in order to move people along the housing continuum is night and day. And so, and I realized that again, as a council, as a committee and as civic administration, it is incredibly important to make sure that every dollar counts, but there are different ways to understand and appreciate value, which doesn’t necessarily always fall into a quantitative model and a quantitative model that can translate into dollars and cents.
[1:37:54] There are a number of benefits that we have observed, and I believe that civic administration is also observed that are very qualitative in nature from the work that the hubs have been doing, even in so far as to the positive attributes or the positive views that other administrations have looked to council as a leader in this space. So, I wanted to make that comment because while I think it is important to focus on the appropriate use of funds to get the most effective economy, it can sometimes be particularly in some of these human-centered topics, an interesting trap that we can fall into where we don’t appreciate the intangible benefits and the intangible values that are realized in some of these projects, which you cannot build models around to effectively capture.
[1:39:06] Sir, I don’t know if you want to comment directly back on that before I go to city staff to see if there’s anything that you were asking about that might be in that upcoming report. Okay, Mr. Dickens, is there any, I know it’s not public yet, but any, I guess, prelude of what might be expected as per some questions that might be answered within that report. Thank you, Chair. And what I might just offer at the high level is that questions around outcomes, people served, some of the details of what we have experienced and what has been produced.
[1:39:44] That will be coming to CAHPS on September 29th and it will be part of that briefing package that council members will be participating in. And then it’ll be enclosed in that report. Councilor? Thank you. I appreciate the comments. And for me, it’s a financial decision that we embark on because we care about people in the humanity part, was such that we were willing to spend $1.3 million in capital costs in a building that was already had 28 beds without adding any extra beds.
[1:40:19] So if I could ask through you, do we know what we got for the $1.3 million in capital? I’ll start with MNP and if it’s actually a city or finding that’s question, I can go from there. Through you, Madam Chair. So I’ll make a comment first and then I will hand it over to civic administration. There’s a couple of nuances that I think are really important to appreciate with regards to the funding in particular. So the funding came from two sources. The capital funding was through a private, a private source and therefore it is, there’s a particular reason why if you looked through our scope, we took that piece out as it was something that is not part of the provision of oversight with regards to the hub’s piece.
[1:41:08] But if I can hand that over to civic administration to maybe comment on a little bit further. Staff. Thank you, Chair and through you, that is correct. The fund for change provided the capital. There was no municipal investment in that capital. That capital was used to create tiny sleeping quarters, which are now located on the grounds of the Elosa hub and all the prep work and servicing that went into that. They were also taking advantage and finding efficiencies in using the existing space they had been in, which was a former treatment space on the hospital grounds through St. Joseph’s healthcare.
[1:41:49] That did require, well, it worked in a pinch to bring people indoors, which was the original intent of the one’s response, just get people out of the elements. It did require updates and some modifications to make the hub space more conducive to the delivery of primary care and to provide for space for people to be able to participate in programs but also to have additional respite beds inside that space. So that is what the private donated dollars supported through those capital projects. Councilor.
[1:42:21] Thank you, great. I think that’s the information that the public wants to hear, you know, is that we knew we were putting extra money in and not getting extra beds. This was the details I think that we wanted to hear. So the same, we were contracting those 28 beds at 600,000 and then we contracted them at 2.1 million per year and operating. And if you did a comparative analysis of this, of those costs, I’m wondering, can you give us a general sense of how we created value with that 3.4 times the operating costs? Okay, I’m gonna highlight those numbers.
[1:42:57] Art and I report the counselors pulling them in their own background data that they’ve tracked. I’m not sure if some of these numbers are gonna be coming as well to the CAHPS meeting. But I can start the conversation. I’m not sure what working papers and data MNP has. But if it’s not on hand, that’s an okay answer too. And if it is just, is this Mr. Dickens nod? Thank you, Chair. Through you all start, I’ll let the MNP team speak to comparators and analysis on the financial piece.
[1:43:33] But in terms of speaking to what value there was between a winter response and a hub, I don’t believe that was part of the scope of this audit. Certainly we had come forward to council seeking direction on previous winter responses and the investment that’s being referenced was also brought forward to council for endorsement and direction. Both were, both those council decisions were based on their merits and based on the service profile that was presented to council at that time.
