Huntingburg Splash Park decision made despite $5000 in incomplete engineering plans

On Monday night the Huntingburg Park Board decided on the location of the new splash park for the second time based on a presentation from Ralph Wallem, an engineer from Benchmark Services. Wallem was hired in June to come up with an “apples to apples” comparison between the two proposed sites.

Park Board President Mike Fulkerson opened the meeting by stating the best move the board could take for the citizens of Huntingburg would be to make a decision on the location of the splash park based on the best “bang for the buck” of the taxpayer. “We asked for a quote last month to compare apples to apples the north site to the south site,” Fulkerson said.

“I don’t feel these are apples to apples quotes still,” Park Board Secretary Joyce Fleck said referring to Ralph Wallem’s presentation. “The minutes specifically said this would include electric, plumbing, sewer, fencing, sidewalk etc. We have no information on the cost of sidewalk on the south site.”

Wallem’s two page report included an analysis of the cost to prepare the two sites but was prefaced with a disclaimer that the presentation was not an all-inclusive cost comparison.

Fleck requested the sources for Wallem’s proposed cost to build the block retaining wall on the north site. Wallem stated he researched the internet to determine the cost of building the retaining wall. That wall -according to an average he compiled from his internet sources- would be around $37 a square foot.

Fleck told Wallem she had contacted Andy Jones of Rockwood Retaining Walls (www.retainingwall.com) and gave him the project specs as shown on Wallem’s proposal. Jones told Fleck the average cost of a retaining wall in this area of the country would be around $22 a square foot; a savings of over $6000 on Wallem’s proposal.

Wallem told Fleck she needed to take into consideration that this was a commercial job with the lives of children at stake. Fleck responded she had been personally involved in bidding out retaining walls for parking lots and the most she had ever paid for a retaining wall was around $22 a square foot for that application; a $15 savings per square foot over Wallem’s proposed price.

Board member Jason Lange asked Wallem about the utility hookups costs that were asked for in the June meeting, but were not included in the report. Wallem stated he had spoken with an electric department employee who had said the hookups wouldn’t be that different between the two sites.

Based on the apparent cost difference of the two sites, Fulkerson, Lange and Mande Keusch voted to put the splash park on the south side of the pool. The three stated they felt they must be responsible with the taxpayers’ money and the lower cost of the site preparation influenced the site decision. Additionally, the space to add more fixtures for future expansion was a consideration in the decision, despite Rueger telling the board he didn’t think it would ever be expanded.

The Board’s feelings the south site was a more responsible use of the taxpayers money doesn’t belay the fact the city will be charged for Wallem’s proposal again. This cost is undetermined yet, but according to Rueger it will probably cost more than Wallem’s initial appearance in June. This cost, in addition to the cost of the June opinion and Small’s incorrect findings, will probably cost the city over $5000 and they have yet to receive an “apples to apples” comparison from any engineer.

“If you went out an bought something and it was missing parts, do you pay for it,” resident Tim Wehr said in regards to the engineering costs, “No, you take it back.”

Board President Fulkerson admitted the money spent on the engineering fees wasn’t an efficient way to get it done, but he didn’t know how the city could recover the money.

A rundown of the Park Board’s decisions since January in regards to the Splash Park.

In January of 2012, the board decided to investigate a proposed location on the south side of the pool that Rueger was recommending and suspended the November decision to place the splash park on the north side of the pool. City Engineer Brian Small was instructed to conduct a cost analysis comparing the north and south proposed locations.

In February, Small provided a one-sided analysis showing the added cost of site preparation on the north site. Secretary Joyce Fleck pointed out the board had requested an “apples to apples” comparison of both proposed sites. Additionally, Small did not have correct information on where the water from the splash park could drain. Small quoted the water running into the city storm-water system. Indiana Department of Environmental Management requires the water for the splash park drain to the city’s waste-water system.

In Small’s proposal, a wet-well and pump were to be added to the north site location at the cost of around $10,000. The pump would move the water to the city storm-water system which was not in accordance with IDEM regulations. The additional $10,000 was a point of contention regarding the two sites, but recently the pump and wetwell have disappeared from engineering proposals.

Due to the impasse on the board in February, Mayor Denny Spinner took Small off of the project and instructed the board to solicit the information from another engineer. In the March meeting, the board again instructed Park Director Rueger to get an “apples to apples” comparison of the two sites with a new set of guidelines.

In June, Ralph Wallem addressed the board and gave an opinion on the safety concerns he had on the north side. He told the board he feared for children being hit by cans and bottles being thrown from passing cars. Additionally he felt it would be more costly to prepare the site on the north side. The board voted to have Wallem provided an “apples to apples” comparison of the two sites with hook ups to city utilities.

The board was not presented with any engineering drawings or proposals at the June meeting prior to them approving Wallem as the engineer to provide the cost analysis. During the course of the meeting Wallem appeared to refer to Small’s hand drawing and notes from the February meeting.

The Park Department has since paid Wallem $1937.00 for the verbal opinion he presented to the board in June and Small was paid over $1200 for his incorrect analysis of the site.

“I have been very clearly told that the mayor doesn’t have  input over the Park Board,” Mayor Denny Spinner told the Free Press in an interview Tuesday morning. “My input at the beginning was to try to get the information to them to make a good decision. The ball has been dropped along the line somewhere. The decision has been made and we have to move forward with that decision, but the issue isn’t over. We will be looking at this process and evaluating how it was done and if corrections need to be made, they will be made.”