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

 

No 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

 

Aucune recommandation

 

 

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

 

Contact / Personne-ressource : Robert Tremblay, Committee Coordinator /
Coordonnateur du comité,
City Clerk’s Branch/Direction du greffe
613-580-2424, Ext. / poste : 28828, Rob.Tremblay@ottawa.ca

 

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

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

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.

 

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

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.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

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.

 
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

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.

 

DISPOSITION

 

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