Sneak attack

December 31, 2012

I was relaxing with the understanding that city council would not meet last week or this because Tuesday, the normal city council meeting day, would fall on Christmas and New Year’s day.

It seems however that council needs to meet this week so they will meet on Wednesday.

The agenda is not a very long one, there are three potential board appointments, a couple of zoning requests, a few other matters — generally housekeeping issues.

Oh wait, there is another item.  It seems that the city wants to spend $648,841.22 to remodel part of a building using that no-bid indefinite delivery contract  method that I have written about so many times.  Council voted on December 4, 2012 to grant another no-bid contract valued at $4 million through a buy board.  The Houston based Harris County Department of Education will get 4% (or up to $160,000) of our money under this deal.  Now the city wants to use that contract to remodel 30,000 square feet for the new offices of the city council, mayor, and the city attorneys.

Remember the El Paso Times building that is so ideally suited to be our next city hall?  On September 18, 2012 the Chief Financial Officer of the city told council (on slide 4 of her presentation under “Improvements Needed”) that they were “Minimal due to condition of building”.  Well it appears that the $648,841.22 is needed to make our city functionaries comfortable.

Remember the buy-board contract that is for “minor” projects?  The city wants to use that contract to do the construction.  But wait!  This is not minor.  Who says?  The Texas State Legislature says.  Section 2267.403 of the Texas Government Code requires all deals over $500,000 issued under indefinite delivery contracts to be specifically approved by the governing body (in this case city council) of the local government.  Why?  Because evidently they believe that half a million dollars is not so minor.

The backup material for the agenda item refers to specifications drawn up by an architect.  Those specifications are not part of the backup material.  Why?  City ordinance 017616 paragraph 8 requires that the contract be posted on the city’s web site   The material must be given to the city clerk by 5 PM the Thursday before the meeting.  Council must now separately determine that failure to take action on this item would be detrimental to the interests of the city before they vote on this item.  Council’s failure to do so puts them in violation of a city ordinance.

Section  2.92.050 (G) of ordinance 017112 makes that an ethics violation which is punishable under 2.92.150 (A).  “The failure of any officer or employee to comply with this chapter or the violation of one or more of the standards of conduct set forth in this article, which apply to him or her, shall constitute grounds for expulsion, reprimand, removal from office or discharge.”

Don’t call your city representative, that would probably be a violation of the city’s ludicrous “cone of silence”.

In summary we have:

  • A sneak attack city council meeting
  • We were lied to about the suitability of the El Paso Times Building
  • A non-bid construction project of almost $627 thousand dollars where $25 thousand will go to Houston schools, not ours
  • An agenda item that is improperly (illegally?) posted
  • A city council that will probably ignore it’s own ordinance
  • You might get in trouble if you call your city representative about this

Then, in the spirit of waiting for the other shoe to drop, please realize that we have not heard the end of this.  The contractor actually wants another $450,000 to demolish the old offices before starting on the new ones (read the backup material, such as it is).  Did the city forget to post this item?  Maybe they have some other creative way to handle the other half a million dollars.

Stay tuned!

We deserve better.

2 Comments | City government, El Paso Times, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

City Council Chambers

December 28, 2012

I missed it.

In Meet me in the stacks I wrote about how city council plans to conduct its meetings in our main library once city hall is torn down.  The inconvenience to the public and the inefficiency imposed on city staff were part of my concern.

I also warned that their representation that the library had the electronic equipment necessary to conduct and broadcast the meetings might be false.

Then in The Lying Two Step  it became apparent that “The Main branch equipment is not adequate for hosting public gatherings, conferences, presentations and events” according to a request for proposals issued by the city dated December 11, 2013.  It appears that the city needs to buy equipment to facilitate the meetings.

Now I see on slide 10 of this November 6, 2012 city presentation (slide title “Total Costs”)  that the city plans to spend $800,000 to build council chambers in the El Paso Times building.  According to the slide the chambers will be “funded separately”, whatever that means.  I suspect that you and I will pay for it, and that does not make it very separate to me.

Let’s break this down into steps:

  • Tear down the existing facilities
  • Temporarily occupy space at the library and buy new electronic equipment
  • Spend $800,000 to build new council chambers in the El Paso Times building

Don’t forget that the city is already talking about building yet another new city hall after all of this round of moving is done and they have had a chance to catch their breath.

In the mean time I will add this amount to the running total.  It was at $63.9 million (out of a promised $33 million) last time I added it up.

We deserve better.

Leave a Comment » | City government, El Paso Times, Purchasing | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

What happens when you actually bid something

December 26, 2012

You might recall an earlier article There They Go Again where I wrote about the city spending 543 thousand dollars just last year for a foam roof for city hall.

