Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Okay, welcome. This is the third meeting of Audit Committee. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Nash back Hada Shoni Lanape walk and Adam Wandering. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nation mate and you are 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 supports upon request to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact accessibility at london.ca or 519-661-2489 everyone's information. I'm joined in Chambers by Councillor Cuddy and Stevenson. Councillor Kubel will not be joining us today and member Cheema will need to leave um around 1:00 1:30. Um with that in mind, um member Cheema, there is a matter for confidential session. Do you have a preference if you want to change of order to deal with that before your departure? >> Uh Madam Chair, preferably if it's going to be a quorum issue to you. >> Uh no, we'll have quorum for all that as long as Councillors Cuddie and Stevenson stay with me. >> [laughter] >> I have chuckles. I assume that means yes, so it was just respecting that you're the one offsite and you have a time constraint. Would you prefer the agenda as it's laid out or confidential first? >> Uh no preference. Whatever works best if we have quorum. >> Okay, I'll proceed with the agenda as it's laid out then um as we will have quorum. Um Okay, looking to committee members for disclosers of pecuniary interest. I have none in chambers. I see none online. Uh consent, we have none. Scheduled items, we have none. Takes us to item for direction. Um up first we have the 2025 financial audit. Um It would have uh a staff overview, a presentation um 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 Cuddie, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. I will go to city staff for to frame it up for us and then Ms. Denbok um as always uh the 5 minutes does not work, so you will have 15 to 20 um and I see no objections from committee. So, when it comes to your turn, uh you can breathe between sentences unlike before what I've done to you. Uh city staff, um Mr. Collins, Ms. Berbon, all yours. >> Uh thank you, Chair. Uh through the committee or through through the chair to the committee, just want to quickly highlight uh what was contained in the package related to the 2025 financial presentations, item 4.1a. And consistent with years prior, uh the overview of the 2025 financial statements provides why we're presenting it in 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, that 561 binder or PDF document that you have received is very full some containing a number of uh the boards and commissions of the city of London. Uh just wanted to highlight in our slide deck what uh comprises our statement of financial positions. Uh our financial assets in 2025 increased by 281.2 million related to predominantly uh for an increase in our portfolio investments, as well as long-term receivables related to development charge deferral and alternative payment arrangements uh in regards development charges. On that note, our financial liabilities also increased by 47.3 million uh notably 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. Uh the non-financial assets, which is predominantly the city's infrastructure, our tangible capital assets, increased by 252.6 million. Uh at so, at the end of the year, the city had an accumulated surplus of 486.6 uh 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 uh statements. So, just to uh highlight some of those uh major items, we had the East London Link and municipal improvements phase 3C at Highbury Avenue uh capitalized at 25.9 million. Uh we rebuilt the incinerator at Greenway uh recognized 22.8 million capitalized. There was work done on Colonel Talbot Road, the East London Link Phase 3A West Dundas Street 11.4 million, and a work on Oxford Street West Gideon Drive intersection improvement 7.5 million. Uh what we always tend to highlight are the assets that the city assumes based on subdivision agreements uh coming through uh from developers. So, we outlined 61.9 million dollars of work that were capitalized onto the city's books comprising of increased roadways, sidewalks, streetlights, and the underground infrastructure such as water pipes, sanitary pipes, and storm sewers. Uh moving off from the financial statement, we go to the statement of operations, and in 2025, our revenues increased 185 million dollars over 2024. Uh that's predominantly attributed to municipal taxation. We had an 8.5% tax levy increase, uh tax 7.3% from rates, but we also took in additional funding from other levels of government, as well as development charges uh revenue earned. Uh we also had an increase in our expenditures related to uh accounting for non-vested sick leave impacting general government, increases uh evident in protection to persons and property, as well as environmental services uh 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 uh prior year increase. We also look at uh taking an opportunity to revise how we uh uh reconcile back to the multi-year budget, particularly the 2025 year, and we recognize that their main differences related to uh amortization and how we account for reserve funds. Uh the reason why why had a surplus in 2025 was an increase in investment uh uh income recognized, transfer payments from other levels of government, development charge revenue realized exceeding prior year experience, and then we 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. Uh we go on to identify within our financial highlights uh 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 arrears that we have outstanding, uh 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. Uh following that, uh as mentioned earlier, we do a comparison to the 2025 multi-year budget with uh the public sector accounting standards uh uh budget that we see in the financial statements uh highlighting amortization, debt principal payments, uh capital reserve funds, and what have you. And then uh we do a reconciliation that goes back to the uh year-end March 31 report that council would have received back on April 20th, 2026, where there was reported a $24.5 million surplus, which was then allocated based on council's surplus deficit policy. We then look to add back uh items to make it in 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, uh where do we go from here? Uh 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 with a lot of our internal uh parties such as legal, human resources, ITS, as well as all the service areas who uh contribute to uh compiling this information in accordance with public sector accounting standards. I also want to take to the opportunity to recognize there are opportunities for continuous improvement. Uh KPMG will highlight uh to audit committee some of their audit findings and uh financial services recognizes that we need there's additional training and awareness required within financial services uh to ensure that uh public sector accounting standards are uh understood and the timing of information uh corresponds with the correct uh fiscal year. So, with that, I'd like to turn over to KPMG to present their audit findings report and uh from that uh we hope that this will go to council to approve the consolidated financial statements uh so that we can make the final version available to the public in July end of July once uh we receive sign-off. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh to committee members and visiting counselor Traverso, uh if you have questions, uh just hold them at top of the presentation. And if you note a page number or whatnot, just take note of that as uh some of the information in back documents are extensive. Um I'll also note that on some items that we're coming up, there are delegation requests from Mr. Wallace who is uh enjoying our company for the full day. So, I do uh take note of that and thank you for staying with us. Ms. Denbok, the floor is yours when you're ready. Um there's a presentation going on screen, so just toggle uh at will so you can see it. >> Okay. Thank you very much for having us here and and through to you uh Madam Chair, we'd like to walk you through the highlights of our audit findings report. Uh we do appreciate the extra time that you've given us and we'll try to be succinct in focusing on the things we think are most important for you to hear. Um just before we get started, I want to make sure everyone is following along with the right version of our report. So, you will see uh 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 10th that has been included as item 4.1.ba. 