|
1. 2007
AUDIT OF CARP RIVER WATERSHED STUDY AND RELATED PROJECTS VÉRIFICATION 2007 DE L'ÉTUDE SUR LE BASSIN
HYDROGRAPHIQUE DE LA RIVIÈRE CARP ET DES PROJETS CONNEXES |
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
That Council:
1. Endorse
the Audit Recommendations within the jurisdiction of Planning and Environment
Committee (i.e. excluding Audit Recommendations 4 and 12) where Management is
in agreement;
2. Where
Management has indicated agreement in principle or has deferred its response
pending a review, direct Management to advise as to the implementation of the
Audit Recommendation by the end of 2008;
3. Direct
staff to:
a) Proceed with a third party review;
b) Post the Terms of Reference on the City’s
website in order to receive comment;
c) Address, as part of a staff report, input
and comments from the public for final approval of the Terms of Reference at
the June 24, 2008 Planning and Environment Committee meeting and the following
Council meeting;
d) Respond to the Inquiry on Hiring of
Consultants for Studies in order to discuss at the same June 24, 2008 meeting.
RECOMMANDATION DU COMITÉ DE L’AGRICULTURE ET DES QUESTIONS RURALES
RECOMMANDATIONS
DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
Que le Conseil:
1.
appuie les recommandations présentées dans le rapport de vérification
qui sont du ressort du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement (c.-à-d. à
l’exception des recommandations 4 et 12 dudit rapport) si la direction les
approuve;
2.
dans les cas où la direction a approuvé les recommandations en principe
ou a reporté sa réponse en attendant un examen, enjoigne la direction de
l’informer quant
à la mise en œuvre des recommandations présentées dans le rapport de
vérification d’ici la fin de 2008;
3. Que
le Conseil enjoigne au personnel :
a) de mettre en oeuvre un examen par
une tierce partie;
b) d’afficher le cadre de référence sur
le site Web de la Ville afin de recevoir des commentaires;
c) de tenir compte, dans un rapport du
personnel, des suggestions et commentaires du public pour l’approbation finale
du cadre de référence par le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement à sa
réunion du 24 juin 2008 et à la prochaine rencontre de Conseil municipal;
d) de répondre à la demande de
renseignements sur l’embauche d’expert-conseil pour des études afin d’en
discuter également à cette réunion le 24 juin.
Documentation
1. Coordinator, Planning and Environment
Committee’s report dated 24 April 2008 (ACS2008-CCS-PEC-0006).
2. Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee Extract of Draft Minutes of 8 May 2008.
Report to / Rapport au :
Council / Conseil municipal
24 April 2008 / le 24 avril 2008
Submitted by / Soumis par : Planning and
Environment Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement
|
City Wide / À l'échelle de la Ville |
Ref N°:
ACS2008-CCS-PEC-0006 |
SUBJECT: 2007 Audit of Carp River Watershed Study and
Related Projects
OBJET : VÉRIFICATION
2007 DE L'ÉTUDE SUR LE BASSIN HYDROGRAPHIQUE DE LA RIVIÈRE CARP ET DES PROJETS CONNEXES
That the Planning and
Environment Committee consider the recommendations of the Auditor General’s
Report - 2007 Audit of Carp River Watershed Study and Related Projects.
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement considère les recommandations du rapport du Vérificateur
Général - Vérification 2007 de l'étude sur le bassin hydrographique de la
rivière Carp et des projets connexes.
At its meeting of 23 April 2008, City Council referred the recommendations of the Auditor General’s Report on the 2007 Audit of Carp River Watershed Study and Related Projects to the Planning and Environment Committee for its review and recommendations.
Be it resolved that the recommendations of the Auditor General’s Report -
2007 Audit of Carp River Watershed Study and Related Projects be referred to
the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of 8 May 2008 and the
Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 13 May 2008 and that the issue of
potential Conflict of Interest with respect to consultants and the community
lands development recommendations be referred to the Corporate Services and
Economic Development Committee meeting of 6 May 2008;
And be it further resolved that the reports of all three Committees rise
to the Council meeting of 14 May 2008
CONSULTATION
Not
required.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Not required.
Document 1 - 2007 Audit of Carp River Watershed Study and Related Projects (ACS2008-AAG-BVG-0002) – Previously distributed and held on file with the City Clerk’s office.
Staff to take appropriate action as directed by Council.
|
AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL AFFAIRS Committee EXTRACT OF DRAFT Minutes 23 8 May 2008 |
|
COMITÉ DE L’AGRICULTURE ET DES QUESTIONS RURALES extrait
de l’Ébauche du
Procès-verbal 23 le 8
mai 2008 |
|
|
|
|
2007 AUDIT OF THE CARP
RIVER WATERSHED STUDY AND RELATED PROJECTs
vÉRIFICATION
2007 DE L'ÉTUDE SUR LE BASSIN HYDROGRAPHIquE DE LA RIVIÈRE CARP ET DES PROJETS
CONNEXEs
ACS2008-CCS-ARA-0002 City Wide / À l'échelle de la ville
Alain Lalonde, Auditor General, reviewed the background relative to the audit report in that the audit was initiated as a result of a report to the fraud and waste hotline. The audit was completed in November 2007, at which time the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) provided a draft to City management and management provided their response to the OAG in mid-March 2008. He discussed three main observations:
· That there was an engineering firm working both for the owners’ group and for the City;
· That although there was nothing illegal in the process because it was fully declared, it raised issues with respect to controls and perception; and
· The fact that the City acted as an owner and the regulator at the same time.
