A Legacy of Love

[XLFD]

I risk quite a bit in pointing out problems that the Ludington Downtown Ludington Board/Downtown Development Authority (synonymous, will use DDA henceforth) has with bidding practices. On Valentine's Day in 2011 I pointed out that the Community Development Director Heather (Venzke) Tykoski's fiancé, and current husband, former city councilor, Nick Tykoski, did over $15,000 in 'wayfaring' sign manufacturing as a contractor for the DDA before any sort of competitive bidding process was even considered.  

When a process was considered, it allowed those contacted companies only three business days to get a complex, involved estimate back to the City, whereas City Councilor Nick Tykoski, who had his bid in a full week before the other bids were sent out, designed that complex request for proposals.  Needless to say, only the one pre-reply was received, and the DDA voted to give its own member, the DDA's secretary and titular leader's fiancé, the $150K sign contract without anything regarding any conflicts in the meeting notes.  

Reporting that fact made me a target.  After Heather had tried to get a PPO on me and failed, while admitting on her affidavit that I had never contacted her in any way or did anything threatening, but only implying that I was "insighting a mob mentality" by what I had wrote, she had City Manager John Shay utilize LPD Chief Mark Barnett and City Attorney Richard Wilson to craft a new policy to ban me from setting foot on city hall property.  This didn't turn out well for the City once I took this clear violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to federal court.

The incompetent bidding process this time seems less corrupt, since Heather Tykoski and her immediate family aren't set to immediately benefit from it, but it is still very troubling.  True competitive bidding involves inviting service providers to submit offers for a particular service through a uniform request for proposals (RFP).  The lowest competent bid is selected.  Competitive bidding allows transparency, equality of opportunity and the ability to demonstrate that the outcomes represent the best value. 

By city charter and code, Ludington is restricted to use competitive bidding when practical:  Section 2.4 "Competitive bids for all purchases and public improvements shall be obtained where practicable and contracts awarded to the lowest responsible bidders."  The process can be avoided if it can be shown that there would be a clear advantage to the City for not doing so, such as a group of volunteers offering to donate their time and money for a public project that could be otherwise costly.  

Early this year, CDD Heather Tykoski found out that Ludington was downgraded by the Federal Housing and Urban Development Dept. (HUD) to the low/moderate list due to unexplained factors likely dealing with recent debt, housing, and area incomes.  Tykoski saw lemonade rather than lemons in this news as it opened up new grant options from HUD and other places not previously available.

 

As usual, rather than developing something useful for the community, she decided to dust off the plans she had had made five years ago for Legacy Park, a million dollar or so reworking of the abandoned 100 block of North James Street.  Over two years ago, a Doppel Dock party was held aboard the SS Badger to help raise funds for this project, but those funds have been likely spent on other things as there's no accounting for them in the latest budget and even 2018's budget.  It's as if the DDA's Marketing & Communications Director Jen Tooman re-donated that money back to her old business or for other marketing purposes after the fact that aren't clearly in the budget.

Behind the scenes, Tykoski contacted Progressive AE shortly after learning of this new opportunity.  You may recall the name as that Muskegon area company who designed an ambitious seven phase project for the West End of Ludington Avenue about 15 years ago, one phase currently is under construction and partially under water.  They presented a proposal dated March 29, 2019 in which they offered to develop a schematic design update of the 2014 renderings and a cost estimating service for the project.  The full cost of their services was $17,500 plus approximately $400 in reimbursable expenses.  

It's unclear from the records who balked at this price tag, but it is clear that this was the only company that submitted a proposal that early, and that three days after this proposal was received, it was noted by Tykoski acting as secretary at the April 1 DDA meeting:   "A motion was made by Lenich, supported by Brown to have CDD pursue obtaining estimates to update the N James St plaza cost estimates and site specific items."  Nothing indicates that she had already sought an estimate from one company or that she notified the full board of that fact.

On April 3, Tykoski sought out the designer of the original estimate and plans (20141124_Cost_Est.pdf and 20141003_Concept_Plaza_Plan_rendering_3_reduced.pdf) Dusty Christensen at LIAA, who she had properly heard had started his own consulting firm.  She was redirected to his new firm and both he and Matt Hulst (later Matt Levandoski) from Prein & Newhof (P&N) were asked on April 12th to submit a proposal for the services so that it would be available for the May 6 DDA meeting.  The record shows that P&N got theirs in at the last minute, while Dusty's came three days later.  It was noted at that May 6 meeting that two proposals had been received, but nothing was discussed or settled on.  

A subcommittee of the DDA met on May 16 and reviewed the three proposals received.  Recall, the typical competitive bidding process is to contact all contractors with a uniform request for proposals, receive the proposals, and then take the lowest, unless that contractor's proposal is insufficient to cover the RFP.  Here they considered Mansfield's (Dusty's) proposal of $840 against the $1400 offered by P&N's (Matt's) and the mislabeled $7500 proposal of Progressive AE and decided on the second lowest bid, because apparently it offered an option for a 3D rendering for an extra $3750 and added a preview of what it might look like.  

So instead of spending $840 and going with the same person who provided a perfectly fine 2D rendering in 2014 and a surprisingly low estimated cost for the project then (about half of what Tykoski herself estimated), and someone who is clearly talented enough to use 3D software (had that been part of the RFP), they are going to spend $5150, or over six times as much, on Prein & Newhof's Matt Levandoski. 

Why would they do this?  This is an expenditure for a designer/estimator in order to prepare renderings and estimates for grant purposes, so that $5000+ will just be part of a grant application that will probably claim that this Legacy Park project will be a lot more expensive than Dusty's earlier estimate that was perceived as low.  So I perceive that the CDD worked at this committee meeting to get the much higher non-competitive bid accepted, because it would justify putting even more money into the money firepit of Legacy of Folly Park.  

Additionally, it seems as if there may have been some additional chemistry between the CDD and Mr. Levandoski (pictured above) than there was between her and Mr. Christensen.  This was after spending some time with him at an April 22nd afternoon where they obviously discussed several things beyond business, and had some non-official contacts over the weekend before as noted in his April 19th e-mail to Mrs. Tykoski:

"I mentioned running in the Calvin 5k Classic last weekend....I got a new PR ! 22:19 (7:11's) but unfortunately missed the 3rd place metal for my age group (35-39) by 25 seconds or so which made me mad. Lol. I was happy with the PR but I think could have done better. I lost track of how much race I had left and left gas in the tank ! Oh well. Have to sign up for another race."

The CDD's husband also is in that 35-39 age group, but is a little less aerodynamic.  When Levandoski turned in his original proposal paperwork on May 6th, he thanked her profusely for all the time she spent helping him put it together, and met once again with her personally later that day.  This was the day where the DDA reviewed his and Progressive AE's proposals.  

It seems to be these personal contacts helped garner the support Matt Levandoski needed to secure the contract for P&N even though their numbers were over six times more than the low bid which met all of the specifications of the RFP.  Chemistry trumped economics.  

As noted, I risk quite a bit in pointing out problems that the Ludington DDA has with bidding practices, for it's never done correctly, and the DDA and CDD just doesn't care until and unless somebody 'insights' the public's mob mentality over the improprieties.  Baseless PPO's and new city legislation against the messenger surely to follow...

[Freedom Seeker]

And the love for ludington continues ...

[Freedom Seeker]

Your article provides a link that Tooman may have "redonated that money back to her old business". ... what? That makes it sound like her personal old business? This is not clearly shown by the link. Can you expound or narrow down the reference? The DDA minutes, budget, and operations should be clearer.

[XLFD]

Thanks for your inquiry, you are correct, the link doesn't tell the whole story. 

It was a reference from my September 11, 2017 City Council speech regarding a business Tooman worked for before becoming the DDA's M&C Director, receiving a healthy yearly salary doing whatever that entails.  This is what my speech made at the beginning of that meeting stated:

"The proposed minutes of the last meeting tells us that: "City Manager Shay stated that this invoice was for the liquid refreshments that were sold at the doppel dock party and was not for a party." So it was for a party, but it wasn't for a party?!
To clarify this let me tell this council what I learned via a FOIA request concerning this payment which you approved without issue at the last meeting, after a brief bit of history. In March, million dollar Legacy Park was introduced to the public by Heather Tykoski and Jen Tooman, a contractor of the DDA with claims abounding.
On social media, Tooman announced on March 17th: "The DDA is funding Legacy Park with fundraising. No city dollars." and "We plan to have a maintenance fund. No city dollars will find Legacy Park." . She affirmed that later that month: "We are not using DDA fund balance for Legacy Park. It will be all private donations." and "There will be ZERO cost to taxpayers for the west end project. It will be a grant and donors for that project as well. Same with Legacy Park."
However, in the expenses of the two meetings immediately after the Doppel Dock party had 'DDA fund balance' being used for the party: $409 for Legacy brochures, $400 for entertainment, $600 for petty cash, and nearly $3500 for beer and spirits. The next statement had $1450 more for insurance, and the rental of restrooms and a tent for the event.
That's a lot of DDA funds going towards an event where all the proceeds are reportedly all going to fund Legacy Park. But then no added expense until four more meetings had passed with this payment to Jamesport Brewing for a doppel deck meeting.
The FOIA response I received indicated specifically there was no invoice for the July $248 payment to Jamesport Brewing, it did show that the DDA's credit card was used with Jen Tooman signing for a purchase not to settle a debt. Jen Tooman worked as floor manager at Jamesport Brewing for 9 years prior to her current job, she made a purchase over two months after the Doppel Dock party was held without any invoice for what was paid and said the purchase was for a doppel dock meeting.
I hope our city officials can fathom how improper the transactions appear and why John Shay's saying that it was a legitimate purchase absent an invoice of beverages for a doppel dock party held over two months prior, rings hollow."

I think I developed this in another article, but it wasn't the main focus.  Are there any more hollow words than saying no taxpayer funds will be used, and then coming back two years later and spending over six times as much taxpayer money than you needed to because your CDD developed a close relationship with one of the bidding contractors?

[Freedom Seeker]

Thanks for the clarification, XLFD. It's all about as clear as "oh what a web we weave.". John Shay seems to have done a cover-up for an employee on the liquid refreshments. I hope our new manager gets control of what's going on with this new code of conduct. For the rest of us not in the know, the six-time cost to a runner friend seems questionable, and without merit. Be ready for a new workplace safety act II. Hopefully Mitch Foster is more fair and knowledgeable than to try something like that!

[Willy]

Thanks for posting this information X. There's not much I can add to it except that many bad characters still have their hands in the pie.