June 17, 2026

Original link

Official minutes have not been published yet. A meeting transcript is available below.

Meeting Transcript

Duration: 2 hours, 14 minutes

Source: Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive

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, 14 minutes)

Welcome to my office. Thank you. My phone’s checked from council chambers. Mr.

Chima, can you hear remotely? Yes. - Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay, if everyone grabs their spots, we’re about to start. Hey, welcome. This is the third meeting of audit committee. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Nashback, Haudenosaunee, Lenapawak, and Anawandran.

We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communications reports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661 2489 extension 2425. Everyone’s information, I’m joined in chambers by Councillor Cuddy and Stevenson. Councillor Pribble will not be joining us today. and Member Chima will need to leave around 1.1.30 .

With that in mind, Member Chima, there is a matter for a confidential session. Do you have a preference if you want to change of order to deal with that before your departure? But preferably if it’s going to be a permit to you. No, it will have quorum for all of it as long as Councillor Cuddy and Stevenson stay with me.

I have chuckles, I assume that means yes. So it was just respecting that you’re the one off site and you have a time constraint. Would you prefer the agenda as it’s laid out or confidential first. Adult purpose, whatever works best as we have planned.

Okay, I’ll proceed with agenda as it’s laid out then as we will have quorum. Okay, looking to committee members for disclosures of security interest. I have none in chambers, I’ve seen none online. Consent, we have none, scheduled items we have none.

Takes us to items for direction. Up first, we have the 2025 financial audit. It would have a staff or review, the presentation from 15 to 20 minutes, and then the findings. Could I have a mover to get this on the floor, and then we’ll start with the staff presentations .

Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. I will go to City staff to frame it up for us, and then Ms. Danbock, as always, the five minutes does not work, so you will have 15 to 20, and I see no objections from committee. So when it comes to your turn, you can grieve between sentences unlike before what I’ve done to you.

City staff, Mr. Collins, Ms. Berbone, all yours. Thank you, Chair, through the committee, or through the Chair to the committee, just wanna quickly highlight what was contained in the package related to the 2025 Financial Presentations in 4.1A.

And consistent with years prior, the overview of the 2025 Financial Statements provides why we’re presenting it. And in accordance with section 2941 of the Municipal Act, we also break down the statements contained within our consolidated financial statements, recognizing that our financial statements represent the consolidated entity of the city of London, which includes our 14 boards and commissions, three proportionately consolidated entities and three government business entities. So 561 binder or a PDF document that you have received is very full, some containing a number of the boards and commissions of the city of London. Just wanted to highlight in our slide deck what comprises our statement of financial positions, our financial assets in 2025 increased by 281.2 million related to predominantly for an increase in our portfolio investments, as well as long-term receivables related to development charge deferral and alternative payment arrangements in regards to development charges.

On that note, our financial liability is also increased by 47.3 million. Nor will be due to deferred revenue increases from development charges, deferral, and alternative payment arrangements, as well as long-term debt that we issued in 2025. Overall, from a financial position, our net financial assets increased $233.9 million . The non-financial assets, which is predominantly the city’s infrastructure, our tangible capital assets, increased by $252.6 million.

At the end of the year, the city had an accumulated surplus 486.6 million in accordance with Public Sector Accounting Standards. One of the items that we like to highlight for Audit Committee and for Council is some of the notable capital projects that were recognized in 2025 or were capitalized onto the city’s financial statements. So just to highlight some of those major items, we had the East London Link and Municipal Improvements Phase 3C at Library Avenue capitalized at 25.9 million. We rebuilt the incinerator at Greenway, recognized 22.8 million capitalized.

There was work done on Colonel Tablet Road, the East London Link Phase 3A West, Dundas Street, 11.4 million, and work on Oxford Street West, Gideon Drive, intersection improvement, 7.5 million. What we always tend to highlight are the assets that the city assumes based on subdivision agreements coming through from developers. So we’ll be at line 61.9 million dollars of work that were capitalized onto the city’s books, comprising of increased roadways, sidewalks, street lights, and the underground infrastructure such as water pipes, sanitary pipes, and storm sewers. Moving off from the financial statement, we go to the statement of operations.

And in 2025, our revenues increased $185 million over 2024. That’s predominantly attributed to municipal taxation. we had an 8.5% tax levy increase, tax 7.3% from rates, but we also took an additional funding from other levels of government, as well as development charges revenue earned. We also had an increase in our expenditures related to accounting for non-vested sick leave, impacting general government, increases evident in protection to persons and property, as well as environmental services, such as the number of winter events that the city underwent in 2025.

That left us with an accounting surplus of 45.7 million over the prior year increase. We also look at taking an opportunity to revise how we reconcile back to the multi-year budget, particularly the 2025 year. And we recognize that there are main differences related to amortization and how we account for reserve funds. The reason why we had a surplus in 2025 was an increase in investment income recognized, transfer payments from other levels of government , development charge revenue realized exceeding prior experience, and then that was offset with some, or also contributed to it, was lower anticipated expenses in general government, protection to persons and property, and social and family services lower expenditures .

We go on to identify within our financial highlights, Some of the indicators that we look at, and I’ve just highlighted one about seven indicators where we look at our amount of tax rears that we have outstanding. The total amount of long-term debt, our debt principal payments, our tangible capital asset additions, our annual surplus and assessment growth, we compare that to our five-year average. Following that, as mentioned earlier, we do a comparison to the 2025 multi-year budget with the public sector accounting standards budget that you see in the financial statements, highlighting amortization, debt principal payments, capital reserve funds and what have you. And then we do a reconciliation that goes back to the year-end monitoring report that council would have received back on April 20 th, 2026, where there was reported $24.5 million surplus, which was then allocated based on council’s surplus deficit policy.

We then look to add back items to make it an alignment with the public sector accounting standards to get to the $463.7 million surplus that’s outlined in the city’s consolidated financial statements. And finally, where do we go from here? From city’s finances end, we truly want to acknowledge that the way that we were able to complete your 2025 financial statements reflects a strong collaboration between the number of boards and commissions that we have at the city, as well as a lot of our internal parties, such as legal, human resources, ITS, as well as all the service areas who contribute to compiling this information in accordance with public sector accounting standards. I also want to take to the opportunity to recognize that there are opportunities for continuous improvement.

KPMG will highlight two audit committee, some of their audit findings, and financial services recognizes that there’s additional training and awareness required within financial services to ensure that public sector accounting standards are understood, and the timing of information corresponds with the correct fiscal year. So with that, I’d like to turn it over to KPMG to present their audit findings report. And from that, we hope that this will go to council to approve the consolidated financial statements so that we can make the final version available to the public in July, end of July, once we receive sign off. Thank you.

Thank you to committee members and visiting councilor Troso. If you have questions, just hold them on top of the presentation and if you note page number or whatnot, just take note of that as some of the information and back documents are extensive. I’ll also note that on some items that were coming up. There are delegation requests from Mr.

Wallace who is enjoying our company for the full day. So I do take note of that and thank you for staying with us. Ms. Danbach, the floor is yours when you’re ready.

There’s a presentation going on screen, so just toggle at will so you can see it. Thank you very much for having us here. And through to you, Madam Chair, we’d like to walk you through the highlights of our audit findings report. We do appreciate the extra time that you’ve given us and we’ll try to be succinct and focusing on the things we think are most important for you to hear.

Just before we get started, I wanna make sure everyone is following along with the right version of our report. So you will see in the agenda at 4.1.B was our initial findings report as of May 29th that had some procedures. We were still working on at that time and in performing our procedures over the consolidation of the boards and commissions into the city’s financial statements. We did identify further audit differences that we were required to communicate with you.

So that’s where you will see we have provided an amended report as of June 10 thought has been included as item 4.1 point B a. This is the most up-to-date version, and this is what we’ll be walking through with you today. And I believe it starts on page 615 of your amended package. So I just wanted to make that clear and also to say that as we walk through the page numbers that we will be referring to are the ones in our report at the bottom right hand side, just so everyone’s clear.

So with that , just want to briefly remind everyone this report contains everything that we are required to to communicate with you in your governance roles over the external audit process. So the required communications under Canadian auditing standards, as well as other items that we feel you should be aware of in that role. We’ve included some highlights here about Melissa and Emily are gonna go through those in a little bit more detail. So I won’t touch on them on this slide specifically.

But I did also wanna mention the status of the audit. So our audit is substantially complete with a few procedures remaining. As of the date of this report, we actually have a few more we can cross off today, including grant revenue, deferred revenue, and the procedures over the consolidation work book. And then other than that, we have a few remaining procedures over investments to TCA, legal and journal entry testing, as well as final reviews and sign-offs of our file, having our conversations with the committee here today and obtaining evidence of council’s approval of the financial statements.

And at that point, we will issue our standard management representation letter and we’ll be able to finalize our work and anticipate issuing a clean or an unmodified auditor’s report. Okay, so the next few pages focus on areas that we wanted to highlight from the audit. So beginning on page six, this highlights prepaid expenses. So for the end of the year, December 31st, 2025, total prepaid expenses are around 45 million.

We did not identify any risks of material misstatement relating to prepaid expenses. However, given that it is material quantitatively , we do perform procedures over this caption. And during our testing over prepaids, it was noted that a payment for one of the items picked up for testing did not occur until January 2026 and did not relate to 2025. And as a result, the prepaid expenses and accounts payable and accrued liabilities were overstated by approximately 2 million.

