McEuen tussle - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

McEuen tussle

Complaints by retired management consultant against city reviewed

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, September 19, 2011 12:00 am

COEUR d'ALENE - Team McEuen delivered everything its contract promised, and allegations asserting otherwise are wrong, the city's parks department said last week.

After retired management consultant Frank Orzell complained that criteria in the $125,000 contract wasn't met, parks director Doug Eastwood refuted many of those claims at his City Hall office last week, saying the designers completely fulfilled the original contract.

Orzell told the City Council on Aug. 2 that it hadn't been fulfilled, and therefore $60,300 in two new contracts for topography and traffic study work related to the project were unnecessary expenditures.

His nine complaints ranged from undelivered bid estimates to a missed deadline, which therefore means the designers should be financially penalized per the contract. Orzell also wrote My Turn columns about the issue in The Press, and called the alleged lack of oversight a "symptom" of less than ideal management.

"This is not about McEuen Field," Orzell said. "It's about the process."

Eastwood disagreed. He said everything had been done by the book.

He pointed to two binders inside City Hall full of documents, paperwork and more pertaining to the McEuen Field reconstruction project.

"All the components are in there," Eastwood said. "That's there, it's been delivered, it always has been."

The Press reviewed the contract and complaints and sat down with Orzell and Eastwood. Here is what it found:

• Complaint 1: Team McEuen did not deliver per the contract: "An estimate to create the design/construction/bid documents for the reconstruction of the McEuen Project based on the approval of the final plan."

Findings: This is incorrect. The team did deliver an estimate to create these components, itemized over roughly 40 pages for each amenity proposed for the park.

For example, Front Avenue improvements has nearly 70 associated costs itemized out. The latest draft of these estimated costs was given to the city April 11.

• Complaint 2: Team McEuen did not deliver per the contract: "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."

Findings: This is incorrect: These estimates were included in the itemized lists as addressed in the first complaint.

• Complaint 3: Team McEuen did not deliver per the contract: A "reconstruction time line starting from bid advertisement to completed project dedication."

Findings: This is incorrect. The time estimates are itemized over nearly 40 components of the project in the binder. Team McEuen also told The Press during the planning process that the timeline would be 18 months. That timeline was reported in several Press articles on the project, including an April 15 article about the plan's estimated costs.

Orzell said he had never seen the binder with the above information when he met with Eastwood, while Eastwood maintains that he showed Orzell. Orzell said perhaps it was a miscommunication.

• Complaint 4: The scope of the project should not have included Tubbs Hill since it was outside the boundary of the project per the map outlined in Exhibit B in the contract.

Findings: This is incorrect. Exhibit B shows a map of the park, but Exhibit A, the McEuen scope of work, states that the project should include "the park and surrounding area identified in Exhibit B." Tubbs Hill is adjacent to the park, and classifies as able to be included under that language.

• Complaint 5: No certified estimate, of the work completed could be produced:

Findings: This is incorrect. Monthly progress invoices were submitted to the city, and Eastwood signed off on them before payments were made to Team McEuen. The payment sheet is a part of the file, with payments beginning Sept. 27, 2010, and ending May 17. Orzell said the steering committee should have signed off on the invoices to certify them. Eastwood was the lead on the contract and met regularly with the team on progress, city officials said, therefor was given the responsibility of signing off of them.

• Complaint 6: The 5 percent hold-back on each payment to Team McEuen stipulated in the contract was not made.

Findings: This is true. The city never withheld 5 percent of the payments to Team McEuen, as stipulated in the contract. Eastwood said this hod back-stipulation is typical with construction jobs to ensure timely completion than professional design service contracts, which the McEuen contract was. Eastwood said the stipulation shouldn't have been included in the professional services contract, and both sides, the city and the designer, agreed not to adhere to that term. The sides did not amend the contract to reflect this decision because liability issues didn't arise with the change, the city said.

City Attorney Mike Gridley said contracts don't need to be amended in writing when the changing components do not affect liability issues. Contracts typically have an administrator, in this case Eastwood, who is given a certain amount of latitude. Amending the contract in writing must be approved by the Mayor and City Council. Amending every small detail would bog down the process, Gridley said, so the contract administrator can agree with the contracted party on smaller terms when liability issues don't change.

Orzell labeled this as cutting corners, and said any change in a contract should be reflected in writing by amending the original deal.

• Complaint 7: The final payment to Team McEuen was made on May 17. Yet the contract states final payment "shall be made 30 days after completion of all work and acceptance by the City Council." The City Council officially adopted the design plan May 24.

