By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
OCEAN CITY – Representatives from the Ocean City Flooding Committee asked City Council to delay its vote on a bevy of flood-control contracts Thursday, Aug. 13, but their long list of concerns drew a rebuke from city officials who were offended by accusations they weren’t being judicious with taxpayer money and were awarding contracts based on personal relationships with contractors.
In the end, council unanimously approved all of the contracts as part of a consent agenda.
During public comment before the vote – after City Engineer George Savastano outlined all of the projects – Suzanne Hornick and Mark Hornick read a long statement into the record, asking council to pull the votes on those project resolutions from the agenda.
Saying a two-week delay on awarding the contracts would not make a “bit of difference,” Suzanne Hornick said resolutions should be pulled because the 4,400-plus members of the citizens committee have been asking for years for “an island-wide comprehensive inclusive flooding mitigation and remediation plan. We must plan not only for now, but for our future on our island. You, our council, are charged with protecting our collective best interest and that includes our money. We need to contract with the best firm for our cohesive needs not a piecemeal plan of Band-Aids because we may have personal relationships with one or more of the contractors.” The five contracts should be one, she said, and “splitting the bill seems a bit duplicitous to us.”
“All five of these contracts totaling more than $629,100 should have been put out to bid. Just because any of the contractors listed may have done satisfactory work before doesn’t mean that they are the right contractors for these jobs.”
Most of the criticism from the statement concerned ACT Engineers, the firm being awarded most of the contracts. They suggested there were better firms, such as Baker International, which has worked with Ocean City before, that have multi-disciplinary teams of scientists, designers and engineers and a range of specialists able to deal with the unique problems of a coastal community, but ACT has had to bring on various subcontractors that have added cost to projects.
“Ocean City Flooding Committee perceives that ACT Engineering does not appear to specialize in or have any special training in flood remediation and mitigation, while many firms do,” she said.
With time limited per speaker in public comment, Mark Hornick continued reading the written comments begun by Suzanne.
He said work by ACT on Shooting Island may have contributed to the flooding in the area between 15th Street and Tennessee Avenue, that ACT did not follow up with contractors on proper curb height with work around the raising of 52nd Street.
“We need professionals not firmly entrenched in the city administration who have a background in what we need,” he said. He questioned why the founder of the company was being paid to run city meetings when the city had its own public information officer and that one contract showed ACT had to hire subcontractors. “We don’t think we should pay for that,” he said. “We should have just hired the specialized engineering firm in the first place. This appears to be a frivolous waste of our taxpayer dollars.”
He also asked why the city was spending $15,000 for a piezometer to monitor water pressure “that according to our research costs around $1,500” and that the city has its own engineers who can do the monitoring and perform other functions that would be more cost effective than outsourcing work. Saying Resolution No. 12 should be pulled from the consent agenda because the $63,000 amount should go out to bid, he added, “Just because we used this company in the past doesn’t mean they’re the best ones for the job.”
Resident Chuck Deal said the $366,100 contract for design of a major pump station project should have been put out to bid. He also said the city should consider using one company for multiple projects, which could provide a discount for services.
“It is council’s responsibility to put the residents and our funds and resources first in all decisions,” he said. “In conclusion, we ask for one comprehensive financially responsible flood remediation and mitigation plan for our entire island and respectively request you remember that this council and our city administration should always make the residents and taxpayers their highest priority. Ocean City Flooding Committee and its 4,400 plus members thank you for your time.”
Savastano responds
Egged on by Councilman Keith Hartzell to respond to the Ocean City Flooding Committee’s remarks, Savastano at first said he didn’t know if he wanted to “dignify” with a response comments about not putting taxpayers first “and instead helping businesses we’ve established friendships with.”
“My blood boils when I hear this stuff but I don’t say anything because this is a council meeting. It’s your time,” he told Hartzell.
“I stand by my reputation. You know me. I’ve been doing this for a long time. I’ve been your city engineer for a long time. I’ve been an engineer for almost 40 years. Some of the things in here, I didn’t comment because it’s hogwash. At the same time you’re going out to bid you’re saying we should go with one firm. If you’re going to go with one firm that’s specifically in here, how are we going out to bid if we pick one firm?
“Councilman (Bob) Barr said this is the culmination of years of work. Years. This wasn’t just some on-the-fly things. These are reputable firms, all of them, with reputable people, and you have reputable staff who reviewed these things and made these recommendations,” Savastano said. “I didn’t comment because I didn’t think it was worthy of a comment.
“Comments were made multiple times that we should make the residents and taxpayers the priority,” Savastano said. “Let me tell you what, we do. Every day. The residents and the taxpayers are our highest priority. We try to do things the best we can do for the most effective cost. We don’t give away anything. Do we make mistakes? Sure, we make mistakes, but we always put the residents and the taxpayers first. They are the people we serve. We’re public servants. To me that’s a noble profession, being a public servant. And we take that seriously. It’s that simple.”
Barr, the council president, while saying public discourse is important, assailed the speakers for alleging something inappropriate was taking place.
“They have to be able to back up some of the claims you make. If you have evidence anyone is doing anything because of a personal relationships or anything untoward like that, bring it to my attention,” Barr said. “Otherwise, I know George, I know his character, I know the type of man he is. We’ve had our battles. We don’t always agree. But he’s a good man. To say anyone is doing anything because they have a personal relationship, if you have evidence of that, bring it forward and be prepared to discuss it. Otherwise, you shouldn’t make accusations like that because it is very, very damning and unnecessary.
“So please, again, if you have that information, let us know, and continue to dialogue,” Barr said. “But these people over here (pointing to the administration) and these people over here (pointing to council) are people of the highest character and we all love Ocean City. We all care about Ocean City and we all have reputations to uphold, so to suggest that George or the mayor or anyone on City Council is doing anything untoward … I take great exception to that.”
Right after Barr’s comments, council voted unanimously to approve the consent agenda including the five disputed resolutions.
In public comment after the vote, resident Donna Moore said citizens shouldn’t be made to feel bad for questioning public contracts.
“I don’t think we should be made to feel we are criminals because we spoke about contracts,” she said. “You guys voted on Resolution 6 with empty amounts in that contract so you don’t know what you voted for. You don’t know what it’s going to cost. And you just voted in the bulk agenda vote. It has spaces to be filled in.”
Suzanne Hornick also spoke up, saying she wanted to apologize to Savastano. “We’re not accusing anyone of having a personal relationship,” she said. “That is not our intent. Nobody’s questioning anybody’s integrity up here. We all want the same thing. We all want a good city.”
