Watertowergate: A Year Later

[XLFD]

Ludington's Watertowergate scandal was broke last year around this time in this thread.  Here we learned that the City entered into a contract to paint Ludington's two towers for $1.5 million according to City Council meetings, in wide disparity of previous paint jobs (on the order of over $1 million, adjusted for inflation), and of current paint jobs (the Scottville tower was painted for under $50,000 in local funds, under $200,000 altogether). 

We also found out it was painted just back in 2000, ten years prior, and found numerous sources that recommended steel towers of that type be painted every 20-30 years.  We wondered why the City got such a pricy paint job on these two mostly-hidden-from-view towers in the midst of a recession where it was laying off people and scrapping proven programs, as it did at the end of 2009 with layoffs of 5 city employees and the elimination of the lifeguard program.

In a lengthy process of trying to find out the whys, we were obstructed, and charged monstrous fees to eventually get the public records applying to this contract in the cover-up thread.   We then shortly thereafter paid $57 for 24 pages we asked to just inspect.

The records showed that the actual project was a bit less than what the original council minutes said, at just under $1.2 million and most of the documents I received were put up in low-definition on this revealing thread, before I invested in a scanner.

 

Now, over one year later, the Danaher tower is still unpainted, and will continue to be unpainted at least until next summer, over 30 months (2.5 years) into the contract.  Funny; on page 19 I received it says:

 

Maybe they haven't been able to locate this tower, after all page 18 has it on the corner of Danaher and Washington, but its actual location is two blocks away on Staffon.  If there was a chance of misinterpreting the above section, we find the following on page 20.

 

When I talked with John Shay at my interview for the Third Ward seat vacated by CC Scott, he avoided any talk of total price and insisted that the company would be painting the water towers again at the end of this contract.  So we would get two paintings for the price of one. 

That would be a better deal, if true.  But let's say the company paints the Danaher tower next year.  If the contractors are true to whatever vocal contract they had with John Shay (which isn't reflected in the written contract), they would be impelled to do so again in 2019, only seven years later.  But that won't happen, because it will not need more paint until after this contract expires and a new ten year maintenance contract is agreed to, at an even greater cost.

Similarly, the Gaylord tower which was finally finished in October 2010, could be repainted outside the current contract in 2020 (the contract ends on 12-31-2019) and still be repainted within the stipulated ten years.  So if John Shay was expecting to see two coats of paint on the watertowers by the end of this contract, I'm afraid he will be as disappointed as the citizens who see the Danaher tower go unpainted until three years into the contract he signed.

 

So let's review:

1)  Former City Manager Miller had the two towers painted inside and out for under $300,000 back in the year 2000.  Adjusted for inflation to the beginning of 2010 would be about $400,000.  There is evidence of competitive, sealed bids.

2)  Current City Manager Shay at the end of 2009 entered into a ten year contract to have both towers painted on the outside, one to be painted on the inside without any evidence of competitive, sealed bids for just under $1.2 million.  Three times what could have been expected.

3)  Current Scottville City Manager Williams in 2010 had their one water tower painted in and out for under $50,000 cost to Scottville, about $150,000 from grants, at the same time Ludington did their Gaylord tank.  Their were plenty of competitive, sealed bids.

4)  Steel water towers are recommended to be externally painted every 20-30 years, and can generally go longer without undue hazard. 

5)  Even though the contract between the City of Ludington and Utility Services Co. gives a definite timetable and describes this in the contract, they have not come near to fulfilling it. 

6)  Current City Manager John Shay, who signed this contract, has no problem with that (#5), and even believes that USC will paint the towers once again before 2020 because someone from the company allegedly told him that.

7)  In economically hard times, the City has wasted nearly $1.2 million on a project that was not needed, was given without receiving sealed bids from any competitors, and now has the contractor failing to live up to their side of the contract, without any public comment by anyone at City Hall, and no mention of it in LDN editorials or elsewhere beyond here.

 

This is Watertowergate, and if it doesn't get you upset over the sheer waste of money and the sheer incompetence of Ludington's leaders, then nothing I can put out here will.

[XLFD]

The September 2009 Public Utilities meeting revealed that USM had actually done their own inspection of the towers back in July of 2008, and recommended the towers be painted in a couple of years. 

Not too surprising that a tower painting company will tell you to get your tower painted before it actually needs to be done.  If you take your car down to Midas to get the tires rotated, chances are they'll tell you how bad your brakes are and how they should be replaced ASAP.  There are other examples that readily come to mind.

 

These are steel water towers and according to Pickering's City Engineer:  "Bachman said maintenance on the composite-style tanks likely would cost less because the concrete does not need to be repainted every 20 to 30 years like steel would."  This can be verified by most websites that aren't selling water tower maintenance, and some northern steel water towers are getting their first repaint job in over forty years. 

 

So in answer to your question they DIDN'T need it now, since it was painted last in 2000. 

[Sweater Cows!]

I stand corrected.Thanks for the clarification as to who made the 2009 statement/recommendation

[XLFD]

I actually didn't notice that fact about the 2009 recommendation in the Public Utilities meeting until I went back to it in order to supply an answer to your question.  So I am grateful and indebted to your curiosity in expanding my knowledge thusly.  Many thanks.

I am presuming that USM offered a cheap or free inspection of the towers in 2008 to get a foot in the door for the eventual contracts, I am going to have Eve FOIA this inspection and the inspection of Dixon Engineering in 2005 in order to better understand the genesis of the conundrum of the water tower.  Sounds like a Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew mystery.

[Willy]

How does one inspect the inside of a water tank when it is filled with water. I'm thinking that a lot of guesstimation goes into one of these "impartial" inspections. The following link is interesting.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/water.htm

[XLFD]

That's another good question, Willie, once again showing that even if other local sources of news, entertainment, and/or information claim to be smarter than us (which I would contest is wrong-- if we throw out the occasional troll that surfaces in our collective intelligence), I doubt whether there is any other more curious than us. 

USM in its literature states that whenever it inspects a tower's insides  under one of these ten year contracts they need the municipality to drain it.  It's not clear that they did that back in 2008, however, and the records will probably give that info.

[Marty Redman]

Heaven your on crack.  I have heard that the City of Ludington has less than a million to spend on the city after you take off the pay and benefits for the employees.  When the city pays more than a years amount of expenses on something that didn't need to be done when they have so many crumbling streets around the town and other infrastructure problems its not only insane its like Chicago-style city improvements.  It doesn't matter if you spread these out over time except its easier to hide from auditors.