But with the release of the financials (click here to see them), a different picture emerges. A deficit of close to $500,000.00 has been recorded for 2011. Williams Fresh Cafe Coffee House, for example, recorded a loss of $33,010.00 in 2011, after recording a profit the year prior of $37,969.00. Chairman Bob Charters said to the Spec, "There is no real, solid explanation for this, other than it just didn’t perform,”
In 2010, the Trust lost $893,000.00. You may recall that Mayor Bratina expressed concern over the Hamilton Waterfront Trusts' financials, in the past. At that time, he was assured by Charters that the Trust's financials would approach or be at a break even point for 2011. The Mayor was also chastised by his peers for having raised what has proven to be be a legitimate question on behalf of Hamilton taxpayers.
The news of the Trust's 2011 financials and the poor overall performance they represent, comes on the heels of some serious allegations made by the Bay Observer on the funds' operations. While remaining non judgmental, questions that The Hamiltonian posed to The Hamilton Waterfront Trust directly to its Executive Director Werner Plessel and through Clrs. Jackson and Farr, remain largely unanswered.
Some citizens are calling for a forensic audit by way of a delegation that is to come to council, as well as demanding answers to outstanding questions raised.
Whether those efforts and the Bay Observer's allegations ultimately uncover additional cause for concern, is a potential add-on to the real losses Hamiltonians continue to learn about and bear year after year. Some may argue that the Trust has made some wonderful progress on the Waterfront and that its roller/ice rink, cafe, restaurants in the works etc., speak volumes of the achievements. Others will argue however that achievements and sound financials, are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, should go hand in hand.
Leading us to ask the question: Should we continue to en-trust the Trust to turn the situation around, or should we end the Hamilton Waterfront Trust and either bring it into city operations as a regular department, or otherwise modify its stewardship? Your thoughts?
I think that those operating the trust and the Counselors who are defending them, are not competent to be looking after this. I think it should be packed up and given to someonme else to manage and I think the councselors need to wake up and realize it is NOT cool to be losing our money. This will be an election issue for sure . Good work by The Bay Observer, The Hamiltonian and I am glad to see The Spec is doing a story.
ReplyDeleteWell said. I vote end the trust.
ReplyDeleteI am so disappointed with Tom Jackson. How he, in good conscience, defends this organization is astounding to me.
ReplyDeleteThe HWT chairman stood before council last year and boasted of a profitable year for 2011 and now this?
And to make it worse Jackson is now stating that the greater public good is being served by having the Trust operate this way. This with serious allegations being made about wasteful spending, bad accounting etc.
Now the Trust is claiming that these two new restaurants will turn this ship around. With what keeps coming out every week, I'm starting to think these two places might not ever open.
I thought Tom Jackson was better than this. I was wrong.
It's time for wholesale changes. Not at the HWT but at City Hall
I am miffed that MSM can cover this and not ask the right question. I think the right question IS being asked here though. Should HWT continue? The answers is no.
ReplyDeleteWho else would put up with year after year losses, meager excuses, directors who defend shotty performance and refuse to answer questions? Time to end the Trust and also time to bring in term limits.
Sorce
Charters states;
ReplyDelete“There is no real, solid explanation for this, other than it just didn’t perform,” said Charters, adding that the café’s revenue is up 20 per cent to date in 2012. “Over time, it’s averaged out that it’s made some money, but we’re going to have off years.”
He also says "But a number of operations sagged last year, including the popular waterfront restaurant Williams. It lost $33,000 in 2011, compared to profit of almost $40,000 in 2010."
Interpretation:
The more we make the more we lose. Revenues were up 20% (rough Calc 280K)
33,000 profit? (2010) to net loss 38,000 (2011) = net swing to the red of 71,000K + unrealized profit on the 20% increase on revenue
Based on industry standards of costs versus revenues The Williams Coffee Pub should be netting between 150k to 250k
Williams loss just boggles my mind. I can't ever recall being there and not having to wait in line. And they're not giving the product away.
