Are the taxpayers of the City of Hamilton on the hook for the losses incurred by the Waterfront Trust? Is this a contractual obligation between the Trust and the City? Are there any other liabilities that are the responsibility of the taxpayers outlined in the agreement between the City and the Waterfront Trust? What are the financial reporting requirements outlined in this agreement?
Mr. Rossini's replies:
No, the City is not responsible for any losses by the HWT.
No, there are no other liabilities.
There are no contractual obligations other than:
- the agreement with the HWT to operate and maintain the outdoor skating rink (which is a city-owned asset); and
- the City only pays for capital projects that it wishes the HWT to undertake on its behalf.
With respect to paying for capital projects, the HWT undertakes the expenditures and then files for re-imbursement. The HWT provides City Finance with spreadsheets and other details we may require to verify the expenditures.
Thank-you Roberto for your responses.
I remember the first time I saw Mr. Rossini at City Hall. He impressed me with his straightforward presentation, his plain-and-simple answers.
ReplyDeleteHe's impressed me ever since.
I only wish some of his cohorts at 71 Main Street West had as good a grasp on their responsibilities as he does.
If the HWT provides financial spreadsheets of their expenditures to the city's finance department for reimburstment, then I guess we will all find out why the HWT are over $400,000 in the hole, when they projected that they would have a surplus not too long ago. Perhaps this question should have gone directly to Rob Rossini.
ReplyDeleteDonna
"With respect to paying for capital projects, the HWT undertakes the expenditures and then files for re-imbursement. The HWT provides City Finance with spreadsheets and other details we may require to verify the expenditures."
ReplyDeleteThank you for your timely response Mr.Rossini!
Based on your above quote, I would like to know what happens if the amount that HWT "requests for re-imbursement" is too much money? Who then pays for the difference of the expenditures?
Is it the City? If not, then who?
Thank you!
Have a great evening everyone.
Who covers their losses? Not the tooth fairy. It has to be us.
ReplyDeleteMr. Sarc
Thanks Sarc, but I would like to hear it from the horses mouth :)
DeleteHave an amazing day everyone!
What we need to see as one example is the details of the agreement that the Treshold school has with the Trust. The HWT went to council to obtain funding in the amount of $1.3 million in the last weeks. The HWT declared that they had no partners or sponsors for their projects and as such council was the last resort. Since then we have found out that the Threshold school was actually ( had started construction on a building on the waterfront. These projects from the Treshold normally are done free of charge excluding materials I guess and I believe that it is good value to the recipients. I am curious to see how will the Trust translate this freebie to a chargeable line item to the city i.e management costs etc.. as mention by Rob Rossini. The other issue to me is why did the Trust was not upfront with this freebie when they declared that they had no sponsors or partners to which they could not draw any financial help. Clearly free labor is a big proponent of any projects why was this not disclose to council. My cynical self would think that this doozer would come back at as a chargeable item to the city. Now that the focus is on them it would take a truckload of bravado from the Trust to slip this one through similar to the washroom saga. As a refresher on this washroom, the Trust was under budget on another budget in the amount of approx. $400,000 and in order not to loose this money ( $400,000) since the city would have paid back the cost of the project which I think was $2.3 million and came under budget by $400, 000 therefore cost to be repaid $1.9 million by the city. So tacking on the amount of $400,000 under budget to the bathroom project permitted them to keep the money in the amount of $2.3 plus whatever it cost for the washroom. In government circle if you don`t spend the money allocated in the budget you loose it. Another way to keep the money is to give illusion that the money was spent i.e. $600,000 washroom which consist of the cost of the washroom plus the famous $400,000 under budget amount of other projects. The Brits call this `Fiddling the books`. I just have a gut feel that a repeat performance of this would happen as a result of another project being under budget ( due to the free labor from Threshold) and tack it on to another building project). In other words we were not to see a saving on capital costs projects. as ca taxpayer I object to this.Another point I would like to make is the quote from Jackson in regards to the `cabal of people who are against the good work done by the Trust`. Why do politicians go there, Jackson is saying that any criticism is unwarranted and if you do criticize you are an enemy. It reminds me of Toews in parliament when the opposition criticized the transfer of Afganies prisoners they were labelled sympathizers of A Quada. When Toews was once more criticized for his Internet bill he labelled all opposition to this bill as being child pornographers. Mr Jackson, I say that you are in great company with Toews, partisanship respondes to the issue, critics are not necessarily the opposition.
ReplyDelete