February 25, 2026, at 12:00 PM

Original link

1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

1.2   Election of Vice Chair for the term ending November 15, 2026

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Councillor S. Stevenson BE APPOINTED Vice Chair for the term ending November 15, 2026.

Motion Passed

None.

None.

4.1   Request for Proposals for Internal Audit Services

2026-02-25 Staff Report - Request for Proposals for Internal Audit Services

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken:

a)    the report dated February 25, 2026 titled “Request for Proposals for Internal Audit Services which outlines the scope of work including timelines and general parameters to be the basis of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for internal audit services BE RECEIVED;

b)    the scope of work, requirements and deliverables including expectations of the successful proponent and general parameters described in this report for inclusion in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for internal audit services BE ENDORSED;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with the development and issuance of an RFP for internal audit services based on the scope of work identified in part b) above;

d)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to establish an additional meeting of the Audit Committee in May 2026 to complete the RFP Interviews with the short-listed proponents; and

e)    the striking of an Internal Audit Services Evaluation Committee BE APPROVED consisting of the following positions: Audit Committee Chair (or delegate); Audit Committee Vice Chair; a representative from the City Manager’s office and from the Finance Supports Service area; Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports; with support by appropriate members of the Civic Administration including Procurement and Supply.

Motion Passed

4.2   Audit Planning Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2025 - KPMG

2026-02-25 Submission - Audit Planning Report-KPMG

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Audit Planning Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2025 - KPMG:

a)  the KPMG Audit Planning Report, for the year ending December 31, 2025, BE APPROVED; and 

b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a briefing note including projected and actual fees and provide such information to a future meeting of the Audit Committee, and continue to do so on an annual basis.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion BE AMENDED to include an additional part indicating that Civic Administration prepare a briefing note including projected and actual fees and provide such information to a future meeting of the Audit Committee, and continue to do so on an annual basis.

Motion Passed

4.3   London Downtown Closed Circuit Television Program for the Year Ending December 31, 2025 - KPMG

2026-02-25 Submission - London Downtown Closed Circuit TV-KPMG

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the KPMG Report on Specified Auditing Procedures for the London Downtown Closed-Circuit Television Program, for the year ending December 31, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

4.4   Summary Update from Internal Audit - MNP

2026-02-25 Submission - Summary Update from Internal Audit-MNP

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

4.5   Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard - MNP

2026-02-25 Submission - Internal Audit Dashboard-MNP

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard - MNP:

a)  the communication from MNP, with respect to the internal audit follow up activities update dashboard, BE RECEIVED; and

b)  MNP as the Internal Auditor BE DIRECTED to update the following in the Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard:

i) maintain the status of the London Housing Development Projects – Tenant Profile Considerations as “On Track to Completion” until the tenant transition plan is communicated to Council; and

ii) maintain the status of the Homelessness Value for Money Audit (Phases 1 and 2) as “On Track to Completion” until the tenant transition plan is communicated to Council.

Motion Passed

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion BE AMENDED to include a new part to read as follows:

b)  MNP as the Internal Auditor BE DIRECTED to update the following in the Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard:

i) maintain the status of the London Housing Development Projects – Tenant Profile Considerations as “On Track to Completion” until the tenant transition plan is communicated to Council; and

ii) maintain the status of the Homelessness Value for Money Audit (Phases 1 and 2) as “On Track to Completion” until the tenant transition plan is communicated to Council.

Motion Passed

4.6   City of London Internal Audit - Community Improvement Plans Audit - MNP

2026-02-25 Submission - City of London Intenral Audit-MNP

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

The communication dated February 12, 2026 from MNP regarding the City of London Internal Audit - Community Improvement Plans Audit BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

4.7   Housing and Homelessness Value-for-Money (VFM) Audit Supplemental Report - MNP

2026-02-25 Submission - Housing and Homelessness VFM-MNP

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the communication dated February 25, 2026 from MNP with respect to the Housing and Homelessness Value for Money (VfM) Audit Supplemental Report Audit report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

None.

None.

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 1:44 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 59 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. This is the first meeting of the Audit Committee. The City of London is situated in the traditional lands of the Nauschbeck, Haudenosaunee, Lenapawak and Anna Wandren. We honor and respect the history, language and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

The City of London is currently home to many First Nation, Maytean, Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the City of London, we’re grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. For everyone’s information, Councillor Cuddy is ill and will be absent today. Councillor, members Stevenson and Pribler in chambers and Chima is with us online.

So we do have Quorum and we’ll proceed. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. I’m calling the meeting to order and looking to members of committee for disclosure’s opinionary interest.

I see none in chambers and none online. The next time we have is the election of the vice chair for the term ending November 15, 2026, opening the floor to nominations or self nominations. Councillor Pribble. I would like to nominate Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. Councillor Stevenson, would you accept? I would accept. - Thank you.

Looking to see if there’s anyone further, looking to serve as vice chair, seeing no hands in chambers and no hands online. And it’s been moved by Councillor, member Pribble, and seconded by member Stevenson. All in favor of Stevenson for the vice chair, term ending November 15, 2026, which is the end of this term of council. Why show a hands?

Motion carried. Thank you and congratulations and thank you for being willing to continue serving as vice chair. Consent, there are no consent items today, no scheduled items. Items for direction, there is seven.

We’re gonna go through them numerically as they are laid out. I’ll note that if there are presenters online from any of our groups, and if you have connectivity issues, feel free to turn off your cameras if that works easier for you based on where you might be located. 4.1, we will start with requests for proposals for internal audit services. Look to see there is A through E, looking to see if anyone would move that to get it on the floor, and then we can start with questions.

It is moved by Councillor Pribble, seconded by Stevenson, opening the floor to questions. And if anyone would like any part of it called separate, just let me know. Yeah, just 4.1, I’m just gonna go buy them individually. I’ll note that some of our presentations today have, some of the reports today have presentations that go with them, and they’re all items for direction, so just one at a time.

So 4.1 only is on the floor. That starts on page two. Look to see if there are any questions or comments. I see none online, looking in chambers.

Okay, I’m ready to call the question then. All in favor of the recommendation of 4.1, A through E, by a show of hands? Motion carried. Thank you.

That takes us on to 4.2. This is the audit planning report for the year ending December 31st, 2025. It’s a KPMG report. They are with us in chambers.

Traditionally, they have five minutes for presentation. They’ve requested 10. As you remember in the past, I’ve made them accidentally speed read through it. So looking to see if we’re any objections to the 10 minutes.

Nope. Okay, so putting that on the floor, I have a mover and council in Pribble, seconder in Stevenson. Ms. Danbach, thank you for joining us.

The floor is yours to you and your team. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you for having us here this afternoon. We would like to walk you through the highlights of our audit planning report for the year ended December 31st, 2025, as it relates to the external financial statement audit.

We will be referring to the page numbers in our report. And I just wanna say upfront, the numbers we’ll use are the ones at the bottom hand corner of our audit planning report, just so that everyone can follow along as needed. Starting on page four of our report, the audit highlights. So just a reminder, this report contains, the items were required to communicate with you under Canadian auditing standards, as well as a general approach to our external audit plan and some additional information that we thought you might find useful in your governance role over the external audit process.

So that’s sort of all contained within this report. It’s meant to outline how we plan to conduct our audit for the upcoming year. And then we’ll report back to the committee in June with our audit findings at the completion of the audit. Melissa is gonna go over the details of the items on this page in a little bit more detail.

So I won’t touch on too many more from that. There are no real significant changes in the way that we plan to conduct our audit from the previous year. On page five, you will see a couple of things that have changed from the previous year. There are no new significant risks identified as it relates to financial reporting.

However, there were a couple of new auditing standard changes that come into effect for the city’s audit this year. There are really communication requirements. So not really a change in the independence requirements themselves or the scope of the audit, more just a requirement to explicitly communicate which independence standards we are following. And that’s being done through an engagement letter amendment as well as in the audit report itself, if needed.

But I’m not expecting you’ll see any major changes as a result of that. Moving on, I’m gonna move straight to slide seven, which is our materiality. As you’ll recall, that is the highest level threshold we use to scope where there might be material misstatements within the financial statements or a risk of material misstatements. This is done on a preliminary basis based on a benchmark that is consistent with the previous year.