Findings: Eastwood said that the "acceptance by the City Council" does not refer to the May 24 adoption. Team McEuen would have been paid regardless if council approved or rejected the final plan. Acceptance by council means that the City Council recognized the work as complete and was ready to vote on it. It accepted the work as completed in mid-April, and requested the designers schedule one final open house detailing the project for the public, which was held Thursday, May. 5. It originally scheduled the vote for its regular meeting May 17, but rescheduled it for a special May 24 meeting in order to change venues to accommodate the large turnout.

• Complaint 8: The contract was signed in July of 2010. The designers were given a 180-day deadline, per the contract, to complete the work. If it failed to meet the deadline, the contract called for the consultant to pay $250 for each day it was late. The 180-day deadline would have then come due in January. If the work was done by May, the designers should have been fined accordingly.

Findings: Eastwood said he approached the design team early in the process when he realized that it was going to exceed the timeline and require more meetings that originally estimated. The Team agreed to do as many public meetings as it took, without charging for extra time. The meetings went from 10 to around 50. They did not amend the contract to reflect it in writing because both parties agreed. Accordingly, the city did not exercise the fine clause for the same reason.

Gridley referred to the liability rule for this complaint, similar to that in Complaint 6.

Orzell maintained that each change should be documented with amendments, and pointed to the roughly professional services contract, complete with amendments, Kootenai County signed with Kending Keast for a county unified development code as an example. Orzell called this lack of documentation a symptom of poor management.

• Complaint 9: The total amount of the contract is $125,000 and does not provide for any expense over that amount. Yet the $6,653.17 was reimbursed to Team McEuen for travel expenses related to the project.

Findings: True. The contract was exceeded by $6,653 to reimburse Team McEuen for travel and site visitations associated with the design. Eastwood and Gridley said relatively small additions that qualify for reimbursement can be agreed to without amending the contract. In this case, the contract was not amended to reflect this because the paying parties who split the cost, Lake City Development Corp. urban renewal agency and the city agreed to the additional expense. Also, the the parks department has a budgeted amount each year for park design costs, which comes from park fees and other self-generating revenues, and Eastwood allocated $3,300 of that roughly $30,000 fund in fiscal year 2010-2011 to reimburse the design team on behalf of the city after city officials verbally agreed he could do so.

Orzell maintained that additional expenses should have been documented with amendments.

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • chouli posted at 4:53 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

    chouli Posts: 1294

    timeless: yes, the city (doug) has let McEuen deteriorate. have you visited the nasty restrooms? I had to take my grandson to those rest rooms on saturday and even a little boy of 4 was grossed out. i guess handsoap is just oo much to ask for. the tennis courts were removed because they let them deteriorate and they never replaced them. the green open space is definately beautiful but they haven't maintained the park as it should be...intentiaonally.
    look around town too. how many sidewalks downtown are terrible trip hazzards?! the concrete wall at the beach has chunks falling out of it in spots. the city isn't keeping up with it's maintenance but wants more, more, more...
    what's with all the snarky comments?? IMI, 56 YO, timeless...what's your point in that? you aren't winning anyone over with your nasty snarky comments.

  • Brother posted at 2:27 pm on Thu, Sep 22, 2011.

    Brother Posts: 41

    When that happens, is there anything that can bring all the factions together for the betterment of our town?" why Ganesh, the god of removing discontentment. Babbar is capable of leaping over obstacles in a single bound. Unfortunately, LOCALS must be ever vigil to avoid being the impact point.

  • RL posted at 10:46 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    RL Posts: 161

    Proidaho is also correct. In addition to the other Walker-Macy suggestions was the re-establishment of rail service downtown...specifically 7 passenger stations from NIC to the Lake on the East end by Silver Beach. Two historic 1929 PCC cars ( exactly like the ones in Seattle) would have transported tourists from the Resort to the Lake and students in the cheap Eastside housing to NIC...all at the whopping cost of $180,000(the city's share of a $800,000 Federal grant for streetcar restoration in the 1996 Fed Omnibus bill).
    This did not come to pass because the city council opted to ignore the Walker-Macy recommendations and, instead, pay Jake Dodge to tear out the r/r tracks to the tune of $180,000!...thereby ruining any chance of cheap transportation to the new education corridor.
    Why they acted that way is anybody's guess...

