Audio Equipment - Committee Concerns be Damned

Live audio feed and video was discussed last night (8/17/2015) during the Services, Utilities and Equipment Committee meeting. The finance director did not think it was important to get the option for video. She stated “I don’t know if we want to go to that point with the extra money.” She didn’t feel she could justify the expense for video. She believes the original goal of audio recordings on the website along with microphones and speakers for council chambers has been researched as she has sought 3 to 5 quotes. Committee members comprised of Paul Vincent, Dave Tadych and Karen Lieske would all like the video option for down the road as Vincent said “it’s not a whole lot more money”. Trying to get video later may require a new system and more expense.

When asked about live feed, Mrs. Mahoney said “…it will always be after the fact just because if someone swears or something we want the ability to remove that.” And the hair on the back of my neck stood up with the mention of editing the recordings in any way for any reason. Alex Dade, representing the League of Women Voters was quick to point out that the FCC does not control content on a website.

Along with the options and prices, the committee would like to hear some sample audio from these companies and to find out who our neighboring cities are using, what services and are they satisfied with the performance.

There was talk of meeting again on Sept. 14. I hope the committee does not lose sight of the intent of the gesture from the LWV and stays firm in not only what they want but what they know the public wants and deserves. (end of this Facebook post dated 8/18)

(8/27/2015) I’m tired of the recording equipment project dragging on too, but when someone, in this case the League of Women Voters, gives you $10,000, you should probably do what is asked of you.

Imagine my surprise when I read in the Westlife yesterday that the mayor “signed a purchase order for $15,953 to Jefferson Audio Video Systems of Louisville, Ky., for recording equipment”. I attended the August 17th Services, Utilities and Equipment Committee meeting and did not see that coming.

During the meeting committee members agreed they would like to hear sound samples from vendors regarding the recording/microphone equipment. Although Finance Director Renee Mahoney expressed that she felt she had attained the original goals for the project, the committee: comprised of Paul Vincent, Karen Lieske and Dave Tadych, addressed the importance of obtaining feedback from local cities about satisfaction with their equipment rather than just feedback from the companies Renee contacted. Also, there was mention that a meeting in September would further this discussion and provide additional information to address real concerns about sound quality.

After reading that the mayor had a signed purchase order, I emailed the committee my understanding from this meeting. I included “Surely there was no time to comply with these requests of the committee. Were there meetings or conversations that occurred between 8/17 and this p.o. being signed? How did we go from all these questions to a decision? Do we have meeting notes or copies of emails to fill in the blanks and explain how this was handled? I felt it was clear the committee had more questions – what have I missed?”

I received a response that the committee was under the same impression as I. – “but the administration went ahead and purchased the equipment.” Mayor Sutherland and Ms. Mahoney are out this week.

I am putting in a request for recent public records for any correspondence regarding this issue. 

(9/2) One should not assume that requesting public records will get you all the information and answers you seek. The absence of a quorum means the Open Meeting Act does not necessarily apply. Members of the public have no right to meetings or emails, etc. if, for example, only two council members were to discuss an issue. It can be a subtle way around the state’s Sunshine Laws. Also, in the State of Ohio there is no specific time period for records to be produced once requested. There is no law to clarify how long is too long to produce records.

40 Days - The Green Parking Lot Saga

The Green Parking Lot ordinance passed without the emergency clause which means the parking lot may not get done after all according to Law Director Gary Ebert’s comments immediately following the emergency clause vote. (An emergency clause will allow the ordinance to become effective immediately; without the emergency clause passing, the ordinance must wait 40 days) When the vote on the emergency clause failed, Ebert begins to explain, “The problem, just so everybody knows is if it passes, this means this contract takes 40 days before it can begin and this contract probably can’t be done.” To which the mayor responded – “Just call the vote.”

Why didn't we look elsewhere? The Green Parking Lot

I asked: “I know the point is moot but I have been looking over the EPA Awards to the different cities and how the cities are going to use the Water Surface Grants. I wonder if before the city applied with the intent of having city hall parking lot redone, if you looked at any other possible areas of town where that money could be spent for improvements. If so, where? and if not, why?”

Mr. Greytak explained the process of the highly competitive SWIF Grant. It is a new program and they are interested in getting projects done that are very visible to the public, projects that will be seen by many people. After completion, there must be an educational component including signage. It was decided this grant was a natural fit for this type of project, so the EPA encouraged the city’s application for this location. Me: “But is being visible a stipulation of the grant because I think for Water Surface issues we have plenty of opportunity in the city of Bay to utilize that money somewhere else.” Greytak’s response "But I also said there is a public education component to the whole program so they want these types of projects in places where it is very visible to the public” “But not a stipulation, per se?” “It’s a competitive grant and when they look at the applicants they ask if this is fulfilling the mission with storm water improvement funds.”

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

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

Special Council Meeting 8/17/2015

I look at the faces at council table. Most members do the poker face very well. I am at a loss tonight to describe the lack of dignity displayed by the mayor while Mr. Henderson was reading (re: Green Parking Lot) his letter to council and the audience. The face making, eye rolling, arched brows, head shaking and boredom sighs were extremely unprofessional and embarrassing coming from our mayor. Such a lack of respect for her council is disappointing to say the least.

As Paul Vincent took pains to point out this evening, when he or Tom Henderson or any member of council ask questions or put forth their thoughts, they really want to understand, be understood and to learn. Their objective is to do right and make educated decisions when they vote. Some of the concepts that are easily understood by administration are foreign to them and their constituents. It seems like some members of council and administration get frustrated when questions are asked or points are elaborated upon. Mr. Clark referred to this as getting bogged down in “minutia”. I have a solution for that - How about administration gets their act together and presents issues in their totality, with clarity - leaving little to question, stops playing games, ups their communication skills and stays on top of issues to present and respond to in a timely manner. 

Oh the issues … more to follow. In short, the city hall green parking lot project passed. Even though the emergency clause did not – it just means the project can’t start tomorrow, it has to wait 40 days. The swing came from Dave Tadych. On August 3, he voted no and did not seem to be happy. Tonight, he felt his questions had been answered in the requested email regarding the tennis courts; he seemed upbeat and voted yes along with Koomar, Lee and Clark. As expected, Henderson, Lieske and Vincent were the no votes.

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.