An Investigation into the Chicago Drive Landscaping Project in Georgetown Township

An Investigation into the Chicago Drive Landscaping Project in Georgetown Township by J. Parnell McCarter

On February 8, 2016 the Georgetown Township Board approved the Chicago Drive Landscaping Project at the same meeting as the presentation was made for this project by M.C. Smith Associates and Architectural Group. Per the official online minutes of the meeting at http://georgetown-mi.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/02082016-481 the project was approved as follows:

Moved by Jim Wierenga, seconded by Ron Villerius, to approve the plan as presented

for landscaping along Chicago Dr. from the eastern boundary to the first turnaround west of

Cottonwood, and to authorize the Superintendent to make any necessary changes

Moved by Jim Wierenga, seconded by

John Schwalm

, to amend the motion to add the

lan

guage to utilize the previous low bidder

and to

authorize the Superintendent to spend up

to $650,000.00

cover any necessary change

Yeas:

John Schwalm, Carol Scholma, Ron Villerius, Jim Wierenga

Nays:

D. Dale Mohr, Richard VanderKlok, Chad Tuttle

MOTION CARRIED

Motion as amended:

To approve the plan as presented for landscaping along Chicago Dr. from the eastern boundary to

the first turnaround west of Cottonwood, and to authorize the Superintendent to make any necessary

changes, and to utilize the previous low bidder, and to authorize the Superintendent to spend up to

$650,000.00 to cover any necessary changes.

Yeas:

John Schwalm, Carol Scholma, Ron Villerius, Jim Wierenga

Nays:

D. Dale Mohr, Richard VanderKlok, Chad Tuttle

MOTION CARRIED

A videotape of the hearing is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFB-g_rO_8E .

The day following this meeting, I made the following request of the Township Superintendent Daniel Carlton:

“Regarding this item (Chicago Dr. Landscaping : Presentation by MC Smith for consideration of landscaping along Chicago Dr. from the east end of the Township to an area west of Cottonwood. ), is the documentation (showing precisely what was being bid on, who the bidders were, etc.) available online or could it be made available online for the public to see? Where might it be found at the Township website? Given the large expenditure of money, it would be helpful for the public to be fully aware of what has been purchased, and how it was arrived at.”

Daniel Carlton provided me with 5 documents and the following explanation of them:

“I attached the documents from our 2014 meeting when it was first proposed. Only two bidders returned bids for the project. The lighting is being ordered separately than the landscaping.”

The 5 documents are:

1. MC Smith Bid Rec

2. BIDTAB

3. Rivertown – Bid Tabulation

4. Apex– Bid Tabulation

5. Georgetown Township Lighting Quote

Here is my spreadsheet recap of what I read in the above documents:

Subcontractors	Type of Work	APEX Bid	Rivertown Contractors	My Notes and Questions on Each Line

Landscape Design	Landscaping	$242,000	No amount written in	Why same as APEX? Why no amount written in?
DUT Electric	Electrical	$128,000		(who is DUT Electric?)
Schepers Irrigation	Irrigation	$43,000	No amount written in	Why same as APEX? Why no amount written in?
K&K Concrete	Concrete	$15,000
McNett Masonry	…construction		No amount written in	Why no amount written in?
DeWitt Electric	Electrical		No amount written in	Why no amount written in?
Dykstra Concrete	Concrete		No amount written in	Why no amount written in?
Sub-total of above		$428,000
Contractor add on		$120,545
Total each contractor		$548,545	$442,018

For the Lighting quote there was only one bid: MLS West		$133,071	$133,071	Why only one bidder for this major item?

Total		$681,616	$575,089

I have posed then the following questions to Superintendent Carlton. These are the same sorts of questions I would have posed if there had been more time for discussion and debate of the matter:

1. How has MC Smith itself been selected as the architectural firm to use?

2. I only see one lighting quote for this project, based upon the documentation. Why have no other competing bids been obtained?

3. For the landscaping work, I see one and the same landscaping sub-contractor in both the Rivertown and Apex bids. Why is that?

4. For the irrigation equipment, I see one and the same irrigation sub-contractor in both the Rivertown and Apex bids. Why is that?

