The Development of Authority, part 5: Signs of Love

[XLFD]

After three FOIA attempts to get potentially exculpatory material for what seemed like an obvious conflict of interest involving members of the DDA, we were finally successful with the following FOIA request:

“In Ludington DDA's 2008 TIF Plan, page 22, Section 22.6, there is detailed a projected cost of "Signage" of $150,000 for the period of 2009-2012. Section 2-4 of the City Code says "Competitive bids for all purchases and public improvements shall be obtained where practicable and contracts awarded to the lowest responsible bidders." and "Sealed bids shall be asked for in all transactions involving the expenditure of $10,000.00 or more and the transaction evidenced by written contract submitted to and approved by the city council.". The recent budgets show that a significant portion of that money has already been spent, thus at least some of the bidding has been completed.

Under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (MCLA 15.231 et seq; MSA 4.1801 (1) et seq) I am requesting, preferably in electronic records sent to this E-Mail address, I wish to inspect :
1) any documents that contains all the "contractors invited to bid" on the signage project. If this is contained on only one document, that is sufficient.
2) the letter(s), or general template, the City had sent out to each Signage contractor invited to bid.
3) any replies from those Signage contractors to the City's bid requests from those invited to bid.”

The conflict arose from the public records suggesting the signage program had been funded in 2008 for $15,000 in 2009 DDA Sept 29,2008 minutes, had begun in 2009 DDA Sept 14 2009 minutes, and yet the bids for sign contractors was done in the spring of 2010 DDA May 2010 minutes .  These latter two will be discussed.

 

The Available Public Record

MCL 15.342 is a state law that describes seven forms of prohibited conduct by a public officer or employee.  The city has much the same in the "Conflict of Interest" Division of the City Code.  A ‘public officer’ by definition is any elected or appointed official whether full-time part-time, paid, or unpaid and shall include members of the various boards appointed by the city. Section 5 states that:

“A public officer or employee shall not engage in a business transaction in which the public officer or employee may profit from his or her official position or authority or benefit financially from confidential information which the public officer or employee has obtained or may obtain by reason of that position or authority…”


Nick Tykoski, who recently ran unsuccessfully for County Commissioner, has been a member of the Downtown Ludington Board of Directors (aka Downtown Development Authority or DDA) for several years. This public officer also runs his own sign business called “Tye’s Signs”, recently renamed “Tye’s Inc.”. He has had prior experience in law enforcement, and currently serves on the Ludington Fire Department. Indications are that he is an excellent firefighter and entrepreneur.

The DDA has had several occasions lately when they have needed services involving the skills of a sign-maker. The city utilized Tye’s Signs for working on store window decals for the successful Halloween event downtown (DDA minutes, 10-12-09). The city also purchased the 6000 lights for the New Year’s Ball from Tye’s Signs (LDN, 12-30-09).  All signs for the dog park were to be made by Tye Sign's.   In neither case were there any mention of any competitive bidding by other companies who may have wanted the public money utilized.

On May 10, 2010, the DDA met at its monthly meeting, Nick was absent from the meeting. From the minutes:

“St Hillare handed out the estimate for continuation of the signage project for Downtown Wayfinding signs. 4 additional requests were faxed to other companies in addition to the one received from Tye’s Inc. Tye’s Inc was the only estimate received. The project is being done in phases.
A Motion was made by Brown and seconded by Johnson to approve the estimate from Tye’s Inc for the current phase.
A motion was made by Brown and seconded by Neal to approve Tye’s Inc as the vendor for the remainder of the signage project for Downtown signage.”

DDA Venzke was the secretary of that meeting, and as usual in her minutes, she left out what the decisions on the motions were, contrary to what the Open Meetings Acts demands (MCL 15.269). But presuming these motions were passed, it sounds from the minutes that Tye’s Inc. did not get faxed a request—that somehow the company gained inside knowledge from some source.  Likewise the word 'continuation' suggests it had already been started-- which it had-- by Nick Tykoski's company.   It is curious also that in these rough times, you’d think at least one of the other four companies would try to get this lucrative deal.

The second motion also seems to go against the city charter (Art. 1, sec. 2-4 Purchases and Contracts) which says: “Competitive bids for all purchases and public improvements shall be obtained where practicable and contracts awarded to the lowest responsible bidders…” To be precise, if Tye’s Inc. effectively gets the remainder of the signage project without the DDA even seeking competitive bids, isn’t it reasonable to assume Tye’s Inc. could charge a non-competitive rate for the work?

The Acquired Public Record

 

On the fourth attempt to get the competitive bids for the $150,000 signage contract through FOIA, we did not receive any competitive bids before April 2010.  This is strange, because the financial records of the DDA show that on 10-12-2009, $15,000.75 was paid out for downtown signs under contractual services  DDA Financial records 2008-10 p. 9 (zoom in).  So who got the money?  Tye's Signs or Tye's Inc. ? 

Now a contract for over $10,000 was awarded to a member of the DDA, a city employee, via his company without a competitive bid, let alone a sealed bid.  But what about the bids in April 2010?

On Tuesday, April 27 the following was faxed to three sign companies, a 4th did not receive theirs.  4-27-10 Fax p 1  4-27-10 Fax p 2  4-27-10 Fax 3

The terms seem very rigid, and the time frame allows only 3 business days to respond with an estimate.  But each received it on the same day.  Sounds fair for this phase-- until you see this:  4-20-10 Tye's Estimation for project  

A week before these faxes were sent out to receive sealed bids, a particular company was able to get their bid in without even being faxed.  Being that Nick was part of the wayfaring sign committee in the DDA, the inflexible demands and the small time frame for bidding seems to work well in his favor. 