We’ve calculated our preliminary materiality for the consolidated financial statements at $30 million, which represents 2% of previous year total expenditures. One thing I’d like to flag for you as well is our audit misstatement posting threshold. So that’s the level at which we would come back to you with any corrected or uncorrected audit differences that we’ve identified during the course of our audit. And the number, the preliminary number of that for this year is 1.5 million compared to 1.25 million, which was used in the previous year.

On page eight, we’re communicating with you as required the component materialities for the significant components where further audit procedures are being relied upon for the purposes of the consolidated audit. This is really just for your information. We do perform standalone audits for all of the boards and commissions to a standalone level of materiality as well, which tends to be quite a lot less than the materiality levels we use for the purposes of the group audit. On slide nine and 10, we go over the involvement of others.

So management does involve some specialists in the audit. There’s no changes from the previous years, but we are making you aware where there has been reliance placed on others. And on page 10, KPMG does also involve some specialists, particularly our actuarial specialists and valuations as it relates to the fair market value of investments. And I’ll hand it to Melissa to go through some further details.

So starting on page 11, this page provides a summary of balances where further audit procedures are performed for purposes of the group audit. And just noting that this does not reflect all entities where statutory audits are performed, only those relied upon for the group audit opinion. On page 12, this provides a breakdown of components where further audit procedures are performed by the group audit team and the coverage of total assets and total revenues provided by these procedures. The next page provides the same information, but for components audited by our other teams and our KPMG London office.

page 14 provides information on the nature of our planned involvement in the work of the component auditors. page 15 and the next page 16, as well as the summary of our risk assessment. And just to note that it is consistent with prior year. On page 17, this is one significant risk in the audit, which is the presumption of the risk of fraud resulting from management override of controls.

And just noting that this risk is present in all entities. As this presumed risk is not rebuttable, our audit methodology incorporates the required procedures and professional standards to address this risk, which are noted on this slide and incorporated into our planned audit approach. pages 18 to 25 include the main areas of focus for the audit and our planned response. These are noted in detail in this report and consistent with prior year.

So I’m not going to go into any further detail on these pages. So skipping to page 26, there are certain inquiries we are required to make of the audit committee that are noted on this page. So please read through them. And if there is anything that we should be made aware of, please contact Katie or myself using the contact details at the beginning of the report.

page 27 provides the timing of certain activities over the course of the audit. And then the next page provides target due dates to assist in accelerating our audit work. pages 29 to 30 provide information on audit quality, including indicators we will report back on during our final reporting. On page 33, this is information regarding independence, which Katie did touch on briefly.

So I’m going to move on to page 34. This shows the fees as agreed to in the proposal, as well as fees for additional work required due to new standards that were subsequently issued. The appendices include regulatory communications, upcoming accounting standards, of which there are no new effective ones for the current year, new auditing standards, insights which are some additional information that the committee may find of interest. There’s also a page on the use of technology, as well as a report on indicators of financial performance.

In terms of the report on the indicators of financial performance, there is nothing of real significance to note in this report. It is meant to be a value add and for really just for your information. So we’re not going to go into that in further detail, unless there are any specific questions on any of the pages. So that concludes the presentation of our report.

Thank you. It has been moved and seconded and is on the floor that we approve the report before us. So starting our speakers list, if anyone has any questions or comments, I will start with member Pribble. Go ahead.

Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff or to actually to, sorry, to the auditor. I do have four questions. The first three have to do with comparing the previous year and this year. And I have some certain questions and I didn’t find certain actions that were taken last year compared to this year.

I just want to make sure that it just kind of in the description and potentially if they were covered or if they were not covered, if they were not covered, the reasoning why they were not covered. So on the page 22, for the deferred revenue, I didn’t find the perform error calculation of interest allocation to assess reasonableness of management’s calculation. Thank you. To staff, through you, Madam Chair.

That procedure is still being performed. It is just being included within a separate section of the report. So it’s included as part of the vouching revenue within the obligatory funds. We just haven’t called it out separately this year as we did in the previous year, but we have not changed our approach in this area.

Member Pribble. Thank you. So that means that it’s covered. Amplib benefits, DSD, it’s ties with assumptions made and historical accuracy of the estimates.

I didn’t find there one there either. Ms. Denbach. Thank you through you, Madam Chair.

That one is also included within the, both the use of experts in the area of the actuaries, as well as the management override of controls procedures where we review historical significant estimates. So again, no changes to our procedure, just a change in the way we’ve shown it in this report. Member Pribble. Thank you, follow-up through the chair.

Page 2425, when it talks about risk assessment summary, we used to have two columns and it was current year and also we had two current and previous year. And this year, the current one, it’s missing. If you can please comment on that why that one is not included this year. Ms.

Denbach. Through you, Madam Chair, we simply removed the column. We felt that was redundant because there were no changes from the previous year to the last year. Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you for that. And the last question has, it has to do with the financial indicators. And I do greatly appreciate kind of the comparison with the other municipalities, which is very valuable for us. Is there anything else?

I know it says potential limitations. Is there anything else that you would like to add to it? Because besides the graphs and limitations, there’s no kind of any other suggestions, recommendations or overview, anything else that you would like to add to it? Ms.

Denbach. Through you, Madam Chair, nothing further from our end. The report, as you can see from the numbers, there weren’t any real trends or results that jumped out at us that from our view would require further investigation. So really, it’s just there for your information.

Ms. approval? Thank you very much. No more questions?

Next on the speakers list was Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I had some questions regarding the billing for the last couple of years. So the overcharges, so our fees range between say 109 and 120,000 a year.

Additional work in 2022 was $154 in 2023, it was 44,000 and in 2024, it was 65,000. So we’re at 55% of the original planned charge. So I have a couple of questions through the chair to staff. Do we know what the overcharges were or the additional work, I should call it, not overcharges, that sounds better.

Additional work for 2025? I can start with our staff and then our partners, if they would like, also I’ll start with Ms. Barbone and she can hand it off as she sees that. Thank you through the chair.

So we provided a summary of the fees. 2025 is the year that KPMG just presented and is about to do the work. So it has not been completed yet. So the fees and the information that they’ve provided in terms of the billings are in the report that KPMG just went through.

Councillor? Ms. Dembach, would you like to comment as well? Or you’re always welcome to decline.

Okay, nothing to add Councillor Stevenson? Thank you, silly me, 2026 has felt like a long year already. So I guess I have a few questions and likely an amendment as well, is that maybe through you to KPMG, they can just highlight why there’s such substantial ones in the last couple of years. Ms.

Dembach? And if there’s a page number, feel free to reference it and we’ll flip with you. Yeah, thank you through you Madam Chair. No page number really for this question.

However, I will say in the last couple of years, there has been a heavier amount than normal of new accounting and auditing standards. So you may recall in the last two years, there’s been asset retirement obligation, which was a massive new standard resulting in a new material financial statement caption. There was the financial instrument standard which impacted the financial statements. There was the new revenue standard.

There was the standard relating to purchased intangibles, public-private partnerships, as well as group audits. So those all came into play within the last couple of years. And I would say that in the year of initial implementation of a new standard, there is quite a heavy lift, both on the part of management and on the part of us as auditors, when it comes to understanding management’s implementation of the new standard and then developing auditing that implementation and then ongoing auditing of that new financial statement caption. So I would say that the additional charges which were not contemplated in our negotiated fees, ‘cause those were negotiated in 2022, have been heavier than normal in the last couple of years, almost entirely related to the adoption of these new standards.

Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you, that’s good to hear. And then through you, Chair, to staff, I had a couple of questions. One is how are we managing that within our budget, because it’s a 55% increase in fees.

And then the other is, is there any issue with us, the audit committee receiving that final amount each year, maybe at the time we get the financial statements so that we can see clearly for transparency to the public as to what the fees are that are being paid and the work is that’s being done, ‘cause potentially there could be an internal issue that we might wanna be made aware of as well. Ms. Barbelle. Thank you through the chairs.

