A former Town of Collingwood senior staffer told the judicial inquiry this week the processes used by town staff and council to design and build two recreational facilities in 2012 were both difficult and inconsistent.
Marta Proctor, the town’s director of parks, recreation, and culture from 2010 to 2014, was on the witness stand Monday and Tuesday as part of the ongoing Collingwood Judicial Inquiry.
She testified she raised concerns during the process and was brushed off several times; she was told “that’s not how we do things in Collingwood.”
Proctor was delivering testimony related to her work facilitating the Central Park Steering Committee and later work to bring options to council for recreational facilities in town.
However, Proctor told the inquiry it was difficult to do that work.
“I didn’t find the process difficult working with the steering committee,” she said from the witness stand. “It was after the steering committee made their recommendations and we were trying to move to the next phases of the work that it became very difficult.
"The CAO (Kim Wingrove) was let go. There was no clarity or consistency in who I could speak to on direction, and there seemed to be multiple messages coming about what we’re doing next and how we’re to do it without a defined course of action," said Proctor. "And I was trying to understand where these messages were coming from and how we bring them in front of council to set clear direction and policy for staff to follow.”
This second phase of the Collingwood Judicial Inquiry is focused on how the town spent the proceeds it received from the 2012 Collus share sale. Most of the money was spent on Centennial Aquatic Centre and Central Park Arena, both of which are fabric membrane structures provided by Sprung and built by BLT Construction.
In the spring of 2011, the town formed the Central Park Steering Committee; the membership was comprised of volunteers including local residents. Over 10 months, the committee organized public meetings and consulted with WDG Architects Inc. to design options for a potential facility at Central Park.
The final report to council from the committee recommended a multi-use recreation facility and site improvements to incorporate the ball diamonds, lawn bowling green, and curling club. The steering committee report projected costs of $35 million for the redevelopment of Central Park and construction of the recreation facility.
On March 5, 2012, council voted unanimously to endorse the steering committee’s recommendation in principle and asked for a funding strategy to be presented to council by a phase two steering committee within six months.
But when work began to seek out a consultant who could help find private-public partnerships (called a market sounding) for funding the proposed recreation facility, council voiced opposition to the $43,000 consulting fees.
An email from Proctor sent to all of council in response to comments opposing a consultant-led market sounding stated the town did not have the internal expertise needed for a market sounding initiative of this scope.
At the request of Cooper, council and staff held strategic planning session on June 11, 2012, to discuss the multi-use recreation facility, and some councillors presented other options for recreation facilities in town. No decisions were made.
“In my mind, there were recommendations from the Central Park Steering Committee that have never been resolved and I felt we still needed to finish that process,” said Proctor during her testimony. “And in the meantime, some other option is being introduced to me without any process … And from there, multiple conversations in multiple forums occurred and I can’t place them chronologically or succinctly, but it became a very difficult and confusing process.”
Proctor saw it as her responsibility to follow the will of council.
She described what she saw as “behind-the-scenes” conversations happening and she couldn’t tell where directions were coming from, but didn’t see it coming from council as a whole as a result of public meetings.
“From what I can recall, and it’s not specifics, it’s more the general intent, was that the Central Park Steering Committee work is dead and gone and we were heading in another direction … and there could be other options we will be looking at,” said Proctor. “So that’s when I would ask, ‘well what are the options, let’s get them on the table so that we can do the proper work to explore them.’”
On July 16, 2012, a staff report delivered by Proctor and Ed Houghton, the interim Chief Administrative Officer at the time, provided a summary of the June 11 meeting and gives council two options for proceeding.
The options included continuing to pursue the original steering committee recommendation or rescinding all previous resolutions on Central Park and considering other options raised at the June 11 planning session.
Council voted 8-1 (Coun. Joe Gardhouse was opposed) to rescind previous Central Park motions and ask staff to recommend options and “detailed estimates” for a single pad arena that could be phased into a double pad and to enclose the outdoor pool with a fabric building.
Council asked staff to bring back their report on Aug. 27, about six weeks later.
