Oral Submission to Corporate Services Committee – Carp River Audit
Ted Cooper – May 6, 2008
Good morning Mr. Mayor and Committee members, my name is Ted Cooper. I am a City of Ottawa employee, but have taken time off this morning so that I can provide my personal comments about the audit of the Carp River related projects.
As you are likely aware, the Carp River flooded Glen Cairn in 1996 and 2002 causing millions of dollars in damage. City taxpayers subsequently paid $7,000,000 on a flood control project to protect housing built on reclaimed floodplain.
Two years ago I contacted the Auditor General’s Office just after it established the Fraud and Waste Hotline to ask for an investigation of the Carp River watershed plan and proposed floodplain development in Kanata West.
The purpose of my presentation today is to encourage the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee to expand the scope of the Audit to examine corporate governance issues that may shed additional light on the conflict of interest issues identified in the audit.
My presentation focuses on two of several issues that warrant further investigation. If time permits, I’d also like to suggest an approach for increasing accountability in projects being approved by Council that involve public health and safety matters.
My first issue has to do with decisions planning and legal staff made after they were aware of the audit findings in the Draft Audit they received in November 2007, and decisions that were subsequently made despite being informed of serious problems with floodplain modeling in early January 2008.
Recent statements by Councillors that flood fringe development is on-hold have come too late in the game for the Richcraft plan of subdivision that was approved by Delegated Authority in December 2007. On December 27, 2007 I filed an Appeal of the Draft Plan Approval of the Richcraft Subdivision to the OMB. Despite the findings of the audit known by staff at the time, and the findings of the audit now known by Council, I have received no information to indicate the City’s position about the flood fringe development has changed. Should I then assume the City will be defending its decision to approve development of the flood fringe at the OMB? Could the apparent contradictory circumstances of this situation have been avoided had staff exercised some caution after they first received the audit in November 2007?
Based on recommendations by planning staff a Zoning Bylaw Amendment that included development of flood fringe on the Trinity lands in Kanata West was Approved by Council in August 2007. Would Council have supported the Trinity Zoning Bylaw with the knowledge of the Auditor General’s findings, and knowledge of the errors in the analysis?
Acting as if there were no changes in the underlying facts behind Council’s August 2007 Approval of the Zoning Bylaw, planning and legal staff proceeded to argue the merits of the Trinity Zoning Bylaw before the Ontario Municipal Board in February 2008, with their only concession being that there may be an error in the floodplain modeling. Under the circumstances I would like to know whether planning and legal staff sought direction from Council whether the OMB hearing should have proceeded, or with the new understanding of the facts, whether a deferral of the Hearing should have been sought? Furthermore, was there adequate disclosure by the City to the OMB Member, who may have based her Decision on an incomplete understanding of the facts?
I’d also like to know whether the Kanata West Owners Group had access to the Draft Audit document – and know months in advance what the Mayor and Council only recently learned? If KWOG was informed of the contents of the Draft Audit, did that contravene any City policies?
The second governance issue that I’d like investigated is the removal of qualified Professionals from doing their jobs on behalf of the City and Council. Class Environmental Assessment projects like the Carp River Restoration project are proponent driven processes where deference is usually given by Provincial agencies to decisions of Council. In such circumstances, is it acceptable that dissenting opinions of qualified Professional Engineers employed by the City can be suppressed on projects where risks to public health and safety are created? Whose interests are ultimately served when this is allowed to happen?
Council should recognize that its best intentions to institute new checks and balances in response to the findings of the audit could prove to be fruitless if the removal of qualified professionals from projects who are simply fulfilling their duties is allowed to occur.
Finally, I would like to suggest one approach of increasing accountability in staff reports where public health and safety risks may be involved. The approach involves the addition of a subsection in staff reports that clearly identifies the consulting engineering firm and professional engineer taking responsibility for the project, along with the name of the City of Ottawa professional engineer taking responsibility for the project’s review and approval.
Thank-you.
