2006 Audit Recommendations  -  Status Tracking
							Document 4
	Audit:  Munster Hamlet Sewage Rehabilitation Project		(Lead:  Richard Hewitt)
	Audit Recommendation	Management Response			Budget Implications 2008 or Beyond	Related Council Motions	Status Update / Comments
		Audit Management Response	Action Required Based on DCM Implementation Plan	Management Timelines    (Q1- Q4)	($$ if known)		(Status, risks, issues regarding implementation, etc)
1	That staff provides assessment of time and subsequent costs to council when presenting alternative courses of action.	Management agrees with this recommendation in principle.  This would have been particularly difficult in earlier stages (prior to amalgamation) of the project due to the unusual and occasionally unpredictable nature of the Council direction and decision making. The final report to Committee/Council in May/June 2003 addressed timelines and associated costs extremely well.					Completed
2	That the Public Works and Services Department develop a policy for Council approval that once an Environmental Study Report has been in the public record for the statutory 30-day review period and any Part II Order requests have been resolved or the Ministry of the Environment has rejected them, the Class EA process not be re-opened unless the factors provided for in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment take effect (Section A.4.2.2 of the Municipal Class EA).	Management disagrees with this recommendation. The Municipal Engineers Association Class Environmental Assessment process is itself an undertaking approved under the Environmental Assessment Act.  Both processes recognize and include provisions for changing circumstances including for completed Class EAs a mandatory requirement to review and reconfirm or modify both the assumptions and conclusions of a completed EA study every 5 years.  The recommendation would seem to contradict this legislated requirement.  The provisions for mandatory review contained in the Class EA process anticipate a wide range of circumstances including changes in legislation, new technologies, changes in original assumptions, etc. Although this resulted in long delays and created controversies in the community in the case of Munster, there are often instances whee revisiting EA decisions due to new information is warranted.  Restricting the reconsideration of decisions previously made would nto be in keeping with intent of the overall Class EA process.					Completed September 27 2007 Update:  The AG has accepted the management response.  This recommendation is complete.
3	That the RFP process not be used during an EA study to obtain firm prices for alternative solutions.  Instead, if alternative technologies are desired, that the City solicits Expressions of Interest or other non-binding solicitations with clear objectives and explanation to the invitees. To confirm cost estimates during a study or preliminary design, that the City considers retaining a contracting firm to provide cost estimates.	Management agrees with this recommendation. Although Supply Management had no involvement in the RFP process described in this audit report, we agree with this recommendation, and would not issue an RFP that was not intended to result in a contract award.  We also agree that if cost estimates are sought for solutions, the RFP is not an appropriate mechanism, and as suggested by the AG, a consulting firm could have been retained to provide those estimates.					Completed
4	If the maker of proprietary product submits a proposal for its use by the City, that the City accepts it only with a clear understanding by the proponent that any evaluation or consideration of the proposal does not bind the City to its use.	Management agrees with this recommendation.					Completed
5	That City staff do not release results of consultant’s studies without previous review.	Management agrees in general with this recommendation. Staff generally work closely with consultants to carry out studies and develop appropriate recommendations. However, in the case of Munster, the City intentionally had RVA undertake an independent re-evaluation and make recommendations based upon their re-evaluation of the three treatment alternatives. To do otherwise in this situation, recognizing the long history of this project even at that time would have been problematic.					Completed
6	That all major changes in policies regarding the use of infrastructure capacity be brought forward for Council approval.	Management agrees in principle with this recommendation.  For the particular issue that seems to have resulted in this recommendation – capacity allocation – the Region’s 1997 Wastewater Master Plan included policies regarding capacity allocation and system efficiencies.  The report does not make further references, however if there is other evidence that policies are not being brought forward to Council this recommendation may have value.  If the recommendation is related only to the specific issue of capacity allocation, related policies were presented to and approved by Regional Council.					Completed