[3:32] Good evening, and welcome to the committee and regular council meeting of the city of North Bay for Tuesday, October 29, 2024. We're going to begin with committee meeting, and tonight we have one matter on the docket tonight with general government, and I'm going to turn the meeting over to Deputy Chair Councillor Orange. Thank you, your worship, and thank you. General government has one matter on the agenda.

[4:02] being the City of North Bay's 2023 audited financial statements.

[4:08] Do any members of council wish to declare a conflict,

[4:13] seeing none, I will read the draft

[4:20] recommendation that the mayor and

[4:24] chief financial officer of the corporation of the City of North Bay be authorized to approve the 2023 consolidated financial statements.

[4:33] The financial statements have been prepared by staff and audited by the city's auditor, KPMG.

[4:40] The purpose of tonight's meeting is to provide KPMG with an opportunity to present the results of their audit to the mayor and members of council and advance of the council's approval of the statements.

[4:51] Mr. Oscar Polone, partner with KPMG is joining us tonight to present the audit findings and their opinion of the 2023 financial statements this evening.

[5:02] Margaret Carpanko, CFO is also available to answer any questions regarding the 2023 Consolidated Financial Statements.

[5:11] Oscar, thank you.

[5:13] Madam Chair, members of the committee, good evening.

[5:15] Thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to be here today to provide a presentation

[5:20] of the financial statements of the City of North Bay for the year end of December 31, 2023.

[5:26] So for the committee's information, our audit was completed in accordance with Canadian

[5:30] and auditing standards, which are the professional guidelines related to financial statement audits.

[5:36] And what you will notice, Council, was when you look at the audit report, it indicates

[5:42] that the financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects.

[5:46] We don't say your financial statements are accurate because that would require us to test

[5:50] every transaction.

[5:51] So materiality is the threshold of errors that as auditors were able to absorb before we

[5:57] either require them to be corrected, or we change our audit opinion.

[6:01] And consistent with municipalities and not-for-profit organizations in general that don't have

[6:07] a profit motivation, materiality is typically calculated as a percentage of either revenues

[6:12] or expenses.

[6:14] So for the City of North Bay Audit, materiality is $4.7 million, which is 2.5% of your materiality

[6:21] for the prior year.

[6:22] Now, we use materiality for a number of different purposes, as auditors, for example, we use it to calculate our sample sizes.

[6:31] But for members of council, what I would suggest the most relevant use of materiality is it determines what's known as the posting threshold.

[6:39] This is the level above which, if we have any errors that are uncrected, we're required to report them to you as part of this meeting.

[6:48] And so the posting threshold is 5% of materiality or an amount of $235,000.

[6:56] So just to put it in perspective, ladies and gentlemen, that's 0.12% of your total revenues and 0.03% of your total assets.

[7:07] And so that is effectively the level of precision that we have from an audit perspective.

[7:11] And I'm very happy to report that there are no uncorrected differences above our posting threshold.

[7:17] So, we are prepared to issue what's known as an unqualified audit opinion.

[7:20] This is the highest level of assurance that you can receive under Canadian auditing standards.

[7:25] And there's three things that we require.

[7:28] First off, we need Council approval of the financial statements.

[7:31] So the financial statements are technically live until such time as they're approved by Council.

[7:35] The second thing we require is what's known as a management representation letter.

[7:39] This is an attestation from your staff that they've provided us with all of the information.

[7:43] there's no material transactions they haven't disclosed, and the last thing is because the audit

[7:48] is live until approved by Council, we need to do final sign-offs as of today.

[7:54] So there are no matters of significance that we've identified through the course of our audit

[7:58] procedure that require us under our standards to report to you. No difficulties or significant

[8:04] differences of opinion with management. We would like to thank Ms. Carpenko and her team for

[8:08] the assistance provided during the audit, auditing municipalities isn't easy, and it's

[8:13] becoming more complicated as your business environment changes, so I'd be remiss if

[8:17] I didn't say thank you.

[8:19] No issues from a scope limitations perspective.

[8:21] There was nothing we asked for that we didn't receive.

[8:24] There were no issues around your system of internal controls.

[8:28] I just want to caution council that we don't test all of your internal controls.

[8:32] We're not actually required to, but where we've looked, we haven't seen any issues that

[8:36] that we've identified that we would suggest

[8:38] as a control weakness, also no indicators of fraud.

[8:42] So, before we get into the financial statements themselves,

[8:45] if you look at the statements council,

[8:48] you'll notice a couple of things.

[8:49] One is they look different this year.

[8:52] Two is the audit opinion looks different this year.

[8:55] And the third thing is your financial statements

[8:56] are actually longer this year.

[8:58] And the reason for that is that the body

[9:00] that sets accounting rules for government organizations,

[9:04] which is the public sector accounting board actually introduced five new standards effective this year.

[9:10] The first four, deal with your financial statement presentation and financial instruments,

[9:17] which are derivatives and other financial vehicles, if you will.

[9:22] These have resulted in a new financial statement for you.

[9:26] So what you'll notice this year is there's a new statement called the statement of remeasurement gains and losses.

[9:32] And what remeasurement gains and losses track are things that occur from an accounting perspective that are unrealized.

