The Issue: Pipeline Connection to
Canton Water System
Construction Project Not Bid
Pipeline
Legislation 
Pipeline Not Bid
Pipeline Incomplete
Background Information &
Outcome
The Legislation: The
legislation was discussed in the Water, Sewer & Rubbish
Committee and referred out of committee for legislation on March
18, 2002.
Ordinance No. 41-02 authorizing the Mayor of the City of
North Canton, through the Board of Control, to enter into an
amended agreement (change order) in order to revise the location
of the waterline from price Park/East Maple route (authorized by
Ordinance No. 43-01) to the Everhard/Water Plant route.
The Outcome: The
legislation was read at three open council meetings (March 25,
2002, April 1, 2002 and April 8, 2002). The legislation required
at least four votes for passage and received the needed votes
for all three readings. This was reported in a Repository article dated April 9, 2002.
All members present voted as follows:
Yes: Foltz, Lindower, McLaughlin, Magel, Kiesling
and Snyder. Abstained: Osborne
No: 0
Return to Top
My Position & Rationale
My Position: The City of
North Canton should have bid the pipeline contract. Furthermore,
the increase in funding added to the construction project does
not qualify as a change order.
The City of North Canton failed to advertise for bids for
this pipeline construction project as required by the North
Canton City Charter,
Section 4.05: Contracts and Purchasing. This is also spelled out in Ohio
State Law and is common practice.
|
|
City Council used an exception
in the city charter that allows council to enter into
contracts without advertising for bids in an emergency if
there is an affirmative vote of at least six (6) members.
|
|
|
The only emergency in this
case was that the city administration waited too late in the
year to allow for the bidding process to take place. The
administration was in a rush to get the pipeline completed
by mid-summer. There was a concern that North Canton might
experience a dry summer. North Canton had experienced
occasional summer dry spells for many years and had never
issued any mandatory restrictions on water usage.
|
As a consequence of not bidding the pipeline construction
project, the City of North classified the additional costs to
complete the pipeline project as a “change order”.
|
|
A change order authorizes
additional cost to a contractor for additional work (ORC
153.62). As described in ORC 5525.14, ..”the additional cost
incurred by the increase shall not exceed the lesser of one
hundred thousand dollars or five per cent of the total
contract price. Any such provision for increased quantities
or extra work shall be made in the form of a written change
to the original contract and does not require competitive
bidding”.
|
|
|
The “change
order” for the pipeline project was $397,904.76. The
original pipeline contract that was awarded a year earlier
and halted to due unforeseen circumstances was in the amount
of $1,154,923. The “change order” is thirty-four per cent of
the original construction bid. Because the “change order”
is greater than $100,000 and is more than five per cent of
the original contract, I question the validity of the
“change order”.
|
|
|
As a result of this research,
I contacted an attorney and he concurred with my
observations. Consequently, he wrote a
letter on my
behalf as a taxpayer regarding the protection of public
funds. |
As of July, 2003, my attorney has not taken with any further
action on this issue.
Return to Top
Research, Documentation &
Press Coverage
Return to Top
|
