|
|
|
|
Last Updated: Feb 13, 2017 - 1:45:37 AM |
 Nassau, Bahamas - Communication of Hon. Philip E. Davis, Q.C. Member Of Parliament (Cat Island, Rum Cay, And San Salvador) Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Works & Urban Development concerning The Urban Renewal Programme on Wednesday, 22nd July 2015 at House of Assembly:
Mr. Speaker
Proverbs 19, verse 17 provides that: “Whoever cares for the poor lends to the Lord, who will pay back the sum in full.” This scriptural passage is the premise upon which I rise to make this communication in respect of the Urban Renewal Programme, which is administered by the Urban Renewal Commission.
Mr. Speaker
Before I proceed further, I draw attention to the fact that, on Sunday past, I participated in the Graduation Ceremony of 50-plus young people, who after an academic-year’s study, successfully secured a High School Equivalency Diploma. These were young people who were given a second chance to improve their possibilities for higher earnings and higher education – single mothers, young people who have been living on the margin of society, some were caught up in street life, coming out of prison, violent, fighting addictions. As I looked into the eyes of the graduates, I saw hope and an excitement that too many of our young people have lost.
For that GED Programme to take place, Mr. Speaker
It took the cooperation of the Urban Renewal Foundation, the Urban Renewal Commission, and Atlantic College. Today, I thank them for the significant investments of time, talent, and/or treasure to ensure that this programme assists our national development.
I congratulate the graduates, who not only embraced the opportunity, but pressed ahead complete something that escaped them in the ordinary course of life. For that they deserve commendation and praise. I urge them to press on to be all that they can be. I also encourage others to enrol and to take advantage of the full complement of programmes offered under the auspices of the Urban Renewal Commission.
Mr. Speaker
The Urban Renewal 2.0 Programme celebrated its third anniversary this year and is thriving on the islands of New Providence, Grand Bahama, Abaco, Cat Island, Eleuthera, and Andros. It is anticipated that the Programme will be established on other islands during this fiscal year as an integral part of the initiative for building a Safer and Stronger Bahamas.
In seeking to create a stronger, safer, and more modern Bahamas, innovations target the transformation of human lives and the rehabilitation of physical infrastructure in the inner city.
Mr. Speaker
I can say without fear of successful challenge that this Government’s introduction of the Urban Renewal Programme has positively impacted the quality of life of residents, especially in target traditional communities such as Bain and Grant’s Town, Centreville, and Englerston.
While I am the first to acknowledge that the Urban Renewal Programme is not the panacea for all social ills in The Bahamas, we cannot ignore the fact that our urban and traditional communities are the richer because of the Urban Renewal Programme.
Mr. Speaker
Traditional communities have historically given birth to many outstanding Bahamian citizens. Many who have served The Bahamas from this place grew up in or were nurtured in these communities. Our parents and grandparents taught us that pride of place was an intrinsic expression and that, irrespective of our birth circumstance, we could be anything to which we aspired.
That edict remains true today; and there is no reason for us to now lose faith or under-invest in the residents of these communities. This Government is resolute on giving them the hand up for social and physical metamorphosis.
Mr. Speaker
In times like these, we need to be firmly anchored so as to maintain our traditional morals and values, our culture, our rich heritage, remembering that we are one people, One Bahamas. In times like these, The Bahamas needs the anchor of 21st century social and educational programmes to prepare our people to face the challenges of a post-modern era.
Mr. Speaker
This Government is resolute in its commitment to address the myriad of challenges confronting the nation in a holistic and integrated model – an innovation that has been awarded internationally. Urban Renewal’s projects and programmes address the social, educational and community development of urban residents by
(i) engendering community spirit and cohesion, and community and leadership development – particularly among young people;
(ii) assisting with re-entry of ex-convicts into society through the Second Chance Programme;
(iii) assisting the physically and mentally challenged;
(iv) rehabilitating of houses in urban communities;
(v) creating opportunities for economic empowerment;
(vi) facilitating the prevention and reduction of crime; and
(x) promoting clean green physical environs.
Mr. Speaker
The Urban Renewal Band makes the centrefold of the Urban Renewal Programme’s magazine of initiatives. Hundreds of young lives are transformed and empowered through participation in the Band.
The Urban Renewal Band teaches Christian values and morals, while engendering self-esteem, self-discipline and good work ethic, teaching social graces, time management, and musical skills to members.
