But the project is going on now and it's screwed up and costing tax payers money. So instead of fixing this problem he's trying to ram down another project down the tax payers throatsbefitter said:Bob Yancy was not on the council when this project began.EBrazosAg said:
Bob Yancy and friends can't be distracted by things like soil testing…. There are more important things to do - like V3.0 Convention Center and YMCA!
Rock Prairie Baseball Fields
37,281 Views |
314 Replies |
Last: 8 mo ago by MsDoubleD81
hopeandrealchange said:
I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider a project that includes considerable excavation next to a landfill a good idea.
The potential liability they have dug up could be astronomical.
It seems our local leaders kick hornet nests any chance they get.
With our voting record we continue to get what we deserve.
Proximity to a landfill has zero impact on soil suitability. This site is adjacent to the landfill, not on it and the landfill is lined as required by TCEQ. The issue at hand is more likely due to how the site was previously used as a borrow pit for capping off the landfill and then reclaimed with a "fill dirt needed" sign. That would be my guess looking at historical google images of ponds where the fields are supposed to go
SCHTICK00 said:hopeandrealchange said:
I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider a project that includes considerable excavation next to a landfill a good idea.
The potential liability they have dug up could be astronomical.
It seems our local leaders kick hornet nests any chance they get.
With our voting record we continue to get what we deserve.
Proximity to a landfill has zero impact on soil suitability. This site is adjacent to the landfill, not on it and the landfill is lined as required by TCEQ. The issue at hand is more likely due to how the site was previously used as a borrow pit for capping off the landfill and then reclaimed with a "fill dirt needed" sign. That would be my guess looking at historical google images of ponds where the fields are supposed to go
I learned along time ago not to make assumptions.
You hit the nail on the head here. Who knows what's in that soil? Better question... how long have they known it was there?
I could be misreading the docs I was given by CoCS. But it looks like there was a soil report done by a firm called Geotech. I don't think I have that one.
There is this language in addendum 2 of the scope of work:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE CIVIL DOCUMENTS, THE SOIL REPORT, AND THESE DOCUMENTS (ALL IN THEIR ENTIRETY) TO ENSURE THAT ALL REQUIRED EARTHWORK, PAVING, CURB, AND STRUCTURAL SLAB WORK IS FULLY COVERED IN THE SCOPE OF THE CONTRACTOR'S BID. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FULLY COORDINATE ALL OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED WORK WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, THE ARCHITECT, AND CIVIL ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT ALL WORK IS FULLY COORDINATED AND COMPLETE.
Then there is section 8 of the actual contract:
8. NATURE OF THE WORK
8.01 It is understood and agreed that the Contractor has, by careful examination, studied and compared the Plans and other Contract Documents, satisfied itself as to the nature and location of the Work, the conditions of the ground and soil, the nature of any structures, the character, quality, and quantity of the material to be utilized, the character of equipment and facilities needed for and during the prosecution of the Work, the time needed to complete the Work, Contractor's ability to meet all deadlines and schedules required by this Agreement, the general and local conditions, including but not limited to weather, and all other matters that in any way affect the Work under this Agreement. These obligations are for the purpose of facilitating construction by the Contractor and are not for the purpose of discovering errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the Contract Documents; however, any errors, inconsistencies or omissions discovered, or which reasonably should have been discovered by the Contractor shall be reported promptly to the City as a request for information in such form as the City may require. However, the Contractor shall not perform any act or do any Work that places the safety of persons at risk or potentially damages materials or equipment used in the Project, and the Contractor shall do nothing that would render any test or tests erroneous.
8.02 Any design errors or omissions noted by the Contractor shall be reported promptly to the City, but it is recognized that the Contractor's review is made in the Contractor's capacity as a contractor and not as a licensed design professional unless otherwise specifically provided in the Contract Documents. Any nonconformity discovered by or which reasonably should have been discovered or made known to the Contractor shall be reported promptly to the City.
8.03 If the Contractor fails to perform the obligations of Sections 8.01. and 8.02., the Contractor shall pay such costs and damages to the City as would have been avoided if the Contractor had performed such obligations. The Contractor shall not be liable to the City for damages resulting from errors, inconsistencies or omissions in the Contract Documents or for differences between field measurements or conditions and the Contract Documents unless the Contractor recognized or reasonably should have recognized such error, inconsistency, omission or difference and knowingly failed to report it to the City.