[1:44:10] Both served very different purposes at very different times. And I believe what you’ll see in the evaluation framework report on September 29th is that they have produced some inherent value towards some very significant life-saving measures and some stability efforts. Would a MNP like to add comment? Through you, Madam Chair. I do, I just, in going back to my previous comments about the difficulty in doing some of these comparators, costing perspective, one thing that we did observe that was, again, based upon the work that we did where we had the opportunity to engage with individuals as well as some of the other service providers were that we saw instances or we were through anecdotal evidence through conversation, noted instances where there were two specific ones that came to note, sorry, I just wanna make sure I have my numbers correct, my apologies.
[1:45:30] Grant, do you have on hand the two specific instances with regards to the police intervention in the hospital stays? Correct, I do. Do you mind going over those very quickly for the committee? Yeah, absolutely. So the hubs are, and thank you for the question, and through you, Madam Chair, the hubs, as a stabilizing element within the housing continuum as we talk to or moving, you know, tend to highly supportive housing and they’re into affordable housing and then into the rental market. So some data that was shared is, you know, London Police Service, Emergency Medical Services and Elegant Middlesex Attention Center revealed that there was one individual specifically that had 231 emergency department visits, but over the two years of stabilization and into highly supportive housing, they’ve only had nine visits.
[1:46:18] So we know that in Ontario, the approximate cost of one individual in a bed for a hospital stay is about $363 a day. And additionally, London Police Services also noted that another individual who approximately had 2,000 occurrences moved through the continuum and into highly supportive housing and had only four interactions, so a decrease of 1,996 occurrences for one individual. Thank you, back up. Through you, Madam Chair, thank you, Grant. The reason that I specifically wanted to bring up these two pieces and, again, while individual offs and anecdotal comment is more to highlight that, again, the complexity of this and I think that everybody is understanding and appreciating the nuance and the complexity of the issue and that value is being observed in a ton of different ways that is translating not just to the dollars and cents as the two instances that Grant was highlighting there, but also to the ability to free up very expensive services that the residents of London and the surrounding communities use as well.
[1:47:29] So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. I guess this is where we get back to it again. The principle of it, we were all supportive. The Council supported the principle of this and this whole thing. This was an opportunity to evaluate what actually happened, right? And to see how it played out, what was the value that was created? What are the learnings for us as we negotiate future contracts to extend this one and to do new ones?
[1:48:03] And so, again, I don’t want to say it that way, but evidence of the idea isn’t, again, what I was looking for in this report. It was our opportunity to drill down and really evaluate what was happening on these two, even to compare one to the other. Was there any learnings to see this worked better over here or over here? This was a way that we can, you know, it’s a value for money. So we are looking to get the best possible outcomes for the least possible dollars so that we can move more people through.
[1:48:39] That’s why it matters so much, right? So the information on the idea of hubs, the value there, and to get into the details of the service here, aye. The other part that I brought up here, I guess, is did we look at all in terms of what was budgeted versus actual in terms of capital, or I guess you didn’t look at capital operating? Mr. Rocco.
[1:49:16] Through you, Madam Chair. So to answer the second question, or to answer the question, yes, we did have an opportunity to look at budgets to actual. And well within the normal aspects of what we’re trying to be expected as we go through, the youth, my apologies, I’m gonna mess up, the youth hub is actually operating at a positive position. And if projections hold out, they will operate as they will come in under budget in the delivery of their services, whereas the assault of family, my apologies, the assault hub will be at a slight deficit.
[1:50:01] Councillor. I guess I’m in a bit of a quandary on this one because, like I said, this was our sample to really look at it closely to see, are we getting the outcomes that, or are the outcomes better for the extra money that we’re doing? ‘Cause people were doing great work and we were hearing these amazing stories from the shelters, it was referred to as winter response, but that was a 24-month contract that we had for those 28 beds.