  • ProIdaho posted at 9:37 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    ProIdaho Posts: 264

    You are correct, the Walker-Macy plan did not remove the boat first. It did suggest removing it at a later date.
    I found this website that has the actual Walker-Macy plan laid out completely:

    The estimated costs in the year 2000: $14 million

    *please note this included reworking Memorial field, adding parking along Northwest Blvd, a carousel building, remodeling Independence point, expanding the cultural center, remodeling and upgrading all the ballfields at McEuen, RECONSTRUCTING MC EUEN PARKING LOT, and other items.

    Current cost estimate of Mc Euen park rework: $40 million

    *just the parking lot alone will cost $14 million.

    How can all of you TeamMcEuen supporters here think that we are getting the best deal now?

  • RL posted at 8:58 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    RL Posts: 161

    Mary Souza is correct. Walker-Macy was paid, I believe $125,000, for their efforts. The Hyatt-Palmer preceeded it with roughly the same results... to the tune of $75,000. This was is 1990's dollars...which were valued higher than today's Fiat money.
    Sadly, this is just the beginning of a bitter and rancorous period in our city's history.
    When Front street is closed off for the construction of all of these contentious and controversial projects, the city will be torn apart.
    When that happens, is there anything that can bring all the factions together for the betterment of our town?

  • Mary Souza posted at 4:17 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    Mary Souza Posts: 814

    There was a big study done on McEuen Field in the 1990s called the Walker-Macy Plan. It was expensive (I've forgotten how much) but was accepted and approved by the council. When I was on P&Z and we were working on the city's new comprehensive plan, we included Walker-Macy in the first drafts. Then suddenly, with no explanation, we were told that Mayor Bloem did not want us to refer to Walker-Macy at all. It was removed and never spoken of again. (this was before I started asking tough questions).

    As I recall, Walker-Macy did not remove the boat launch. Can anyone else confirm this?

  • concernedcitizen posted at 2:56 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530

    Hello people,

    SIX weeks between Frank Orzell's questions and presented documents.

  • Jullee posted at 2:43 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    Jullee Posts: 566

    You are right Randy, this is another example of how out of control the McEuen issue is and why it should be slowed down and looked and review and monitored .

  • Randy Myers posted at 2:16 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    Randy Myers Posts: 1635

    Let's focus here folks. Not on Mary. Focus on the things that WERE out of line with the plan. Complaints6-9 above. So the first 5 issues were untrue as being out of line. How about numbers 6,7,8, & 9 ? Frank Ozwell had some points. Some were shot down. Some were not. How about those that were not ?

    We need a public advisory vote on this.

    @johnqpubic...Your out of line and inappropriate screen name aside......Are you so out of the loop you don't know the planning history ?

  • Jullee posted at 2:15 pm on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    Jullee Posts: 566

    I talked to Doug during one of the McEuen meetings to ask why they removed the rest rooms only to be replaced by a dirty nasty porta-potty and not keeping upgrades the same as a few of the other parks. Doug told me " We have not put money or maintaince into this park as we knew we were going to change things so we did not want to waste anymore money on it."
    Mary, thank you again along with Rita,Julie and the others for being good watch dogs for the rest of us tax payers and keeping us informed and alerted to wasteful tax spending and questionable actions by our public servants. They should have nothing to fear if they are performing their appointed duties and fulfilling the will of the majority of tax payers for the positions they were voted in for.

  • 56YearOldNativeWithAVoice posted at 11:30 am on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    56YearOldNativeWithAVoice Posts: 150

    Concernedcitizen: You said: I TOO would be stressed and in fear of loosing my cush $100,000 plus benifits of taxpayers dollars if I was told to slam together a BOGUS set of documents.


    Another example of Souza mentality.

  • Timeless posted at 9:48 am on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    Timeless Posts: 480

    concernedcitizen: No, Mary was not stating facts. She was stating her OPINION. Don't be confused.

  • concernedcitizen posted at 9:18 am on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530


    Again, Mary was just stating facts. I TOO would be stressed and in fear of loosing my cush $100,000 plus benifits of taxpayers dollars if I was told to slam together a BOGUS set of documents. Oh but he not need worry, noone has the kahuna's to prosecute ANYTHING in this city when it was to come out.

    Six weeks my friend. SIX WEEKS! If they existed why were they not produced the very next day? Maybe the reason for slamming this through is because they need the parking garage to off somone and make it look like an accident like that OTHER organized crime organization in Spokane.


    The apple dumpling gang might push you off the underground parking structure. :-)

  • Timeless posted at 7:52 am on Tue, Sep 20, 2011.