I don't know if these are necessarily related to the problems that stopped the work, but some info from a April 2023 Change Order:
Additional Soil Testing: Unforeseen site conditions related to the in-situ subgrade soil require additional testing to determine the best methodology for treating pumping areas, soft subgrade, and poor workabiity. Additional testing will include four test pits in the parking lot area due to the concerns over the subgrade and depth to hard bottom that was found to be about 15-feet in depth during installation of storm sewer line C. Two test areas in the more noticably softer areas of subgrade will be conducted to evaluate methods of soil treatment. The first 30-foot by 50-foot test area will be excavated to 3-feet in depth, the excavated soil mixed, placed in 6-inch lifts, and compacted to grade. The second test area will be of the same size and methodology, but will included the mixing of lime with the excavated soil (approximately 2.5%-3%) prior to placement and compaction. The testing laboratory and the design team will evaluate these results and issue a reccomendation for subgrade treatment.
Storm Line C Trench Treatment: Storm Line C encountered issues of soft subgrade soils at and below the proposed flow line of the pipe. Contractor overexcavated the trench to find a workable soil strata that was located 5-feet below the bottom of the pipe design elevation. Contractor will excavate the rest of the line to hard bottom and replace excavated material with cement sand to within 1-foot of pipe bottom elevation and will grade and embed the pipe with cement sand withn the last remaining foot .
I don't have much experience with these kinds of contracts. But reading them, I think I could make a pretty good guess at what questions will need to be answered on August 24. Ideally Council would also take the opportunity to figure out "is this worth doing?" if they are seriously considering moving forward on the project after everything. I still think it is ridiculous that they didn't do that originally. But staff and maybe some on council were in a big hurry to get everything going before the bond vote. I wonder if that time crunch also led to these new issues that we are seeing now.
There is this language in addendum 2 of the scope of work:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE CIVIL DOCUMENTS, THE SOIL REPORT, AND THESE DOCUMENTS (ALL IN THEIR ENTIRETY) TO ENSURE THAT ALL REQUIRED EARTHWORK, PAVING, CURB, AND STRUCTURAL SLAB WORK IS FULLY COVERED IN THE SCOPE OF THE CONTRACTOR'S BID. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FULLY COORDINATE ALL OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED WORK WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, THE ARCHITECT, AND CIVIL ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT ALL WORK IS FULLY COORDINATED AND COMPLETE.
Then there is section 8 of the actual contract:
8. NATURE OF THE WORK
8.01 It is understood and agreed that the Contractor has, by careful examination, studied and compared the Plans and other Contract Documents, satisfied itself as to the nature and location of the Work, the conditions of the ground and soil, the nature of any structures, the character, quality, and quantity of the material to be utilized, the character of equipment and facilities needed for and during the prosecution of the Work, the time needed to complete the Work, Contractor's ability to meet all deadlines and schedules required by this Agreement, the general and local conditions, including but not limited to weather, and all other matters that in any way affect the Work under this Agreement. These obligations are for the purpose of facilitating construction by the Contractor and are not for the purpose of discovering errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the Contract Documents; however, any errors, inconsistencies or omissions discovered, or which reasonably should have been discovered by the Contractor shall be reported promptly to the City as a request for information in such form as the City may require. However, the Contractor shall not perform any act or do any Work that places the safety of persons at risk or potentially damages materials or equipment used in the Project, and the Contractor shall do nothing that would render any test or tests erroneous.
8.02 Any design errors or omissions noted by the Contractor shall be reported promptly to the City, but it is recognized that the Contractor's review is made in the Contractor's capacity as a contractor and not as a licensed design professional unless otherwise specifically provided in the Contract Documents. Any nonconformity discovered by or which reasonably should have been discovered or made known to the Contractor shall be reported promptly to the City.
8.03 If the Contractor fails to perform the obligations of Sections 8.01. and 8.02., the Contractor shall pay such costs and damages to the City as would have been avoided if the Contractor had performed such obligations. The Contractor shall not be liable to the City for damages resulting from errors, inconsistencies or omissions in the Contract Documents or for differences between field measurements or conditions and the Contract Documents unless the Contractor recognized or reasonably should have recognized such error, inconsistency, omission or difference and knowingly failed to report it to the City.