This was left uncorrect ed in the consolidated financial statements and further information on this can be seen further down in the uncorrected misstatement and on page 13. Moving on to page 7 for loans and long-term receivable at the end of 2025 the total amount of loans and long- term receivables were around 132 million for the consolidated entity and this is primarily made up of three items so loans receivable deferred development charges and alternate payment arrangements and mortgages receivables. We did identify risks of the material misstatement for these, which are noted on this slide, but based on the procedures performed, we don’t have any matters to report here. However, we did want to bring this to your attention relating to the Bill 17 amendments that took place, impacting development charges.

There were changes enacted for long-term care homes effective in June of 2025, and for other development charges effective in November of 2025. The long-term care homes became exempt from development charges, which resulted in amounts outstanding at June 2025 of approximately 5.5 million being removed from the loans and long-term receivable, balance and deferred revenue. However, the more significant change was in November, in which interest can no longer be charged on these long-term receivables, which are payable over the course of six years. In November 2025, starting at that point, the impact of the measurement has been considered to be appropriate, and we don’t have any other matters to report with respect to this area.

Page nine, there’s not really too much on our other financial reporting matters. The presentation and disclosure of the consultant financial statements have been determined in accordance with the required standards, and there’s no other items to report here. We provide additional detail on the uncorrected misstatements on page 11, but on page 10 this summarizes the total impact of these, just noting that these are not considered to be material to the financial statements and have no effect on our auditor’s report. Moving down to page 11, this first item was discussed in detail by Emily.

So the next two items relate to consolidation adjustments. The first relates to audit adjustments made to the financial information of the component. after preliminary information had been provided to the city. And then the other adjustment relates to an error identified by management relating to the prior period, which was corrected through 2025.

So the statement of financial position and accumulated surplus are correct at your end. This is just the income impact from the out of period adjustment. On page 12, this provides information on what is considered a controlled efficiency or would elevate to a significant deficiency. On page 13, we noted some control deficiencies.

In terms of the first item, there was a lack of clarity surrounding revenue treatment for government transfers, which led to an overstatement of revenue and an understatement of deferred revenue in the current period. However, we do note that this error was less than our audit misstatement posting threshold, but could be to further errors have left unaddressed in future years. For the second item, newer staff in the payroll department lacking training in year-end cut-off procedures. This led to an overstatement of the prepaid expenses and accounts payable and accrued liabilities, the statement that Emily had noted, and again, if left unaddressed, could lead to further errors.

Management has developed plans to address these deficiencies, as has been noted on this page. The next few pages discuss our commitment to quality and how we deliver it. So I’m going to skip to page 17. During our presentation of the audit planning report, We noted certain indicators of audit quality that we would report back on.

So these have been included on this page and noting nothing to report or that has come up as a result of these items. On page 18, this is just to confirm that we are independent of the city, which then brings us to our appendices. These include our required communications, the draft auditor’s report, an engagement letter amendment and the management representation letter, just noting that the engagement letter amendment was to address additional communication requirements due to a new auditing standard that came up this year. And then the management representation letter includes the uncorrected misstatements discussed earlier in our report.

And that concludes our presentation. Thank you, Ms. Demok. Anything to add on before we proceed?

No. - Okay. I’ll note that we’re also joined online by Coun cillor Frank. items moved and on the floor looking to see if there’s a speaker’s list of questions.

Member Chima, if at any point you have a question , just raise your hand. I’m watching my screen and I will prioritize you as you’re on your tight time frame. So, I will start my speaker’s list with Member Chima. Thank you, Member Chima.

So, just a quick question on the deficiency. So, great financial progress overall. And just clearly on this, is it? I turn over vacancy issue .

with both of those controlled efficiencies related to training and origin of your staff. I will start with the City of London staff and then anyone else. Through the chair to committee, with respect to the finding related to the cut off issue with respect to payroll, it has to do with newer staff . The issue came about on December 24th in their ace to get a payment in.

they brought it down and when it was realized that was brought down it looked to be a prepaid expense so we wanted to account for it correctly however it was for a payment that would have been due in January of 2026 so it should have been recognized in 2026 not as a prepaid expense in 2025 so we are looking to hone our training material particularly with payroll as they make a number of remittances to other levels of government like CRA and whatnot. So it is training and we are looking and are addressing it . Thank you. Mr.

Chiba. We should that this of all and this this mark on I just curious in terms of the budgeting and resource allegation to the finance department because yeah there’s There’s not a question just to comment, it’s not more, it’s not the individual specifics. It’s more of if we have the right resources, the right skill set in some of those union roles and if there’s any key person risks that are coming out of these kind of things. Mr.

Collins or Ms. Brabant to respond. Through the chair to committee, this one deficiency related to payroll is the first time that we’ve experienced it or have been flagged. And it was mainly attributed to a turnover with some of the more experienced staff taking on other new opportunities within the city and bringing on new staff within our payroll area , which may not have been as fluent on accounting practices versus their subject matter expertise being payroll, which is different in processing pay from processing and accounting for things in accordance with public sector accounting standards.

So we’ve taken note and we will be enhancing our training. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chima.

Appreciate that, thank you. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you for that. And that answered part of my question.

In here it sounded like the entry went from prepaid to liability, which seems, you know, for those of us who know that’s not good, but now it was clarified there that that was a subsequent reallocation. So that makes a lot more sense. My question is a general one around reviewing entries and stuff like that, so not specifically even around new people, but what is the general practice around review and authorizing of entries? Thank you, just to stop.

Through the chair to committee, when it comes to journal entries, there are about three checkpoints. There is the producer of the journal entry based on supported documentation that is required to accompany the journal entries when it comes down to forefloor and finance. It is then signed off by someone at a higher level, either a manager or supervisor who has that signing authority. From there, that journal entry is then taken down to forefloor where it’s reviewed for posting to ensure that there’s adequate supporting documentation with that that’s no different if it’s during a journal entry from providing a payment to be paid through AP, where there is about a couple of sets of eyes looking at it before we sign off on a journal entry, and those types of processes are reviewed through the walkthrough by the external auditor on an annual basis to validate that we have the controls and the segregation of duty in place to make any changes or make any financial transactions.

Councilor? Okay, thank you for that. Under prepaid expenses, it says that prepaid expenses is primarily comprised of prepaid program and employee benefit costs. I’m just wondering what prepaid program is.

Staff, thank you, through the chair. That would be primarily social assistance. Chex are issued at the end of the month and are come out of the bank account, but they’re not actually due or not for the following month. So that would be a large component of what programs would be that are issued in advance.

There are primarily benefits to participants. Counselor? Okay, thank you for that. With the uncorrected misstatements, I was just wondering on the second one, it talks about overstatement of prepaid expenses and social housing expense.

So I just wanted to confirm that even though we’re uncorrected in the misstatements, and this will probably be for staff, but is it impacting any reporting of funding provincially or federally to staff? Through the chair to committee, there’s a lot of considerations when it comes to looking at the statement. One is, A, this is a consolidated report for some consolidated. The other aim that needs to be taken into consideration is that for those provincial programs, they have their separate reviews that are undertaken periodically to ensure that the funding aligns with the expenditures that are occurred.

So there are a number of checks and balances in place, particularly when we’re dealing with other levels of government funding. And that’s why we have a lot of special audits that our auditors assist with to report out to the province. Thank you. Councilor.

Thank you. So I’m hearing that there’s no concern that there’s a misstatement on one of those. Okay, perfect. And then I think I was just curious what the period correction was, the prior year error from Covent Garden Marketplace ‘cause it’s 1.5 million.

Okay, to staff or KPMG? So this related to something that was identified by management in the current year when they were doing the consolidation adjustments for one of the boards and commissions, where they noted that last year, one of the eliminating entries was not, was incorrect by 1.5 million. So this entry was made to correct for the adjustment that should have been made in the prior year. So it’s strictly related to one of the eliminating entries for this board and commission.

Councillor. Okay, thanks. But that’s one of those journal entries with the three reviews, right? staff.

Through the Chair Committee know that that would be part of the consolidation process that happens during the audit upon the city taking receipt of the financial statements coming from the boards and commissions. So there’s a process where we have to wait until the boards and commissions conduct their audit and they’re reviewed to provide us the numbers so that we can understand what the elimination entries would be. So it depends on the timing when we receive it and how we interpret it. And we were recognizing that our audits are complicated, not just for the city, but for the boards and commissions.

So timing really impacts it and the ability for us to incorporate boards and commissions finances into ours and then eliminate, so we’re not double counting, at times can become complicated when you’re looking at various cost sharing arrangements and whatnot. And in this case, this is one where at the time of producing the 2024 financial statements, we missed it. caught it through the remainder of 2025, we made a correction, and through the due diligence of KPMT, they identified that we correct it, but it should have been in 2024. Thank you.

It sounds like the trickle down effect of correcting things in its year-over year. Yeah. I can only imagine that consolidation. And then just a question.

It talks about lack of clarity surrounding revenue treatment for government transfers. Was there a change in policy or like it talks about PS3410? Was there something new or is this maybe just, yeah, just like further clarification there. Stop.

Through the church committee, this scenario came in with a revenue amount that came in from the province to the city in the month of November. And the details behind that revenue amount was not as clear in order for finance to make a determination whether it related current event in 2025 or an event to have occurred in 2026. So it was booked in 2025 and it should have been booked as deferred to recognize the expense as per PS3410 to recognize it when the expenditure was occurred in 2020 or to be occurred in 2026. So we’re of the mindset that given that this has per this one time we are going to ensure that we go over PS3410 and as the public sector accounting standards provide a decision tree to ensure that as revenue comes in from other levels of government that the producer of those journal entries walks through those steps to make sure do they know what this is for and if there’s any ambiguity then put into deferred revenue until we can source out what that ambiguity may or may not be.