The Band boasts members who entered its programme with very low grade point averages (GPA) – even below 1.0. With encouragement and expectation of academic excellence, they have excelled to 2.5 and 3.0 GPA and have good success in The Royal Academy of Music examinations.
Mr. Speaker
Talking about transformation of lives, some ten (10) senior Band members who have good academic standing and have been successful in The Royal Academy of Music examination are soon to be employed as Junior Band Instructors. These youngsters have a future in the Band all because of the Urban Renewal 2.0 Programme.
The Band, though, is yet the tip of the Urban Renewal iceberg. Time precludes me from expounding on the successes of the Peace Ambassadors, the Urban Renewal Sporting League, the placement into homes and school of 100’s of thousands of books through the Book Repository, Bahamian Male Mentorship Initiative (BMMI), and so many others.
Mr. Speaker
Within the Urban Renewal Programme, the poor, the disenfranchised, the unemployed, parents with at-risk youth and children, and the elderly all have means to access assistance with repair and modernisation of existing houses, and general improvement of community environments.
Mr. Speaker
In preparation for the delivery of the Small Home Repairs Programme through the vehicle of Urban Renewal, the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance met with colleague Ministers of Works and Urban Development, National Security, Social Services, and Youth to define the way ahead for the programmes delivery.
At that time, it was determined that an aggressive posture would be taken in respect of home repairs and that urgent relief must be brought to home owners that have suffered inadequate housing, having been financially challenged and unable to adhere to a maintenance schedule. To facilitate urgent and informed repairs, it was decided that:
1. All Members of Parliament in New Providence would each be permitted submission of ten (10) home repairs listed per constituency. Exceptions were applied to Elizabeth Estates Constituency given the small repair costs per home; and those in Centreville, Bain and Grants Town, and Englerston, given the size of those constituencies.
2. Recommendations were also to be submitted from the Department of Social Services to facilitate repairs for eligible persons.
3. The Urban Renewal Commission Co-Chairs Algernon Allen and the Hon. Cynthia “Mother” Pratt would approve Small Home Repair costing $10,000.00 and under; and that all repairs over $10,000.00 will be approved by the Deputy Prime Minister/Minister of Works & Urban Development.
4. CCMG Consultants Limited would contract for Quantity Surveying Services in the amount of $300 per unit.
5. Disbursement schedules provided for:
a. Mobilisation for Small Home Repairs costing $5,000 or less is 50%, the balance to be paid to contractors with CCMG’s Certificates of Completion;
b. Mobilisation for Small Home Repairs exceeding $5,000.00 and up to $10,000.00 was set at 40%, with the 60% balance being paid with Certificates of Completion; and
c. Mobilisation for Small Home Repairs that exceed $10,000.00 was set at 30%, with another 30% paid at the midway mark, and 40% balance with Certificates of Completion from CCMG.
Since November 2013, the Small Home Repairs Programme has repaired over six hundred (600) houses throughout the twenty-three (23) New Providence constituencies. Given the statistic that four to five people is the average number living in a household, the Urban Renewal Small Home Repair Project has improved the living conditions of some three thousand (3,000) residents.
Almost four hundred (400) contractors have been engaged to repair houses; and together, Urban Renewal has caused the engagement of over one thousand (1,000) tradespersons: carpenters, masons, electricians, tile layers, plumbers, and helpers. Many of these contractors have used smaller vendors to secure their supplies.
All-in-all, when you consider the families that realised an income because of this programme, we know that the Urban Renewal Programme has, as a rule, yielded good value for money spent.
Auditor General’s Report on the Urban Renewal Commission (Small Home Repairs Phase I)
Mr. Speaker
Having said that, the Office of the Auditor General conducted an audit of the Urban Renewal Commission at the instance of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to cover the period 1st July 2012 – 30th September 2014. The audit was conducted to determine compliance with the Financial Administration and Audit Act 2010, the Financial Regulations 1975, other government regulations and procedures and best practices. That report was laid on the Table last Wednesday.
At the audit’s conclusion, specific recommendations for controls were recommended for immediate consideration and are detailed in the report.
Mr. Speaker
The Auditor General cited the magnitude and scope of the Urban Renewal Programme as an “ambitious undertaking” and, interestingly, the main issues arising from the audit turn on the normal audit procedures for the bureaucracy that intrinsically belongs to Government.
Mr. Speaker
This ambitious undertaking is the brainchild of the Architect of Urban Renewal, whose experience over time recognised that the current system, purposely designed, operates too slowly – bureaucratic inertia.