5. Why are no amounts written in for Rivertown sub-contractors, but they are written in for the Apex sub-contractors?

6. Who is DUT Electric that is listed on the Apex quote? What is their address?

7. Are there any immediate family or business relationships between you or the Township Board members and any of the following parties: MC Smith, Rivertown Contractors, APEX, MLS West, Landscape Design, and Schepers Irrigation?

I am waiting for the answer to the above questions.

In addition, here are some general questions I would have posed the Board if there had been more time to do so before a decision had been made:

The contractor costs themselves totaled $575,089, but the Board authorized significantly more “to cover [unspecified- JPM] necessary [how necessary?- JPM] changes” on top of this. The contractor quote from Rivertown Contractors already included $20,000 in “Construction Contingencies” and $57,299.81 in “General Conditions: management, overhead and profit”, but the Board has seemingly authorized more for this and perhaps other things, up to $650,000. Is that something someone would do if it were his own money?

The presentation was made by MC Smith, and at the same meeting was acted upon. Trustee Chad Tuttle appropriately noted his concerns that the Board was acting too fast on such a major project. It gave very little time for the Board to digest it, or for the public to consider and provide feedback on it.

Here are some questions I would have:

Does it make sense to authorize almost $75,000 over and above the quoted contractor costs for this project for unspecified changes? What sort of “changes”?
Given that a major portion of the cost of this project relates to lighting, would it make sense at least at this time to forego most or all of the lighting improvements? How much on-going maintenance and electrical costs will be associated with this lighting? How important is more lighting in this area? In selling this plan at the Board meeting, Trustee Villerius says it will make people say “wow”, but will they be going on to say: “wow, how dumb are these people to spend so much on these lights?”
The Board heard in the same meeting how lighting put up on Baldwin had become an eye-sore and problematic, and decided to remove it:

Moved by Jim Wierenga , seconded by Carol Scholma , to approve removing the decorative lights at

the eastern end of Baldwin at this time and to review potential replacement in the future,

as recommended by the Services Committee.

Yeas:

D. Dale Mohr, Carol Scholma, Ron Villerius, Jim Wierenga

Nays:

John Schwalm, Chad Tuttle, Richard VanderKlok

What, if any, lessons were learned from the above fiasco? How do we know this Chicago Drive lighting will not meet with the same fate?

How well will some of these landscaping improvements hold up during Michigan winters and with run-off from salted roads and other abuse that might occur to it in this area? With respect to the median, is there really any sound compelling reason to change from what is now there?
Is underground sprinkling really wise and necessary in this area, since it too is an important component of the overall cost? How much on-going maintenance and other costs will be associated with it? How well will it hold up in this area? Would it be possible to have ground cover and plants in the area which would not require such an irrigation system?
Are there not ways to improve the looks in this area, but at a significantly lower cost? Most of the costs go into things people do not see or hardly see during the day: lighting and underground irrigation. Only a smaller percentage of the cost goes into the main things people will really see: the trees and the wall. Why not just stick with these things people really will see, and save a lot of money now and in the future for maintenance?
Could more of this project be done by volunteer efforts, such as exemplified at https://www.lacity.org/311-directory-online-services/servicedetail/1439 ?
Since even the Board was very divided on this project, with 3 opposed, did it make sense to act so quickly? Given all the other questions, and the lack of time for public consideration, does it make sense so quickly to act? Why the rush?

I will update this website article when I have the answers to the above questions.

Maybe there is a good and reasonable explanation for all of the above questions. But *if* there is instead impropriety, even if not illegality, then it is my hope the response will be one of repentance and seeking forgiveness in Christ. I too am a sinner in need of Christ’s imputed righteousness for my sins. At the same time, Christians are called to repent when we have sinned. And there is a coming Day of Judgment.

Even if there is a good and reasonable explanation and answer for all of the above questions, and my misgivings are unfounded, I still assert there was way too much rush to a decision on such a significant project as this. And there was way too little time given for public feedback before this decision was made. There needs to be discussion and debate on issues in order to arrive at the best decisions. I will fully admit that I sometimes take a position which after debate I have to back down from. This is all a necessary process to good decision-making.