In this case there was ambiguity they booked it to 2025 should have been 2026 so now we’re going to overreach and make sure that a lot of our financial business administrators are aware and informed of what they need to take into consideration and it could just be a refresher but that’s the process that we propose that we are going to take as a result of what was identified. Thank you. Okay thanks that’s the continuous improvement right all the way through just a general question I I didn’t see the financial statements in here which I thought were all had like I’ve got all the letters and the misstatements But the consolidated financial statement was that part of this did I just miss it stuff The consolidated financial statements is was part of the audit committee agenda. It’s about 561 pages so electronically it is available to the audit committee and to counselors as well as we have binders that Prior to distribution we had done asked what counselors would take receipt of the hard copy binders the 561 pages comes in a white binder Previously was a black minor, so it may have been looking for something differently, but it outlines all Required reporting via the notes of the financial s that help inform understanding the statement of operations the financial statements as well as it includes all the consolidated information from our boards and commissions such as The BIAs, Middlesex London Health Unit, LMCH, all 14 entities, and the three business entities that we consolidate with along with London Hydro.

Thank you. Due to past concussion issues, I was unbudget friendly and opted for the printed copy myself. It is, in my office, you’re welcome to it to per use it or copy, I will. I wish I had time for that, but I said no to the paper copy this time.

What I was looking for was I thought in previous years we just had the few pages, right, the income statement balance sheet statement changes, is that in here and I just missed it? Staff. And thank you for the chair. It’s item 4.1 on the agenda.

It’s part of the package. It’s maybe just not in my paper package, so I’ll look at it later. But thanks. I’ll note there’s a regular plus-added agenda based on which package we’re sorting through.

on line to see if there’s any questions from I don’t know that Councilor Pribble has joined us as well online. So looking online to see if there’s questions. I don’t have anything further on this item in chambers. So kind of a last call on that.

Okay. So there’s no further questions. It’s been moved and seconded. All in favor?

By a show of hands? Thank you to KPMG for that. This will move us along to item 4.2. I’ll note that 4.2 to 4.5 is MMP, they can come and have some seat at the table.

I’ll note as well that there’ll be those added delegation requests. In my understanding as we go through these, I’ll obviously do them individually. I will let MMP as well reach out and state what they’re looking for in terms of feedback and scope as we review each of these items from them. Welcome and thank you for being with us in person .

This is 4.2, the summary update from internal audit MNP. I’ll do a mover and seconder to get it on the floor. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. I’ll turn the floor to MNP for this one first and then I will go to Mr.

Chima first so if he has any questions, just I know he’s on the timeline. So Mr. Racco, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Through you, Madam Chair. So before you is the summary update from from internal audit, a couple of things I’d just like to point out to committee first. As part of the memo, we provide an update on the internal audit plan of where it’s sitting as far as a status, something I’d just like to note is there was a change to the timing of the Privacy Act, now reporting in the October 2026 timeframe and the continuous improvement audit, effectively those have switched, and this was as a request of the audit committee previously. The other item I would like to point forward because it is a slight departure on process that we’ve done before is that you will notice that there is the request or the opportunity we’re putting forward for the committee to provide comment on both the scoping for the privacy audit as well as the continuous improvement audit.

Usually we look to ask for it in the item proceeding or the meeting proceeding however given the timing of the October and then the December they follow quite quickly with the the schedule for this year. So we’re just putting that forward to the committee that we would appreciate any feedback on either of those audit scope items, whether they be here or via other means. And then the last item I would just like to note and it actually ties into the following item, which is the follow-up activities that we have. But we did incorporate the resolution at the direction of municipal council with regards to the select follow-up items for specifically for the London housing development projects.

and the homelessness audit. So I just wanted to bring those to the attention of the committee, thank you. Thank you. So on page 55, you’ll see the high level scope for the privacy and continuous improvement audit.

So if we have feedback today, we can provide it where you can reach out individually. Mr. Chima, any comments on this one to start us off? Okay, looking to members of the committee in chambers or online, I will start with Councillor Stevenson .

Thank you, just a couple of things. Could you talk a little bit more about the high- level scope for the privacy in terms of Amphipas specifically , how, what we’ll be looked at in terms of those? Mr. Racco?

Thank you, through you Madam Chair, to committee and to the Councillor. So yeah, I appreciate that. So for background, so Amphipa is going through several legislative amendments, specifically as a result of Bill 194 and Bill 97. And there’s an implementation, a phased implementation of that from 2025 through to 2027.

So what we are specifically looking to understand and appreciate and provide feedback to the city as well as to the committee and to council is how the city is effectively responding to those limits to the requirements and those legislative changes, making them into process and making sure that we are remaining compliant given the changes that are taking place. So we’re gonna have a broader program, a few of things, but with a specific focus considering those changes to Amphipa. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you.

So my concern around the Amphipas is the red actions that I’m seeing. So will that be looked at? Like I understand there’s like an appeal process on that, but just from whatever kind of audit this is, is that something that could be incorporated, Mr. Rocco?

Can I, sorry, can I just ask for a clarification? Absolutely. Can I just ask for a clarification, like reaction, I’m just curious if you can extrapolate on that, ‘cause we, through you, Madam Chair, that can be considered in baked-in, if there’s further clarity that you can provide about the specific item. Councilor.

Okay, perfect, and I can do that through email, but basically, we’ve been, counselors have to file an MFAPA to see the contracts for the homeless providers and various levels of the budgets from complete to partial have the budgets redacted. So I’ll follow up on that by email. And the other part is I just wanna confirm because it says on here regarding the homeless value for many audit that these items will remain at the status until the tenant transition plan is communicated to council. And I just wanna be clear and maybe it’s through you, Chair to staff, but there was a Council-approved motion to have it come to, I believe, governance working group.

Then I had a subsequent one where it came to Council via email, and I just want to confirm with staff that that is still coming through the original one to a governance working group or whatever committee it was that that was coming to. Thank you, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, through you, Chair.

There are sort of two reports tied to this. So one is the tenant placement policy, which was different than a tenant transition plan . So the tenant placement policy was what was circulated to all of council. The tenant transition plan is to report that Mr.

May, there’s this team brought forward related to 122 baseline that just recently went to CAPS and will be considered at council. Councilor? Okay, thanks. I’ll look back at that and get clarity.

That’s all for now, thanks. Okay, looking for further questions or comments . Hey, if a member, Pribble has anything, you put a screen online. In the meantime, I’ll go to Councilor Tristan.

Thank you, thank you very much. This is my first audit committee, and I’m not a member of the committee, but I’m very interested in the field of privacy. And the thing with the field of privacy is, sometimes there’s an effort to comply with privacy obligations and not get privacy complaints, an overly protective view of privacy is taken, which is fine in so far as privacy goes. But the problem with privacy policy is if you over protect privacy, that comes at the cost of under protecting access to information.

So I think it’s very difficult to do a privacy audit in the normal sense of the idea of an audit when you want to be careful, you want to err on the side of not having privacy violations. My question is how will this audit ensure that in trying to vigorously protect privacy rights, which is important, they’re not over- protected such as to inhibit access to information . And I hope that’s clear because the trade-off between— Mr. Rocco?

Yeah, if you’re going to answer the answer. Through you, Madam Chair, so I appreciate the question. Privacy is not directly my field of practice. When we do audits like this, we bring in subject matter experts, but what I would say is that Anytime we look at something, any type of topic, we always try to understand that balance because anytime we talk about risk, it’s not necessarily about minimizing or maximizing risk, but optimizing it, right?

There has to be a balance between the one side and the other, the begin and the yang, if you will. So what we would want to do, and again, as we’re working through to scope this out and execute on the audit, we want to understand what are the things that the city must do from a compliance perspective, And quite frankly, those can be fairly objective. So we want to make sure that programs, processes, protocols, all the things that we have in place are meeting at a minimum those standards. And then we have to appreciate where there is opportunity.

Because again, openness and transparency, particularly in government, I think, has to be something that we look towards. So at the end of the day, there definitely is the balance piece. But I do appreciate, in particular, as there is changes in the regime coming through with MPAPA being updated, it is exceptionally important from at least my perspective, that the city makes sure that everything that you are doing from a program , from a process from a controls perspective, is meeting those minimum standards. And they are quite explicit in the changes that are being put forward in those two bills.

So that’s gonna be our first priority. And if there are other things that we can advise upon, we will look to do so. Thank you, Councilor Troso. Yes, I’m still concerned that in taking, a prudent risk management approach to making sure you meet the minimum standards, you may overshoot them a little bit.

And in the case of the provincial privacy regime, it’s the same commissioner’s office that deals with the access to information requests. Whereas in the federal system, there’s different offices. So it’s often the case where you’re in the provincial jurisdiction that in, for example, taking an overly broad objection to an information request on the grounds that it protects privacy could get you out of potential privacy violation, but that same action sets up an access to information problem. So the problem I have with an overall framing of a privacy, what it is, is that the right to access to information, it’s not a constitutional right, but courts have often characterized it as a quasi-constitutional right.

So you have to be very careful that in protecting privacy, you don’t over protect privacy. Thank you, Councillor. say that this plan before us has already been approved by the audit committee and budgeted for. So just to keep your, yeah, just talk about scope.

If you had something you wanted to flag, which he already said he’d bring an independent. Yes, thank you for the chair for me. Yes, what I want to flag is that in, in, in satisfying your scope here, you may be creating other problems later. And I’m, I’m hoping that you have experts not just on privacy as such , but on the interface between our privacy and access to information regimes.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Looking for further comments online or in chambers, is this is a motion to receive? This report of 4.2 calling the question by hand, all in favor of receiving report?

