Sound check 1 2 3. Sound check 1 2 3 Good morning everyone and welcome to audit finance and administration committee. Today is Thursday May 28th. It is 9:30. I'm calling the meeting to ORUM. I tried to put quorum and order together in the same word. That did not work out. Calling the meeting to order because we have quorum is where I was going. Joining us in chambers, councelor Brad Clark, councelor Rob Cooper, councelor Tammy Hang, councelor Alex Wilson, councelor Cameron Cretch, and online councelor Esther Paul's. Just a quick reminder to set your phones to a nonaudible function, which is to say, please make them silent. and we will begin. Now that we have uh called the meeting to order, we're going directly to the approval of the agenda, which is item three. If I could have a mover and seconder to approve the agenda as presented. Seeing councelor Tammy Hang and Councelor Rob Cooper. Any questions, comments about the agenda? Seeing none, I require a show of hands. All in favor? Seeing that is unanimous. Thank you, colleagues. We're going to move on. Any declarations of interest? Seeing none, we're moving on to item five, which is the approval of the previous meeting uh committee meeting meeting agenda minutes. Struggling with language today. 5.1 is the meeting from May 7th, 2026. If I could have a mover and a seconder to adopt the minutes of the May 7th meeting. Seeing councelor Tammy Hang, Vice Chair Mike Spataphora, any questions, comments about the minutes from the previous meeting. Seeing none, if you could please indicate your vote by a show of hands. All in favor? Colleagues, all in favor? Thank you. That is carried. We're now moving on to item six, which is delegations. Members are going to be reminded that questions of the delegations are for clarification purposes only and not for debate. And joining us today is Havis Hussein, respecting Ontario Works eligibility and value for money audit, information on overpayments and fraud complaints for the city of Ottawa and overall recovery methods on crown right debt virtually. Uh Javis, I see you up there on the screen. Welcome. >> Thank you. Uh, so we're going to um start with five minutes and at the four minute mark you may not hear the tone in the background. If not, when we get to the fiveminute mark, I may just interject if we're still in the middle of your presentation and we'll just ask you to kindly wrap it up. Okay. >> Okay. Just wanted to see if you hear my audio. >> We can hear your audio just fine. >> Okay. Great. Uh, thank you, chair. Thank you, members of the AFNA committee. Um, I wanted to just come back today to the AFNA committee to give some more updates on two matters that I've been collecting through Freedom of Information. One was, and this is new information only as I previously delegated on this to AFNA. Um, the first one was an FOI request that I received from the city of Ottawa in regards to Ontario Works overp payments and fraud. And so this is another example of a single tier municipality compar larger than Hamilton that actually followed the directives of the province. um in my um FOI request similar to when I reported last time to this committee for Peele region um they've provide they were very transparent and very accountable and so the city of Ottawa provided me a very detailed background which is posted on escribe for the counselor's review of their current process and procedures today when it comes to investigating OW fraud and working with the Ottawa police and the auditor's general office Um so I'm not going to go over this the reports in escribe but just wanted to highlight in page two of this report that over this term of c over the 2022 to 2025. Every year there has been referrals to police. In 2022 there was eight referrals to police 2023 224 4 and in 2025 four. And you can see on the right um amounts that were overp payments referred to replace range from 136,000 to $67,54. One thing to note was including in Peele, it was stated in AFNA on January 15th that all cases of OW fraud for Peele were um employee theft and that was not correct. Um it was um actual cases according to the correspondence that I sent to council on February 28th. Um I did receive a response back to from Peele and directed that my concerns um to the city manager's office. Um, in addition from the city of Ottawa, um, the auditor general's office investigated, um, a complaint that was posted in their 2025 audit report in regards to employee theft and the housing benefit, too. So, as you can see, another comparable city such as which is a single tier city like Hamilton, um, takes OW fraud seriously. um they work in conjunctions with Ottawa police and the auditor general's office and maintain um integrity and the program. Um and then on page three, which I've posted on escribe and sent to clerks, um the amounts that they've terminated and generated in overp payments as a result of um created or completed on closed allegations range from in 2022 5 million to 20254 million. And you can see these numbers are comparable to what Peele have closed cases as a result of allegations of fraud. Um you so there you have it. You have two other municipalities, one single tier, one two-tier that handle fraud and waste and actually escalate matters to police that are not employee theft. Um the second thing I wanted to talk about is another document that's on escribe which is called recovery of overp payments and on page four it's in regards to that the province has now given u the city the ability to garnish um inactive and active cases um that are new debt as provincial crown debt. So what this means from a nutshell is that um individ um the city has the tools in their toolbox to actually reach out to the CRA and to um ask them to pay back their overpayment. So they can do garnishments through tax returns now as well as through um like um CRA debt. Um I just also wanted to just highlight there on page five schedule one um this power was given to the city of Hamilton on October 1st 2024 and on page five it's highlighted also effective from the below dates all new Ontario works overp payments that are active and inactive of delivery partners will be debts owed to the crown right in Ontario which means that the CRA tool to collect overpayments is available um Just to give an overview of 2025 stats, I did through my FOI and working with staff, I got some important numbers. In 2025, um 131.3 million was given out in Ontario Works income support benefits, um resulting supporting 13,50 cases. The total overpayments collected from staff reported in AFNA was 4.3 million in 2025. outstanding overp payments which I've also recorded to council. >> I just have to interject for a moment. I'm just trying to gauge where you may be at if you're coming to a conclusion or >> I'm almost done. I'm almost done. >> I would have to ask for an extension from members of the committee. I do see willingness to do that. How about how many minutes in addition would >> 20 um 15 um 20 seconds. >> Let's do uh two minutes. I have a mover in I think I saw councelor Clark and a seconder inve got two seconders. So let's go to Tatison. All in favor of an extension of two minutes. Show of hands please. That is unanimous. Okay Javal. >> Thank you chair. All right so um in 2025 just to recap 131.3 million was handed out in income support for Ontario Works. Um, if you compare this for the overall city budget, um, the police budget was 224 million, the fire department was 115 million, and HSR and transit was 111 million. So, I don't know if this number has ever been shared to you or it's going to be shared in ECS this afternoon as part of the Ontario's work service plan update. But, um, um, just wanted to verify that because I got that through journal entries from staff and the clerk's office. uh total overpayments that was reported in AFNA on January 15th was 4.3 million. I'm not sure if that that number is not audited because there's no audited statements for 2025. Overp payments outstanding. I sent a correspondence to council on the FOI that I got from the Ministry of Social Ser Community and Social Services. At the end of December 2025, the city of Hamilton um has 56.9 million. So I round that up to 57 million in both active and inactive cases for overpayments and that's for 21,850 um 21,890 cases. So that's outstanding cases. That's that's a lot. That's I'm not sure why this number grew. Um the total operations budget for the the department is $28 million that we spend on staff FTE. $14 million of it is paid through the tax role. Um there's a 50/50 split between the province and the