I don't know if these are necessarily related to the problems that stopped the work, but some info from a April 2023 Change Order:
Additional Soil Testing: Unforeseen site conditions related to the in-situ subgrade soil require additional testing to determine the best methodology for treating pumping areas, soft subgrade, and poor workabiity. Additional testing will include four test pits in the parking lot area due to the concerns over the subgrade and depth to hard bottom that was found to be about 15-feet in depth during installation of storm sewer line C. Two test areas in the more noticably softer areas of subgrade will be conducted to evaluate methods of soil treatment. The first 30-foot by 50-foot test area will be excavated to 3-feet in depth, the excavated soil mixed, placed in 6-inch lifts, and compacted to grade. The second test area will be of the same size and methodology, but will included the mixing of lime with the excavated soil (approximately 2.5%-3%) prior to placement and compaction. The testing laboratory and the design team will evaluate these results and issue a reccomendation for subgrade treatment.
Storm Line C Trench Treatment: Storm Line C encountered issues of soft subgrade soils at and below the proposed flow line of the pipe. Contractor overexcavated the trench to find a workable soil strata that was located 5-feet below the bottom of the pipe design elevation. Contractor will excavate the rest of the line to hard bottom and replace excavated material with cement sand to within 1-foot of pipe bottom elevation and will grade and embed the pipe with cement sand withn the last remaining foot .
I don't have much experience with these kinds of contracts. But reading them, I think I could make a pretty good guess at what questions will need to be answered on August 24. Ideally Council would also take the opportunity to figure out "is this worth doing?" if they are seriously considering moving forward on the project after everything. I still think it is ridiculous that they didn't do that originally. But staff and maybe some on council were in a big hurry to get everything going before the bond vote. I wonder if that time crunch also led to these new issues that we are seeing now.
Brian Alg
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
So the question seems to be, where is the original geo tech report that was done, which I presume included the remediation recommendation.
If, in fact, it did include it. Why was it omitted? Who decided to omit it, and at what risk were they willing to make that decision? Who would claim the success of this project if it was completed without an issue?
Those are the people that need to bring answers to the meeting to explain to the tax payers that their gamble didn't pay off. The cover up is always worse than the crime itself.
Edited to add: if this one was uncovered, how many more of these situations have been swept under the rug and just paid for with tax dollars?
If, in fact, it did include it. Why was it omitted? Who decided to omit it, and at what risk were they willing to make that decision? Who would claim the success of this project if it was completed without an issue?
Those are the people that need to bring answers to the meeting to explain to the tax payers that their gamble didn't pay off. The cover up is always worse than the crime itself.
Edited to add: if this one was uncovered, how many more of these situations have been swept under the rug and just paid for with tax dollars?
BRIANVD04 said:
So the question seems to be, where is the original geo tech report that was done, which I presume included the remediation recommendation.
If, in fact, it did include it. Why was it omitted? Who decided to omit it, and at what risk were they willing to make that decision? Who would claim the success of this project if it was completed without an issue?
Those are the people that need to bring answers to the meeting to explain to the tax payers that their gamble didn't pay off. The cover up is always worse than the crime itself.
Edited to add: if this one was uncovered, how many more of these situations have been swept under the rug and just paid for with tax dollars?
If memory serves me right we had a Fire house constructed not far from the ball park location.
The structure failed shortly after completion.
There is a history.
After watching last night's city council meeting concerning the convention center and the rec center I disagree...that anyone is trying to ram anything down anyone's throats. The council agreed to have city staff continue researching whether either project is feasible.BQ_90 said:But the project is going on now and it's screwed up and costing tax payers money. So instead of fixing this problem he's trying to ram down another project down the tax payers throatsbefitter said:Bob Yancy was not on the council when this project began.EBrazosAg said:
Bob Yancy and friends can't be distracted by things like soil testing…. There are more important things to do - like V3.0 Convention Center and YMCA!
befitter said:After watching last night's city council meeting concerning the convention center and the rec center I disagree...that anyone is trying to ram anything down anyone's throats. The council agreed to have city staff continue researching whether either project is feasible.BQ_90 said:But the project is going on now and it's screwed up and costing tax payers money. So instead of fixing this problem he's trying to ram down another project down the tax payers throatsbefitter said:Bob Yancy was not on the council when this project began.EBrazosAg said:
Bob Yancy and friends can't be distracted by things like soil testing…. There are more important things to do - like V3.0 Convention Center and YMCA!