ReplyDeleteSomething here isn't passing the smell test.
Just reading the 2011 HWT financial statements, Tom did not bring them to my house. It says they have $318,923 in automotive assets. Who is driving these cars, and why? Also Williams Fresh Café costs $613,535 for Labor and $83,232 for royalties, no wonder they lost money, despite having a liquor license and $1,490,865 in gross revenue. Who do they pay royalties too, someone is making a killing? They ended up losing $33,010. The grill operations lost money, get rid of it, get Reardon’s grill, they have a similar service, like a hot-dog stand. Other than that, the Trolly bus loses I can live with and the tour boats are bringing in more than they cost to operate. The fishing derby is another losing proposition, although other charities run them in public pools for disabled kids, doesn’t cost a cent, all done by volunteers. The Waterfront Trust’s biggest problem is the lack of strong fundraising and weak, unfocused management by the Trust Board, now that all the original funding is long spent. Why is the Trillium Grant not mentioned, or any other fund raising from outside sources? Why are they not going after grants from the Provincial and Federal government, plus the private sector? How about "The Co-operators Waterfront Trolley", or similar naming rights for a price? Even the ice-rink make more than it cost, sell naming rights for that operation too. The other thing that jumped out at me were all the 6% administration charges, where does that go, city hall?
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the $170,000 positive financial position Chairman Charters stated the HWT was in when he came before council last November?
ReplyDeleteSomehow over the last quarter of 2011, the HWT went from the noted surplus to a deficit of $474,000 That’s a $644,000 loss in 3 months.
Tom Jackson say's that there's no reason for concern. I have a much different opinion. This is taxpayers money. All members of Council should be very concerned!
I cant believe the tag line on the Spec's print copy. It should read 'HWT continues to lose 100s of thousands of dollars year after year- Jackson and Farr are okay with it.
ReplyDeleteInstead, the Spec minimizes the significance.
For what it is worth, if the HWT loses a half million dollars and Williams is only $33,000 of that loss, the more pertinent question is where is the drain? If I am reading things correctly, the largest part of the loss was due to the shuttered Discovery Centre which was acquired by HWT. Even now, it is not generating any revenue although it is being remodelled to host, I believe, two restaurants. In its original form, the Discovery Centre was not viable (and it was not owned by the Trust). Once the Federal Government decided to get out of that business, it does seem to me that being acquired by HWT made strategic sense. When the Chair says there is a solid business plan in place, I am guessing that much of that plan involves converting this Centre into a more viable operation. This can often take a few years to make happen. Thus I am prepared to take a longer view of this thing. From 2010 to 2011, the Trust cut its deficit in half and added this property. If the plan is viable, the Trust needs to reduce or eliminate its deficit in 2012. With a full year of operation of the Centre in 2013, I would hope the Trust could start to show a profit. The Trust is really a collection of businesses (profit and cost centres) operating under one roof. A few of them depend heavily on a good summer season (for instance, the Miss Hamilton Boat Cruise or Scoops Ice Cream). The summer of 2011 was not the most ideal for tourism-related businesses. In short, good to have the information but judge on a multi-year basis when the business plan also spans multiple years.
ReplyDeleteI understand what your saying Marvin, BUT, the Trust is a charity and technically not allowed to run for profit businesses (I hope they received special permission from C.R.A. for this by the way)
ReplyDeleteTheir articles don't say anything about running coffee houses etc. It says To develop trails and beautify the waterfront.
Also, half of last year's losses were due to "a one time" gst audit, if you recall. So in actuality, the loss increased this year.
They have failed audits in the past, lost their charitable registration in the past, have many "questionable" accounting practises claimed against them and are constantly losing money.
They claim to be an arms length entity BUT Marvin you know that under accounting terms, when one organization has significant influence (the City decides the Board) over another (The Trust) and is responsible for much of it's funding (directly and indirectly through other entities - Conservation Authority) then it is not arm's length. The city has a responsibility to see what's going on here.
