On May 24, by a vote of 5-1 the City Council adopted the so-called McEuen Park master plan. The effort to produce this plan was covered by a contract between the city and Miller-Stauffer Architects. I obtained a copy of the contract and would like to share with the community, my understanding of the status of this effort.

The city has paid Miller-Stauffer the $125,000 specified in the contract, in spite of the fact that Miller-Stauffer has not completed its contractual obligations. According to the contract, here is what has not been delivered:

a. "An estimate to create the Design/Construction/Bid Documents for the reconstruction of the McEuen Project based on the approval of the final plan."

b. "An estimate of Project Administration including Bid Administration and project oversight which will include weekly on-site meetings with Team McEuen, General Contractor and City Staff."

c. "Reconstruction time line starting from bid advertisement to completed project and dedication."

Critical contract terms have not been followed:

I. The boundaries for the project are clearly specified. Tubbs Hill, Front Avenue West, Third Street and Fourth Street are outside those stated boundaries.

a. Why were these clearly 'out-of-scope' areas included?

II. A payment process is specified based on a "certified estimate of the work completed in the previous month less 5 percent."

a. No certified (documented) estimate of the work completed could be produced.

b. The 5 percent hold-back stipulated in the contract was not made. (This is often part of the terms of such contracts to ensure all conditions are met.)

III. "Final payment shall be made thirty (30) days after completion of all work and acceptance by the City Council..."

a. Final payment was made on May 17, 2011 ... 7 days prior to the council vote...in spite of the fact that the work was not complete.

IV. The specified project duration of 180 calendar days would have ended in mid January... "...The consultant shall pay to the city or have withheld from monies due, liquidated damages at the rate of $250.00 per calendar day." Through May 24, this would have amounted to $31,750 that the consultants now owe to the city.

V. The total contract amount is $125,000 and does not provide for any expense over that amount. Yet almost $10,000 in travel and other charges were paid to the consultants. These are clearly outside the contract terms.

And with this knowledge, the council has approved (Aug. 2, 2011) the spending of an additional $60,300 to Miller-Stauffer to pay for a topographical survey and traffic studies that should have been included under the original $125,000 contract.

This would bring the cost of the planning effort to $195,148.37. (Not to mention the more than $350,000 spent on previous planning efforts.) And, we still would not have the deliverables as specified in the contract. If this is the way the city manages contracts we should expect final McEuen costs to be substantially higher (at least 60 percent higher) than the estimates presented by the consultants.

In construction projects, escalation typically begins when the digging starts. We do not even have a complete plan, and large-scale escalation has already begun. At this pace, where it will end is anyone's guess. This is inexcusable management oversight.

Is the City Council in such a hurry to spend the millions of dollars that Kootenai County taxpayers are paying into LCDC?...without their consent and in most cases without their knowledge. Money-driven decisions tend to lead to carelessness... we cannot afford that... not at this time... not ever!

Frank R. Orzell is a management consultant who moved to Coeur d'Alene five years ago.