    Timeless Posts: 480

    McEuen is deteriorated? Really? I was at McEuen Field last night, is sure doesn't appear to be "deteriorated" to me, it is beautiful. What IS deteriorated is the city parking lot. Typical Mary Souza, if you rant about something long enough, others start to parrot your rants.
    Attack mode? Mary, Mary......take a look at your first post on this thread and tell me who was the "attacker"? Ah, was you, it has always been your M.O.

  • Mary Souza posted at 7:50 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Mary Souza Posts: 814

    Concernedcitizen, you are so right! These attackers are only trying to draw attention away from the issue. The 6 week gap between the city council meeting where Frank Orzell asked the city council about specific items in the McEuen contract and now, when Doug Eastwood produces a couple of big binders of paperwork---documents he did not produce when Mr. Orzell asked him before August 2nd, is upsetting to citizens. We all want to believe in and trust our local government. That's why we need new, independent thinkers on the city council.

  • concernedcitizen posted at 6:18 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530

    56YONWAV, IMI-UBU and Timeless,

    You REALLY can't see how you go into attack mode when questions are asked? Not ONE of you state even one fact. You just attack.

    I had a chance to talk to MANY in my business today and they all have a problem with the timelaps between Frank Orzell's questions and a return statement and magical appearance of these binders by Doug Eastwood and/or the city.

    Mary, Thank you for being a voice of reason even when dealing with unreasonable people.

  • 56YearOldNativeWithAVoice posted at 5:28 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    56YearOldNativeWithAVoice Posts: 150


  • JoeIdaho posted at 5:23 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    This whole McEuen thing is a mess.
    I agree with the premise that they are for certain steamrolling this across the backs of the taxpaying public, and it is ridiculous.
    Government WITHOUT representation.

  • Mary Souza posted at 5:01 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Mary Souza Posts: 814

    Nobody's "anti-Doug". I've known him for many years and worked with him---he asked me to chair the city's first Open Space Commission, which I did. But don't try to make sense out of Doug's behavior back then and what he currently seems to support; many folks can't believe what he's doing now.

    To the point someone made about the poor upkeep of McEuen during the past couple of years...YES. Don't you see? All the other parks are beautifully maintained, but Doug's dept. let McEuen "deteriorate"...I think it was on purpose and have been told that by people inside city hall.

    Another part of the contract which was completely ignored were the boundary stipulations. The McEuen contract said no part of Tubb's would be involved, and not 4th street or the west end of Front Street either. But the design team included those in the Plan anyway. Did they do it to play games so they could get people upset and then agree to back off so everyone would accept the rest of the plan?

  • Randy Myers posted at 4:21 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Randy Myers Posts: 1635

    This really isn't about Doug Eastwood or Mary Souza. Mary has, I agree, DeNiles, ruffled some feathers.

    Review the FACTS in the article. Frank Orzell did find some loose ends. Isn't an over $6,000 over run troubling ? Isn't the fact that certain rules on contracts are ROUTINELY not followed bothersome ?

    This is aside from the fact this made the front page weeks after the original discoveries. I think more than ever we can now see why a PUBLIC ADVISORY VOTE is the ethical if not legal thing to do.

    I agree with those who point to the City not being able to adequately maintain the old park (tennis courts) and are questioning what will happen with the new park. Is the parking expected to pay for this ? Good luck with that.

    I will be voting out every council member who failed to second Ron Edinger's motion for a public vote. I will be voting against Sandi Bloem should she choose to run for mayor again. I am not looking at (R) or (D) on the ballots. I am looking behavior.

    For all of you that are urging Mary and Julee to leave town......What are you afraid of ? Surely if they just represent a minority of complainers, why sweat ? Muuhahahaha.

    For the record...I'm not an anti Doug person. I AM an anti McEuen "dream team" person. No way should a few ram this project down the proverbial throat taking away a beloved boat launch and ball fields.

  • DeNiles posted at 3:45 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    Garsh! Looks like Mary stepped on some ones last frayed nerve ending. They sound like the typical city council meeting. Agree with us OR you're an ogre, hate babies, kittens and puppies. And for heavens sake do NOT complain! Do NOT ever........ ever......... EVER........ EVER..... complain! GOT THAT?

    Did you forget Mary? This was a time when your head was supposed to go up and down, not north and south. No WONDER you got booted from P&Z.