Complete forensic audit now!!!!!!!
Why doesn't every business parade around as a charity and get the benefits, while getting public money? Can you say "protectionism"
DeleteOne area that is a drain relates to the cost of labour for the cafe. Gross revenues grew by $4,700 from 2010 to 2011. However labour costs grew by $52,008.00 from the previous year. It is management's responsibility to ensure that the needs of the business are reflected in the scheduling of employees both full time and part-time. These costs should be in the range of 15-18%. Food and beverage costs on the surface look to be about 10-12% too high as well. The line item referring to office also grew by almost 300%. Utilities grew by $11,000.00. Savings can be found here with competent management.
ReplyDeleteMr. Ryder. So why do you think everyone has failed to answer the 10 questions The Hamiltonian asked?
ReplyDeleteWhat is to me not so obvious is that Deloite in the preamble states that they audited the financial statements provided to them by management and they in turn audited information provided. What we do not know is what was not provided to Deloite.We can look at the statements and some bloggers who are in the business ( Gary) and they can draw conclusions for the norms in the business. as previously said no smoking gun, however the GST audit that resulted in a whopping amount of dollars owed to the feds. How could they be so far out in left field in regards to input and output credits on the GST is alarming.
ReplyDeleteEasy, incompetence. Not filing for years, not realiz-ng that charities only get a rebate, not the full gst input credits etc.
DeleteThe Williams Coffee pub spends over a million dollars on food and labour? Is this normal? How many people are employed to cost over half a million dollars each year?
ReplyDeleteIt would be helpful to get a more detailed breakdown of salaries. Also general headings of 'Automotive' and 'Equipment' when they are over 300,000 and 100,000 really require a breakdown cost. I admit to having no experience in this business but I feel at this point all questions are valid.
In relation to the baby steps that the Editorial Board of the Spectator has finally taken viz their on-going "non-coverage" of the HWT affair, below is what their journalist Joan Walters said to the "2008 Michener Award finalists" about their award winning stories on June 10, 2009:
ReplyDelete"One of journalism's most sacred public duties is to shine a light on things that should be known and must be changed. We must never breach that trust.~ Joan Walters
http://www.michenerawards.ca/english/reporters2008/walters2008.htm
In what has become a ritual in their life-long quest to the serve the public of Hamilton our Councillors, like our credentialed journalist, have uttered such banalities to the public every four years when they reconnect with the community for two months, to renew their vows to serve the public.
If the going-ons at the HWT has any defining moment, it can be found in the unholy nexus between the local press and the "small cabal of councillors" -- both claiming higher virtues, both blindly and repeatedly falling from grace, while being utterly clueless about their fallen status.
It is a know public fact that the Mayor of this city was lampooned, vilified, demeaned and slandered for protecting the public interest. It is also a know fact that the Spectator with the full knowledge and sanction of its Editorial Board/Managing Editor allowed its opinion writer and journalist/s to unleash a sustained media orgy against the Mayor and his office in order to misinform, obfuscate and delay the shining of the proverbial light of truth on HWT.
Their willful acts helped further empower the 'small cabal of councillors' to continue to misinform the public on the truths about the HWT and its affairs.
We allow our collective identity as Hamiltonians to be defined by the 'small minds' in the council and the local press. We act on most days in a reactive manner to douse fires intentionally lit by these small minds whom we elect to represent our lives and future.
We will continue to have many more HWT's in our city, until we stop abusing ourselves.
This is not about HWT and what they did, and will continue to do. This is about who we want to become as a people and as a city.
Find the real culprits in this affair and drag them out of public life - grab them by their ears while dragging them out, if you have to. They will kick and scream and slander more on their way out - but if this is not done, this city is doomed.
Inform the Ontario Press Council of the role that the Spectator has played in this sordid affair. Inform those award-bestowing Canadian and International news organizations of the role that the Spectator has played in this affair. Put the Board of Directors and Chairman of Metroland Media Group (Torstar Corporation) on notice -- that the people of this city will no longer allow such deviant public behavior to emanate from its local press.
