Transcript: Audit Exposes Park Funds Mismanagement - Comité de la vérification — 2026/04/30 | Summary 582

Audit Exposes Park Funds Mismanagement - Comité de la vérification — 2026/04/30

Audit committee audio test. 1 2 3 1 2 3 Audit committee second audio test. 1 2 3 1 2 3 Hang in two minutes. All right, waiting for Kathern Kits. Good morning, everyone. Bonjourus. Welcome to today's audit committee meeting. Thank you for our uh little delay there so we could all go out and raise the Ottawa charge flag. It's very fun and uh good luck to the charge. Um just a friendly reminder that for reports submitted by the office of the auditor general we will first ask questions of the auditor general after or the office of the auditor general after their presentation and we'll start with questions from committee members and then from other members of council and city staff are available for questions after questions to the OG are complete again we will start with members and then members of council let's get started all right regrets we have none today I'll ask the committee coordinator to call the role Councelor Brown here. Councelor Carr here. Councelor Hill present. Councelor Kavanaaugh. Councelor Kitz. Vice Chair here. Vice Vice Chair Hubley here. Chair Curry here. You have quum chair. Thank you very much. Um declaration of interests. I don't have any unless anyone else wants to say anything. No. All right. Confirmation of minutes from the audit committee, minute 16, March 13, 2026. Uh, are these minutes carried? Carried. Carried. All right. Thank you. And to the office of the Auditor General. Fore Mercy. Exact. Okay. Good morning. Under the planning act, as part of the condition of development, redevelopment, subdivision, or land severance, municipalities can require developers to either contribute land for parks and or provide cash in lu of parkland aimed at addressing population growth resulting from development. At the city of Ottawa, the amount of parkland or cash in loo required is governed by the parkland dedication by law. The city also has a cash in ll of parkland funds policy which provides guidance on the eligible uses of these funds and establishes how they are allocated accessed and reported. Under the city's current model, cash and l colleds collected are allocated to the ward in which the sorry 60% of the cash and lube funds collected are allocated to the word in which the development occurs while 40% are allocated to a citywide account. These funds may be used for land acquisition, new park development, enhancements to existing parks and recreational facilities, and certain life cycle or benefit to existing components of capital projects. In 2022, the province passed bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, which introduced changes to Parkland dedication requirements, including new exemptions and reduced prescribed rates. Following the enactment of the city's parkland dedication bylaw, several appeals were filed with the Ontario Land Tribunal. As a result, cash and loo funds collected after September 2022 were placed on hold pending resolution of the appeals. In December 2025, the city released 50% of these funds increasing the availability of cash and loo balances for use. Next slide, please. The objective of this audit was to assess whether the city has the necessary processes and controls in place to effectively and efficiently manage cash in lie of parkland funds and to assess the prudent use of these funds. Specifically, the audit examined how cash and loo of parkland funds are determined through the de development application process, how projects funded through cash and loop are prioritized, selected, and approved, and how cash and ll projects are planned prior to entering the design and construction phases. The scope of the audit focused on a sample of completed and active cash and loop projects, both ward specific and citywide. This did not include projects evaluated through the pilot intake process, as these projects were not active at the time of our audit. The audit only focused on the early stages of project planning including the development of project charters and the coordination between recreation, cultural and facility services and other city departments. Next slide please. Now to the findings of the audit. Overall the audit found that the cash that cash and loop projects reviewed were generally eligible under the cash in le of parkland funds policy and aligned with the types of investments permitted for parkland and recreational facilities. However, the audit did identify areas where the policy is not being adhered to and where there are opportunities to strengthen the approach for selecting and planning cash and loo projects. The first finding relates to the use of ward level cash and loo funds. The audit found that although ward cash and loo funds are the direct responsibility of the city, councilors generally view these funds as theirs to administer. While the cash in le of parkland funds policy delegates authority to management in practice counselors are identifying and prioritizing ward projects within project within policy eligibility parameters while recreation cultural and facility services provides concurrence if projects proposed projects meet eligibility and feasibility requirements. In 2025 a pilot intake process was introduced to bring more structure toward cash and loop project selection. Councilors submitted priority lists which city stakeholders assess for eligibility alignment with city priorities and feasibility. In some cases, management recommended changes to the priority order. Despite this input, several counselors opted to proceed with their original priorities and ration for deviating from management's recommendations were not documented. While counselor input provides important local knowledge and insight into community needs, the audit found that the approach to selecting and prioritizing projects varies across wards. Some decisions are driven by resident requests or community association input, while others are influenced by asset condition, geographic considerations, or the location of the development that generated the funds. Overall, there was a risk that spending decisions are based on differing priorities and may not consistently reflect the city's broader park and recreation needs or strategic priorities. The second finding relates to the use of citywide cash and loop funds, which are intended to support projects that benefit the city as a whole or districts within the city. While these funds have been used for eligible purposes, the audit found that there is currently no formal plan or strategy governing how city-wide cash and loop funds are prioritized and allocated. As a result, spending tends to be ad hoc and reactive to emerging needs. We also learned that there are no formal equity considerations as part of the decision-making for the use of citywide cash and loo funds. There are wards which receive little or no ward level cash in loot due to li due to limited development or redevelopment activity increasing the risk of disparities in park redevelopment and recreational amenities across the city. Without a guiding strategy, decisions regarding citieswide cash and loose spending tend to be reactive and it is difficult to demonstrate that funds are being consistently directed to the highest priority needs and long-term parks and recreation planning objectives. I will now pass the remainder of the presentation over to Ria. Next slide, please. Thank you. The third finding relates to the compliance with annual reporting requirements outlined in the cash and youth parkland funds policy. The policy sets out specific requirements for monitoring and reporting, including annual reporting to committee and council and quarterly updates to counselors on account balances. These reporting requirements are intended to promote transparency and demonstrate prudent use of funds. The audit found that while quarterly balance updates are provided to counselors, the annual reporting requirements outlined in the policy are not being fully met for 2023. An annual report outlined all cash and new transactions made in 2023 for parkland dedication purposes from citywide and ward accounts. However, this report was not published until December 2024, several months after the policy's first quarter deadline for 2024. The published report provided only high-level financial information such as opening and closing balances, interest earned, revenues, and transfers. It did not include details on projects funded through cash and new or the other funding sources supporting those projects as required by the policy. As a result, recent reporting has not provided comprehensive information on how cash and new funds are being used, which reduces transparency and the city's ability to clearly demonstrate alignment with policy and strategic priorities. The fourth finding relates to the planning of cash and new projects and the experience and expectations of both staff and counselors during the early stages of project development. Once a cash and new project is approved to proceed, it requires coordination across multiple departments to develop a project charter, establish preliminary scope, timelines, and cost estimates, and to then transition the project into detailed design and delivery. The audit found that capacity constraints, particularly within planning park planning resources, combined with misaligned expectations from counselors, have led to inconsistent experiences in the planning