tax role. And so if you add all those numbers up, in order to operate the Ontario Works program for the city, we spend 159 million $159.3 million. That's the total operating and income support budget. Compare that. We spend $224 million for the police budget, $15 million for the fire department and $111 million for HSR. So, I'm not sure if this council realizes that this portfolio needs significant governance and significant oversight and I hope this all these findings will come up with the upcoming auditor general report because I continue to bring information and I'm quite shocked. >> Do you have to interject there? We've come to the end of your extension. So, we are at the conclusion of your presentation. I do have a speakers list that has been developed. >> So, I'm going to start with councelor Brad Clark, please. >> Thank you, Chair Bey. Just a a couple of questions for clarification because the delegate was bouncing around and and I was trying to follow the written submission that we had received. Can I ask the delegate um does he know that it's the Ontario Works provincial staff that makes the assessment initial assessment and determines the amount of payment to each recipient? >> Uh yeah, I do know that that changed in November 2024. So prior to that, that was the city's responsibility. Thank you. >> But that's how it is currently today. >> Thank you. Um I'm looking at 9.3 recovery of overpayments. Um it speaks to the crown debt. Can you explain your understanding of what that means and any benefit to the city by having overpayments declared as crown debt? >> Yeah. So what that Yeah. My understanding in my discussions, my research with the province was that crown debt means that it allows the city the ability to um put a request with the Canadian Revenue Agency to garnish or try to take tax returns or GSTHSD credits or any credits or benefits other than the child tax credit um to return those funds back to the city. I that power is currently not available in the provincial offenses act. I believe um garnishments can be done but it's that's what was my understanding too similar to like SERB where if you were given the SERB benefit and it was you were not eligible they were able to take it off your next tax return or benefit counselor >> um again just for clarification are you saying it's your understanding that the city has the authority to garnish wages as well as have it as an item for crown debt where the province would take the money back from taxes. >> Correct. That's my understanding. I think um the current toolbox available is they can garnish wage as part of collections like they do for POA. >> Um thank you um chair. I'm not sure how much we want to get into this here at audit and finance. It it is coming before ECS later this afternoon. Can I get confirmation from general manager Mater, please? >> Certainly. We'll turn it over to GM Mater for comment. >> Uh through the chair, Grace Mater, general manager, healthy and safe communities. Councelor Clark, yes, you are correct. The um annual Ontario Works Plan is being presented this afternoon. >> So, I'm I'm acknowledging publicly that it's kind of now before two committees and it really should be at the second one this afternoon. So, the questions that I'll have for staff, I'll ask at that meeting. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Clark. Um, if I could turn the mic just over to Vice Chair Spataphora for a moment and I can ask a question of the delegate. >> Go ahead, councelor Bey. >> Thank you. Um, Javis, I was going to ask similar questions to what uh councelor Clark asked in terms of since 2024. I think if I was to try to kind of distill down some of your uh presentation, we were given new powers of collection in 2024 that we have yet to use as a municipality on this file. Would that be >> that's correct? >> That's your assertion. >> Yep, that's correct. And that's what the directive says, but there might be a different um That's correct. And another municipality has also confirmed that too that they currently use it. So, >> and the other municipality, thank you for the response and through the vice chair. Um, the other municipality is Ottawa that that you're kind of doing the compare and contrast with and they are currently using the uh the crown debt model to garnishes and make that collection. That's your assertation. >> Y >> Okay. Uh, thank you for that. Uh, good information to know. I'll take the chair back. >> Thank you. >> I don't see any further questions from members of committee. So, thank you again for your delegation and um I don't know, you may want to listen in on our uh emergency and community services meeting this afternoon. It sounds like councelor Clark may have some questions to be pointed. >> Oh, yeah. No. Yeah, I'll be back. I'll tell delegated on that one, too. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thanks again. >> Thanks, sir. Thank you. >> All right, folks. I need a mover and secondary to receive the delegation. Seeing councelor Mike Spataphora, seconded by councelor Rob Cooper. If I could have a show of hands vote, all in favor, seeing that that is unanimous. Thank you, colleagues. We're moving on now to items for information, which is item seven, starting with 7.1. And just a reminder that we are going to um go through these very quickly and receive them all as a lump package at the end. Uh provided that there is no further direction or changes to how is being presented here. So starting with 7.1 FCS26029. This is a review of potential development charges exemptions for a fourth residential units. I have councelor Tammy Huang up first. Uh please proceed. >> Thank you. Uh I really appreciate the work that staff have done on this. This was one of those questions that came out of um some work that uh from the development charges. We've been doing a lot with the development charges. So, uh I'm thankful that the team was able to pull this together and give us these real numbers. I I feel as though this is one of those times where um it's it's a struggle to potentially get that fourth unit on, but I also recognize that a fourth unit in a lot of different jurisdictions or in a lot of our suburban areas might be very challenging. So, at this point, I am just thankful for the work that was done here. And I'd like to have this conversation with uh committee over the course of the next little bit because I I don't want to make any knee-jerk sort of reactions or or motions at this time, but I'm just very very thankful uh for all of the work that went into this. >> Okay. Thank you so much for that. Up next, I have councelor Brad Clark. Um, can I ask I'm assuming it would be GM Ziggger, has there been discussion at the planning committee about exempting DC's for the fourth unit in a forplex? So, we're looking to the back and there was a quick confirmation from a member of the planning staff. GM Ziggger, you were asked the question, you give the response. >> Sure. Uh through the chair, uh Mike Ziger, general manager of finance corporate services. I was going to redirect this to acting director Febach. >> Okay, we can go up to the top. Director Favac, the question I believe was this discussed at the planning committee. >> Um, good morning. Anita Febach, acting director of planning and chief planner. Uh I cannot recall any conversations of DC exemptions uh for the fourth unit at planning committee. >> Okay. Councelor Clark. Um in reading the report and I I know why it is here because this committee ultimately makes recommendations on the development charges. But there is a misalignment on the financial policy and the zoning policy that they're not congruent. And by that I mean, if I'm not mistaken, Director Fayback could confirm are not forplexes now an as of right process for any homeowner or property owner. Director Fayback >> through the chair to the councelor. Uh forplex is now a defined term in the zoning bylaw and a forplex is now permitted in the lowdensity residential zones. Um there are other uh forms of housing in the other zones that would permit four or more units. But in terms of strictly a forplex, they are permitted in the lowdensity residential zones. councelor. >> And I'm not sure if you recall because the province did some of this decision work. They made three plex three plexes and fourplexes as of right just like a granny flat or secondary dwelling unit. Do I have that correct or perhaps I was dreaming? director >> uh through the chair to the councelor through the planning act three units on a parcel of land is permitted. Um it does not permit a fourth >> councelor. So