Clr Farr, Respectfully, you do need to give the residents of Hamilton the date and time of this board meeting you have mentioned, and whether this is a per-scheduled meeting or an extraordinary board meeting to discuss this situation. Also, pending this meeting, given the gravity of the claims, the board members and its chair do have access to phones, emails and skype to communicate with each other in order to generate a proper and prompt response. Clr. Chad's response is simply not acceptable by any stretch of imagination. Hamilton's residents (your employers), do not have to be kept waiting and guessing, until you'll get around to meeting up.
The Hamiltonian asked Clr. Farr if he could respond to the the request posted above. Clr, Farr responded as follows (His email and the email he forwarded from Mr. Rossini, is posted in its entirety)
Fair enough, please see the email sent the other day from our head of Finance answering to some of the claims made in the Bay Observer. And, thank you for your input:
"Subject: Bay Observer Article on City Funding of HWT and HCA projects
Hi Everyone,
I am writing to clarify 3 issues that involve the City with respect to the above article:
1. The Waterfront Trail Project - Hamilton Waterfront Trust (HWT) 2. The Lakeland Centre Project - Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) 3. City Purchasing Policy
1. The Waterfront Trail Project
The Waterfront trail was a City of Hamilton project constructed by the HWT for the City. The project was originally approved by Council in January of 2002 under COW Report 02-003 Item 6. The funding and payments to the HWT were finalized and amended through Council approval of FCS05036 in Feb/March of 2005. The Council approved project budget was $2,130,000 and encompassed several different components including washrooms, small and large rest areas, sun shelters, parking, fencing, Van Wagners Road nodal improvements, landscaping, public art features as well as the trail itself.
The article states that the City paid $681,531 for "a washroom". Staff have pulled and reviewed our financial records and we can confirm that while we did pay $681,531 for a component of the overall $2.13 million budget this particular project component included:
• the canal washroom• new parking lot (approx. 200)• bench nodes• a small rest area• a large rest area• Van Wagners Node improvements; and• HWT's project management charge/fee for the entire $2.130 million project The project costs paid to the HWT came in at budget ie $2.130 million while the total project cost to the City came in slightly over budget at $2.193 million because it also included some other City costs e.g., surveys and project management.
2. The Lakeland Centre Project
The Lakeland Centre Project was a Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) project (ie not a City budgeted or managed project). Council approved a capital grant to the HCA in the 2002 City Capital Budget for $825,000 to fund the original project budget of $2.3 million. Through FCS004029 in Feb/March of 2004, Council approved a repayable loan in the amount of $840,000 at 4.92% interest rate to the HCA to help fund their share of the project. The project budget was also revised to $2.965 million. The loan has since been repaid with interest.
Since this was not a City managed project and Council provided a fixed capital grant and loan (which was repaid), City staff do not have the final cost expenditures.
3. City Purchasing Policy
When the City contracted with the HWT to build the Waterfront Trail Project, the City through Public Works entered into a project/construction agreement with the HWT. The agreement did not require the HWT to follow the City's Purchasing Policies. As an separate entity, the HWT has its own purchasing policies and procedures.
I trust this helps clarify matters.
thx
Rob"
There is more to this email and I'm sure the Hamiltonian will receive it soon enough.
ReplyDeleteJason, the people in your Ward are very disappointed with you.
Stay tuned folks....more to come
Point 3. It states that HWT has it's own purchasing policy BUT Collins, in his response, states they follow the city's purchasing policy.
ReplyDeleteWho is right?
So now a $681,531.00 out-house is referred to as a component that cost the taxpayers of the City of Hamilton almost 33% of the total project budget. There is so much spin here one would think we built a laundromat.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mr. Rossini could provide the dollar amounts for each of the following (we already have the number on the washroom);
ReplyDelete1.the canal washroom ($681,531.00)
2.new parking lot (approx. 200)
3.bench nodes
4.a small rest area
5.a large rest area
6.Van Wagners Node improvements
7.HWT's project management charge/fee
8. City costs e.g., surveys and project management.
We have asked Mr. Rossini to respond and he advises as follows:
DeleteThe City does not have separate final costs for these project components since they were grouped into one contract tender.
So, he can't even tell us the amounts the City billed for surveys and project management. He can't tell us what was the fee that the Waterfront trust billed for project management. He can't or won't? How many more City projects are handled this way. He stretches the bounds of believability.
DeleteCan you ask Mr. Rossini how his staff was able to give a breakdown to John Best for his story.
DeleteI've heard nothing but good things about Mr. Rossini but his vague, contradictory statements make me wonder who is applying pressure.
To everyone reading this remember it's usually the cover up that gets you into trouble not the actual incident.
I'm sure you'll here how the "washroom" costs have many other projects included. Then why don't they have there own line items? Trying to hide something there perhaps?
