1.             Audit of the Carp River Watershed Study and Related Projects - expanSION to include a review of the Kanata West Lands project management and process

 

VÉRIFICATION DE L’ÉTUDE SUR LE BASSIN VERSANT DE LA RIVIÈRE CARP ET DES PROJETS CONNEXES – ÉLARGISSEMENT DE LA PORTÉE DE L’ÉTUDE AFIN D’INCLURE LA GESTION ET LE PROCESSUS RELATIFS AU PROJET DES TERRES DE KANATA-OUEST

 

 

 

Committee Recommendations

 

1.         That Council defer the expansion of the Audit of the Carp River Watershed Study until after receipt and consideration of the Third Party review; and

 

2.         That Council then consider the issue for inclusion in the 2009 Workplan of the Auditor General.

 

 

 

Recommandations du comité

 

1.         Que le Conseil reporte l’élargissement de la vérification de l’étude du bassin versant de la rivière Carp jusqu’à ce que le rapport d’examen indépendant ait été reçu et étudié;

 

2.         Que le Conseil étudie ensuite l’ajout de cette vérification au plan de travail du vérificateur général pour 2009.

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.   Committee Coordinator’s report dated 20 May 2008 (ACS2008-CMR-CSE-0032).

 

2.   Extract of Draft Minutes, 19 August 2008.

 


Report to / Rapport au:

 

Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique

 

and Council / et au Conseil

 

20 May 2008 / le 20 mai 2008

 

Submitted by / Soumis par: City Council / Conseil municipal

 

Contact / Personne-ressource : Diane Blais, Committee Coordinator /
Coordonnatrice de comité,
City Clerk’s Branch / Direction du greffe
580-2424, Ext. / poste : 28091, Diane.Blais@ottawa.ca

 

City Wide / À l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°:  ACS2008-CMR-CSE-0032

 

SUBJECT:     Audit of the Carp River Watershed Study and Related Projects - expanSION to include a review of the Kanata West Lands project management and process

 

OBJET:          VÉRIFICATION DE L’ÉTUDE SUR LE BASSIN VERSANT DE LA RIVIÈRE CARP ET DES PROJETS CONNEXES – ÉLARGISSEMENT DE LA PORTÉE DE L’ÉTUDE AFIN D’INCLURE LA GESTION ET LE PROCESSUS RELATIFS AU PROJET DES TERRES DE KANATA-OUEST

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee consider the following motion and forward its recommendation to Council:

 

That the Auditor General’s Audit of the Carp River Watershed Study and Related Projects be expanded to include a review of the Kanata West Lands project management and process.

 

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique étudie la motion suivante et soumette sa recommandation au Conseil :

 

Que la portée de la Vérification par le vérificateur général de l’étude sur le bassin versant de la rivière Carp et des projets connexes soit élargie afin d’inclure l’examen de la gestion et du processus relatifs au projet des terres de Kanata-Ouest.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

City Council, at its meeting held on 14 May 2008, considered the following motion:
 

That the Auditor General’s Audit of the Carp River Watershed Study and Related Projects be expanded to include a review of the Kanata West Lands project management and process.”

 

In considering the above-noted motion, Council approved the following referral motion:

 

“WHEREAS the Cullen/Holmes motion would direct an audit of the Kanata West Lands project management and process;

 

AND WHEREAS such audit is likely to include matters of staffing and personnel as well as the provision of information to Committee and Council;

 

AND WHEREAS these matters of Corporate Governance are within the jurisdiction of Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee;

 

Therefore Be It Resolved that the Cullen/Holmes motion be referred to Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee for recommendation to Council.”

 

As such, the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee is required to consider the issue of expanding the scope of the audit and to report back to Council with its recommendations on same.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

This item will be advertised in the local dailies as part of the Public Meeting Advertisement on Friday preceding the Committee meeting.