Motion carries. Thank you, 4.3. This would also be a motion to receive. This is the internal audit follow-up activities dashboard, also by MNP, commencing on page I would just like to highlight for the committee was again based on that direction from council, there was that adjustment that we made with regards to several items and we noted them that are have been put on for on track for completion, that would have been in a previous iteration for and based on that direction from Council, there was that adjustment that we made with regards to several items.

And we noted them that have been put on for on track for completion. That would have been in a previous iteration for last cycle been noted as completed, but again, we factored in that direction. So thank you. Thank you.

Look to Mr. Chima online. If you had any questions to start us off, that is a no. So open to others for questions or comments on item 4.2.

Sir, actually it’s 4.3 at this point. I’ll start with Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanna go back to that tenant transition plan. And the dates aren’t on here, but I think it goes back to the initial audit of 122 baseline.

And out of that, it was identified that the tenant mix had changed from the initial plans when the building was being proposed and built, and that the tenant profile that was used to put people into that building was not exactly, but one third homeless, one third mentally ill and addicted, and one third women and children fleeing domestic violence. It was raised in the audit that this was a change that had impacted the building. The recommendation, as I recall, was to harden the building and increase the budget. But this committee referred to governance working group around that change, how that change happened.

It happened that I couldn’t see where there was a council direction for that. It was internally all done through the city. So I guess I just wanna ask through you chair to staff. Does staff believe that the tenant transition plan that was presented to caps in June addresses the issues and has a pathway that will change that tenant mix?

And I believe there’s a report coming back again later in the year. But I just wanted to confirm through you to staff , do they feel that the tenant transition plan that was received in June is enough to take this off of this list? Or how do they feel about leaving this until December when we actually see and follow this through to the end? The ideal thing being that we have a better mix of tenants in that building to provide better health and safety and lives for the people who live there and people who live around us.

You’re on page 57 that first the first one. Okay so page 57 number one to staff realizing thought it’s in front of us and if the method’s taken if you believe it addresses the concerns raised in the could be multiple departments. I’ll just I’ll just speak firstly through the chair I’ll just firstly speak to the June report that we just brought forward to the to the the CAHPS committee. So through that, of course, you can’t change an attendant mix overnight.

There’s processes you need to go through to ensure that that continues to move. As mentioned by the counselor, we have committed to annual reports to provide more information. So there will be a report later this year highlighting many changes in that mix. We are confident working with LMCH that they have the same goals as we do to be able to ensure that the people that are in that housing are people that are stable and can continue to be in that space and be able to meet all of the commitments they need to be able to live in that housing.

So from that perspective, we do have that confidence as far as whether this should come off the list or not, that’s usually something that would be assessed by the auditor themselves. But we do feel that LMCH is very committed to be to making these changes and to support of that transition over time of the tenant mix. Councilor Stevenson. Yeah, I guess I’m just thinking we had this stay on until that was done.

I think I’m okay with leaving it now, but there is that, like, that we achieved the objective to which we set out, right? That we had it on here for a reason. We delayed it, had it on here to ensure, and the point was to be sure that we were being effective in what we were choosing to do. So thank you.

Thank you for their questions on item 4.3 as it’s a motion to receive. Seeing none online, none in chambers, a show of hands. Motion carries. Thank you, that brings us on to 4.4.

This is the subdivision review process audit. It’s gonna be a motion to receive moved by Coun cillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Also looking for a motion to approve our delegation requests from Mr. Walz at this time.

Okay, so that’s part of it, same mover and second er. I’ll go to MNP for a brief introduction, and then Mr. Wallace can have the floor, and then I will also, after that, go to Mr. Chairman if he’s still with us to start us off on questions, or do you have any?

Mr. Racco. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So before you is the final report for the subdivision review process audit, a couple of things just to note for the committee as you had digested this information.

So a slight that we, there was an addition to this that we did in order to gather additional information for the city, which you’ll see in there is a jurisdictional scan, specifically factoring in information that we were able to gather from the cities of Kingston, Kitchener, and Hamilton in order to look at the way that they also go through this process. So that was factored in and you would have seen it through some of our observations, and there is an appendix in there that would have highlighted some of the high level observations that we had from there for your interests. I think that if I was to look to summarize the findings and the recommendations, they’re mainly around that phrase of streamlining. There are opportunities with which the city goes through the subdivision review process.

That allows for us to get to point A to point B, but there are sometimes loopbacks as there would happen with any process like this when there is review cycles that need to go through. And in going through and looking at that, there is some opportunities to stream like that and avoid some fragmentation. So I’ll just leave it at that. And then I’ll pass it back to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. If we can have the Michael Live bottom corner on the side for Mr. Wallace. We’re on, thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you for approving my delegation today. And this is my first as Councillor Troso first in seven years presentation committee and I think it might be my last. But as I’m leaving in a little while, so appreciate the audit. We have three things we’d like to say.

First of all, staff, the city staff, have been working with the industry on the subdivision issue over the last number of years and have made significant progress. Your staff are doing a great job with the leadership under Scott and his team that we are looking at different items. On page one, however, under the scope, and I’m not throwing the consultants under the bus on this, it goes to the direction that you have to give them, which was just discussed on the other piece. Under State Colders interviews, it says it was all staff.

Well, we have a number of organizations within London, particularly the London Development Institute, which I represent, who are proactively working with staff. It would have been great if the consultant, in this case, interviewed us. We may have had some information on how, since we are the stakeholder of the sort of vision process that did not happen . My understanding, we certainly offered and never happened.

In addition to that, we may have helped with where other cities you could scan, which because everyone in my members works in other communities and maybe we could steer them to where they could look at where other communities are doing well or not as well as us. And you know, we would help with making sure the facts were accurate. As was mentioned in the appendix, it talks about requirements of developers in those three other communities and the first line is about participate in mandatory subdivision That’s against the law has changed. There is no such thing as mandatory pre-consult ation.

And so that happens here. Most of my members do participate in the pre-consultation process, but it doesn’t always happen. So we are making progress here. And I think the good news out of this audit, this program audit, remember these are program audits or operational audits, they’re not financial audits, which you’ve just dealt with earlier in the meeting.

So the good news, everything’s in that, what the definition from the consultant is that what medium risk is. I would say from our perspective, the communication lines for us, not just in the subdivisions, but in other development application issues, have been clearly open, and then we have very proactive, productive discussions on how to improve things, and on the subdivision piece, just for comfort level for you folks on the committee side, and the city side is that we are making progress. And I don’t think this audit reflects how well that department is doing and try to make change and make improvements. Thank you.

Thank you. Looking to Mr. Chima, if you have any comments on this to start us off, I see a no. Looking to other visiting members and member of committee, I will start with members of the committee, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. Yeah, the subdivision one was an interesting one and it does confirm a lot of things that I’ve been hearing over the last couple of years, whether the developers are big or small or the complaints seem to be the same. And they are confirmed here. So glad to hear we’re making progress.

It makes me a little concerned about where we began, but so just through you to staff, well, actually could we get a little bit of just a summary from the auditors on this one. I’d be interested to just hear some of the key things that you want us to hear about this report. Yeah, below, beyond Canada, a few more details. Sure, through you, Madam Chair.

So a couple of things to step back on. I do think an echoing the commentary that’s been even Councillor, you just provided there. are, there is great improvements that the city makes in all of its programs and this would be, this would be one of them as well to kind of see the progress that’s being made. I think that the other important factor in general, but from my understanding and from our understanding of the subdivision review process in particular, is that the operating environment and the regulatory environment continue to evolve , right?

And that is specifically relevant, particularly in the last five years. within any infrastructure review process. So I think that has to be taken into account. I do think that, again, if you were to look to section six of the report that summarized some of the strengths there, highlighting, again, the continuous improvement efforts, I think is an important piece, as well as working to make sure that there is centralized information and data available.

When we get into the summary of observations, a couple things as we looked to kind of capture within there. And again, to highlight there was nothing that was a glaring high finding. But going back to my very short preface before as we introduced the item, I really do think there is the theme that we can kind of take away from this process is— or this review is optimization of the process. And I realize that is the most very broad concept to kind of look towards.

But it goes back to that strength that we identified in section six of continuous improvement. So as we go through and as we have the opportunity to make sure that we have as item one highlights, clarification of those requirements at the outset so that we can avoid resubmissions further clarification. Having opportunities where we can have maybe as item four would highlight multi-department circulation, can we actually coordinate that a little bit more ? So again, I think I go back to the opportunities of, Can we streamline to create a quicker way we can go from A to B?

I think, again, is the essence of what we’re trying to highlight within the audit itself. Councillor Stu, that’s it? Okay, thank you for that. I would like to know, so on page 76, when it talks about the clarification of submission requirements to reduce resub missions, Civic Administration is talking about bringing a report back in Q3 2027, you know, given the need for housing and how we hear it slow and Minister Flax is all the time.

It’s the problem with housing. It’s too expensive and it takes too long. So can I just ask why it’s gonna take so long on something that’s so urgent and especially subdivisions when we’re talking about a lot of units? I don’t know.

City staff wants to start us off on this one, Mr. Phoenix. Absolutely through the chair. So that’s absolutely why it has that timing and I’ll give you a little bit of a fact on that.

So as part of when we brought from the council brought forward the housing pledge in 2023. We established a reference group. That reference group is the customer service and process improvement group. Since May of 2023, we’ve met 31 times and that’s we always have our friends from LDI at those meetings and that’s the time that we speak to and look at specifically at anything that the industry is looking to make some improvements to and we have an opportunity to share what we hear from council be able to have an opportunity to share what we can do to improve.