And I'm sure all the studies they pay for will tell them how great it'll be. Again they can't even build 4 ball fields without it being a disaster
Listening to the mayor earlier this week on WTAW and the city manager today on WTAW, it feels like they have all but said the project is being abandoned.
This is the issueSCHTICK00 said:hopeandrealchange said:
I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider a project that includes considerable excavation next to a landfill a good idea.
The potential liability they have dug up could be astronomical.
It seems our local leaders kick hornet nests any chance they get.
With our voting record we continue to get what we deserve.
Proximity to a landfill has zero impact on soil suitability. This site is adjacent to the landfill, not on it and the landfill is lined as required by TCEQ. The issue at hand is more likely due to how the site was previously used as a borrow pit for capping off the landfill and then reclaimed with a "fill dirt needed" sign. That would be my guess looking at historical google images of ponds where the fields are supposed to go
Has zero to do with soil quality or drainage, or environmental concerns etc.
The site was being built on a former borrow pit. Rumor is the city knew about it the whole time and did not inform Vaughn or the Engineer
Smells like convention center money might rise out of the decaying carcass of this project.
Did you watch or attend the council meeting?BQ_90 said:befitter said:After watching last night's city council meeting concerning the convention center and the rec center I disagree...that anyone is trying to ram anything down anyone's throats. The council agreed to have city staff continue researching whether either project is feasible.BQ_90 said:But the project is going on now and it's screwed up and costing tax payers money. So instead of fixing this problem he's trying to ram down another project down the tax payers throatsbefitter said:Bob Yancy was not on the council when this project began.EBrazosAg said:
Bob Yancy and friends can't be distracted by things like soil testing…. There are more important things to do - like V3.0 Convention Center and YMCA!
And I'm sure all the studies they pay for will tell them how great it'll be. Again they can't even build 4 ball fields without it being a disaster
Nope
Captn_Ag05 said:
Listening to the mayor earlier this week on WTAW and the city manager today on WTAW, it feels like they have all but said the project is being abandoned.
Yay!!! MOAR WASTED MONEY!!
Hornbeck said:Captn_Ag05 said:
Listening to the mayor earlier this week on WTAW and the city manager today on WTAW, it feels like they have all but said the project is being abandoned.
Yay!!! MOAR WASTED MONEY!!
Wait, you want to continue with the ball park project so we don't "waste" the money already spent?
Because it sounds to me like maybe they are going to cancel the ballpark project, thereby not spending (wasting?) any more money on it.
Interesting that the mall purchase is pretty close to the estimate for remediation.
Sunk cost fallacy is a hard habit to kick
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
Brian Alg
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
Brazos Coalition for Responsible Government and Moderator Restraint
BiochemAg97 said:Hornbeck said:Captn_Ag05 said:
Listening to the mayor earlier this week on WTAW and the city manager today on WTAW, it feels like they have all but said the project is being abandoned.
Yay!!! MOAR WASTED MONEY!!
Wait, you want to continue with the ball park project so we don't "waste" the money already spent?
Because it sounds to me like maybe they are going to cancel the ballpark project, thereby not spending (wasting?) any more money on it.
Maybe perform all necessary geotech and other due diligence up front so zero money gets wasted? Maybe go through all the same processes that you as a city make a private developer comply with?
RafterAg223 said:BiochemAg97 said:Hornbeck said:Captn_Ag05 said:
Listening to the mayor earlier this week on WTAW and the city manager today on WTAW, it feels like they have all but said the project is being abandoned.
Yay!!! MOAR WASTED MONEY!!
Wait, you want to continue with the ball park project so we don't "waste" the money already spent?
Because it sounds to me like maybe they are going to cancel the ballpark project, thereby not spending (wasting?) any more money on it.
Maybe perform all necessary geotech and other due diligence up front so zero money gets wasted? Maybe go through all the same processes that you as a city make a private developer comply with?
Well, yes that would have been a good idea.
But we are here now and the decision is to either dump more money into a project that they can't complete because the tax payers voted against a bond to fund phase 2, or they can give up.
I think there should be a lot of questions answered about what was known and by who when we they started this project.
And all the blame doesn't just land at the feet of the elected city council. City staff put these things together and provide recommendations to the city council.
Mayor Nichols was on WTAW this morning. He said that a geotech report was performed but the soil conditions were "not detected as well as necessary".BiochemAg97 said:RafterAg223 said:BiochemAg97 said:Hornbeck said:Captn_Ag05 said:
Listening to the mayor earlier this week on WTAW and the city manager today on WTAW, it feels like they have all but said the project is being abandoned.