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 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 but Melissa and Emily are going to go through those in a little bit more detail. So, I won't touch on them on this slide specifically. But I did also want to 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 workbook. And then other than that, we have a few remaining procedures over investments, 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 and obtaining evidence of council's approval of the financial statements, and at that point we will issue our standard management representation letter that and will 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 uncorrected in the consolidated financial statements, and further information on this can be seen further down in the uncorrected misstatement slides and on page 13. Moving on to page seven, 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 material misstatement for these, which are noted on this slide, but based on the procedures um performed, we don't have any matters to report here. Um, however, we did want to uh bring this to your attention um relating to the Bill 17 amendments that took place um impacting development charges. Um, there were changes enacted for long-term care homes effective in June of 2025 and for other development charges effective in November of 2025. Uh the long-term care homes uh became exempt from development charges, which resulted in amounts outstanding at uh June 2025 of approximately 5.8 million being removed from the loans and long-term receivable uh balance and deferred revenue. Um, however, the more significant change um was in November um in which interest can no longer be charged on these long-term receivables um which are payable over the course of 6 years. Um, in November 2025, uh starting at that point, um the impact of the measurement has been considered to be appropriate um and we don't have any other matters to report um with respect to this area. Page nine, uh there's not really too much on our other financial reporting matters. Um, the presentation and disclosure of the consolidated financial um 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 [clears throat] by Emily. Um, 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 year end. This is just the income impact from the out of period adjustment. On page 12, this provides information on what is considered a control deficiency or would be 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 lead to further errors if left unaddressed in future years. For the second item, newer staff in the payroll department lacking training in year-end cutoff procedures. This led to an overstatement of the prepaid expenses and accounts payable and accrued liabilities misstatement 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. Dimmock. Anything to add on before we proceed? No. Okay. I'll note that we're also joined online by Councillor Frank. Um See the items moved and on the floor. Looking to see if there's a speaker's list of questions. Member Cheema, 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 Cheema. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question on the deficiency. So, great financial performance overall and just clarity on this. Is it a high turnover or vacancy issue with both of those control deficiencies related to training and or junior staff? >> Okay. Um I'll start with city London staff and then anyone else. >> Through the chair to the committee, with respect to the the finding related to the cutoff issue with respect to payroll, it has to do with newer staff. The issue came about on December 24th. In their haste to get a payment in, Uh, 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, uh, 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, I I CRA and whatnot. So, it is training, and we are looking and are addressing it. Thank you. >> Mr. Chiba. >> You said that First of all, and this this is more of a comment. I just curious in terms of the budgeting and resource allocation to the finance department because um Um, yeah, this is not a question, just a comment. It's not more It's not the individual specifics. Um, 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. Barbeau to respond. >> Uh, 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 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 uh 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. Cheema. >> [laughter] >> Appreciate that. Thank you. So, >> Councillor Stevenson. Uh 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, 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. Um my question is a general one around uh reviewing and entries and stuff like that. So, not specifically even around new people, but what uh what is the general practice around uh review and and authorizing of entries? Thank you. Just off. >> Uh through the chair to committee, when it comes to journal entries, uh 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 fourth floor finance. It is then signed off by someone at a higher level, uh either a manager or supervisor who has that signing authority. From there, that journal entry is then taken down to fourth floor, where it's reviewed for posting to ensure that there's adequate uh supporting documentation. Uh with that, that's no different if it's during a journal entry from uh providing a payment to be paid through AP, where there is about uh couple sets of eyes looking at it before we sign off on a journal entry. And those types of processes are reviewed uh through the walk-through 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. Thank you. >> Councillor >> Okay, thank 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? >> Uh thank you through the chair. That would be primarily um social assistance. Checks are issued at the end of the month and are are come out of the bank account, but they're not actually due or are not for the following month. So, that would be a large component of what programs um would be that are issued in advance. They're primarily benefits to participants. >> Councillor? >> Okay, thank you for that. Um Uh with the uncorrected misstatements, I was just wondering um 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 uh funding provincially or federally? >> To staff? >> Uh through the chair to committee. Uh there's a lot of considerations when it comes to uh looking at the misstatement. Uh one is A, this is a consolidated report uh for Sun Consolidated. Uh the other item that needs to be taken into consideration is that for those provincial programs, they have their separate reviews that uh are undertaken periodically to ensure that uh 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 uh that uh our auditors assist with uh to report out to the province. Thank you. >> Counselor. >> Thanks. So, I I'm hearing that there's no concern that there's a misstatement on one of those. Okay, perfect. And then, um I think I was just curious what the uh period correction was, the prior year error from Covent Garden Market Place, cuz it it's 1.5 million. >> Okay, to staff or KPMG. >> So, this related to um 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 um one of the eliminating entries was not was incorrect by 1.5 million. Um so, this entry was made to correct for the adjustment that should have been made in the prior year. Um so, it's strictly related to one of the eliminating entries um for for this board and commission. >> Counselor. >> Okay, thanks. But, that's one of those journal entries with the three reviews, right? >> To staff. >> Uh through the chair of committee, no, that that would be part of the consolidation process that happens at uh during the audit upon the city taking receipt of the financial statements coming from the boards and commissions. So, there's a process where uh we have to wait until uh the boards and commissions conduct their audit and their review to provide us the numbers so that we can understand what the uh elimination entries would be. So, it depends on the timing when we receive it and how we interpret it. And uh we were recognizing that uh 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 uh 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 uh we missed it. We caught it through the remainder of 2025. We made a correction and through the due diligence of KPMG they identified that we corrected but it should have been in 2024. >> Thank you. It sounds like the trickle-down effect of correcting things and it's year over year. >> Yeah. Yeah. Counselor? >> I can only imagine that uh consolidation. >> [laughter] >> Um and then just a question it talks about lack of clarity surrounding revenue treatment for government transfers. Was there a change in uh policy or like talks about PS3410? Was there something new or is this um maybe just yeah just like further clarification there. >> Staff. >> Uh through the chair of the committee uh this scenario came in with a a revenue amount that came in from the province to the city in the month of November and the details behind that uh revenue amount was not as clear in order for uh finance to make a determination whether it related to a current event in 2025 or an event to have occurred in 2026. Uh so it was booked in 2025 and it should have been uh booked as deferred to recognize the expense as per uh PS3410 to recognize it when the expenditure was occurred in 2020 or to be occurred in 2026. So uh we're of the mindset that given that this has occurred 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 uh the producer of those journal entries walks through those steps to make sure do they know what this is for and is if there's any ambiguity then to put into deferred revenue until we can source out what that ambiguity may or may not be. In this case there was some ambiguity, they booked it to 2020. Five, 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 uh we propose that we're going to take as a result of what was identified. Thank you. >> Councilor >> Okay, thanks. That's the continuous improvement, right? All the way through. Just a general question. I didn't see the financial statements in here which I thought were all I like I've got all the letters and the miss statements, but the consolidated financial statement, was that part of this? Did I just miss it? Staff >> Uh 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 councilors as well as we have binders that uh prior to distribution we identi- asked uh which councilors would take receipt of the hard