Than in City Council V, I commented on the way Mr. Rapp if I may, misled Mr. Conley on what the T-shirt bid was really for versus what was stated erratically to cover it up?
So now if I may, let's move on to the Resolution to tear down the house across from the City Building on 29th St. This was a point of controversy because of all the crying poor mouth by Mr. Rapp and supported by Mr. Leach because of the possibility of losing the 1% Sales Tax? Now the bid was for $6,900., by both Jimmie Harper and Empire Builders. The third bid by Bosley just happened to match the amount that was budgeted for the project.
The winner just happened to be Jimmie Harper as Empire Builders withdrew their bid due to time constraints to do the job in a timely manner. I don't remember where there was a hard and fast demolition date anywhere in the discussions? What I do remember is that in the bid notice in the paper on 6 August 2018 clearly states "No bid may be withdrawn after that time for a period of 90 days". Now I am not very smart and will be the first one to admit it, but the bid opening on 20 August 2018 till 13 September is not quite 90 days?
The City has again chosen to break its own Bidding Ordinance to insure that what one could question is a "Sweetheart Deal" happens? Per City Ordinance 105.02 (i) In the event of tie bids, the contract or purchase order shall be awarded to one of the tie bidders by drawing lots in public. (Passed 8-22-85.) The City has violated this section also on Salt Bids in the past few years to give a bid to Cargill. Bid passed 4-2, with Mr. Conley and Mr. Elam against.
One may ask, what is the big deal, this is a house? Yes, and a true winning bidder could have subcontracted part of the bid to the losing tie bidder. Construction subcontracting is a very common practice. A bit of adherence to a City Ordinance instead of rewriting so much of the time to favor one bidder against another is not legal per City Ordinance and probably illegal (yet again?) per State Law? Watch, and I would suspect one will see the payoff down the road? Mr. Conley and Mr. Elam got played again as if the City did not want to follow its Ordinance than it would have been conceivable that the bid be thrown out and a re-bid conducted?
Mr. Elam: We do not know what Home Rule will be next year. Spent $80K to buy the house, now $6,900., on demolition. Than got to get it paved. What is the rush? (See above in bold and italics). Lotta money. We continue spend money, not knowing what the future is? House can set there for a year.
Mr. Rapp: Mr. Elam, you do remember where a while ago, you voted for a budget revision to move $19K for this demolition? It was already designated, so is not new money. So will have $12K left over. The logic of pinching pennies does not hold. Logic of spending every possible penny does not hold with logic either, but the City does it anyway?
Mr. Leach: To leave it standing, will have to carry insurance on it. It will be vacant and more of a liability than the ground, (Allow me to interject at this point where another site right after this meeting started in on the Asbestos siding under the vinyl siding and in the wiring too. I am pretty comfortable where this came from as one of the BFFs commented earlier that it could cost up too $500,000.,to remediated that little .17 acres and house. This is just a continuation of the sensationalizing and panic reporting by the site for those still living in the area and of course the possibility of Asbestos being released into the air as the siding is removed? Any company that did not check on those issues BEFORE submitting a bid should pay for the removal/ remediation if needed? If a company failed to honor its obligations in a bid, than it should be barred from bidding?), clearly more standing. (Again, allow me this, the building left empty and boarded up is right next to what is supposed to be our Police Department and Fire Departments? How much safer can on be than that? Any insurance would be minimal for sure and would allow for the 1% Sales Tax issue to be resolved supposedly by next April? Mr. Leach was just providing cover for Mr. Rapp- again. We are talking what, 6- 8 months)?
Mr. Conley: What about the empty buildings on 12th St.? So how do we pick and choose which are liabilities and which are not? (I am going to suspect that a new City Building may well start going up by the middle of 2019 or just after the new Fiscal Year starts? This is one I would like to be wrong on).
As for the Budget Revision, I voted no. This is exactly what we mean about not knowing what will happen? Whether this year or last year, we have no business spending money we don't need too.
The Resolution on the Parks Department Fees was left in a "pending" status as Mr. Black was out of town on vacation through this and the next meeting. Council to review proposed rates which are supposed to be competitive with Wood Cty., and P'burg?
Final item on Agenda was the General Budget Revision #2. This was for damage sustained by various City properties/ building during lightening storms over some period of time not well substantiated? Seems we have done this before for the Parks Maintenance Building/ Office? It seems to be part of this one too? It was for $4,530 in repairs and $8,220 for new grounding wiring. Damage seems to come in under the $5,000 deductible in City Insurance so cannot do a claim. That is a good thing as every claim will cause Insurance rates to go up. Under and in house is better in the end.
Next, I will cover the "Council Comments". It turned into the usual blood bath with Mr. Rapp and Ms. Smith making some very revealing comments.
See where Mr. Kavanaugh's accuser is willing to testify Thursday the 27th. This of course is no accident and supposeldy just a delaying tactic to run out the clock? I can only hope that win, lose or draw with her, that Mr. Pence keeps his fanny in D.C. for that time period as he may well end up being the 51st vote for confirmation if it goes that far? And again, win, lose or draw, Mr. Kavanaugh's reputation is ruined.
And you may say "well what about her reputation"? Unless she is proven to be a liar, it will end up a "he said- she said". She will go home bloodied and battered, but will have stood up for her position which to me is admirable?
Should he not get confirmed, be assured the far left will be after him as an Appeals Justice in the D.C. Court. I am not saying he is innocent as I was not there 35 years ago. But it seems more and more that no one else was either? Interesting party that no one attended? But unless I have missed something over the years, the groping of a woman with her clothes on is a bit different from a rape or attempted rape? If you don't believe me, ask Mr. Franken? I have said many times that men are dogs and still stand by that position. But even a dog is supposed to have its day? I hope for the good of the Country, we get it figured out and try to move forward? Neutral is sometimes good and I am waiting to hear/ see what is said? Look at their eyes when they speak. Second accusation now, game, set match, he's toast. 'nuff said'.