So at the time the audit is actually presented in June, we don’t have the fees because KPMG has not finished the work. After the committee approves that there is a process that still takes us through, sometimes until August, depending on the legal letters and formalizing. So there are many cases and there are numerous other components to the audit in addition to the financial statements that have to be rolled up and presented and paid. So some of that may not even come through until closer to the end of the year related on what audits, specifically related to the year-end audit.

That’s one component of several other audits that we do that are due to regulatory bodies that we have to provide very specific statements in accordance with the funding agreements. So certainly that’s something we could provide. I just don’t know what time would be, we would be able to say that’s all wrapped up. It is definitely part of our annual monitoring process to answer your first question.

So where there are overages, we may have underages and other lines where we’re looking to balance. So that’s part of our year-end projections in terms of our discussions where we may anticipate some things are higher in some years and some things might be lower in other lines. So when we do our budget monitoring and our projections, we’re providing those estimates to try to see where we’re going to be at the end of the year. So all of that would be taken into account based on what we expect the fees to be, but again, there are estimates until we are finally built.

Okay, thanks. So what I’d like is support with the wording for an amendment that has those final amounts come forward to audit committee for to receive for information purposes. So one minute. So just like a little briefing note at the end as it wraps up of what was anticipated versus actuals at the end?

Yep, I think and with the details of what the charges were. Ms. Barbone, hearing the intent, is that something that’s already within process? That you can pull that out and highlight it or would you need and/or prefer that it’s clear direction recognizing I guess this year’s also an election depending when it comes back, people here might not.

I’d prefer it to be an amendment if that’s okay, just so that it’s really clear. So we’re scribing. Mr. Schultz has been reading it out.

We’ll see if it captures the intent. And then I will look for a seconder if it is accurate. Thank you through the chair that the motion be amended to include an additional part indicating that civic administration prepare a briefing note outlining projected in actual fees and provide such information to a future meeting of the audit committee. And that would be on an annual basis?

Sure. Yeah, I’m looking to make it a best practice. The clerks noted it. Ms.

Barbone, any feedback on that? Annual and just projected in actuals as the clerk readout. I thank you through the chair. So I think the question might be perhaps when that might be anticipated.

So obviously, a simple way to do it might be currently in the audit planning memo. It shows the fees for this year that are projected. We could at that time report out the previous year’s fees because we would know what they are in our year end would be close to complete. That might be one suggestion.

I’m not sure if that would satisfy what the council is looking for, but that might be a simple way to bring that forward so that it’s all tied together and has a point where you see the future for the current year and the past at the same time perhaps. Currently it just reads a future meeting. Simple is good. So if we want to put it in with at this time, that sounds great.

That will be part of the future the audit planning report for your end. Okay. I have a seconder. I have a seconder would be in council approval.

We’re good. We’re on the same page. It is on the floor. What effect is that?

Yeah, I’m looking for support. I think it’s needed for accountability and transparency. It also lets the public understand all the work that goes in behind this and how the audit work does extend throughout the year and all the other things that are done. So thanks to everybody for their hard work.

So this is strictly just on the amendment of that piece of information coming back as part of this annual update. Looking for further comments on it before I call the question on just the amendment of adding back in that piece of what was projected versus actuals, calling the question by a show of hands just on the amendment that we just discussed. Motion carries. Okay.

So main motion as amended which is the complete report plus that addition of getting that piece of information. Continue with my speaker’s list. Councilor Stevenson the floor was still yours if you wish to continue. No, I think I’m good.

Thanks. Although there is the issue of the final amounts for the boards and commissions too that get rolled up into the final. So maybe without changing that amendment, is it possible to have a full reporting? I guess it mixes them up, doesn’t it?

Okay, no, I don’t have anything else. Thanks. Looking online to member Cheema if you have a question as I have no hands and chambers. Okay, I don’t see anything online.

So this is just 4.2 and as that it’s approved for the report we just got and then noting that going forward we’re gonna get the projected in actuals as part of the report calling the question of all in favor by a show of hands. Motion carries. Thank you. That concludes item 4.2.

4.3 is the London downtown closed circuit television program for the year ending December 31st, 2025. This is also a KPMG one. I will let them decide if they would like a brief presentation going into it. And I’ll also note that from our corporate side we have Mr.

Lodecker in chambers with us to answer questions or Ms. Demok, anything that you wanna start with? Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just say not really a presentation associated with this one.

The nature of the engagement is what we call agreed upon procedures or procedures and findings. So really you should hopefully see very clearly what we did and what we found and the report can speak for itself. Although happy to answer questions. Okay, so the proposed motion is that the KPMG report on specified auditing procedures for the London downtown closed circuit television program for the year ending December 31st, 2025 be received.

I would need a mover and a seconder to get on the floor and then we can start with our questions. Okay, I have a mover in Councillor Stevenson, seconder in Councillor Pribble. The item is on the floor. I can start a speaker’s list from there.

And that starts on page 72 of your package. Councillor Pribble, you can start us off. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this will be probably more to the staff than the auditor in regard to those December 10th two cameras. If you can please tell them, let me know how long they were down and what was the reasoning behind it. And also KPMG they provide just kind of the procedures and findings, but not recommendations or suggestions. So if you could, if you could staff please comment on these three questions.

Thank you. Okay, to Mr. Locher. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair.

So those cameras were actually disconnected as a result of construction in that particular area, which was clearance in York streets. So they were taking down for approximately a week so that, and that was at the request of the construction company that was doing work in the area. They were put back up moving forward to rectify that, who is there needs to be communication directly with KPMG when they request a sample that those aren’t available and allow them to pick their other sample so that it’s not us choosing what sample, but rather KPMG and also notifying KPMG when there’s an extended period of time that a camera will be down so that they’re well aware. That was approval.

So thank you for that and that’s in the suggestions or kind of a plan forward in terms of the KPMG, but for us everyday life is there an opportunity that certainly certain cameras overlap and we could cover different angles and maybe cover even the areas that are under construction if we remove them, staff. Through the chair, absolutely. We do try and bring about other cameras if we can cover an area off. Sometimes the construction area is too large that we don’t get complete coverage of that area, but we do take that into consideration.

We do do, we do periodic checks of the system. We do daily checks of the downtown camera system to make sure they’re functioning properly that their date time stamps are correct and so forth. We do as best as we can, keeping in mind that some areas don’t have fiber connections. Some of them are requiring a modem or radio transmission and that causes some downtime as well depending on whether or not there are other events.

Councillor? Thank you very much. No more questions? Thank you.

Further speakers to this item, looking online, looking at chambers, seeing none. And it’s that we’ve received this report all in favor by a show of hands. Motion carries. Thank you.

And that concludes our time with the KPMG today. So thank you again. You’re free to stay. You’re free to go.

You pick your adventure. For the MNP presentations that are the next ones, we have four coming up. I’ll note that they have some staff in line, some online, some in chambers, and they will turn it over to their appropriate staff as they need it. So 4.4 is the summary update for the internal audit MNP.

Okay, so it would originally be that the communication from MNP with respect to the summary update for the internal audit be received. We can certainly get this on the floor and then amend it as we, if needed. I have a mover in Councillor Stevenson, a seconder in Councillor Perbell is on the floor. Just for committee, I had asked MNP if they want to do a brief, a really brief like two minute intro to each one to highlight it as there is four coming up.

And then once that is concluded, I will turn it to members of committee for questions. Seeing no objection, we will start with that. So 4.4 only at this time, Mr. Rocco, and once again, you can turn it to whatever staff you might need.

Thank you through you, Madam Chair. I’ll keep this one very brief. So in front of you is the, in front of committee is the summary update from internal audit. There are two things that I would just like to point out for the committee’s consideration.

The first being that as has become customary and was a request from the committee, we include as part of the memo, the forecasted audits or the plan. One thing of note, and just as a reminder, what is included is only 2026 as planning for 2027 will take place after the process of the request for proposal that London will go through. So there is what we’re planning for the year. The other thing I would just like to bring to committee’s attention and then open for any feedback regarding it is we have completed our audits to date, but for the next cycle, there are two audits taking place, one focusing on the climate emergency action plan and the other on the subdivision review process and putting it forward to the committee.

