Those that have been following the controversy around the Hamilton Waterfront Trust and concerns that some have expressed around its financial and operational management, will know that the cost of building a canal washroom was one component of the questions that were, and perhaps still are percolating.
At a recent GIC meeting, finance chief Roberto Rossini provided some clarification. Rossini explained that the cost of the washroom was captured in an invoice that also included other costs such as management fees, rest areas etc. and thus the overall cost attached to that invoice ($681,000.00), cannot be assumed to be that of the washroom being built.
Rossini's comments at GIC were consistent with those he provided The Hamiltonian in the past. (See 1:17 on the video).
For clarity, Mr. Rossini has confirmed in the past, and has restated today to The Hamiltonian, that the cost of the washroom was approximately $200,000.00.
Rossini reports that the cost of the washroom is approximately $200,000.00. Does he not have the exact number? This washroom apparently was budgeted at $90,000.00. Why the huge cost overrun?
ReplyDeleteEvery answer produces a new question, so it would seem.
How big is the washroom? I don't know if $200,000.00 is a reasonable costs and if the cost more than doubled from $90,000.00 to $200,000.00 or more, shouldn't council be asking questions about that? I understand why Gary Santucci was concerned about accountability. This can't be simply taken off the table.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully
Severn
How many toilets in the building and how many sinks? What's the square footage?
ReplyDelete900 square foot concrete block building with a couple of stalls each side plus a urinal or two and a couple of sinks. It has some decorative stone on the façade well. Originally budgeted at $100.00 per sq.ft. Built at almost twice the cost. Can anyone out there do an independent estimate. Remember there is NO cost for the land.
DeleteLove the approximately, because specifics get in the way, $200,000.
ReplyDeleteIf it was originally estimated at 90 grand, and now it is 200 grand or more, that's an over 100% cost overrun. How can GIC let this slide? Are these counselors really looking after tax money? Is Judi Partridge okay with this? Merulla?, Whithead? anyone?
ReplyDeleteThe Hamiltonian has asked for clarity around how much the canal washroom was initially estimated at, and if there is, in fact, a cost overrun, what accounted for that overrun. Stay tuned. We will post the answer verbatim, when we receive it.
ReplyDeleteThe Hamiltonian Admin
Good question!
DeleteCan anyone, including Mr. Rossini, believe that financial engagement, accountability and transparency includes the word, "approximately?"
ReplyDeleteMy husband and I talk budget/finances every Friday and the word "approximately" is only used when discussing future costs and dreams, not bills that have been paid already. How peachy my weekly $ sessions would be if I could casually tell my husband that the house renovations cost approximately $50,000.00 and then slide into home with a, "Oh, come on, don't get upset, there's so much more I can't tell you."
It's maddening as hell to be subjected to this behaviour that all but tells citizens to swallow the kool-aid and go away.
Respectfully, it's most unfortunate that Mr. Rossini does not take the citizenry of Hamilton as seriously as we take ourselves and the money the City spends.
I think Farr missed the point entirely, and it shows on the video. It is not about criminality. Noone has alleged that. It's about accountability and oversight as Santucci said. If Farr thinks that as long as there is no "fraud", all is well, then he needs to step down, as he does not have a grasp for his role and for accountability and oversight.
DeleteSadly, I think Mr. Farr knew exactly what he was doing and the word "fraud" did not escape his lips by chance. Both Ms. Partridge and Mr. Farr's roles seemed very much rehearsed; both owe Mr. Santucci an apology, imho.
DeleteSadder still, Mr. Farr is following in the see/hear/speak no evil footsteps of all councillors, prinicpally Mr. Chad Collins, who has been on the HWT board. For all the HWT fluster and bluster that Mayor Bratina spoke of over the years, he is conspicuously silent these past months concerning a forensic audit.
Well, maybe it was the Carpenters Union that was used to build the wooden part of the structure, that made this building soo expensive, or maybe it was the Masons Union that did the brick-work. My guess is, we will never find out.
ReplyDeleteMy concerns about the costs involved do not involve the actual skilled work that went into making the washroom, no matter how bland.
DeleteMy curiosity relates to the management and consultation/consultant/design proponent, ie anything directly benefiting the HWT and those they hired to consult, design, etc..