In response to questions relating to the Committee’s terms of reference, Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, suggested that Committee consider the impacts of the Carp audit, the recommendations of the report and the management responses as these related to rural areas outside Kanata West.
Ray Kostuch, Manager,
Office of the Auditor General, referred to recommendation 8 on the questionable
amount of sediment that would be going downstream. He noted other errors had been
found in the hydrology and he discussed the potential affect on the area
downstream. He indicated the modelling
used by the consultant did not match the actual event. It was also estimated that the water level
could be as much as a meter higher than what was noted by the engineer.
Mr. Lalonde suggested that these studies
be re-done by the engineering firm as opposed to redoing the complete study of
the Kanata West project. He maintained
the recommendation addressed the specific studies and he suggested that the
mistakes should be corrected at the consultant’s expense.
Mr. Marc clarified that the environmental assessment had not been
approved, therefore the City was in a strong position to say that a material
error had occurred and there was a need and requirement to be remedy the
situation.
In response to a question by Councillor Brooks, Mr. Marc explained that
the engineering firm clearly made the error and had an obligation to do the
work to correct their error in order to provide both the development group and
the City with proper advice.
Rob Mackay, Director of Economic and Environmental Sustainability,
indicated staff had acted on the recommendation to go back to the consultant
having undertaken the modelling to have them do the remodelling. He confirmed that the work had been done and
he advised that a technical expert representing the firm was in attendance and
prepared to speak to the item, as were the staff members who had been close to
the file and technical experts hired by the City to assist staff in reviewing
the matter.
Mr. Kostuch confirmed that the remodelling work had been completed,
pursuant to the Auditor General’s recommendation.
Michael Wildman,
Manager of Infrastructure Approvals,
explained the process for a development application and advised that, depending
on the type of work, PTE staff vetted it through the water resource engineers
in the Public Works Department who reviewed and provided comments on the
report. He indicated additional
information may be requested if warranted, to which the report author had to
respond. Other agencies that may be
involved included the Conservation Authorities and the Ministry of the
Environment.
Speaking to a question with respect to individual actions of staff and
reporting relationships within the department, Mr. Marc indicated this was
within the mandate of the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee
and that such matters would likely be discussed in closed session because they
related to the employment relationship with the City. He reminded Committee and its jurisdiction
with respect to the impact of the Carp audit, the recommendations of the report
and the management responses as they related to the rural area. He maintained that the broader jurisdiction
over the Carp audit rested with the Planning and Environment Committee and
issues relative to the land development corporation and consultants were within
the purview of the CSEDC.
Responding to Councillor Brooks on the issue of reoccurrence, Mr. Wildman
indicated there has been some discussions at CSEDC with respect to requiring
that engineers sign off on reports and he noted that an engineer could not be
forced to change his/her report.
Mr. Mackay added that an outside consultant had reviewed the document, in
a peer review fashion, and provided comments back to the engineer. He indicated some coding errors had been
detected, at which time staff confirmed these with the consulting
engineer. The engineer agreed with the
error and immediately informed the Ministry of the Environment.
In reply to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Mackey re-iterated that
staff had followed through with the Auditor General’s recommendation. Further, staff believed that given the number
of issues and concerns with respect to this project, it would be important to
hire a third party engineering firm to review it and come back with an opinion
on whether the environmental assessments and designs were correct in terms of
the water volumes that would flow into the river once that area urbanized.
Councillor Hunter suggested this kind of design detail was needed when a development was being done to ensure that it would not increase the rate of flow into nearby waterways, which may or may not be able to handle the volume. He felt mechanisms had to be put in place, such as storm water management ponds, to hold back the flow. He noted that such design details normally came at a later stage of the development process.
Mr. Mackey introduced Al Perks, a water resource engineer with RV
Anderson, the firm that had assisted staff in reviewing the Audit
report. Mr. Perks spoke to the peer
review process that had been undertaken.
Responding to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Perks advised that
the upper reaches of the Carp River were heavily degraded and required
improvement. The EA identified elements
with respect to storm water management ponds, buffering flows from the
developing areas, and improving the water quality and controlling the flows
into the Carp River. The rest of the
restoration plan involved deepening and restoring the river to, more or less,
its natural state.
Chair Jellett referenced recommendation 9 and asked whether this
information had been shared with the Auditor General. Mr. Lalonde indicated he had not been aware
of it.
The Chair then requested that staff share this information with the AG as
soon as possible. Mr. Mackay indicated
the consultant would present the material to the Planning and Environment
Committee the following week.