the province doesn't permit the fourth. They didn't make it as of right >> uh through the chair to the counselor. There is no legislation that requires municipalities to permit four units on a lowdensity residential parcel of land. >> Okay. And the last question, one of the challenge that I'm having in my ward with three plexes and forplexes, the people who end up renting out those units don't take the bus. So I end up with three, four, five cars for one single you structure and there's no parking. We the the streets weren't built for that. And so I'm trying to understand how we rationalize a DC exemption which would incentivize forplexes in areas where um it was never contemplated and there's nothing to prohibit the additional cars. And so we create this real problem. Zoning is saying one thing and financials are saying something else. And we have not addressed the challenge that folks at least in the suburban areas that are renting these units tend not to take the bus they drive. And that just creates a huge issue for for residents. So, I'm happy to receive this document, but I'm not ready to make recommendations in terms how we would proceed. I I think we need to to consider it a little bit further in terms of the implications if we do proceed. >> Thank you for that, Councelor Clark. And I think that we're all nodding in agreement that further study and conversation is required on this topic. Seeing no further speakers to this matter, we're going to move on now to 7 two which is FCS2604 non-compliances with the procurement policy report effective October 1st 2023 to June 30th 2025. I see the speaker list has started with councelor Rob Cooper please. >> Thank you chair. Um just a question for the CFO. When you look at the chart called table one, you know 2024 it looks like we had about 20 >> which >> oh this table one >> in the >> Yeah. Yeah. So it's just part of the body of the report that's okay. Uh so it's table one in the body of the report has broken out by quarter how many um uh what they call total number of policy 19s which is non-compliance. So for 2024, the total is around 27. We're already at 26 for 2025. So I just want to get a sense from the CFO why it is that this is going up. Um and we're starting to see we've almost in two quarters achieved what we achieved all the last year. >> So by CFO I think we mean general manager Zagaric. We're turning it over to you sir. through through the chair. I'm going to uh direct this to our director of procurement and procurement staff will have uh greater granular familiarity uh of the drivers. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Please proceed director. >> Good morning Tina uh director of procurement through the chair. Um unfortunately I do not have an answer for you as to why it's going up. Um policy 19s occur um for various reasons and they're outlined in the report. We tried to do outreach with the departments for educational purposes but unfortunately um there have been some instances in the last two years with respect to policy 19s. Um and we haven't really been able to delve into finding any specific details as to why this keeps happening but we know it does. counselor. >> So, so we don't really understand why it's happening. There's no consequences for it happening. So, people can just willfully disregard the procurement policy and do whatever they want. And we're just okay with that >> through the chair. The procurement policy provides for the general manager the ability to impose any type of discipline if that's seen deemed appropriate. um policy 19s and that um any action taken lies solely with the general manager. >> Counselor, >> thank you, Chair. Um do you think there might be something we should do from a procurement perspective? Like I I mean I I guess I'm just very concerned about this, right? You know, we've talked about this in different situations where it's come up where I don't know if it's officially policy 19, but we went way over our spending limit on Tiffany Barton. Okay. And that caused uh you know what 5.1 million and the signing authority was 100,000. And so this just causes a lot of concern in the community. You know people got 23% tax increase and they see this stuff happening and they feel like we don't have the fiscal control that we should have as a city. And a lot of other organizations, you know, would be on top of this sort of stuff. Instead, it's just getting worse and worse. And so I I am concerned by this. Like I would think from a procurement perspective we'd look at it and say hey you know what do we need to change there should be some enforcement but just allow this to go on and and not address it I just find is completely unacceptable. So thank you chair. >> Okay thank you councelor Cooper. Moving on next to councelor Alex Wilson please. >> Thank you um through the chair. Apologies for asking a similar question to councelor Cooper about trends. I just anecdotally when I was going through the appendices did notice that at least in terms of dollar spending the ones that were six figures like the because there's some here that are $5,000 and $18 here in terms of number and fractions but all of the I'd say the ones maybe not all but I think most if not all but one maybe of the like million dollar more figures were in some form of an emergency situation. Could we talk about how we're doing continuous improvements? So I think about the MECP issued an order, there was a building falling down are some of the examples I saw and so it was city staff acting in a moment of quickly urgency and it they didn't come to a committee first and so that is a violation of the policy but we can also understand there was an urgency in the context. I think councelor brought up a fair concern like how do we resolve the concern there but I I did see at least in the large dollar figures a bit of a trend where these are coming up in an an urgent situation. So how are we either accommodating for that with staff? How are we understanding that? How are we developing new policy to acknowledge we have to sometimes do things quickly? Um is that a trend that plays out? Thank you. >> Okay, this is going to the general manager first >> through the chair. Uh I'll start uh and then I'll invite director Ayako to uh to expand. With respect to the policy 19s, the one trend that staff have noted is uh corporate contracts and where there is not adherence to the utilization of corporate contracts. One potential contributing factor to that trend in 2024 was because of the cyber incident, our ENET was down and so the channel of communicating to staff with respect to those corporate contracts was not available as it traditionally was available. That channel now is being reinstated and so um hoping that see a change in the trend as it relates to uh staff utilizing corporate contracts. uh with respect to how procurement engages uh with program areas and client groups with respect to um with a hope uh and a effort to try to reduce the number of policy 19s or policy 10 and order for the organization to be familiar with the procurement policy. Uh again I'll uh hand it over to the director to expand and speak to that >> director. >> Through the chair with respect to the large dollar value 19s policy 19 is an avenue under the procurement policy in which to procure goods. It goes against the policy but it's there for a reason. And it's not only there to identify those opportunities where staff have gone in contravention of the policy but it also allows another avenue when everything else has been exhausted. So in the respect of um one of the incidents with peed and um the engagement of power properties in that in that instance staff could have stopped everything and come to council for approval and followed the procurement policy but they took it and made the decision to impose policy 19 so that the work continued regardless of getting the additional approval. because the decision was made at that time. It was in the best interests of the city to proceed with the work as opposed to going and with the formalities to secure the appropriate approval through council. So in some instances it becomes a decision made in the city's best interest. So in in those instances, I want to believe that the decision to to invoke a 19 was made consciously as opposed to halfhazardly. Thank you and through you, Chair, really appreciating that answer. And I think if some of that detail was maybe in another column in the report or potentially if these could be flagged as if this hypothetical situation were to happen again. Um procurement staff are