I would like to address an issue that has bothered me for a week now. TSI (the company responsible for the majority of the work on main street) has submitted an additional $227,00 in invoices that they would like the city to pay for. The Public Works department has reviewed the requests and has found that about $15,000 of the requests were "warranted." TSI has asked that they review it again and pay the full amount asked for.
As I see it the city has 2 choices. Option one: Pay the amount asked for or option 2: Say no means no and we will only pay the $15,000 that is warranted.
Leave it to government to come up with a different option. The Public Works department has requested the city council to authorize $20,000 to hire an outside firm to review and to decide which of the invoices should be paid.
WHAT! Why are we spending 20K on something we already looked at and decided on? Why was this even though of as a possibility? This smells of back scratching. In fact it reeks of it.
Why did Public Works suggest it? Why did the Council OK it? Why are we paying for it? Why do we put up with this type of wasteful spending?
TSI has a long history of after-the-fact additional expenses and "oops" invoices. Public records from a number of agencies and anecdotal experiences abound demonstrating this bad practice of theirs. It takes strong leadership to demand written responses from them for the additional charges with a full outline of charge applicability to direct scope of work. They are often challenged on their expenses and I would strongly encourage the council and mayor to follow through on this.
ReplyDeleteOptions: Rather than paying an outside firm, perhaps the city could seek out assistance from DOT who would have been required to partner on that project? More than likely the city is a pass-through for many of those funds. Either way, the city will likely be required to adhere to a special single financial audit within one year of completion because the costs certainly exceeded $500,000 (or will). They can also address the issue with the small city audit specialist, Toni, to get advice on how to manage the situation and utilize that information in dealing with TSI.
There ya' go, hope it helps.
Politicalinclin
What is the Mayor and Council thinking? If this was my guy asking for this money I would have said H@#L NO! Then I would have fired him for just being obnoxiously insane.
ReplyDeleteThis is the type of incompetance is why we are in this situation we are right now. When are we going to pull our heads out and take alook around?
Mike
Politicalinclin,
ReplyDeleteIt appears that you are well informed on this issue. I appreciate your insight. It worries me that TSI's history and reputation were not more strongly considered and steps taken before hiring them to mitigate this issue.
I agree that it would take strong leadership to address this issue properly. I would hope to see this type of leadership from the Mayor and Council in the future.
Since the city council and public works have decided that this is a good idea, I'm going to suggest that we dock their collective pay by the $20,000 used to pay for this outside verification. This is something that should not be passed on to the citizens at all. If the financial departments and project managers are not capable of stayin on top of the costs of the projects, then they should be responsible for the costs of cleaning up after them.
ReplyDeleteBart,
ReplyDeletePerhaps the reason that the Public Works Director Steve Leniszewski wants an outside firm to review these invoices is because he is too busy taking trips to Seattle in city vehicles.
All I can say is that's an expensive ride to town.
I see that TP has descended to the level of taking cheap shots at our city officials to keep this blog's handful of loyal readers interested. The last remark is utterly childish. Being a constructive influence between the public and local government does not seem to be on the agenda. TP, you are a COWARD for hiding your identity while penning often unsubstantiated criticism of Council members, City officials and citizens by name.
ReplyDeleteThis was not a cheap shot as I have personally seen Steve in Seattle on 2 separate occasions in the last few weeks. Both times in a city vehicle.
ReplyDeleteI love that you called me a coward for not sharing my identity and yet you sign your post as anonymous.
Oh and what unsubstantiated criticism? Any examples or was that claim unsubstantiated?
ReplyDeleteThen Steve knows who you are now.
ReplyDeleteI have known Steve for quite a while.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that you are still not using your name and still not answering the questions.
Then I'm sure he will appreciate your opinion of him.
ReplyDeleteThere is no opinion, just the fact that he was driving in Seattle twice (that I have seen) in the last few weeks in a city vehicle.
ReplyDeletei still find it interesting that you call me out on my ethics and my courage but you fail to stand behind your comments. Perhaps throwing stones isn't so fun when you live in a glass house...