copy binders, the 561 pages. Comes in a white binder. Uh previously it was a black binder so it may have been looking [clears throat] for something uh differently, but it outlines all uh our required reporting be it the notes to the financials that help inform understanding, uh the statement of operations, the financial statements, as well as it includes all the consolidated uh information from our boards and commissions such as uh uh the BIAs, Middlesex London Health Unit, uh LMCH, all 14 entities, and the uh three uh business uh entities that we consolidate with along with London Hydro. >> Thank you. Due to past concussion issues, I was I'm budget friendly and opted for the printed copy myself. It is in my office. You're welcome to it to peruse it or copy at will. I wish I had time for that, but I 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 the income statement, balance sheet, statement of changes. Is that in here and I just missed it? >> Staff. >> Uh thank you through the chair. It's item 4.1 if on the agenda. It's uh 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 the added agenda based on which package we're sorting through. Um looking online to see if there's any questions from I'll note that Councillor Pringle 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. >> Motion carries. >> Okay, thank you to KPMG for that. This will add move us along to item 4.2. I'll note that uh 4.2 to 4.5 is uh MNP. They can come and have some a seat at the table. I'll note as well that there'll be those added delegation requests. Um >> [clears throat] >> in my understanding as we go through these, I'll obviously do them individually. Um I will let MNP 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 secondary to get it on the floor. Uh moved by Councillor Cutty, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. I'll uh turn the floor to MNP for this one first and then I will go to Mr. Cheema uh first to see if he has any questions. Uh just I know he's on a timeline. So, Mr. Raco, the floor is yours. >> Uh thank you uh through you, Madam Chair. Uh so, before you is the summary update from um from internal audit. A couple things I just like to point out to committee uh first um as part of the uh memo we provide, an update on the internal audit plan of where it's sitting as far as the status. Um something I would just like to note is there was a change to the timing of the Privacy Act. Um now reporting in the October 2026 uh timeframe and the continuous improvement audit. Eff- effectively, those have switched and this was as a request of the audit committee previously. Um the other item I would like to point forward cuz it is a slight departure on process that we've done before is that you will notice that there is the uh request or the 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 um in the in the uh item proceeding or the meeting proceeding. However, given the timing of the October and then the December, they follow quite quickly um with 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 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 you have feedback today, we can provide it or you can reach out individually. Mr. Cheema, any comments on this one to start us off? No. Okay, looking to members of 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 the high-level scope for the privacy in terms of MFIPPA specifically? How What will be looked at in terms of those? >> Okay. To Mr. Raco. >> Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair. To committee and to the counselor. So, yeah, I appreciate that. So, for for background, so MFIPPA is going through several legislative agenda amendments, specifically as a result of Bill 194 and Bill 97. And And there's an implementation of 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 legislative to the requirements in those legislative changes, baking them into process, uh and making sure that we are um remaining compliant given the changes that are taking place. Um so, it is We're going to have a broader programmatic view of things, but with a specific focus um considering those changes to MFIPPA. >> Councillor Stevenson. Mm. Thank you. Um so, my my concern around the MFIPPA's is um the redactions that I'm seeing. Uh so, will that be looked at? Like I I understand there's like a an appeal process on that, but just from um uh whatever kind of audit this is, uh is that something that could be incorporated? >> Mr. Rocco. >> Can I Sorry, can I just ask for a clarification through you? >> Absolutely. >> Can I just ask for a clarif- like reaction? I'm just curious, the if you can extrapolate on that, cuz we um through you, Madam Chair, that can be considered and baked in. Um if there's further clarity that you can provide about the specific item. >> Councillor. Okay, perfect. And I I can do that through email, but basically, uh we've been councillors have to file an MFIPPA to see the contracts for the homeless uh providers, and various levels of the budgets from complete to partial have the budgets redacted. >> [cough] >> So, I I'll I'll follow up on that by email. Um and the other part is um I just want to confirm because it says on here uh 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 want to be clear, and maybe it's through uh you, Chair, to staff, but there was a uh 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 uh governance working group or whatever committee it was that that was coming to. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Dickens. >> Uh thank you through you, Chair. Um 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 the report that Mr. Mathers' team brought forward related to 122 Baseline that just recently went to CAPS and will be considered at council. >> Councillor? >> Okay, thanks. I'll look back at that and get clarity. Um that's all for now. Thanks. >> Okay, looking for further questions or comments. Okay. Um if uh member Kribel has anything he can put his screen online. In the meantime, I'll go to Councillor Trasan. >> Um thank you. Thank you very much. Uh 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. Um and the the thing with the field of privacy is sometimes there's in an effort to comply with privacy obligations and not not get privacy complaints. An an overly protect view of privacy is taken, which is fine in so far as privacy goes, but the problem with privacy prop policy is if you overprotect privacy, that comes at the that comes uh 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 of of of of the idea of an audit when you want to be 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 overprotected such as to inhibit access to information. And I I I don't I hope that's clear because the the the the trade-off between privacy >> Yeah, if you can answer the counselor, please. >> Uh through you Madam Chair. Uh so I I appreciate the question. Um privacy is not directly my field of uh of of practice. Um when we do audits like this, we bring in subject matter experts. Um but what I would say is that anytime we look at something um any type of topic, we always try to understand that balance because um 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 the yin and the yang, if you will. Um 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. Uh 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. Uh and then we have to appreciate where there is opportunity um because again openness and transparency, particularly in government, I think has to be something that we that we look towards. Um so at the end of the day, um there definitely is the balance piece, but I do appreciate and particularly as there is changes in the regime coming through with MFIPPA being updated, it is exceptionally important from at least my perspective that the city make 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 that's going to be our first priority. And if there are other things that we can advise upon, uh we will look to do so. >> Thank you, Councillor Cresswell. >> Yes, I'm I'm still concerned that in m- taking 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 in the federal system, there's there's different there's different offices. So, it's often the case where you are in the provincial jurisdiction that in in in For example, taking taking um an overly broad objection to an information request on the grounds that it protects privacy could could get you out of potential privacy violation, but that same action sets up an access to information uh uh problem. So, the problem I have with an overall framing of a privacy um privacy um audit is is is that the the right to access to information, it's not a constitutional right, but courts have have often characterized it as a quasi-constitutional right. So, you have to be very careful that in protecting privacy, you don't overprotect privacy. >> Thank you, Councillor. Uh I would say that this plan before us has already been approved by the audit committee and budgeted for. Um So, just keep your Yeah, just talk about scope. If you had something you wanted to flag, which he already said he'd bring an independent subject matter expert for. >> thank you through the chair, if I may. Um yes, what I want to flag is is that in in uh in satisfying your scope here, you may be creating other problems later, and I'm 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. This is a motion to receive this report of 4.2. Calling the question by hand. All in favor of receiving the report. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. 