If there are any commentary or suggestions with regards, we are in the process of scoping. So if there is any commentary or requirements or thoughts from members would be open to that. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll turn to the committee for questions comments. Okay, I will start with Councilor Perbal, I’ll acknowledge Councilor Stevenson after that. I actually thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr.

Aco, you actually answer one of my questions because that was my question is, if you want certain details or the report doesn’t come back to us and then we say we were expecting this and that. So if we do have it today, great, if we don’t, can it still be submitted to you later or does it have to go through this committee and reference to you or if it’s actually a question to our staff, thank you. Thank you to, I can start with MNP. Through you Madam Chair and thank you for the question.

So I would answer that, so timing is obviously everything with regards to these, we do have a window that we want to complete them. However, if there is any feedback from members of the committee, we please reach out via email or a phone call we are available to you. So if there is any things that pop up that you would like to consider and make sure that it is on our radar, over the next few weeks, absolutely open to it. It does not necessarily have to come through this piece as it is a consideration for us as we are going through our scoping process.

Councilor. Thank you, no more questions? Okay, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, so I’m gonna raise the same concerns I raised before in terms of my concerns around the scope being set with management rather than with Council.

And so to me, the intent here is the oversight, the independent oversight. And when the scoping is done with management, it just concerns me. And I didn’t talk about it in terms of the RFP process, but I have spoken with staff about it and I will be coming forward with an emotion later to relook again at having a general, an auditor general for the City of London. I think it’s a worthy discussion to at least look at that option because I feel as though there’s a big gap here.

The other thing is the audit plan where it’s got privacy coming in December 9th instead of October 7th. It seems as though a discussion happened in September and I don’t recall that. I’m gonna go back and look at the video. And then in November, it was in this summary update that per the September discussions, those two audits, continuous improvement and privacy had been flipped to accommodate the election.

And so remiss on my part that I wasn’t more thorough in doing my reading. And when we set the audit plan for the year, there was a lot of discussion and deliberation around that we set it. I’m really not expecting, like I said, I’ve gotta go back and see what happened in September. But I believe that if the action plan, if there’s a request by staff for council to change their audit plan for the year, there should be a staff report making that ask of audit committee and council because I would not have knowingly pushed the privacy audit past the election date.

We could have switched to climate emergency. We could have done other things if it had been more a direct ask of this committee to make a change to a plan that was agreed upon in February of last year. So I’m gonna go back and look at it. I understand that the privacy is an issue in terms of the timing of the election.

And that was fully known last February when we set the audit plan. So I’m not sure if something changed or if there was just an awareness. But I’m gonna ask now through you to staff, is there any way for you to be able to accommodate the audit as was originally planned last year for the October 7th date? Because the MFIPA issues are significant.

And I think it’s something that can’t wait if there’s any way at all that we can do it for the original timing. I’ll start that question with the MNP, and then if our internal staff would like to comment as well. Through you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. With regards to the timing of it from our side in order to work through, we can accommodate a switch with regards to our workflow.

So I would pass it back to you, Madam Chair, with regards to querying staff. Thank you. I’ll start with Ms. Barbell.

Thank you, Chair. I’m just trying to pull it up really quickly. But that did go through the last, and it was specifically communicated at the last internal audit committee that that was going to go occur, and that was approved through the discussion. So the discussion did occur at the committee.

It wasn’t done without the committee’s knowledge, and it was endorsed, and that was revised through the audit committee. So if the audit committee doesn’t support that, I’m not sure why it went through the last one. So certainly that is problematic for staff, but I think perhaps the clerk may want to comment on the timing, ‘cause it would be their area that’s impacted. Councillor Stevenson, I just asked the clerk what would the date of that have been, and he doesn’t have it from.

So Ms. Barbell, did you say those dates were approved by the last time this audit committee sat, or the February when we sat, just if we would like to go back and— So I did look, I did go back and look, and the November report says in the paragraph that we talked about it in September, and the dates had been changed. So I get, and I own that it’s on me, and I’m saying I would like to switch it back, and I’m asking if there’s any way that staff can accommodate if I were to move and have that amendment pass. Okay, so I think we heard from MNP that they can just verify that before we get into it.

Through you, Madam Chair, yes. Okay, Mr. Schultist. Thank you, through the chair.

Unfortunately, these same staff involved in FOI procedures are also involved heavily in the election, as members would be aware, municipal election is one of the heaviest periods of workload for a clerk’s office, so we simply would not have capacity to meet that October change. Councillor Stevenson. I’ll let you think on that for a moment. I could see if there’s other speakers or questions.

We certainly recognize that our clerk’s office does run the elections office, and that’s quickly approaching. Remember, team members not have their camera on, so I don’t believe they have a question at the time. No, he says no, he’s okay. Councillor Pribble, I don’t have anything else.

If not, I’ll return to Councillor Stevenson. Okay, Councillor Stevenson. I’m gonna have to leave it there for now, thanks. So again, this is just that the report before us be received.

I’ll note as always that this still goes to council for our final vote, just at that point. Member Chima wouldn’t have the opportunity to vote on it, but we would certainly circulate any changes to him as a member of this committee to make sure he’s informed. Okay, seeing no further questions at this. Yep, sorry, I do have one.

So is it appropriate for a staff to give a staff report if they were gonna, I’m just looking at how to do this so that it’s very clear in the future, but maybe it’s not because the audit committee is between MNP and us that there wouldn’t be a staff report asking for that change. So I’m wondering how in future, if the audit plan is to be changed, that it’s actually a motion to change it that we approve in committee. So it’s not just part of the report. Do I need to move an amendment to make that clear?

Let’s ask about the current process, realizing audit only sits once quarterly. Those changes are concerned. Is it something that is, especially if council has approved it and it’s a decided matter of council if a change needs to be made, is audit committee a made of it? Or is it a civic administration one that they change the workload and update in less?

No, just looking for process and then I can certainly go back to the council for a followup. Sorry, Ms. Farbona, nodding on you, doesn’t help. Sorry, thank you, through the chair.

So the audit committee directs the work that M&P does. That is why the M&P provides the memo to the audit committee to provide the updates. They’ve amended their updates as the audit committee has asked for additional information and to make it very clear what is upcoming. So those changes were actually made last year as directed by the audit committee.

So the final approval goes from audit committee and then ultimately through council. With respect to what motions come out of the audit committee, I would defer to the clerk as to if there’s a change or something from that perspective that might make it more obvious perhaps. But that’s the role of audit committee is to direct the work of M&P. Staff are not directly responsible for that.

That’s why there’s no report brought forward from civic administration. ‘Cause ultimately that is rolled up and presented from M&P so that the audit committee can provide directions. So hopefully that helps in terms of process. Staff certainly liaise with the audit committee as well as M&P to provide what the constraints are from the civic administration’s end.

But that would be the information that they take to influence what they ultimately bring forward to the audit committee for approval and then ultimately through council. The clerk said he will concur with that. So I will return to councilor Stevenson. Yeah, so what I’m looking for is when we each, this September minute, say we received and approved the plan.

We received and approved the plan. There’s nothing saying we made a change to the plan. And I think that if we’re gonna make a change to the plan, that should be the motion that this audit committee approves and then is approved by council, okay? Because last March, we approved the 2526 plan.

Time out, councilor. And I’ve also been forgetting to time you since this last round. But you’re at three minutes for sure. Are you trying to highlight that the plan changed?

We did approve it, but it wasn’t highlighted that the dates flipped. Sorry, just looking for clarification before I go for comment. Yes, because we needed to approve, I think the motion should have said that we changed the plan. Just one second.

So we’ll go to Mr. Racco. The clerk is just highlighting that depending on the amount of changes or whatnot, that they might not know if it’s not already pulled out to be able to capture that in our motions. Mr.

Racco. My apologies, what is the question? When things get changed in the report. I think it’s me asking, should I make an amendment now specifying that in future, when an audit plan is approved for two years that any changes to it are documented in the motions committee?

Or is that something we can just agree upon? Mr. Racco. Through you, Madam Chair and to the question.

