Councilman Henderson is not buying what the city is selling

Councilman Tom Henderson sent a letter to council explaining that he will vote no again tonight, 8/17/2015, on the Green City Hall Parking Lot Project and encouraged others council members to do so.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23673878/Memo_Henderson_08.13.15.pdf  

Memo

To: City Council

From: Tom Henderson, Ward 4 City Council Representative

Date: August 13, 2015

Regarding: City Hall Parking Lot Project

CC: Debbie Sutherland, Scott Thomas, Bob Greytek

I am going to vote against the City Hall Parking Lot project. Here are three reasons you should, too:

First, On March 24, 2014 during the Committee Session immediately preceding Special Meeting of Council in which Council passed Resolution 14-35 authorizing the City to apply for the Ohio EPA’s Surface Water Improvement Fund (SWIF) grant, the City’s Service Director, Scott Thomas, told Council “there are no matching funds” required by the grant.(1)

Subsequently, on August 3, 2015, Mr. Thomas informed Council that the City would have to spend $64,408, in addition to $120,000 SWIF grant, to complete this project.(2) Although the grant does not require matching funds, the Administration should have made it unambiguously clear on March 24, 2014 that the project would require additional funds from the City. I consider that a material omission.

Also on March 24, 2014, Mr. Thomas told Council there would be “no loss of existing parking spaces” as a result of this project.(3) On August 3, 2015, Mr. Thomas informed Council that 7 parking spaces – over 10% of the existing parking spaces – will be eliminated.(4) Although I believe Mr. Thomas’s statement on March 24, 2014 was most likely made in good faith, it was, nonetheless, inaccurate. I am also uncertain at this moment whether the parking lot to the west of City Hall is – or should be – included in this project.

In my opinion, Council received a combination of ambiguous/incomplete and inaccurate information immediately prior to our vote on March 24, 2014. Therefore, I feel no obligation to vote in favor of this project even though I voted in favor of the grant application. The terms of the deal have changed.

Second, On August 3, 2015, Mr. Thomas told Council that just one company, Licursi Construction, Inc. (LCI), bid on the City Hall Parking Lot project. When asked why, the City’s Consulting Engineer, Bob Greytek, explained that “it is hard to find contractors to bid [at] this time of the year.”(5)

In my opinion, the City should have sought bids at a time of year when it is not hard to find contractors to bid on projects. Such action may have led to the receipt of multiple bids. As the Mayor recently said, in reference to an unrelated project regarding audio equipment, when the City is spending taxpayer dollars it is obliged to undertake projects “as cost effectively and efficiently as possible. We can’t do that without a second quote, and maybe a third quote.”(6)  I agree with the Mayor on that point.

It should be noted that LCI is the same company that installed the tennis courts near City Hall. Those courts do not drain properly. The City has had in its possession, since October 2013, a memo which, in my opinion, if accurate, appears to indicate that LCI informed the City at an appropriate time that the tennis courts would not drain properly. Rather than address the issue, the City instructed LCI to proceed with the project as planned because “they did not have the funds.”(7) The Administration never asked Council to vote on appropriation of additional funds to correct the error. That should have been done. Council routinely authorizes additional funds when the actual cost of a project exceeds its budget.

Further, the Administration did not disclose this memo to Council until after our vote on August 3, 2015 regarding whether or not to authorize LCI to install the parking lot. In my opinion, the Administration’s decision to withhold this information from Council until August 5, 2015 was inappropriate, particularly given that it was requested during a July 29, 2015 Finance Committee meeting. (8)

I am no longer primarily concerned about LCI. I am concerned about authorizing a large, taxpayer-funded project – particularly one involving Ohio EPA funds – after receiving just one bid. The Mayor recently reminded all of us, and the public, that the City needs two or three quotes for large, taxpayer-funded projects. I cannot, in good faith, explain to my constituents why this project is “special” and I cannot defend the City’s choice to seek bids at a time of year when it’s hard to find contractors to bid.

Third, perhaps most importantly, it is important to look at the big picture. After the Council meeting on August 3, 2015, the Mayor informed Council, via email, that “[t]he parking lot is in bad condition and Council will have to appropriate $120k + to do a basic improvement” (9) if we do not authorize this project.

Although I understand that from the City’s perspective it may seem less expensive to spend $64,408 of our residents’ tax dollars on this project [or possibly more if there are problems under the parking lot similar to the problems under the tennis courts] by combining those funds with another $120,000 from the Ohio EPA, it’s important to remember that our constituents have provided all $184,407 of those dollars. The people of Bay Village pay taxes to both City of Bay Village and the State of Ohio.

In my opinion, spending 50% more total tax dollars to install this new parking lot surface instead of completing a “basic improvement” is not a responsible use of our constituents’ money. I do not believe that the incremental benefits outweigh the incremental cost. Further, while I strongly encourage the City to seek grants that reduce the expenditure of our residents’ tax dollars for worthwhile projects, I do not believe that we should spend more total taxpayer dollars simply because the State has offered them.

In Closing, I oppose this project. I ask that you vote “NO” with me. We received ambiguous/incomplete and inaccurate information prior to our vote to authorize the application for this grant. The City received just one bid for the project. The Administration withheld information from Council about a prior project involving this contractor, and this parking lot surface costs 50% more than a basic improvement.

