Affordable Housing Audit

Recently, City Council's Audit Committee discussed a few audits that were conducted. While reading these audits and watching the meeting, there's a few things that jumped out at me. 

First, the Auditor Dashboard. I find it concerning that there are roughly 20% of the auditor's recommendations that are overdue, some as much as 18 months. I also find it concerning that many of the auditor's recommendations are simple things that should be standard. When distributing grant money, it's essential to monitor progress; departments should have defined roles and responsibilities, and projects should be accompanied by action plans, among other things. Why weren't these measures implemented from the start, and where is the accountability? We're spending recklessly, and this Council behaves as if they're on a shopping spree with stolen credit cards. They're complacent in neglecting to maintain basic standards. 

I could spend hours breaking down each one of those audits and connecting them to Council's inability to perform their legislated duties, but for now, I'd like to focus on the Affordable Housing audit. 

There are 5 recommendations from the City Auditor. The first, is that the department determine when to use an internal subject matter expert in on funding decisions and that decision records be retained. It seems pretty straight forward; if you're giving away our money, don't delete those records. While I don't want to imply there's malice in the process for which the City gives our money away, but when staff delete the records that would protect them from such implications, I become suspicious as to why they would not retain such protections. 

The second recommendation is that applications be reviewed by a second person. This one concerns me greatly. Not only because we're not verifying applications, but there was a section of the audit where the sample application was scored to have a 16% to 25% reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG), despite the application stating it was only 15%. Theres only 3 reasons for this to happen. 

1. The Administrative professional that reviewed the application knows more about GHG reduction than Architects, Engineers, and experienced home builders.

2. The staff reviewing the application wanted to fluff the numbers to feign a bigger impact.

3. The staff did not thoroughly read the application to begin with. 

I think the third Bullet point is the most likely. So while I appreciate the auditor recommending a second person review the application, I would also like to see the first person actually review the application. 

The third recommendation is that the City improve on following through to ensure the applicant is following through on their end of the agreement. In addition, the fifth recommendation is that the administration decelop a methodology to monitor and track whether or not the recipient is following through on their obligations. I would like to know how many applicants have recieved funding, land, and/or tax exemption multilple times, and did not follow through on their obligations as part of the agreement. Maybe (hopefully) the answer is zero, but we don't know because members of Council never asked the question. Even If they did ask the question, there's no mechanoutin place to even figure that out. 

The fourth recommendation is that the branch needs to develop guidelines for selling land below market value. Respectfully, I disagree with the auditor here. It's not up to the branch to determine the guidelines. As the audit specifies, it's ultimately up to City Council on whether or not we sell land below market value. As such, I believe the burden of establishing guidelines is on City Council. Since 2015, Council sold $65.8 million worth of land below market value. Even if there were guidelines from the administration, we wouldn't see that. If Council establishes the guidelines, then we can publicly verify and/or scrutinize when Council makes these decisions. 

Over the course of this Council's term, the City gave away, or intends to give away, $111.9 million. That amount is roughly the same as the entire tax increase we are facing this year. With no application verification, no records to verify this money was dispersed in good faith, no follow through to ensure recipients are actually following through, and no accountability, I am highly concerned about the Audit Committee's nonchalant attitude towards this discrepancy. Maybe they only read that the auditor “found no areas of concern” and assumed everything was good. Maybe they didn't read the audit at all. 

Not all Council members sit on this committee, but all Council members can show up and ask questions. The fact that no one did, makes me wonder how much of the roughly $25 billion of public dollars this Council spent over their term, is treated with the same level of apathy. Credit where it's due, they did try to scrutinize the police budget, which is roughly $1.5B-$2B over the course of their term. Now imagine if you told your bosses that you and your coworkers gave a combined almost 10% effort over the last 4 years, and now you all not only want to keep your job, but you also want a raise and some of your coworkers want a promotion. That's what this City Council is doing. 

It's time we as Edmontonians send a message to the political elites that they should be spending time cutting waste instead of cutting ribbons; that tax increases should be a last resort instead of a first response; and that serving on Council is a responsibility which needs to be taken seriously.

So when you're casting your ballot this October, remember which candidate is concerned about your money, and which candidate is reticent.