May 4/05 Report
1:35 pm - 3:30 pm approx. (Committee went in camera at this point.)

Attendance:

• Members: Braden, Bruckler, DiIanni (chairing) , McHattie, Mitchell (7 min late)
• Absent: Whitehead (he arrived after the meeting ended)
• Other Councillors: Pearson (for item 6.1), Samson (whole meeting)
• Staff: Peace, Priel, Graham, Christensen, Goodger, Pekaruk, Tollis, Richardson , 'Christine' (sitting in Rinaldo's seat) and 'Craig' (Public Works, sitting at managers bench next to Beth Goodger)
• Press: CHML (Ken Mann)

Agenda:
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Strategic-Planning-Budgets/2005/May04/Agenda.pdf

Changes to the agenda :
Added item 8.6 - Facility Naming Sub-Committee Report 05-002

5.1 An Elected Official's Guide to Internal Controls and Fraud Prevention.
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Strategic-Planning-Budgets/2005/May04/CM05016.pdf - Report by Internal Auditor Ann Pekaruk " As part of a preliminary response to a recommendation by the City's external auditors, a publication entitled "An Elected Official's Guide to Internal Controls and Fraud Prevention" is being distributed to all members of Council and Corporate Management Team. This guide provides practical information and useful guidance about internal controls and how elected officials and management may improve the effectiveness of their oversight roles of the internal control environment and culture."

Discussion:

McHattie thanks staff; noting that 'helps' of this sort had been asked for by the committee at the early March SP&B meeting. He is requesting other assistance from staff, "understanding that there are other resources available as well". He says how complex the financial information is and how difficult it is for the untrained to understand. ".Certainly the financial statements, when Joe puts them together for us, they wiz by on the power point overhead pretty quickly, and it's hard, quite often, to catch what's going on. And so.I can only speak for myself, if I was better versed in how to read those financial statements - I'm being humble in saying that, putting myself on the line in terms of not fully understanding that - I know that would be beneficial. .AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) has a councillor (course), with a whole bunch of things in it.."

6.1 Waste Management User Fees and Charges.
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Strategic-Planning-Budgets/2005/May04/Motion%20for%20tipping%20fee.pdf
" That the tipping fees charged at the City's Transfer Stations be increased effective May 16, 2005 to the following:

• Minimum Fee from $7.50 / 150 kg to $9.00 / 100 kg
• Residential Tipping Fee from $80 / tonne to $90 / tonne
• Commercial Tipping Fee from $84 / tonne to $90 / tonne"

Discussion:

This discussion takes up the bulk of the meeting time. Councillor Pearson is in attendance and starts the discussion with concerns about the amount being reduced, saying that when Council looked at these fee increases during the budget process there was no mention of reducing the amounts. She proposes an amendment to increase the fee but keep the amount at 150 kg, noting that she's not on the committee and cannot, herself, make the motion.

Staff Beth Goodger says that as 60,000/yr trips are made to the transfer station every year and most pay only the minimum fee, there would be a loss of 7-10 thousand dollars this year, as the new amounts are already in the budget.

Mitchell says he understands both sides, but also wonders about the costs of picking up any extra illegal dumping that may result when these new restrictions take place. He will support Pearson's request for keeping the amount the same.

Goodger says this is a 'line item' in the roads budget already and that her division will be "monitoring" the impact on Bryan Shynal's group (roads). She also says the new Community Recycling Centres coming on line soon should reduce waste in general and "hopefully offset" illegal dumping, and that at transfer stations

Braden would like to see increases directed more at commercial customers than residential, and says that residential should stay the same. He asks a series of questions to get at how much the city would have to increase commercial fees to offset any proposed increases to residential. The answer is not immediately clear.

DiIanni: "We thought that it would fair to raise everyone's a little bit, even though the bulk of the increase would come from the commercial side (due to larger volume) - as it should".