So over that period of time, we’ve, as I mentioned, had 31 meetings. We’ve completed 39 different improvements. And currently we have about 18 improvements on our working list. And we always prioritize a few of those items.

So we have three items that are the priorities. Those priorities are determined through our conversations. It’s not just the city unilaterally saying, is what we’re gonna do next. We have a group conversation.

We have over 30 members of the development community that regularly attend the meeting and we identify what the priorities are. So as our last meeting was in May, we did this effort. So as soon as we complete one of our targeted items, we add any item. And when we did that in the last meeting, we highlighted subdivision process review as a possible item that would be that we could add to that list.

It was decided through that group that that wasn’t a priority for them at this time . And part of that reason is that the subdivision activity has dipped a bit, but there’s other components that are part of that process that they’d like to focus in on rather than have just an overall process review. So that’s what we’ve decided to do is move forward with a component of that and focus on what is really seen from the industry and from our work with them as being what the priorities are. So this is still important and absolutely, we think we should be looking at the subdivision process over the long term, but it’s not something that was highlighted as a specific priority to work on over the next six months.

But we do want to ensure that it’s completed. So that’s why we provided that timing of 2027. Councilor Stevenson. Okay, thanks.

I’ll also note Councilor Pribble and Chima who both left the meeting. So quorum is us three, so you’re all with me. Okay, thank you. And no pressure.

And thank you, that explanation really helps. The other one was around technology. And it’s got a target of Q1, 2027. Can you just give me an update on the technology?

I can’t remember if there was a multi-year business case and we didn’t fund it, or did you get it? And how is that going, Mr. Mathers? Absolutely.

There was a business case that we brought forward to council and that was approved. And we’ve been diligently working through that. There are certain items that we’ve actually brought forward. And there is that due date of being able to have that complete.

And that’s our anticipated timeline. We do provide updates as part of our annual development report or any other opportunity that we be able to provide some more details of it. But it’s well underway. And it’s an exciting thing that’s going to be able to provide a lot more streamlined information, both internally and also providing that information to applicants as well.

Thank you, Elsa. Thank you. That is good. Can you just give me a very high-level view of what we can have to look forward to by Q1 2027 when it’s working for staff?

Absolutely. So it’s actually going to allow more information to be available both through the citizen portal, the business portal that we have. So people, applicants can be able to see where their application is in throughout that process. It’s going to apply to those pre-applications that we were talking about, official plan amendments, still wanting amendments, removal of holding provisions will be more streamlined to be able to look through that process and as well it also, there’s a lot of back-end work that’s taken place to ensure that documents are easily being able to be shared and cataloged within the city’s working areas and that was actually another item that was highlighted in the report is being able to share information between different areas and this is gonna make things a lot easier to be through our internal processes as well.

I’ll sorry. Thank you. I noticed in the jurisdictional review, which I found really useful. So thank you.

Under Kingston, it referred at least to their processes as end-to-end digital workflow. Is that where we’re gonna end up, Q1, 2027 staff? Absolutely, that is what we’re looking for. And that’s what we’re gonna have by that time period.

We’ve spent a lot of time working on different processes over the years, our site plan process is exceptional and we’ve been able to be tops in Canada as far as our processes from that perspective. But we’ve had a lot of work to do on our subdivision process and this is gonna be very helpful moving forward and very beneficial to the city and the applicants as well. Councilor. Yeah, just a kitchener said that they have a highly structured and sequential process that reduces downstream surprises and rework.

So I’ll just leave that out there, that I hear that request a lot. And then the last one for the Kitchener, it said a strong customer service mindset underpins coordination with staff, often providing detailed guidance to help applicants correct deficiencies. And I just wondered if there’s a culture piece as far as London is concerned too, and if there’s anything staff can share that way. Mr.

Mathers. Yeah, absolutely. And I was always happy to learn from other municipalities in and around us. It’s something I’ve been really driving forward through my team, is that cultural change?

And I’m hoping from what you heard from Mr. Wallace today is that you’re hearing that that’s happening. We’ve made a lot of improvements since that 2023 and before timeframe that prior to me being in the role. And I think that’s exceptionally important, because we’re not here just to be a regulator.

We’re here to be a facilitator and to help both the applicants and anyone else from the city of London to be able to get through those processes. And that is a mental shift. And some folks, it’s more difficult. But I very much feel that through our great directors, Heather McNeely and Alan Shaw, that they’ve been really driving that forward with their teams as well.

but it’s exceptionally important to have that cultural shift as well. Just a quick thanks, knowing that housing has been under the spotlight for this entire term of council with all kinds of pressure and changes and things happening. So thanks for trying to move London forward. Thank you, I would say that was long-term progress.

Mr. Mathers and his team working diligently on this, somewhat who’s seen the evolution of two terms of council. And I know that when things aren’t going well, the industry lets us know it. So if they’ve been quieter, I know you’re making good progress.

I’m getting good feedback as well behind the scenes. So thank you for that as we continue continuous improvement and looking to others that we could learn off of. I have no hands up online. I’m having none in chambers.

This is a motion to receive this report by a show of hands. Motion carries. That moves us on to 4.5. This is the Climate Emergency Action Plan audit by MNP.

This would be a motion to receive. I have a mover and encounter Cudi, a seconder in myself, moving at the same time. Mr. Wallace’s delegation request with the same mover and seconder.

Mr. Racco if you want to queue it up and then once again I’ll go to Mr. Wallace and then we’ll come back down for follow-up. Thank you through you Madam Chair.

So before you is the report for the climate emergency action plan. A couple things to just highlight on this and it’s actually similar to some of the commentary I provided on the previous item. It is important and I think contextually the committee and others will appreciate this is that much has changed since the CEAP, the plan itself, was originally established. And I think that that has to be an underlying tone and context throughout this report.

Not only has the operating environment has changed, but again, the regulatory environment is also just generally expectations from the public have changed from the time that the plan was put together to where we are now. I think that it’s also an interesting timing and opportunity and it was very good to have the collaborative conversation with civic administration as we were going through this audit to recognize how ambitious the plan was as it was formed as well as the opportunity this is in front of the city given the fact that we’re going to be moving into a new cycle. There will be a new multi-year plan developed from a budget and strategic perspective and that how there can be lessons learned from the efficacy of the current client emergency action plan that can be baked into its next iteration, which we’ve tried to capture in and I realize there are several recommendations and we can go through them as the committee would look towards. But it really is an opportune time to bake these pieces in and I think if you look at civic administration’s responses, they are cognizant of that opportunity that sits before us for the next iteration given the timing that’s going to be happening next year.

Thank you. Thank you for technology. I’ll go to the upper lower mic as well. Mr.

Wallace, the floor is yours. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you again, committee for approving my delegation. First, I want to actually start why I think Council should congratulate yourselves and staff on the work that’s been done that’s highlighted in this report. As I think, I can remember standing, I think we were in committee room five and we were giving presentations.

And I think I was there representing the only business community of a portion of the business community and making a presentation there on the CV. and we were supportive of most of the components of the CEAP. And I think staff and the city in terms of, if you look at the five or six bullet points that are on the first number of pages, whether it’s with planning, building retrofits, community business engagement and infrastructure, the addition of green carts. You’ve done a tremendous job in that short period of time on tackling some of the objectives that you put out in that report.

So I thought it was, when I saw this, I thought it was an opportunity to come and congratulate you on this. I’m not crazy about how things are categorized, high, medium and low, and based on, and the definition of that is significant control weakness, it might be a standard way of doing a program audit in terms of how it’s defined. But as mentioned by the consultants, like the environment has changed quite a bit, not a physical environment, the environment in which you are working in, in terms of these issues. And there are some things that, you know, is it a high weakness?

If the, it’s, I think they call it a high weakness of control. But if it’s provincial legislation, you have no control. So is that a weakness? I’m not sure if that’s a weakness of the city.

But so I read through the summary of observations and I read the summary of the staff responses and I thought they were excellent and on the right track. So we just wanted to be, we are on the record, the beginning, we’re on the record for the review that we think the program has had a positive impact on London and from our perspective on the development process. And I think maybe it is time to have a review of where we’re going and what needs to be changed in that. And you’re not gonna do that before the next election in October.

So we look forward to working with you as an industry on the next version of this plan in the coming years. Thank you. Thank you. Looking to members of the committee or those online for questions or comments.

I’ll start with Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and thank you for the audit report. There’s a lot in here again. I think what I wanted to focus on was, well, in the summary of observations, it talks about the seep being descriptive and not directive.

And I think that’s a good feedback in terms of, ‘cause it says it does not shape priority sequencing or resource allocation. So it really leaves it as this sort of nebulous thing that we refer to all the time. It also talks about activity-based indicators overstating progress that on track and complete designations frequently reflect administrative milestones, not measurable outcomes. And that’s been one of the reasons why I’ve been not receiving the strategic plan ‘cause we do that there as well.

Number 12, it talks about external legislative changes have eliminated key regulatory delivery pathways. Bill 17, Bill 98, and the federal carbon price removal require a fundamental rethink of several seep actions. And, you know, I found it interesting that Calgary just repealed their climate emergency on May 27th of this year, passed in a vote of 12 to three. Now, they said they’re still super committed to all kinds of doing great things for the environment, they were repealing the emergency.

And so I wonder when it says require a fundamental rethink of several SEAP actions, it does give council the opportunity to rethink the principles behind it as well. Many actions— here, there’s a couple of places here— said no systemic process exists to confirm that the indicators chosen for each SEAP are valid proxies for the outcome the action is intended to achieve . In several cases, indicators measure inputs or process completion rather than the change in behavior, infrastructural or emissions that the action was designed to drive. And again, this is something I see the way that we do our reporting.

