1. Significant cost overruns on city construction projects
Council was informed at the last council meeting that cost overruns on the "pedestrian pathway" project---i.e., the sidewalk along Highland Road-- will exceed $ 100,000.
I believe that project was originally bid out at under $ 700,000---so that is a huge increase in cost, percentage-wise. The $ 100,000 estimate did not include additional engineering fees charged by the city engineer, Andy Blackley and his firm, Stevenh Hovancsek & Associates--so the total cost for the overruns on the project is still unclear.
Another company designed the project, but all of the designs and plans were submitted to the city's engineer, Andy Blackley, for his approval. Blackley approved of the design, I was told that he recommended that it be constructed of concrete (rather than blacktop, as is typical for pathways) , and he was responsible for overseeing the construction work.
That the overruns exceeded $ 100,000 came as a complete surprise to council.
After viewing the original section that was constructed west of Bishop road (which was uneven and undulated signficantly as it traveled along Highland Road), Council had authorized an additional payment of $ 7,500 for hydrant work, so that the sidewalk could be made more level, but neither Blackley nor anyone from his firm warned council that other extra costs for the project had gotten out of control.
Steven Hovancsek, who retired and sold the Hovancsek & Associates firm to Blackley and his partners a number of years ago--but who has agreed (apparently on an independent contractor basis) to act as the public face for the firm when dealing with the city--discussed the situation with the Legislative & Finance Committee on June 16th.
I guess it's no surprise that Hovancsek worked extremely hard to point the finger at every one but Blackley and Hovancsek & Assoc. He blamed the original designer and council for all of the overruns---neatly sidestepping the fact that the city hired Blackley to take responsibility for, and to oversee, the project.
Hovancsek did not explain why, if the design was so poor, Blackley did not point out those shortcomings before the project was put out to bid.
When pressed, Hovancsek finally admitted that he and the city's service director, Tom Evans, unilaterally made the decision to have the contractor replace 81 driveway aprons---representing about 1/3 of the overrun costs--and that he did not inform council about that decision---even though he knew that the work had not been authorized, that it would cost alot of money beyond the bid amount, and that he lacked the legal authority to approve payment for that additional work.
For someone as experienced as Hovancsek to keep council in the dark, as he made decisions that significantly increased the cost of a Highland sidewalk construction project, is troubling indeed. A simple phone call to the council president, to give a heads up and to explain the situation, was all that was needed---but Hovancsek apparently chose not to make that call.
Typically, the city engineer receives a % of the contract cost as his fee for overseeing construction projects. I have no idea if such an arrangement was used with the Highland Road sidewalk project.
It should be very interesting to see, after council approves payment of the cost overruns for this project, how much of that amount (if any) Hovancsek & Associates receives.
To be continued....
2. Decisionmaking for construction projects
The city just spent a great deal of money redoing the Bishop & Highland Road intersection.
The project was not without its glitches, but it is wonderful to see that intersection thriving with local businesses and to have traffic move smoothly once again.
You can imagine my shock, then, when I heard Service Director Tom Evans announce at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on June 16th that the water main under Highland Road has been failing for a number of years and that it may need to be replaced----which means tearing up Highland Road.
Council President Scott Mills was similarly incredulous. He asked whether that didn't mean tearing up the newly reconstructed Bishop & Highland intersection.
Evans said yes.
Evans brought the issue up, he said, because there had been 27 breaks in the line since 1992, when the city relined the water main.
The fact that the issue was raised is not a problem. The problem is one of timing.
If the Highland Road water main has been of such concern to Evans in the past few years, why did he wait until after the Bishop/Highland Road project was finished to bring it up to council for the first time?
And, if that is such a concern, why is the city pursuing, as its next major construction project, redoing the Miner Road/Highland Road intersection?
Replacing the water main will entail opening up the entire length of Highland Road, so a new main can be constructed along side the old one (which would then be deactivated). Isnt replacing the water main---if it is as bad as Evans suggests--more of a priority, and thus more important for the city to do next?
Which brings into focus an important question: who benefits (financially) from all of these construction projects anyway.....? This is a particularly pertinent question to ask, as we read daily about the new scandals surrounding public contract in Cuyahoga County ...
# # #