So from my perspective, that would be a matter of procedure at the end of the day with my recollection of how the meeting last September one, there was discussion and then we received direction. I think the formality of that direction is the question at end. From my perspective and the way that we would end up working with the committee and with civic administration, the formality of that and the procedural aspect of that doesn’t really change the way that we would interact with yourselves or with civic administration. If there is a wants to put formality around it, we can adjust as needed.

I’ll work on it between now and June. Okay, the clerk noted that he will reflect as well. I’ll leave it to you to connect offline to see how it could be accommodated or highlighted. Looking further further comments or questions on this one, this was 4.4.

Yep, and it’s that’s received by a show of hands in favor of receipt. And then I’m going to do against as well for it’s noted. Motion carried. Carried with one against just since member Chima can’t see.

That would put us on to 4.5. This is the internal audit follow-up activities dashboard by report from MNP. Once again, they have a two-minute presentation and the motion is going to be that the communication from MNP with respect to the internal audit follow-up activities dashboard be received. If I can have a motion to get it on the floor, I will to them for their two-minute presentation, reviewed by Councillor Pribble, seconded by Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, the floor is yours. Through you, Madam Chair, and thank you again. So the report that is before the committee is with regards to the follow-up activities following the process that we do on the cycle. The only thing of note is with regards to the items that were in scope.

So there were items that we were following up with regards to the London Housing Development Project, the Community Grants Project, the Homelessness Audit and the anti-racism, anti-oppression. There has been, there was a total of 10 recommendations within culminating in those four reports. Three management actions were closed and seven are on track for completion by their current due dates. Thank you.

Thank you, just one second. Thank you, this item is moved and seconded on the floor. You’ve had your brief update from MNP starting my speakers list if there’s any questions, comments to be raised. Thank you, through you, the tenant profile considerations is the status is marked as closed based on a report to the Community and Protective Services Committee on December 1st, documenting how the city is addressing the audit findings.

Yet that report says that the transition plan will be communicated to council in December of 2026. So I would prefer to not have that closed until we actually get to see the tenant transition plan. So through you to MNP, I’m wondering if there’s any opposition to us changing that to on track. Mr.

Racco? For you, Madam Chair, understanding that cycle that’s being set up from that one, I would like to hear from staff as well from civic administration as well. I do not particularly see any issue with that from the process perspective. The only thing that I would note is that as this process went through civic administration put a target for the Q4 2025.

So if we do look to do that, I would just afford them the opportunity to address that. And then obviously put the Q4 2026 as the target if that is the goal to incorporate that feedback or sorry, that update cycle to council. Wouldn’t city staff like to comment? They’re conversing.

Councilor Stephen, sandwich like to ask another question or just wait for the conversion to stop? Well, I can just say that this was an audit of 122 baseline. It’s a very significant concern to the public and the tenancy profile issue expands beyond that into our housing stability programs. So this also crosses into a new council.

And so if this comes off the management action plan, the new council will not have any awareness of the high rating of risk that this played in the audit committee. So I understand that it’ll go to community and protective services in December of 2026, but I think it’s really important that the November audit committee also knows that this came from a high risk audit report. Thank you to staff if you have any comments to add as I know you’re checking dates and things. Our staff still calculated an answer.

Okay, there’s still. Okay, I can, I also have the same request regarding the homelessness value for money audit where it says due date Q4, 2026 right on it, but NQ2, 2026 and yet the status is closed. Mr. Racco, I don’t know if you wanna comment on that one or we could just wait for city staff to, both are procedurally fine.

Through Madam Chair, I can address that one. So with regards to the question on, so stepping back, due dates are placed as we go through and receive management action in working with management and understanding what their response is to the issue and the risk that we are raising, we work with them to set a due date. Appreciating the due dates are there and they were achieved for the set due date. That is, from my perspective, procedurally in line with things, if there was, the action was completed beforehand, that does not necessarily mean they have to wait to that point.

What we would wanna just make sure, and this is through the validation process that we go through, is that we have an update from civic administration and management as to them executing on the action item, and then they provide evidence to us that they have executed on that. So if the, I look at it as two separate things. If the update has not satisfied that the item is closed, that is distinct then the timeline not necessarily being. So from our perspective, when we went through and validated the actions, they, based upon the evidence that we received, were satisfied.

And the timing is more of just setting a stake in the sand, one we’re initially creating the report. Hey, looking to see if our staff is ready with a purg ply, yep, hey, I’ll start with Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so just a reminder for folks, and it has been mentioned, there was a report in December first 2025 related to the 122 baseline as the focus.

The recommendation also spoke specifically to this item in the audit, so that we were very clear that this is what was being addressed with the report. Working with what we provided is direction through the audit process. We feel that we’ve addressed everything that was required as part of the audit. We have recommended some future actions here ‘cause we think it’s very relevant and there’s more work to do on an ongoing basis.

If there is a request for something over and above that what was provided for on the audit, that we’d be coming through a council process, that would be something that we could do more work on as well. Councilor, follow up? Well, I guess I’m just not, I’m requesting that this just stay is on track until the report comes to community and protective services rather than close it saying it’s going to come, let’s just wait until it does come, and then we know that it’s complete and be closed. So I’m just, unless there’s opposition to that, that’s gonna be my request is that it stay on here.

Councilor, so just specifically what page? Oh, it’s page 80 and it’s the London Housing Development Projects number one. The rating was high and the update is that we got a report December 1st, 2025, but that report says that the transition plan is coming December 2026 and that’s what the whole thing was about. Councilor, could you approach me?

I just, I’m having problems scanning. Okay, looking to staff as the clerk has confirmed, he doesn’t have information on hand of, if it’s been revised, the report is coming to caps in December 2026 versus as the audit statement says, it came 2025. So looking to see if there’s class clarification for that, before I can rule if anything’s in order. I’ll start with anybody?

Mr, I’m happy with MNP and then I can go to civic and men if needed. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. So I think we just, I think there’s a, just a clarification piece stepping back here. So if, from our perspective, the recommendations that were provided, or the recommendations that were provided in the management and the response that management provided in relation to those recommendations, is the main column there under 10 of profile considerations, the bold and underline in on page 80.

What the process ends up going is that what management has to take action upon those to, and then satisfy us that they have addressed the items under there. What I believe is in question is in part of addressing, though in part of addressing that management action, there is follow on items that are taking place where the target date is the Q4, 2026, for a subsequent report to go through to the committee and protective services committee, community and protective services committee. So that is what I believe is the piece there. The only thing that we run into, just as feedback for the committee, is that if we, there will, from my perspective, generally always be follow on activities that management is working at when they’re addressing reports that we, or actions that we do, and we just have to, there will be a situation if that we may never actually close off a management action, if they continue to become rolling items, because if we maybe get to the Q4, 2026 report at this point, theoretically, there can be follow on actions from that, and then follow on actions from that.

So procedurally, we just have to be clear with regards to what we’re trying to achieve there, and based upon the recommendations and the management action that was taking place, we feel satisfied with that initial report, suggest those ones, however, it is upon the committee, to provide direction to us as to what they want to do. So the clerk has confirmed we may as far that that report, the December 1st, 2025 report, did to go to CAHPS, was approved to go to council. We’d have to trace back, and they’re currently trying to trace back what council then did with said report, as the chair of CAHPS. So I know that some chunks of some things were sent back to deal with a part of a report, not the entirety of it, and I do appreciate that it’s the cyclical environment that we’re in, but it is confirmed that report was provided to CAHPS on the date as indicated in the note before us.

Councillor Stu. - Yep, and I wasn’t disputing that. It’s that the content of the report says that the key piece that is critical to the public and to me is the tenancy profile piece. So, and I’m not criticizing the work that was done by MNP, and I totally understand why they’re marking it as closed, and I have an amendment prepared that I’d like to move that directs MNP to just keep that on until that tenancy piece comes forward in December, 2026.

I’d like to move the amendment that was prepared only A, so I can read it out, I’m not gonna move B. Okay, the clerk has confirmed that he does have the wording, I do not. If you would like to read it out, realizing member Chima cannot, I don’t know, the clerk would need a few minutes to put it up on the screen, in which case Chima might be able to read it, I’m not sure of his preferred method of seeing the information, but Councillor, I will ask that you read it out very slowly, and then we’ll proceed from there. Okay, that MNP be directed to maintain the status of the London Housing Development Projects, tenant profile considerations, and the homelessness value for money audit phases one and two as on track to completion until the tenant transition plan is communicated to Council, currently anticipated by December, 2026.