Are we just saying we’re 84% complete, we’re 97% complete, we have 187 actions. And we did 175, but we might have missed the ones that actually moved the needle, right? This means that even consistently tracked indicators may not be measuring what SEAP is actually trying to accomplish. The problem is not only that progress is over stated, but that the measurement framework may not be capable of detecting whether real world outcomes are being achieved at all.

I know a lot of time and effort and energy goes into all the tracking and monitoring and that kind of thing. And I think these are some things that we get to really listened to, especially at a time when, again, taxpayers are concerned about their finances. How much are we spending if we’re not getting the results that are desired for the environment? Says, tying the expected results more explicitly to actions is a recommendation of staff labeling and distinguishing between activity metrics and outcome metrics.

Huge, huge if we’re committed to actually making things better in our city and in this world. So I just wanted to highlight a couple of things that were in this report. And just put out there that this is a lot of work . And it may be as time was done by a previous council.

I think a rethink of it in general would be good. Again, it just continually talks about reflecting on process activity rather than outcomes. It says the absence of 20, 30 baselines and quantitative targets for most expected results makes it difficult to contextualize reported progress. I think this is really helpful for this or the next council to really look at the efficiency of what it is that we’re doing.

The last thing I’ll just say, it’s on page 30. It talks about bill 17 and bill 98 prohibiting municipalities from imposing local green building standards and that the federal carbon price removal in April 2025 eliminates a key financial incentive underpin underpinning building retrofit and EV adoption actions. If I can just ask through you to staff, if they have any comments around that, it says it necessitates a reassessment. So I’d love to hear from staff.

Thank you, staff. Through the chair, absolutely. So there has been, as mentioned, like very significant changes from a regulatory perspective. So the ability to actually have what would be originally term as those building standards has been removed through legislation.

And there’s been a couple recent bills that have dealt with that. So we actually will be bringing to the next committee of planning and environment committee a report that speaks to looking at green development guidelines. But those would be, I have to, those are all voluntary and would provide an opportunity to be able to celebrate some of those really great developments that are moving forward and try to provide a little bit more awareness of those developments, but from the perspective of actually having a more like a rigid standards approach, that’s not an option that’s available to us anymore. Councilor, you have 10 seconds.

Thank you, it was about the reshaping what we can realistically be required of development and reassessments. So just if, is there anything else to share there ? They may not be. Seeing as some nose, but Mr.

May, there’s officially? Yep, through the chair. So there isn’t an opportunity for us to do that. So the only way that we can provide something that’s similar to that would be through like a guideline, but it would be voluntary.

I have a comment to make, but I’ll go to others first. Councillor Trissa, go ahead. Yes, thank you. My first question is directed to the consultant.

How is it determined who you interview in these exercises? For the climate change one that’s before us, Mr . Repham? Yeah, through you, Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

So as we go through, so stepping back, we work with, we work to develop the broader items that we look to touch on that’s included within the internal audit plan. Then we get through the scoping exercise, which involves us taking a look at the risks associated with the topic and what we want to focus in on in order to be both cognizant of the time available, as well as the outcomes that we’re looking to go through and provide good feedback to and recommendations to civic administration as well as to committee and council on how the city is either what risks we’re exposed to and how we’re managing them. And then what flows through to that is we work with civic administration to understand and appreciate who we can touch base with, understand who has availability in order to gather information. So it’s through some conversation that we have with civic administration once the scope is figured out, as well as, quite frankly, upon our own judgment of who we want to touch base with and go forward.

Going back to the previous item, we had looked to expand our understanding through a jurisdictional scan, and we sought out like-minded organizations in order to do so. So it’s through collaboration, as well as through our own judgment. Okay, well, if it’s based through the chair, if it’s based on collaboration, why we’re sitting counselors, why were we not brought into this, not to direct it, but given the chance to be interviewed, I really would have appreciated being interviewed , and I think I would have had some insights that would have helped your study, and I’d like to know why counselors were not given the opportunity to be interviewed. Mr.

Racco. Through you, Madam Chair, I think that is a fair comment, and we can take that back in order to consider for our processes going forward. There was not, it was not a conscious choice, I would say, to not include counselors or members of the committee, but it was just not considered considering for this particular audit. So I will take the feedback and we can look forward to that for future scopes in order to understand and factor that in.

Councilor. Yeah, and that doesn’t really help me. ‘Cause quite frankly, I think a fundamental flaw of this entire exercise, to mention the way we’ve implemented this directive of the last council is what was the understanding of the new counselors in 2022, especially when you consider eight of us were new , about what we were expected to do here, and more specifically what legislative authority we have. Much has just been said about the regulatory environment changing, but we have to go back to the fundamental jurisdictional point in the municipal act that says we have the right to make bylaws about “economic, social, and environmental well-being of the municipality.” And I do not really remember getting a good orientation as a counselor on this question.

Now, I happen to know a little bit about this because I’ve read the case law over the years, but I don’t think that this counsel was put in a position where we could have succeeded because we never really understood what was in our jurisdiction to do? Could you comment on that? I’m going to caution here that Mr. Racco is not privileged and part of the council on boarding and his job is into the health of legislative responsibilities outside of the Miss Flax, which we’re already advised on.

Councilor, if you just keep your questions tight to the scope, I’m not going to allow the last one. Well, the scope is why we haven’t made as much progress on the environmental file as many of us had hoped. And I think that’s a broad scope. And I think this is a major, I think it’s a major issue, that you can’t have a city council, not be part of the ongoing process.

And yes, that does begin with a much better onboarding. The other thing I’d wanna ask is, one of the points that you make, and I forget which recommendation it was, it’s the responsibility for implementing this seems to be scattered. It seems to be scattered, and this is a function of an often stated criticism of our civic administration, not in terms of the people in the civic administration, but the structure of our civic administration. And that’s that we have departments, divisions, cubicles, silos.

And it’s never really clear who’s talking to who. When environmental issues put across the different cubicles, silos, departments, and divisions. And one of the things I really liked about the discussion that we just had about the rat infestation is we started to do that. So I guess my question is, how is civic administration and ultimately this council or the next council going to take the learning from your report here?

And despite my criticisms here, there’s quite a bit of very good learning here. How are we going to implement this so we could be making better environmental decisions given the broad general nature of our jurisdiction over environmental matters. Thank you, I’m going to share for this one. Thank you, Madam Chair.

If you’ll indulge me in a little bit of history as to how this plan is organized, the team that supports it in climate change in my area is quite small, but is meant to be a bit of a boutique service to provide consulting support almost internally to actions that are owned by directors throughout the organization. Those actions are specifically assigned to various directors, and the reason it’s decentralized is because they’re very different in each area. There’s work to be done in planning, in fleet, in facilities, in finance, lesser perhaps in perhaps neighborhood and community-wide services, but not entirely none. So each director is accountable for those particular actions assigned to them, and then there is a consolidation and reporting that happens centralized through environment and infrastructure.

I suspect that we will always be looking at some sort of decentralized model unless there was a direction from council future multi-year budget to build a very large centralized team with expertise and everything from fleet to green building standards. We will however be looking at how we’re reporting out and how we are providing the opportunity to connect with the owners of each action as part of a new iteration of the plan. So my next question I guess to make sure is how can counselors better support this work? How can counselors better become involved in this and understand where they are in this organizational structure and how we fit into it and how we can participate.

I guess how counselors can be as it pertains to the audit report that’s in front of us please. Thank you Madam Chair. We find a lot of rules for council with respect to providing input from community priorities particularly as you’re developing or the next council develops their strategic plan as well as through the consideration of the multi-year budget process that would decide what are the priorities related to this file related to the many other important files I think my last question through the chair, my last question through the chair I guess is when I look at the role of the planning committee and when I look at the role of the infrastructure and civic works committee, and when I look at the role of which the other one I’m on that when the community services committee. I see that they all have jurisdiction over pieces here and there of the environmental puzzle and I guess it ‘s always the prerogative.

20 seconds. It’s always the prerogative of the clerk . I’m sorry if I’m taking too much time but I think I’ve sat here for four years and haven’t seen a lot of progress. Okay, particularly Councillor, I’ve sat here for eight and I’m the chair of the committee.

If you have a question you have 20 seconds remaining if you would like to ask it. Yeah, I’d like to know how we can rationalize better the assignment to different committees when even the committee members aren’t really sure what’s within their jurisdiction. Because again, it keeps changing. And all of these standing committees all have a piece of this environmental puzzle.

How can we improve that? Thank you. I would really question of order. As we counsel keeps changing, it’s us that’s changing the committee format and what goes where as legislation changes, that’s an us thing.

Ms. Stater’s Bear, if you want to answer briefly. No, OK. Well, it’s hard for a counselor to try to think about how to improve this situation.

If an ultimate question like that is ruled out of order. And with that, I’ll just take this up someplace else. Thank you very much. Thank you.

The city clerk has also available to go over the delegation of topic matters to each committee and how to address a change if one would like. I’ve met with him in the past and was very useful . Councilor Frank, there you are. you’re on screen.

We’re on, I believe you know, the 4.5 permit emergency action audit that’s before us. I assume you’re here to speak to that one first. The floor is yours. Thank you.

Yes. And I just had a couple questions through you to staff. I appreciate the work and the results that we received from this audit. I can’t say I was surprised because I had been hearing and seeing some of the themes that emerged from these recommendations.

So through you to staff, I just want to confirm that given the, the high priority that a sufficient amount of these items has received, if this is going to be, um, you know, expedited or prioritized in the next year, given the high risk nature that MMP has identified these risks at. Thank you. Miss Chambers, do you want to start this one? Okay.