of cash and new projects. Historically, projects were initiated on an ad hoc basis and planning of these projects was off the side of the desk, contributing to delays and extended timelines. Early cost and schedule estimates developed with limited information ended up being very different than final cost estimates leading to frustration and misaligned expectations. In addition, communication challenges and unclear roles between departments during project handoffs have further contributed to inconsistent project experiences. While recent changes, including a pilot intake process and planned additional resources, are expected to improve planning going forward, these issues have strained working relationships and highlighted the need for clearer expectations, better communication, and more consistent processes. Next slide, please. The final finding relates to the pilot intake process that was introduced to bring more structure and coordination to the prioritization of cash and lube projects, particularly in anticipation of the release of funds previously held due to the Ontario land tribunal appeals. The audit found that the pilot intake process represents a positive step forward compared to the historical ad hoc approach. It has helped improve coordination across departments, introduced clearer evaluation criteria, and provided a more structured and transparent mechanism for counselors to submit and prioritize proposed projects. That said, the audit identified an opportunity to formally reflect on lessons learned from the pilot to ensure the process continues to be effective and efficient as it's fully implemented on a go forward basis. There's a need to better align intake frequency, project volume, and staff capacity, as well as to clearly manage expectations regarding how many projects can realistically be initiated and planned at any given time. Without these refinements, there's a risk that multiple intake cycles or shifting priorities could place additional pressures on limited resources, contribute to delays, and undermine the benefits the intake process was attended to achieve. Overall, five recommendations were made and the city has agreed to them all. Next slide, please. I will now pass over the presentation to Natalie. Thank you, Ria. Uh chair, if you all indulge me for a moment, I just want to make a few uh remarks before we take questions. Uh firstly, to to counselors, I know that this topic is near and dear to all of you. Um, I appreciate that this is a mechanism that you feel that you can use to demonstrate to your constituents that you're listening to them and that you're making a difference. I I hope that comes through in our report. I I respect this perspective and as I'm just mentioned, we highlight in our report the importance that you play in bringing forward ideas and in representing the residents in your ward. The first finding in our report is pointing out that the current process as it is currently occurring in practice uh is not in line with policy. And what we're aiming to do with that first recommendation is really to get the best outcome for your constituents while leveraging both your community knowledge with staff's expertise, their citywide perspective, and the authority that's been delegated to them. Um so, chair, thank you very much, and we'd be happy to take any questions. committee members have. Thank you. Thank you very much. This is a challenging uh topic I think for all of us because there's many views. Uh one thing we have to do first is get the report um make move the motion for the report and I'm going to look to vice chair Hubley to move that so then we can actually discuss it. Thank you chair. Uh so the motion reads be it resolved that the audit committee approve the addition of the office of the auditor general's report entitled audit of cash in lie of parkland funds dated April 29 2026 and published after the agenda pursuant to subsection 89 bracket 3 of the procedures bylaw being bylaw number 2025-100 to allow for the consideration of this report. Thank you. Thank you vice chair. Is this motion carried? Third. Carried. All right. Great. Thank you. Okay. Uh questions for the auditor general. Councelor Kavanagh. Thank you very much uh to you and your team for this work. Um, I have to say it's a it's it's kind of a touchy subject because it's something that gives us some control and there's not many things that we have control over. Um, but uh with control you need guidelines too and and um and help um and uh anyway it's it's it's a tough subject um and we want to do the best and we want to have good projects. Um I'm just wondering um in your analysis of the current cash and loop projects I'm just are many of them on track or do many of them get delayed because that's an experience I've had is the delay factor. Thank you for the question uh through you chair. Um certainly that is the case. Um we we found in the sample that there are lots of delays. um different reasons of course um but things that we did uh highlight in our report certainly did indicate things like again capacity issues also you know there's seasonal challenges so there's there's things like that but certainly delays as well as um you know increasing uh costs for sure is what we saw you appreciate the fact that um the your the citywide strategy is is to be is to be using and equity lens and that's really important to me um because we get the cash and loo in areas where there's development. It's not necessarily for areas that are not currently developed but are in need and so there's always that uh dilemma and um and it would be great if we could strategize on those areas and I have a number of them and and I know my my colleagues do as well. Um so I just wanted to know how do how do we analyze that? So, um can you speak to how the equity lens should be applied and um and what you consider to be um a a good way like for example like using um we have the um we have analysis out there of um the uh neighborhood u strategies that are you know do an analysis of each neighborhood you know the that show like for example that there's a low income area um and other areas that do not have as many resources. Um, so is that something that you're recommending? Uh, thank you for the question, councilor chair. I'll start off and I'm sure Joanne might want to add. Um, we try not to be too prescriptive, counselor, with our recommendations. We like to give management some leeway in how they uh see best to implement uh some of these aspects. That being said, what we're looking for is to ensure that as as best as possible that the quality and availability of these types of recreational options are are equitable across the city as a whole. Um, so obviously taking that lens of is there an area that may be in that may have parks that are in greater disrepair than others would be obviously a higher priority area. Joan, I don't know if there's anything you'd like to add. I'll just add that I do know that this has been on the radar of management. So like these are things that are already being contemplated. To be fair, they have said to me that, you know, we're looking at equity. Um it it's just that I'm not sure how it it's all working and where that money's been going. So it's it's difficult for me to comment. So I think that's a perfect segue to one of our other recommendations, which is ensuring that that reporting is coming to council as a whole. while you know what's occurring within your ward, you don't know what's occurring in other wards and you're not seeing uh over the past year and a half or two uh the details of what's occurring citywide. So, I think that's important and that'll help you understand uh where the funds are going. Yeah, many of the projects that I'm I've been put forward have been in areas where it's equity related. But I also, you know, one of the things that I never understood is how come I don't see where the money's coming from? I what the list of uh you know whose who don't you know who whose uh contribution this was and um I have to ask for it. Um that should be given to me. So that that's another thing that I I think would be helpful. But um yeah, I mean there's we we've got a we just put in a outdoor skating rink um in an area where it's right beside social housing and a school. Um but it took three years to do. Um it seemed like a simple project, but uh that's just part of digging up and finding out what's uh how long things take, but uh anyway, um I'd like to see what's happening across the city as well. And uh because we want it, especially near like for example Ottawa Community Housing neighborhoods, um they're very large and um they don't get the uh attention they deserve. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Kavanagh. Uh, Councelor Hill. No, Councelor Brown. Sorry. It's easy to get the two David mixed up. Sorry, I forget. Councelor Brown. Uh, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much to the auditor general and her team. I think this is a great audit and it highlights several deficiencies that we can address and we should, and I think committee is going to recommend that council uh move forward with this audit on the whole. The one challenge that I have, of course, is when we start talking about making decisions consistently across the city. I have found in my experience that the one-sizefits-all approach for any program or service leaves all residents at a disadvantage. My ward is very different from some of the urban wards. And when I look at parks in my ward, in many cases, you can't walk to the park in the next village. You have to drive. So, one of the benefits of the cash and Lou uh program is that I can add to community parks, which quite often are the only park in the village to make sure that the residents who are going to use it, most often residents without driver's license, don't have to go to another community to enjoy a public amenity. I'm I I guess I'd like to know why in your audit recommendations instead of saying we need to seed more authority to city staff, the recommendation didn't come back to say I think you need to look at your policy because ultimately this is council's policy. It's not staff's policy. Um why wasn't there an explicit recommendation that says in practice if you're not following it I think you guys should open that up again and take a look. Thank you for the question counselor chair through you. Um it's a great question counselor and to be very candid uh when we do any audit if we're using the policy and in many cases we are using policy as a a baseline for um kind of how we establish our criteria. So what are we going to audit against? We have to evaluate um the contents of that policy. That that's that's part of the work that we do. In this case, obviously we did do that and the governance aspect of this policy is is clear. It's aligned with other policies that we've seen with regards to cash and loo. It's aligned with what we generally see from any policy where you're delegating authority down to staff. Um there's if if I take a step back, generally speaking, operational decisions are made by by staff. those delegate there's delegation authority that's that's provided to them through that policy direction that's established by by counselors. So to your question we felt that the policy was uh fulsome. Um we don't comment on certain aspects such as the 6040 split between ward and and and uh and the citywide fund and the reason for that is our benchmarking gave us uh enough evidence that this was somewhat consistent with other municipalities. It was a wide range. I think I give an example of I think St. Cathine's keeps all funds for land acquisition but St. Cathine's is very different than Ottawa or Toronto. Um so and then again if we compare to Toronto uh Toronto's policy gives uh counselors even less um of a say. I would say it's really just going back to counselors to ensure that they don't have significant um concerns with what's being proposed. That's not what we're saying here. We're saying there's a policy that's in place. It's not currently being followed. Um and and that I I believe based off of what we've seen and based off of our benchmarking that it is demonstrating good governance um to follow the policy as it is. Thank you very much for the response and and I can appreciate that and I think your team has correctly identified there's an issue with the policy. Although I think perhaps my opinion and that of the auditor general in this case might differ on what the best solution would be. But I appreciate the opportunity to engage. I think the audit was well done. It highlights again many deficiencies that I think we can address. I I just am concerned about giving away some of the ability that we have as counselors to make positive impacts in our community. As councelor Kavanaaugh said, there aren't many ways left that local officials can actually build those bonds with communities. And this is one tool that we do have. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Councelor Hill. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I I don't think I have a full appreciation for your assessment of the actual risk of where we're at on this policy as it pertains to the non-compliance. Um, how big a deal is this? like is there provincial or federal legislation that uh that requires us to do certain things or are we simply not completely following the policy that the city internally has set for itself and that is the risk chair. So the first part to my answer would be exactly as you just described the latter part councelor Hill is that it is a staff established policy based off of delegation of authority um that was provided by council. That being said, that that's always something that can change, but I'll go back to my latter point that I just made to councelor Hill is the policy, sorry, councelor Brown, my apologies. Um, the policy as it is currently written demonstrates good governance and is structured the way many other municipalities are structured. Thank you. Um, I know you cited Toronto as an example when we're looking at other comparables. Um, my understanding is Toronto does not have a substantial rural footprint. Um, so I do think that uh an Ottawa specific policy probably should have some Ottawa specific nuance. Um, and I am concerned if we're looking to uh realign this policy with compliance in an environment where I don't know that the risk is substantial. Um, are we at risk as a corporation of some type of brand or financial or legal risk with the way that we're applying or perhaps not completely um not wholesomely applying this policy? I just don't understand the concern as it pertains to risk to the city of Ottawa with what we're doing and if we were to reject your uh your recommendations and continue doing what we're doing. So, chair, the first thing is is we're not asking to revise the policy. We're suggesting that you follow policy. That is my role. My role is to perform audits. It is to look at whether or not um programs and services are performing um as they should and as they are are intended, whether or not you're complying with the policies, the bylaws, legislations that that's been established, as well as whether or not it's demonstrating value for money and prudent use to taxpayer dollars. That's my role. That is what my team and I have done with this particular uh report. When it comes to counselors making operational decisions, we've highlighted in our report there are risks and the greatest risk is that decisions are perceived as being politically motivated. The policies designed to protect each and every one of you. It's designed to ensure that decisions are made by individuals with the expertise by with sound um kind of decision making in the background so that it it there's analyses that's with it that's supporting it and that's the reason why the policy is structured the way it is. That's the how staff structured it and and we support that. Um again, council as a whole uh can choose to do what they wish, but we are not recommending a change to the policy. We are recommending that the the process behind it supports the policy. Uh that's all for now. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councelor Kits. Thank you, Chair. Um, so I'm having trouble understanding where the fault is in the the new process that was established because what I'm understanding from the audit is that this was, you know, always meant to be a staff-driven process where they are looking at the needs and making suggestions. To be honest, that was that has not been my understanding of the policy prior to the new process being put in. When I was elected, it was understood that, hey, you've got this sort of fund envelope of money and you can make suggestions on how we use that. And and we were generating the suggestions sort of on an ad hoc basis. Now we have this more for formal process and we've only had sort of one real back and forth exchange with staff. But through the new process, we make suggestions. Staff provide input, rank the suggestions we've made, explain why some of our suggestions are not feasible, and then there's a little bit of discussion on sort of how to move forward. To me, that seems like a happy medium between counselors having input and this is what I'm seeing, this is the needs that I'm hearing from my community, and then staff providing that layer of expertise. Well, you may not have considered this and this is why, you know, we can't this is not feasible. So, that's that's where I'm struggling with this. I'll start off uh counselor and I'm sure Joanne will definitely like to add. First and foremost, what you're saying with regards to your understanding of practice, we heard that consistently. So, it it's why you'll see our report is very high level. There is no pointing of fingers in any way. uh because we understand that this has been a long a long time practice. Um and I think it's due to first of all the policy not being well known. Uh so I just want to use that piece with regards to the new process. The one thing we have to caveat is the end of our audit is essentially kind of right at where that new process was in place. So the team was able to look at the criteria in the application and as we highlight and I think Ria highlighted it quite well at the end of the presentation is we see a lot of really good things there and and we want to we we want that to continue. We talk about a lessons learned to see how that can continue to be improved. However, what we did see throughout the course of our audit is even in instances where counselors would bring uh suggestions and staff would say no this isn't the right approach here here are the issues with it. we did see instances where that was raised up the chain and and somehow those projects did go through. So we are still seeing some issues with how um the process is actually occurring in practice but the design of that new process I would say is is significant improvements. Joan did you have anything to add? No thank you. So I I guess then how do how