4.3, this would also be a motion to receive. This is the internal audit follow-up activity dashboard, also by MNP, commencing on page 56 of your report. I have a mover in Counselor Stevenson and a seconder in Counselor Cuddy. Mr. Rector, a really brief queue up if you want, and then I will start again with Mr. Cheema for questions, then others. >> Uh thank you through Madam Chair. Uh in the most briefest sense, the only thing 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 um that are uh have been put on for on track for completion um that would have been in a previous iteration for last cycle been noted as as completed, but again, we factored in that direction. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Look to Mr. Cheema 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. So, actually, it's 4.3 at this point. I'll start with Counselor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I just want to go back to that tenant transition plan. Um and 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 [snorts] proposed and built, and that the tenant profile that was used to to put people into that building was not exactly, but 1/3 homeless, 1/3 mentally ill and addicted, and 1/3 women and children fleeing domestic violence. It was raised in the 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 that change, how that change happened. It happened that I couldn't see where there was a council direction for that. It was internally um all done through the city. So, I guess I just want to ask through you, Chair, to staff, does staff believe that the trans tenant transition plan that was presented to CAPS in June addresses the issues and and 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 uh 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. >> Councilor, you're on page 57, that first the first one? Okay. So, page 57, number one, uh to staff realizing um audits in front of us and if the methods taken, if you believe it addresses the concerns raised in the audit. 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 was just brought forward to the to the CAPS Committee. Um so, it's through that of course you can't change uh in a tenant mix overnight. There's um processes you need to go through to ensure that that continues to move. Um as as mentioned by the councilor, um we are we have committed to annual reports to provide more information, so there will be a report later this year highlighting um any changes in that mix. Um 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 are stable and can can uh continue to be in that space and uh be able to meet all of the commitments they need to be able to live in those that housing. So, um 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 uh we do feel that LMCH is very committed to be to making these changes and to support that that transmission that the uh that transition um over time of the tenant mix. >> Thank you. Councilor Stevenson. Yeah, I guess I'm just thinking we we we had this stay on until that was done. Um I I think I'm okay with leaving it now, but if 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. Further 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 going to be a motion to receive. Um moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cutty. Also looking for a motion to approve our delegation uh request from Mr. Walls at this time. Okay, so that's part of it. So, you need a mover and seconder. I'll go to MNP for a brief introduction and then Mr. Walls can have the floor. And then I will also after that uh go to Mr. Cheema if he's still with us to start us off on questions. Do you have any? Mr. Raco. >> Uh thank you through you, Madam Chair. Um so, before you is the uh final report for the subdivision review process audit. Um a couple things just to note uh for the committee as you had had digested this information. So, um a slight that we uh that 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 uh 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. Um 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 uh for your interest. Um I think that if I was to look to summarize the the findings and the recommendations, they're mainly around the that phrase of streamlining. There are opportunities with which the city goes through the subdivision review process that >> [clears throat] >> 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 one there is review cycles that need to go through and in going in going through and looking at that, there is some opportunities to streamline 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. Um if we can have the mic go 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 um this is my first as uh Councilor Troso, first in 7 years uh presentation on committee and I think [clears throat] it might be my last. But um uh as I'm leaving in a little while. So, um appreciate the audit. We have three things we'd like to say. Um first of all staff uh the city staff have been working with the industry on the subdivision issue uh over the last number of years and have made significant progress. This your staff are doing a great job on uh with the leadership uh under Scott and his team uh that we are looking at at different items. On page one, however, under the scope and I don't I'm not I'm not throwing the um >> [clears throat] >> consultants under the bus on this. Uh it goes to the direction that you have to give them, which was just discussed on the on the other piece. Under stakeholders 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 [snorts] have had some information on how since we are the stakeholder of the subdivision process. That did not happen. My understanding uh Well, we certainly offered and never happened. Uh in addition to that, uh we may have helped with where other cities you could scan which because every one of 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, >> [snorts] >> it talks about requirements of developers in in those three other communities, and the first line is about participating mandatory subdivision. Well, that's against the that that that the law has changed. There is no such thing as mandatory pre-consultation. And so, if that happens here, you know, 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 um uh program audit. Remember, these are program audits or operational audits. They're not financial audits, which you just dealt with earlier in the meeting. So, the good news everything's in that with the definition from the consultant is that what medium uh risk is. Uh I would say from our perspective, um the communication lines for us, not just in the subdivisions, but in other development application issues, have been clearly open, and that 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 the committee side and the city side is that that we are making progress, and um uh I don't think this audit reflects how well um that department is doing and trying to make change and make improvements. Thank you. >> Thank you. Looking to Mr. Cheema, if you have any comments on this to start us off. Uh I see a no. Looking to other visiting members or member of committee. I will start with members of the committee, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Um yeah, this the subdivision one was an interesting one, and it does uh confirm a lot of things that I've been hearing over the last couple of years, uh whether the developers are big or small or the the complaints seem to be the same. Um and they are confirmed here. So, glad to hear we're making progress. It makes me a little concerned about where we began, but um so just through you to staff, uh well actually, could we get a little bit of uh 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 uh Beyond Can It Up a few more details? >> Uh sure, through you, Madam Chair. Um so a a couple things to to step back on. Uh I I think uh and echoing the the commentary that's been um even counselor you just provided there. 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 regulatory environment continue to evolve, right? And that is specifically relevant particularly in the last five years within the any infrastructure review process. So I think that has to be taken taken into account. I do think that again if you were to look to section six of the report that summarized some of the the strengths there highlighting again the continuous improvement efforts. I think is a is a is an important piece as well as working to make sure that there is centralized information and data available. When we get into the 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 going back to my very short preface before as we introduced the item. I really do think there is the the theme that we can kind of take away from from this process is or this review is optimization of the process and I realize that is the most a 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 you know as item four would highlight, multi-department circulation, and 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 Stevenson. >> 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 resubmissions, civic administration is talking about bringing a report back in Q3 2027. >> [sighs and gasps] >> Uh you know, given the the need for housing and how we hear it's slow and you know, Minister Flax says all the time it's the problem with housing is too expensive, it takes too long. So, can I just ask why it's going to take so long on something that's so urgent and especially subdivisions when we're talking about a lot of units? >> Okay. Okay, I don't know if city staff wants to start us