Current Topic: The Wastewater System Improvement Project (WSIP)
Who’s accountable? Fayetteville Mayor Dan Coody says he first learned about the ballooning budget and construction delays in February, 2005, only seven months before the WSIP's originally scheduled completion date. He claims he was "left out of the loop" and blames the WSIP's former project manager Burns & McDonnell for a "communication breakdown". But a closer look at the public record contradicts the Mayor’s claims of being uninformed. Watch the videos below to view the Mayor’s version of events and then check out the WSIP timeline for a different perspective.
Update: The Northwest Arkansas Times has published an article that refers to some of the documents posted on this website.
November 6, 2001: Fayetteville voters approve a $125 million sewer bond issue to be paid for with a 3/4 cent sales tax.
December 6, 2001: Mayor Coody signs the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission (ASWCC) and the City of Fayetteville. Up to $100 million is made available to the City to help finance the WSIP. The MOA requires the city to submit various planning and design documents to the ASWCC by specified dates. When the Agreement is signed, the target date for the submission of Final Plans and Specifications (P&S) is March 11, 2003 (see Submittal Schedule on Page 3).
January 14, 2003: E-mail from Ray Santee from Burns & McDonnell (BMcD) to Greg Boettcher, former Fayetteville Water & Wastewater Director
Key Quote:
I have done a preliminary review of the budget with the correct numbers for consultants fees, and a reasonable contingency. The number comes up the same as it did on my first pass last August, right around 140M.
March 17, 2003: Mayor Coody signs the first of three Amendments to the MOA. Performance target dates are "overly optimistic". Submittal Schedule is revised to reflect project delays. Target date for the submission of the Final P&S is changed to March 5, 2004 (about one year later than the original MOA target date).
September 8, 2003: E-mail exchange between Jerry Sonderegger (former Program Manager with BMcD) and Greg Boettcher
Key Quote:
After completion of review of the consultants' proposed progress schedules (see emails earlier today), it will be difficult to say the project will finish in 2006. [...] Using the consultants' schedules, or plugging in earlier construction periods, the completion schedule for the project would be as shown
below:
West Side Collection System -- 9/12/2005
East side Collection system -- 4/4/2006
Noland Improvements -- 6/5/2006
West Side WWTP -- 8/2/2007 [Jerry Sonderegger]
January 5, 2004: Mayor Coody signs the second Amendment to the MOA. WSIP schedule is still slipping. Target date for the submission of the Final P&S is changed to December 30, 2004 (about one year and nine months later than the original MOA target date).
January 27, 2004: E-mail exchange between Greg Boettcher and Jerry Sonderegger
Key Quotes:
I received a call from Mayor Coody late yesterday requesting that you and I meet with him that evening to bring him up to speed on the progress of the wastewater project. [Greg Boettcher]
Right now, the last day of the project shown on the schedule is January 1, 2007 (West Side Plant completion). [Jerry Sonderegger]
March 2004: Final Value Engineering Study Report for East Side Collection System prepared by Robinson, Stafford & Rude, Inc. (see Page 1-1)
Key Quote:
Project Cost Analysis [...] The result of this validation review of the designer's cost estimate resulted in a recommended increase of the estimated project costs from $14,711,200 to $20,155,770. This is approximately a 37 percent increase of the designer's year 2000 cost estimate, which used contractor bidding from February 1999. Of the 37 percent increase, approximately 15 percent is design contingency, which was not included in the designer's estimate.
April 2004: Final Value Engineering Study Report for West Side Treatment Facility prepared by Robinson, Stafford & Rude, Inc. (see Page 1-2)
Key Quote:
Project Cost Analysis [...] The result of this validation review of the designer's cost estimate resulted in a possible increase of the estimated project costs from $39,625,854 to $45,896,172. This is approximately a 16 percent increase over the cost estimate dated July 31, 2003. When price escalation is included to the midpoint of construction (assumed to be December 2005), then the estimated project costs are $51,403,712 or 30 percent increase over the cost estimate dated July 31, 2003.
December 20, 2004: Mayor Coody signs the third Amendment to the MOA. Target date for the submission of the Final P&S is changed to May 15, 2005 (about two years and two months later than the original MOA target date).
February 15, 2005: Mayor Coody expresses his concerns about the progress of the WSIP in a letter to Jerry Sonderegger, then leader of the project management team at Burns & McDonnell.
Key Quote:
Over the past few years I have been informed that the [wastewater] program is on schedule and is moving along according to plan.
March 9, 2005: E-mail exchange between Jerry Sonderegger and Bob Davis, then Fayetteville Water & Wastewater Director. The subject of their discussion is an upcoming presentation to be made before Fayetteville City Council.
Key Quotes:
I assume the thrust would be on budget and schedule and since these two could be volatile, perhaps Matt and I could visit with you on the phone to establish a company line? [Jerry Sonderegger]
Since the West Plant is, in my opinion, the potential bad boy of these projects and because MWY [McGoodwin, Williams & Yates] has taken (again, in my opinion) their own sweet time about submitting acceptable plans and specs., it might not hurt to have MWY present. As far as company line, the truth works for me. My personal opinion is that we justify, in part, budget problems by talking in specifics about material and fuel cost increases over the last 3 years. This data is fairly easy to dig up, is real, and is something that everybody understands from a personal standpoint. As far as scheduling, it appears to me that ADEQ, the Corp, and ASWCC have provided enough land mines
that there might be truth in using the problems we have encountered with them as, again, a partial reason for scheduling problems. [Bob Davis]
|
Page last modified on September 1, 2006
|