[9:42] And so, for municipalities, it basically falls into two buckets.

[9:47] If you have equity investments, like you buy shares in a bank that trade in the market,

[9:53] and you have a difference between what you bought them for and what they're valued at,

[9:58] that unrealized gain or loss goes into your statement of remeasurement gains and losses.

[10:03] So you don't really have that.

[10:06] What you do have, though, is you pick up your investment in North Bay Hydro,

[10:12] and it has something that accountants call other comprehensive income.

[10:17] And that is an accounting adjustment, and you have to record that in your statement of remeasurement gains and losses as well.

[10:24] So I just want to caution, this is more of an accounting change than anything else.

[10:29] When you look at the financial statements, what you'll notice is in adopting the new standard,

[10:36] you've pulled $1.1 million out of your accumulated surplus, and you moved it into a new line called remeasurement gain.

[10:45] The money hasn't disappeared, this hasn't reduced your accumulated surplus.

[10:49] It's just from an accounting perspective, how you classify that now falls to a different line.

[10:56] If I could be very honest with you, I wouldn't get too concerned about this.

[11:01] It doesn't impact your budget, it doesn't impact your levy, it doesn't impact your financial results.

[11:05] It's merely the presentation.

[11:07] The second standard relates to asset retirement obligations.

[11:11] And council, what an asset retirement obligation is, is it's a liability on your book where you have a legislative or

[11:18] legal requirement to remediate a site at the end of its useful life.

[11:23] So if you think about your financial statements last year, you had a liability on your books for your landfill.

[11:29] Because landfills, once they close, you have to close them, and then you have to monitor them for the post closure period.

[11:37] There was a standard relating to landfills, that book that liability.

[11:41] There was also a standard for what are known as contaminated sites.

[11:45] and these are sites, for example, that may have PCB on them as well.

[11:48] So, under the old rules, if you had a site other than a landfill that was contaminated

[11:56] and it was still in productive use, you didn't have to book the remediation liability.

[12:02] So, there was an exemption for what's known as productive use.

[12:05] Under the new standard, that exemption has gone away.

[12:08] And so what that means is, any buildings constructed prior to 1993 generally are susceptible to having as best to send them.

[12:19] Last year, under the old standard, if you were still using the building on arena water treatment plant, you didn't have to book the liability.

[12:27] Under the new standard, you have to book it.

[12:30] The other thing you will find is the treatment of landfills is different.

[12:35] So last year, you would calculate how much it cost you to close the landfill and monitor the landfill.

[12:43] And if the landfill was 60% full, you would pro-rate the liability for capacity, you'd only recognize 60% of it.

[12:52] That pro-ration has gone away.

[12:55] So regardless of your capacity now in your landfill, you now have to recognize 100% of it.

[13:00] So, what you will find council is the number has gotten bigger and the number has gotten bigger for two reasons.

[13:08] One is you're now booking remediation liabilities for assets that you didn't have to book before and

[13:16] your landfill liability has gotten up because you're no longer pro rating for capacity.

[13:22] So, your financial statements now reflect an asset retirement obligation of $5 million in $85,000.

[13:28] $4.4 million of that relates to your landfills, 1.4 million relates to your buildings.

[13:36] What you'll find, Council, is with the adoption of the new standard, best practice is to go back in time and

[13:44] implement it on what's known as a retroactive or retrospective basis.

[13:48] So we've actually changed the numbers in your financial statements for last year, plus your opening numbers.

[13:54] So what you'll find is, your surplus has come down because the asset retirement obligation that liability has been recorded.

[14:02] And Council, if I may, I just want to provide some perspective on what this number is.

[14:07] You record this liability because the accounting rules require you to.

[14:14] This money is going to be spent well into the future when you decommission buildings.

[14:20] And it's also going to be spent over a period of time.

[14:24] For landfills, for example, you spend your closure costs over 20 to 25 years, and even longer.

[14:31] This is a different liability than a bank loan.

[14:34] This is a different liability than your hydro bill in that you are not going to be required to cut a check for

[14:41] 5.85 million this year.

[14:44] So it is a liability on your books, but much like your employment future benefits, it's an accounting liability.

[14:50] It's not a true cash demand anytime soon and so because of that council, what you find is that municipalities don't budget

[15:00] To recover the full amount, some will budget for reserves to build up the number, to pay for those costs as they come through. But I just want to be very careful to explain. This liability, like I said, isn't like your hydro bill. You're not going to write a check for 5.85 million anytime soon. If you are, it's not going to be for this. So council, just in terms of the financial statements, the first statement is the statement of financial position. And this is the summary of the assets and the liability.

[15:29] of the municipality, plus your consolidated surplus, if you will.

[15:35] So just in terms of some of the changes from a year over your basis, you can see that your cash and

[15:41] cash equivalents, which is basically your bank balances have gone up by about $11 million.

[15:45] There's a couple of different things that pull this number up and down.

[15:50] So your surplus on a cash-adjusted basis, once I back out depreciation expense, was about $53.7 million.

[15:58] That's the operating surplus of the municipality.

[16:01] In addition, there was $1.8 million worth of dividends that were received from North Bay Hydro.

