“Obviously several ways to look at this”


Mr. Harden,

I received the above e-mail it is dated from Sept. of 2012, this date was before I was elected to council, but it raises some concerns. Can you look into this and find out if we paid for our own dirt, and if so why was this allowed to happen. Our taxpayers certainly deserve better. Thank you for looking into this matter.

Drew Bastian



7 Opinions on ““Obviously several ways to look at this”

  1. The base bid for the Dunlawton project included hauling the excavated fill to the wellfield site. There were two alternates in the bid package. Masci bid $314,325 to haul the fill to an optional site other than the wellfield (Alternate 2) and they bid $377,825 for them to retain possession of the dirt (Alternate 3).

    Obviously it cost the contractor something to have his trucks haul the fill to the wellfield site and that was built into his base bid, but that was the lowest cost option. In the case of Masci Corporation, QLH was mistaken in their belief that the contractor would want to keep the excavated fill.

    Then the City received around $60,000 from the sale of some of the dirt.

  2. Hank to councilman Bastian: Thank you for asking the question.

    Hank to Mr. Harden: Thank you for giving the specifics in the answer to the councilman.

    It is unfortunate that the former city manager who should have been communicating with city council members thought this not to be a matter to relay to the city council. We had seen such happen with the before Kisela city manager, and I would have hoped it stopped with Kisela.

    I think Mr. Harden understands the importance of communicating to the city council.

    Now it is going to be important for city council members to start doing their jobs and not treat it like part time work.

  3. Hank,

    How do you know Parker didn’t share with council? Drew stated this was before he took office so have you looked for any emails in the record between Parker and council? Also in the email from Fred he tells Shannon that she might want to share with Parker about this have you looked to see if that conversation took place. I respect you hank because you don’t comment without getting facts first you have shown that you are capable of seeing both sides of the story. You for one seem to think before you speak but on this one you seem to have spoken first. Maybe you have information we don’t sonof you do ease share

  4. Hank to Good Idea. I was writing about Parker’s years of service as city manager, before Kisela. This reduced credit in the contract for the Berm happened in Kisela’s months as city manager. I was not writing about Parker being connected with this change order and the specifics not being relayed to the city council.
    Am I wrong that the reduced credit for the berm project was during Kisela’s months?
    Thanks for asking. == hank

  5. Hank,

    Thanks I assumed that because this was in 2012 that you were saying Parker had something to do with this. Thank you for clearing this up. I check this site every once in a while because I believe that you have to listen to every side of the story to really get the truth, and this site does a wonderful job of showing one side of the story. I also ready your site because I think you do a good job of presenting more than just one side and you will be the first to say you don’t agree with the way somethings are said from this site!

Comments are closed.

418 v