Proctor said she thought the council resolution meant staff would be exploring options for a single pad arena, costs for construction and operation, and potential impacts to the park. She also expected staff to explore the benefits and concerns for covering the pool with a fabric membrane.
Instead, the Aug. 27 staff report recommended proceeding with the purchase and construction of a fabric membrane facility for an arena at Central Park and to cover the existing outdoor pool at the corner of Spruce and Second Street.
Sprung also presented at the Aug. 27 council meeting, though the company was not listed as a deputation on the agenda, and instead was called up by Houghton to present during the staff report to council. Sprung was the company from which the town eventually purchased the fabric membrane structures for both recreation facilities.
According to minutes from the meeting, Treasurer Marjory Leonard also presented during the staff report to council. She said research and investigation showed the architectural membrane building would be the most cost-effective and beneficial solution and that staff research indicated there was only one supplier of “this leading-edge technology that had a proven track record,” so the town’s procurement policy would allow for a sole-source contract instead of a competitive bid process.
Council voted 8-1 in favour of proceeding with the purchase and construction of a fabric membrane building for an arena. Coun. Keith Hull was the lone no vote.
The same evening, Coun. Joe Gardhouse was the only one of nine council members to support a motion to defer the pool decision until the town could obtain professional reviews of the plan and a structural audit.
Instead, council passed a motion to proceed with a fabric membrane structure for the pool as well. Coun. Hull and Gardhouse were against this.
Proctor testified she did “not at all” expect the report to be making a recommendation for a final decision on how to proceed.
“I felt that, based on the information provided in those reports, that staff would be directed on one or both options to move into the detailed design phase, which would include further costing and fine-tuning of components and features, to include engaging citizens and stakeholders on the direction we were heading,” she said.
She also expected a “final dollar amount” to come back as a capital infrastructure project for all of council to approve after the project or projects had been fully costed.
Proctor told the inquiry staff did not investigate other construction types for the pool building because they were never given direction to do that.
“However, I assumed we would have investigated the benefits and the potential challenges associated with this type of structure, and we didn’t do that either,” said Proctor.
She did see the Aug. 27 report prior to the meeting, and asked CAO Houghton to call her about it. She testified she spoke to Houghton on Aug. 26, and expressed concern with the content of the report.
“I recall it didn’t have the breadth or scope of the information I had thought we would present,” she said. “And, therefore, I was concerned, and that’s what I needed to clarify.”
She said Houghton asked her to sign off as an author of the report and she refused. She said he accused her of not being a team player.
“His behaviour in that conversation was extremely aggressive,” said Proctor. “There was yelling, which I’m not used to from a person in his position. I tried to indicate that it’s not that I’m not trying to be a team player, I’m trying to do what I believe is my job as a department head to collect accurate information to the best of my ability and to present that to all of council, and I’m concerned the report does not reflect that.”
She agreed to have her name listed as a staff member who had input in the report, but would not “sign off” as an author in support of the contents of the report.
Proctor said the conversation ended abruptly.
Throughout her testimony, she stated it was her opinion the information gathered and presented for the recreation facilities and the decisions leading up to them lacked necessary detail.
She said the processes followed were “contrary” to those she had grown accustomed to in her previous public service work.
Justice Frank Marrocco, the judge presiding over the inquiry, asked Proctor if she expressed that view to her colleagues and superiors.
“On numerous occasions,” said Proctor. “I was told that’s not how we do things in Collingwood … I felt appreciated by my colleagues, but not my city process perspectives. It was clearly stated that we do things differently here.”
Proctor worked for the City of Toronto as a project manager, with Halton Conservation Authority as manager of a large park and later as director of parks. She has worked as a public servant for 30 years and holds a diploma in public administration.
She said during her work on the recreation facilities in Collingwood, there was “no standard protocol or process” she was familiar with.
Public hearings for the Collingwood Judicial Inquiry continue on Thursday (Sept. 26) beginning at 9 a.m. at the town hall council chambers. You can attend in-person, watch them live on RogersTV, or stream the hearings live online here.