[16:07] So this is a flow through from your utility, both of which increase your cash.

[16:11] Now you use that surplus to fund $35.6 million of capital additions, and also $9 million of debt payments.

[16:21] So this is sort of the numbers that move your bank balances up and down.

[16:24] You can see your accounts receivable, which consists of both taxes and others.

[16:29] And this is revenue you earn prior to year end, but receive after year end has gone up by about $4 million.

[16:35] Part of this is taxes receivable, that increases as your levy goes up.

[16:40] And also, there's capital grants that were receivable at year end, where you undertook capital projects you've earned the money.

[16:45] You just haven't received the funding yet from the province and the feds.

[16:49] Other large asset that you can see is the investment in government business enterprises.

[16:53] This is the investment that you have in hydro.

[16:56] So for financial reporting purposes, you basically pick up the net surplus of North Bay Hydro and Hydro holdings, if you will.

[17:05] And so that number is $57.8 million.

[17:09] It's gone up by about $2.9 million, which is the earnings in the year from Hydro, offset by the 1.8 million of dividends that we've talked about because part of that earning has actually been flowed to you in cash.

[17:23] So, from a liability's perspective, your total liabilities have gone down by about $1.3 million.

[17:30] And once again, council, there's a number of different things that drive this number.

[17:35] The amount of the funding commitment for the castle home redevelopment has gone up by $2.5 million.

[17:41] This is how the liability is measured for financial statement purposes.

[17:46] It's measured on a net present value basis.

[17:48] So as you move forward in time, the number goes up because you impute you're getting closer to paying that amount.

[17:57] You can see that your debentures and term loans have gone down by about $8.9 million.

[18:01] This is the principal repayments on the long term debt, if you will, that we've talked about bringing your bank balances down.

[18:08] You have a balance of obligatory reserve funds, and these represent funding sources that you are required to spend

[18:15] spend in order to earn the money and predominantly it's gas tax.

[18:21] So what happens is to the extent that you don't spend it, the money accumulates in this obligatory reserve fund.

[18:26] It's gone up by about a million dollars.

[18:28] So once again, council, not really a liability.

[18:32] It's just revenue you've earned that you haven't spent yet, so you haven't received it.

[18:37] Your trade accounts payable have also gone up by about $3.3 million.

[18:40] These are bills outstanding at year end, very much depends on where you are with capital projects and

[18:46] holdbacks, and also when your last check run is.

[18:50] You'll see the investments in non-financial assets are about $563 million of TCA.

[18:57] This is the investment that you have in your infrastructure.

[19:00] So these are your roads, these are your pipes, these are your vehicles, these are this building.

[19:05] And so this has gone up by about $10 million.

[19:08] There was $39 million of asset acquisitions during the year, which brings this number up.

[19:14] You took about $28.7 million of amortization expense.

[19:19] This is the depreciation of the assets over their useful life, which brings this number down.

[19:23] And there were also some dispositions as well of about $500,000.

[19:27] So when you replace assets, if you have anything left on the books, you typically will write that off.

[19:34] So from an overall perspective council, if we take your total assets and we subtract your total liabilities you have an accumulated surplus of about $604,000.

[19:44] So this is for accounting purposes really the net worth, if you will, of the municipality.

[19:50] You'll see it's comprised of a couple of different things.

[19:53] Your capital assets have gone up by about $564 million.

[19:57] That's the investment that you have net in infrastructure.

[20:00] General surplus, reserves and reserve funds, which is your equity is about $105 million.

[20:06] You have the equity in your investment in North Bay Hydro of about $58 million.

[20:10] And then offsetting this council is the recognition that there's a liability of about $123 million,

[20:17] which is debt that has to be repaid in future periods.

[20:22] So the next statement is the statement of operations and this is a summary of your revenues and your expenditures for the year.

[20:28] You'll see that your total revenues have gone up by about $6.5 million or $3.4%.

[20:34] Number of different sources, your tax levy has gone up by $5.7 million.

[20:39] Your user charges have gone up by about $2.8 million, so these reflect the results of your budgeting process.

[20:46] You can see that investment income has gone up by about $3 million.

[20:50] Part of this is the increase that you have in your cash balances.

[20:54] Part of this is also interest rates.

[20:56] And this is something, Council, that we're seeing consistent across the sector.

[21:01] Everybody's reporting higher investment yields, so the interesting come as up as well.

[21:05] Increasing contributions from the Department of National Defense, so there is an agreement between the city and

[21:11] the Department of National Defense with respect to contaminated lands at the airport, where they fund approximately 97% of the cost.

[21:18] So that is resulted in an increase of $3.3 million.

[21:21] dollars. Offsetting this are lower capital grants from senior governments which have gone

[21:26] down by about 2.1 million dollars. This very much depends on where you are from a capital

[21:31] program, a capital funding program. Are you getting money under OCIF? Are you getting money under

[21:37] gas tax? And then North Bay Hydro Distribution and North Bay Hydro Services also had lower income

[21:42] this year compared to last year. In comparison, your total expenses have gone up by the same amount,

[21:48] $6.5 million, which is 4.1%.

[21:51] There's a couple of different things that drive this.