do you fix that piece? Like if we now have a process where there is meant to be staff input and you know counselors are still meant to have input and staff is supposed to have input and it like like how do you how do you resolve that if it's just not being respected? I think the thank you for the question and I think the process as it's been designed and again it's really still early days with a a pilot but it it how it was how it's been working I think is intended um with that back and forth the you know assessing it against an established evaluation criteria and then having that dialogue I don't know that we we would never want to say that there's not supposed to be the and I know the word collaboration is in there that there shouldn't be the collaboration um it would just be that at final like who makes the final final decision once all of that collaboration would be aligned with the policy. So really all the steps just until that final final spending decision. Okay, understood. Um and then the other thing I wanted to ask so you recommend applying an equity lens um but the report doesn't define what equity means and I think equity can mean things in different neighborhoods. Um it can mean based on the amount of homes relative to to park and green space and amenities. Um my approach to CIL has been to add accessible features in parks. To me that is equity but that that is driven by that was my initiative. It was not suggested by staff. So I think you know if we're going to suggest equity lens what we need to define it. Thank you for that question. Absolutely that's that I would agree 100% and and really we are talking just about the citywide um you know to ensure I mean obviously in the best case you know a lens is looked at holistically but on the citywide it is from uh our thought would be certainly that management would you define this and that's why I think in the management uh response that would go into the policy as part of the update to the policy is really what that means. Okay. So, so not at a at a ward level, just at a not in our recommendation. Okay. All right. Thank you, councelor Carr. Yeah. Thanks. I I think I just have a comment more than a question to the AG. I really appreciate this audit and I I think I probably differ from most of my colleagues um in how much I love this audit because uh I do think that there's a massive equity issue with our CIL accounts and I know people will have disagreed with me and this is something when um we ask questions to staff. I'm sure uh Dan will tell you I've been advocating about my challenges with this program since I was elected. So just for context, I just recently asked for my CIL account to purchase two benches. It's the first thing I've been able to purchase in four years because the previous counselor committed to two projects and um they're both in equity areas and it has taken me every dime of money in my CIL account to pay those off. I support those projects, but in wards where we don't have lighting on fields, where we don't have water sources attached to parks, it costs me an extraordinary amount of money to pay for these things. So, new communities are constructed with electrical. They're constructed with water. So, their splash pads aren't costing them over a million dollars like my two equity uh deserving communities are getting splash pads. That is a huge problem. And it's, you know, I've been frustrated with the CIL program. Um, also I don't have a lot development. So, people will say, "Oh, well then you you you you shouldn't have CIL then. It's for people with development." I have the Build Canada home site. I have Kilborn. I have 1460 Riverside. I'm getting thousands and thousands of units of affordable housing. We voted to not have CIL for affordable housing. So, I'm going to welcome thousands of units and not have any access to CIL. So, there is a massive equity issue. I understand people like these accounts so that they can uh you know use them to their community, please their community, but there needs there the the equity angle outlined in this report is very important to someone like me who has felt for a long time that we could be better structured. Um and I look forward to seeing how the program has rolled out. But I just want to say I know it's a bit contentious. I'm probably on the opposite side of most of my colleagues, but I really appreciated the findings of this report. Thank you, Councelor Carr. I I just have a couple of comments, maybe a question, too. Um, in the recommendation where it indicates there's some confusion as to who has the final say. When you were doing your interviews, did you find that anyone uh with staff side or counselor side, I guess staff side where they would really would have said, "We disagree with this project. We don't think this is equity. we don't think this is where the money should be spent and there were there that became contentious chair yes we most definitely saw situations where that was the case which is where this recommendation is stemming from um as I had mentioned all the counselors that we interviewed which I believe was 50% of uh of all of council that we interviewed including the mayor's office everyone saw it as it was their funds to make the decisions on so as I mentioned to councelor kits that understanding was uniform across the board. Uh but we definitely saw instances where uh there was disagreement. Um and don't get me wrong, disagreements are going to happen. I I think that's it's great. It means there's dialogue that's occurring. It's just how that gets resolved. Um and where that authority is currently sitting with. Yeah, I can imagine. And I think you know one of my comments would be that when you write a policy you have to make sure that it is if if looked at and used by someone who has great intentions it will work and if it's looked at and used by someone who does not that it won't create problems and and that's the I always refer to it as the Batman the joker which you know how would each look at a policy and and use it or manipulate it. Uh it has to be able to apply to both. Um, so I think what you're recommending here is a good idea that we actually follow how we are um what our policy says. Recommendation five where you're talking about lessons learned from the new process. I will say just as an example when we submitted our priorities, the ones that came back to me were the opposite of what I'd submitted. But then we had a follow-up meeting and reviewed the rationale for why the staff ranking was it what was what it was and what our uh ward myself and our ward staff uh would have ranked them and then it changed again because there was missing information on both sides. So I lessons learned I think that the new policy or the new process I mean uh will get us better results. Um, I did want to say that, um, because I I do think there is a risk that in a if we're supposed to be making sure that funds are spent equitably, um, someone with, uh, a desire just to get more votes in a particular area of their ward closer to the election could use that money to make sure that that influence is there. And and I don't think that's right. So, I'm glad that we're seeing uh this in black and white, not maybe as harshly as I'm putting it, but I don't uh I I don't disagree with anything you've said in here. Um, one question I have, which is a unique question. In any of in anything you read with our policy or with the provincial legislation, did you see anything that would direct staff or any of us to deal with a situation where there was parkland dedicated uh because of an urban boundary extension and now houses are being allowed to be built on that parkland because that's our situation in Canada Lakes. We were to have a park. Now the houses will go on that park which means the parkland is no longer there. So what about the fact that the c the developers never paid the cash in loo they paid the they gave the park and now there's no park was there anything in the legislation that talks about what we do then chair I would probably say that that would have been a little out of scope for our audit we did look at obviously uh whether or not parkland appropriate parkland andor in this case if parkland wasn't um dedicated that the appropriate calculation was applied for the cash andlue that was something that my team did but going to that extent and that wouldn't have been considered part of our scope. I don't think I could comment on that. Okay. I don't think there's anything in there either because I don't think people expect these things to happen. All right. So, now we can go. There's no more questions for the auditor general. Uh we can go to staff. Questions for staff. Counselor Hill. Thank you very much. I guess my high level question for staff is uh what are your concerns with the application of the policy as it stands right now for CIL and why is it that h you are looking to take especially the first recommendation from the auditor general um what what benefit do you see um in changing the status quo from how we're managing our CIL Um chair for recommendation one what staff have suggested is that uh we are coming forward in 2027 to with a revised policy. The policy that we have now dates back to I believe 2008 um and and was due and we have a direction to come back with that. Um we did delay coming back because of of anticipated and what eventually became provincial uh change in provincial regulations but also then learning that there would be an audit and that that it should inform a new