Thank you through the chair And it’s an excellent question. Yeah, we’ve already started work on looking at the current SEAP and how we can be modifying it to be ready basically for the next strategic plan and the next multi- year budget because we do see changes that have happened legislatively in society as well. And we want the plan to be very relevant. And this audit we feel has helped us because there’s a lot of items in there that we agree with and that we had already started to speak with internally.

So as we’ve laid out in the response, We are in the next year going to be very heavily looking at revitalizing the plan. Just yesterday, we brought forward the adaptation strategy funding agreement with FCM. That’s going to be integral to shaping the next plan as well. So the answer is yes.

We’re definitely going to be prioritizing this to be ready for future decisions for Council. Councilor Frank. Thank you. I appreciate that in the reference to the adaptation plan.

I’m looking forward to that one as well. some recent polling shows that over 30% of Canadians are now being personally impacted by extreme weather events like heat waves, floods and fires. So I think it’s becoming more and more top of mind. Additionally, another polling data app of this data shows that 50% feel their government is not currently doing enough on climate change.

So I feel like it’s an opportune time for us to buckle down and try to make some movement on these areas. And I just want to also check because again, as outlined in the audit, it indicates that, you know, staff asked for about $45 million over four years. We gave them about $882,000 a year, just triple checking that in the next multi-year budget. Staff will come back with a new costed portion of the updated climate plan.

You see some nods, but let’s get a verbal for you , Ms. Chambers. Thank you. And through the chair, yes, the plan is to develop the strategy, which will also include Budget asks part and parcel.

We don’t want to develop a strategy and not have any dollars attached to it. So we will certainly bring those forward for a council decision. Councilor Frank. Thank you, I appreciate that.

We know the saying goes that if you want to see city’s priorities, you look in the budget. So I’m hopeful that next term of council, we see some movement there as well. Thank you very much to MNP and to staff who helped bring this forward. Thank you.

Councilor Karykast, or I procedurally, Councilor Stevenson, would you take the chair for a moment and make comment as a vice chair? Yes, thank you. the chair and you are next. I’m sorry, thank you, just Councillor Cuddy, looked at me first, so I was gonna make him do it .

Just thank you to staff on this one, I know it might speak to some other people’s comments, it’s different reiterations, it evolves. We’ve certainly seen different council priorities based on what we’re seeing locally at the time, the composition of council changes. Staff can always bring the best laid-in research plan forward and then it’s up to council to endorse or not are funded or not, or re-prioritize things as we go. I like that one of the points is alignment of the next climate change plan with the strategic planning has already been identified by Civic Administration as a priority and great to see under another target that Civic Administration is currently pursuing as a member of the Canada’s Municipal Net Zero Action Research Partnership information and funding to bring back from the next MYB, which I think is going to be the priority that it really is up to council for the implementation of implementation and funding.

And I know that we’ve seen goal post changed, reduced or completely emerged, removed based on even in the council that was prior. If we felt the goals were achievable or not or too hard to reach. So looking forward to the report coming back with the next MYB with a fresh term a council on different different perspectives especially since resident engagement will always flow with the as staff go out and do that. Looking forward to see how it comes back and any legislative changes as well as these report come back with our audits.

So just do my comments there that I know we’re not always where we want to be on something. but that’s a decision of a collective we in these seats so I’m grateful for the audit to highlight these and I’m sure it will be part of the budget too that will have the information so the next time we do look at the NYB’s and strat plans and these indicators that there actually is an audit as information from a third party to go back and review and highlights for informational pieces as well. Councillor Stevenson that’s my comments. Thank you and I’ll return the chair.

looking for other speakers online or in chambers. Okay, this was a motion to receive this report already moved and seconded a show of hands of all those in favor. Motion carries. Thank you.

Our presenters today are welcome to stay or go. That’s your official presentations. 4.6 is a request that the city’s oversight of housing cooperative services providers is a letter submitted by Councillor Frank on page 123 of your original packages. Councilor Frank as a visiting member committee you know you cannot move or second it but I will go to you first to at least tell us briefly about what it is and then I will look to see if there’s someone in chambers.

Do you want us to move receipt for now just to get it on the floor? So Councilor Frank we’re not going to move anything at the time I will let you briefly speak to it of what you’re looking for as we have not spoken beforehand so I just can’t guide that conversation so I’ll go to you briefly first. Sure happy to and I kind of outlined the The rationale is to why it’s ending up at audit committee. But this came about when we had a discussion regards to the toll puddle housing cooperative.

When that came forward, I believe it was at CPSC. And we had some discussion at committee and then at council looking at the oversight of our housing cooperative services. We have had some audits done in the past as our reference of 403 Thompson and 122 baseline and those projects as well as other housing related programs. But we haven’t really specifically drilled down and looked at the housing cooperative service providers and the relationship that they hold with staff and with the city service manager, as well as the complex governance that that requires.

And so this is a motion to have this be evaluated underneath of our internal audit plan to look at housing cooperative service providers and the process in which we supervise and work with them and the governance, the town placement, the asset management and the oversight processes. Really focusing at solutions just because we had seen some issues with the toll puddle housing cooperative and I’m hoping that we can figure out what those issues are and move forward. Thank you. So— - Sure, I’m gonna move that for Councilor Frank.

Sorry, I could put my mic on for you to actually hear me. So just looking to see if you’re moving receipt of the letter or if you’re moving that this be requested to be an internal audit plan. I don’t know, Councillor Frank, what would you like me to do? She can’t speak to it.

I’ll note that as always audit goes to council for a final vote and anything can be changed there. Chair, ma’am. So I’d like to move, do you want to move something? So no, I’ll move a new second and then you can, okay.

Sorry chair. So I’ll move the receipt of the letter, but also, I think, Councillor Stevenson, who’s my seconder, has an amendment to make two. So, a nod of, we’re gonna put it on the floor to receive, moved by Councillor Cudi, a nod from Councillor Stevenson, yes. Okay, so it’s on the floor, Councillor Stevenson.

And then, as an amendment, can we talk, well, no, I wanna talk about it first, and then I think I’ll have an amendment in terms of just, I just wanna make sure the wording of the motion is right before we start messing around with it. Okay, so I’ll pause you there. So I had to have a conversation with staff in advance. We can certainly go to staff to see what your questions might be about timing, how many co-ops we’re actually talking about, if they’re actually under city purview or we have access to all their books, is some of them are mandated by us but versus provincial and federal mandates so they might be governed under, yeah.

Well, I think if I can just narrow the scope of that, ‘cause I’m sure it’ll be interesting, but it’s, my understanding, and I haven’t talked to Councillor Frank, is it talks about the city’s oversight of it, so we’re talking about the city’s piece of this, rather than the complexities of all the others, right? But there’s a city piece to this, okay. It depends if a person is interpreting as the city’s funders of it, or the city also has like inspection stuff going on at site, or we’re supporting some residents on site. If staff could high-level speak to how they would interpret realizing where we’re at in the conversation and what you’ve heard of if you have any numbers of how many co-ops or how you would review this?

Yeah, through the through the chair there’s a couple of questions there so the way that I read it and feel free if there’s someone has different interpretation is that it is very much focused on as our responsibility as part of our role as the service manager for the service area. So currently there’s 16 co-ops within our service area 15 of those are in London and then one would be in Middlesex County. So again would have been helpful I suppose if we chatted before but the way I see this is the situation that happened at a toll pedal. I as a counselor would like to know what we’re doing and because what happened was that came out through media again right but the thing is if what is the role as service manager to ensure that we’ve got safe housing out there we’re funding it so we want to know that it ‘s safe out there and that that we can as council can help the situation and so I support some kind of review over what is currently being done because what I saw didn’t work so if staff could help us that way help us help you.

So I’ll go to Mr. Mathers for the answer. I’m going to highlight this can always be something we just passed receipt of a committee and work on well-worded amendments with staff outside of this. Just mindful that this could take an extended period of time, not knowing the intent of the person who submitted the letter to us and staff’s answers behind the scenes in addition to audit questions themselves and not knowing that list of 16 co-ops that would actually perhaps may or may not have more interest in than others.

Mr. Mathers. Yeah, through the chair. So I think some of the things that we hear as significant concerns, and I agree with as well , are covered within this piece.

So the tenant placement, the asset management, I think that’s a really important piece as well. And then also the governance, there’s of course a difference between how co-op is governed and many of the typical other housing providers are governed. So I think those would be really important things to consider as part of an audit. Hey, and just realizing it also is like a future audit.

We already have our audits queued up for this term in contract that’s coming back. Just timing-wise, are we anticipating this would be the next round of things we contract out post this term in council? Ms. Barbone, just timing and just trying to understand.

Thank you through the chairs. So right now, we have the audits that are set before until the end of council. In 2027, there would be a revised risk assessment and a revised audit plan. So we don’t have a project plan for 2027.

So what I would suggest is that if there is an interest in the committee to have this looked at, that it be referred to the 2027 or the development of the new internal audit plan that would take place as part of the 2027 review. So that would be subject to the audit committee and then would be part of the development. Because depending on the risk assessment, the audit committee at the time may or may not, in terms of what the timing would be on this, would be best put forward as the audit committee is looking at the revised risk assessment to see where that fits in terms of priority and with respect to timing. There wouldn’t be any other capacity to put any audits in for this year, so that would my recommendation is to have that forwarded for the review that will take place in 27 and then the audit committee can determine and forward that to the auditors as part of that review.

Thank you. So that sounds good. In practice are we then just changing the wording so instead of being requested to add to the internal audit plan we’re requesting to include in the review of the the 2027 audit plan, or to consider, to consider? I think, Councillor, we could just, we’re receiving it, we could forward it to that timeline that Ms.