comfortable if this happens in the same way because we understand this was an emergency and this was just the best way for something to happen versus no this was we're looking back on this and this was a problem and this was referred to the GM for continuous improvement and if there could just be an actions taken or maybe in the comment section I think that helps alleviate some of those concerns that you know some of these are just going to happen. We're a large organization. We understand when those happen, but they're not differentiated in this document. Um, as this was a problem versus this was a response to an emergency that our policy didn't accommodate and these things will happen in every every year and yes, we should still understand them, should still document them, but they're different than someone using a personal card or something else. That's a different type of violation. >> Thank you. >> Through the chair, if I can just respond, that's a wonderful suggestion. We'll take that um into consideration. Um the other thing I wanted to mention was that uh with respect to policy 19s again um usually the department does reach out to us and we have that discussion and unfortunately the only avenue to proceed um is a policy 19 and because it is a violation it needs to be reported there are no exceptions. The other uh one other thing I wanted to mention was the question was raised was with respect to what's the outreach or the educationalformational type of things that we do with client departments. Um we do work with the the client departments. We you know we in try to engage with them to bring us in on uh situations early. The one thing that we did learn recently from the Barton Tiffany um internal audit was the need for additional project and contract management. And so we're going to work with um our colleagues throughout the city and to develop that training process. And one component of that training process is certainly the procurement and the understanding of the policy. >> Okay. >> Thank you for that director. Moving on next to councelor Brad Clark please. >> Thank you chair Bey. Can I ask the the question how is how does procurement office define what is urgent or an emergency? >> Director through the chair. Um an emergency is deemed by the GM of the applicable department. If the understand if we understand or have a discussion with the GM and they seek my opinion um I would look back to the definition of emergency under the procurement policy and then give um recommendation going forward. So does the procurement policy and do all our staff understand the definitions of what would dee be deemed urgent and what would be deemed an emergency >> director >> for procurement purposes >> through the chair. I'm not I can't speak for everyone's understanding or clear delineation between what an emergency is and what an urgency is. Um, I see those as two different things. Um, but again, it's ultimately up to the GM to deem the situation either urgent or an emergency. Counselor, >> um, there's a few in here that are curious for me in terms of trying to understand the rationale for it. Uh there is something in appendix G and it calls it crack grale docs inc. Says AOD compliance review of budget books and departmental presentations. And so the procurement of this it doesn't really say what it is. Do we have an understanding as to what exactly it is? >> Okay. And this is you said appendix G. >> Appendix G. It's on the very first page. The second item down under the city manager's office. >> Yep. I read this as PO number CR03086. For those following along, I've got a response from the general manager >> through the chair. Uh it just happens I was the approver of this uh policy 19. This was in response to expediting the delivery of AODDA compliant budget documents. And while the there was an engagement with the vendor, the engagement did not include the AODDA related work. But in order to expedite that work and uh have that available to council and the public in the most timely manner, uh we proceeded with the policy 19 counselor. >> So to be clear, we knew that we had to do this and we left it to this timing to do this >> through the chair. No, it was a direction of council to uh deliver AODDA compliant documents and to do so in an expedited manner and we utilized this contract and this vendor who was uh supporting the city with respect to budget documents in order to meet those expectations. >> Thank you. So, that was approved by council. Although it doesn't say approved by council here, it was council direction to do this through the chair. That's correct. Thank you. Um, there was another item in here. Medical grade nitral and vinyl gloves, $42,149. Surely we're managing our supply sufficiently to understand that we're going to run out in a few months so that we can do an actual procurement. >> Who wants to take that? See the director's got her microphone on >> through the chair. I believe um the instances of what the counselor is speaking to it's Maxo. >> Yes. And yes, so in that situation we were heavily involved with respect to uh CO at the time. The non the non compliancy was found um >> this is in 2025. >> Yes, 2025. It was found later on and we reported it in 2025. Um unfortunately during COVID there was a sort you might remember there was a shortage of uh medical grade gloves and the costs had skyrocketed. The vendors who were working with us and were under contract kept their prices as much as they could within line of the contract but there was a point where they just couldn't do so anymore. Unfortunately, the staff member at that time continued to put the POS through even though recognizing that the price had changed without um leadership understanding that and we found it later on and that's why it's been um reported >> counselor >> but that would point to it would have been better to to actually do tenders. Um, the next one is SEMA Canada, $72,000 project manager services to support vacant unit tax initiative. Having a hard time understanding this one because I thought staff council provided the number of people that you needed for vacant unit tax. We we approved it in a budget. So why did we need to add an additional FTE when you already had the approval? I think it was it for eight people. >> I'm effectively putting you on for a second time, speaker counselor. So, proceed and uh look to the bench for a response, please. >> Page three of six, item G. it the way it reads and you can tell me if I'm reading it wrong. We I know council provided the manpower, the person power, the number of FTEEs to do the value you the the vacant unit tax. This looks like a contract for a project manager services. So, not necessarily an FTE, but someone made the decision to bring someone in. >> Is that correct, >> general manager? >> Y >> through the chair. Happy to take this away and provide greater detail, but in general, uh, Sema was engaged to assist with the development of the platform as it relates to the vacant unit tax and, uh, including a project manager to assist with the development of the program. but happy to provide committee with greater detail uh via email or a memo. >> Um please. And can you include in that whether or not the $72,000 was a part of the approved budget for the VUT >> through the chair? Yes. >> Um once again in 2025 biionuclear diagnostics medical grade nitro and vinyl gloves. So, this one was $89,840. So, is this to be added to the earlier figure of $42,000 or whatever the number was now? >> Yeah. 42,149. >> Councelor, if I could just uh get you to specify the page so we can >> page three of page three of six. Bionuclear Diagnostics, Inc. medical grade nitro vinyl gloves. >> Okay. >> Through the chair. The incident with Maxo is similar as to the incident with the bionuclear diagnostics. They're two different vendors and there are two separate non-compliancies that occurred but the same situation >> for the same division. >> Procurement. Yes. >> Because it's a corporate contract. procurement is seen as the administrator of the contract and in this respect we take ownership of the policy 19. >> Okay. Um I'll finish my my with a quick comment chair. Um I continue to be frustrated by this. you know, um I chair the Hamilton Conservation Authority. Expenditures there go through a process where we need three tenders, three people, three different companies. And and I can't recall the last time the CEO made a decision to spend money that did not go through that process. Everything is planned out in advance to meet that timeline. So, we don't have those issues there. and and if you look at the statistics, the actual cost to get something completed by the HCA as compared to doing the exact same thing with the city, the cost with the city is much higher every time. So I I fear that this trend of allowing companies that are now exceeding, you know, they got contract, oops, we you know what, we didn't include this in. So now you have to pay another $82 billion or whatever the case is. We have to stop that and and we have to get control of procurement. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. I don't see any further speakers to this item. So we are going to move on to 7.3 next which is FCS260005. This being a request for tenders and request for proposals report effective January sorry October 2023rd to June 2025. Looking to members if there are any questions on this particular report. And seeing none, we will then uh ask for a mover and a seconder to receive 7.1 7.1a 7.2 7.3. Councelor Spataphora, Councelor Huang. Thank you. Show of hands to receive all of these items together. That is unanimous. Thank you. Colleagues, we're moving on. Items for consideration. Starting with 8.1 FCS26045. This is the re uh report on the proposed writeoffs for provincial offenses. Starting with councelor Tammy Huang. >> Thank you. It seems that we have at least 1.5 million in un um unresolved or not able to to accept POA uh write offs. I just wanted to get a just to get a clarification on that 1.5 million please through you chair. >> Okay. Looking to the bench. >> Uh Sydney Manti, director of customer service, POA and financial integration. You are correct. 1.5 million is the request for write off. If you look on page one, you'll see the breakdown, but 1.3 of it is actually aged AR that is um eligible for write off. And then we have those that are underpayments. Just as a summary, those are if somebody pays a bill and they're off by 50 cents or a dollar. Those are the underpayments. And the last is deceased and that information is provided by the ministry. I hope that provides the counselor with a summary. >> Thank you. Just a question around um how do we do better at getting these uncollectible fines? As we heard from the delegate today, there is a mechanism with the uh crown debts. uh is that something that we can do here or how do we as I know that we will have this conversation later on today but just a question around is there any other mechanisms that we can employ here >> director >> through the chair thank you councelor for the question so um we are working with the province because they are looking at strategies specifically through service Ontario on how we can secure collection of the amounts that are sitting in service Ontario and what other opportunities POAS might have to secure your aged accounts receivable. This is not a just a Hamilton issue. This is an issue across all PAOAs. But I do have some good news. In 2024, uh the POA, Hamilton's POA, we collected about 2 million of items that were sitting in collections. And in 2025, we were able to double that and collect 4 million. And I just want to say kudos to the great work of staff. They really focused in on a number of different strategies along with our collection agencies in order to secure enhanced collections. >> Okay. >> Thank you, >> counselor. Uh, I think it's kind of terrible to look at 7,848 records from 2018 that are going to be written off. It just uh it does feel like uh a bit of an inefficiency, but at the same time, I I understand and I get it, too. So, I I just wondered wanted to make sure that we actually asked the question of like what are what are some different methods in which we can actually mitigate this or actually recover some of these costs. Thank you, though. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Moving on next to Councelor Rob Cooper, please. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, also looking at the same table, um, it's pretty consistent. I got maybe it's gone up a bit since uh, 2022, I know with 23 and 24, it's kind of lumped together, but say about 1.3 million each of those years, we just take a straight average. Um, and so I kind of wonder, similar to councelor Wang, um, you know, when you look at this, you know, do we ever go back and understand what fines are being written off, how we might do things differently? Um, maybe engage a collections firm if, you know, we get to, I think it's a seven-year mark, I think I read somewhere, where we write this off. So, kind of thinking about that going, I know if you go to renew your license, you can't do it if you got fines and stuff. And so I'm not really sure how this slips through, but do we do any analysis to better understand why we're writing off these amounts consistently? >> Okay, I'll turn it back to the director, please. >> Yeah, through the chair. Thank you, counselor, for the question. So, I'll explain the write-off process or the sorry, the collection process at POA. So, we have when a fine goes into collections, we have our internal team that tries to source those funds and then to the council. We actually have two levels of third-party collections. We call them first placement and second placement collections. And for those that are eligible, they will go to service Ontario and for those that are eligible will also go on the tax role. So we do have a number of different mechanisms in order to try to secure these funds. We are heavily working with the province and providing suggestions and recommendations on some strategies across the PAS and securing funds. But I also think it's important to provide context with regards to the collections uh the amounts that are sorry in writeoffs. about approximately 50% of those account for um fines that have no fixed address which makes it very difficult to collect those fines. I hope that provides some color and context to the work that we're doing in the composition of those fines. >> Counselor, >> thank you. So, so I guess once you have no fixed address, you're obviously not going to be able to go to service Ontario. You can't put into a property role. What what would be the nature of those fines that would be uh with no fixed address >> director? >> So I'll say sort of the top um and I'm going to go by statute. Sorry, my apologies through the chair. I'm going to go by statute. So the top I would say um fines that have no fixed address account for the Liquor License Act, the Trespass to Property Act, and the Safe Streets Act. So those are account for the bulk of those fines. >> Okay. >> Councelor, >> thank you, chair. Uh and the 50% that have a fixed address, um where are we finding like so are we finding that we're going they're just not being picked up by Service Ontario when we put them on the property roles? Maybe people are behind on their taxes. Um like like where where are we losing those? >> Director. >> Yeah, thank you. Through the chair. So if we have the information on the individual and we are able to identify the individual, they would go through a number of different options. So one is our internal collections, our third party collection agencies, which is first placement and second placement. If eligible, we would place them into service Ontario. So if they were to renew their plate, uh they would have to pay these fines first. Also, if they are eligible, because there are certain criteria, we would put them on the tax role. So we are using all these various avenues. In some cases, we're using two avenues. For example, you could be on service Ontario as well as in collections. So, we are trying our best to try to secure these funds. And as I said, the team has made great progress between 2024 and 2025. >> Thank you. Thank you. Through you, chair. So, we look at some like collections. Are we happy with our experience with the group that we have doing collections or do we ever put that out to procurement and just see if there's some other approaches that could be used by other collection agencies? Do how often do we review that aspect of it? >> Director >> uh through the chair. So our collection agencies are part of a larger um I'll say purchasing consortium across the various PAs. We do hold them accountable with regards to their collection activities. We monitor their performance. We look at their liquidation rates year-over-year and they have been fairly consistent and I will say their performance between 2024 and 2025. We also realized a slight increase in what they were able to collect. And just realize some of these finds that go to second placement. I apologize I'm getting a little detailed. Collection agencies. Um it's just a lot more