This is the only way forward for Hamiltonians if we want to move beyond this grotesque mutation of local journalism and attempt to seriously rebuild the broken culture of our city.
Ms. Walters: Mr Charters to what do you attribute the financial loss posted by the Cafe?
DeleteMr Charters: “There is no real, solid explanation for this, other than it just didn’t perform.”
Ms Walters; Okay, better luck next year!
Respectfully submitted
Don't make fun of the accredited journalists..;-)
DeleteI would like to know if Werner Plessel drives a truck paid for by the HWT, what it's worth if he does, and why the heck he would need such a vehicle. Are we allowed answers to these questions?
ReplyDeleteWhen the 'press' become oblivious of its "sacred public duty to shine a light on things that should be known and must be changed" -- then the trust that public puts into its 'press' stands betrayed.
ReplyDeleteTreacherous and hurtful as it is to the entire community, such betrayal needs to be exposed and those journalists who cause such treachery need to be held publicly accountable.
If anyone is interested in contacting the Ontario Press Council and MetroLand Media Group (Torstar) regarding Spectator's biased coverage of the Mayor and their non-coverage of the HWT affair - below is some information and contacts.
It appears that the Ontario Press Council requires that the newspaper be first given an opportunity to resolve the complaint.
So, it is time we ask the Spectator's Editorial Board/Managing Editor to explain to the public as to what exactly was motivating their sustained public attacks on the Mayor and his office when questions about the HWT were raised by him.
Further the Spectator needs to also explain to the people of Hamilton as to why even after many disturbing questions were raised publicly (questions, which continue to go unanswered by the HWT to date), they have clearly failed to ask these questions of the HWT and the councillors concerned.
Instead, the Spectator continue to exercise poor judgment by publishing yesterday, a soft focus, fuzzy story of the HWT.
The Spectators most disturbing and biased coverage of the municipal elections in 2010, directly resulted in the continuing status quo in politics of our city. Their patently unethical behaviour which is public knowledge, went unchecked back then.
If the Spectators actions and inactions in the HWT affair are allowed to go unchecked, we will only have ourselves to blame for the political conditions that persist in our city.
---------------------
Ontario Press Council:
What types of complaints does the Council consider?
http://www.ontpress.com/complain/index.html
The Ontario Press Council deals with:
1. Unsatisfied complaints from the public about the conduct of a newspaper in gathering and publishing news, opinion and advertising.
The Press Council will deal with a complaint only after:
1. The newspaper has been given an opportunity to resolve the complaint.
2. The action taken by the newspaper has failed to satisfy the complainant.
3. Intervention by the Press Council’s Executive-Secretary or the Chair has failed to resolve the issue.
---------------------
Torstar:
John A. Honderich, Chair of the Board
MetroLand Media Group:
Ian Oliver, President
Corporate Office
One Yonge Street,
Toronto, Canada
M5E 1P9
T (416) 869-4010
F (416) 869-4183
http://www.torstar.com/html/investor-relations/Corporate_Governance/Code_of_Business_Conduct/index.cfm
Part 1 of 2
Part 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteThe principles which guides Torstar is called the "Atkinson Principles". I am not aware if the Spectator has such principles to guide their editorial policy.
The Atkinson Principles:
Throughout his 50 years as publisher of the Toronto Star from 1899 to 1948, Joseph E. Atkinson developed strong views on both the role of a large city newspaper and the editorial principles it should espouse. These values and beliefs now form what are called the Atkinson Principles. For more than a century, they have provided the intellectual foundation on which the Star has operated and have given the paper its distinctive voice.
The editorial principles that Atkinson espoused were founded on his belief that a progressive newspaper should contribute to the advancement of society through pursuit of social, economic and political reforms.
The Atkinson Principles include:
A strong, united and independent Canada: Atkinson argued for a strong central government and the development of distinctive social, economic and cultural policies appropriate to an independent country.