Goodger notes that another implication to any change now, is that this would involve (another) public notice period, which would delay increasing fees until June, thus lowering the total amount of revenues received this budget year.

Braden : ".I want to be supportive of the idea that we have more bulk (pickups?) because when I take my pickup and I have to pay more than $7.50 I'll feel punished. And sooner rather than later I'll be moving to increase the commercial tipping fee, because that's where I think it belongs."

McHattie says that he wants to understand the rationale for the changes, noting that this is no doubt part of an overall waste diversion strategy. He asks if the increase is to perhaps "discourage waste, as we're increasing more recycling opportunities".

Goodger says they're taking a two-fold approach to the issue, agreeing with and expanding on the 'waste diversion' incentive. She says that the decrease in maximum load really "doesn't really have much of an impact on the users", as "most of those loads would still be within those limits". She also says "streamlining" the fee structure "makes it simpler to administer".

McHattie comments on the relationship between illegal dumping and the tipping fee, asking if increases in dumping are merely a result of the costs at the transfer station or perhaps just "bad behaviour". He wonders if there is a 'tipping point' that drives things "one way or the other", asking if there's research on that.

Goodger says research shows that some illegal dumping continues to occur no matter what is done, but that "temporary spikes" also occur, and that when changes are made (alludes to previous proposed container limits discussion) it is important to have enforcement strategies in place. "Some individuals just don't like the change so they react with poor behaviour, but really it's not something they feel comfortable with - polluting the environment - and it's not a behaviour that will continue, so the dumping level resumes to what's normal".

McHattie says that he feels it's necessary to continue to work towards waste diversion targets, and that pricing is part of that, so he won't support amending the motion.

Bruckler asks for clarification on the amendment. DiIanni and Braden (off mic) explain that it's to increase price but stay at maximum amount allowed within the load charge. Bruckler agrees that diversion is important but says he will support the amendment, saying he wants to see "waste disposal be as convenient as possible" (His comments seemingly contradict. It seems as if he doesn't understand McHattie's argument re using increased pricing and lowering limits as a disincentive to 'throwing away' and hence an incentive to 'diversion' - reuse, recycle etc)

Mitchell is concerned because the landfill is in his ward, and he hears from his constituents regularly about the issues pertaining to it. "Trying to build trust . is an ongoing challenge" He relates a situation that occurred during the recent bulk pickup days where a constituent, who regularly monitors activities at the dump, noticed that waste was arriving without having been processed (sorted and compacted) at the transfer stations first, which is breaking the terms set out in the 'CofA' (Certificate of Approval) - ".now my community is going berserk". Apparently the Ministry of the Environment had given approval for this to occur, but Mitchell's point is that this sort of thing "hurts" the trust the city is trying to build and whether it was "right or not, that perception has gone sour". The other problem, from his point of view, is the community's not getting the full compensation that Glanbrook was supposed to receive (he says "up to $1M") - lost due to amalgamation - and says (re the proposed price and limit changes) "how many whammies does the community out there have to take". "Hard to support things like this when the phone is ringing off the wall and the lack of trust is continually going down" (I think he means 'trust is going down') "I just wanted to share that".

Goodger says that the CofA wasn't violated. Defers to other staffer to explain ('Craig')

Craig explains that there was a "tremendous amount of bulk waste" and they found that "the transfer stations were undersized for the amount of waste.." They contacted the MOE for clarification on the details of the certificate regarding whether the city is allowed to take 'packer' trucks to the landfill to "mitigate the matter and ensure that the waste was still coming off the streets in a timely manner". He explains that "waste that is coming from the transfer station itself must be in 'transfer trailers'. however it (the CofA) doesn't speak to waste that comes straight from the street, so the MOE fell back to our system CofA, which says that the packer trucks are allowed to go to the Glanbrook Landfill directly. The only restriction that we have in the Glanbrook Landfill CofA is in the number of vehicles that are allowed to go there per day. . We got confirmation prior to the trucks coming and we got confirmation again yesterday again that we are within the CofA".

