Lease-t We Forget
I was just wondering. What is the process when the City negotiates a major real estate or business transaction? Who determines the terms and conditions? Who ensures that the agreements protect the City's position? Does the City have the expertise in-house or are outside experts retained? What happens if something starts going wrong and a deal has to be done to salvage the situation?
We had MFP, Canderel and the parking garage receivership and they cost us dearly. These kinds of situations cannot happen again or can they?
THE KEG PARKING
With the Canderel parking garage losses, the Income Security Building underground parking and the City's role in the Mady garage fiasco hidden behind "solicitor-client" privilege, one should be very questioning about any deals done with respect to parking that the City gets involved in.
Caution is needed because I heard that there were some strong disagreements in Council over the deal that was being proposed for the Keg parking in the Canderel building parking garage built by the City at a cost of $11 million.
According to the Star in 2002,
- "employees from DaimlerChrysler Canada's head office have the rights to 475 of 543 spaces in the new parking structure, leaving just 68 spaces for any other tenants in the 14-storey building." [scaled back to 400, leaving 143 spots]
- An agreement between Chrysler and the city sets a monthly rate of $32.50 for the majority of its spaces. [325] Other tenants will pay $75 per month, plus taxes. A 10 per cent discount will apply for more than 25 parking.
It would be interesting to know what the deal between the Keg and the City is so that we can learn what it took to get the Keg to come to Canderel. If we know the gory details about the major tenant, then why not about the Keg too.
Are City taxpayers "subsidizing" the Keg's customers' parking costs? Are other merchants in the area being treated in a similar fashion? Was the City able to scoop the Keg business from other real estate sites by offering cheap parking? Was the parking a "loss leader" to get someone to take over the premises.
THE BUS TERMINAL
The last article I found relating to the Bus terminal was back in June. It said:
- "Delays in negotiating a lease agreement with Greyhound Canada have pushed back construction of the city's long-awaited new downtown transit terminal...
- Greyhound's financial contribution to the project is expected to be limited to annual lease payments which will offset some of the capital and operating costs. The city will contribute $4.125 million, including the cost of buying the land, and the province will kick in $2 million.
The terminal is to be built which suggests that there must be a deal with Greyhound. I would be curious to know what the terms of the lease are.
Rumour has it that the Windsor Transit Board turned down a deal that was first proposed with Greyhound since it was not an acceptable. I heard that the final deal was very similar and would have to have been approved by Council.
INCOME SECURITY BUILDING
Did certain Councillors ever beat up Staff recently over more messes at this project. I can just picture them flexing their muscles as they play the role of Financial VPs chewing out their underlings. What an emotional high for the Councillors, what an insult to the Staff!
Cutting staff levels may seem to be saving money but can also result in big losses if problems arise since there is not enough time to do all jobs properly. Those on Council who work or have worked in private industry should have taught their colleagues that lesson.
In the Fall newsletter, the City wrote, "400 City Hall Square is the exciting new facility beside City Hall that for the first time in Windsor will soon bring many federal, provincial and municipal government services together under one roof...This City building will pay for itself through lease fees from the senior levels of government and consolidation of existing operations."
I sure hope this is still the case but I wonder since $2 million more was required for interview rooms, enhanced security and a backup power system. (And no I am not going to talk about the Mady proposal which might have saved the City $20 million!).
But now we are learning about more cost issues.
The Windsor Star reported that St. Clair College's Youth Employment Services office will not be leasing about space there leaving the city holding a $100,000 "fit-out" tab. There was no signed agreement, only verbal assurances. Councillor Gignac said "Are there lessons to be learned? Absolutely. Are there things we can do better. Yeah, I think so ... in terms of getting commitments on paper from people."
Apparently there is another problem with another tenant. Another problem because of a lack of a written agreement. Another problem that will cost City taxpayers money. Doesn't anyone learn?
Who in Administration had responsibility for this matter? Who on Council knew about this and when? I heard that this problem has been known for several months but the full Council was just made aware of it recently. If so, why?
Councillor Gignac used to be on the Board of Education. Perhaps she could contact her former colleagues to see if remedial learning lessons could be set up for those Councillors and Staff responsible for another finacial fiasco.
ANOTHER FINANCIAL CONTROL MATTER?
There must have been a big panic at City Hall late last week. Councillors called in immediately for an urgent session by the Mayor. Was it the border, another lawsuit, a huge financial loss or something that might actually be good news to be disclosed at Monday's Joint Councils meeting?
We'll learn one day, maybe. But at least Eddie has listened to Henderson that Council by Blackberry gets him a negative from the Windsor Star. And as for the Councillors, they should expect their car gas bills to go up as they receive a Francis summons, especially if something might impact him personally.
<< Home