[21:54] Your salaries and benefits are up about $3.1 million,

[21:59] or 4.3% on a year-over-year basis.

[22:03] Council, just if I may share some perspective,

[22:06] there's significant wage pressure in both the public sector and

[22:11] the private sector.

[22:13] And so the Ontario Provincial Police, for example,

[22:16] I've ratified a contract.

[22:17] The results of those are being pushed through municipal budgets that have OPP.

[22:22] And it's resulting in some fairly large increases on a year over your basis.

[22:27] If you talk to anybody in the healthcare sector, they'll talk to you about the reversal of Bill 124 and

[22:34] how that has resulted in increases as well.

[22:38] Not a lot of people talk about it, but I will tell you from a private sector perspective,

[22:43] 4.3% increase is actually on the low end based on our experience.

[22:48] So there's nothing here that we would suggest is unusual compared to what we're seeing elsewhere in the sector.

[22:56] Everybody's under pressure.

[22:58] You'll find your contracted services costs are up about $900,000.

[23:02] And external transfers to things like castle home, things like the health unit, things like the DSAB, are up by roughly $1.8 million.

[23:11] So Madam Chair, members of the committee, that concludes our presentation.

[23:15] I would like to thank you once again for allowing us the opportunity to be of service to the city.

[23:20] It is both a privilege and a pleasure to serve as your auditors.

[23:24] If you do have any questions, more than happy to answer them at this time.

[23:29] Well, thank you for your excellent presentation.

[23:32] And do any members of council have questions for Mr. Paloney or Ms. Carpincol?

[23:39] And I'm seeing Councillor King.

[23:42] Thank you, Madam Chair and I'll ask her it's a pleasure to speak to you again publicly.

[23:46] I just wanted to ask about the consolidated statement and financial assets under tax

[23:56] receivables.

[23:57] I see there's almost a $2 million difference between 22 and 23.

[24:04] Can you speak to that?

[24:05] And also, I guess the next line item talks about accounts receivable.

[24:11] I haven't looked at note four, but I see we're almost at a $2 million difference, 22 to 23.

[24:19] Through you, Madam Chair, so the increase in taxes receivable is actually a factor of two things.

[24:24] One is your municipal levy is up on a year over your basis.

[24:28] And so because of that, the amount of taxes receivable typically will increase in accordance with that, right?

[24:34] last year you raised $100 this year, you raised 105 so the receivable would move as well.

[24:39] You'll notice that as a percentage of the levy, it's up slightly, it's up from about

[24:46] 4% to 5% as we've noticed on the slide.

[24:50] So part of that increase is because of the increase in the levy part of that is there's

[24:54] a bit more outstanding this year versus last year.

[24:57] I would suggest you counsel a couple of things.

[25:01] One,

[25:03] your percentage is actually low compared to other municipalities that I've seen.

[25:09] So from a collectibility perspective, there's nothing here that would cause warning signs from my standpoint.

[25:15] Two, municipalities or sorry municipal taxpayers have the ability to defer paying taxes until such time as the municipality registers them.

[25:25] So it's always usual to have some form of receivable balance for it.

[25:31] Three, from a collection perspective, as I've mentioned, you have the ability to register property taxes.

[25:39] So generally speaking, it's not a question of if you're going to get paid, it's a question of when you're going to get paid.

[25:45] So collectability of taxes receivable isn't something that we would consider to be a significant risk for the city of North Bay.

[25:52] As I mentioned, Councillor, I think part of this is your levees higher, so the receivables higher, part of this is the timing of the receipts.

[25:59] I'm not sure if there's anything that Ms. Carpancou could add with respect to that, but she may want to chime in.

[26:05] With respect to the other accounts receivable, this is a range of various factors.

[26:10] One of the things that we noted on the slide is there are higher capital grants receivable at ear end.

[26:14] So this is really a factor of how much money to the feds and the provinces OU with respect to capital funding.

[26:21] And that number will go up and down depending on where you are in your capital programs depending on where you've been with respect to a successfully receiving grants and when you spend the money.

[26:33] And so there's nothing here from an escalation or an elevation perspective in your receivable balances, taxes or otherwise, that we would suggest should be a cause of concern.

[26:47] Thank you very much for the presentation.

[26:51] Is it the management letter that you usually provide that says your recommendations?

[26:56] Is that there's always a letter that comes with an audit?

[26:59] Is that something that council gets as well?

[27:02] We typically, sorry, through you, Madam Chair.

[27:04] We typically release our management letter to staff to the extent that we have internal control

[27:09] findings, and staff could then bring it forward to the committee.

[27:13] That is Councillor typically the approach that we take.

[27:16] Perfect. So Ms. Carpanko is here so I'm going to be asking if it's possible for us to get

[27:20] a copy of that letter. The other questions I had were in regards to

[27:23] commitments. I know there's a note to note 13 and it talks about like long-term contracts.