Mitchell compliments staff for the "speedy" bulk pick up, saying he had very few complaints about how was collected. When DiIanni asks him to make sure he communicates to his constituents that the city was in compliance with the CofA, Mitchell states that "our staff and the MOE are interpreting it one way, (and) they will interpret it possibly another way. They're fighters and they're going to have their fight, I guess".

Pearson says she just wanted to clarify the weight reduction issue. She says she understands "what staff are trying to achieve and hopefully down the road when we have the community recycling centres in place.that allow more items to be taken in that aren't going to be charged we can look at the amount of waste a homeowner can take (to the transfer station)". She also says there is "no logic" to why the amount is being reduced to 100 kg, that as she heard it, it's "just a matter of simplifying the mathematics.."

Goodger : "That was part of it.to simplify the accounting structure, and we didn't see that there would be a big impact associated with that".

DiIanni: "They felt that part of the rationale would be that they wanted folks to reflect on whether they wanted to dump or not. The main thing is that the easier you make it for people to dump ".

Motion: (With an amendment of the motion in the report to increase the weight maximum back to 150kg) The motion is DEFEATED on a tie ( DiIanni didn't vote) with Braden/Mitchell voting in favour and McHattie/Bruckler opposed.

Bruckler suggests a motion to just reduce the amount (to 100 kg), but increase the fee. DiIanni asks for clarification on whether that would mean a delay due to a public meeting. Goodger thinks not.

Motion: (Amending the motion in the report to reduce the fee back to $7.50). The motion is CARRIED with Bruckler/Mitchell/Braden voting in favour and McHattie opposed.

Braden requests (off mic) staff to bring back more information on how much the city might increase the fees for commercial users and "come out equal" in the budget.

Goodger agrees, saying that they will also factor in the financial implications of delaying the implementation of any changes.

DiIanni wonders if staff could also communicate regarding the MOE and the bulk delivery to the landfill, saying that the MOE "gives a legal definition", not an interpretation.

Goodger agrees, saying they'll bring this up with the Glanbrook Landfill committee on the 30 th , "so that they understand that this is how the Ministry is applying the Certificate of Approval". She notes that the individual citizen in question has a lot of experience with the previous CofA, but that it's the Ministry that sets the rules.

Note* At some point it was also mentioned that when the department advertises a bulk pickup there is an enormous response, and that the department is thinking of not advertising these any more (other than in the schedule every household receives by mail on a yearly basis).

8.1 Audit Report: Dental Claims Administration:
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Strategic-Planning-Budgets/2005/May04/CM05013
%20-%20Dental%20Claims%20Admin.%202005-01.pdf

From the staff report (submitted by Internal Auditor Ann Pekaruk ):
"The main areas for improvement...include: compliance and performance with Ministry directives; system accesses and compatibility; several issues regarding claim payments including setting up new providers, processing errors, return of provider cheques to the initiators and lack of balancing routines; lack of claim form documentation and appropriate management oversight; and control of cash fees collected in the clinic."

Discussion:

Pekaruk says the department itself requested this audit. Joe-Ann Priel (Manager, Social and Public Health) confirms this, and says that all the recommendations for improvement are being addressed.

Mitchell asks about the cost division with the province for these programs. Priel says the whole program amounts to $2.8M, but doesn't have the break down with her for the division with the province. Mitchell says he'd like to see a full list of all city programs, in all departments, that are cost shared, and the details (of the ratios), saying this will be a way to better show all the social service needs Hamilton bears. He says he's spoken to Priel and been meeting with staff about this already and understands it will take time to collect this data.