But how was Nick able to get all this past the wary eyes of the DDA Director Heather Venzke?  Let's just say that today is Valentine's Day, and love just might be the answer. 

They also got a sweet deal on a Freddy Mac foreclosed home this last summer at 201 N Washington St.  A house that recently sold for twice what they brought it for.  Assessor Info 201 N Washington

How did they do this?  Love found a way.

 

[XLFD]

You really need to ask why they restricted the time frame so much for responding, when the actual projects continuation wasn't on a fast track to completion.  But it becomes consistent when you factor out the previous paid-for non-contracted work done by Tye's Signs.

[AQUAMAN]

This may be way off the beaten track,  but I saw tonight that the LDN has an article that expressly enables through special DNR permits, the City to Dump wastewater into the PM River and Lake, given it has passed some sort of tests. Apparently the old formulas are not up to present passable criteria, and they want some changes by May 1st before renewing the permits as of October 1st. The City hired Prein and Newhoff again for $50K to get a new formula for approval and another $10K for testing for the DNR approval staff. How come if you or I, Joe Public, dare litter any can, butt, gas, or paper into that River or Lake we would get fined for littering and maybe worse? But the government can DUMP Treated Wastewater into it with permits and the DNR approves it? This seem a bit strange and very two-faced to me, don't you think? Plus the City taxpayers already paid $Millions to build a state of the art wastewater plant some years ago, why aren't they processing it there, instead of a precious natural resource? This has me bugged right now!

[Sweater Cows!]

I'm going to put this in a new thread.

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks Sheila, I was hoping it might qualify, good idea. I want to watch that Westminster Dog Show going yet, so I'll be back later afterwards tonight or tomorrow. All I can say is that's a bunch of BS, dumping into the PM River by the City of Ludington!

[AQUAMAN]

John, and anyone else new that missed this earlier, take a peak at what X found, while he was still not banned for FOIA requests, pretty snarky at times too.

[Eve Alone]

Both Heather and Nick are in love with Mammon.  There's nothing wrong with that in a capitalist society, unless you are swindling money from others.  Here's a synopsis so far.

-The DDA spends over $10,000 on FNL each year, without a penny earned from it except by those that spend the tax money.

-The DDA spent over $20,000 on the last two NYE Ball Drops (total), again with nothing to show in earnings, except for those that spent the tax money.

-The DDA develops a $150,000 sign project, where the Signmaker on the Board, the fiance of the DDA director, gets unfair advantages, money without contracts, bids made before the request for bids were sent out.

 

Send your love letters to: 

Email:

[e-mail]

 

 

 

[AQUAMAN]

EVE, did you say Fiancee? Isn't that in and unto itself pretty much a serious conflict of interest for the taxpayers here where contracts are being let? Hmmm, if true, you may have uncovered quite a snafu for the DDA, is it verifiable and provable? Announced somewhere in the LDN or anywhere in writing? Please advise, preferably with a link. Thanks.

[Angela]

yes - they are getting married - it was "announced" on facebook - I will see if I can find it again, but her profile was private last time I knew. Plus a friend's x-boyfriend knows them & verified it also.  So besides writing letters to them - isnt there something we can do? file a complaint? or something??????

[Angela]

this is what it at the top of his face book page when u look Nick up:

 

Nick TykoskiAdd as Friend

Lives in Ludington, MichiganEngaged to Heather VenzkeFrom Scottville, MichiganBorn on February 5, 1982

[AQUAMAN]

Just got some time to read back, the bid on 4/20/10, a full week ahead of the other faxed bid requests, bespeaks of a totally unjust and corrupt system if true. That specific date on the bid is the dead giveaway. The bid specifications, as noted, appear very rigid and formal, requiring more than a 3 day lead to sufficiently gather all the information and pricing needed to accomplish the work. 22 carat gold leaf for signage? Who routinely stocks that and can stand by a quote with gold prices changing everyday?  Lastly, if the engagement is also true and has been ongoing for quite some time, in advance of the 5/1/10 deadline for the signage contract, this is clearly a serious conflict of interest in bid letting and disbursement of taxpayer funds. All in all, I see alot of smoke and methinks a blazing fire under all this window dressing. Who to complain to? Unknown, maybe local ethics committees, AG, and if anyone is still awake at the LDN, they should also be interested, or perhaps the Muskegon Chronicle/GR Press/TV 9&10? There hasn't been a clever cover up here of improprieties, it's a no-brainer from the evidence lining up here right now, imho. These Valentine youngsters may have gotten carried away too carelessly in their haste and greed, or so it would obviously appear. If the DDA is also getting funding through any State or Fed. agency, they should also be notified and asked to investigate.

[Angela]

so we should find this info out then and start giving this info to people who can do something with it.  The signs u are speaking of - are they the new ones downtown that tell plp where parking is & such not? if they are then Mr Shay lied to me because last yr when I went to a city meeting I inquired about those signs & he stated those were bought & paid for by the downtown business owners.  Do u have proof that the city paid for them - because I would like that info

[Lisa O'Brien]

If all this is true, why doesn't anyone contact Michigan's Attorney General, so that a investigation can be launched?