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
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
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.
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.
“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
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