DiIanni asks if the audit include "some assessment of the recipients and whether we've got the right people on the program or not". Pekaruk replies that they did look at the assessments of what each individual clamant was entitled to, based on the category they fell into. The 'working poor' though, who are not covered by other social assistance programs but who have limited means to pay for dental services, were charged $20/visit. DiIanni cites the example of one vocal complainant who turned out to not properly qualify for assistance under the program, and he asks how the city would "catch stuff like that". Priel acknowledges that they need to tighten up on the eligibility criteria, and that is one of the recommendations of the audit. "We might be at risk there.we need to tighten up our guidelines and our record keeping, and establish what is a fair amount, because I think we've been arbitrary in some cases, in charging $20. If somebody comes in and has no money we might not charge them anything. So that's been an area of concern for us.and we will bring (this) back to council in terms of who's eligible and what is the required level of payment".

8.2 Audit Report: Food Services and Concessions - Cash Handling & Expenditures:
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Strategic-Planning-Budgets/2005/May04/CM05013%20-%20
Dental%20Claims%20Admin.%202005-01.pdf

From the staff report (submitted by Internal Auditor Ann Pekaruk ):
"The main areas for improvement .include: petty cash practices; purchase of products and services for the Food Services and Concessions areas (in particular, use of petty cash and register receipts to purchase operating supplies); banking practices, in particular regarding deposits and reconciliations; provision of meals to staff; inventory control; and centralized invoicing for catered events through Accounts Receivable.

Of the 17 individual recommendations, management and staff have implemented or agreed to take measures to implement all of them by the fall of 2005."

Discussion:

Priel: "We asked for this audit because of some concerns that I personally had and that others had raised with me.to ensure we had the proper controls in place."

McHattie says that the findings prove the utility of the booklet's utility (given out in item 5.1), as it identifies 'cash handling' as a key area to look at.

Bruckler says it's helpful to have these reports and these reviews "from time to time" especially because of the satellite operations in the city, and that it's important to have tight controls.

Braden: "I don't want to be so gentle.. There are things in here that are just more than a little disturbing.. There are things in here that are simply not forgivable, and while I don't want to go on a witch hunt I don't want to have people working for this corporation.who - either they're untrustworthy or they've got bad judgment". He gives examples from the report (US dollars, discounts), saying these things cannot just be "explained", and that "we don't want those employees working for us". "These (things) couldn't be going on in isolation. The only thing that we can probably grasp here is that this has become the status quo and it's become accepted and it's gone on a long time.. That kind of group behavior is unacceptable. I think we've got a real problem here and it needs to be dealt with extremely firmly". He expands on the "theft" in the US dollar example, calling it "rather distasteful". He says he wants to address his comments to "the front line" and to the "people that were their bosses" and that if the bosses knew about it "they were equally guilty". He wants it dealt with "firmly" and "pleads that the solution is not to say 'well, everyone was doing it so it's ok and we're going to have a clean sheet next Monday' - that to me is not in any way acceptable. And I'm not being too harsh - if any of these people were working for me they'd be fired on the spot.their bosses too, and I just clean house. "Merely because we have a report doesn't mean we can forget about the past". DiIanni asks if the staff wants to comment, adding that he assumes "that if there's willful neglect or .wrongdoing that action is taken", saying that staff doesn't have to comment. Priel says they will be going over the audit finding with the staff in question, and that she "doesn't take the audit lightly".

Mitchell comments re item #5b, saying that it implies that there are other discounts available to staff (other than the ones mentioned), and wants to know more about this (in all departments). Pekaruk says that this audit is only looking at food services, and so she can't comment on other discounts. Priel doesn't think that was the intent of the wording, but will look into it. Mitchell asks that a report come back on the issue of staff discounts by department specifically what discounts are provided. (He wants this added to the outstanding agenda items.) He says "there needs to be equity" re discounts. DiIanni says there are all sorts of issues that arise from this, not the least is "why have discounts in the first place?" Braden makes a comment off microphone asking for staff to include in the report the "justification" for the discounts.

