1. Some may say that an expenditure in the amount of $681,000 would ordinarily merit an understanding of and details of the financial decomposition of its underlying components, to ensure the integrity of the spend. Is the blanket approach typical of the business practice, or was this allowed by exception? Would you not see an audit vulnerability with blanket amounts that do not have the rigor/decomposition to monitor the underlying spend?
Yes, this is very typical as construction contracts are bundled all the time for efficiency. Everyone must keep in mind that there was never a separate "washroom" project. What Council approved was a $2.13 million budget for the Waterfront Trail Extension Project. The project had many elements and features including this particular washroom (I think there may have been even more than one built along the trail).
Once a project is tendered and a construction price is submitted, we then work towards that overall cost and budget, even in City administered/managed projects. So things get bundled. The Waterfront Trail Extension Project was administered and managed by the HWT and it basically came it at budget (as per my original email to you).
2. Does the HWT share the same policies as the City? (There seem to be conflicting accounts).
The City does not control policies and procedures relating to outside agencies, including the HWT. The City has practises that govern the actual transactions between the HWT and ourselves, which includes reporting. That is what the City is responsible for, ensuring that outside agencies comply with the terms agreed to.
Thanks Roberto for the response.
While I respect Mr. Rossini fully, the question was not answered.
ReplyDeleteThe overall cost analysis of the project was listed in components in which a management fee and other costs were, supposedly, grouped under a heading " Canal Washroom". While I understand Mr. Rossini's argument that the overall costs came in close to budget and that the city did not control the HWT, we are starting to see how HWT failed it's audit. No one could figure out the cost breakdown.
Don't forget, the washroom was one aspect of the article. They failed there audit!!!!!
In story by Emma Reilly in the Spectator Roberto Rossini states the following and Bob Charters responds;
ReplyDelete“They’re in trouble,” said Rob Rossini, the city’s general manager of finance. “Right now their revenues are not covering their expenses.”
The comments came out of a budget request for $150,000 to cover the operating costs for the new skating rink on the waterfront. That request is now raising questions about who should pay for the rink — the city or the trust — and whether the arms-length development agency is running out of money.
Despite Rossini’s warnings, both Bob Charters, the chair of the waterfront trust’s board, and the organization’s executive director, Werner Plessl, say the organization is financially secure.
“I’m surprised at somebody from the city saying that our finances would be in trouble,” said Charters. “I’m not sure that he will be all that well-informed. He certainly hasn’t talked to me and I’m not sure if he’s talked to Werner.”
They may be talking now!
Mr Rossini states in today's post states;
ReplyDelete"The City has practises that govern the actual transactions between the HWT and ourselves, which includes reporting. That is what the City is responsible for, ensuring that outside agencies comply with the terms agreed to."
As the HWT failed the external audit by Guyatt Wood & Moffatt, how can the City rely on the financial reporting by the Trust to the City. Have Rossini and his department not failed in their responsibility in this matter? "ensuring that outside agencies comply with the terms agreed to."
Mr. Rossini states, "The City has practises that govern the actual transactions between the HWT and ourselves, which includes reporting. That is what the City is responsible for, ensuring that outside agencies comply with the terms agreed to."
ReplyDeleteHWT has been consistently late reporting financials since its inception, has (a) failed audit(s), and has received monies from the City throughout the years that they shouldn't have received.
Why exactly are we, the City, bending our compliance policies for the HWT, year after year?
If we, the City, are that responsible, I would think we would have cut the cord to this outside agency long ago and given the maintenance, and design, projects to our own City planners and maintenance dept.
Let's all remember that the Trust was given so much money to do a number of jobs; the jobs were completed, so why are they still here 12 years later?
Ensuring that terms of agreements are adhered to? Like filing the financial statements on time with the city which has rarely been done?
ReplyDeleteExactly.
DeleteAll the skirting and scattering is leaving us all with a WTH is really going on here.
The Trust, and the City, should stop the nonsense and let's get down to brass tacks here.
It's easy enough to start at the beginning, open the books, share the Minutes, admit failure at standard business practices, admit failure for too many business ventures that are run by the Trust and consistently lose money. Let's face a simple truth...the Trust has proven themselves incompetent over too many years. Confusing is there were/are always two councillors on the Board; Collins, the longest serving councillor, said...well, he didn't say anything related to the questions posed him and that was not helpful.
Mayor Bratina has been waving flags about the Trust since he was a councillor for ward 2...yet now, he's surprisingly absent from this conversation. Odd, suddenly it's very quiet on the harbourfront.
"Yes, this is very typical as construction contracts are bundled all the time for efficiency." Mr. Rossini
DeleteWhat does the word efficiency mean in this context? - No need to identify costs of the individual components? - no need to justify billings? Where is this typical of construction contracts?
"Everyone must keep in mind that there was never a separate "washroom" project. What Council approved was a $2.13 million budget for the Waterfront Trail Extension Project. The project had many elements and features including this particular washroom (I think there may have been even more than one built along the trail)."
Mr. Rossini
We don't even know how many washrooms were built!?
It is very admirable of Mr Rossini to fall on his sword for his political masters.
It's hard to think that Clr Ferguson, well versed in construction projects, would not want a breakdown of the $2.13M cost of the "project" consisting of "many elements and features."
DeleteSomething is amiss however, no one from the City is addressing or admitting as much.