One More No-Bid Contract by City Manager John Shay

[XLFD]

When City Manager John Shay submitted proposals for the repainting of the water towers in front of the City Council he neglected to have any competitive bids on this massive affair which cost the City over $1.2 million.  The previous City Manager had it done for less than a sixth of that just ten years prior, with more surface being repainted and repairs to the Danaher tower.

 

When the DDA administrators (Heather Venzke and Treasurer Kathy MacLean) okayed the $15,000 expenditure on wayfinding signs in 2009 to a fellow DDA member's company Tye's Inc. (Tye's Signs), before any bids were officially sent out to anyone in April 2010, then gave them the multi-year $150,000 contract [at least I think so, the public record (DDA minutes) doesn't clearly say so] for signage after a mysterious process   Signs of Love 

 

These are some massive commitments by the City that seem to blatantly go against the City Code, and common sense.  I can't print out the latter for them , but here's our City law that applies to contracts:

 

"Sealed bids shall be asked for in all transactions involving the expenditure of $10,000.00 or more..."

 

Sealed, competitive bids leads to better deals for the City, and leads to more trust in the system by the public looking in on such things.  Yet, just about every time I check into purchases and contracts made by the City leader, with willing complicity by an "out-of-the-loop" city council, on contracts above $10,000, there seems to be something that is consistent-- both the City Manager and the City Council are not following the law made and established by our City over the years, to get sealed and competitive bids for major purchases. 

The latest insult to the people of this city on July 11, 2011.  Of course, the City was looking to outlaw the feeding of animals and looking to dilute the duties to Ludington of Police Chief Barnett and CDD Venzke by letting Scottville have their 'services' at the time (our gain, their loss, IMHO), so this was a minor issue at this meeting:

This looks like it could be a great money-saver for the City, but the cost of this contract with Orion is over $28,000 and it looks as a pretty high amount for lighting and who's to say that Orion's salesman was giving them the best savings value or the best system for the money spent.

 

So I decided to double check the contract by asking for:  "The competitive bids for the lighting project that was approved in the 7-11-2011 City Council Meeting that were received by the City of Ludington , and the communication(s) sent to each competitive bidder."  I even included section 2.4 from the City Code as a header for the request. 

 

I received the following  7-11-2011 Memorandum to Council  and a twelve page presentation by Orion determining the costs of this specific project, here's the cover letter:   Determination of Costs by Orion April 2011   the rest of it tells how beneficial to the consumer their system is.  But the Orion representative likely knew he did not have to compare their system with any other, except for the old system.
 

There was no shopping around; no competitive bids.  Competition is as American as you can get, isn't it?  And what was needed here, for our City Code to have any meaning-- to be legally binding on those supposed to follow it (all involved) and to enforce it (John Shay)-- for common sense in government to have any meaning.  But the City Manager and the Public Utilities Committee, the same leader and committee that gave us the cat ordinance and most of the new beach regulations, decided that Orion via C&I Electric were the companies for the job.  One must ask:  How did they arrive at this conclusion?

[XLFD]

Ludington Torch Auditors Inc. at your service ; )

To my knowledge, the committees of the City Council do not need to follow the OMA since there is not a quorum of CC members in each and so they can do things in closed sessions at will. 

Because of this, they are supposed to be only advisory in nature, so when these proposed contracts come before the City Council, the committee should have did the grunt work of doing the homework and sending out for bids, but not decided which company they have deemed to contract with.  That is a decision that should be made in the full council with the contractors and numbers put before all.  Making such decisions at the committee level is against the OMA and against the public interest.  

 

[Lisa O'Brien]

And a fine auditor you are.....

 

 

[Willy]

With all due respect I must strongly disagree with you Lisa. It is every council members job to see that what they vote on has met all the criteria required by law. If they do not know the law or do not understand it then it is their duty to find out. No excuses here, please. Aquaman made a accurate and fair assessment. If we continue to allow this type of governing then we're all in trouble. As X stated, committees are advisory only and do not hold legislative powers. I really don't see the need for council committees in a town the size of Ludington because most issues could be handled, reviewed and managed by each councilor. There are very few issues that need the attention of a committee.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Then get rid of the committees. I personally don't think the city councilors have enough time to micromanage every aspect of running a city.

[XLFD]

Getting rid of committees would make City Council meetings a bit longer and complex, but I think its a good idea. 

It would make the processes more transparent and open, and allow all councilors to be a part in every aspect of the decisions in view of the people and on the record.   

[Willy]

The only committee I would recommend is a "committee of the whole" where all the councilors meet to discuss city business. This meeting could take place on the weeks the council does not meet or even once a  week. That way there are no excuses that the councilors were only following the recommendations of committees they were not involved with.

[XLFD]

That would have them meeting too much, I already think having two meetings a month is one too many. 

A better idea, I think, would be to cut the amount of City Councilors down to five (not 7).  A town the size of 8000 should only have 5 councilors to start with   MCL 83.2   and so I would recommend redrawing the existing six wards into five and eliminate the at-large councilor (through attrition). 

With 5 councilors, there would be no use for committees.  A committee of 3 would have a quorum and would need to deliberate via the Open Meeting Act.  A committee of two would be odd indeed.

[Eve Alone]

All the other local electrical places should be outraged.  This is what leads to large government expenses, no competition, 100% guaranteed contracts with one company.  Even if the co. is not licensed like Carr Creek is alleged to be.