digging to be able to source not only the information but also the ability to secure these funds. So we are doing our best efforts. That's not to say that we don't review our process every year and and strategize, not only brainstorm within the team, but across PAS to figure out who's using what strategies and if there's something we can learn from each other. >> Thank you, councelor. Down to your last 27 seconds. >> That's okay. Thank you, chair. Appreciate it. >> Perfect. We're moving on next to Councelor Brad Clark, please. >> Thank you, Chair B. Can I ask who issues the provincial offense notices, the violations, the tickets? >> Director through the chair. That would depend on the agency. So, Hamilton Police Services, OP, um you would have red light camera, all of those file or those those charges files. >> And so, the ones that are for no trespassing, all the 50% that you don't have a fixed address, I would assume that those would be provincial offenses that were issued by the police department. >> Director, >> through the chair, you're correct. >> Thank you. um trying to understand the report and it's me not you. Um on page 406 in the report there is a um table that says write off history. Can I get an understanding of what exactly is included in the year and outstanding balance? It looks to me like we have five years and we have an $80 million outstanding balance in 2025. The total amount written off was 1.5 million. That 1.5 million was taken out of or added to the year end outstanding balance. >> Director >> uh through the chair. So the 80 million removes the 1.5 million. >> Say I'm sorry, one more time. >> So the 80 million is after the write off. >> After the write off. And how many years back does the $80 million go? Director >> uh through the chair. The 80 million goes back to as there there's no date for when the cuto off is for the 80 million. So it's basically the duration of POA but we do look at it we do look at charges every seven years for write off. So, do we have concerns? I mean, if we've already written off a number of tickets, but they continue to be a part of the outstanding balance and you're going back to the beginning of time. The number seems to be an artificial number. Then it's not a current number. It's not something that in the last 5 years this was the outstanding balance. It's all the way back. Is that correct, >> director? >> Through the chair, it would go back to about 1997 if if you're looking at a point in time. >> So, just as clarity as well, um, if I could say the 80 million includes those that are preconviction, so those that have a fine but have not yet gone to court. And then it also includes those that are in active accounts receivable which means they have time to pay. And then it also includes those that are what we call in default. So the these are the fines that are either in service Ontario at our collection agencies or on the tax role. So in the interest of transparency, would it be possible to get perhaps a slightly more comprehensive table that out that takes those items out of that number? >> Director >> through the chair, we can um we can make that amendment for next year's report. at least explain what the the $80 million is because the way it looks here and to the average person reading this report, we're owed $80 million and we're not doing anything about it. And that's about 6% reduction on property taxes if we had secured that money. So, I think we need a little bit more information as to exactly what that 80 million is cumulative of. Thank you, >> director. A follow-up comment. >> Yes, thank you. Through the chair, if the council could please look on for appendix A, page six of six. That information is noted on that in the appendix, but please let me know if that's what you're looking for, if you're looking for any other detail. >> Okay, thank you for that. We're moving on next to Councelor Mike Spapora, please. Thank you, chair. Um, director, I would say based on your last comment, that's exactly what I think councelor Clark's looking for. Just that separation of those three uh, you know, sort of filters within that um, $80 million just so we better understand what makes up the 80 because it's not one thing. So, at least that's what I think he meant. But I I would I would like that. That would be great. Second thing I wanted to just say is page four of six when I look at it um obviously we're writing off $1 and a half million dollars but I when I look at the table I look at this as a positive. It looks like we've we've done better and we've improved. Um so happy for that. Um hopefully that trend can continue. When you look at uh combining 23 and 24 I think we've probably a million dollars less in writeoffs if I'm right. So, uh, kudos to your team and hopefully we can continue, um, the trend moving forward. Thank you. >> Okay, I have councelor Cratch up next, please. >> Oh, apologies, the button did not press. >> Very briefly, I did some math and just took the total number of 7,840 and looked at the total amount of 1.5 million. It's about $200 per offense. And so I assume part of this goes to the collections process itself. Meaning when some fines are lower, the amount of effort we put into collecting them ends up being cost negative for us. >> Could you clarify? >> Just give us a moment to figure out where that came from. We've got it resolved. Do you want to ask the question again just so we're clear >> for fun? Sure. Um, it looks like a lot of these when you average it out, obviously there's going to be some higher and lower than 200, but the average is about $200 a ticket or an offense. And so could you maybe elaborate on what's that threshold for us in terms of collectibility? Is it make sense for us to be spending 3 years, four years, 5 years trying to collect u on a $200 ticket and the effort put into that? And so some of the calculus about these writeoffs come down to the amount of the of the offense itself. >> Director, thank you through the chair. Um, with regards to the collection efforts, we basically take a look at what's available to us to collect these fines and just know once they're into collections, the city does not bear those costs. Those costs go to the recipient. So, from a cost perspective, those aren't borne on the city. Those are borne on the individual in which the collection effort is against. So, and as far as the tax role, once again, once it's on the tax ro, that's very that there's not a lot of cost in placing it on the tax role is through their taxes. So at that point in time, we do try to collectively and aggressively approach all of these fines uh to ensure that they are collected, but we also are very mindful on making sure that we use the best tools possible and in some cases multiple tools to collect these fines. >> I think it would would be helpful to have a little more clarification on that table on page six just simply because I think one area where this gets confusing is you talk about sending things to collections. I understand there's various kinds of collections. We can have collections where we say to the collector, we're going to give you this much collection debt and then you're meant to report that collection debt back to us. We can also sell some collection debt to collection collection agencies and as you say they can bear the burden in some kinds of ways. So there's different ways and different kinds of tools for collections that we can we can have here. It doesn't I'm completely clear what that $69 million means there. Right? So 68 271442 when you look at the table it says aged accounts receivable defaulted post write off right that that creates as far as I'm concerned cloudiness around what that is. If I go up and read right above the table it says aged accounts receivable represent charges that have not been paid by the required payment date and have transitioned into the collections process. Which collections process? How does that work? Is this actually on our books or is it something that we've kind of suspended indefinitely? And so I think the point councelor Clark's making, I think it's a good point, is what we should be seeing here is what's actively pushing a pressure on us, right? What's a financial pressure for us? Because if we're looking back holistically back to 1997 and trying to report that here, are these actual cost pressures for us? Are these unrealized things? What's the total accumulative number of write-offs? How does that have an impact on the actual number? And so on. So I think we're not seeing the full picture here in terms of uh the amounts like a table a line also saying the total amount that was collect like charged and collected. We're just seeing the balance also, right? So, let's just say there were $250 million in provincial offenses charges. We collected $170 million, $80 million is outstanding. That's not being represented also laterally when we're looking at the chart. So, I think a little more clarity is helpful here. So, just again, we can understand it, but also anyone looking at this say, "Oh, I get it. The real cost pressure is this is the cost pressure." Because I don't think the cost pressure is $80 million on the city. Could you explain that? Expand on that a little bit because I don't think that's what this is trying to say. director. >> Thank you uh through the chair. First and foremost, we will be taking your feedback and for next year's report, we'll make the amendments and add a little bit more information to that chart to ensure that there is the clarity. And with regards to the 80 million, once again, that is um a representation of what's preconviction conviction time to pay as well as what's sitting in accounts receivable. So, um what's sitting in accounts receivable, it's also important to know too within the 68 million about 65% of that is sitting with Service Ontario. What do you mean when you say that >> about 65% of the 68 million is sitting with Service Ontario waiting to be collected through those individuals that are looking to for example renew their plates. um in order to renew their plates, we would have to pay these fines. And I think that's the level of detail that you're looking for and we can provide in next year's report if that's acceptable to this committee 100%. Because I think when you say sitting with Service Ontario, that means something to you but not to me. And so what that might mean specifically is like you say, those fines are being collected by Service Ontario and we're waiting for those things to happen. Um and then you could provide a thing saying usually that gets cleared up in a year. That's an effective how effective is that collections method? What are we waiting on? So what we might see actually is oh the only actual amount here that's putting a pressure on the city uh daytoday or putting a pressure on us for collections is this you know $9 million number. I think it's just cleared everyone when you see this every year it's like oh gosh in 2025 we had $80 million and things we couldn't collect. That's how it's perceived and understood right. So I think um a little more clarity about the cost pressure for us and what we've done to mitigate that pressure would be helpful for everybody and frankly a better news story for for for everybody right to say oh look at we're improving because as councelor spapor said we are doing better over the last 5 years if you look at those amounts because for 2024 it represents two years if you divide it in half we're actually on track to doing better where it was sort of 2.8 million before. So again I think that's the better story to tell but it's hard to tell that story from these numbers. Thanks. >> Thank you. We're going back to the speakers list. Second time speaker, councelor Brad Clark, please. >> Uh, thank you, Chair, and I appreciate staff's um reminder of the page six of six in in the report. So, can I go to that please and ask a few questions? And so we know the total is $80 million 80,189,72 and it represents $115,200 charges. That's what that dollar figure comes from. And we know that that total figure is all inclusive of any provincial offenses. Um, I'm zeroing in now on the 68,271,442 that says post write off. So, is that figure lower after we've written off the dollar figures? So in other words, each year that we have written off um POAS, does that lower that aged account receivable or does that aged account receivable keep growing year after year? >> Director, a little bit of conference on the bench here through the chair. I think the council asked two questions with respect to the $68 million that assumes the write- off amount that is before committee for approval. The 1.5 million is netted off. So the 68 million is exclusive of the amount that is being uh recommended for write off with respect to the >> sorry before we go on from that the $68 million is less the write off. We've already taken the write off out of that number >> through the chair. That's correct. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. >> Sorry, Jim. >> Through the chair. Nope. Uh through the chair. I think the counselor, you were you were trying to get a sense of trending going forward. Where would that $68 million trend and what would impact um the trending of the 68 million? and and maybe I'll uh I will definitely hand it over to director Meranti to speak to that. Thank you. >> Okay, director. >> So once again um sorry through the chair with regards to the trending of the 68 million that really does look at what's in you know sort of in the aged accounts receivable what's in collection what's being collected at Service Ontario what our collection agencies are able to collect. But it also includes those fines that are going through the system that have no fixed address which as I said before u will make it very difficult for any collection agency to collect on. So um I'm not sure if that answers your question or if there's further information. >> Thank you. Earlier today, we heard about a situation with Ontario Works where basically the debts are being described as debts to the crown. In other words, the crown is not responsible. Who's responsible here for trying to collect the aged debts? Are we solely responsible or can it be transferred to the province for as a debt to the crown so that at some point in the future it will get paid? >> Director through the chair. Uh Hamilton POA would be responsible for those that are applicable to Hamilton POA, not the province itself. Uh we do look as I said to Service Ontario to assist in the collection efforts, but it would be the city of Hamilton. Councelor, >> do we have the authority to garnish wages for these things? >> Director >> through the chair, we have looked at the ability to do garnishment of wages. There are very strict criteria when it comes to that, but as I said before, we do look at all of our options available to us from a collection perspective. Garnishment of wages does to the previous counselor's comment have a cost to it. So, we also take that into consideration when we look at garnishing of wages. >> Councelor Well, I understand there's a cost to it, but receiving that garnishment is better than not receiving any money at all. Um, the two numbers that I am more concerned about is the active accounts receivable, which is 9.5 million uh convicted individuals. I appreciate the $2.3 million is being broken out as preconviction. Um the $68 million is this erroneous number that may or may not get paid down over time. And so we're reporting it as though this is an ongoing debt. And while it is um it's not really impacting current POA process. As a matter of fact, the collections more recently has been to the benefit of the city. So, we're doing a better job. Sadly, the numbers don't show it that way. So, that's why I think we need to rework that particular chart, please. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you as a response. I don't know if the director has a response. I saw >> the chair. Thank you for that feedback. We will review that chart for next year's report if that's okay for this committee. >> Okay. We've got some thumbs up in the room. Thank you so much for that. Seeing no further speakers on this matter. It has been uh duly Did I duly move it? No, I did not duly move it. I see. Councelor Spataphora, Councelor Crretch, please. Thank you very much, folks. This is going to be an electronic vote through escribe. Please indicate your vote in favor or against now. And it is the first vote, so it may take an extra moment. I see your thumbs up, councelor Tison. Thank you. There we go. >> And that carries 90. Thank you, colleagues. We're moving on now to 8.2, which is GSCC260002. That being the grant subcommittee minutes from May 20th, 2026. If I could have a mover and seconder in councelor Crutch, councelor spatro. Any questions for staff on this report. And seeing none, we are now going to move to the electronic vote. Please indicate your vote now. Councelor Pauls. Thank you. >> And that carries 90 also. Thank you colleagues. We're moving on now to 8.3 which is amendments to the Obl, the outstanding business list as listed in the report. Do we have any questions? No. I will seek a mover and councelor Spataphora. Councelor Hang. Thank you folks. Please indicate your vote electronically now. That also carries. 90. Thank you. Colleagues, we're moving on now to motions, which is item nine, starting with 9.1, funding for lighting at Ferguson Station. Councelor Crutch, please indicate your motion. Introduce your motion and indicate your seconder. >> Move by myself. >> Seconded by Move by myself, seconded by councelor Alex Wilson to spend some air rating money to install lighting at Ferguson Station. Something that the BIA has been asking to do for a while. In fact, actually, it's already underway from the funding that they have. This is a bit timesensitive in terms of trying to add some matching funding to from the city's coffers. It's giving about 10,000. Um we're doing 15,000 of area rating to illuminate it down there. If you don't know the area, it's caught in between and it's not very well lit. And so this will allow events to be a bit more vibrant than they were in the past. It's part of a series of lighting initiatives downtown. Uh this is the second one and hoping to do more lighting on King William in the near future. That's that. >> Okay. Looking to see if there are any questions of members of committee on this motion and I do not see any. Therefore, we will move to an electronic vote. Please indicate your vote now. >> And that carries 9-0. Congratulations, Councelor Cratch. That is approved. We're moving on now to 9.2, which is funding allocation for Hamilton Farmers Market fall 2026 York Boulevard activation. Also a motion by councelor Cretch. You can indicate your second and introduce your motion, please. >> Seconded by councelor Hang, moved by myself for funding for an activation along York Boulevard. What the farmers market is finally doing, which I'm pretty excited about. We've been trying to do for years. There was a problem there where the doors on York Boulevard couldn't move because they were broken. We finally got the doors fixed because it was a a whole custom glass operation. Then the doors are now being opened. We're finally moving the market outside uh as a full activation and trying to see if it will generate some interest and having some vendors come into it. And we're actually putting trees, um shrubs, all kinds of greenery out there to make York Boulevard seem more alive, which is going to be wonderful. If this is successful, we're going to be trying to do this more often and then eventually incorporating with our crawls, super crawls, trying to invite farmers back to an open farmers market space. That's been the whole plan all along. So, this has been a couple years in the planning, but the farmers market doesn't have the entire amount of funding themselves. So, I'm offering a bit of funding from W 2. I think eight or eight or $10,000. And it's a bit a different kind of a different thing that we're doing. Area rating funding isn't usually used for trees and things, but all these trees and plants will be planted in war 2 afterwards. So, they'll all be saved and used again. And that's really great. And the forestry people have been working to make sure this isn't just some kind of a one-time thing that they'll be they'll be put into the community afterwards. So, seems like a reasonable use of air rating funds and hope to approve it. Thank you. >> Thank you. I don't see any speakers on it, but I do recall sitting on the farmers market board and u it's nice to see this project coming to fruition. So, congratulations. We're going to move now to the vote. Oh, sorry. I apologize. We do have councelor Mark Tatison up on the board. Uh, councelor Tatison, please uh, go ahead and ask your question. >> Uh, no question. I just wanted to thank Councelor Kretch for coming out to the Hampton Wentworth Federation of Agriculture meeting about a month back to try and recruit uh, farmers back to the market. Uh, it was very wellreceived and there was a lot of interest and we'll be following up with those farmers uh, in the future. So, thank you councelor Crutch. >> Excellent. Thank you so much for that, Councelor Tatison. We're now going to move to the electronic vote. Please indicate your vote now. >> Councelor Pauls. >> Thank you. >> And that carries 90. Congratulations, Councelor Cretch. We're now going to move to 9.3, which will require me to pass the chair to Vice Chair Spataphora. >> Thank you, Councelor Bey. Please introduce your motion for the Stony Creek Community Garden Accessibility Project. And I believe I am your seconder. Please go ahead. >> Thank you very much, councelor. Um this is a motion to assign some funding from the uh nonpropy tax revenue account in W 10 uh with an upset limit of up to $650. This has been costed out by the volunteer organization that now runs the community garden. This was an initiative that my office took on at the beginning to reboot uh community leadership, volunteer leadership of the community garden. Of note, we tore down a building and built a garden in its place. So, it's a rather cool piece of uh storyline and narrative taking place in W 10 right now where people can grow their own food and um it's been wellreceived. There are some accessibility challenges, however, and these raised beds will address that uh to make u it more accessible to more people. So, if you have any questions, happy to answer them. It's a pretty straightforward motion and happy to uh seek adoption of this. >> Thank you, councelor Bey. We have it moved and seconded. Any questions? Seeing none, we'll go to the vote. Sorry, councelor Pauls. I didn't see. Thank you. And that carries 9 to zero. Congratulations on all the motions. Back to you, chair. Thank you, vice chair. We are now moving to private and confidential. And thus is a mover and seconder to move into close session respecting item 11.1. Seeing councelor Clark, seconded by councelor Rob Cooper. This is pursuant to section 9.3 subsection A of the city's procedural bylaw as amended and section 2392 subsection A of the Ontario Municipal Act 2001 as amended as the subject matter pertains to the security and property of the city or local board. And we have the item now available for vote. >> All in favor seeing a show of hands. Thank you very much. Members of the public, uh the meeting will continue once we have concluded with the close session portion of the meeting. You will see members of committee have returned in public view. The committee will wait up to 5 minutes upon reconvening in open session before proceeding with the meeting to provide members of the public and the media time to return. >> Um I'm sorry, councelor uh chair Bey. I'm going to do an electronic vote and the um road map says show of hands, but I think we need an electronic vote for this one. >> What I >> All right, >> we're doing had some muscle memory on that that the electronic vote is required. So, we're going to go rewind the clock on that one. Folks, if you could indicate your electronic vote. Those online, if you could indicate your electronic vote as well. Okay. And that carries 8 Z. Uh, continuing, we are now going to move into close session. I would ask all members of the public to exit council chambers and the WebEx meeting. Now, any staff not directly related to item 11.1 are asked to leave the meeting. as well. A reminder to all members of committee to please ensure that you moved into the closed session portion on escribe. Also reminding members of committee that as per section 8.7 of the procedural bylaw, the use of personal electronic devices during closed session meetings is strictly prohibited and the use of city electronic devices during closed session meetings are limited to text communications only and not as a telephone recording device or camera. staff from the office of the city clerk are exempted from subsection 8.7c when using electronic devices for recordkeeping purposes. And so we will continue uh the moment that we have determined that we are ready to proceed. We are back in open session. Thank you folks. We are going to now seek a mover and seconder to approve the recommendations made in camera. This is with regards to 11.1 AUD210004E cyber security follow-up audit update. Uh, if I could have a mover and seconder. Seeing councelor Clark, councelor Hang, if I can have an electronic vote to ratify this now. Please folks, please indicate your vote now. Senior counc. Thank you. >> And that carries 90. Thank you colleagues. Uh the end is here. We are at the end of the meeting. There is no further business. So AFNA is now adjourned at 11:17. Thank you colleagues. We will see you back here next