[1:50:42] So I support all of the help for people, but I’m in the position of being able to justify and know that we’re doing the right thing as we spend far more dollars. So I was looking for those comparators too. How many more people are we helping? Or how much more stabilized are people? Or how much, you know, something that we were getting for this vast increase in cost? It really is a vast increase in cost, you know? And the one for YOU is very— 60 seconds. High.
[1:51:14] But again, we all want to focus on youth and prevention and we know they do amazing work. So is there an opportunity to get what it is that I was requesting in that, in my submission? Is there a way to refer it back and ask for that kind of information? I’ll put it to MNP. Sorry, this one’s probably going to be a tag team between MNP, if you have an answer with the downstairs question, and that might be a civic administration question, knowing what data we have, what’s coming, and if it’s in scope or not, or what data you would even have compared to, or if it’s already within what you’ve been contracted for might be an additional.
[1:52:25] Please go ahead. I’m sorry, I’m very sorry. So through Madam Chair, so I’ve been thinking about this over the last couple days. So, or I guess, yeah, the last couple days. I feel there are a couple of different options that we can look at. Well, there’s probably three main ones, and this might be where I want to make sure that I’m aligned with civic administration on their perspective as well. There is the evaluation report that I think is going to provide a lot of insights and value to counsel as well as this committee with regards to the specific questions that are being asked.
[1:53:09] So not to discount that, because I think that is going to be a cornerstone. If there is a want for some of our additional information to be sought out, I look at it as far as two angles, and this is where I would have to refer to the clerk about how this process could actually work. There is the opportunity for us to work to add things within this report, but there is also from my perspective, ‘cause I have done this with other organizations to provide a supplementary briefing note, if you will, that can be an appendix or something along those lines that can maybe, if there are specific questions that are being sought, that I can look to prepare and submit as is appropriate.
[1:53:55] So I’ve been mulling these things over, and I think that those are options that I would be open to, but I also want to make sure I am being in line with what falls within the terms of reference and appropriate protocol. The staff. Through you, Chair, as we mentioned, there will be the evaluation report at the end of the month, which will report back on outcomes and involvement in the hubs, impacts on highly supportive housing. We will look at the scale of homelessness.
[1:54:33] We will look at some of the outcomes in terms of deaths in the community. We will look at some of the barriers and challenges, but also some of the successes that are experienced. We will look at the impact on emergency services. You’ll see in the report an overview of the workforce component, funding instability, an overview of impacts in the community.
[1:55:08] We’ll have key recommendations, and we will look to provide some recommendations for Council to consider. If my colleague Ms. Ireland has anything else to add, we know we’re good. Councilor? Thank you. I’m thinking that in this moment, it’s something to work on behind the scenes and potentially bring to Council rather than try to do anything on the floor. I will just say that… 30 seconds. Speaking for I, as a member of the Audit Committee and a Councilor, what I would have liked to have seen was recommendations on how we could ensure more effective, efficient contracts as we go forward.
[1:55:52] So any tips for Council as to what we could put in the contract, what kind of outcomes we could ask for so that we can measure best practices, anything that we could do to make sure that we do this even better and be able to reassure Londoners that the 12 million was made a meaningful difference in the crisis in our city. If MMP would like to respond, they can. If not, the Councilor has used up their full 10 minutes at this point, including the 20 seconds I carried over from the first one. I would like to respond if you’re okay with that.
[1:56:26] So through you, Madam Chair, so I completely appreciate that and I do appreciate the openness in the queries and the questions. But one thing that I really would like to impart upon the committee is, if you do, we were very mindful in the particularly the two medium recommendations or findings and observations that we put forward. And I really do feel that they speak to the concepts of value for money which is focused on economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
[1:57:02] If we go and step back and we look at it, fundamentally, we all have an appreciation that the hubs model and what it is trying to do to move people along the housing continuum, there is something there. But we have to make sure that the appropriate capacity and the resources are there to support it. I can appreciate the comment with regards to how do we want to make sure that we bake these things into contracts and all of that. But I think we do have to go back to how can we enable, not through a contractual means, but how can we enable these partners to make sure that we are supporting them in their delivery because they are doing what they can do but they are operating at full capacity with wait lists and there is significant opportunity there to increase their capacity and their resources.