8.3 Audit Report: Recreation Centre (Ancaster Rotary Centre) - Cash Handling:
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Strategic-Planning-Budgets/2005/May04/
CM05015%20-%20Recreation%20Centre%202005-02.pdf

From the staff report (submitted by Internal Auditor Ann Pekaruk ): " The 2005 Internal Audit work plan approved a review of cash handling throughout the various City locations and venues. Even though it was reported to Committee and Council that the current resources available in the Internal Audit division were not adequate to carry out 100% of such reviews, these audits are being completed by Audit staff as time permits on an individual site basis.

The main areas for improvement (in Ancaster).include: controls surrounding the numerical sequence of passes and clip cards distributed and sold; monitoring of the facility's leasing agreement, key to the revenue stream of the centre; and the streamlining of the fee structure used at the centre to reduce confusion and errors".

Discussion:

Bruckler suggests that staff come back with a follow-up report regarding progress in implementing the stricter controls.

8.4 Facility Naming Sub-Committee Report:
http://www.city.hamilton.on.ca/clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
Strategic-Planning-Budgets/2005/May04/Facility%20Naming
%20Sub-Ctte%20Report%2005-001%20April%204%202005.pdf
Appointments of Samson and Pearson to this committee and the Terms of Reference: All items CARRIED.

Note* Item 8.6 was considered by committee before item 8.5.

8.6 Naming Sub-Committee Report (Added Item - no posted copy, CATCH has hard copy)

1. Naming of the Expressway; Expressway Implementation Sub-Committee: That the name assigned to the road through the Red Hill Valley be the Red Hill Valley Parkway . *see note below*
2. Airport Signage on the Expressway: That staff be directed send a letter to Roger Hanmer, Ministry of Transportation, requesting that signage be such that it encourages and directs motorists to access the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport via the new Highway 6 at the 403, the Queen Elizabeth Way (Q.E.W.), the Red Hill Valley Parkway and the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway.
3. Renaming of North Central Community Park to Jill Rumble North Central Park (Ward 3). *See note below*
4. Naming of Eringate Park and Highland Green Park (PW05041) - (Ward 9)
   1. That the name of "Eringate Park" for a neighbourhood park in an area bounded by Highland Road West, Second Road West and Gatestone Drive in Ward 9 be approved.
   2. That the name of "Highland Green" for a municipal park in the area bounded by Highland Road West, Upper Mount Albion Road, Second Road West, and Rymal Road East be approved.
5. Ancaster Community Centre Park - Naming of Ball Diamond That Ball Diamond #4 at the Ancaster Community Centre Park be named the Matthew Krohl Ball Diamond.
6. Naming of the Municipal Building in Ancaster; The Wade Centre That this item be received and referred to a future agenda of the Facility Naming Sub-Committee to be reviewed together with suggestions for other former Mayors.

All CARRIED , except #3 . This item was referred back to the Facility Naming Sub-Committee, per Samson's request. Item #1 Braden OPPOSED

8.5 Review of Outstanding Business: (Staff member 'Christine') She says she doesn't have any dates (for staff to provide the reports) for items c,d, e, and f., but will provide these at the next meeting of committee.

From Outstanding Business:

'c) Use of Future Fund in the event of a departmental crisis. Referred to Committee by Council on April 29/04.

d) Review of Insurance Deposits. On Sept. 29/04 Finance staff were directed to report on these, and vendor performances, claims submitted and claims resolved.

e) City of Hamilton Act. On Sept. 29/04 staff (doesn't specify which dept.) were directed to review legislation and explore areas which could be advantageous in terms of governance.

f) Hamilton Community Energy. On Jan. 5/05 staff (no dept. mentioned) were directed to review: seeking savings in energy conservation, requesting the provide (sic) provide a grant equal to energy audit and provide tracking numbers for consumption/usage for 2004.'

Committee went 'in camera' for item 13.1 Quarterly Review with City Manager at about 3:30 p.m. It was not stated why this was an 'in camera' item.

END OF REPORT.