 

 

Planning Transit and the Environment

 

The Kanata West Lands project management and process is an innovative partnership that followed the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process over a period of seven years.  Following several public meetings, multiple reports were tabled at every milestone leading to Committee and Council providing direction at each juncture.

 

The project is large and complex and while efforts were made to address concerns, Part II orders (i.e. appeals) have been tabled with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).  The Minister of the Environment has now issued his order and the City has engaged a third party consultant who has no history with the Kanata West project nor the Kanata West landowners to objectively review all decisions, past modeling and processed and report back to Council with their conclusions. 

 

Given the rigor of the Class Environmental Assessment process, the third party review and the Ministerial order and provincial review the project will have going forward, staff does not believe an audit review is necessary.  As well the Planning, Transit and the Environment Department is currently evaluating all review functions as it moves to a “ One Stop Service” planning model which will result in improved service delivery.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no financial implications associated with this report.

 

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1:     Auditor General’s report, issued previously to all members of Council and held on file with the City Clerk

 

 

DISPOSITION

 

Staff to implement Council’s decision(s) / direction(s).

 

 



            Audit of the Carp River Watershed Study and Related Projects - expanSION to include a review of the Kanata West Lands project management and process

VÉRIFICATION DE L’ÉTUDE SUR LE BASSIN VERSANT DE LA RIVIÈRE CARP ET DES PROJETS CONNEXES – ÉLARGISSEMENT DE LA PORTÉE DE L’ÉTUDE AFIN D’INCLURE LA GESTION ET LE PROCESSUS RELATIFS AU PROJET DES TERRES DE KANATA-OUEST

(Referred from City Council meeting of 14 May 2008 / Reporté de la réunion du Conseil municipal du 14 mai 2008)

ACS2008-CMR-CSE-0032                               city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville

 

At Councillor McRae’s request, Mr. Rob Mackay, Acting Director of Economic and Environmental Sustainability, provided an update on this matter.  With respect to status, he noted Council had directed staff to undertake a third party review and had approved the Terms of Reference, which had been fully vetted with the public, stakeholders and the Auditor General.  He indicated staff had received submissions from two interested parties, was in the process of issuing a purchase order, and would be in a position to publicly state which third party engineering firm would be undertaking an independent, objective review of the entire Carp River file.  In terms of history, he remarked that the Auditor General had conducted a full audit of the file.  In addition, he advised staff had filed 22 separate environmental assessments (EAs) with the Ministry of the Environment, that the Ministry had received seven appeals of those EAs and had issued an order.  He reported that the Ministry had dispensed with the appeals and established a new process, essentially requiring that the project go back through the Class EA process, that the third party review be undertaken, and that this be submitted to them after it was reviewed by Council. 

 

Responding to a question from Councillor McRae, Mr. Alain Lalonde, Auditor General, acknowledged that the report arising out of the third party review would be useful to him in terms of any further audit.  However, he indicated his understanding of the project was that it was very specific to the technical aspect of the file.  He explained he would look at the internal communications relative to this file:  communications between the various departments involved; how information from staff had filtered up to management.  In other words, he would look at how the file was managed internally and how it was managed vis-à-vis developers and the public. 

 

In response to a follow-up question from Councillor McRae with respect to what the department was doing to review internal communications, Mr. Mackay indicated the effort to date had been to respond to the Auditor General’s report by addressing the recommendations in the management response and initiating the third party review.  In terms of the project management aspect, he noted the Auditor General’s findings had been positive in that the project had followed the Class EA process.  Having said that, he reported that the department was reviewing all of its review functions and that there was an effort to establish one stop within the department in terms of the policy makers with the actual staff in the approval function.  He expected this to be in place for Council’s consideration at the end of the year.  As a result, he believed the department would be looking at its review functions, its processed and how it managed master plan files. 