[27:28] But in regards to commitments that this council makes and I know Ms. Carpanko knows I'm going

[27:33] because I've asked for, we've made commitments or but I don't know if they're itemized to

[27:41] say like it's where we're becoming risky or if there's a liability but do you ever look

[27:45] at the ones that are not an actual contract yet? Through you, Madam Chair, so I think

[27:51] the Castle Home Commitment is a great example of what you're talking about under public sector

[27:57] accounting standards. There's a variety of triggers for when you actually receive or create

[28:04] a liability and in some cases it's when you sign a contract, when you make a purchase. In

[28:12] And so if you make a public commitment to fund certain organizations in a point where you can't actually back away from it.

[28:21] Under the rules, you are required to record that as a liability.

[28:26] So Castle Home is on the books, but if you're recall Councillor, you used to have the commitment for the hospital on your books as well.

[28:32] And that wasn't because you were signing checks, it's because you actually made that commitment.

[28:36] What you'll find the standards deviate from or differentiate from our commitments that are made that create liabilities, and then those contractual obligations and commitments that don't meet the test of meeting a liability, but are disclosed in the financial statements in order to let the users know that there's future demands on cash flow that will materialize, and that's where commitment notes like note 13 and the contingent liability notes on note 14 come in.

[29:05] So to your point, Councillor, yes, we do look at those.

[29:08] We disclose them separately.

[29:09] Some meet the test of a liability.

[29:12] Others just meet the test of disclosure.

[29:14] Okay.

[29:15] And I think that's gross because I know that the cast on the hospital are really big ones,

[29:18] but then when you start looking at other commitments that we are leaning towards or other things that

[29:23] are liabilities to us that we know are going to cost us money.

[29:26] But I don't see them itemized, so that's probably the disclosure piece.

[29:30] But I think I can, Ms. Carp, I'm going to go to the room and I think I'll just follow up

[29:33] with her after. My final question was in regards to, I was taking notes, because I'm pretty

[29:40] sure previous. Is it 50,000 is considered immaterial? Am I always free it with the numbers

[29:47] where if it's less than a certain dollar amount?

[29:50] So our materiality is calculated at $4.7 million. So what we actually use to evaluate your

[29:57] financial statements in plan is seventy.

[30:00] 25% of this number, and Councillor, you won't see that in the slide deck, but that's what we call performance materiality, and the reason we make it 75% of the total is two things. One is, if your numbers change and we need to bring materiality down, we're at a sufficiently lower number where we don't have to go through and recalculate everything. The second reason why we use performance materiality is to cover what's known as audit risk, and Councillor, it's the risk that we run

[30:29] on a sample and in our sampling because we're not testing everything, we actually miss the mistake.

[30:35] And so because of that, we purposely set it at a lower amount in order for us to say, okay, just in case.

[30:44] Now, to your question in terms of where we pass on stuff, that's the audit posting threshold.

[30:50] So what we do is we look at 5% of materiality or $235,000.

[30:55] If we have differences below that individually or in aggregation, we don't consider them.

[31:02] We don't track them because we're not required to report them.

[31:06] At $235,100, we would then track it.

[31:10] Now, that said, Councillor, there's a couple of things.

[31:13] Depending on the audit work, we will extrapolate any errors we find.

[31:17] So we do what's called monetary unit sampling where we statistically select a population.

[31:22] If we're out by $28, we need to run it through our software and we need to expand that across the population because we've only tested a sample, so we need to express that $28 across the whole population.

[31:35] It could turn into a $400,000 error depending on how the sampling works.

[31:40] The other thing, Councillor, that we're alive to is if you get mistakes, if you get a lot of small mistakes, as an auditor, then you then ask yourself if you have what's called a control deficiency.

[31:50] where there's a problem in your system, where it's creating it.

[31:54] So the reason for the explanation, and I'm not trying to be sort of evasive of this,

[31:59] is it very much depends.

[32:01] In some cases, it's a very clear comparison to our posting threshold, and we say above and

[32:07] beyond, in other cases, it may actually be below our posting threshold, and we'll dig into it anyways,

[32:14] if there's extrapolation that's required, if there's a control deficiency.

[32:18] To your point, Councillor, generally the number is 235,000, but it depends.

[32:25] And the final question, so because you talked about, I think you don't look at internal

[32:31] policies or controls, but if we have a due diligence as a council or even as a staff,

[32:37] if something, even if it's within, if it's well below that number to report it to you or

[32:43] I always remember there was always a statement made by previous auditors that would ask a board

[32:49] that I sat on. Does anybody have anything that they wanted to disclose? And I kept thinking,

[32:52] like, does he know something that I'm supposed to know? And so, but if we do know something,

[32:56] we are supposed to bring into your attention, even if it is a small amount.

[32:59] We would appreciate that, Councillor, yes.

[33:04] If I, sorry, Madam Chair, if I may, one of the things we do, Councillor, is we run procedures

[33:10] looking for fraud. And people will often think the definition of fraud is somebody stealing money out of your arena.

[33:18] That's one definition of fraud. The real definition of fraud that we're looking for is management over right of your internal controls.

[33:26] Where management circumvents your systems in order to perpetrate a fraud or conceal a fraud.

[33:31] And, Councillor, to your point about thresholds, there's no dollar limit on what we do.

[33:38] And so, when we look at journal entry testing for fraud, we can conceivably test $20 journal

[33:44] entries just because we're looking at it.

[33:47] It is something that has changed.

