I guess Finley finally had to respond to the well-documented instances of Old City Hall cost overruns, waste and no-bid A/V contracts presented here in meticulous detail and using City Council’s own minutes. He did so in today’s Lampasas Dispatch (Sept 25, 2018). This was smart of Finley – the end of the fiscal year is in a few days, and the new budget will be presented soon…no doubt with large spending increases. Best explain how all these millions are actually for the community and not for City Hall employees.
Of course, I have to rebut his rebuttal with some facts that were ignored or left out:
First claim: The “approximately $1 million the city is spending to remodel”
Response: It’s actually $1.4 million and counting [using information from City Council minutes and detailed on this blog]. While $400,000 might not be a lot to those in the upper echelons of city government who are pulling down well over $100,000 per year in salary and benefits, it certainly IS a lot to the average Lampasas taxpayer who makes around $29,000 per year and who is footing the bill for this debacle. It is also 40% more than you state in the article…and they aren’t done yet. Expect more money to be spent.
Second claim: Finley uses the words “Buy Board” constantly like some sort of magic immunity phrase. He claims they went with Azbell and didn’t bid the project for several reasons…one is the magic Buy Board [we don’t have to because they are pre-approved…nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!] and the other is supposedly because “if the city didn’t use the Buy Board method, they would have had to spend an additional $10,000 to obtain a professional design for the system,” according to the article.
Response: I give you one date – August 25, 2014. You DID go out and get three bids. The lowest was Broadcast Works at $33,983. Azbell came in at $41,184 (still a far cry from the $94,683 Azbell is currently charging). Whitlock was $54,411.
Furthermore, as stated in the minutes from that meeting, the Broadcast Works bid specifically required the company to “work in conjunction with the architect, general contractor, and sub-contractor, in addition to attending pre-construction meetings” – which SURE makes it sound like they were going to do EVERYTHING themselves and wouldn’t require the extra $10,000 “to obtain professional design” that Finley is babbling about now as he re-writes history.
Even if it WAS true, the original $33,983 PLUS another $10,000 still only comes to $43,983. Which is FAR less than the $94,682 king’s ransom that Azbell is charging them currently.
So why weren’t the magic “Buy Board” words invoked back in 2014? Why did you get three bids the first time? How did Azbell’s initial $41,000 bid (which was rejected) morph into $94,600??
Maybe Finley would try and use the excuse that, “well, we changed venues”. The problem with that excuse, is that it is debunked in black and white in Council’s own minutes on August 24, 2015. It clearly states that “Monica Wright has discussed the change of location with the IT vendor for the A/V system, and it appears cost should be equivalent to quotes received for the previously proposed Council chambers.”
Oops. No help there either.
So, no matter how much lipstick Finley puts on this pig, the facts remain:
- The City DID bid this the first time [Aug 25, 2014] and there was no mention of any magic Buy Board immunity phrases back then.
- Broadcast Works was lowest bid at $33,983 and Azbell’s $41,184 bid was rejected
- Despite the change in venue, Monica stated that the vendor said it was cost-equivalent [Aug 24, 2015]
- This was reiterated AGAIN on Sept 28, 2015 with “the audio/visual vendor toured the building and saw no problem with doing the work.“
- Suddenly Azbell appears in March 2017, charges $94,675, and nobody makes a peep about it.
What about Finley’s final argument in the Dispatch, that “this is for the community”? Well, we’ll get into that in the next few posts. I’m glad Finley brought up the LEDC (Lampasas Economic Development Corp) in his Dispatch article, because they happen to be my next example of egregious waste.