  • IMI-UBU posted at 3:16 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    IMI-UBU Posts: 98

    I see that Mary has a fan.
    WOW !!! I have read some postings from you Jullee and I can see why someone like you would stick up for someone like Mary.
    She is not brave just a major pain in the tail.
    You must be about the same.
    Maybe you and Mary can help pack each others bags so you can live somewhere where the two of you can sit around and whine and cry.
    I think that you and Mary both are questionable.
    Maybe you can find an island somewhere and rule as you two wish.

  • Jullee posted at 2:59 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Jullee Posts: 566

    This whole McEuen thing is questionable at best. I would also like to know what book Doug is referring to.
    Thank you Mary for being our watch person . Without you the city would be more out of control than they are. At least you are brave enough to stand up for the tax payers.

  • IMI-UBU posted at 2:41 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    IMI-UBU Posts: 98

    I agree that Mary Souza needs to find something to do. GET A LIFE!!!
    She is a real pain in the rear.
    You may not agree with the project but Doug is doing what he feels is the right thing to do.
    As for the rest of the anti Doug people, how about all of you get off of your cry baby attitudes and try to do something positive for the community rather that sit on your rear complaining. Especially Mary Souza.

  • Timeless posted at 1:35 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Timeless Posts: 480

    @MarySouza: I don't care where you go, just go. If you are from Spokane, then go back there and take your continual complaining with you. Coming from the Queen of Personal Attacks, your whining falls on deaf ears. Stop griping about everything that goes on in MY fine city. Doug Eastwood has done an outstanding job in his role as Parks Director, he has a lot to be proud of.

  • posted at 1:25 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.


    Somebody help me out here....Mr. Eastwood said that everything was done by the book. Which book is that? No business manuel or contract law book I am aware of is this loosey goosey. I have ruled out the bible. Is there a Dr. Seuss book...Let's build a park..keep the public in the dark....? ? The closest thing I came come up with is "This Present Darkness" by local author Frank Peretti....yes....the McEuen plan is in line with THAT book.

  • concernedcitizen posted at 1:22 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530


    So what you are saying is Doug is another puppet with the stakeholders collective hands up his, uh, backside?

    I would like to know why these binders of documents were not presented the very next day as to clear up all suspicion?

    Could it be that they did not exist at that time?

    Either the city attorney really isn't one or he too plays the game Doug does.

  • rationaldiscussionplz posted at 12:56 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    rationaldiscussionplz Posts: 266

    I have a difficult time blaming this all on Mr. Eastwood. First, for those attacking his salary, it is dictated by the city. What he makes is relevant to discussing the city's management, but not him individually. Disparaging him over his salary is foolish. Who amongst us doesn't try to have the best pay we can possibly get? I can't blame him for that.

    Second, Mr. Eastwood has done an amazing job for Coeur d'Alene's parks. Look at us. Look at the map at the bottom of this page: Many, I daresay most, of those parks wouldn't be there if it weren't for this man's hard work over the years. They certainly wouldn't be as nice as they are.

    Third, it has been the city council, LCDC and the Resort that have been pushing this deal along. Mr. Eastwood is just the one who necessarily is called upon to make it happen logistically. But it's the mayor who owns property there. It's the council members who voted to approve the plan who have business interests in the area (and oddly, the only member who was impartial to the changes from a business sense voted against it). It was the mayor who hand-selected the committee to design her dream park. Eastwood is doing his job. The council, LCDC, and the Resort are profiteering.

    That said, I do have a question for which I have yet to see the answer (although I've asked it several times already). One of the reasons given for revamping McEuen is its current state of repair. Over the last many years McEuen has lost features (like the tennis courts) supposedly for lack of maintenance money. Now a larger, more-difficult to maintain park is going to be built. How is this new fancy McEuen going to be maintained properly if the old simple McEuen wasn't able to be maintained properly?

  • Mary Souza posted at 12:53 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Mary Souza Posts: 814

    I'm from Spokane and have lived here for 24 years. Notice the two personal attackers say absolutely nothing about the issue at hand; nothing about the questionable management of the McEuen contract. They try to distract everyone away from the city's incompetence.

  • concernedcitizen posted at 12:08 pm on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    concernedcitizen Posts: 2530

    Why doesn't ANYTHING go out to bid in this town?

    I have to agree that the time laps is rather suspicious between accusation and this "article". Could it be the reason for the editorial from the editor last week? After all, those involved DO have to cover their tracks.

    More of the same ole GOB tactics.

  • Timeless posted at 11:36 am on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Timeless Posts: 480

    Mary Souza: I am so weary of your mean spirited spew! Please return to Richmond, California where you came from. Take your anger with you.

  • 56YearOldNativeWithAVoice posted at 11:00 am on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    56YearOldNativeWithAVoice Posts: 150

    @Mary: (And, my goodness, doesn't Doug look stressed in that photo? This project seems to be taking a lot out of him.

    Have you looked in the mirror lately?

    Chill, life is too short to be so angry, ABOUT EVERYTHING, EVERYDAY!!!!!

  • Randy Myers posted at 10:54 am on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Randy Myers Posts: 1635

    So some of Mr. Orzell's findings were true. One finding of truth that things didn't go as they should ought to be a major red flag.

    "Orzell labeled this as cutting corners, and said any change in a contract should be reflected in writing by amending the original deal."

    Or, in this case, because that's the way it's always been done let's not do that ? I think Doug Eastwood SHOULD look stressed Mary. He is doing the cya dance. $6653 is more than 5% of the design project cost. To me that seems significant. Any bets on how much over 40 million the entire project will go ?

  • Mary Souza posted at 10:31 am on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Mary Souza Posts: 814

    I had trouble holding my cup of tea while reading this "news article" on the front page...I was laughing out loud. Mr. Orzell's complaints were made at a city council meeting more than 6 weeks ago. Why is this a news now? Facts?...No. Just a lot of spin.

    Maybe it took Team McEuen 6 weeks to create the documents they should have had before, and now Doug Eastwood can hold up a couple of big binders and say, "See, it's all here!"

    (And, my goodness, doesn't Doug look stressed in that photo? This project seems to be taking a lot out of him. But the good news for Doug is that his pay is up to a full $100,000 per year now, plus benefits. I bet he really, really, really wants to keep his job. Frank Orzell, on the other hand, is a retired successful business project consultant who just moved here five years ago and has no dog in this fight.)

    None of Doug's grandstanding can erase the fact that the city council is steamrolling this massive spending project right over the citizens.

  • Timeless posted at 9:56 am on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Timeless Posts: 480

    I appreciate this article and the format in which it was written. Just the facts ma'am!

  • Timeless posted at 8:40 am on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    Timeless Posts: 480

    I appreciate this article and the format in which it was written. Just the facts ma'am!

  • DeNiles posted at 8:04 am on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    Since when does the city not require a contract to dispense public funds to any contractor under any circumstances? How can they budget or keep books if they do not approve expenditures PRIOR to making them? Will anyone look at the LCDC accounting and see these payments? Very sloppy at best. How many other vendors/contracts get overpayment just because there is no supposed liability to the modification of terms?

    I would suggest to the Press that if they intend to publish an article that they be part of the entire investigation, not just the follow-up. If the Press was not part of this inquiry from the start at least go to the trouble of validating the original controversies before you print the initial story.

    And why did it take this long to get this clarification from the city? Orzells presentation to the Council was on Aug 2nd and this is the 19th of Sept. If the full facts had been present all along why the delay? Or were those facts absent when Orzell investigated originally? We would know IF the Press had looked alongside with Orzell or shortly there after.

    This is not international spy stuff CdA Press and resonably should be a routine part of your NEWS mantra. Dig out and print the meaningful facts about these important news stories YOURSELVES.

  • ancientemplar posted at 7:38 am on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    ancientemplar Posts: 1287

    Why would any Press reporter ask Gridley anything? He's being paid to protect daddy rabbit and her brood. Ask another penguin with an arm's length view. After all that's all attorneys do, give opinions..

  • PresidentOblahma posted at 5:59 am on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    PresidentOblahma Posts: 24

    Good day simple God fearing gun loving country folk. This is a perfect example of Government knowing what is best for you people. The city council is doing a great job pushing this through just like I did with Oblahmacare. Never you all mind or spend another second thinking about how much it cost tax payers, tax payers are only important when they are paying taxes. Now from what I can see, there's already been too much transparency (I loath that word) so you folk just go back to cleaning your guns or going to church or whatever it is you Hillbilly's do and leave all the rest to the Mayor, The Don, the LCDC and who ever else is going to profit from this park venture. Oops, gotta go, Michelle doesn't like it when I eat french fries!

  • squirrel nutkin posted at 4:38 am on Mon, Sep 19, 2011.

    squirrel nutkin Posts: 231

    Total pointless gobbledegook. The only real issue with McEuen is that the city council, which is beholden to business interests, refused to allow the actual taxpayers to vote on this mega-million dollar plan. The corrupt nature of this entire episode is blatantly transparent, as is the part played by the Cda Resort Press.

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard