The Hamilton Waterfront Trust- Back "On the Table" ?

It seems that Clr. Merulla's now infamous words where he attempted to dismiss each concern raised by Gary Santucci and Brian Bonhams' delegation  about the Hamilton Waterfront Trust,by deeming the issues as being "off the table", have triggered an opposite reaction by Mr. Santucci and Bonham.

Santucci advised The Hamiltonian that he and Mr. Bonham plan to put each issue "on the table" via a further examination of each issue, from their perspective. 

The first topic they have chosen relates to the Hamilton Waterfront Trust and its insurance provisions.

In addition to the write up that has been submitted to The Hamiltonian, as presented below, the following materials will be interesting points of reference.

Click here to witness first hand the delegation meeting and what was said before and after Mr. Santucci's presentation- which would also include Mr. Plessel's presentation. 
Click here for a copy of Mr. Santucci and Mr. Bonham's presentation material used at the delegation.


WATERFRONT TRUST ISSUES “BACK ON THE TABLE”

It is our intention over the following weeks to revisit point by point our presentation on the Waterfront Trust, made to the General Issues Committee on September 6, 2012 with the objective of putting all of the issues
back on the table that were summarily dismissed by the GIC committee. We are seeking accountability, oversight and factual reporting by our elected officials and our government employees.

Gary Santucci Brian Bonham

FAILURE TO INSURE: Point 9 of our GIC Slide Presentation (click here to view the presentation.)

Request for Information

What follows here is a redacted version of the email exchange (the original emails can be reviewed by clicking here) Mr. Rossini’s answers are presented in italics.

Roberto Rossini
General Manager Finance
City of Hamilton

Mr. Rossini

During the recent GIC meeting of September 6 you released information regarding an accident that occurred on the waterfront trail system in 2002. This incident resulted in a claim that was filed against the Waterfront Trust. You also released information as to the nature of the incident (a bicycle accident) and the amount of settlement 127,000.00 paid by the City of Hamilton on behalf of the Waterfront Trust to the claimant. I have a number of questions regarding this incident.

1. When was the settlement paid out?
2. Did City legal staff handle the case or was a third party legal firm assigned the case?
3. Why did the Waterfront Trust's liability insurance not cover this claim?
4. What were the total court, legal and staff costs for this incident?
5. Were the total costs of this incident over and above the settlement with the claimant reimbursed by the Waterfront Trust?
6. Can you provide me with information or direct me to where this reimbursement was reported or noted by the City?

Perhaps the next question should be directed to the financial officer of the Waterfront Trust; however I'll pose it to you in the off chance that you may know the answer;

7. Did the funds for the reimbursement come from revenues earned by the Trust through their profit making ventures or was it paid from funds advanced by the City of Hamilton paid by taxpayers?

During the above mentioned GIC meeting, you were asked if the details of this incident could be released. You answered in the affirmative prompting me to ask the above questions.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Regards
Gary Santucci

First Response by Mr. Rossini to the questions

Hi Mr. Santucci, here are your responses:

1. When was the settlement paid out?

The settlement was paid by City of Hamilton cheque to the plaintiff's law firm "In Trust",dated September 1, 2011.

2. Did City legal staff handle the case or was a third party legal firm assigned the case?

An outside local legal firm (Sullivan, Festeryga LLP) represented the City with Risk Management Services acting as the client.

3. Why did the Waterfront Trust's liability insurance not cover this claim?

The Waterfront Trust did not have liability insurance in place for this incident. As a result, the City had to pay the claim as a co-defendant named in the law suit and then recover the funds from the HWT.

4. What were the total court, legal and staff costs for this incident?

The matter was settled for the all-inclusive amount of $127,000. This figure would include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, plaintiff legal costs, plaintiff disbursement, and pre-judgment interest. The breakdown of each component is considered confidential information.

5. Were the total costs of this incident over and above the settlement with the claimant reimbursed by the Waterfront Trust?

Yes.

6. Can you provide me with information or direct me to where this reimbursement was reported or noted by the City?

Council was advised of this matter via AF&A Information Report # FCS11093 - October 5, 2011. The report remains confidential.

7. Did the funds for the reimbursement come from revenues earned by the Trust through their profit making ventures or was it paid from funds advanced by the City of Hamilton paid by taxpayers?

Hamilton taxpayers do not provide operating funding to the HWT. The only funding we have provided to the HWT has been for the construction of certain capital projects and the maintenance of our outdoor skating which is operated under contract agreement by the HWT.