Again, most telling that City officials, both councillors and senior management, are doing their best to obfuscate, and bully in the case of Gary Santucci, any mention of the HWT.
Am wondering if the Integrity Commissioner is warranted at this time; Council Code of Conduct has surely been broken in respect to councillor's being accountable, honest and forthcoming when such simple questions and requests have been put forth to them and yet they continue to refuse to supply citizens with accurate, precise and timely answers/information.
I'm most grateful that The Hamiltonian has not let this go; without you, and The Bay Observer, and Gary Santucci, the HWT issue would have died some time ago. Most importantly, TH has created a lengthy, intelligent and informative timeline of how Council has chosen not to engage its citizenry and continues to steadfastly refuse to be accountable and transparent. Throwing bones does not count.
I agree Serendipity. Hamilton does not have any form of investigative reporting. And you sure as heck won't read anything thought provoking in many other publications. I hope that this type of reporting found here, continues. I like the style- ask good questions without making any allegations and simply watch people tell the truth or hang themselves with lies. Keep up the good work.
DeleteSobey's has announced that they are building a new store in Glanbrook with a footprint of 32,603 sq ft. at a cost of 2.3 million dollars. I believe that the cost per square foot works out to be $70.00. The Canal washroom according to Rossini, who paid the invoice on behalf of the taxpayers, came in at $222.00 per sq. ft.
ReplyDelete
DeleteMr. Rossini needs to be forthcoming and tell us the details that make up the costs.
I still have a lot of respect for Mr. Rossini and we are lucky to have him. He has to be careful that he does not inadvertently cross any lines. His job is to provide accurate information and advice. I am interested to see if he answers the question forthright. It is simple to answer:
DeleteThe estimated costs of the canal washroom was initially _______.
The exact cost it came in at is _______
The difference between the estimated costs and the exact cost it came in at is __________.
The reason for the difference is ______________.
Easy peasy.
Maybe Jackson and Farr can be forthright as well.
Sorce
I, too, have the greatest respect for Mr. Rossini; however, I do not believe that he would be crossing any lines doling out the relevant information following your simple 4-part formula.
DeleteHere's hoping easy-peasy, steady-as-we-go trumps the status quo.
Who is the financial officer for the Waterfront Trust, do they even have one? What can Jackson or Farr add that Rossini hasn't stated already. As far as I understand the flow of information The Bay Observer received the financials on the washroom project from the City of Hamilton Finance Department itself. They were the authors of this debacle and who wouldn't question such an expenditure.
Delete@Serendipity
DeleteWhat I meant is that Rossini has to be careful not to cross the line where he becomes an instrument of his political masters.
One of the fundamental problems in Hamiltonian is the lack of honesty. People have to provide citizens with honest answers.
I continue to be dissapointed with the performance of the "newbies" I thought Farr and Partridge would bring something different to the political tone in Hamilton. Turns out, they are just like the others. Have a look at the video again. Embarrassing performance by GIC and a class act from Santucci.
Sorce
I thought that this matter had been well documented in the past. Here is what I think happened, another project done by the Trust was done and completed under budget by the amount of approx $200,000. My understanding of the arrangement between the Trust and the organization who funded this project was that if there was to be a surplus ( i.e. under budget $200,000 ) that amount was to be given back to the funder, hence the Trust was to lose $200,000. In order to prevent this from happening, the Trust slid this amount unto the washroom cost and made that $200,000 amount ( under budget)disapear into another project thus preventing that amount to be refunded. Please correct me if I am wrong but I vaguely remembered reading an official document detailing the arrangement between the Trust and the funding body that specifically mentions the reimbursement of any funds if projects are realized under budget. It clearly states this in black and white. My questions would be 1- Did the Trust acted against the funding agreement by hiding that surplus money with the cost of the washroom? 2- If the Trust is able to fiddle the books on the washroom where else have they done the same thing?
ReplyDeleteA Forensic Audit will answer the many unanswered questions that City Council has swept off the table.
ReplyDeleteWhat gives Rob the right to deny the public information on how our tax dollars are being spent? What is going on here??? What are they trying to cover up?
ReplyDeleteLu