ReplyDeleteHas the Spectator's viewpoint changed or do they maintain their opinion as stated in this editorial of November 17 2011.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thespec.com/opinion/editorial/article/626768--waterfront-trust-has-earned-its-support
I don't believe that they have published anything recently on this latest story.
A Farr out response to a simple question, "...you do need to give the residents of Hamilton the date and time of this board meeting you have mentioned..."
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean when people give obtuse, oblique, evasive or indirect answers to direct questions?
Watch this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7405528n
at:
12:54 to 13:03 and
13:15 - 13:20
"We should be used to the pompous rhetoric and the indirect answers to direct questions by now, shouldn't we? Ask a politician a direct question on anything that might be slightly controversial, and generally you'll get a discourse on how to offer up anything that doesn't resemble an effective answer." - Trevor Busch
The non-coverage of the local mainstream media on this issue is astounding! They do need to watch the above video from 40:43 and go there to renew themselves.
We have a disconnect here, Collins says that the trust follows city`s purchasing policy and Rossini says they have their purchasing policy. I will believe Rossini over Collins.
ReplyDeleteAs per Collins
Delete`The article conveniently omits the fact that the Waterfront Trust adopted the City's purchasing policy as its own purchasing policy many years ago.`
As per Rossini
`When the City contracted with the HWT to build the Waterfront Trail Project, the City through Public Works entered into a project/construction agreement with the HWT. The agreement did not require the HWT to follow the City's Purchasing Policies. As an separate entity, the HWT has its own purchasing policies and procedures `.
To the HWT,
ReplyDeleteI would very much appreciate if you would be kind enough to answer the following three questions:
1. How long would it take to compile the HWT's board meeting Minutes, beginning with the Hamilton Harbour Development Trust (renamed Hamilton Waterfront Trust) to the present time? And, cost? I will gladly pick them up as well.
2. Three ex-City employees were/are employed by the Trust, in what order of hiring I don't know. Were the positions open to any and all to apply? And, if the positions were appointed, then by whom?
3. How were citizens-at-large chosen/appointed? And, were any citizens-at-large employed, or once employed, by any company who did work for the City and/or Trust?
Thanks kindly in advance.
" • the canal washroom• new parking lot (approx. 200)• bench nodes• a small rest area• a large rest area• Van Wagners Node improvements; and
ReplyDelete** • HWT's project management charge/fee for the entire $2.130 million project The project costs paid to the HWT came in at budget ie $2.130 million while the total project cost to the City came in slightly over budget at $2.193 million
***because it also included some other City costs e.g., surveys and project management."
Am I the only one that still does not understand how the above **states ENTIRE MANAGEMENT CHARGE/FEE and then final line states ***PROJECT MANAGEMENT???
Did the City hire someone to "manage" the management?
Would it not normally be a City Employee that would oversee the project on the City's behalf and therefor not be an extra charge?
Teresa, could you please see if anyone can at least explain this to me?
Have an awesome day everyone!
HHWT charged the city a fee for running the project. The assets are actually on the City's books.
ReplyDeleteThis whole organization is a smoke screen and seems like somebody(s) is doing quite well by it. We have to find out who.
The first test will be whether Mr. Pressl answers The Hamiltonian's questions. If he fails to, you KNOW something is up. The only reason why that this can happen where people do not answer basic questions, is that they know that MSM is generally out to lunch on these issues. Keep doing what you are doing Teresa because you're the only one doing it.
ReplyDeleteSorce
I am dying to hear the answer to question 2
ReplyDelete2. Have all construction contracts been awarded through a tendering process? If not, can you identify the contracts and the value of those contracts?
Erik Hess stated on his ward campaign website some years back that he, himself, built the trolley. I'm not sure if he was also employed by the Trust at this time.
DeleteThe trolley's diesel engine is another story altogether; however, it's an important one because it's deadly for anyone to be around. Mr. Plessl knows this but as he told/wrote me at the time, it was all the HWT could afford.
The question was whether there is a meeting planned, if so, when and whether it is a routine meeting or a special meeting to address this issue. Clr. Farr- you did not answer the question. Hmmmmm It is a simple question.
ReplyDeleteHow many times do we have ask a Politician a question to get a straight answer? well it is obviously more than ten times anyway!
ReplyDeleteWatch this:
http://youtu.be/70pFmnILJn8
Can you imagine our local mainstream media ever reaching such a level of clarity in questioning:
http://youtu.be/pCHu1kRT6hU
Email these video links with your personal message to everyone in our mainstream media who call themselves journalists, and every local politician who claims to have the citizens interest at heart.
The Hamiltonian.net needs to install a count-up timer on the home page to show the residents of our city as to how much real time has elapsed since a clear answer is given to the questions that are raised here. For an example of such a script, see: http://www.hashemian.com/tools/javascript-countdown.htm