I trust this answers your questions.

Thx
Rob
Roberto Rossini
General Manager
Finance & Corporate Services
City of Hamilton

Request for further clarification

Mr. Rossini

Rob

I reviewed your answers to my request and I have a few points for clarification.

4. What were the total court, legal and staff costs for this incident?

The matter was settled for the all-inclusive amount of $127,000. This figure would include pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, plaintiff legal costs, plaintiff disbursement, and pre-judgment interest. The breakdown of each component is considered confidential information.

Am I correct in assuming by your answer that the costs of the external legal firm over the 10 year duration of this case were not included in this settlement number as well as for the staff of Risk Management for the City of Hamilton, if so what was that number?

5. Were the total costs of this incident over and above the settlement with the claimant reimbursed by the Waterfront Trust?

Yes.

Just to be clear then; Did the Waterfront Trust reimburse the full amount of the costs associated with this case over the last ten years including the external law firm of Sullivan Festeryga and for the Staff time of Risk Management?

7. Did the funds for the reimbursement come from revenues earned by the Trust through their profit making ventures or was it paid from funds advanced by the City of Hamilton paid by taxpayers?

Hamilton taxpayers do not provide operating funding to the HWT. The only funding we have provided to the HWT has been for the construction of certain capital projects and the maintenance of our outdoor skating which is operated under contract agreement by the HWT.

The Waterfront Trust has reported four years of continuous losses totaling close to 2 million dollars. Where did the funds for the reimbursement of the 127,000.00 plus the costs for the external legal firm come from? Was it reported in their financial statements and is this reimbursement reflected in the losses?

8. (new question) One final question on this; When did The Waterfront Trust or Risk Management first report this potential liability and absence of insurance to City Council or to the Audit and
Finance Committee?

Thanks for your help to date
Regards
Gary Santucci

Mr. Rossini’s final answers

Mr. Santucci,

Here are my final responses on this matter and I will not be responding further. 

4. Yes, you are correct our legal and risk management costs were not included in the $127,000 settlement. The cost is however, privileged/confidential information.

5. The HWT is reimbursing the City the $127,000 only.

7. The HWT is paying the $127,000 from their own operating budget. The City and the HWT have agreed to a payment arrangement (5 years @ $25,000 per year plus $2,000).

8. Given the low value of the potential claim, we formally advised Council for the first time on October 5, 2011 with the report FCS11093. Staff have delegated authority to settle all clams up to $250,000.

thx
Rob
Roberto Rossini, General Manager
Finance & Corporate Services
City of Hamilton, 1st Floor City Hall, 71 Main Street W.
Hamilton, Ont., L8P 4Y5

VIDEO RECORD OF SEPTEMBER 6 2012 GIC MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS

At approximately 1:20 of the video record this issue is discussed. A motion is moved by Councillor Merulla and seconded by Councilor Pearson to allow Rob Rossini to reveal details of the accident that occurred on the Waterfront Trail. Rossini verifies that the Waterfront Trust as agents for the City of Hamilton did not have the necessary liability insurance in place. He also referred to the incident as a biking accident and more importantly that the Waterfront Trust had already paid back the 127,000.00 in four quarterly installments.

This scenario presented by Rossini in the video record is in direct contradiction to the payment schedule as outlined by Rossini in his answer to question number 7 of the above email exchange;

The HWT is paying the $127,000 from their own operating budget. The City and the HWT have agreed to a payment arrangement (5 years @ $25,000 per year plus $2,000).

The total costs of this legal action have not been reported to the taxpayers of the City of Hamilton and may have exceeded $400,000.00. (According to Rossini the total costs to the taxpayer are confidential).

Mr. Rossini also states the following in his answer to question 8; “Staff have delegated authority to settle all clams up to $250,000”.

While the settlement amount of $127,000.00 was under the $250,000.00 ceiling, the total costs may have exceeded this amount. Were staff obligated to report this amount for approval?

There now exists doubt as to the reimbursement of the $127,000.00 to the taxpayers of the City of Hamilton that requires further clarification. Mr. Rossini has told us in his last email communication that he will no longer be responding to questions on this matter.

We would suggest that the facts as presented, indicate that this issue should definitely be” back on the table” to clarify the discrepancies in the answers presented in written form and in the video record.

Gary Santucci    Brian Bonham

The Hamiltonian invites Mr. Rossini or any other authorized person, to respond.