policy. Um what we are suggesting in terms of the new policy is uh and uh I I think we've heard today the auditor general that um the new process that we created over the last year has moved us forward in terms of uh providing a better framework for collecting projects, priorizing projects and deciding which ones would go forward. um a a a pillar of of the new policy will be to uh further develop that and one of the things and I I've heard some of you talk about it today where right now you are submitting projects we are evaluating and priorizing them and coming back to you um the further and and we recognize that it was a first attempt at that and that further refinement in terms of process and content needs to be done. But also the piece that is still missing um is to introduce into that what staff would consider in terms of priorities that are from a staff perspective a priority and how we then collaboratively discuss your ideas and projects and our ideas and projects to come up with a finalized list. And it's really intended to be a collaborative discussion that brings our insights and your insights together so that we have um a complete picture and end up with a list that um that there's consensus on. And when you refer to staff identifying priorities and a collaborative discussion, uh am I correct to assume that you're talking ward by ward ward specific? So if the cash in lie of parkland for a specific development in a specific ward uh generates a certain amount of cash in lie of the parkland then that staff identified and collaborative discussion is with regard to the options for expenditure in that ward or are you suggesting that the policy would extract funds that otherwise would be cash in lie of parkland planned for a specific ward and move it to other parts of the city. I was talking specifically of projects within the ward. There is no intent, no direction to take ward funds and and spend them in other wards. Okay, I appreciate that clarification. Um, does the policy take into consideration uh NCC properties and NCC lands? When we look at equity across the city from a parkland perspective, does the city take into account NCC property as it applies to to CIL chair? Um we uh will um allow projects to be funded through CIL if the NCC property is under a long-term lease with the city and we have several parks and city facilities that are in on NCC land. We have worked with legal services in terms of defining that and generally it's anything that's under a 21-year plus lease with the city. NCC lands that are not under lease to the city then are not eligible for spending CIL. But when we talk about the term equity as it pertains to parkland in the city, does National Capital Commission property count within any formula that's used uh as we look at citywide cash and loo expenditures? Chair, no. The master plan that was approved by council in 2021 counted uh parkland and green space that the city owns but did not count NCC land, school properties, all the rest. Thank you. I think that's an important point for us to recognize as we look at equity uh as a CIL component. Um, do we have any recorded incidents um where staff are concerned about city councelor recommendations or engagement in specific cash in lu of parkland decisions that would cause concern with the way that the current policy is being applied. chair. Um there are instances where a project uh is proposed for CIL where staff will do an analysis and um the value for money of the project because there are extraordinary costs associated with it would raise some flags for us that we would discuss with the counselor. And generally our approach has been and and in most cases with some level of success to try to um mitigate what those might be or find an alternative way. Um you know notable uh examples of that tend to be to bring water service to a park that would add perhaps 50 or $100,000 to the cost of a project um simply because there is no water in the park. uh and in those cases we try to work around even though we are concerned that in the regular course of budgeting for a project it would be very difficult to obtain those funds um if we are going to apply CIL funds how can we do it in a in a sensible way that that provides value for money thank you Dan and my last question can you confirm if the provincial government have made policy changes to new development areas as it pertains to the total hectars that are to be included in parkland dedication in new developments. Uh perhaps I defer to TK if he wants to speak to that. My apologies chair counselor would would you mind repeating the question? Thank you very much. My question is over the last say 5 years have we seen changes in provincial direction provincial legislation as it pertains to the total parkland dedication requirements in new developments. Chair, I'd have to follow up on which which legislation, but in recent times, yes, there have been changes to the parkland dedication requirements by the province and that change has been to decrease the total parkland that is to be dedicated with new developments. Is that correct? That's correct, Chair. Thank you very much for the answers. And my concern here would be the definition of equity as you brought out, Madame Chair. Uh when we look across the city, there are equity considerations as it pertains to the total existing park space as it relates to the density of housing. There are equity considerations in terms of financial poverty. There's equity considerations in terms of cultural groups and organizations and usage of parks. This is a very lightning rody kind of issue that certainly when the core issue of cash in lie of parkland is for the purposes of providing recreational space parkland space for the new developments that are building it because the default is supposed to be parkland dedication and in new developments where we do not have national capital commission parkland systems we have very limited park systems and I would invite anybody that would like a case study in that to come visit me in Halfoon Bay and I will show you our parkland systems. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you. Well said, councelor Hill. Uh councelor Kavanagh. Yes, thank you. Um the cash and Lou um the whole point of it is that um there's less parkland and um we're seeing intensification especially in older neighborhoods and uh particularly around transit. Um and it's it's something for the communities because they're experiencing development and intensification and this is one of the silver linings is that they may be getting um something that is in lie of of parkland but u frankly they'd rather have the green space that's that's what they really want. Um so I've just um want to know if we're um how we're monitoring that especially because of the lack of green space. I've got neighborhoods that are going to see heavyduty intensification and um they will be losing green space. Um that was, you know, non-defined green space, but uh it's it's getting, you know, intense and uh we're going to see um people sharing one park. Thousands and thousands more people are going to use that one little park. And um so that's that's a concern and um you know how can we you know we're how can we create more green space that's well that's more of a rhetorical question but um it's it is problematic and we we do need to uh work to make our green spaces the best they can be um so which is what we're trying to do but um I just want to know um in terms of equity uh because we're also seeing the fact that these older neighborhoods oods have infrastructure that's um built 60 70 years ago or more and um they're um it costs more to replace and to update and to bring them into line. So there there is a problem with equity there um in terms of how much it costs. I think that's been pointed out by councelor um Carr, the cost of bringing things up to date when you're in an older neighborhood versus a newer neighborhood which gets you know everything built right away and it's up to better standards. So um how is that taken into consideration when the costs are so much more? Um, chair cash and loop plays a role, although not necessarily always a major role in this. Uh, in some wards, cash and loo has been used to, uh, redevelop parks to take into account the change in the neighborhood and and the the densification of that neighborhood. Um in other cases, cash and loo is being used to do feasibility studies in terms of facility replacement or expansion and that has led to providing um uh some opportunity then to apply for other grants and and funding sources to add on to or completely replace facilities. Uh but in most cases, CIL is not the answer to the bigger questions of at least in most wards, buying more parkland or buying the complete um redevelopment of an entire facility is generally beyond that scope and and can only be used as a as a launch pad for those projects in most cases. Thank you. um the fact that um nonprofit housing will not have to pay into Cash and Lou. I can see this is a problem going forward because those are neighborhoods that are going to need um really good parks and um you know most of them are going to see families there. Um how can we how can we make that more equitable? or is that um a way that we can use the citywide funding because it'll have to be what was already available because we're not going to gain anymore. So, how will that be used? Um part part of the discussion on equity for the citywide is in fact along the lines of um creating a stream of