I recently asked a city councilor for the following information which they got from the Parks and Rec department.
I questioned if the full $4.7 million was spent on Drake Springs per the ballot language. Seems so. I was told by this councilor that the shades will not be installed until next year (they are purchased and in storage though). And the original plan was to have 6 lanes instead of 4 in the main pool. It had to be scaled back because of funding (which equates to me, and I am speculating, the contractor scaled it back to ensure a profit).
The only other thing I question in the spreadsheet is the expenditures for the old site. As far as I am concerned that should be sucked up into the Parks and Rec Budget, not sure how it got shifted over into building a new pool.
“which equates to me, and I am speculating, the contractor scaled it back to ensure a profit”
They can’t eliminate something like this without approval from the Architect, who likely would’ve had to run it past the owner (City) who would obviously ask for a deduct.
Oh, I know. They do deserve to make a profit, not the problem here. It is unfortunate that the ballot language has to be the way it is. That is SD though, stick it to the citizens when they want to petition their government. Just elect them and they will take care of the rest. It has worked so well in Washington 🙂
They can’t eliminate something like this without approval from the Architect, who likely would’ve had to run it past the owner (City) who would obviously ask for a deduct.
~Sy
Maybe that’s how the River Greenway project is where it’s at? They’ve drilled their way thru (literraly), the original 5.1 million, now they’re tapping into the 1.9 million of environmental money originally allocated for phase II.
Cost overruns run smack into scaling back to insure a neat and tidy profit for the general contractor. Whether we’re talking Drake Springs, Washington Pavillion, Phillips To The Falls, or River Greenway the same scenario plays out. And by the ballot language on the EC vote, we are expected to swallow something completely out of character when gauged against actions in the past?
Poly – I watched that whole debate of the ballot language at the informational meeting on Monday. There is no binding contract. My assumption is when the funding comes up short on the EC, they will tap reserves or the 2nd penny and the council will have no choice but to approve it. I also think that any private money that flows in will be just added to the pricetag.
Yea don’t blame contractors when a contract is open ended. When the state does a highway project for instance, the project bid is set and there are fines if it isn’t completed on time (some variance is allowed based upon weather etc). If the contractor finishes early, they are often rewarded with a bonus.
Thus in the case of some of the city projects, it is a failure on the part of the people writing the contract and or due to scope creep (changes after the project has been started which add to the final cost).
Not all contractors are greedy and looking to milk every possible penny from the city. I’m sure some are, but those types generally don’t get a whole lot of repeat business.
In the case of the pool, it was likely scaled back after the bids showed the final cost was going to be higher than the city was willing to handle. Thus the city decided to scale back the number of lanes to save cash… a decision like that may be recommended by a contractor if the city was looking to reduce costs, but as Sy said no contractor could just do that on their own without approval.
In the end the city is to blame for poor contract management and/or poor oversight of these projects. With as many bean counters and engineers we have on staff you would think they would be all over this type of thing to keep overruns to a minimum rather than them being the norm.
You are right, with as many engineers we have on staff, our city should look like Rome.