[33:50] Over time, admittedly, it is becoming increasingly a focus for us and it has created more work,

[33:56] specifically because KPMG's methodology does not allow us to say we're going to look at

[34:01] everything 50 grand or over. We run the test. We look at the entries. If they're 30 bucks,

[34:07] we're looking at 30 bucks.

[34:11] And do any other members of council have any questions?

[34:15] I see. So I do have a question and what I am interested in knowing is given that staff is so busy with

[34:24] So many tasks, is it?

[34:26] Have you noticed in any other municipalities?

[34:28] Do they do any RFPs for the management of cash reserves?

[34:35] Through you, Madam Chair, or to you, Madam Chair.

[34:38] We do see municipalities that will oftentimes go to RFP for banking services,

[34:44] which include investment management services as well.

[34:47] So it's not something that's unusual.

[34:50] will, in terms of professional money management, I will confess I don't know of any of my clients

[34:59] who use third-party investment advisors.

[35:01] I could be wrong other than their financial institutions where I do find it prevalent

[35:06] is in hospital foundations where they will use money managers specifically to manage their

[35:13] investment portfolios.

[35:14] But my experience, Madam Chair, is typically they use their banks.

[35:18] I could be wrong, but that's my impression.

[35:22] Okay, thank you.

[35:23] And okay, so any other questions?

[35:27] No, all right, thank you very much for your presentation.

[35:32] So, in order to finalize the city's 2023 year end,

[35:37] Council is required to approve the statements and provide authority to the mayor and

[35:41] CFO to sign the statements on behalf of Council.

[35:45] I'll read the draft recommendation and pull the committee.

[35:47] That the Mayor and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation of the City of North Bay be authorized to approve the 2023 Consolidated Financial Statements.

[35:57] Councillor Mitchell.

[35:59] Yes.

[36:01] Councillor Mila.

[36:02] Yes.

[36:03] Councillor Main.

[36:04] Yes.

[36:05] Councillor King.

[36:06] I agree.

[36:07] Councillor Rebaugh.

[36:09] Yes.

[36:09] Councillor Bain.

[36:12] Yes.

[36:13] Councillor Gardner.

[36:14] Yes.

[36:15] Mayor Chirico.

[36:16] Yes.

[36:17] And I also agree, and that will be the recommendation going forward, Council.

[36:24] And your worship?

[36:25] That is the end of the general government business.

[36:26] I will turn the meeting back over to you.

[36:30] Thank you very much, Councillor Enz.

[36:32] Hold on.

[36:34] Mr. McKisic.

[36:36] Councillor Mitchell, Councillor Maine, Councillor Veribosch, Councillor Gardner, Councillor

[36:40] Bain, Councillor Lowry, Councillor King, Councillor Enz, Councillor Malaw, Councillor Horsefield,

[36:45] Mayor Chair, go all present with the exceptions of Councillor Lowry and Councillor Horsefield.

[36:51] Are there any declarations of pecuniary interests in the general nature they're out for tonight's meeting?

[36:56] Council of Abreche?

[36:57] Yes, I've declared pecuniary interest in my agenda.

[37:01] Sorry, I'm an agenda item number 1.4 because my de-sub is my employer, and also I attain a very

[37:07] much to clear, pecuniary interest on agenda number 6.4 as de-sub is my employer.

[37:14] I'm sorry, I missed the first one in the council of Abreche.

[37:17] I think it's 1.4, it's in-camera.

[37:20] 1.4?

[37:21] I'm not, I don't know, I apologize, I just have 6.4, I'm sorry.

[37:27] Okay, thank you.

[37:32] Good, thank you.

[37:34] Tonight we have one public presentation scheduled, Earl Davidson regarding

[37:39] petition for improvements to short-wood road road, road lake, North Bay.

[37:44] Welcome, Earl, come on down.

[37:47] Mr. Mayor, members of council, and thank you for this opportunity to participate in the local government.

[37:52] I'm here on behalf of residents of Sherwood Road,

[37:57] an area on trunk lake.

[38:00] Petitions represent many things, complaints,

[38:04] or simply do or raise awareness.

[38:06] I want to make it clear, I'm not here to raise a complaint.

[38:09] I'm simply here to raise awareness

[38:11] by a concerned group of citizens,

[38:14] excuse me, about the condition of the road on which we live.

[38:18] So our ask is fairly simple.

[38:21] Well, Sherwood Road has been subject to a number of washouts and drainage issues.

[38:27] The road service is deteriorated.

[38:30] It's a tar and gravel treatment.

[38:33] And our primary concern, of course, is to improve access for residents, emergency service

[38:38] vehicles, and school buses.

[38:41] And I'll explain the equal treatment to regal and vice-aware roads, not to sound like a disgruntled

[38:45] taxpayer, but that is our immediate comparison.

[38:49] So where a Sherwood Road, the top left corner of your slide is trunk lake, and the inset is the eastern edge of the peninsula, and I've marked Sherwood Road in blue, and it has two fairly large private roads, 400 Sherwood to the left and 170 Sherwood Road to the right.

[39:12] Sherwood Road has 22 permanent residents, permanent homes, five cottages, total length 1.6 kilometers.

