Project Raises Questions, Causes Frustration

By Dale Girard
At our past city council meeting, the planning and development director requested additional funds for the Main and North streets project. This project has been in the design phase for over 10 years.

This is a great example of previous administrations putting the cart in front of the horse. They convinced the city council in 2011 this project was going to be completed. We were required to put away a 20% match, for the state grant funds, prior to bidding. The council approved a bond for $962,000 and put $100,000 in matching funds in the 2011 budget, but this was still short of the 20% match. These figures were based upon the engineering estimates at the time. That administration knowingly shorted $77,000 in required funds and never put a plan together to make up the difference.

In 2020, a new water line was added to the project. This is not covered under the federal highway grant. The city secured funding through the state’s Revolving Loan Fund, based upon the engineering estimates. With this program under the current state budget, we receive a 20% forgiveness on each year’s payment.

In 2021, a resolution requested an allocation of $88,416.75, which brought the city into compliance with the original estimate. I’m not aware of any updates at that time, which was shortsighted.

In the spring of 2023, the engineering firm VHB provided an updated cost to the city of $7,322,942. This was broken down between the federal highway portion of the grant ($5,247,647) and the city water portion ($2,075,295.) The council approved a transfer to increase the match based upon the director’s recommendation.

This brings us to our current dilemma. Anyone watched the meeting noticed the frustration of the council. An additional allocation of $440,000 was requested. As always, administration finds money to transfer with “no tax impact” but we drain accounts that should be held for a new project. We were given very little information other than costs have increased. We heard that we “should feel fortunate because the state is seeing much larger increases in other parts of the state.”

This project was put out to bid in late August. The bid specs, which can be found on the city website, state the contractor is being asked to start within 30 days of the award, which of course is being disputed. Contractors are busy. How can the administration not realize this? We should bid out projects now for the 2024 or 2025 construction season not the fall of 2023. We clearly are responsible for the water project. How can a bid go out and not request a breakdown of the two separate projects? I feel it is impossible to approve another transfer without clarification. I don’t want an answer, at this point, stating the contractor says this is the difference. This should have been broken out as part of the bid. Water costs need to be covered by the enterprise fund, not the general budget.

At the end of the day, will the federal government audit the records and find out the water project went up 50% and the road project went up only 10%? What would happen then? Would we be responsible to return the funding to the feds? I understand the administration is going to threaten the council with the costs will go up if we go back out to bid.

Please understand, the council doesn’t approve contracts. The council’s only way of addressing our concerns is to withhold the funds at this point, to hope they can do a better job.

The city council has a very important function in city government but it does not have direct authority over the city’s day-to-day operation. I’m thankful for the current councilors who understand and work to improve our community.

– Dale Girard is themayor of Claremont.