Vancouver Audit Reveals Missing Developer Amenities Without Documentation
The City of Vancouver has faced scrutiny over missing community amenities linked to the Vancouver House project. A recent report by the auditor general highlights significant failures in tracking $6 million promised for public improvements.
Audit Findings on Vancouver House Amenities
Mike Macdonell, the city’s independent auditor general, criticized the management of Vancouver House for serious lapses. His report indicated that the city did not adequately monitor or document promised in-kind contributions, falling short of standards for handling public funds.
Background of Vancouver House Development
Vancouver House, an iconic skyscraper positioned by the Granville Street Bridge, was approved in 2013 under Mayor Gregor Robertson’s administration. The city sold the majority of the site to Westbank for approximately $32 million, with the agreement that Westbank would contribute $10 million in community amenities.
Of that total, $4 million was designated as cash, while $6 million was allocated for in-kind improvements, including:
- Special lighting
- Kiosks and public seating
- Infrastructure for events
- Accessible public washrooms
Issues Identified in the Audit
The audit revealed a lack of enforcement and accountability. Macdonell stated that no specific, itemized list of delivered improvements existed, nor was there any enforceable agreement concerning these enhancements. Only one feature, an elevator connecting the development to the Granville Street Bridge, was partially realized but is currently closed to the public.
The auditor noted that in 2015, changes were made that reduced the amenities without proper documentation. This included scrapping some promises made by Westbank due to maintenance concerns. However, the city did not provide adequate records of these modifications, violating principles of transparency and accountability.
Recommendations for Improvement
Macdonell proposed several recommendations aimed at preventing future issues. Key suggestions include:
- Creation of a detailed and itemized list of future amenity contributions
- Mandatory council approval for any changes to amenity agreements
Former development planner Robert Renger has voiced support for the auditor’s findings, emphasizing the need for better governance in the oversight of such projects. He urged a return to transparency in the approval process, stressing that the city’s responsibility to represent public interests should not be overlooked.
As of now, the City of Vancouver has not publicly responded to the auditor general’s report. Nonetheless, Renger and others are hopeful for necessary changes to ensure accountability in future developments.
This situation underscores the importance of proper documentation and oversight in urban project management, particularly concerning community amenities promised to residents.