[1:57:48] And I know the civic administration is exploring various opportunities there but I do think that is key. The second one is the original plan and to me, this was the fundamental one that really took me to heart was. The original plan was for there to be the five hubs by May 2024. And to me, that would be the one that I feel can actually show and highlight the value that the city is going through because we’re trying to achieve because of the focus of each of the five on different vulnerable populations to make sure that they have the opportunities to do what they need to do, receive the services that they have, have those wraparound services and then move into more stable opportunities.
[1:58:27] To me, that is the one. That is the one that, how can we support that? Because we want it to do five and then we want to continue on. To me, there’s two and they are doing great work but there’s so much more opportunity there to be able to serve different parts of the population. So I would just, and again everybody loves their own work but to me, those two recommendations, there are those two findings, speak to the fundamentals of value for money and efficiency, economy effectiveness and if we want to do the right thing and think about what we need to do for the future, I just revert back to those because I feel that the value for the city will be well beyond the effort that’s put in.
[1:59:14] Thank you, Councillor Pribble, your questions. Any of you’s about half your time. Thank you. It will be more of a comment but any feedback from the staff or from MNP would be certainly appreciated. I just want to say a couple of things. I really do think we’ll be started with kind of to look at our processes so we don’t repeat or we are not in the situation in the future. I think that would be very, very helpful. In terms of the hubs, I do think and I want to make, I did visit a couple of months at Lhasa and I was there and I talked to the numerous individuals staying there to the staff.
[1:59:48] I saw the mini quarters and everyone is telling me how different and how positive it is. When I talk to the individuals, they actually, I’m not gonna say that it’s a perfect case management but there is actually a case management in place which wasn’t there before. I do think the 40 that were able to leave from there and to provide new homes for them, I think that’s a very positive number ratio as well. So it’s not, and I want to make sure that it doesn’t come from our committee or from some of us kind of in terms of negative.
[2:00:25] We do think that this is positive. We do. This is totally positive, what was delivered before, what is now? And it just, again, going back to it, if we had the opportunity to go into more detail, look at the financials and are there any more opportunities? Is there an improvement? Absolutely, there is. Can we get even more? And I think that’s really kind of the question but I don’t know if anyone wants to comment on it but I do think that these are certainly positive aspects because, again, lives are, I truly believe the lives are being saved and when you talk to the individuals, they are saying that they don’t use the words case management but it is what it is that it does put them back on track.
[2:01:09] It does hold their hand at the beginning when they’re struggling and it helps them with their lives in the future. Any comments would be appreciated? I have no more, thank you. Thank you, start with Mr. Racco and then have City Staffily to add anything. I can go that way, just or you guys can find it out. You both go first at the same time, make things interesting. Through you, Chair, just acknowledge a thank you to the Council for the kind comments. We concur this is some positive news, absolutely. The comment about the best practices and this inherent desire to look at somebody else must be doing something better or are they doing something better somewhere else.
[2:01:56] We’re actually receiving a lot of acknowledgement and reach out from other communities wanting to replicate this model as recently as Tuesday of this week, the City of Toronto, pretty well documented homelessness challenge on their hands has invited our staff to participate in the staff meeting down there to walk them through our hubs plan. They’ve reviewed our audit, they’ve reviewed our hubs implementation plan, they’ve been following along and they’re looking to replicate and create their own intervention in Toronto that models this type of wraparound care for such a high QD population.
[2:02:34] The hubs have been operating for less than two years and we’re auditing them now on a value for money, which is a really small window to audit a service that is trying to support people that have been on the streets some for close to a decade and to see the outcomes that we’re having in such a short amount of time is pretty significant and a bit of a best practice. I’m unsure about what situation we’re trying to avoid in the future as your comments alluded to, but we’re happy to take a continuous improvement approach in this work and I think you’ll see that acknowledged that there are good things and there are many imperfections when you see our September 29th report.
[2:03:14] But that is inherent, I think, across this country, this province and this community when you’re working with complex individuals that have been experiencing chronic homelessness for such a significant amount of time and you layer on chronic health, chronic pain and substance use disorders, it becomes significantly challenging and all that aside, it looks like we’re doing some pretty good work in a very short amount of time. So thank you again for your comments. Thank you. Councilor Stevenson has vice chair. Can I ask you to take the chair and tie me? I don’t have a motion.
[2:03:46] I just want to ramble. Yeah, I’ve got the chair and the floor is yours. Thank you. I just want to thank staff and the partners. Like I said, it involved community partners for this report. I would say II2 was looking for a little bit of that cost and pair of analysis of just dollars to beds, to heads, to progress. I recognize as well too that has been laid out and looking forward to more details coming in the future staff report that some of the savings that seem, we don’t see it at a municipal level. You see it in the ERs, you see it with police interactions.
[2:04:22] Once again, all taxpayer money, we’re as single taxpayers, same pockets coming out of, just unfortunately, we don’t get the bounce back of any of those reductions. Just Londoners across the board get better service for first responders and medical aid. I’ve also had the opportunity to tour both of the hubs. I’ve toured some of our shelters, our shelter space. I got to tour the city’s emergency winter response pop-up for shelter beds as we were tearing it down after residents had used it. All very different interactions with people as we try to do the emergency point in care.
[2:04:55] Let’s keep this resident alive versus let’s provide wraparound support in helping community space for longer terms, realizing, as it’s been said, some of these people have been on the street for decades, there’s generations of trauma, just a lot time pack with people and realizing that some have a community support either of those fellow individuals or housed or unhoused and there’s stigma in past issues with accessing support. So I appreciate this. I’ll say I’m really looking forward to the CAHPS support when it comes.
[2:05:31] I’m expecting some more data of really specific things in there that we can look to and turn to. I would say, as we’ve looked at and discussed shelter beds, emergency pop-ups, I’m also really waiting to see what impact the heart hubs will have on these numbers and services once they get up and going, which I’m hoping is soon ‘cause April has come and went and looking to be able to see as we do our comparative of what their, I don’t know, I hope that we have some insight as it’s not our operations of what their cost is for operating services with their service providers of how many heads and beds they have and how many are progressing through their doors at what cost and what their community partners they’ll tie into as well, as it really is a whole system approach to serve people.
[2:06:17] So those were my comments, I appreciate this. Council, that’s it. I’ll return the chair to you with Councilor Preble on this speaker list. Thank you, I’ll just tie back in one quite thing as I snaggled to the clerk’s committee’s calendar. So we go from audit, this goes to council. After that council meeting, you’ll see that CAHPS report on the 29th. And at that point, you get to see whatever information’s in that, that if there was something you still desired or wanted to, there’s always another council meeting after that that person could pass a motion and ask for more information from certain partners.
[2:07:02] Councilor Preble, you had 20 odd seconds left. Only 10, I just want to clarify something when Mr. Dickens mentioned. I just want to mention that the point I was talking about kind of what we started with, so we are not in the same situation. It wasn’t operational in terms of the thoughts and results. It really had to do with the audit and the expectations. So we all receive, once the audit is done, we don’t question it, we said, oh, I thought it’s going to include this, that’s kind of too late. So we need to be more proactive and come to the same. So at the end, we believe that we received the matrix, what we were expecting.
[2:07:40] That’s kind of what it was about, thank you. Thank you. At this point, speaker, list and times have been exhausted. There is a motion to receive this report and the council’s communication, looking to see if we would like those called separate or together. Separate, please. Okay, so yeah, we need to, the council had her letter and just want to make sure that it’s not lost. So we’re going to call the motion to receive the housing and homelessness value for money audit first.
[2:08:21] So I’ll mark Yays and Nays. Yays, I like a recorded vote that I’m a no. Yeah, and then Nays. And then this is the motion to receive the council’s letter. Yays. Motion carries. Okay, that would take us to defer admirers and abitional business. I’ve not been aware of any. We have nothing for confidential session today. That would move us to adjournment, recognizing we are back together in November. I think it’s the 19th, it’s in your schedulers.
[2:08:57] Okay, it is the 19th and if anyone’s going to be absent, please let me know. As two colleagues did, we can make sure we have quorum. All in favor of adjournment. Motion carries. Thank you, we are adjourned.