In response to a follow up question from Councillor Brooks, Mr. Perks
indicated the restoration was a 6-year plan, which would carry out the
construction works necessary to restore the river. Mr. Wildman added that there was an
implementation plan and strategy to do things in stages and that it required
monitoring.
Mr. Perks continued explaining that as the flows and water levels were
monitored and the plan progressed, changes would be looked at within the river
corridor or greater flow control would be contemplated, depending on the need.
In response to Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Mckay explained that once the
restoration plan was completed, some land would be taken out of the existing
floodplain and added into the redeveloped floodplain. He indicated the net effect would be
approximately 14 hectares of land.
The Committee heard from the following delegations.
Carol Gudz, on behalf of the Carp River Coalition,
indicated her organization was aware that the Carp River was both an urban and
a rural river, originating in the urban part of Ottawa then moving through
rural areas around the Village of Carp before emptying into the Ottawa
River. She maintained that any
development upstream would impact on the health and condition of the river
downstream. Therefore, she wanted
regulations put in place to dictate the restoration of the Carp River rather
than current plan, which focused on the urban reaches.
She discussed the river’s degraded state and advised that the Friends of
the Carp River had been working on restoration a particularly degraded section
near the Village of Carp by planting trees along the bank. Ms. Gudz referenced sections of the AG
report, which pointed to the need to consider the impacts of upstream
restoration on the downstreams reaches in the rural area and suggested starting
restoration work at the mouth of the river in order to not simply move the
problem downstream. She advised that her
organization had attempted to talk to the City about the notion that the Carp
River was a municipal drain and as such, should be subject to specific rules
and regulations affecting adjacent land owners.
On behalf of the Carp River Coalition, she urged the City to ensure that
the current plans to restore the Carp River were adequately comprehensive to
minimize the impacts of the Kanata West development on the health of the river.
Ted Cooper introduced himself as a City employee but advised
that he was appearing before Committee as a private citizen. He quoted excerpts from the Ontario Court of
Appeal in 1909 involving a precedent-setting court case involving the Carp
River Municipal Drain. He also provided
solutions to the current problems with the Carp River Class EA and urged
Committee to expand the scope of the project downstream to a point of
sufficient outlet. His presentation, as
well as excerpts from the May 3, 2006 joint Committee meeting and the Ontario
Court of Appeal decision, are held on file with the City Clerk.
When Councillor El-Chantiry asked whether the Carp River was considered a
municipal drain, Mr. Marc noted this had been raised several times throughout
this process and, after an exhaustive search through documents from the former
Kanata and West Carleton municipalities, he confirmed that no such reference
was found. He added that if the Carp
River were a municipal drain, then an EA would not be required under the Drainage
Act.
John Price, Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, added
that there were two reports supporting the EA documents: an existing conditions
report done in 2005, which formed the basis for comparison as far as water
levels and impacts of water levels; and a post-development report. He advised that in the latter report, the
analysis on the water flow and levels was extended to just downstream of Carp
Road. He submitted that although the
restoration plan, as currently proposed, was in a smaller section, the
potential impacts were looked at and analysed in the context of the expanded
model. Mr. Price explained that the
purpose of extending the analysis was to ensure there were no detrimental
effects downstream.
Councillor Hunter wondered what would be needed to make this project a
success. Mr. Cooper believed the
engineers of a century ago had been on the right track. He referenced computer simulations, noting
that in one, it had taken almost 2 weeks for water levels to return to their
original levels whereas in the other, it had taken 24 hours. He maintained that unless the river’s
carrying capacity was improved, there would not be any capacity for extra water
coming from urbanization.
Responding to a follow-up question from the Councillor, Mr. Price
indicated the Conservation Authority had been involved through all steps of the
Carp River watershed study, including looking downstream and upstream of the
Kanata West area.
He described the topography and development in each direction, noting
some enhancements were required and should be considered upstream to the
Village of Carp. He noted the
restoration plan provided an opportunity to get this section addressed and he
suggested other opportunities should be explored to do some enhancements
downstream as well.
Mr. Cooper opined that it is in the City’s and in the public’s interest
for the Drainage Act project to be commissioned as quickly as possible.
Chair Jellett posed a follow-up question in this regard. Mr. Kostuch responded that in order to
commission the Drainage Act project, the Carp River would have to be a
municipal drain and staff could not substantiate that it was.
Councillor El-Chantiry raised, and later withdrew, the
following motion:
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
request that the Planning and Environment Committee direct staff to refer the
remodelling work and conclusion to a panel for peer challenge review prior to
further consideration of the independent third party review.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Mackay advised that there were a number of
outstanding issues and staff were looking a various means of addressing
these. Given the number of issues, he
asked that Committee take this into consideration.
Further, he noted that the engineering consultant’s presentation had not
been available at the present meeting but would be made at the following week’s
Planning and Environment Committee meeting.
He discussed some of the technical aspects of the work and maintained
that the engineer would be able to speak to these in his presentation. In closing, he indicated that at the PEC
meeting, staff would be able to provide the pros and cons and the costing for a
third party review.
That the Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee consider the recommendations of the Auditor
General’s Report - 2007 Audit of Carp River Watershed Study and Related
Projects.
RECEIVED