Coldwatergate: Painting by the Numbers

[XLFD]

At the 12-3-2012 meeting, I arose during the public comment section to comment on three things, basically.  The first was whether the City had followed the law the previous year in accord with public health care reform.  The second was about the water tower paint job.  The third was about the waste hauling contract the City was scheduled to enter into, but was postponed for two weeks.  I had a fourth, but this will be revisited the next meeting.   This discusses the second, much like this discussed the first.

In the public comments section, I continued:  "... At the end of the meeting, Councilor Castonia tried to refute my assertion that the water tower painters did their work against specifications-- that it was too cold for the paint to properly cure.    He said that he saw these workers go out and paint the tower when it was dry even on weekends.   I can attest the fact that these workers did work diligently to get this project done by the end of October, as I regularly checked in on them, probably as often as Councilor Castonia, who lives right across the street.  

But the problem was the temperature, not whether the tower was dry. This label * was ripped off a can of used surface paint put in their dumpster, which I retrieved.   I'm indigent after all, I can dumpster dive."

Tnemec white paint (label) as per the contract, it says: "Minimum 50 degrees, the surface should be dry and at least 5 degrees above the dew point.  Amine blush may develop during cure if the surface temperature drops below the minimum, particularly under high humidity".

"Minimum 50 degrees, 5 degrees above dew point”.  During the last couple weeks when they were putting on the topcoat, the temperature rarely got above 50 degrees, including the last seven days when they did their biggest push, which is verified by this printout of Ludington temperatures and dew points courtesy of  Weather Underground, for the last two and a half weeks of painting.

I even saw these painters out there putting on paint, when the dew point was within 5 degrees of the temperature, and when it was lightly precipitating.  This paint job may fail before the winter is over, you can already see some blushing having occurred.   It is definitely not as good a job as the Gaylord tower.

Was this worth waiting two extra years beyond when they were obligated by contract to paint the Danaher tower and the $1.2 million it cost for painting both towers, to get an unprofessionally performed job?"

No counter comments by Councilor Castonia this time, although I have been contacted since by someone else affiliated with the City who expressed their own concerns they had about this during the time the painters were finishing up.  The temperature data can be independently retrieved from here :  Weather Underground: Ludington History and shows that in the last five days of vigorous painting, the weather never got above 50 degrees, prior to that, paint was applied during times when it dipped below 50 degrees in either the application or curing times.  As the label says this can result in failure, and the appearance of a pronounced amine blush.

It should be known by these professional painters who charge top dollar, that you don't paint water towers in the fall, when temperatures rarely keep above the 50 degree mark for a whole day, and rain falls often.  The first paint hit the water tower's outsides after we had the first day of autumn, and it was uncharacteristically cold after that for the most part, with about the average amount of rain.

If the painting of these towers do fail in the upcoming few years, the water tower painters had better do it right the second time, free of charge, according to the contract they signed, or be sued by the City, as what happened here in Shoreline Washington.  But if the City tried to enforce a timeline for this year, against the advice of the company, like they may have, they may find themselves more to blame.

There are indications that the City began to push this effort so as to make my comments at the August 27 City Council meeting belaboring the point that we would not have the tower painted this year, in error.   Councilor Castonia's comments at the end of the November meeting infers that publicly.

But if I want to find out that sort of information, I will have to pay dearly.  City manager John Shay has made it so.  I asked for what seemed a simple request for contacts between a City and its independent contractor in a FOIA Request on November 27:

"Under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (MCLA 15.231 et seq; MSA 4.1801 (1) et seq) I am requesting to personally inspect the following public records, or receive scanned or electronically transmitted records (whichever is most economical) for :

Correspondence (E-mail, letters) in 2012 between representatives of the City of Ludington and the Utility Services Maintenance Company regarding painting the City's water towers or the Brye water tank.

Instead of printing out the E-mails on paper, please forward them to this E-mail address instead to save time and money for both of us, or let me inspect them on the City's computer.

If you need any clarifications of this request, please reply expediently to this E-mail address.

If requested record(s) do not exist, please enumerate which ones do not, as per the Act.

If you determine that some of the requested information is exempt from disclosure, please detail what is being withheld and cite the exemption under FOIA.

If fees to comply with this request exceed $20, please contact me at this E-Mail address with those fees enumerated.

As provided under FOIA, I would anticipate my request being filled within five working days of receipt of this letter."

Pretty simple, despite all the extra fluff I need to add to thwart Shay's usually chicanery at charging a lot for FOIA requests.  Simple E-mail searches, and inspecting a folder or two for letters and agreements.  However, I got back this as a reply:  "... The fee is calculated as follows: $104.13 to search, compile and separate exempt from non-exempt information ($41.65 per hour (wages and benefits) x 2.5 hours) + $47.50 copying charge (190 pages x $0.25 per page) - $20 credit = $131.63. Upon receipt of your deposit in the amount of $65.82, the records will be compiled. Upon receipt of your payment in the amount of $131.63, the City will release the records to you."  Here is the supplementary denial:  Response.pdf

Furthermore, some of the records were exempted for resulting in an invasion to personal privacy and security reasons utilizing FOIA sec. 13 (u):  "Records of a public body's security measures, including security plans, security codes and combinations, passwords, passes, keys, and security procedures, to the extent that the records relate to the ongoing security of the public body."

Wow, I hadn't known they would divulge such information to painters, but not the public at large.  I have to admit, that when the City has effectively stated that there is 190 pages of information that needs to be copied onto paper because of personal privacy and/or security reasons, that there must exist a very cozy relationship between the City Manager/City Clerk and their contractors.

A further bit of evidence that the contracts signed in 2009 for painting the two water towers for an outrageous $1.2 million price without competitive bids, many years before the towers needed painting, was cronyism and a likely harbinger for kickbacks, and that the most recent amendment without City Council oversight to that contract for an ungodly amount to paint the Brye water tank this summer at a price over three times what you would expect, again many years before it needs painting, is a further bit of cronyism that has kickbacks written in the margins.

This FOIA's partial denial is under appeal to the council for the next meeting.  Expect the City Council to demand secrecy once again, and set the City up for further litigation to learn the contents of this secret correspondence with their highly favored contractors from Georgia.

[Willy]

This kind of reaction from Shay just pis-es me off.  131 dollars to see public information about how tax dollars are being spent. Doesn't anyone on the City Council care that this type of extortion is going on. Wanda is about as useless as a fishnet without the net. She's used to come on here making us think she was at least somewhat independent. If the information you have is incorrect in some way she should stand up and let you know. I've said this before, all of these bums need to be replaced. They are anchors around Ludington's neck.

[AQUAMAN]

Dittos Willy, for sure too, but what do the local citizens really want? Freedoms?... or chains around their necks? And much more to come if this keeps up too. I REALLY expected and hoped/prayed for more with Wanda....sad....another Sheeple.....sad....I had higher hopes.

[XLFD]

Willy, if I wasn't indigent he would be asking for $151 just to take a gander at these records, a dollar and change more than what it takes to file a claim in Circuit Court, which makes that a better use for my money in this case. 

Can you imagine what any government entity would say if they asked you for records of yours that they are legally entitled to inspect and you charged them for 2.5 hours of your time at premium rates including your benefits because of your poor clerical habits of keeping records available?  Do you think they would pay you 25 cents a page for records they didn't ask for copies for? 

From their vantage, wouldn't it look suspicious if they asked you for information on the basis of looking into something you're doing that may be illegal and you asked for such outrageous and legally suspect fees when you are required to reply by law?  And say that such information is exempt from disclosure, when by the nature of the request there should be no such exemptions?