- Social Justice:
Atkinson was relentless in pressing for social and economic programs to help those less advantaged and showed particular concern for the least advantaged among us.
- Individual and Civil Liberties:
Atkinson always pressed for equal treatment of all citizens under the law, particularly minorities, and was dedicated to the fundamental freedoms of belief, thought, opinion and expression and the freedom of press.
- Community and Civic Engagement:
Atkinson continually advocated the importance of proper city planning, the development of strong communities with their vibrant local fabrics and the active involvement of citizens in civic affairs.
- The Rights of Working People:
The Star was born out of a strike in 1892 and Atkinson was committed to the rights of working people including freedom of association and the safety and dignity of the workplace.
- The Necessary Role of Government:
When Atkinson believed the public need was not met by the private sector and market forces alone, he argued strongly for government intervention.
These six principles provide the Toronto Star with an intellectual framework to guide editorial policy and constitute an important part of the newspaper’s history.
The Atkinson Principles are confined to the operations of the Toronto Star and do not extend to Torstar's other publications or businesses.
One of the problems with this story is that not enough of Hamilton's citizens are even aware that this is going on. If you poll 100 people in Hamilton, I'll venture to say that at least 75% have not heard of HWT or this story. Why are certain publications (The Spec) affraid to dig deep regarding such an inportant story? Real journalism, is about printing the truth, regardless of who is affected. I hope more people become aware of what is going on in their city and become more engaged. Perhaps they will smarten up come election time.
ReplyDelete"One of the problems with this story is that not enough of Hamilton's citizens are even aware that this is going on. If you poll 100 people in Hamilton, I'll venture to say that at least 75% have not heard of HWT or this story."
DeleteI agree. But it's not just this issue. Others, too. Even more important.
"Why are certain publications (The Spec) affraid to dig deep regarding such an inportant story? Real journalism, is about printing the truth, regardless of who is affected."
Again, I agree. As for your question, this is something you might want to go directly The Spec about.
"I hope more people become aware of what is going on in their city and become more engaged."
That would be nice. But it comes down to more than just whether or not a primary news source provides the coverage. (Yes, it helps, but it doesn't guarantee awareness or increased engagement.) I think the real questions are along the lines of 'How can we increase the average resident's interest in the goings-on in their city, and therefore, their awareness? and "How and why do people become more engaged?" And it's not just a question of the practical means; "The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one." I don't think we're anywhere near recognizing what the problem actually is.
"Perhaps they will smarten up come election time."
Doubt it. That's not what history tells us. Over the past four elections, the number of incumbents who weren't returned to office- Well, it would shock you. The truth is that unless this HWT situation goes 'Watergate', this won't even be an issue come 2014. So actually, if you're a betting person, you're wise to put money on all the councillors even remotely associated with this getting back into office. Unless...
We should start by telling everyone and their brother about alternate sites where they can get good info.
DeleteWe can't be cute about this. Term limits are needed.
DeleteTerm Limits Now
TLN: Have you come up with a plan to get term limits enacted?
DeleteI think more people need to get interested and peeved about these things. But the word is not getting out. The Hamiltonian needs to expand somehow. And people need to focus their energioes on these topics.
DeleteSevern
The HWT issue is a shining case for term limits.
DeleteTerm Limits Now
...unless....? Unless what? Unless we have another cute town hall meeting that goes nowhere? Maybe Jason Farr can wear tails to the next one.
DeleteTerm Limits Now
Just the fact that the advertisment says "We are a charitable organization", should raise a red flag. We would like to see the list of who the people are on this charitable organization.
ReplyDeleteI think the Hamiltonian should have a section that lists all the charitable organizations in Hamilton and what is it they do and who they report to. What do you think readers? I know the Hamiltonian will do a great job reporting.
Jack
"Williams Fresh Cafe Coffee House, for example, recorded a loss of $33,010.00 in 2011, after recording a profit the year prior of $37,969.00. Chairman Bob Charters said to the Spec, 'There is no real, solid explanation for this, other than it just didn’t perform.'"