That is why, by Executive Decision, Urban Renewal has been set apart to meet its mandate with a sense of urgency and, when necessary, immediacy. This immediate response to the challenges of the poor, the disenfranchised, the unemployed, parents with at-risk youth and children, and the elderly cannot be achieved within the trappings of our bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker
The critical recommendation of the Auditor General in respect of the Urban Renewal Programme is the creation of an independent/statutory body to facilitate its objective. At this time, the recommendation is being actively pursued.
Mr. Speaker
In the execution of their audit, the Auditor General’s Office examined homes repaired over the period November 2013 to September 2014. Of those 312 homes repaired, 75 were selected for audit. At its conclusion, the Auditor General suggested some $171,058.80 was expended in twelve (12) instances or homes where little or no work was done; and that homeowners were dissatisfied with repairs. The report further suggested that three of those homes were abandoned.
In light of this, the auditors stated that it was “difficult to determine whether value for money was achieved.” This comment troubled me. In the discharge of my duty with respect to Urban Renewal Programme, I felt obliged to have his commentary investigated further to determine the extent to which value was secured for money spent.
Mr. Speaker
I was fortified in this view to do so because the report was done by accountants. I thought it prudent to have this statement tested, not by accountants, but rather by experts in the field of construction.
Technical Evaluation of Small Home Repairs (Phase I)
Mr. Speaker
I sought to do this by commissioning Island Dimensions & Development Co. Ltd (IDDC) and J. D. Chisholm & Associates to conduct an independent report to verify the quality of repair works that were completed under the Urban Renewal Small House Repairs Programme and determine whether value for money and to make any recommendations to improve efficiencies for further consideration.
The Principal of IDDC is Dr. Anthony Farrington. IDDC is a fully Bahamian owned company formed under the Laws of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas being officially incorporated on the 14th February 2000.
The President of J. D. Chisholm & Associates is Mr. Javonne Chisholm, a Professional Quantity Surveyor and an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Building (ACIOB).
The consultancy brings together sufficient expertise to provide professional costing for works completed to industry standard, valuations of contractor’s work, and secure advice on limiting of project risk in the fields of Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering, Project Management, Project Risk Management, Quantity Surveying, Construction Management, Quality Control, and Valuation of Contractor’s work.
A sample size of eighty (80) homes was extracted from Phase I of the Small Home Repairs Programme. That sample included the twelve previously cited as incomplete on page 6 of the Auditors Report. The sampling considered percentages per constituency congruent with the actual distribution of repaired homes. This was to ensure that the integrity of the results could be successfully tested.
Care was also taken to ensure that works from multiple contractors were evaluated from each constituency.
The findings contained within the Technical Report relate only to workmanship quality, value of works completed, and whether the existing home became sufficiently habitable as a result of the works.
It was determined from the evaluation that almost ninety-five percent (94.2%) of all repair works were completed when set against the intended scopes of work. In many of the cases, the report held that the contractors went beyond the scope of works to effect repairs to the homes. Additionally, the overall workmanship level was classified as good.
Further, Mr. Speaker
It was noted that the scopes did not restore the homes to full functionality. This was precluded by funds allocated for each home repair and the fact that Urban Renewal’s purpose is to tackle the most urgent requirements.
With the foregoing in view, Mr. Speaker
The Technical Team made recommendations to improve outcomes. These will be considered and implemented if they do not impede the work of the Commission.
Reconciliation of Conflict Arising from Homes Cited as “Incomplete” by the Auditor General
Mr. Speaker
As I mentioned previously, it is very important to rest any erroneous information that may have been provided to the public as a result of the “leak” of the Auditor General’s draft report.
The Auditor General’s Report suggests that little or no repairs were carried out on a home in Englerston for a contract amount of $30,000. This contract was awarded to Mr. Felton Collie. The Technical Team found that the Auditor General assessed the wrong home, and that, in fact, the home was a complete rebuild, the workmanship was rated as good, and it was determined that the Commission secured value for money.
The Auditor General’s Report also suggests that little or no repairs were carried out on a home in Englerston for a contract amount of $10,000 and that there was no bathroom. The contract was awarded to Mr. Dave Robinson. The Technical Team, in fact, found that a new one bedroom/one bathroom home was built for a contract amount of $9,980, that the workmanship was rated as good, and that the Commission secured value for money.
