Several issues and possible conflicts were found by the hired contractor of the downtown Newton splash pad, and they required two change orders totaling more than $20,000 for the additional work. While the matter was passed by council in a majority vote, it wasn’t without opposition.
Council member Randy Ervin said his sentiments of the project are well known by this point. Although he has said in the past he would support the project because he knows his fellow council members support it, he has long been critical the splash pad, particularly when it comes to the city’s contributions.
“I know I’ve struggled with this project from Day One, and I’ve not hidden my thoughts or feelings on this,” Ervin said. “But I still remember sitting right back there and having a gentleman walk in to talk about the splash pad and the first thing he told us was, ‘This isn’t going to cost the city a penny.’”
Up to this point, he added, it has cost the city a “considerable amount of dollars.” Ervin agonized over adding another $20,000 or so to the project.
“I have a hard time in my mind going from $0 to — if we pay this $20,000 — approximately $245,000 towards this project out of city money,” Ervin claimed. “I just want that to be extremely clear. It’s not at no cost to the city, folks. I mean, it is what it is. Everyone knows my feelings. But it is what it is.”
Approximately $417,000 was fundraised by a local committee to construct the splash pad.
According to city documents, the council awarded Brothers Concrete a contract of $550,812 to construct the splash pad and additional amenities. When issues were uncovered, city staff and Bolton & Menk recommended council approve two change orders and update the completion date to July 7 to account for more work.
Newton Public Works Director Joe Grife said the first change order is to lower a nearby manhole to get it closer to grade standard. As it’s built right now, it is too high. The existing sanitary sewer, which was to be the splash pad’s discharge point, was found to be 7 inches higher than what was designed or planned.
As a result the manhole top is much higher in elevation than the surrounding sidewalks, and it would make site grading and future maintenance difficult and impact the site’s aesthetics. Grife said it is going to require workers to dig it up and relay some pipes to reset the top of the manhole.
The second change order was in response to city staff concerns after the project was bid out. The design showed 2-inch drain lines, and that was determined to be too small. So staff asked contractors to resize the drain lines to 6-inch lines. The city also requested a P-trap be included in the sanitary sewer line.
If not included in the design, it is likely the project could lead to sewer gases escaping through the proposed sanitary lateral.
Some council members questioned why these details in the designs were not scrutinized earlier. Council member Joel Mills asked who was responsible for the design and surveying. Grife turned the answer of that question over to Justin Nickel, the city engineer with Bolton & Menk.
“At the risk of throwing city staff under the bus, the city staff provided us with topographic information,” Nickel said. “So it came from a combination of engineering staff going out and using surveying equipment to get elevations and then from the geographic information system.”
Nickel added he did not know exactly how or why the numbers were so off. Mills then asked which staff member was the lead on the project. Nickel said retired community services director Brian Laube tasked Bolton & Menk with the designs. City administrator Matt Muckler said Laube was in charge of other projects, too.
“In addition to that, he was also working on four other park projects at the same time that were voted in by the voters to be completed and turning over his department to another department director,” Muckler said. “So there was a lot going on and at the same time.”
Council member Melissa Dalton emphasized that although the completion date has been moved the project is not likely to be finished in time. As of press time, the splash pad is not constructed. Grife said the original contract completion date was June 30; since then the city charges $200 every day it is not completed.
Which means following council’s action to extend the completion date, the contractor can be charged an extra $200 a day starting July 8. When Dalton pressed Grife over when he thought the project would be fully completed and operational, he could not say for certain.
Grife said the additional costs of the change orders are going to be paid for with a mixture of parks general funds and stormwater utility funds.
Ervin was speechless. He said council passed the first of three considerations to increase the stormwater utility fees of property owners just a few moments before, and now the city is going to “use those funds to fix a splash pad.”
However, that’s not entirely the case. The stormwater utility fee increases, if adopted, would not go into effect until July 2025.
Grife said in this scenario city staff felt it was appropriate to draw from stormwater utility because the lines that were upsized were stormwater discharge lines. He explained there are two different discharge systems: one goes to sanitary sewer when the splash pad is in use, and the other goes to the storm sewer.
Muckler said council also has the option to determine another funding source. Another legal funding source for these change orders, he said, would be the 2024 park bonds that were approved for improving parks. The city’s plans for tennis courts aren’t happening this year, so that frees up some budget room.
The city council did not motion to switch funding sources and approved the change orders in a 5-1 vote. Ervin voted no. Grife said following council approval he would draft a letter to the contractors informing them of the new completion date and of the $200 per calendar day fee added to the project.
Ervin said, “It’s my understanding that the equipment is not going to arrive until late September. Has that been confirmed?”
Grife said, “I’m not sure the exact date, but, yeah, August or September is when they think it can be delivered from the supplier of the actual splash pad features.”
Nickel noted that although no receipt was made he was told that equipment could be arriving a week after the council meeting. It could then be another two, three or four weeks to install the equipment. Ervin confirmed that city staff would be sticking to its $200 a day penalty to the contractor. Grife assured him they would.
“It’s contractually obligated,” he said.
Jonathan Van Hemert of Van Hemert Family Dentistry has been a long supporter of the splash pad and was even a member of the initial committee that pitched the idea to the Newton Park Board. Van Hemert spoke in favor of the splash pad and advocated for moving the project along.
“I just wanted to talk about giving a sense of urgency here,” Van Hemert said. “This has been going on for quite some time. We raised a lot of private funds to donate towards this. It’s been, I’m not sure if it’s the most, but one of the highest privately funded projects where money is donated to the city.”
Yet, to him, it seems as though the project has stalled out.
“As a donor myself, I would really like to see this project come to completion,” he said. “I’ve seen several other city projects in that time start and finish in a short amount of time, and I’d really like to get a sense of urgency with that. Thank you.”
Most Popular
Comments / 0