off on this one, Mr. Bains. >> Absolutely, through the through the chair. So, that that's absolutely why it has that timing and I'll give you a little bit of background on that. So, um as part of when we brought when 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. Um since May of 2023, we've met uh 31 times and that's uh we um 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 um improvements to and we have an opportunity to share what we hear from council and be able to have an opportunity to share what we can do to improve. So, over that period of time, we've uh as I mentioned, had 31 meetings. Uh we've completed 39 different improvements and as part and currently we have about 18 um improvements on our working list and we always prioritize a few of those items. So, we have three items that are uh the priorities. Those priorities are determined through our conversations. It's not just the city unilaterally saying this is what we're going to do next. We have a group conversation. We have over 30 members of the the uh development community that uh regularly attend the meeting and we identify what the priorities are. So, as uh our last meeting was in May, we did this effort. So, as soon as we complete one of our targeted items, we add a new item. And uh 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 priority for them at this time. And part of that reason is that the subdivision activity has has uh 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 it just an overall um process review. So, that's what we've decided to do is move forward with a component of that um and focus on what is really seen from the industry and um 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 them for the next 6 months, but we do want to ensure that it's completed, so that's what we why we provided that timing of 2027. >> Councilor Stevenson. >> Okay, thanks. >> also note Councilor Prebble and Cheema have both left the meeting, so quorum is us three, so you're all with me. >> Okay, thank you. And uh no pressure. And uh thank you. That explanation really helps. Uh the other one was around technology um 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. Um there was a a business case that we brought forward to council and that was approved and we've been diligently working through that. There's certain items that we've actually brought brought forward and there is that that due date of being able to have that complete and that's our anticipated timeline. Uh we do provide updates as part of our annual development report and uh or any other opportunity that we be able to provide some more details of it but it is uh it's uh well underway and that's it's it's exciting thing that's going to be able to provide a a lot more streamlined information both internally and also providing that in for that information to applicants as well. >> Thank you. Councillor. >> 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? >> Staff. >> Absolutely. So um it's actually going to allow uh more information to be available both uh through the citizen portal the business portal that we have. So about people um applicants can be able to see where their application is in throughout that process. Um it's going to apply to uh those pre-applications that we were talking about, official plan amendments, zoning amendments, um removal of holding provisions will be more streamlined to be able to look process. Um and as well uh it also there's a lot of back-end work that's taken place to ensure that uh documents are easily being able to be shared and cataloged within uh the city's uh working areas and that was actually another item that was highlighted in in the uh uh report as being able to share information between different areas and this is going to make things a lot easier to be um through our internal um um as well. >> Councillor. Thank you. I noticed in the jurisdictional review, which I found really useful, so thank you. Um under Kingston, it it referred to at least to their processes as end-to-end digital workflow. Is that where we're going to end up Q1 2027? Staff Absolutely, that is what we're looking for and that and that's what we're going to have by that time period. We've spent a lot of time working on different processes over the years. Our site plan process has is is exceptional and we've been able to be tops in 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 going to be very helpful moving forward and very beneficial to the city and and the applicants as well. >> Councillor, any follow-up? Yeah, just Kitchener said that they have a highly structured and sequential process with that reduces downstream surprises and rework. So, I'll just leave that out there that that I hear that request a lot. And then the last one on 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 I was always happy to learn from other municipalities in and around us. 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 that 2023 and and before time frame that prior to me being in the role and I think that's exceptionally important because we're not here just to be a a regulator, we're here to be a facilitator and to to help um both the applicants and any anyone else from the city of London to be able to get through those processes and uh that is a is a it's a mental shift and some folks it's more difficult, but I very much feel that um through our through our uh great directors, uh Heather McNeely and Alan Shaw, but they've been really driving that forward with their teams as well. So, but there's it's it's exceptionally important to have that cultural shift as well. >> Councillor >> Just a quick thanks uh 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. Uh I would say that was long-term progress uh with Mr. Ammerdorffer and his team working diligently on this. Uh someone who's seen the evolution of two terms of council. Uh and I know that um when things aren't going well, the industry lets us know it. Uh so, if they've been quieter, I know you're making good progress and I'm getting feedback as well behind the scenes. So, thank you for that as we continue continuous improvement and looking to others uh that we could learn off of. I've 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 then Councillor Cuddy a seconder and myself also moving at the same time Mr. Wallace's delegation request um with the same mover and seconder. Uh Mr. Raco, if you want to queue it up and then once again I'll go to Mr. Wallace and then we'll come back down uh for follow-up. >> Thank you through you, Madam Chair. Uh so, before you is the report for the uh climate emergency action plan. Um a couple things to just highlight on this uh and it's actually similar to uh some of the commentary I provided on the previous item. It is important and I think contextually the committee and and others will appreciate this is that much has changed since the CEPC EAP the plan itself was originally established and I think that that is that has to be an underlying tone and context throughout this report. The 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 that sits 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 from a budget and strategic perspective and that how there can be lessons learned from the efficacy of the current climate emergency action plan that can be baked into its next iteration which we've tried to capture 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 administrations responses they are cognizant of the 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. Walls the floor is yours. >> Thank you Madam Chair and thank you again committee for approving my delegation. First um I I to actually start where I 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 there representing the only business community of a portion of the business community making presentation there on the CEAP 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 cards. 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 I I thought it was an when I saw this I thought it was an opportunity to come and um and congratulate you on this. I'm not a 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 if you but as mentioned by the consultants like the environment has changed quite a bit not 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 um >> [clears throat] >> uh the summary of observations and I read the summary of the staff responses and I thought they were excellent and and on the right track. So, we just wanted to be we're on the record at the beginning, we're on the record for the for the review that uh we we think the program is has had a positive impact uh on London and 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 going to 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 of this plan in the coming years. Thank you. >> Thank you. Looking to members of 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. Um I think what I wanted to focus on was well, in the summary of observations it talks about the SEAP being descriptive and not directive and I think that's um you know, uh good feedback in terms of cuz it says you know, it does not shape priorities, 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. Um that on track and complete designations 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 cuz we do that there as well. Um 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 um 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 3. Now, they said they're still super committed to all kinds of doing great things for the environment, but they were repealing the