|
1. Public Delegations - OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR
GENERAL - TABLING OF 2008 AUDIT
REPORTS VOLUME 1 and 2008 detailed audit report: Parking Function DÉLÉGATIONS PUBLIQUES – BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL – PRÉSENTATION DES RAPPORTS DE
VÉRIFICATION DE 2008 – VOLUME I et
RAPPORTS DÉTAILLÉS DE 2008 : fonction stationnement |
That Council receives this report for
information
Que le Conseil reçoive le présent rapport à titre d’information.
Documentation
1. City Council report dated 26 February 2009 (ACS2009-CCS-TRC-0003).
2. Extract
of Draft Minute, 4 March 2009
Report to / Rapport au :
Transportation Committee
and Council / et au Conseil
26 February 2009 / le 26 février 2009
Submitted by / Soumis par : City Council /
Conseil municipal
|
City Wide / À l'échelle de la Ville |
Ref N°:
ACS2009-CCS-TRC-0003 |
SUBJECT: Public Delegations - OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL - TABLING OF 2008
AUDIT REPORTS VOLUME 1 and 2008 detailed audit report: Parking Function
OBJET : DÉLÉGATIONS PUBLIQUES – BUREAU DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL – PRÉSENTATION DES
RAPPORTS DE VÉRIFICATION DE 2008 – VOLUME I et RAPPORTS DÉTAILLÉS DE 2008 : fonction stationnement
That Transportation
Committee receive public comments with respect to the Auditor General’s reports (2008 Audit Reports Volume
1), as referred by Council at its meeting of 25 February 2009.
Que le Comité des
transports reçoive les
commentaires publics en ce qui concerne les rapports du
vérificateur général (Rapports de vérification de 2008 – Volume I), tels que
référés par le Conseil à sa réunion du 25 février 2009.
At the 25 February 2009 meeting of Ottawa City Council, the Auditor General tabled his 2008 Audit Reports, Volume 1. In tabling this report, Council approved the following referral motion:
“That the Audit of IT Capital Expenditures and
Project Approval Process be referred to the Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee for the purpose of hearing public delegations”
“That the Audit of the Parking Function be referred
to the Transportation Committee for the purpose of hearing public delegations.”
“That the Audit of the Building Code Services Process
for 215 Preston Street be referred to the Planning and Environment Committee for
the purpose of hearing public delegations.”
In accordance with the reporting protocol approved by Council for the Office of the Auditor General, the authority to “discuss and approve” the Auditor General’s reports rests with City Council. Therefore, the sole purpose of the referral to the Standing Committees is to provide an opportunity for public delegations to comment on the reports.
CONSULTATION
This item will be advertised in the local dailies as part of the Public Meeting Advertisement on Saturday preceding the Transportation Committee Meeting.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications since
this is to receive public comments.
Document
1 - Office of the Auditor General - 2008 Audit Reports, Vol. 1 (Tabled
at the 25 February 2009 meeting of Ottawa City Council and to be held on file
with the City Clerk.)
Staff to take appropriate action as directed by the Committee.
Conseil
25 February 2009 / le 25 février 2009
Submitted by/Soumis par : Alain Lalonde, Auditor General/Vérificateur général
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Alain Lalonde, Auditor General
(613)
580-2424 x14226, Alain.Lalonde@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL -
TABLING OF 2008 AUDIT REPORTS - volume I |
|
|
|
OBJET
:
|
BUREAU DU
VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL - PRÉSENTATION DES RAPPORTS DE VÉRIFICATION 2008 -
VOLUME I |
That Council receive and table the
following reports from the Office of the Auditor General at its meeting on
February 25, 2009, for referral to the
appropriate Standing Committee, and for subsequent consideration and approval
of the audit recommendations by Council on April 8, 2009:
2008 Audit Reports - Volume I
i)
Audit of IT Capital Expenditures and Project Approval Process
ii)
Audit of the Parking Function
iii)
Audit of the Building Code Services Process for 215 Preston Street
iv)
Audit of Hospitality and Other Ethical Matters
That, on April 8, 2009, Council refer all audit recommendations where management is in disagreement to the Council Audit Working Group for resolution.
Que le Conseil prenne connaissance et présente
les rapports de vérification suivants du Bureau du vérificateur général à sa
réunion du 25 février 2009, et réfère au Comité permanent approprié et pour considération
ultérieure et approbation des recommandations de ces vérifications par le
Conseil, à sa réunion du 8 avril 2009 :
Rapports de Vérification 2008 - Volume I
i) Vérification des dépenses
en immobilisations liées aux TI et du processus d’approbation des projets
ii) Vérification de la
fonction stationnement
iii) Vérification du processus
des services du bâtiment pour le 215, rue Preston
iv) Vérification des marques
d’hospitalité et des autres questions d’éthique
Que, à sa réunion du 8 avril 2009, le Conseil renvoie toutes les
recommandations des vérifications où la direction est en désaccord au Groupe de
travail du Conseil sur la vérification pour résolution.
On June 25, 2008, Council approved the Office of the Auditor General’s 2007 Annual Report, which included the 2008 audit plan. A number of 2008 audits are now completed and are being presented herewith (2008 AUDIT REPORTS - VOLUME I). The remainder of the 2008 audits are still underway and will be presented to Council, along with the 2008 Annual Report, later this year.
Consultation with management occurred throughout the audits.
Any financial implications of the Office of the Auditor General's recommendations are outlined in the reports. Management have also identified financial implications in their responses to specific recommendations.