Okay, just for those following along, that’s page 80, essentially it is just changing as you would see on it that says, and currently in the report before you it says status closed, that this would change it from status on track to completion with the date of that report. It is, it’s up and on the screen, just remember Chima that you should be able to see it. If, could IT, instead of not that he’s not lovely, Mr. Racco, instead of putting the camera on him, can you put on the screen for a minute, just to give our member online who cannot access E-Scribe, ‘cause we don’t use E-Scribe, but that would be the visual.

Okay, so we have a nod to the Councillor Stevenson’s looking at moving this. I’ll look to see if there’s any quandaries with staff and timing. I can start with Mr. Dickens and/or Mr.

Racco. So Mr. Dickens, do you wanna be first or second? Ray and Elisa.

Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. The language in the motion here links two different audits together, the homelessness value for money audit, and it links it to a municipal housing development audit and a municipal housing development report back. I just need some clarity on why we would leave the other one or change the status when they’re not really linked. Councillor Stevenson.

I’m happy to answer that. So on page 83, in homelessness value from any audit phase one, number two, it says that civic administration, it’s a long paragraph there, but it says an align with future report back requirements to council related to tenant selection. And so there’s in both of these, I would, to me it’s a simple request, just keep it on here as on track to completion until we get that tenant transition future report back to council. It’s really having a very big impact and it’s of public importance and it’s simply asking to keep it on the report for potentially a couple of more reports so that we can be sure that the risks are addressed.

Councillor would be an issue, realizing it’s not seconded yet, just trying to get to have procedural issues if it was called the London Housing Development Projects Lessons Learn’s Review is, as that was the original page 80, that it was under— Yep, that’s great. Okay, okay. We will start with seeing if there would be even a seconder for this before we go too much further. Okay, so councilor, first, okay.

So I will circle back to McEsterdicken’s first here in the councilor’s thing that page 83 has something else and both are moving it to on track versus closed. I also have the city manager with their hand up, Ms. Dater’s Bear. Thank you, through you, Chair.

Would it be as simple as to suggest, and I ask the clerk for his advice in this, that there would be two statements that M&P directed to maintain the status of one and the other in two separate statements. A is not specific to the second value for money audit. I believe that’s correct. So would these reports from staff have different due dates coming back just for what we can put like with like?

Sorry, I don’t like wordsmithing, but I hate even more getting things wrong. Yeah, no, understood. So we’re splitting those two things, realizing they might have different dates back. There’ll be one line for the London Housing Development Projects, and then one for the homeless value for money on it, if we put it back on it.

Good staff, have a look at that. I don’t know if the dates are right, ‘cause I don’t know when they’re coming back. They’re separate now. And Councilor, I’m not sure the currently anticipated date is relevant in it, per se.

I’m not fussy on that. This is just simply, it’s not any extra work. It’s just saying, let’s just please keep it on the open management action plan for a little bit longer. So it can be whatever date staff want.

Staff would look again. Councilor to see if this sounds good to me. Okay, before we go any further, M&P. And then I would look to Mr.

Dickens, or Mr. Dator’s Bear, Mr. Mathers, or maybe all the above? Mr.

Madam Chair, so just for clarity on my part, because I do have to operationalize this piece then, so with what will end up happening is that the items in question will remain, will be switched for on-track to completion. We’ll end up changing the due date of those two, I was assuming it was gonna be Q4, 2026. I believe that was the number that was put up there. And then what will end up happening practically is that for each quarter, we will follow up with civic administration.

It will provide us the same update being that there is a report, it is coming for Q4, 2026. It is on-track to completion. Once that is completed, ‘cause there is a little bit of a timing piece here, this will actually fall into the February update that you will get. There will be a transition, potentially a transition as there will be a, potentially a switchover and service provider, right?

So we have to think that’s a consideration, ‘cause this will not come until the February, 2027. So just, I’m just walking through practically the steps there for committee to consider. So procedurally, I think we have it there. It’s a little bit of extra work on our part, a little bit of extra work on civic administration’s part.

That is effectively what the process will be. That will be stagnant there effectively until Q1, 2027. Is there an extra cost associated with this extra tracking? We go through the, we go through the process of updating and reviewing management action items on a quarterly basis anyway.

It’s part of what we do. It is just, again, more the time and the, it’s in vice-flying back forward during email. Thank you. And then just to staff on another piece highlighted, it might be a misbar bone question that if it’s coming back in Q1, 2027, if they are not the provider at that point, is it still just checking it off?

‘Cause staff, did someone on the other end, or is it gonna be having to implement it into the next contract with a different provider? Just realizing that’s gonna be true of anything that happens though in the next audit. Ms. Berbo?

I thank you through the chair. So as part of the RFP document, one of the things that M&P is currently doing now, and that any future provider will do is, as part of the RFP, the internal auditors are to follow up on any outstanding recommendations. With a change, there obviously has to be a transition, and they need to understand what is happening. This one’s a little bit more complex, because we’re linking to things that don’t necessarily tie to the recommendations.

So that might take a little extra work for the transition, just because they’ll be looking at what’s written here and what has actually taken place. So we’ll need to think about that in the transition plan, but certainly any new provider will have to identify anything that is outstanding, and then perform a follow-up process, and that will be part of the work that will continue seamlessly with the internal audit RFP. Thank you, Councillor Stephen, and you were fine with the wording that’s currently up. Yes.

Okay, I would need a seconder for it, Councillor Pribble. Are you seconding? Okay, so we have a mover and Councillor Stevenson, a seconder or Councillor Pribble, but I believe Councillor Pribble has questions. Yeah, I can start a formal speakers list.

I’ll note that we also already had some information shared by staff, so just concise, Councillor Pribble. Do you want, are you okay with the mover going first, or I know you had questions, journey, and I already made you wait. Okay, so I’m gonna start with Councillor Pribble, he had questions, journey, and I didn’t let him ask, so go ahead. Thank you, sir, to the staff.

I do understand their potential transition, and it’s gonna come in February, 2027, but I don’t mind that, but what I wanna clear understanding is, if I look at the first column now, there are four recommendations, and if those four recommendations have been already fulfilled, and they will not be covered in the transition tenant report that’s coming end of this year, then that’s gonna be kind of challenging for potentially a new auditor to match it up and to make any evaluation. So I would say this, if these four points have not been covered and they’ll be covered, then it’s fine. But if they have been covered, then I believe that MNP needs to add something to the first column, potentially additional recommendations, so potentially the new audit company, they know what they’re actually tracking or evaluating. If I can get a feedback from the staff and the MNP as well.

For M&T. Through you, Madam Chair, to community member, we can make an amendment to the wording in here to recognize the work piece as well as essentially what’s on the screen there, with regards to the transition plan that we will check back to ensure that the transition plan has been completed and reported to the appropriate committee for that target of Q4 2026. And that might, with that suggestion that was made, that might, I think, be the cleanest and most satisfying piece, is that we can highlight these pieces as being covered off given the first item. However, there will be a follow-up completed to ensure that that report is actually presented and covers off the appropriate items in Q4 2026.

So we can amend the language in order to make sure that it is clear. And then it’s a slight deviation from what we usually do, but I don’t think it is overly difficult. Mr. Mathers.

Through the Chair, just to add some, this might take some of the issues away as well. The Council resolution that we have on this is actually to provide it back by Q2 of 2026. So we should have that within the next several months. So this may reduce some of the limitations or the concerns about the change of the auditor possibly.

Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Okay, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, I feel like this is being overcomplicated ‘cause the motion is simply to change the status to on track, just leave it on the report until that tenancy transition plan is brought to council. So not asking for a lot of work, not linking things together.

Just simply, the only link is that I’m asking each one of them to be changed from closed to on track. That’s it. And they both relate to the transition plan, but both of them say that. So as I said, I don’t see it being any extra work.

It’s simply acknowledging the importance of this to the public and keeping it top of mind until that thing is completed. Thank you. The votes for and against are gonna be called on this one, just so you know what I’m gonna call it. Looking online to see if there’s any hands up, there are not.