The next time I’m in front of my constituents, I will tell them I voted against this project because I believe we should dedicate this money to the streets and sewers in front of their houses – not to an expensive new parking lot surface where city employees park for work.

(1) March 24, 2014 Committee Meeting of Council Minutes, page 4

(2) August 3, 2015 Committee Meeting of Council Minutes (unapproved draft as of 8/10/15), page 2

(3) March 24, 2014 Committee Meeting of Council Minutes, page 4

(4) August 3, 2015 Committee Meeting of Council Minutes (unapproved draft as of 8/10/15), page 4

(5) August 3, 2015 Committee Meeting of Council Minutes (unapproved draft as of 8/10/15), page 2

(6) June 22, 2015 Special Meeting of Council Minutes, page 4

(7) October 29, 2013 Memo TO: Daniel Galli FROM: Licursi Construction, Inc. RE: Cahoon Park, “10/01/12”

(8) July 29, 2015 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes, page 9

(9) August 3, 2015 E-mail TO: City Council FROM: Debbie Sutherland RE: Council Meeting

Roadwork Turmoil

There was confusion in the committee session which spilled over to council when it came time to vote on an additional $70,000 to continue repaving in front of the high school. Dave Tadych asked “This change order on section 8, does it include the $70,000?” Dwight Clark said it did not, that amount is included under section 9. With that in mind, everyone voted to pass the ordinance.

Next up the vote on section 9.  Tadych “Are we sure the $70,000 for Wolf Rd. is in this one and not the other one. I think the $70,000 is on 8 and we were misled” Tadych says he voted to pass 8 under the idea the $70,000 was on 9. He would rather the money go to sewer improvements.

Council takes a moment for clarification and confusion. Clark “I can only presume, I don’t have anyone else here to tell me otherwise, from administration, so it would have been in 8.”

With this information Tadych says he voted to pass 8 under the idea the $70,000 was on 9. He wants to know “how do we get my vote reversed then?”  Ebert advised he would have to move for reconsideration. Tadych made the motion, Lieske second and Henderson third. The motion for reconsideration failed 3-3.

Tadych: “It would have been nice if we would have had someone here from administration to tell us what we were voting on” 

Ebert: “I’m not the finance director.” 

As if this wasn't confusing enough, Cleveland.com wrote about it - leading Councilman Tadych to recant his "misled" statement. 

http://www.cleveland.com/bay-village/index.ssf/2015/08/bay_village_councilman_david_t.html#incart_river

Pump Station Repairs

There was a problem at one of the pump stations. The city says this happened in July whereas most residents were told from service crews and plumbers there was a problem in June. Excerpt of a memorandum from the finance director to the mayor and council: revised appropriation order “Infrastructure Improvement Fund. Clear out of Wolf Road Sewer and Emergency Force Main Repairs. We are proposing an appropriation of $32,000 to clean the sewer line from Walmar to Porter Creek manhole along Wolf Road. This is to help alleviate future potential flooding. During the rainstorms in July the force main at pump station ruptured and repair was needed. Cost of this repair was $17,400 and we are proposing paying for this from this fund.” 

Sewer crews are clearing blocked pipes. These pipes are believed to have been blocked as a result of the summer storms and not necessarily prior to the storms.

EPA Grant for City Hall Green Parking Lot Project

What could be the problem with a bid that saves $56,000? The city received a $120,000 grant from the EPA for City Hall Green Parking Lot Improvements. Council was matching the bid with $120,000. The bid came in at $184,000. Problem: one bid. Even though the city has known about this project for quite some time, it was not advertised until mid-July. The deadline to use or lose the money is the summer of 2016. One reason offered as to why there was only one bid was that contractors are busy this time of year. Karen Lieske suggested advertising during a slower time to get more bids. The fear of the city was the advertising cost to re-bid, maybe around $1,500. Also, the city considered the fact that the cost of the project might go up or they might not get a better bid or this bid may go up (this company is now aware that the city has $240,000 to spend on this project). To me, the one bid is more than ironic in the face of the recording equipment issue, but I digress.

Mayor Sutherland, Scott Thomas and Bob Greytak were comfortable with this bid and this company – even though – Problem:  this is the same company that completed the $300,000 tennis court project behind city hall.  After some pushing from Dave Tadych, it was admitted mistakes were made by the city with the specs on the courts but the company worked with them to a settlement. The mayor wanted to look at the bigger picture; they dealt with the problems and the tennis courts are now much enjoyed.

Members of council still had concerns about this company. With the contract going to vote tonight, Tadych had requested additional information days ago in regards to this matter from Thomas in regards to this matter but never received it. 

(Paul Vincent was absent) Henderson, Lieske and Tadych voted no. Clark, Lee and Koomar voted yes. It did not pass. After much head shaking and gesticulation on the mayor’s part, she gathered her things, got up and motioned for Thomas and Greytak to follow, left the meeting, and did not return.

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/Portals/35/nps/swif_docs/FY14_Final_SWIF_Grant_Recipients.pdf