funding that might apply more broadly to target areas of the city that um do not have uh um the resources to improve and incr increase the capacity of their parks to to match development. Um and that is part of what we would come forward with in the new policy to develop uh the equity stream. There's been some discussion this morning. We already uh look to the citywide for the accessibility of parks in terms of at a program basis across the city. Where can we, for example, add um swings that are wheelchair accessible or provide additional features to play structures? What we are proposing to recommend to council coming back next year is a program that would create equity streams within the citywide fund to target those kinds of needs. the um when you talk about targeted areas, is that something that uh is publicly available to that has been identified? Uh councelor, as part of the recreation master plan, we had identified 30 areas of the city that met within looking at the um the the sociodemographic data. That is a little bit dated now and that is not a fixed in stone. That's generally a discussion about uh a specific neighborhood, the current demographics, and what the park can and cannot provide. So, at this point, it's not a um a completely um defined concept, but as part of the policy that renewal, we will look at how best to do that. Thank you. It it it's um as intensification happens uh we're going to see more requirement for green space and it's probably one of the biggest concerns raised when new development comes into a place like Baywart. Um we've got seven stations coming in. Um there's development around there but the green space is not growing and we need to balance that out. So cash and loo is, you know, it's something that helps, but it's not green space. So we have to make really good use of that money to make sure that we have better facilities, better use of that green space. Um, and if we can purchase more green space, that's that's even better. Um, but I realize the challenge is there. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, councelor Carr. Yeah, thanks very much. Um, appreciate this discussion. I just wanted to clarify a few things from the uh questions that some of my colleagues asked previously. So with respect to equity, are you looking at equity from a purely socioeconomic perspective or are you looking at equity as well in terms of the costs that are going to different wards depending on their geography? For example, I would expect most suburban parks have water sources and electrical sources, and so it's less costly to put in a splash pad than it would be in sort of those outer urban areas where parks were built without those amenities. Are you looking at equity for both of those factors? Um, chair, I don't think we've taken it down to that level at this point. uh but we certainly can look at that as part of our our report back. We are looking at um the ability to set aside some funds realizing that this is equity in terms of providing capital funding for infrastructure that is missing in certain areas of the city. uh or providing more accessible infrastructure in areas where parks or facilities do not have um an accessibility feature in them. Uh the detailed analysis park by park in terms of what is missing is not part of this. But I think trying to um provide a level of funding that would be able to when we identify a park that is an issue that there are funds available to um to remediate to the best level possible recognizing that um again there's you know a finite amount of funds that can be specifically allocated to this but I think part of what we'll want to come back with is um an an idea of how we would look at prioritizing needs across the city. Okay. So, do am I to assume that you will look at potentially another fund that could pay for some of the extraordinary expenses like for and I'll give an example in my ward where the previous counselor arranged for a splash pad to go at a at the corner of Walkley and um Russell next to an OC community and was my very first meeting that I set up when I was elected. I'm still waiting for the options to come out for that splash pad because I've been saving up to pay for it because the water connection has to go underneath the street across the street into the next ward and it's I think it's costing a million dollars for the water connection alone given the infrastructure challenges. So is is this something we're looking at being addressed outside of CIL then? um without having a complete reflection on this, most likely because I think we could um quickly use up an entire um equity stream of funding on nonrecreation expenses in order to put in a recreation expense. And that is kind of where the discussion that we've been having with counselors is that some of these expenses are really public utility, civic works to get to the park. And then there's the recreation expense of the amenity itself. And uh I don't believe there'll ever be sufficient funding in CIL to be able to do on a broad scale all of those civic works that are um and how we do that is I think perhaps beyond CIL but something that we have to talk to our infrastructure services folks and and others about what are the best approaches to to dealing with some of those things. Yeah, it's definitely a challenge and I mean I was so frustrated with lack of CIL and uh not having community groups who raised money for the minor major capital grant uh that I entered a contest and won money to put a basketball court in. And the other day I received an email saying there's soil testing issues and can we take we need to take $60,000 of your CIL. So I want $100,000 and I need to pay $60,000 for soil testing soil quality issues. So, it is a frustrating experience um when you have a neighborhood that is built with with all of these infrastructure challenges. Um when you're doing a review of the uh CIL that's coming back, I think it's Q3 2027. Um you mentioned earlier that you you know there's no intent to move funds ward toward, but are you looking at anything such as district analysis? I think Toronto works on a district model, but I mean certainly when you have uh developments that are on the perimeter of the ward boundaries and then the CIL monies are not reinvested specifically there but in in a different spot in the ward, it impacts the neighboring communities and we are a very unique city with 24 wards with at least one of them being larger than the the city of Toronto. So I'm wondering if there's any look being taken at that sort of district allocation as well. Thank you, chair. Um there there's been some discussion in terms of of other models and and we don't necessarily see re creating district funds that go beyond the wards in in terms of that. But we do know that um uh and and the auditor general makes makes the point on a few occasions in her report about alignment to the recreation master plan and you you might recall that the recreation master plan bases its recommendations in terms of service levels on transexs. Um part of our review of and priorizing of projects within the new framework um does include um what is the level of service in the area that we're talking about within that transct and from that perspective prioritization of projects using that system does refer back to broader than ward needs because especially in the urban In suburban areas, um, ward boundaries are one thing, but neighborhoods and service catchment areas tend to bleed from one ward into the other. And I think where we capture that is by referring to the master plan and what the needs in term what the priority needs are in terms of within that transact. Okay. Thank you. Um, I'll just finish by saying I appreciate very much the report, the work that's underway. Um, and I appreciate the comments of my colleagues and you know, take my councelor Hills point about NCC land and and school lands. I mean, I'm l I'm in an area where the NCC is giving away parcels of land for federal lands initiatives and um, all indications are that the OCDSB will likely do an accommodation review of my community because I have way too many schools. So, I'm in a space where I'm probably losing that green space from both of those um areas and as well being being challenged with uh being able to improve my community with CIL and welcoming thousands of affordable units. So, I look forward to seeing the um the outcomes of the work that's being undertaken. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Brown. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Question about expertise. I'm assuming that many of our parks planners attended a a level of higher education and received a degree or a certificate in parks planning. Yes, chair. And I think like all experts in their respective fields over time they gather and gain more experience the longer they're on the job. Uh absolutely. We we very much value uh being able to retain and build that expertise within within our shop. Thank you. And and my point isn't that we don't have qualified people. We do. But colleagues, you know, we're experts, too. We're experts in our ward. And I think it's important when we're looking at building infrastructure and adding to our communities in a positive way that our expertise is taken into account. And I I heard from staff that it is a very collaborative process and that's certainly my experience with the program and I wouldn't want us to lose that availability of of that ongoing dialogue and to ignore our experience in our communities over this term of council. I I think we've started to move away from the one-sizefits-all policy because again, as I stated to my question uh to the auditor general, the one-sizefits-all policy fails all residents equally. My ward is very different. And to councelor Carr's point, there are ws in this city that are larger than the city of Toronto. I represent one of those wards. My ward is bigger than the 19 urban wards combined when you look at geography. And so equity can mean many things and I think it should mean many things but I think it's important that we don't lump all communities all wards into one bucket and say well we have a corporate policy and this is how we have to administer it. I think it's okay to be different and we should acknowledge those differences. It is also a privilege to sit in this chair and a privilege not because I didn't earn it and not because my colleagues didn't earn it but because we did. We did the hard work of knocking on doors, speaking to thousands of residents, attending hundreds of events. And when it comes to planning parks in our ward, Madam Chair, my experience and expertise are not limited to one single engagement period on Engage Ottawa. When I'm at the grocery store, when I'm walking down the street, when I'm attending events, that's where I hear from residents. It isn't just that twoe opportunity to feed in. This is what I hear every day, and I know, Madam Chair, this is what all of our colleagues hear every day while we're in our communities. When we look at delegation of authority, it is our authority to delegate. And quite often I hear around this table and the council table that we feel like our hands are tied. But we tie our own hands in many instances. And I think the role of having experts guiding and advising council is to provide that advice and that guidance. But we are the political leaders. We have to take that guidance and that advice and make a decision. And so when we talk about a political decision, I think the intonation might be that politics is bad, but it isn't. When our residents engage with us, they are engaging in the political process. Politics can be used for a force of good. It can accomplish good things for our communities. And I don't think we should punish those counselors who truly try to engage in their communities for their benefit by saying, "Well, this might be politically motivated." Every decision we hear or make rather around this table is politically motivated and that is because we are politicians. This is our policy and I ultimately think we need to have a review and I'm I'm pleased to hear that that's going to happen shortly. The last thing I would say, Madame Chair, is you know governing at the municipal level is very different from governing at the federal and provincial levels. They govern from 10,000 ft above. We quite literally govern in the muck. We are at ground level. We see and hear about all of the issues that impact our residents every day, good and bad. And ultimately, when decisions are made around this table, it is ours to wear. Whether we make them or whether public servants make them through delegated authority, ultimately the buck stops with us. And so, Madame Chair, when we do consider this matter, I would like to descent on recommendation one. I have the utmost respect for the auditor general and her team and the work that they have done. But I do not believe the interests of my residents will be best served by giving more of the opportunity away from myself and our colleagues to engage positively on cash and loot projects. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. Thank you. We will sort that out when we go to vote. Um councelor Kits. Thank you, Chair. Um, so recommendation one puts a lot on the GM and kind of the reason we got here. Council actually asked for this audit that to No, I thought I thought I thought council wanted you to look at CIL. I apologize if that was not. No, as we were performing our audit of the development application uh review process, this was obviously an item that was closely linked. We just didn't have time to fit it into the existing audit. So, this is kind of a spin-off from that audit. Okay. I apologize. I thought I thought there was interest from councils. But regardless, I think there was frustration from council on um the u you know time it took projects to be realized that is reflected in the audit. So, um you know to the general manager, do you have the capacity to sort of stick handle this in the way that's being suggested? It sounds like you are now going to be the person negotiating with counselors on priority projects. Uh chair, we don't see under u what is being proposed um much of a change in terms of the the amount of negotiation and discussion with counselors or the time that it takes. uh part of our new process that we've implemented was in fact to try to get to the capacity issue of and it was in the context of releasing funds that have been on hold. We understood that $50 million worth of funds would be available uh at some point and that we couldn't possibly deliver all those projects uh within the term of council. Um and to that degree it has assisted in terms of um ranking the projects and really letting us focus on delivering the ones that are are are your priority. Um, the other thing that it's done is that it's allowed us to better organize the work and that's both within uh our CFS in in my shop but also in infrastructure services in that um we now have uh a work program that is set on on a regular schedule uh rather than an ongoing intake. But and and what that does in some cases is allow for some efficiencies in terms of being able to bundle um you know a lot of CIL money goes into um micro projects, benches and trash receptacles and additions to play structures. And having the opportunity to have all of those come in to be prioritized and selected as projects does allow for some bundling for some assignment of projects to people to better streamline them. Uh we're only starting to see the benefit of this because we haven't been through many cycles, but we think it's a better way to organize the work and a better way to uh optimize the the resources that we do have uh in our shop as well as what we're sending downstream for implementation to infrastructure services. Okay. Thank you. As as you heard earlier, I do think that the new process is setting us in the right direction. Um, and I know a lot of my colleagues have asked about equity, but in in practical terms, what is going to change? Like what by applying an equity lens, what are we not seeing now that we are going to see? Um, and we have not fully developed this to the point where we know exactly what we were going to be recommending to you. But the discussion that's been had is about um within the citywide stream creating some programbased um funding that would allow us to do um undertake projects that address uh areas that are deficient in in services both in terms of um you know what we've discussed the socioeconomic but also in the in the sense of accessibility. um park accessibility, facility accessibility so that we have a predictable fund to do that. Right now we do we do it within a large fund but there are no funds dedicated. What we'd like is to identify um specific program streams within the citywide allocation that would be dedicated to that so that we can get um specific projects underway and committed to on an annual basis and that could that could be reflected anywhere in the city. Yes. And uh as has been the case, it often is. We will look for um you know, for example, the other aspect that we use citywide for is often legislated requirements. So that when the province or another authority um for example, legislated new signage at aquatic facilities, we were able to do that kind of thing through a program approach from citywide so that it is funded. It has to be done. Um it's it's not a glamorous project. Um but it would allow us to do things like installing accessible component in parks to create to putting in new play features in parks that are not in growth areas but have demands that councelor Kavanaaugh was talking about for neighborhoods that are um have had a growth but have not had the associated the associated funding come in with it at the same time. Okay, thank you. Certainly, um, signage to meet provincial standards is not something that communities are asking for, so hopefully that's a small part of that budget. Um, and and this so the the policy review that's going to come back, council will be able to have input on that that's going to come come back to committee. Yes, absolutely. uh in 2027 we will be talking to all of you about um some of the ideas that that we want to include in the new policy and getting your feedback in in terms of um ideas as well. Okay. Thank you. Um I think we're all we'll all look forward to that because as much as we don't want parks to be political, I think parks are political. Um, and you know to to to councelor Brown's point there there is a nuance that counselors bring with respect to what we're hearing from our communities. I think that's actually quite frankly the whole reason that we have city councilors is to bring that nuance um directly from the communities that we serve. So anytime there's a discussion about sort of painting the city with one brush, I think there's some discomfort there. Um and I also want to say I think you know that the whole the whole point of CIL is when development is occurring and land is constrained we are provided cash in loo with the understanding that for the units that are being built this is the investment that is required to serve the community um that will be coming in so I wouldn't want to lose sight of that. Thank you, Councelor Kavanagh. Thank you. Um, in terms of recommen recommendation one, I um when we're talking about having the general manager um having the authority to make the decisions, I think that kind of makes us nervous in terms of not because we don't think you're great at making decisions, but it's about the consultation process. Um there's often times where um counselors might have something they want to do and then find out that they don't need to because there's a project coming along that will, you know, take care of that. So obviously there's a back and forth and um there has to be a consultation process that's built in. Um because for example, you know, um getting new swings for a park, I thought, oh, I'm gonna have to build a path. No, I don't have to because it's incorporated in and there'll be accessible path. This is good news, but I didn't, you know, I don't know this. So, we have to have um that consultation to find out what is being looked after through um you know, just uh the renewal pro renewal of um of infrastructure that is already planned versus things that have not been planned. and also uh making sure that the you know the areas that need um a little more loving care get looked after. So there has to be a consultation. I'm wondering if there any way we can in the recommendation we can include um in consultation with with counselors with the local counselor because I just see this as a collaborative approach not as a you know one person. I don't know if that's a question for the AG if that fits in um with uh what we're talking about what you're recommending but it it has to be that back and forth um because we need that information. So um Madame Auditor General I don't know this is your recommendation right so in terms of editing it or amending it like what is your comment on that? I think what's really important for counselors to know chair is that we don't recommend something that's not broken. So we say the collaboration is good. We want the collaboration to continue. So you don't see that in our recommendation because it exists already. We're not saying that should change. And I I I what I was trying to highlight in my comment before we took questions was that we respect and and we understand the need for counselors to be a a that you're a critical part of this process. We're not asking for that to change. It's just you have previously delegated authority to the general manager and that's not what we were seeing in all cases. So that's what we're trying to reinforce here is that the policy wasn't followed. We're not asking for your involvement to change. It's just that final decision. So, as councelor Kits mentioned, the new process that was piloted, we're saying continue with it. Continue to improve it because there's definitely aspects that need to be improved from a criteria evaluation, which will hopefully help support all of your perspectives as well. Um hopefully that there won't always be nos when you're you're hoping something happens, but if there is a no, you understand the why because it's been thoroughly evaluated and and and you know what that baseline is that it's being evaluated against. So I I do not look to change the recommendation, but councelor, your point is valid and and we're not asking for that collaboration to change. I guess we just want to hear it from the general manager that it is understood that um decisions are made in collaboration chair. both the park dedication bylaw and the delegated authority bylaw both uh use the wording in consultation with so um it it's always been understood that uh even though the decision rests with the GM's position the the caveat is very clear that it's in consultation with uh with elected officials. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, the in recommendation one, I think this is what councelor Kavanagh is getting at. It says that an evaluation criteria will be set up. Will there be consultation on what the evaluation criteria will look like and what we'll have in it? Uh yes. Uh from the perspective that there has been because we have an a a new the new process in place and counselors were consulted on that. But as we evolve it and if we are recommending changes to that then and and as part of the entire package coming back we will talk to you about it. Okay. Thank you because I think that evaluation criteria will be uh critical. Um no other questions for staff. Um a couple of comments. So I think this has been a very good discussion. I think a lot of different points have come out. And as councelor Carr was just saying to me quietly, it's interesting to hear about other counselors projects so that you understand how much it costs. You know, a splash pad in one on one uh ward is not the same price as a splash pad in another ward. uh it is helpful for us to know that which mean which speaks to the recommendation that the detail on uh what these these uh funds are being spent on would be very helpful you know and definitely for for four or five years here I've wondered you know you know someone used that much money I wonder what they bought uh and and I know that's not even the way to think about it but you know I wonder what those monies uh were spent on so um I think the recommendations touch many parts of this I will just say one other thing you know I think councelor kits would agree they're Not a not a meeting goes by where councelor Kits says something about the infrastructure in our wards coming you know after the housing and it's not she's actually said that one or two times about the tech part and the second part of that is that when when the housing is built right when the apartment building goes up and it's been a mess and muck and noise and blasting and you know people very upset about it. The property tax that's generated there then goes citywide. So it doesn't stay that property tax does not stay in that ward, right? So there's like a double uh component here of then is the money that's collected from that property tax then does it go back in directly into that area? No, it doesn't. So that I think gets at why councilors feel that this is the money that we really want applied to our area and yet 40% of it is citywide and we're not exactly sure how that is being spent and is money from uh Stitzville being spent in uh let me use NAV and so councelor kits can I I don't have to be uh going downtown all the time but I mean I think that is a question would ever money from Stitzville citywide go to a project in Navin uh hypothetically that could happen. The auditor did note that um a good portion more than 70% of citywide gets used as a benefit to existing um for projects in in wards all over the city. Some of the projects uh are for amenities that uh serve citywide. So they're district or citywide facilities. So yes, theoretically money from one part of the city that contributes to citywide could be spent on a project that isn't in the ward where it was collected. Yeah, I think that's important to understand. And not to say, oh wow, there's a great unfairness here. I think I think the one of the realities is there are wards, you know, councelor Carr has identified, you know, where her parks don't have electricity, don't have water. Uh, and and I think Mr. Shenya, you made a good point that there are other recommendations that need to be looked at for monies and and you didn't pay me to say this, but monies like more amounts of uh funding to go into your budget uh so that these things can be done more equitably. It's not just all about cash and loo funding and and that's the reality there. It is finite as you pointed out. Don't mean to be repeating your I know you're sitting beside the CFO who's and I can't see him through the chair right now. The chair is blocking his face. But the reality is there are other ways to get at some of the challenges that councelor Carr is experiencing and and other uh counselors too, David Brown, councelor Brown. um there are other pockets of funding and so I think councilors would like to know truly what is not happening if we don't increase those uh budgets because that that is where you we see this after the fact that things aren't getting done or things are impossible to do or you know there are real inequities so I think that this has been a very good discussion I think this has been a very good audit it needed to be done it uh needed to be made clear even if people are not super happy with Um, we do need to vote on it now. Councelor Brown, do you want me to separate it out and have a vote on recommendation one or you just want to descent? Descent is fine if on section one. Okay. So, let me get to my what I'm supposed to actually read out here. The report recommendations are that the audit committee receive the audit report and recommend that council consider and approve the recommendations. Is this item carried? Carried with a descent on number one. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. By councilors Brown and Hill. Okay. All right. So, uh we are now at inc camera. There are no inc camera items. Um we have notices of motion. Anyone? No inquiries. I haven't received any other business. I don't see any. Our next meeting is June 19th. All righty. So, thank you. Looking forward to seeing you all there. We are adjourned. Thank you.

Full Transcript