Member Chima, do you need us to read this out again? No, okay. So all those in favor by a show of hands and against? Motion carries.

Okay, so that was the amendment to it. And then we need to do the main motion as amended in it was to receive the report and then with the change that we just discussed, which hopefully we’re not gonna discuss again for those two tracking things to be changed from closed to on track. Further comments or questions on that before calling the question? I see no hands online.

I see no hands and chambers. Show of hands, all in favor? Motion carries. Okay, that disposes of 4.5, 4.6 is the city of London internal audit community improvement plans audit.

This commences on page 87 and the emotion is that we receive it. So looking for a mover and a seconder for that, mover and Councillor Stevenson, seconder and Councillor Pribble, a brief two minute overview from MNP, realizing anyone online who might want to join us, it’s up to them if they want to screen us on or off. Thank you through you Madam Chair. So the item is the report for the community improvement plans audit in very brief summary.

The scope was looking at the program and then two specific CIPs were selected to review and run through the process to understand how things are operating. So it was specifically the downtown CIP and the industrial land CIP. In total, there were five items of note with the summary of those items being on page 92 of your package. Four of them were deemed to be a medium risk with one being low and just for a clarity, linking back to the previous item.

So the four medium items are ones that we work management to understand their action plan and then follow up on. And then the low will be something that management takes. It’s more of a business improvement opportunity. So it’s deemed low risk and it’s not followed up on.

Thank you. Okay, starting a speakers list on this item. Okay, Winston, I’ll start with you. Okay, thank you.

And thank you for this. It does concern me how often I see things like the remains no systematic process to monitor project level outcomes after incentives are issued. Without post-funding monitoring, there is no assurance that projects deliver intended economic or community benefits, increasing the risk of wasted resources and reputational damage. And this is something that I feel like, get, I don’t know how to incorporate it system wide where we’re outcome focused, that we’re linking the money that we’re spending with outcomes for the taxpayers.

So to just say that we did a bunch of stuff without cracking, whether it’s actually making a meaningful impact in our city is, it’s frustrating. So I guess like it’s good to have it highlighted and identified here, and then a lot of these management responses are Q2 2027. So again, a lot of this is gonna go over into the next auditor. And I guess when we have something that says that there’s no assurance that we’re gonna get intended economic or community benefits, is there any way to get the changes done faster that we’re not waiting for an entire year to make those improvements?

So I guess through you to staff if there’s any comments around that. Thank you, Mr. Mathers, is this one? Through the chair.

So it really is just the amount of detail and the time frames around the outcome information. So say, for example, the industrial development charges program that provides funding back to cover those costs related to industrial development. So going into that process, we have information and where we sell the land to the industrial developer, we have the information and the number of jobs that they’re gonna be provided in that facility. And those developments move forward, they won’t get the funding unless the actual development does occur.

Minor interpretation of what’s being suggested with this program would be looking at that maybe at two, five, 10 years later to see whether more jobs have come forward or whether there’s been any other changes on the site. So there is information on the number of jobs that’s being provided, that’s something that’s being provided as part of the land sale as well to council. So there is that information available at the time, this is just the amount of detail and of us going back and looking at that. For the downtown plan, that’s specifically related to a tax based incentive for refunding the development charges amounts for buildings within the downtown.

So the outcome that we’re trying to achieve is housing units in the downtown. So we could, we monitor the construction, the building ensure that those units have been constructed. We could go back five, 10 years later to see whether those units are still full of residents. They’re very likely are ‘cause that’s why people bring forward these types of developments.

If it was something like commercial property or something like that, then maybe that would be a little bit more relevant to that program. But for the most part, if that building still exists, which if it’s a brand new apartment building, there’s very few of those that are not filled with people right now. So it’s just really the level of additional information that you’d like to see or the time frames about trying to like go back and see how that program was successful. And also just whether you want to apply this to our other programs as well.

So we have over 30 different financial incentive programs. So you could apply that same logic to those programs. And it’s, we have a very small team that supports our CIPs, just three and a half full time equivalents of staff that support it. And they’re mostly focused on actually going through the programs, going through the application programs and also creating new CIPs.

So very much our focus in the last several years have been on creating new programs to be able to support housing, for example, or for affordable housing. So that is a huge amount of the effort that they’re working through right now. We ensure that we have targets to be able to be so that someone is, when we have that application process, that’s really where we focus on ensuring that they beat those needs and then that they’re providing what we need at the time. We haven’t spent a lot of time or effort at this point looking at in five, 10 years, like how was that, how beneficial was that at the time.

So that we can do that. It’s just that would take a lot of additional staff time that we don’t have at this point. So if that’s something council would like to do in the future, we would suggest that be of a multi-year budget discussion. Thank you, Councilor Stevenson.

Thank you for that. I’m also interested on any initial thoughts on the recommendation number two for phase one that suggests possibly incentives to milestones or phase disbursement rather than full upfront allocation. I’m intrigued by that when I’m wondering what staff’s initial thoughts are, Mr. Mathers.

Yeah, through the chair. So in some ways, we have some of those programs like our tax related programs where the funding isn’t provided back for several years. That is a kind of a form of what’s being suggested here. I’d really want to know from LEDC specifically about the industrial component.

This is their main tool to be able to get new development industrial developers to come to development to come to the city of London. So I’m guessing that any kind of further restrictions is probably gonna make it more difficult rather than easier for them to bring forward new industries into the city or targeted industries. So I rely on them for that type of advice but my thought is any more kind of restrictions or changes would likely make it more difficult. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you very much. And through you to MNP, I’m interested in knowing more about on page 96 phase two, it mentions that there’s no documented framework ensuring direct linkage between each CIP goal and a corresponding financial incentive program. I’d just be interested in hearing more about that. Mr.

Racco or team? Through you, Madam Chair, at the end of the day, when we stepped back and we took a look at it, as the statement goes there, we did not see necessarily a documented framework that has that from cradle to grave. It is something that when you go through and you would want to see in programs such as this, that would just something that we saw as an absence. So my apologies, can I cap them?

Is there a specific item that you were thinking but with regards to that, can you let me know specifically what you’re thinking and maybe I can shed some light on? No, I guess when it says no documented framework, so there’s no documentation or is it just needing clarity? Yeah, thank you for the clarity, through you, Madam Chair. So when we step back and we take a look at it and this might just also be a use of language, when we step back and we think about programs, we use the term framework as to be something that houses and essentially lays out in frames the entire thing, soup to nuts if you think about it like that way.

So this is not, and again, please take it this way, this is not to highlight that there was not documentation in place in that type of thing, but when we think about coming in, holistics like integrated item that covers the entirety is the absence. So if that offers you any clarity, that’s where we were coming in. Councilor? It does and I think that sometimes what’s missing is we’re very like, ask oriented, we did this, we issued that, we offered this, but sometimes that bigger picture is missed, you know, and it happened with the core area action plan, it was a lot of money invested into the downtown with really no tangible results, and so we wanna make investments into our city and we wanna try new things and see whether they work or not, but I really need us to be focused, and I know it’s hard and maybe it takes more staff and maybe we need to invest in that, but if we don’t know if what we’re doing is working or not or we can’t show taxpayers the great things that we did and what came of it or why we thought it was such a great idea in the first place, I think we’re really missing an opportunity.

There’s one other part here too where in number four on page nine aid, it says there was no funding cap and a lack of financial forecasting process under the industrial land CIPE, and I don’t know if that’s because it happened so quickly, but I’d be interested in whatever anyone can share on that. Okay, staff? Through the chair, it’s absolutely accurate that there isn’t a cap on those amounts, so we rely on there’s a robust monitoring that takes place of that reserve fund, and that’s part of our reporting annually as part of the city treasurer speak to this too as well, that there’s an annual reporting on monitoring our reserve funds. So the good thing about industrial specifically, even though that doesn’t have the cap, is that we usually know several years in advance, we start working with companies that are looking to come to London, so we have advanced notice of the size and the dimensions that we’re looking at bringing forward, which is what the DC is based on.