emergency. Um And so, I wonder when it says require a fundamental rethink of several seep actions, it does give council the opportunity to rethink uh the you know, the principles behind it as well. Um Many actions are here. I just There's a couple of places here. It said no systemic process exists to confirm that the indicators chosen for each seep action 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, infrastructure, or emissions that the action was designed to drive. And 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? Um this means that even consistently tracked indicators may not be measuring what seep is actually trying to accomplish. The problem is not only that progress is overstated, 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 into all the tracking and monitoring and that kind of thing and I think these are some um things that we get to really listen 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 um for the environment. Um says tying the expected results more explicitly to actions is a recommendation of uh 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. Um 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. Um And and it maybe is time it was done by a previous council. I think a rethink of it in general would be good. Um Again it just continually talks about reflecting on process activity rather than outcomes. Says the absence of 2030 baselines and quantitative targets for most expected results makes it difficult to contextualize reported progress. I think I think this is uh really uh helpful for this or the next council to uh really look at um 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. Uh and that the federal carbon price removal in April 2025 eliminates a key financial incentive underpinned underpinning building retrofit and EV adoption actions. If I can just ask through you to staff if they have any comments around that um it says it necessitates a reassessment. So, I'd love to hear from staff. >> Thank you to staff. >> Uh through the chair, absolutely. So, there has been as mentioned like very significant changes from a regulatory perspective. So, um the ability to actually have what would be originally termed as those building standards has been removed through legislation and there's been a a couple um recent bills that have dealt with that. So, uh we actually will be bringing to the next uh committee uh planning committee planning and environment committee report that speaks to looking at um green development guidelines, but those would be 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 um a little bit more awareness of of those developments. Um but uh from the perspective of actually having a more of like a rigid standards approach, uh that's not an option that's available to us anymore. >> Councillor, you have 10 seconds. >> Uh thank you. It was about the um reshaping what we can realistically be required of development and a reassessment. So, just if do you is there anything else to share there? There may not be. >> Seeing some no's, but Mr. Mathers officially? >> Yep. Uh through the chair, so there isn't an opportunity for us to do that. So, um the only way that we that we can provide something that's that's similar to that would be through like a a guideline, but it would be voluntary. >> Okay. Um I have a comment to make, but I'll go to others first. Councillor Teresa, go ahead. >> Yes, thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Um my first question is directed to uh the consultant. How is it determined who you interview in in these exercises. >> Um for the climate change one that's before us, Mr. Rector. Yeah. >> To you, Madam Chair. Uh thank you for the question. Um so, as we go through uh so, stepping back, we work with uh we work to develop the broader items that we look to um that we look to touch on. Um that's included within the internal audit plan. Uh then we go through the scoping exercise, which uh involves us um taking a look at the risks associated with the topic and what we want to focus in on in order to be both uh cognizant of the time available as well as the outcomes that we're looking to to go through and provide um good feedback to and recommendations to uh civic administration as well as to uh committee and council on uh how the um 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 uh we work with civic administration to understand and appreciate um who we can uh touch base with, understand um who has availability in order to gather information. Um so, it's through um some conversation that we have with civic administration when we're uh when once the scope is is figured out, um as well as quite frankly upon our own uh our own judgment of who we want to touch base with and go forward. Going back to the previous item, uh we had looked to uh we had looked to uh expand our understanding through a jurisdictional scan, um and we sought out like-minded organizations in order to do so. So, it's it's through collaboration as well as through our own judgment. >> Councillor. >> Okay, well, if it's made through the chair, if it's based on collaboration, why were sitting councillors, 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. Raco. >> 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. >> Counselor. >> Yeah, and that doesn't really help me cuz quite quite frankly, I think a fundamental flaw of of this entire exercise, not 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, quote, 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 council was [clears throat] was put in a position where we could have succeeded cuz we never really understood what was in our jurisdiction to do. Could Could you comment on that? >> Um, going to caution here that Mr. Rocco is not privileged and part of the council on boarding. And his job isn't to tell us about legislative responsibilities outside of the Municipal Act, which we're already advised on. Uh, counselor, 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, um, 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 on on boarding. The other thing, uh, I'd want to ask is one of the points that you make, and I forget which recommendation it was, it's the the responsibility for implementing this seems to be scattered. It seems to be scattered, and this is a function of, uh, of an often stated, uh, criticism of, uh, 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. Um, what when when when when environmental issues cut across the different, uh, cubicles, silos, departments, and divisions. And one of the things I really liked about the discussion that we just had about the the rat rat infestation is we started to do that. So, I guess I guess my question is, how is how is civic administration and ultimately this council or the next council going to take the learning from, uh, from your report here. And despite my, uh, 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? >> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to Ms. Chair for this one. >> Uh 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 it's 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 uh they're very different in each area. There's work to be done in planning, in fleet, in facilities, in finance, uh 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. Uh I suspect that we will always be looking at some sort of decentralized model unless there is a direction from council in a future multi-year budget to build a very large centralized team with expertise in 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. >> Um so, my next question, I guess to to to Ms. Chair, is how how can counselors better um support this work? How can counselors better become involved in this and understand um where they are in this organizational structure and how we fit into it and how we can participate? >> Okay. I guess how counselors can be as it pertains to the audit report that's in front of us, please. >> Uh thank you, Madam Chair. We find a lot of roles 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 in front of council. >> Um 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 wrote look at the role of what's the other one? Oh, I'm on that one, the community and protective services committee, I see that they all have jurisdiction over pieces here and there of the environmental puzzle. And um I guess it's always the prerogative >> 20 seconds and you're >> 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 4 years and haven't seen a lot of projects >> Okay, proceed please counselor. I've sat here for 8 and I'm the chair of the committee. If you question, you have 20 seconds remaining if you would like to ask it. >> Yeah, I I 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. You see and it keeps changing and all of these standing committees all have a piece of this environmental puzzle. How can we improve that? >> Okay. Uh thank you. Um I would really question of order as we council keeps changing it's us that's changing the committee format and what goes where as legislation changes that that's an us thing. Um Mr. Jedersberg, if you want to answer briefly? No? Okay. >> Well, it's 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 I'll just take this up someplace else. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Uh the city clerk is also available to go over um the delegation of topic matters to each committee and how to address a change if one would like. Uh I've met with him in the past and was very useful. Um Counselor Frank, there you are. You're on screen. Um we're on I believe you know the 4.5 climate emergency action audit that's before us. I assume you're here to speak to that one first. Floor is yours. >> Thank you. Yes, and I just had a couple questions through you to staff. Uh I appreciate the work and the um the results that we received from this audit. I can't say I was surprised because I had been uh hearing and seeing uh 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 MNP has uh identified these risks at. >> Thank you. Uh Ms. Chambers, do you want to start this one? Okay. >> Uh thank you through the chair, and it's an excellent question. Um 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 uh 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 uh agree with and that we had already started to speak with internally. Um so, as we laid out in the response, we are in the next year going to be very heavily uh looking at revitalizing the plan. Um just yesterday we brought forward the adaptation strategy uh funding agreement with FCM, and that's going to be integral to shaping the next plan as well. Um 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 and 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 have 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 wanted to also check because again, as outlined in the audit, it indicates that, you know, staff asked for about 45 million over 4 years. We gave them about 800 182,000 a year. Just triple checking that in the next multi-year budget, staff will come back with a new costed portion of that updated climate plan. >> I 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 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 we see some movement there as well. Thank you very much to MNP and to staff who helped bring this forward. >> Thank you. Councilor Cutty, can I ask you to take or actually procedurally, Councilor Stevenson, could you take the chair for a moment for me to make comment as the vice chair? >> Yes, thank you. I have the chair and you are next. >> I'm sorry. Thank you. Just Councilor Cutty looked at me first, so I was going to make him do it. Just thank you to staff on this one. I know it it's might speak to some of the other people's comments. It's different reiterations. It evolves. Um we've certainly seen different council priorities based on what we're seeing locally at the time. Uh the composition of council changes. Um staff can always bring the the best laid and research plan forward and then it's up to council to endorse or not and fund it or not um or reprioritize things as we go. Um >> [clears throat] >> I like that uh one of the points is alignment of the next climate change plan with the strategic planning um has already been identified by civic administration as a priority. Um and great to see um under another target that uh civic administration is currently pursuing as a member of uh the Canada's municipal net zero action research partnership ship uh information and funding that they could bring back for the next MYB um which I think is going to be priority that uh it really is up to council the recommendation of implementation and funding and I know that we've seen uh goal post changed, reduced, or completely emerge uh removed uh based on even in the council that was prior. Um if we felt the goals were achievable or not or to uh too hard to reach. Uh so looking forward to the report coming back uh with for the next MYB with a fresh term of council and different different perspectives uh especially since uh resident engagement will always flow with the as staff go out and do that. So looking forward to see how that comes back. Um and any legislative changes uh as well as these report come back with uh our audits. Uh so just do my comments there that uh I know we're not always where we want to be on something. Um but that's a decision of a collective we uh in these seats. So um grateful for the audit to highlight these and I'm sure it will be part of the budget too that we'll have the information so the next time we do a look at the MYBs 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. Councilor 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. Um, our presenters today are welcome to stay or go. That's your official presentations. Um, 4.6 is a request that the city's oversight of housing cooperative services providers is a letter submitted by Councilor Frank on page 123 of your original packages. Councilor Frank, as a visiting member of committee, you know you cannot move 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? No? >> No. Um, so Councilor Frank, we're not going to move anything at this 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 rationale as to why I was sending it up at audit committee. But this came about when we had a discussion regards to the Tool Padle 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, you know, 403 Thompson and 122 Baseline and that those projects as well as as other housing related um programs, but we haven't really specifically drilled down and looked at the housing cooperative service providers and the relationship that they hold with uh staff and with the city service manager as well as, you know, the complex um governance uh that that requires. And so this is a motion to have um this be evaluated underneath of our internal audit plan uh to look at housing cooperative service providers and the the uh process in which we we supervise and work with them and um the governance, the tenant placement, the asset management, and the oversight processes. Uh really focusing at solutions just because we had seen some issues um with the Tool Pad of Housing Cooperative and and I'm hoping that we can figure out what those issue issues are and move forward. >> Okay. Thank you. Um So >> Sure, I'm going to move that for uh Counselor uh Frank. >> Sorry, I could put my mic on for you. Can you 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. Counselor Frank, what would you like me to do? Cuz really I don't >> speak to it. >> [laughter] >> Um I'll note that as always audit goes to council for a final um vote and anything can be changed there as a note. >> Chair, it matters. So I'd like to move Do you want to move the whole thing? So no. I'll move it to you second and then you can Yeah, okay. Sorry, Chair. So I'll move the receipt of the letter, but uh also I think Counselor Stevenson, who's my seconder, um has an amendment to make to it. >> Yeah. So a nod of We're going to put on the floor with to receive, moved by Counselor Cuddy, 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 want to talk about it first and then I think I'll have an amendment in terms of just I just want to 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 have had a conversation with staff in advance. We can certainly go to staff to see what your questions might be about timing, how many are actually talking about, if they're actually under city purview or we have access to all their books. Some of them are mandated by us versus provincial and federal mandates that they might be governed under. Yeah. >> Well, I think if I can just narrow the scope of that cuz 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 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 this 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 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 a service manager for the service area. So currently there's 16 co-ops within our service area. 15 of those are in London and the one would be in Middlesex County. >> Councillor Stevenson. >> So, again, would have been helpful, I suppose, if we'd chatted before, but the way I see this is the situation that happened at at Toll Pad on. We as council I as a councillor 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 we're What what is the the role as service manager for uh 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 if staff could help us that way, help us help you. >> [laughter] >> Um So, I'll go to Mr. Mayers for the answer. I'm going to highlight um this could always be something we just pass receipt of at committee and work on well-worded amendments with staff outside of this. Just mindful that this could take an extended period of time um 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 we'd actually perhaps may or may not have more interest in than others. Uh Mr. Mayers. >> Yeah, through the chair. So, I think some of the things that we hear um is is is significant concerns and I I agree with as well um are covered within this piece. So, the tenant placement, the asset management, I think that's really important piece as well. And then also the governance. There's course a difference between how co-op is governed than 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. >> Okay, and just realizing it also is like a future audit. We already have our audits queued up for this 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? Um post this term of council. Ms. Barbone, just timing, I'm just trying to understand. >> Uh thank you through the chair. 