Yay!!! MOAR WASTED MONEY!!
Wait, you want to continue with the ball park project so we don't "waste" the money already spent?
Because it sounds to me like maybe they are going to cancel the ballpark project, thereby not spending (wasting?) any more money on it.
Maybe perform all necessary geotech and other due diligence up front so zero money gets wasted? Maybe go through all the same processes that you as a city make a private developer comply with?
Well, yes that would have been a good idea.
But we are here now and the decision is to either dump more money into a project that they can't complete because the tax payers voted against a bond to fund phase 2, or they can give up.
I think there should be a lot of questions answered about what was known and by who when we they started this project.
And all the blame doesn't just land at the feet of the elected city council. City staff put these things together and provide recommendations to the city council.
Staff to present a timeline and options at this weeks Council meeting.
MeKnowNot said:Mayor Nichols was on WTAW this morning. He said that a geotech report was performed but the soil conditions were "not detected as well as necessary".BiochemAg97 said:RafterAg223 said:BiochemAg97 said:Hornbeck said:Captn_Ag05 said:
Listening to the mayor earlier this week on WTAW and the city manager today on WTAW, it feels like they have all but said the project is being abandoned.
Yay!!! MOAR WASTED MONEY!!
Wait, you want to continue with the ball park project so we don't "waste" the money already spent?
Because it sounds to me like maybe they are going to cancel the ballpark project, thereby not spending (wasting?) any more money on it.
Maybe perform all necessary geotech and other due diligence up front so zero money gets wasted? Maybe go through all the same processes that you as a city make a private developer comply with?
Well, yes that would have been a good idea.
But we are here now and the decision is to either dump more money into a project that they can't complete because the tax payers voted against a bond to fund phase 2, or they can give up.
I think there should be a lot of questions answered about what was known and by who when we they started this project.
And all the blame doesn't just land at the feet of the elected city council. City staff put these things together and provide recommendations to the city council.
Staff to present a timeline and options at this weeks Council meeting.
The question I want answered is what was the geotech recommendation based on their logs.
And when was that survey performed?
Isn't the geotech survey conducted at the outset of the engineering design?trouble said:
And when was that survey performed?
"The question I want answered is what was the geotech recommendation based on their logs"
Shouldn't the geotechnical recommendations have been part of the construction specifications?
Sorry if these are dumb questions, this is not my area of expertise.
I've been told that the soil survey was very very old.
Geotech recommendations are often ignored for cost cutting measures. It's on the architect and owners to adopt the recommendations.
No way this is true
That's why I'd like to know the date
As someone mentioned, the SWPPP is SOP for any construction site where public infrastructure is taking place: streets, utilities, earthwork and excavation, etc. You will not see them in front of homes, but the developer who created the lots that the homes are built on had a SWPPP program. SWPPP certificate is carried through the entire project until their is a certificate of completion on the public infrastructure.
Geotechnical work is done to come up with foundation types and recommendations that would work on that site's specific soil. The report can also recommend how much of the existing dirt you should "cut out" and "fill in" with select fill.
- this is done by multiple borings scattered through the site done by a drilling rig
- for the products I have built, I go anywhere from 15-20' deep.
- because of the old landfill proximity and borrow pit and dumping history this specific area has, those borings should have gone deeper than that
- however, geotechnical work is done, mainly, to properly engineer foundations, footings, etc.
- so it is not what should be the main focus here
From the outside looking in, what needs to be honed in on is the environmental assessment aspect of feasibility. If land areas/sites have a checkered past like this one, environmental assessments are performed in phases. If phase 1 comes back clean then no need to go to phase 2. However, this specific site should have had a 3 phase environmental assessment on it no matter the findings in phase 1 and phase 2. Simply to cover all the bases and to be good stewards of other people's money/our money/hardworking taxpayers.
I do not know what was done and was not done but anything short of a recent and exhaustive environmental assessment is negligent and inexplicable.
If this abandonment of project after millions have been spent happened In the private sector, such a group would be out of business, have to declare bankruptcy, and would take years to recover. That's why development belongs in the private sector - There is too much risk, money, and livelihood on the line to not cover all your bases. In the public sector, those components are hardly considered.