[39:19] and I'll explain the comparison to Regal Road, our immediate neighbors, 1.9 kilometers,

[39:25] same number of homes, a few more cottages.

[39:28] Our comparison is Regal Road has been paved from one end to the other, and

[39:33] Sherwood Road is a tar and gravel treatment which has been patched for many, many years,

[39:38] the last 10 in my memory.

[39:40] And just as an aside, although I'm not here to represent the interests of people on Peninsula Road,

[39:46] peninsula road is significantly deteriorated past regal road and on to shoreward.

[39:53] So that's just to simply put the area in perspective.

[39:55] I have included a number of pictures from the last significant rainfall.

[39:59] These are pictures of washouts on some of the hills along shoreward road.

[40:05] That's my leg standing in a wash out of 12 to 18 inches.

[40:09] The roadway itself has suffered runoff damage.

[40:14] Again, the road surfaces deteriorated, not due to rain and water runoff, but just simple degradation over time and last but not least.

[40:25] The two private driveway entrances that abut the city and north Bay Shore would road suffer from drainage and runoff issues that cause damage that we as residents on private roads must repair.

[40:38] So, our request is fairly simple, and it's to erase awareness, we would like Sherwood

[40:45] Road to be added to the near-term rural road improvement planning.

[40:49] We understand Council have dozens of priorities.

[40:53] You've already made commitments to this budget year and likely next.

[40:56] We simply want to be included in the roadway improvement plans going forward, and our preference

[41:03] would be to resurface the entire, like, the short road with pavement or improved tarmac.

[41:09] And in the near term, if possible, to address the drainage issues.

[41:15] That's a request.

[41:17] I would close with one comment is that the city staff have been very responsive in terms of repairing damage when it has occurred.

[41:25] Those washouts that I showed you were repaired within 36 to 48 hours of occurrence.

[41:30] So it's not, we're not complaining about the current level of maintenance.

[41:35] We simply would like the long-term issues on Sherwood Road dealt with, and we believe

[41:39] that's best achieved with paving the entire roadway.

[41:43] With that, I'll pause or answer any questions or if entering commentary.

[41:49] Thanks very much, Earl, for your presentation tonight.

[41:52] I do have our Chair of Infrastructure and Operations, Councillor Mitchell.

[41:58] Thank you, Your Worship.

[41:59] So, Errol, I guess the one thing I can say is that obviously great minds think like and it's nice to I want to thank you for doing your presentation.

[42:08] I want to thank you for bringing this forward to all of Council's attention collectively when we saw that you were scheduled to do this.

[42:16] It was interesting because staff are already putting road forward for 2025 to move it forward.

[42:24] now we only have so much in our rural road budget so the worst possible scenario

[42:29] you're facing is that half of it will be done in 2025 the other half will be

[42:33] done in 2026 but we're hoping that it all happens obviously in 2025 so on

[42:42] that note I think that's a good news story and what excellent timing for your

[42:48] presentation because staff have recognized that there are challenges there as

[42:52] well, too. And thank you for the comments about the staff responding within the times

[42:57] they do because I personally think we have fantastic staff and I know departments. So thank

[43:02] you for that. Well, thank you. That's welcome and very happy

[43:07] news.

[43:10] Are there any other questions for Mr. Dave's insight? Seeing none, thank you for that

[43:16] response, Councillor Mitchell. And I think you can head back, Earl, and let your fellow residents

[43:23] It doesn't snow that you've taken care of everything.

[43:30] Thanks, Earl.

[43:32] Much appreciated.

[43:34] Ms. McKisney.

[43:36] Moved by Councillor Gardner, seconded by Councillor Freyfosch, that the minutes from

[43:40] the public meetings held on Tuesday, October 15th, 2024, and Monday, October 21st, 2024,

[43:47] be adopted as presented.

[43:48] Any discussion?

[43:50] All those in favour?

[43:51] Opposed?

[43:52] That's carried.

[43:54] Item 5.1.

[43:55] moved by Councillor Inge, seconded by Councillor Mitchell, the general government committee report

[43:59] number 2024-13 relating to the 2023 consolidated financial statements be adopted as presented.

[44:07] Any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.

[44:12] Item 5.2 moved by Councillor Inge, seconded by Councillor Mitchell.

[44:15] The general government committee report number 2024-14 relating to City of North Bay

[44:23] Any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.

[44:29] Item 5.3, moved by Councillor Miloas, seconded by Councillor King.

[44:33] That community services committee report, number 2024-14, relating to zoning bylaw amendment

[44:38] application by tele-geomatic think on behalf of 2525-118 Ontario limited, two sunset boulevard

[44:46] be adopted as presented.

[44:48] Any discussion?

[44:49] All those in favour?

[44:51] Opposed?

[44:52] That's carried.

[44:52] Thank you.

[44:53] Item 6.1.

[44:54] Move by Councillor Miloas.

[44:55] Seconded by Councillor King.

[44:57] That one.

[44:57] Council approve.

[44:58] The request.

[44:58] by hand tech design.