Mr. Speaker
A home in Centreville gutted by fire. The Auditor General’s Report provides that little or no repairs were carried out there for a contract amount of $10,000. The contract was awarded to Mr. Byron Outten. The report also stated that the house was abandoned. The Technical Team determined that notwithstanding the absence of a scope of work on file, the workmanship was of excellent quality and that the contract was complete based on the estimate from the contractor. The Team admitted value for money; however, noted that the scope of works was inadequate to restore the building to its before status.
The Auditor General’s Report further that suggested that little or no repairs were done to a home in Montagu. The Technical Team found that two contracts had been let. In respect of Omar Thompson, whose contract amount was $8,984, it was determined that the workmanship was of good quality, and that the scope of work was complete, satisfying the contract. This is the same Omar Thompson that the Auditor General’s Report cites as receiving a $20,000.00 contract to effect house repairs. In fact, this is the same Omar Thompson who spoke out against the error and retained legal counsel for litigation against the Office of the Auditor General.
What transpired, in fact, was that the home was in such a poor state that a second contractor was given a supplementary contract in the amount of $10,000 for further works. The Technical Team also determined that the quality of work was good and the contract was complete in accordance with the scope of works.
In fact, Mr. Speaker
The homeowner, upon learning that her home was the subject of disquiet, wrote a letter of commendation to the Commission, which absolutely refutes the Auditor General’s findings.
Mr. Speaker
When I commissioned the technical report, I directed special attention to those homes which the Auditor General’s report determined had little or no work. Among all of them, the Technical Team determined that only three of them were a loss in terms of value for money. In two of the cases, they were unable to access homes, but they observed exterior work within the specified scopes. Yes, the Technical Team identified some failings, however, the findings are substantially different from those previously cited.
The Technical Team completed the assessment of their sample a generally cited average to good workmanship determined value for money in the vast majority of cases. In some instances, Mr. Speaker, we got even more than we bargained for!
We are examining any area of underperformance with a view to having the same remedied at no further cost to Government.
Mr. Speaker
Nothing on earth is perfect. When you consider the impact of Urban Renewal and its Small Home Repairs Programme, with this Government as the investor, we have seen nothing in the Auditor General’s Report that will change our decisions of investment in people.
We still believe in giving a second chance to individuals who have run afoul of the law. Yes, we all deserve a second chance. Even the Apostle Peter was given a second chance. Many of the Small Home Repairs contractors have tarnished criminal records; in fact, a few are out on bail. This Government deliberately retained those who had the requisite construction skills and gave them contracts to repair houses, and they embraced the opportunities and executed repair works that have withstood keen scrutiny.
Mr. Speaker
This Government realises that engaging these individuals to assist with small home repairs will cause them to refrain from stealing and other criminal activity, and continue to seek gainful employment.
The Small Home Repairs Project will continue over the next fiscal year with priority given to repairing the homes of the elderly, mentally and physically challenged, and single parents. As per the Government’s policy, contractors and tradesmen, as far as practicable, will be drawn from the respective urban communities in which houses are to be repaired.
Mr. Speaker
In my estimation, the First Phase of the Small Home Repairs Project was a resounding success. The Urban Renewal Commission Co-Chairs Hon. Algernon Allen and Hon Cynthia “Mother” Pratt ensured that houses in most of the constituencies in New Providence that qualified for the Small Home Repairs, were repaired. They are to be commended for their commitment and impartiality in matters related to Urban Renewal. The Administrative Team at the Commission led by Permanent Secretary Diana Lightbourne is also deserving of special commendation.
Much ado has been made in the public domain about the Co-Chairs’ challenge to the Public Accounts Committee. If the record is clearly examined, that challenge required only for the proper process to be followed and for the report to be tabled in the House of Assembly for the Committee’s scrutiny. They never refused to cooperate. All they required was adherence to duly constituted process.
The letter from the Auditor General to your good self, Mr. Speaker, which speaks to the process for referral of audit reports, was read into the record of the House confirms that they were right. Now that the process is properly grounded, the Public Accounts Committee will have the full cooperation of the Urban Renewal Commission.
With the subsequent findings of the Technical Team, though, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee may wish to have discussions with the Auditor General, as to the veracity of some of the report’s findings.
Mr. Speaker
At this time, I table the Technical Evaluation Report for Small Home Repairs (Phase I), prepared by Island Dimensions & Development Co. Ltd (IDDC) and J. D. Chisholm & Associates.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
© Copyright 2015 by thebahamasweekly.com
Top of Page
|
|
|
|