 

Going back to November 2005, Councillor Cullen reviewed some key dates relative to this issue and referenced the two-zone policy.  He stressed the importance for members of Council to find out how staff dealt with information relative to this development project.  He recognized that there may be a motion to defer it.  However, he felt the audit would ultimately have to be conducted in order to look at what the various City departments brought to the table as well as the involvement of various other agencies.  He maintained it was a question of transparency and of establishing public trust in the City’s processes.  He noted it had been an eight-year process and he believed there had been more than simply a mistake in the modeling.  He indicated the conflict of interest issues had been addressed but advised that he was more interested in the issues related to the flood plain policies and how these were handled by the various facets of City’s bureaucracy. 

 

Responding to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Lalonde indicated he believed a further audit would be a good thing for this Council to do because it would be important to review the issues raised by the Councillor. Further, he advised that, in terms of his workplan, it could be done in 2009.  On the notion of waiting until the results of the third party review, he confirmed that the report would be taken into consideration.  However, he indicated he did not need to wait for it before initiating an audit. 

 

Councillor Wilkinson referenced her motion, which called on Council to wait until the results of the third party review before deciding whether a further audit was needed because the third party review would provide additional information.  She noted that the four Councillors whose wards were affected had been meeting regularly with staff on this issue in order to monitor it and keep it flowing. She indicated that a lot of work had gone into it and she asked for confirmation that the third party review would be concluded around year-end.  Mr. Mackay responded affirmatively.

 

Councillor Wilkinson reviewed the facts relative to timing:  the Auditor General would not be able to initiate an audit until the spring; and Council would have the results of the third party review before then.  She noted that the Terms of Reference had been prepared in such a way that the third party review would address some of the issues raised in the Auditor General’s first report.  She indicated there had been approximately 500 lay-offs as a result of the delay with the Carp River studies and she referenced other impacts in terms of people having bought homes and projects needing to move forward.  She maintained there were a variety of things happening and that the timing was important. 

 

Responding to a question from Councillor Qadri with respect to timelines for a further audit, Mr. Lalonde estimated that it would take about a year to complete.

 

Mr. Ted Cooper spoke from a written submission in which he expressed support for the recommendation to expand the scope of the audit.  He drew parallels between this situation and others, such as the sewer overflow into the Ottawa River and the Walkerton tragedy.  He suggested that in addition to errors on the part of the City, there were errors on the part of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Transportation.  Therefore, he recommended the Mayor write to these organizations to request that their representatives attend public meetings to answer residents’ questions.  In closing, he maintained the need, not only for taking action to remedy the situation, but also for taking action to restore public trust.  A copy of Mr. Cooper’s submission is held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Responding to statements made by Mr. Cooper, Councillor El-Chantiry indicated that representatives from the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority and the Ministry had attended public meetings.  With respect to the speaker’s reference to flooding in Glen Cairn, he noted this had occurred because of an obstacle in the water and he wondered why Mr. Cooper brought it up every time he had an opportunity to speak.  He maintained this was not the subject currently before Committee. 

 

Councillor Cullen asked for a response with respect to the references to Glen Cairn.  Mr. Cooper stated he was not sure the entire background with respect to the flooding in Glen Cairn had ever been fully disclosed publicly.  He indicated his understanding of the situation, based on a detailed examination of all of the records, was that there was a flood plain study completed in 1983, which identified the locations where flooding could occur.  Further, there was a recommendation that there be certain follow-up undertaken by the Conservation Authority at the time.  In the years that followed, a lot of development was completed upstream of these areas, which had been identified as being flood prone.  He reported that an examination of the area revealed that very little storm water management controls had been constructed upstream of the areas that had been identified as being flood prone.  He remarked that the exact scenario predicted in the 1983 study came true in 1996 and again in 2002.  He wondered what work was done to avoid all of those problems and all the risks to which people were exposed.  He felt this raised a lot of questions about how additional flood plain development could be recommended.  He maintained these were the issues that needed to be reviewed. 