[45:00] On behalf of Golden Estates Limited, to revise the draft plan of subdivision, subdivision file number 48t-21101, as indicated in report to council CSPU 2024-49, as shown on the revised draft plan of subdivision, attached here to a schedule B, and two condition number two of the conditions of draft approval, is amended to reflect the revised draft plan of subdivision as shown on schedule B to report to council

[45:29] the SBU 2024-49, dated October 8th, 2024, from Beverly Hillier.

[45:35] Any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.

[45:41] Item 6.2, moved by Councillor Milas, seconded by Councillor King, that the proposed zoning

[45:46] by law amendment by Goodrich Goulet planning and surveying limited on behalf of Azatav Mondeau

[45:51] and Shualli Sen at 41 Gertrude Street East be received and referred to the community services

[45:57] is committee for public meeting. All those in favour? Opposed? Let's carry.

[46:03] Item 6.3, moved by Councillor Mitchell, seconded by Councillor Maid, the report to council

[46:08] I.O. 2024-09, dated October 17th, 2024, from Megan

[46:13] Rochford, be received and referred to the infrastructure and operations committee meeting

[46:17] on November 12th, 2024. All those in favour? Opposed? Let's carry.

[46:23] Item 6.4, moved by Councillor Inch, seconded by Councillor Mitchell, the Council approved

[46:28] the renewal of the employee administrative services only and pooled benefit, accepting

[46:33] accidental death and dismemberment, a D&D coverage program, with manual financial effective

[46:40] November 1, 2024, and the A D&D coverage with AIG insurance effective November 1, 2024,

[46:46] at an increase of 0.1 per cent or $3,468 per annum.

[46:53] Any discussion? All those in favour? Oh Councillor, just to claim my conflict.

[46:58] I'm sorry.

[47:01] Conflict noted. Thank you, Councillor Vierrache.

[47:05] All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried. Thank you.

[47:09] Moved by Councillor Milas. Seconded by Councillor King.

[47:12] that the following by-law be read at first and second time. By-law number 2024-75 to stop

[47:18] up, close and convey a part of Memorial Drive, formerly known as Gulf Street Road Allowance,

[47:24] designed as part 59 on plan 36R-14925 in the city of North Bay. By-law number 2024-76 to

[47:34] to rezone certain lands on Sunset Boulevard 2525118 Ontario Limited to Sunset Boulevard and

[47:43] by-law number 2024-77 to designate a site plan control area on certain lands on Sunset

[47:49] Boulevard 2525118 Ontario Limited to Sunset Boulevard.

[47:55] All those favour? Opposed? That's carried.

[47:58] Moved by Councillor Milose, seconded by Councillor King, the following by-laws be read a third

[48:02] time and past by law number 2024-75, by law number 2024-76, and by law number 2024-77.

[48:12] All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.

[48:17] Moved by Councillor Inge, seconded by Councillor Mitchell. The Councillor adjourned in camera,

[48:21] pursuant to section 239, subsection 2 of the municipal act 2001 as amended at 715 p.m.

[48:28] for the following reasons. Item 9.2 being a personal matter about

[48:32] identifiable individuals including municipal or board employees. Item 9.3 being labor

[48:38] relations and item 9.4 being a proposed acquisition of land by the municipality.

[48:44] All those in favor? Opposed? That's carried. We'll be going in camera and we will be out when

[48:50] we're out. Thank you.

[1:49:33] This is McKisic. Moved by Councillor Inge, seconded by Councillor Mitchell, that council reconvene at 8.16 p.m. All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.

[1:49:48] Item 9.2, moved by Councillor Inge, seconded by Councillor Mitchell, that council appoint Councillor Gardner to the North Bay Public Library Board for a term to expire November 14th, 2026. Any discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.

[1:50:07] And we have a notice of motion by Councillor Weber-Ash.

[1:50:10] Yes, thank you.

[1:50:11] I have two notice of motions.

[1:50:12] So one is, I was just going to make it about the Norwood Ditching Project, but since the

[1:50:16] article came out, it seems that Ditches and Drainage projects, so I'll be making it a motion

[1:50:21] regards to Ditching and Drainage projects, I would include Parkwood, Pinewood, Patricia and

[1:50:27] McNabb and Norwood.

[1:50:28] And the second notice of motion is in regards to requesting the financial statements from

[1:50:33] the Laurentian scale.

[1:50:34] Thank you.

[1:50:37] Thank you.

[1:50:38] Moved by Councillor Raybosh, seconded by Councillor Bain, the following bylaw be read

[1:50:42] a first and second time bylaw number 2024-74 to confirm proceedings of the regular meeting

[1:50:49] of council held on October 29th, 2024.

[1:50:53] All those in favour?

[1:50:54] Opposed?

[1:50:55] It's carried.

[1:50:56] Moved by Councillor Raybosh, seconded by Councillor Bain, the following bylaw be read a third

[1:51:00] time and passed bylaw number 2024-74.

[1:51:04] All those in favour?

[1:51:06] Opposed?

[1:51:06] That's carried.

[1:51:08] Moved by Councillor Bain, seconded by Councillor Gardner, that this regular meeting of Council

[1:51:11] do now adjourn at 817 p.m.

[1:51:14] All those in favour?

[1:51:16] Opposed?

[1:51:16] Thank you.

[1:51:17] Good night.

Council Meeting

Transcript