So we can start plugging those things into our model so that we know that there’s appropriate amount of funding. The one consideration that I have spoke with LADC about a number of these pieces is that the concern about having a cap is just it may cause some concerns for people who are coming to London as far as the number, whether it will be cap available when they actually want to come and purchase land in the city, so that was the one comment that I did receive from them, but otherwise we very much rely on our robust modeling practices. Councilor, okay, thanks. I do appreciate the report and all of the information in here, you know, understanding too that it’s about how we can get better and I appreciate that.

Thank you, is there further speakers? I see none online, Councilor Pribble. Thank you, no questions, but I would like to make a comment. I don’t know if Mr.

Rocco, if you saw, or if you went through our implementation plan, which we get the updates on a regular basis council, just like any board of directors of any corporation. And I think that’s a great document and all these things should be reflected there. We do have some ABCs and departments within the city hall that do a great job, and it’s really, for me, in my position, it’s great. I see where we started, where we are progressing, or where we have achieved.

The only thing is that yes, we have certain departments or ABCs that you can see that some of them spend more time on it, and they really take it close to their heart, and some of them don’t. But I think that if this implementation plan, if we get it to the level that we would like it to be, all across the board, that this is exactly what’s gonna address a lot of questions for you and for us as the council, as the board of directors. So I just want to mention that, and if you haven’t seen it, you certainly should see it, and take a look at it. Thank you.

Thank you. Looking for further comments or questions. Okay, this is a motion to receive the report of 4.6, the London internal audit CIP audit from MNP, all in favor by a show of hands. Motion carries.

Thank you, 4.7s, the housing and homelessness value for money audit supplemental report from MNP. It will commence with a brief presentation. The motion is going to be to receive it to get on the floor. I’m looking for a mover and Councillor Pribble, seconder and Councillor Stevenson is on the floor.

I will turn to MNP for overview of it, and then I will start a speaker’s list. Thank you through you, Madam Chair. So before you in the item 4.7 is a supplemental memo, a supplemental report that we were prepared at the request of the committee to provide additional information based upon the working papers that we had completed for the housing, sorry, housing and homeless miss, pardon me, the housing and homelessness audit that was completed in the fall of 2025. The big takeaway from this one is what we tried to highlight was provide a little bit of a background with regards to reframing or at least reframing our views with regards to the hubs themselves, provided a little bit of information from the financial perspective of what we saw with regards to youth opportunities unlimited and at LOSA, family and healing services, and as well to try to provide a little bit of a cost comparison when we’re thinking about short-term emergency shelters and the help the hubs model based upon the information that’s currently available.

Within the last page, our goal was to, in being as objective as humanly possible, to provide our perspective with regards to and remembering that the timeframe in which we’re looking at is effectively from December 2023 to July of 2023, given when the audit took place, with regards to the outcomes that hubs appear to be making and that is what we are looking at there as well as providing a little bit of a cost comparison across different types of housing intervention that is available within London. Thank you. Looking forward questions or comments to start my speaker’s list off with, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I asked for this and I appreciated the support of committee and council on getting it back.

And I always appreciate getting data that whatever is available. I did mention that this is just simply details coming from the budget, from the two hubs, which is great to have for public accounting and transparency, but it’s not the evidence of the value created in the hubs that I was hoping to see, right? And I’ve had a conversation with MNP about this in that how do we know that the real question for me as a Councillor is we made this choice to spend a lot more money on hubs than on shelter beds. So, and I did forward to MNP, the Atlosa contract for the winter response where we had this 18 beds, 10 respite spaces in the same location for a cost of six to $700,000 a year.

We canceled that contract, we issued a hub contract at two point something million dollars a year. What I wanted to know was what was the value created with that extra funding? It was three to four times the amount of funding to the same location for the same number of beds. Was there psychiatric care?

Was there more medical care? Do we put more people through where they better off? I don’t know, same with YOU. We fund a shelter beds for them at far less than $11,000 per month hub beds, $11,000 a month per bed where six of the 15 are three bunk beds in a common room.

And I’m not putting that down because I’m sure there’s great reasons for that. I don’t even mind spending $11,000 a month per bed on youth for prevention, but just tell me why it’s so great. Did we compare it to the cost of other cities? Did we compare the hub beds to the shelter beds?

I want to be able to tell taxpayers that it’s good to keep, to continue doing this, to renew contracts at $11,000 a month per bed instead of $2,000 to $4,000 a month for shelter bed. And this is why. And I still didn’t get that out of this. I’m still not sure why the costs went to $362 a night per bed.

And like I said, six of the beds are three bunk beds in a room with the kitchen and the living area, as far as I saw on social media at least. So I wanted to know more. I want to be able to tell taxpayers why our hubs are so much better than the shelter beds at a time when there’s limited funding, limited funding forecast, increased need. Would we be better, hey, we tried this and that was great, but at $11,000 a bed, we’d be better to have three times the beds at $4,000 a month and bring people indoors.

I just want to be able to have data to support better decision-making when the decisions come before committee and council. So hopefully there’s another opportunity to get that. We didn’t get it out of the evaluation of the whole community. Either unfortunately, even though some great metrics were brought to us and the plan for that was, I thought really great and I supported it.

Sadly, the metrics didn’t come. So I don’t know why we’re not getting comparatives. How do you know you got value for your money unless you compare it to something? And to me, we do have, we had existing beds before.

We had existing services at YOU. And I appreciate the work and I appreciate getting the data, but like I said, to me, that could have come just simply from looking at the budget, which we, of course, can’t see. Now, at least we’ve got some data. But I was looking for working paper-type figures to actually show how it was a good decision to pay.

Again, I’m going to say again, $11,000 a month per bed. Further comments or speakers? I have no one online. There was no question asked directly to you.

I took it more as a— Can I ask one quick question? Thank you for reminding me. Sorry, just because then you start and then it kicks back up again, but your hands up. The counselor’s hands back up now.

Counselor Stevenson. Thank you. I didn’t get a chance to see if there was anything that came from the contract that I sent. I don’t think the contracts before us and committee wouldn’t have it.

Counselor— It was related to this. And I’m happy to share it with counsel on the added agenda. But it was— here’s what we were paying before at the same location for the same number of beds. Does this help give us any feedback in terms of value for money?

I really want to be able to sell it to the taxpayers that this was a good move. Us trying to sell something to taxpayers is our problem, not staff’s problem. I’ll also state, just I pause the time. You have 20-ish seconds left.

If it’s on the agenda, Mr. Cheema still wouldn’t have it. We’d have to ask specifically— or if you think about signing something to him, if you want. Mr.

Racco, because now the questions have started again, I will go to you. I’ll also note, if you reach out to YOU directly, I did do a tour there. And they did say whether bunk beds are there operationally to help the youth. But Mr.

Racco, the floor is yours. The council had asked a question. If you could frame it, realizing that Mr. Cheema would not have had information as well as part of your response.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you to address this specific question with regards to the additional contract to be very transparent with the committee. I have not looked into that. It does fall outside of the timing of the scope that we have. I do appreciate through you, Madam Chair, the councilor’s question with regards to that.

And I do think it is an interesting thing for the city to consider, particularly when, if we’re objectively trying to understand and appreciate the value of the Hub’s model. Councillor, we’re just starting your timer again. Do you have a follow-up? Councillor Pribble’s OK for questions.

I’ve seen nobody online. This was a motion to receive the supplemental report that we requested. Thank you for getting it back so expeditiously. All in favor?

By a show of hands? Motion carries. Deferred matters and additional business. We have none.

All note. June 17 is our next scheduled meeting that everyone has on their calendars. For Mr. Cheema online, the clerk will be reaching out.

Once this passes at council, as in the item 4.1, it’s the request for proposals for internal audit services. Part of that motion was that we were going to be calling an additional meeting of audit committee in May. So the clerk will be reaching out for scheduling to work with you for some dates. Just wanted to give you a heads up on that, as they don’t have access to your calendar, like they do ours.

We have no confidential items for today. That would move us on to adjournment. I would need a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Stevenson.

Seconded by Councillor Pribble. A show of hands for adjournment. Motion carries. Thank you everyone, we are adjourned for that May date that will be set up.