The article pointed out that the project was not bid (they used a buy board), that 4 percent of the money went to the Harris County Department of Education as their cut, and that it seemed like a lot of money for that kind of roof, especially for a building that is about to be demolished.

My understanding is that the roof of city hall is about 27 thousand square feet.

Well is looks like it really was a lot of money.  The November 13, 2012 city council agenda has an item requesting permission to award solicitation number 2012-271 to apply a rolled urethane coating to the municipal service center on Lafayette drive.  This was evidently a real bid.  You can read the details here.

The winning bidder (who is local) bid $197,888 to handle 42,700 square feet of roofing.  That is $4.64 per square foot vs. $20.11 per foot for the city hall project.  I don’t much about roofing.  My assumption is that the city would want a better, longer lasting roof for the municipal service center since they have not announced plans to demolish the center.  In fact the bid required a 15 year warranty.

Maybe a foam roof on a 10 story building that will be demolished within 2 years costs more than a rolled urethane roof with a 15 year warranty on the municipal service center.  Maybe it even costs more than 4 times as much.

Wait.  The company that got the no-bid city hall project also bid on this project.  Their bid was 11 percent higher.

Why didn’t the winning company here get to bid on the city hall project?  Maybe the city does not like the quality of their work and just had to take the low bid this time.

Wait again.  The winning company’s past performance with the city (the one with the low bid) was evaluated by the city with 17.09 points (out of 20 possible) compared to the city hall company that got 16.7 points.  The city likes this low bidder better than the company that did the work at city hall.

So what happened?  The city evidently does know how to manage a bid.

Why was city hall such a special deal?  The city had specifications written by an architectural firm.  A bid should have been pretty straight forward.  Instead the city awarded the business to a company without bidding and that company paid 4 percent of it’s fee to an out of town school district.

There is something rotten about this deal.

We deserve better.

Leave a Comment » | City government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

The Lying Two Step

December 18, 2012

I previously wrote about how the city plans to hold their city council meetings at the public library since after all the library is already set up to handle such a meeting.  Meet me in the stacks.

Well let me quote to you from the city’s newly issued request for proposals # 2013-090R, dated December 11, 2013.  “The Main branch equipment is not adequate for hosting public gatherings, conferences, presentations and events.”  The RFP is seeking bids for Library Audio/Video Equipment.

An August 7, 2012 presentation to city council suggested that city council meetings should be held at the library (read it here —  slide number 25).  The presentation indicated that  “The cost is $0 and availability would not be an issue”.

Now it turns out that they do not have the necessary equipment.

Were they lying or are they so incompetent that they did not know the truth?

Council was lied to.  Do they care?  Do they know?  Why do they put up with this?  For that matter why don’t we make them do their jobs?  City staff is out of control.

This will need to be added to the running total of the cost of moving city hall.

We deserve better

3 Comments | City government, Purchasing | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

A Tiffany Dome for City Hall

December 3, 2012

I wrote in another post about how the city spent $94,993.76 to replace 17,000 square feet of ceiling tile on the 10th floor of city hall last year.  I sure hope they did not have to pay much for the warranty since the building might soon be torn down.

City staff claims that this amount was obtained through a competitive bid process.  In other posts I have said that is not so.

Let’s look at the numbers.

Using Google one can find the exact tile they used for less than $10,000.  Let’s add 20% for profit.  We are now at $12,000.

The city evidently wanted new grid.  I don’t know what was wrong with the old one, but let’s assume they need to tear down the old one and put in a new one.

In writing this I was going to go off and research the individual costs.  Then an idea came to me.  I wonder if the city has actually done other ceiling projects?  Well as it turns out they have right here.  Wander down to items 17, 18, and 19.  To save you the arithmetic their first recommended bidder wants $1.33 per square foot to tear down and install acoustical ceilings (without materials).

This was a 2011  award the city made through another buy board (our local Region 19), just not the buy board that lets us send 4% of every purchase to Houston.  By the way Region 19 rebid this in 2012 and the low bidder for tear down and install was at 70 cents (down from $1.33)–but we will use the 2011 numbers since they were available at the time.

We have:

  • $12,000 for the ceiling tiles (available to you and me on the web, who knows what you could get them in volume for)
  • $22,610 for labor to tear down the old grid and install the new one
  • $10,000 for the materials in the ceiling grid

That brings us to $44,610 and even that number is just a price survey (not a competitive bid–which would be lower).

In the construction business they refer to site conditions–things that make the work more or less expensive.  Could the extra $50,000 that we spent be because the workers had to work on the 10th floor of city hall?  Did the contractor determine that it is a cesspool filled with snakes?  I don’t know.

Humor aside, here we have a situation where we paid twice as much as we should have.   Why would they use a buy board out of Houston when an El Paso buy board was half the price?

We deserve better!

3 Comments | City government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »