Roundabout questions, and an answer

With a ribbon cutting ceremony for the Roundabout scheduled for today at 3 p.m., a question remains: When did your elected officials approve an extra $350,000 of your Water, Sewer and Storm payments to go toward the Roundabout project?

At a recent City Council meeting, director of Public Works Ken Lanfear gave the latest figures: Engineering, $345,388.76. Construction, $3,163,227.64. Engineering and Construction, $3,439,030.88. (These figures were given to council members, but not provided to the public, at the April 26, 2010 meeting.) Instead of the  $538,533.41 Water, Sewer and Storm funding voted on by council in approving the package in July of 2009, Lanfear’s most recent figures show a contribution of $895,009.93, and increase of $356,476.52, or 66 percent; this, despite the abandonment of an attempt to install an 18-inch sewer line. The three local utilities also contributed $85,000 to engineering costs on the Roundabout.
The seven Ocean Shores City Council representatives were asked to comment on this, and when they approved the changes. This week’s newspaper article states: “The council representatives, who were also given follow-up phone calls, did not answer questions from this newspaper, regarding the Roundabout funding.”
That turns out to be incorrect, as John Lynn did provide an answer. (See below.)
Others responded, but did not answer specific questions.
Council member Jackie Farra responded by stating she had been absent from the recent meeting in which Roundabout figures were passed out. Council member Gordon Broadbent responded by wondering where I got my figures; I responded by saying they came from the July 27, 2009 agenda and the recent figures passed out by  Lanfear, and simply subtracting to find the differences. He did not respond in time for this week’s story, but later said he has asked city staff for clarity on this issue.
I did not hear from Peggy Berry, Dave Creighton, Bob Crumpacker and Dick Skewis. I will follow up with them again, this week.

Councilman Lynn returned a call by me on Saturday morning and left a message. After I returned his call and left a message, he responded to my questions via email. Though he sent the answers before my deadline for the newspaper story, and re-sent them twice, I never received them, electronically. He ended up having to hand deliver his answers.

The questions:
-When were you first informed that the project was running significantly over bid?
-Did you give your approval, either formally or informally, for the Water/Sewer/Storm increases?
-Are you satisified with any studies provided to you showing the rationale for the cost breakdown?
-Are you satisifed that $345,388.76 was spent on Professional Engineering, including $85,379.59 of Water/Sewer/Storm money, and yet a sewer line was not installed, due to instability?

Lynn’s answers:

1) I have only been on the council since January 1, 2010, but I did sit in the audience at council meetings. I don’t remember this exact question being raised but I do remember reports given that indicated an overrun.
2) No, I wasn’t on the council.
3) I have not seen any of the studies but I assume that they were available to the council when they made the round-a-bout decision.
4) I don’t believe that the word “satisfied” really defines your question. Any time that a cost overrun is anticipated or occurs, all parties should be very concerned. Professional Engineering is both a science and an art in my opinion and is necessary to try to determine the scope of an activity and to attempt to avoid problems. The sewer portion of your figures ($49,607.92) did not result in a positive outcome. It did however give us information to use in the future if we attempt to construct below the water . . .