July 5, 2008
Erwin reported to the Coalition and the GA Board on June 25:
I attended Planning and Environment Committee yesterday from 9:30 till past 4:00. The bulk of the time (from 11 to 4) was taken up by the matter of Terms of Reference (ToR) for the so-called Third Party Independent Review of the Carp River/Kanata West fiasco.
Before the item came on, file manager Rob MacKay distributed a revised ToR, with many changes from the version that was in the report for this meeting. Track changes were shown so one could see what was changed and what the source was: MOE’s letter of June 13 (which had come in too late to be incorporated in staff’s recommendations but was included in the staff report), “Public” or “other” — the latter a reference (masked apparently at the request of the AG) to comments received from the Auditor General. The team had worked the previous evening to do this; they had also received letters from MTO and MNR; we were given to understand that the MTO letter asked for confirmation of the flood levels at the 417 bridges and otherwise expected the City to adhere to the requirements set out by MOE; and that the MNR letter said that Mississippi Valley Conservation was the agency with responsibility for flood plain policy and that MNR had no comment on the draft ToR. There was no explanation of why the changes sourced to “Public” were made only now, nor did anyone challenge staff on this. (The Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority also sent a snarky letter to MOE, protesting about the inclusion of a requirement on flood plain policy.)
Naturally no-one had had an opportunity to review these amended terms. The AG (who did summarize the nature of his comments, dated June 18) refused to confirm on the spot that all had been incorporated. One significant change was that an Advisory Committee would assist the Third Party Reviewers; the Committee would consist of city staff, staff from four provincial agencies and “academic”. Whatever other changes were made, staff held firm on not including some key points in the Terms: a policy review; investigating the implications if the Carp is confirmed to be a Municipal Drain; and an implementation plan that would guide “interim” development. Five firms have been pre-qualified and will have three weeks to prepare a bid. The work would start mid-August and be completed late November or early December. Cost: $300,000 (money taken out of a reserve fund).
All Committee members were in attendance, though Councillor Bellemare didn’t return after the lunch break until just after the votes were taken. In addition, Councillors Legendre, Cullen, Wilkinson and El-Chantiri attended most or all of the time. (The Committee is chaired by Councillor Hume; its other members are Councilors Feltmate, Bellemare, Desroches, Doucet, Harder, Holmes, Hunter, Monette and Qadri. Non-members have no vote at Committee.)
After the staff presentation, Darlene Conway spoke her piece; six Councillors asked questions. Three Councillors asked questions after my 5 minutes. (One was Councillor Harder, who said she wouldn’t take it any more to hear staff criticized — she had full confidence in Nancy Schepers [sitting next to chair Hume]). Five spoke up after Ted Cooper’s input. Finally, Mike Green (project manager for KWOG) and John Riddell (working for the Fernbank developers) spoke briefly. Mike Green scored a new low by quoting one sentence out of the AG’s Audit report, making it appear that the project was in conformity with provincial policy; Councillor Cullen reprimanded him by furnishing all the other quotes where the AG had expressed severe criticism. Throwing logic to the wind, Riddell said doing the Fernbank analysis was their job, it shouldn’t be given to someone else.
After a half hour lunch break, there were more questions to staff (MacKay, the AG and Al Perks of R.V. Anderson who has been helping staff post-Audit). Clearly, even chair Hume struggled with the matter of some of MOE’s requirements not being met (2-zone flood plain policy; phasing plan), given that, because of the outstanding Part II Order Requests, MOE is the final arbiter of the projects’ acceptability. “Statements” by nine Councillors followed. Councillors Holmes and Doucet pointed to the increasing severity of storms. Holmes affirmed again that MOE has lost confidence in the ability of the City to manage its own affairs. Councillor Hunter again opposed the Third Party Review, saying that the real Third Party is MOE and that this Review will only cause further delay. Councillor Harder asserted that “some of the finest developers in the country are in this city” and that she didn’t need to spend $300,000 to feel good. Councillor Hume heaped praise on MacKay for doing “an exceptionally good job”.
It then came to voting on motions. Councillor Feltmate moved that 1) minor adjustments to the Terms following further consultation with MOE/MNR and the AG be delegated to the City Manager; and 2) letters be sent to MOE/MNR asking for clarification on the 2-zone flood plain policy. They were carried, with Councillor Holmes dissenting on 2).
Councillor Doucet had a 5-part motion to add elements to the Terms; these were voted on one by one.
1: whether the flood plain policy was properly applied — voted down with only Councillors Doucet, Holmes and Feltmate in favour.
2: that the Third Party reviewer consult with the Auditor General and the Part II Order Requesters — MacKay said they’d support it and it was carried, with Councillor Hunter dissenting.
3: to add an interim development plan — voted down with only Doucet and Holmes in favour.
4: to add Fernbank urbanization in the post-development analysis — voted down with only Doucet, Holmes and Feltmate in favour.
5: that the City’s 2-zone policy would be reviewed as per the AG’s report — carried with only Desroches, Harder and Hunter dissenting. (It’s not clear to me how this part relates to the ToR.) The main motion then carried, with Councillors Doucet, Holmes and Hunter dissenting.
To me, the major disappointment was that one of the Coalition’s key points — that you can’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse — was not heeded or even debated. Au contraire, Councillors Harder and Hume went out of their way to express confidence in staff. It would appear that Councillors, even our most sympathetic ones, are afraid to think on their own, without staff holding their hand.
Prepared comments by Conway, the Coalition and Cooper (all slightly different from actual delivery in light of developments during the meeting):