 

Councillor Wilkinson indicated her motion called for the audit to be deferred until after receipt and consideration of the third party review and that Council could then consider it for inclusion in the Auditor General’s 2009 workplan.  She explained the reason for her motion was to avoid duplication of work.  She noted Council was already in receipt of a report from the Auditor General.  This report had raised a lot of issues and she felt it was important that these issues be addressed, which was in progress.  She felt it was critical to get the third party review done, after which Council could decide if a further audit was needed and whether it was a priority when measured against the rest of the Auditor General’s workplan.  She noted the existing and on-going developments in Kanata West, including Scotiabank Place and the new police station, she referenced the drainage going in as well as additional storm water ponds, and she stressed the importance of supporting the residents already living in the area.  In closing, she reiterated her desire to get on with what was underway and to take the next step afterwards, which she believed was more practical and would make the Auditor General’s job easier. 

 

Councillor Cullen reiterated his belief that this situation was the result of more than just a modeling error and he felt it cried out for an analysis of the participation of the players and of how information was handled.  He referenced the chronology of events, the information that was brought forward at various stages, and how it was handled.  He maintained that, in terms of establishing credibility in the role the City plays in protecting the public interest, Council needed to review the eight-year history of this project.  He did not feel there was an issue of conflict in timing since the Auditor General had acknowledged that he could not start the audit until 2009 and had confirmed that he could get started in advance of the conclusion of the third party review.  He felt there was no point delaying the inevitable.  

 

Councillor Feltmate felt the Auditor General needed to save some time in his 2009 workplan in order to deal with this subject.  However, she also agreed with Councillor Wilkinson’s motion in terms of bringing this back to Committee and Council at the conclusion of the third party review to decide what Council might want the Auditor General to review. 

 

Councillor Qadri believed this was about two issues:  the technical aspect of the report, which would be addressed through the third party review; and the legislative aspect of the report, which could be reviewed at a later date.  He referenced the fact that development had already taken place in the area and people’s lives were being impacted by delays.  Therefore, he felt the priority was the technical aspect so that projects could move forward.  He suggested Council should wait for the results of the third party review, find out its recommendations, and then move forward if a further audit if warranted. 

 

Councillor Bloess referenced various actions were being taken to address the Auditor General’s recommendations.  He acknowledged Councillor Cullen’s desire to review the chronology and the handling of the file.  However, felt it made sense to be informed by the third party review prior to making a decision because it may avoid the need to have the Auditor General delve into the matter again. 

 

Responding to a series of questions from Councillor Hume, Mr. Lalonde clarified that Council did not approve his workplan.  He decided what audit he would do in future years and his workplan was presented to Council for information.  However, he indicated Council could ask him to conduct additional audits, beyond those he identified in his workplan.  He re-iterated the spring of 2009 would be the earliest he could start a further audit on this project, though the timing of the request was entirely up to Council; whether it was now or after the third party review. 

 

In response to a follow-up question from Mayor O’Brien, Mr. Lalonde indicated he had a three-year audit plan, though he adjusted it on a yearly basis.  Therefore, in terms of conducting this audit on his own accord, he indicated he could see doing it in future years, though he could do it earlier if asked by Council. 

 

Having heard the Auditor General’s comments, Councillor Cullen suggested Councillor Wilkinson’s motion may be mute.  However, he maintained that as stewards of the public interest, members of Council should not hesitate to do the right thing, which he believed was to ensure there was an audit of this project’s management and process. 

 

Councillor Wilkinson maintained any further audit would be an historic evaluation.  Therefore, there was not urgency to it and she noted that not all information was available currently because the third party review would answer many of the questions raised.  She noted that her motion had the support of all of the councillors whose wards were directly affected and she stressed that their interests were in protecting their current and their future residents.   

 

At this juncture, Committee voted on the motion.

 

Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson

 

That the Audit of the Carp River Watershed Study Expansion be deferred until after receipt and consideration of the Third Party review by Council; and

 

That Council then consider the issue for inclusion in the 2009 Workplan of the Auditor General.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED as amended