Tuesday, May 10, 2016

It's Always Something

Work has begun on the new Hudson Police and Court Center at 701 Union Street, but the wrangling about it continues.

At the informal Common Council meeting last night, two resolutions were introduced having to do with the police and court project. The first "ratified and authorized" a change order amounting to $11,500; the second authorized the mayor, in future, to execute change orders. Both drew objections from Alderman John Friedman (Third Ward).

In the discussion of these two resolutions, it was revealed that the change order in question was the second needed by the project. The first was required when it was discovered that part of the building's foundation was crumbling and needed to be rebuilt. The second change order was necessitated by a discrepancy between the drawings for the addition to the building and the reality. The incline was greater than represented in the drawings and therefore the foundation wall needed to be higher and the interior stairs needed to be increased.

"Why did we pay the architect?" Friedman asked. "Let's split the difference. We're taking a haircut for somebody else's error." Friedman asserted that the change order was "directly related to [the architect's] shoddy work." "I can't believe I'm the only one who says these things," Friedman declared. "I'm the liberal Democrat in the room." A bit later in the discussion, First Ward aldermen Rick Rector and Michael O'Hara echoed Friedman's concern.

A contingency of $200,500 is built into the project budget, but Friedman contended, "The contingency is not for professionals making mistakes."

City attorney Ken Dow explained that "terrain and site-related stuff was not something they [the architects] were to do." Later, Mayor Tiffany Martin Hamilton explained, "There had never been a proper survey of the topography, and that's how we ended up where we are." 

Dow acknowledged, "If you want to get some recourse against the architect, that can be done. The question here is do they pour the concrete and build the wall?" To which Friedman replied, "We can't make that decision tonight." When Friedman suggested that the City initiate a suit in small claims court, the mayor advised that it is not known "if the problem originated with the City, with Joe Rapp, or the architect."

Friedman also objected to the resolution that would allow the mayor to execute change orders, "using the contingency money cavalierly and outside of this Council." Dow argued, "There needs to be something in place. These things come up, and everything cannot stop for weeks at a time while the Council meets." Friedman countered, "Then we have emergency meetings."

The Council is expected to vote on the two resolutions at their regular monthly meeting on Tuesday, May 17.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK

16 comments:

  1. When any other problems arise, why not have a small committee with the Mayor and John Friedman, since he seems to be the only one that questions things. Others then join in, but John starts the conversations. Then at least the Mayor has a lawyer to bounce things off!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Mayor has a fine attorney to fill that role, whom she appointed in January.

      Delete
    2. I know Ken's a good lawyer but he doesn't ask the same questions that John brings up in Council meetings!

      Delete
    3. Thanks, I thought you were saying something else.

      On the other hand, I haven't known Mr. Dow to be terribly wrong about anything yet.

      Delete
  2. Since time is of the essence perhaps we could just ask one of the several landscape architects who live in the area to donate a rendition.
    The issue at hand seems like a detail that fell through the cracks, nbd. Spending time on blaming and creating more committees would be useful in the long run, but how about letting progress be progress in the mean time.
    Thank you especially to John, and also Rick, Michael, Ken, Tiffany, Carol and everyone involved for your time and efforts!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Only ONE Council Member objected to these 2 resolutions?" I think no taxpayer would disagree with Alderman Friedman. "The contingency is not for professionals making mistakes."
    The City attorney's and Mayor's responses were not reassuring.
    "City attorney Ken Dow explained that "terrain and site-related stuff was not something they [the architects] were to do." Later, Mayor Tiffany Martin Hamilton explained, "There had never been a proper survey of the togography, and that's how we ended up where we are.
    Personally, I would like to ask the Building Dept. what their thoughts are, as to "how we ended up where we are".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hindsight is everything - too bad we can't cut our losses NOW and make the John L. Edwards the City Centre for the police, court, code, and all the offices needed to run Hudson - its one huge handicapped available building located in the middle of town just begging for this use. imho

    ReplyDelete
  5. I haven't seen the foundation, but usually these contractors overcharge for everything, especially with big budget govt. contracts. A guy with a trowel and a couple of bags of cement might fix it up good enough for a couple hundred bucks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. TOPOGRAPHY ... not togography. Isn't it a little early in the game to suggest suing your architect ... you might just need him to finish the job and ensuing details that will surly arise. Discrediting your builder isn't too smart either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr.Sideri, the original quote from the Mayor in this post was "togography" ..which Gossips has since edited.Along with "City attorney Ken Dow explained that "terrain and site-related stuff" STUFF? I know that it's "Topography". It's also $11,500. They just got started, after all this time and money already spent.
      These were accepted bids,by different contractors , from different trades, based on Structural and Architectural plans., approved by Building Dept. Change Orders, are not about Taxpayers paying for for mistakes by Architects/Engineers or Contractors.

      Delete
    2. I'd reply but I don't know who you are ...PRISON ALLEY. If you've got anything worthy to say use your real name...What I'm hearing is worthless criticism.

      Delete
    3. "Surely," not "surly."

      Though you may require that each and all to expose their identities before you acknowledge your own typos (heh!).

      Delete
    4. Surly ... surely ... they both work

      Delete
    5. Yes, as applies in all such cases above.

      Delete