I've been looking forward to this council meeting to 'get the scoop.' But, I won't hold my breath for anything material to be shared or for any person or group to take the blame. From what I know, to remedy the findings, 40-50' down of additional excavation is required, a more than exorbitant cost, an unimaginable cost.
I have no way of knowing if this could have been avoided (being in the development business, I like to think it could have with more and better due diligence), but COCS, please stop pursuing developments and stay in your lane.
Geotechnical work is done to come up with foundation types and recommendations that would work on that site's specific soil. The report can also recommend how much of the existing dirt you should "cut out" and "fill in" with select fill.
- this is done by multiple borings scattered through the site done by a drilling rig
- for the products I have built, I go anywhere from 15-20' deep.
- because of the old landfill proximity and borrow pit and dumping history this specific area has, those borings should have gone deeper than that
- however, geotechnical work is done, mainly, to properly engineer foundations, footings, etc.
- so it is not what should be the main focus here
From the outside looking in, what needs to be honed in on is the environmental assessment aspect of feasibility. If land areas/sites have a checkered past like this one, environmental assessments are performed in phases. If phase 1 comes back clean then no need to go to phase 2. However, this specific site should have had a 3 phase environmental assessment on it no matter the findings in phase 1 and phase 2. Simply to cover all the bases and to be good stewards of other people's money/our money/hardworking taxpayers.
I do not know what was done and was not done but anything short of a recent and exhaustive environmental assessment is negligent and inexplicable.
If this abandonment of project after millions have been spent happened In the private sector, such a group would be out of business, have to declare bankruptcy, and would take years to recover. That's why development belongs in the private sector - There is too much risk, money, and livelihood on the line to not cover all your bases. In the public sector, those components are hardly considered.
I've been looking forward to this council meeting to 'get the scoop.' But, I won't hold my breath for anything material to be shared or for any person or group to take the blame. From what I know, to remedy the findings, 40-50' down of additional excavation is required, a more than exorbitant cost, an unimaginable cost.
I have no way of knowing if this could have been avoided (being in the development business, I like to think it could have with more and better due diligence), but COCS, please stop pursuing developments and stay in your lane.
From what I got out of the Council meeting, the city has spent $5 million for a concession stand and/or bathroom on an otherwise unusable property.
In addition, the Council found no parties to blame?
WTF??
In addition, the Council found no parties to blame?
WTF??
Listening to the council workshop. I will try my best to summarize what was said:
Direction from council
- The geotechnical survey was done in 2019
- $4.75 million spent so far
- No HOT tax spent
- $1.25 million was design work
- The remaining of $3.5 million was largely utility work and a slab for concession
- It was determined in early 2023 that the soil was much more unstable and shifting more than expected
- Construction stopped in April
- The potential solutions included removing soil, mixing with drier more stable soil and putting back or removing unstable soil and replacing completely with a better quality soil
- The cost estimate of these options were between 10-16 million
- Another option was to abandon the ballpark on site and turn into a passive park or something like frisbee golf course or dog park
- The utility and infrastructure work and slab work that was done for the concession stands is still good and could be used in whatever alternative use is determined
Direction from council
- The council directed that the project be stopped and seek public input on the best use of the land, returned to the parks board to seek public input, utilize infrastructure that was paid for and installed
- Councilman Yancy asked the city staff to do all they can to determine what the city can do to be made as whole as possible by engineering firm for their failings in locating this issue
- Look for additional location options for baseball fields that can be used by local teams as well as hosting tournaments
- Directed city staff to review the bond regulations and develop plan on what the bond money can be used for instead of the fields - roads was main suggestion from council
Was there discussion about firing the city employees responsible for the waste of money? Just asking for a friend …….If I was COCS council I'd like to know who not to trust…..anyone in my business who loses a million dollars - including myself- deserves termination. That includes choosing a "consultant "'who performs at the same level… what makes a consultant? They live 250 miles or more away and have a suit and a MBA. A hospital CEO taught me that …
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
EBrazosAg said:
Was there discussion about firing the city employees responsible for the waste of money? Just asking for a friend …….If I was COCS council I'd like to know who not to trust…..
Agreed.
But to logical of a question to ask if your on city council.
Was the cause of the unstable soil the landfill? And is it contained where the ball fields were going?
All blame was placed on the engineering firm that said the soil was good to go before work commenced.EBrazosAg said:
Was there discussion about firing the city employees responsible for the waste of money? Just asking for a friend …….If I was COCS council I'd like to know who not to trust…..