August 19, 2017


31° C, A few clouds

Full Forecast

Severe thunderstorm watch in effect


Advertise With Us

Council approves police HQ audit

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/1/2014 (1298 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Winnipeg city council did as expected this morning and voted for an external audit of the $210-million police headquarters project.

Councillors voted 14-1 in favour of an audit on a project where costs escalated from early estimates of $135 million to what they were told will be its final price tag of $210 million.

The newly renovated building at Smith Street and St. Mary Avenue, formerly the Canada Post offices and now the headquarters for the Winnipeg Police Service.


The newly renovated building at Smith Street and St. Mary Avenue, formerly the Canada Post offices and now the headquarters for the Winnipeg Police Service.

But the reasons behind their vote varied: some councillors believe the civic administration is withholding information on how the project was managed; others believe an audit is necessary to demonstrate nothing improper took place.

The only opposing vote was from St. Norbert councillor Justin Swandel, who insists there has been no wrongdoing and the audit is a waste of money.

Coun. John Orlikow was absent and didn’t vote.

Council set a 150-day deadline for the audit results, which should make it available for the July meeting — and well in advance of the Oct. 22 civic election.

The vote was a reversal of a similar call for an audit in November, which was narrowly defeated by a 7-9 vote when Mayor Sam Katz and members of his executive policy committee (EPC) voted as a block against the audit, along with councillors Devi Sharma and Thomas Steen.

But the pivotal moment for the audit came two weeks ago, when EPC members Jeff Browaty and Brian Mayes, prompted by public pressure, said they would now support it — triggering what appeared to be an EPC shift on the issue.

"This whole project cost far more than what we were told," in 2009, Coun. Jeff Browaty said, as he explained Wednesday why he was supporting the motion.

"To us, this project was presented as well thought-out, well-reasoned — we had every good reason to believe the numbers we were told (in 2009) were somewhere in the ballpark that we were told.

"As a taxpayer, I’m angry the way this whole process went," Browaty said. "I think an audit is the right choice.... We deserve a full explanation of why this project went on the way it did, going back all the way to square one."

Katz said he was supporting the audit but insisted the cost over-run is only $17.2 million, not $75 million, explaining that earlier cost figures were only estimates and never should be used as the financial starting point for the project.

Swandel, also a member of EPC, said the cost increases were the result of necessary design changes, adding that councillors lack the political courage to defend the administration.

"It’s so clear to see what happened it befuddles me that so many people can stand up and say there is something wrong here," Swandel said.

Coun. Paula Havixbeck, a long-time vocal advocate of the audit, said congratulations should be offered to the other six councillors who supported the move back in November — Jenny Gerbasi, Scott Fielding, Ross Eadie, John Orlikow, Harvey Smith and Dan Vandal.

Havixbeck rejected suggestions that an administrative report properly explained the cost-overruns, adding that the administration continues to withhold key information surrounding why decisions were made on the project.

Havixbeck said the administration refuses to release the minutes of the administrative steering committee that oversaw the project and detailed lists of expenses.

"It’s suspicious when you can’t produce dates, times and participants. That raises suspicion and concerns," Havixbeck said.

Havixbeck said she remains concerned about the project, adding the contractor hasn’t signed the contract for the latest cost estimate and the administration has told her the contractor refuses to provide an accounting for the $17.2 million over-run.

Read more by Aldo Santin.


Advertise With Us


Updated on Wednesday, January 29, 2014 at 6:19 PM CST: Updates with full write-thru.

You can comment on most stories on You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective January 2015.

Photo Store

Scroll down to load more