Thursday, January 8, 2009

Who Has the Best Interest of Centerville at Heart?

Council Spurns Engineer's Compensation Request

Louise Edwards The Citizen

At the last Centerville City Council meeting of the year, council members spent considerable time in discussion over a request for $35,000 in additional compensation for construction observation services performed this summer by the city’s consulting engineers, Bonestroo, on Anoka County’s Main Street reconstruction project. Council held a similar discussion at its Sept. 24 meeting and tabled the matter.

City Engineer Mark Statz stated in a letter dated Sept. 16, 2008 that although the total budget for inspection services agreed upon at the beginning of the CSAH 14 project was $55,428, he said that the company provided additional services throughout the summer after city inspectors, who had planned to supplement Bonestroo’s efforts, were unable to assist because of higher-than-expected construction activity related to the hailstorm of May 25. “Our proposal was clear in saying that it was based on a [specific] number of hours per week,” said Statz. “Since our proposal was based on our expectation, and since we were directed to be out there more, I think [our request is] in line.”

“We would have expected them to step up and pick up any slack … because we wouldn’t have wanted the project to go on unsupervised,” agreed Council Member Linda Broussard Vickers. “We overestimated what our staff could do.” “Well, I’m concerned about the communication,” said Council Member Jeff Paar, referring to the delay before council was officially presented with the request in September. A motion to compensate Bonestroo for $21,000—the extra work for this past summer—of the $35,000 requested failed, 3-2. Mayor Capra and Council Member Broussard Vickers both supported the motion.

In reviewing the Council meeting, it is clear that Mr. Statz (City Engineer) working with Bonestroo was requesting additional payment of 12 oversight hours per week times 20 weeks. It was determined by the City that is was necessary to oversee the County on the CSAH 14 project. B-Vickers got out the calculator and determined that 12 hours per week at 20 weeks came to the grand total of $21,600 and not the $35,000 requested. Mr. Statz stated that he would have to look back at the records to see if Bonestroo had worked more than 20 weeks. Mr. Statz was afforded the opportunity to bring in documentation to back the additional work hours, which he declined, stating he wanted to resolve the issue that evening. This motion was not approved and scheduled to be discussed during the 1-7-09 work session which is not taped. For further information, please feel free to contact your City officials.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why would we expect a contractor to step in and pick up any slack without approval? I would not want my contractor to do extra work without clearing it with me first!!! I would expect not to pay one penny more than agreed upon but then again, I don't have others money to play with.
TWENTY WEEKS unaccounted for? My God! What are you people thinking?

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Statz was afforded the opportunity to bring in documentation to back the additional work hours, which he declined, stating he wanted to resolve the issue that evening."

WHY WOULD THE CITIZEN NEWSPAPER ARTICLE LEAVE OUT THIS VITAL POINT? I believe this to be the most 'interesting' & questionable point of the whole council/Statz discussion at the last meeting.

WHY WOULD STATZ DECLINE TO PROVIDE PROOF/DOCS OF THE ADDITIONAL $35K HE WAS REQUESTING? That should have been a red flag for Mayor Capra & Coucilwoman B-Vickers! Yet these two voted to give Statz $21K?! Unbelievable! To us, this is indicative of poor leadership. AT VERY LEAST: no proof/docs of work = no pay! Good for Lakso, Lee & Paar (at least for now) for voting against even one penny to Bonestroo/Statz.

AND NOW the council further discussed this Statz situation at a closed work session last night? Fishy.

Thank you to this blog and those who are keeping an eye on this City! It has been such a help for us. It really is the responsibility of ALL the citizens to hold our elected officials accountable!

Anonymous said...

“We would have expected them to step up and pick up any slack … because we wouldn’t have wanted the project to go on unsupervised,” agreed Council Member Linda Broussard Vickers.

While Boonstroo was supervising the County for the City, (which seems a waste of funds in itself) who was supervising Bonestroo FOR FIVE MONTHS?!! You mean to tell the citizens that a contractor is allowed to be paid out without documentation to back it? This would never be allowed in the private sector and it should not be allowed with our tax dollars!!
Concerned about communication? WHAT COMMUNICATION?
Get a new city engineer, consultant whatever you guys are calling it today.

Anonymous said...

What's fishy is attending a meeting to request 35K without the documentation to back it up and then agreeing to accept over $13k less!
The fact that this issue has dragged for months and finally addressed during the last meeting of the year is fascinating.
Wonder what the State auditors office will think?

Anonymous said...

You don't come back months later and say the contract amount needs adjusting. Agreeing to accept less than the 35K is very suspicious. How do we know how much time was spent supervising the project. Didn't the county have anyone overseeing the project? It is a county road. When the majority oppose, why a need to hash it over at a work session? I'll bet a private company would have more sense in dealing with this than our council.

Anonymous said...

"AND NOW the council further discussed this Statz situation at a closed work session last night? Fishy."

Work sessions are not closed...all meetings are open to the public.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the meetings are open to the public which is not allowed to speak! Further, the meetings are not televised as are the council sessions.

Anonymous said...

Having an engineer that works for Bonestroo advise the City on projects his company benefits from sounds like a conflict of interest.
If he sits in on the council meetings there is no excuse for waiting 20 weeks to address additional charges.
Thank you Lee, Lasko and Paar for voting against this questionable manner of doing business.

Anonymous said...

Another example of Government waste.

CENTERVILLE = BONESTROO CASH COW

B-Vickers and Capra would never open their own checkbooks this way.

Anonymous said...

I commend this group for trying to get these people out of office! I DAMN those who voted for those still in office and newly elected! It appears this last election only gave these people more "balls" and the confidence they have the power to do as they please and will continue to retaliate against those whose disagree! They really didn't get it - they did not win this election by much, but they won and now once again WE the CITIZENS will PAY THE PRICE!! GOD HELP US ALL IN CENTERVILLE!

Anonymous said...

"Mary Capra was reelected with only 38% of the vote."

"Mr. Paar received the highest count of 706. A 21% vote is not a vote of confidence."