Barbone lined out. And then at that time, whoever is on audit can consider the things Councillor Frank laid out as potential scope items, being governance, property management, and get advice from the auditor at the time of how much those are actually identifiable that they could bring back a report looking at that. When you say forward, are you talking about a referral? Yeah, we received the letter and we refer it to the future audit committee to review with that risk assessment plan that Ms.

Barbara laid out, ‘cause there’s not capacity left with the audits in this term account. Yeah, no, and I get it. The only concern I have is that then staff aren’t including it in the initial one, so then it would come with staff’s audit plan, I ‘m assuming, and then we’d have to try to squeeze it in. We are the next council.

Mr. Schultz says it could be referred to civic administration for them to put that into the plan Consideration wasn’t comes back miss barbone procedurally to you. How would your team if we are interested in having this considered collective we of the next term of we? procedurally, how would your team do it if we referred it to where you said Thank you through the chair.

So one of the first things that would occur in I’m assuming there would be a February audit committee that this be referred to the audit committee that in 2027 to be considered as part of the risk assessment and development of the revised internal audit plan because the very first step will be the auditors will be meeting with the New audit committee at that time and that risk assessment would begin and then there would be a process for the internal audit to then develop what that draft audit plan would be for the audit committee’s consideration. So it’ll be subject to the audit committee’s approval as part of the plan, but if you refer it to consideration of the risk assessment and internal audit plan, then it can be appropriately scoped and reviewed as part of where that level of risk might be and where the timing might fall in terms of developing that internal audit plan. If that’s helpful. Okay.

Mr. Shultez wrote down some nice things. said he will massage it out of the wording’s exact to a smart phone, had laid out for that first audit community and can have that information when it is scheduled for the next term of counsel . Councillor Steeveson, the floor was yours.

Okay, I’m just gonna ask one question and then I’m gonna move whatever is drafted there . But I just wanna, through you to MNP, I just wanna ask, is it even a possibility for this committee, or anything’s possible, but do you know what I mean? feasible to for us to put this in the December one. I’m assuming that that’s just not good timing, but I just gonna ask so that we know for sure that we prioritize it as fast as we could.

This December, 2026 December? Yeah, because that one isn’t, yes. Mr. Racco.

Through you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. The one caution I would considering some of the information was provided there with regards to the scale, the number of co-ops, everything like that. I do feel that considering the significance of this, the committee as well as everybody would want to make sure that there is appropriate scoping of this one to make sure that this one is right. And again, considering timing and whatnot, I would feel, again, anything is possible.

I do not necessarily feel it would lead to the best outcomes. Thank you. I thought that was going to be the answer, but there’s a lot of desperate eyes on this And so I just wanted them to know as well that they’re really we’re not just putting this off that it really is impractical to do in 2026, so I’m happy to move the draft did referral social as we read out roughly ish what it is we heard that there was 16 co-ops in one and middle sex do we want the middle sex one two or just the one and ones staff for clarification When you said 16 were London, Mr. Mathers?

Ms. Datersphere? Sorry, I was looking for clarification from Mr. M athers that the 16 co-ops, 16 were in London and one was outside of London, 15 in London, which— Through the chair, 15 in London and one outside of London for a total of 16.

Okay, we’ll stay in London. Just the London ones, okay, so the 15 co-ops in London. I’ll second that chair, I think. Okay, Mr.

Shultez, do you want to read up-ish what it is, realizing Ms. Bourbon will add in her timelines and a wording of things as they word them. certainly through the chair to avoid over specificity after the communication from Council Frank dated May 27th, 2026 be referred to future meeting of audit committee in Q1, 2027 for consideration as part of risk assessment. Yeah, I think civic administration was gonna touch it first to see where it can fit to come in that first meeting.

Okay, and then just for clarification, that will be officially typed up with timelines in our council package from the audit meeting so we can finish verifying wording at that point just ‘cause we don’t use e-scribe today. Okay, perfect. And so it’s civic administration and audit committee? Yeah, they’ll get it first to put in a report and then that report will come to the first meeting of audit when the new council sits and the new committee sits.

Okay, so Councilor Stevenson was fine with the rough wording that will be massaged out. Councilor Cuddy was the seconder on that. Okay, it is on the floor for the referral attorney’s committee members first. Councilor Stevenson?

I just think Councillor Frank for this, I appreciate the attention to it. On behalf of the toll puddle residents, I’ve talked to some of them and they were appreciative of this. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Frank, knowing that we did something slightly different based on audit committee plans and ways to accommodate what this could look like .

Would you like to speak next to it? Sure, yeah. I’m just happy it is moving forward. I am but a leaf in a river of bureaucracy.

And if this is where the river goes, and I shall follow and appreciate that it will be reviewed in a future committee’s consideration package. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Truss, so you had your hand up patiently. Yes, so my thinking on this, if I may address what’s on the floor, is I think it’s important that we don’t over order a lot of different small audits.

And wait, what I need to have a better understanding of, and I’ll work on this, is what’s the proper size for an audit? because my concern about the way this is worded, and it’s better now, but this shouldn’t be about what happened at toll puddle. This should be about a broader operational issue about how the service manager deals with co-ops, or perhaps even more broadly how the service manager deals with, you know, RGI units and other affordable units. And I think that before we order another, Before we set the scope for another audit, we need to think very carefully about what we want the scope of that audit to be.

‘Cause one thing I’ve learned today is at the end of the discussion, you’re gonna be limited to discussing what was in the scope of the audit. And it might be that we need to look at some broader issues in terms of how the service manager deals with a for low-income housing. Maybe it should just be targeted to telephoto, but I think the problem with targeting it too narrowly to one building is then it becomes a question of what was done wrong in this building and I think for for service review for audit purposes we should looking we should be looking at broader process and policy questions so I was not going to be able to support the way it was originally drafted this is better but I think it’s still is going to need some more work and I will address that further at council thank you sir if you could take the chair I’ll make a brief comment? Okay, thank you.

I’ve got the chair. Go ahead. Thank you. I’ll be interested in this one when it comes back.

I’m not sure who will be in these chairs when it comes back to the next round of audit next term of council. I was appreciating Councillor Frank’s last three words of the solution orientated focus. For me, it really is about best practices and ways to align what people can expect across the housing coops just in the standards based on what building they built move into realizing something might move around our pet experience in different ones that we can build best practices for their communities governance and board in governance and board training I know we’ve already done some some work towards those things and and we talked about the RGI’s and other things that at Mr. Mather’s department, Mr.

Felberg’s working on in different training. I think this could also be, as much as we’ve learned from some past things, a good story about ways we’re changing going forward in the communities being strong amongst themselves as well. And I’m proud of where they’re living in some cases. I think that’s also a story that sometimes gets overlooked to really looking forward to when this comes back of what actually is the recommended scope based in the letter and what actually is possible, realizing some information not might not be available across the board or some might just not have to not tracking in certain ways.

So, interest in that, I’ll leave my comments there. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll return the chair to you and I would just like to make a couple of final comments. Okay, I’ll call it closing comments, Councillor Stevenson.

Okay, thanks. Yeah, I think for sure there’s lots of, with toll pedal, they have, and I don’t know if it’s more unique and some of the other ones, but it’s a very high RGI unit count. I can’t remember exactly, but it’s almost all of them. They have very little control over who goes into those units.

They’ve had the same problems that were happening at 122 baseline. They don’t have access to hardening the building and increasing the budgets. And we’ve got co-ops out there, run by members who are doing the best that they can. Some maybe need help, some maybe are doing what they can, but this has been a cry for help.

Councilor, just on the referral, keep it tight, please. And so I appreciate the referral and I appreciate that an audit might be able to contribute solution oriented stuff. How can we help what is needed in order to ensure that we’re getting what we all want? I know everyone here wants to provide safe, affordable housing and it’s at risk.

It is very much at risk right now. And so this extra tool through Councillor Frank’s motion here is something that the next council might be able to put into action. Thank you. I have no comments online, none.

Chambers, this is for a receipt of the correspondence from Councillor Frank and referring to civic administration for they can bring it back with the risk management stuff for audit come the next term of council. Show of hands of all in favor. Motion carries. Thank you, that just poses of our items for direction deferred matters additional business.

There is none, confidential session. We do have one item as it’s outlined on the public agenda for personal matters, identify individuals, being 6.1, I will need a motion to go in close, moved by Councillor Cuddy, second by myself, show of hands of all in favor of confidential session. Motion carries. Okay, one moment as we switch from chairs around.

Thank you, we’re now back in the open session. If I can turn it over to Councillor Stevenson to report out on IM 6.1, for which we want in camera. Thank you, yes, I’ve got that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the city manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of an outsourced internal auditor for a quest for proposal, RFP 2026-062 internal audit services. A, the firm of MNP LLP be appointed as the preferred firm for the provision of internal audit services for a period of four years beginning January 1st, 2027, plus the option to renew for one additional one- year term.

B, the civic administration be authorized to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this contract. C, approval hereby given be conditional upon the corporation entering into a formal contract, relating to the subject matter of this approval. And D, the mayor and city clerk be authorized to execute the agreement in C above. Mr.

Stevenson, you’re moving that as you read it? I am moving that. Seconder, Councillor Cutty, any debate? No, thank you to all those who applied.

So they, hey, call on the question then. All in favor by a show of hands. Motion carries. Thank you, that concludes the formal agenda.

bringing us to a German, a motion to a German would be moved by Councillor Cuddy seconded by Councillor Stevenson and show a hands motion carries. Thank you. We’re adjourned.