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.

[Willy]

Thanks Wanda. Why aren't you the FOIA administrator. Don't you think it's odd that Shay is putting a member of the community through this obcene process and making them  jump through hoops and charging outrageous fees just to obtain simple easy to access information, which by the way, has been paid for and compiled with taxpayers dollars?

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks for the update Wanda and for sharing. Can't imagine what AT&T has going on with a water tower though, some phone lines? Or electrical? Last I knew Pappy told me long ago, water and electricity don't mix well, stay away from it. AT&T is also not our server in this area, it's Frontier now. Perhaps some documents would help blind taxpayers see the way....lol. What would be even more interesting is to ask why only one contractor made and was favored with this extraordinarily high bid for work that is 400% higher than 10 years ago? City policy states categorically that any and ALL contracts over $10K are to be bid out carefully, and that the LOW bidder gets the work. Why only one bidder? Can't tell me this is the only company available to bid? Thanks.

[XLFD]

Wanda, I have checked the minutes of this years minutes, and have listened to most CC Meetings since February.  I have only found the February 28 mention of it below. 

Our request to see documents regarding the 2011 correspondence between the City and Utility Services, were placed prohibitivelty at $93 to inspect, means that John Shay will attach an unlawful fee to inspect public documents to block any view of these matters by the actual public.  Here's what was said at the 2-28-2011 meeting:

 

They talk about the AT&T work at the Gaylord Tower, not at the Danaher Tower.  Water Plant Sup. Kurt Malzohn, who recommended the Utiliities Services Co. in 2009, says Utility Services are doing exactly what they said they were going to do and doing things that weren't in the original contract.  Yeah, like not painting the Danaher Tower last year.  The goals of 2011 is the painting of the Danaher Tower, no mention of any problems here, but we now know it won't be done until next year at the least. 

According to Malzohn:  "(Utility Services) back up what they say and handle things correctly."  The contracts are quite explicit in the activities they are to do each year, and they are being ignored, our money is still filtering to them.

 

See if you can get to inspect the documents we requested to inspect, Wanda, and come back and show us why I feel the populace is being swindled by a company who doesn't follow their contracts, and a City Manager who swindles the City treasury with a no-bid, explosively-high contract to do something that wasn't necessary.

[XLFD]

NEWSFLASH:  CITY PREDICTED PAINTING BOTH WATER TOWERS IN 2009 WOULD COST $350-400K

 

This just found on the bottom of page 3 of this April 13, 2009 City Council meeting,

 

"In the next two years, the City will need to paint the water tanks both inside and out with an estimated cost of $350,000-$400,000."  Less than a half of a year after that, the City Manager and Malzahn meet with just one contractor and sets up the contract in December 2009 that has the Company just paint the outside of the Danaher Tower (which they haven't done more than two years into the contract), and in-and-out of the Gaylord tower for the "discounted" price of over $1,200,000.  That is 3-4 times the amount of money that our local expert, Superintendant Malzahn, estimated it would take to paint inside and out of both towers(and it was a very good estimate, according to other projects I've reviewed).

John Shay's incompetence and inability to follow the City Charter laws about competitive bidding, has cost the City of Ludington over $800,000-- all city revenues.  Where might that extra money have went?  We do have a lot of City Councilors very happy with Shay's performance over the last couple of years... 

 

[Willy]

X. Have you requested a FOIA for a copy of the contract and copies of canceled checks that the contractor received from the City for working on the tanks. It would be interesting to look at a paper trail for the money that was spent and to see if in fact the money was given to the contractor and for exactly what work was performed. This information should be readily at hand because the City must keep track of budget expenditures. Unless of course there was a leak in the check given to the contractor and some of the money spilled into some of the City's employees pockets before reaching the contractor or spilled out of the contractors wallet back into some City employees piggy banks. 

[XLFD]

I do have two contracts, they created one for each of the water towers, as is the policy for Utility Services Maintenance, photos of which are in "this revealing thread" in this thread head. 

USM is in gross violation of the Danaher contract, and yet nobody from the City has made a comment about why it won't be touched for at least thirty-two months into the contract.  Councilor Wanda Marrison who literally lives in the shadow of this tower and has commented erroneously here about the delay, should be up in arms. 

In October, the Torch sought, through FOIA, "... requesting, preferably in electronic records sent to this E-Mail address, or failing that, to personally inspect the following public records:  All written records/communications dated in 2011 between Utility Services Maintenance (the water tower painters contracted in 2009 with the City of Ludington ) and Ludington City Officials/Employees."  

This would include those checks, receipts, et. al.  But the reply: 

I have attached the City of Ludington ’s response to your FOIA request. There are approximately 375 pages of records related to your request. The total cost is 375 pages x $0.25/page = $93.75. Therefore, please submit a deposit in the amount of $46.88, which represents one-half of the estimated cost to compile and copy the records you requested, so that the City can begin to compile this information. Upon receipt of the entire payment of $93.75, the City will release all of the records to you.

Mind you, this was after we filed a FOIA appeal in Circuit Court for other documents, Eve shot back this reply to a variety of public officials:

Your reply shows there has been no redactions for exemptions. Why do I get such a fee when I ask to just inspect these mundane records of public import since the Water Tower is going without paint for one more year, even when the contract said it was to be painted last year? And records which should all be in either a database or a folder or two? And where is my Affidavit of Indigency discount? City Councilors, law enforcers, journalists consider this one more appeal of illegal and unwarranted fees. Can we have some semblance of following the FOIA?

[AQUAMAN]

The COL's favorite trump card, financial roadblocks. Not new, just repetitive and annoying. State mandated FOIA rules in Ludington don't matter, it's up to Shyster Shay to make rules for locals, not the state program.

[Willy]

The longer Shayster, the City Council and Mayor hinder the public's need to know and continue to throw up road blocks, the sweeter it will be to see them leave or better yet see them prosecuted for misconduct. Another good point X made was Wanda Marrison's lack of concern regarding this situation. It's as if these people live in a vacuum and noone else exists in their world. I would be ashamed to admit to being on Ludington's City Council with all of this apparant shady dealings going on. I think we were to nice to Wanda when she posted here. We should have put her feet to the fire and demand answers regarding Ludingotn's Governmental conduct. Come to think of it, if she would have given convincing responses  that there was no wrong doing regarding allegations listed on this forum we probably would not be discussing this situation at this time, so, in that light she has failed miserably in her duty to inform the public.

[Heaven Therzke]

that 400000 estimate was just a ballpark figure.  the city got a much better deal by being able to spred the payments over 10 years.  thats only about 120000 per year.  the city has not even paid that 400000 amount yet.  this is all in the budget and wanda is the one with the facts here.  no scandal here sorry.

[XLFD]

Your math skills are only exceeded by your English skills, Heaven. 

[Willy]

Heaven

If you have any information that contradicts the statistics posted here by X then please add them to this topic. How do you figure a better deal was received when such a large amount is spread over a ten year period? No matter how long the period for paying the fees is, the price paid for the service is still quite high, don't you agree?

[Sweater Cows!]

So you guys that are stating that the water towers did not need to be painted are incorrect since it was back in 09 that they were assumed to be needing paint? if so why are ppl still saying they did not need it if this is the case?

Shouldn't it be that they DID need it BUT not at the UN-bid price that was contracted?