The
following reports were issued separately to Members of Council and are on file
with the City Clerk:
2008 Audit Reports -
Volume I:
i) Audit of IT Capital Expenditures and
Project Prioritization and Approval Process
ii) Audit of the Parking Function
iii) Audit of Building Code Services Process for
215 Preston Street
iv) Audit of Hospitality and Other Ethical Matters
The 2008 Audit Reports - Volume I will be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, and for subsequent consideration and approval of the audit recommendations by Council at its meeting on April 8, 2009.
Public Delegations - OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL - TABLING OF 2008 AUDIT REPORTS VOLUME 1 and 2008 detailed audit report: Parking
Function
DÉLÉGATIONS PUBLIQUES – BUREAU
DU VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL – PRÉSENTATION DES RAPPORTS DE VÉRIFICATION DE 2008 –
VOLUME I et RAPPORTS DÉTAILLÉS DE
2008 : fonction stationnement
ACS2009-CCS-TRC-0003 CITY-WIDE / À
L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Gerry LePage, Bank Street BIA remarked on the timing of this audit and the fact the Committee will soon be considering the Parking Management Strategy (PMS). As this report relates to the PMS, Mr. LePage submitted the following:
· As detailed in the Auditor General’s report, financial management was a weakness in the Parking Operations unit; he reported that a bad financial analysis could negatively impact the PMS with regards to how Council sets rates
· There is disparity between on-street revenue and capacity utilizations and there does not appear to be adequate explanation for the variance between the two; this is particularly important because staff want to use an 85% capacity utilization to trigger raising rates
· The BIA advocates for a cost approach instead of a capacity utilization approach, to have a standard equation how to derive net revenue.
In closing, Mr. LePage explained that after reviewing the Auditor’s report, the BIA has some very serious concerns with respect to the outcome of the PMS.
Councillor Leadman asked whether the fact staff agreed with all the recommendations in the Auditor’s report satisfied the delegation’s concerns. Mr. LePage indicated that while it substantially addresses the issues the BIA has raised, he believed there would still be some outstanding issues, as eluded to in the report. He went on to state that irrespective of the introduction of the pay and display system, there are still financial management reports that have to be generated in order to have a substantial grasp of how calculations are put forward.
Responding to an additional question posed by the councillor, Mr. Lepage explained that in the PMS, staff have listed curb and road life cycle depreciation as one of the costs, which he believed is an erroneous charge. By way of explanation, he indicated that when those are included, park and recreation facilities with parking lots should also be factored in and he wondered where the City stops incurring the capital or life-cycle costs on a particular service? He indicated that the moneys from parking are put into general revenue and he believed that compartmentalizing the financial analysis and net expenses simply reduces the net revenue to justify some of the other actions of the department.
He reiterated that his two concerns were: the disparity between what staff have come up with and the figures of the Auditor General; and, the equations that are used with respect to how net revenues are arrived. He believed that if there is that disparity internally, it will have a great degree of affect externally on how parking is managed throughout the city.
Councillor Leadman inquired whether the Auditor’s recommendations for that financial accounting had been agreed to by staff, and Alain Lalonde, Auditor General confirmed they have agreed to change the accounting formula with respect to how revenues appear. He explained that when the audit was conducted, it was under a different management structure, and after meeting with the new General Manager of Public Works (John Manconi), he discovered that was what the new General Manager had planned to do. He agreed they would reconcile the numbers because the disparity recognized by the delegation is quite obvious. He further confirmed that Mr. Manconi and his staff had already started changing things before the audit was conducted.
Councillor Doucet noted that the PMS arose because of the shifting of parking charges from service to business to revenue generator, which brought outrage from the community. He inquired if the delegation believed the Auditor’s report touches on that switch in the application of parking charges and Mr. LePage believed there was a change in the concept with respect to how the service was treated.
Mr. Lalonde interjected that the intent of the audit was not to establish a strategy or a philosophy on parking operation. What they wanted to point out was the lack of support for the decision process by Council.
Councillor Cullen acknowledged that the Auditor’s report clearly points to a number of operational and policy issues that need to be addressed and he further acknowledged staff’s positive response to the various recommendations in his report. He wanted to understand how these things are going to be captured, because in reading staff’s response, it appeared that everything will be reflected in the PMS. Mr. Manconi advised that the Parking Management Strategy will provide the framework around everything the audit speaks to.
When the PMS is before the Committee, the Chair inquired whether it would reference any of the specific items raised by the Auditor General in his report. Mr. Manconi believed it would be very obvious, but he agreed that as part of the staff presentation, they would endeavor to highlight specific points from the Auditor’s report.
Councillor Wilkinson recognized that while these reports are brought forward to receive public delegations, there is no process in place where the Committee can make recommendations back to Council. She asked for the Auditor’s opinion on this point and Mr. Lalonde advised that the original intent was for the Standing Committee’s to receive public delegations. He recognized the fact there is more and more discussion now about that and suggested that at some point, when the report goes back to Council, it can discuss whether or not the Standing Committees could be in a position to make recommendations. The councillor believed that each Committee is more familiar with specific areas and could make some recommendations that may or may not agree with how staff is dealing with it and she believed this was what was missing in this process. She believed a few recommendations at Council would help to focus the discussion. Mr. Lalonde indicated he would raise this suggestion with the City Clerk and Solicitor as part of the governance report.
That
Transportation Committee receive public comments with respect to the Auditor General’s reports (2008 Audit
Reports Volume 1), as referred by Council at its meeting of 25 February 2009.
RECEIVED