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. We don't have a projects planned 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 cuz depending on the risk assessment, the 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 there wouldn't be any other capacity to put any audits in for this year. So, that would be 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 the auditors as part of that review. Thank you. >> Councilor Stevenson >> So that sounds good. Um in 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 2027 audit plan? Or to consider? To consider? >> I think um counselor, we could just we're receiving it. We could forward it to that timeline that Ms. Barbon lined out. Um and then at that time, whoever is on audit can consider the things counselor 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 um looking at that. >> When you say forward, are you talking about a referral? >> Yeah, we receive the letter and we refer it to the future audit committee to review um with that risk assessment plan that Ms. Barbon laid out. Cuz there's not capacity left with the audits in this term of council. >> 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 be it would come with staff's uh audit plan I'm assuming, and then this and we'd have to try to squeeze it in, we or the next council. >> Um Mr. Schulte says it could be referred to civic administration for them to put that into the plan uh consideration when it comes back. Ms. Barbon, procedurally to you, how would your team, if we are interested in having this considered collectively of the next term of we, um procedurally how would your team do it if we referred it uh to where you said? >> Uh thank you through the chair. So one of the first things that would occur in uh I'm assuming there'll be a February um 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 um 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 what uh 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. Sulters wrote down some nice things, said he will massage it out of the wordings exact to a smart bone had laid out uh for that first audit committee meeting can have that information um when it is scheduled for the next term of council. Councilor Stevenson, the floor was yours. >> Okay, I'm just going to ask one question and then I'm going to move whatever is drafted there, but I just want to through you to MNP, I just want to ask is it even a possibility for this committee anything's possible, but you know what I mean, is it you feasible to um for us to put this in the December one? Um >> [clears throat] >> I'm assuming that that's just not good timing, but I'm just going to 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 yet. >> Mr. Raco. >> Through you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. Um the one caution uh Um, I would it considering the some of the information that was provided there with regards to the the scale, the number of co-ops, everything like that. I do feel that considering the significance of this, um, the the committee as well as everybody would want to make sure that there is appropriate scoping of this one, um, to make sure that this one is is right. Um, and again considering timing and whatnot, um, 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 uh, the drafted referral. >> Um, Mr. Schulthess will read out roughly-ish what it is. Um, we heard that there was 16 co-ops in one in Middlesex. Do we want the Middlesex one too or just the London ones? Staff for clarification, you said 16 were London, Mr. Mayers? Ms. Sayers Bear? Sorry, I was looking for clarification from Mr. Mayers that the 16 co-ops 16 were in London and one was outside of London. 15 in London, which >> Uh, through the chair 15 in London and one outside of London for a total of 16. >> Okay. >> So we'll stay in London. Just the London ones. Okay, so the 15 co-ops in London. >> I'll second that, chair. Thank >> Okay. Mr. Schulthess, do you want to read out ish what it is realizing Ms. Berbon will add in her timelines and a wording of things as they worded them. >> Certainly, uh, through the chair to avoid over specificity I've drafted that the communication from Council Frank dated May 27th, 2026 uh be referred to a future meeting of Audit Committee in Q1 2027 for consideration uh as part of risk assessment. >> Yeah, cuz I think Civic Administration was going to touch it first to see where it can fit come in that first meeting. Um Okay. And then just for clarification, that will be officially typed up with timelines in an our council package from the audit meeting so we can finish verifying uh wording at that point just cuz we don't use eSCRIBE 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 uh when the new council sits and the new committee sits. >> Okay, so Council Stevenson was fine with the the rough wording that will be massaged out. Council Cuddy was the seconder on that. Okay, it is on the floor for the referral. Turning to committee members first. >> Council Stevenson >> I'll just thank Council Frank for this. Um I appreciate the attention to it on behalf of the Toll Plaza residents. I've talked to some of them and they they were appreciative of this. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Council Frank, knowing that we did something slightly different um based on Audit Committee plans and ways to accommodate uh 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, then I shall follow and appreciate that it will be reviewed in a a future um committee's consideration package. Thanks. >> Thank you. Uh Council Troughton, you had your hand up patiently. >> Yes. Um so 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 we What I need to have a better understanding of, and I'll 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 to TCHC. 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 um you know, 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. Because one thing I've learned today is at the end of the discussion, you're going to 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 uh deal deals deals with uh afford low-income low-income housing. Maybe it should just be targeted to TCHC, 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 still is going to need some more work, and I will address that further at council. Thank you. >> Councillor, if you could take the chair, I'll make a brief comment. >> Okay, thank you. I've got the chair. You go ahead. >> Thank you. Um I'll be interested in this one when it comes back. Um I'm not sure who'll be in these chairs when it comes back uh to the next uh round of audits next term of council. Um I was appreciating Counselor Franks um 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 uh the housing co-ops. Um just in the standards uh based on what building they built, move into, realizing some of them might move around, uh or have had experience in different ones that it we can build best best practices uh for their communities. Um governance uh and board and governance and board training. I know we've already done some some work towards those things and and we talked about the RGIs and other things that Mr. Meaders' department and Mr. Felberg's uh working on in different training. I think this could also be as much as we've learned some from from some past things, uh a good story about ways we're changing going forward in the communities um being strong amongst themselves as well and and proud of of where they're they're living in some cases. I think that's also a story that sometimes gets over overlooked. Um So, yeah, really looking forward to when this comes back of what actually is the recommended scope based on the letter and what actually is possible um realizing some information that might not be available across the board uh or some might just not have data that they're not tracking in certain ways. So, interest in that. Um I'll leave my comments there. Counselor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I will return the chair to you and I would just like to make a couple of final comments. >> Okay. Uh I'll call it closing comments, Counselor Stevenson. >> Okay, thanks. Yeah, I think um for sure, there's lots of with with Toll Peddal, they have I and I don't know if it's more unique than some of the other ones, but it's a very high RGI unit uh 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 are doing what they can, but this has been a cry for help. >> Councillor, just on the referral, keep it tight, please. >> And so, I appreciate the referral, and I appreciate that the an audit uh 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 Franks' uh motion here is something that the next council be able to put into action. >> Thank you. I've no comments online, none in chambers. This is for uh receipt of the correspondence from Councillor Frank, and we're referring it to civic administration um so that they can bring it back with the risk management stuff uh for audit uh come the next term of council. Show of hands of all in favor. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. That disposes 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 identifying individuals uh being 6.1. I will need a motion to go in closed, moved by Councillor Cutty, seconded by myself. Show of hands of all in favor of confidential session. >> Motion carries. >> Okay, one moment as we switch the chairs around. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Thank you. We're now back in open session. If I can turn it over to Councillor Stevenson to report out on item 6.1 for which we went in camera. >> Thank you. Yes, I've got uh 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 request for a 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 4 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. >> Councillor 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. >> Absolutely. Okay, 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 adjournment. A motion to adjourn would be moved by Councillor Cutty, seconded by Councillor Stevenson and show of hands. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. We're adjourned. >> Mhm.