ReplyDeleteSo in 2011, a publicly managed business loses $70,979 compared to the previous year.
If Williams’ labour costs grew by $52,008 over 2010, as has been suggested (that’s, what, two part-time employees?), we’re looking at a loss of $18,971. That’d be $52 a day. How much does the average restaurant allot for spoilage/shrinkage/dine-and-dash?
Or maybe the proliferation of private sector coffeehouses is taking its toll?
And: Should the city even be in the business of operating tourist facilities?
This is the problem with making the Waterfront a public asset. When the area was locked tight by the Hamilton Harbour Commission, there were no problems at all. I mean, unless you count the mid-70s dredging scandal....
ReplyDeletehttp://goo.gl/w7aS5
I tuned into The Hamiltonian after having been told about an article that Graham Crawford wrote here. Since then, I have been looking at this site, not only the current stuff, but the stuff in the past. And more recently, I have heard The Hamiltonian being mentioned in circles that I travel in. I read The Spectator's write up and found it to be a fair article. as far as they took it. But it is far from comprehensive and it really doesn't tell me much about what the causes are of the problems. I believe that The Spectator and The Hamiltonian should be working together on stuff. But I don't see it happening unless The Spectator changes its approach and gets more modern.
ReplyDeleteModern Man
Welcome MM. I've been reading here for some time now. Class act here.
DeleteSevern
Aren't Williams all franchised outlets? If so, does HWT own the franchise? Still can't get my head around over half a million dollars on labour. The staff must be large or very well paid.
ReplyDeleteTo Paul Berton, Editor-in-Chief, Hamilton Spectator:
ReplyDeleteRe: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/760574--why-journalists-question-authority
Thank You Paul!
Keep up the good work of bringing real change.
Best,
Mahesh P. Butani
""Williams Fresh Cafe Coffee House, for example, recorded a loss of $33,010.00 in 2011, after recording a profit the year prior of $37,969.00." Sounds like monkey business to me. Williams makes a fortune. It's constantly busy and look at the prices they charge for their drinks and food. Come on Hamiltonians, don't be so gullable. How the heck do you go from a profit of 37 to a loss of 33??? I think this should be investigated!
ReplyDeleteHow to complain about Charities by the Public Guardian http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/charbullet/bullet4.asp
ReplyDeleteIn the Hamilton News interview Charters says of the Discovery Centre now under the control of the Trust now leased out to a restaurant operator;
ReplyDelete“There is little revenue in renting out the facility,” said Charters. “We’re pretty lucky to get these guys to turn it around.”
Werner Plessl then says;
“We had significant interest (from businesses) for the Discovery Centre,” said Plessl. “We crafted the
best deal for Hamilton.
Do they ever talk to each other?
How many days has it been now since you asked the 10 questions and have not got answers? But they have time to be interviewed with softball questions. Nice huh? I am dissapointed in Jason Farr.
ReplyDeleteHere's a most interesting tidbit dating back to 2005, and stars HWT, Chad Collins, Sam Merulla, money, and Employee Climate Surveys.
ReplyDeleteI am understanding more and more about the culture at City Hall and believe that Term Limits is the only way to go with some of the long-term councillors. I live in ward 2 so I will add short-term councillors as well.
Can't wait to read the HWT Minutes. Has anyone who requested actually receive yet?
2005 Tax Capital budget and Financing Plan
Option A
Parks Development ward 2. Waterfront Trail Ext – discovery Centre to Haida – CCGS project - $60,000.00
Downtown – Non block ward 2 waterfront recreational development study $500,000.00
Human Resources all wards, Employee climate Survey $100,000.00
(Collins and Merulla motion to cut and it is cut out)
Term limits is too hard to get. The one criticism I have of The Hamiltonian is that you don't fund raise. You should call for donations and then use that money to get a print copy out in neighbourhoods. Or better still, get a big sponsor. Or maybe someone reading the site can help. If you get out there, people will start seeing the difference and probably vote differently.
Delete