Business as Usual The following is an example of Greene County “Business as Usual” Here is an e-mail I received on Wednesday: From: Marilyn Hartman [mailto:mhartman@hplawoffices.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 9:40 AM To: kcrouch@bluemarble.net; Larry Hasler; Bart Beard Cc: Michael F. Drewry; David Vornehm; 'Devenney, Sean'; Marvin R. Abshire Subject: Litigation update Subject: Litigation update Commissioners, Some time ago some council members asked for an update on the law suit, and I believe Kathy as well.  The litigation has progressed now to a point where Drewry Simmons feels it is important, so Marvin and I have been working on scheduling.  I received confirmation from Drewry Simmons and council members yesterday that they can meet next Monday, the 27th.  Mike and David would like to schedule a session with each commissioner individually (to avoid open door issues) starting at 4:00 p.m.  Mike and David (I think both) will be meeting with council members in non-quorum groups before that.  They will be at my office.  If this time doesn’t work, I understand that all of you will be at Keystone for the Commissioners conference starting on Tuesday the 28th.  The Drewry Simmons offices are next door to the hotel, so another possibility would be to arrange a different time while you are there.  Mike an David’s schedule is very tight this next week, so if you can work out the Monday time it would be best for them, but they will try to arrange something if Monday doesn’t work.   I apologize for the short notice, but it has been difficult to get everyone’s schedules coordinated.  If you could confirm by Friday, either to me or Drewry Simmons that would be great. Marilyn Here is my response: From: Kathy Crouch [mailto:kcrouch@bluemarble.net] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:34 AM To: 'Marilyn Hartman'; 'Larry Hasler'; 'Bart Beard' Cc: 'Marvin R. Abshire' Subject: RE: Litigation update This is extremely classic and so very much ‘business as usual’. On the eve of a Holiday weekend, when the commissioners were all in your presence yesterday – the “team” has conveniently been able to schedule last minute availability for Monday --- but need to have an answer by Friday (the middle of a Holiday weekend). It is very obvious that everyone was aware that a meeting was desired and scheduling was being requested prior to 9:30 a.m. yesterday (the Commissioner’s meeting during which Bart, Larry, you and myself were present) Marilyn, please advise me of your schedule next Friday December 1, 2006 after 12:00 p.m. I am requesting that you brief me on this subject. There has never before been “open door issues” to avoid regarding the subject of Litigation-- therefore, this little tryst is only due to the lack of time to properly post the notice. Of course, what has been outlined is going to be costly to the taxpayer. I am requesting that you brief me on this subject so that the costs to the taxpayer are reduced and due to the fact that none of the suggested meeting dates and times fit into my schedule. I am certain that your hourly rates are far less than that of our Litigation attorneys. Please advise your schedule at the earliest. Regards, Kathy Crouch I recently attended the Indiana Rural Summit. More information to come as time allows. "Election Year 2006" "The Greene County Courthouse is a topic again!" The Courthouse Renovation Project and the Year in Review How important is the status of this project and your tax dollars? Very. How important is oversight of this project? Very. How well has that oversight been carried out in your best interests? Decide for yourself. As November and winter approach once again in Greene County, here we are with yet another Courthouse project delay. This time, it is due to asbestos and lead paint abatement. A winter project delay means that we will be spending money on “portable” heating put into place by the contractor. It also means that we will see another 3-4 months go by with no real progress. How did we get to this point again? I can only surmise that it is due to the lack of oversight of the project. Were county officials aware of asbestos and lead paint in the old courthouse? Sure – all the way back to 2002. How do I know this now? Because I took time to pay a visit to the county’s “owner representative”, Jim Corey. I spent 4 hours at the site, asking questions of this “representative” and reviewing documentation that was provided to me --- only because I asked. I was informed that “testing” for these hazardous materials cannot be done until the area is vacated. This is amazing because testing had been executed in 2002 while the courthouse was occupied, and again at the end of September 2006. I have also educated myself on the fact that HazMat testing results are only valid with the State of Indiana for 2 years. After that 2 year time-frame, testing has to be executed again. Did all involved parties know this? Certainly they did. I also have documentation that shows that the main contractor, Weddle Brothers has had an open Request for Information regarding the HazMat since 2003. Why did the engineer and the owner’s representative put off the required testing, RFI response, vendor solicitation for abatement and scheduling until October of 2006? I can only guess and as Jim Corey says; “Any answer I could supply would be purely speculative”. Weddle Brothers independently pursued testing near the end of September, 2006 because the owner’s representative had not. The test results were provided to the engineer and the owner’s rep immediately. When no decisive action had been taken by October 11, 2006 Weddle Brothers advised the county that the project was on a “critical path delay”. I was not made aware of this delay on October 17th during the regular public commissioner’s meeting – even when I specifically asked Board President, Bart Beard, the status of the project. I was only made aware of this on October 19th when I spent 4 hours on-site asking questions of the County’s owner representative. During my visit to the job site, I became aware of the fact that two vendors had been contacted regarding abatement and responded with very different amounts for the abatement. TolTest responded with a $35K bid and LEPI responded with a $104K bid. Big difference. When I reviewed the bid responses myself – late on the 19th of October, I found that neither response included abatement of the tile flooring at all. This is after the conversation with the owner’s representative involving a long dissertation regarding the manner in which we needed to abate the tile flooring. The very next morning – Friday the 20th, I initiated phone calls requesting information as to why the tile flooring was not included in the bid responses. With no response to my call late in the day, I initiated e-mails to all involved parties. I received no response until the following Monday morning. This makes me wonder if the project’s engineer and representative work for the county on Fridays – maybe not. Just like the summer hours policy at the GC Highway Department – working Fridays from April till October is not something we do. On Tuesday October 24th, the engineering firm informed me that the tile floor abatement had been addressed with a bid response from TolTest for an additional $17K – for the second floor only. I was additionally informed that the tile flooring on the ground and first floor will be addressed when that phase of the project is started. Unfortunately, we all know by now that these things will nickel-and-dime us to death on this project. And we all know that any such delay costs us in “delay fees”. All of this information is public record ---- if you are interested in confirming this information for yourself, please do not hesitate to verify this in any one of the following manners: Bart Beard – President, Board of County Commissioners 812.798.0265 County Auditor’s Office – Courthouse County Attorney’s Office – West side of the Square – Bloomfield And of course, you can contact me anytime at 812.863.2244 or send me e-mail I take this responsibility very seriously. I have provided here a summary of the Courthouse renovation project’s recent happenings; Project History, $2.5M Line of Credit, and Phone Bids. A history of the courthouse project proceedings  Project History During the summer of 2004, the former Board of Commissioners knew we were entering litigation proceedings against UCE and DLZ, yet they awarded another Bridge inspection contract to UCE – this contract goes thru 2007. In February of 2005, Bart Beard and Larry Hasler voted to make President Bart Beard the only communications contact regarding status of the project. We have not heard much since, have we? In January of 2005, I did my research and found an objective A&E firm to take oversight of the project. This was reversed by Bart Beard, Larry Hasler and the county attorney – supposedly because in the first 10 days “this A&E firm was not responsive enough”. Strand was then acknowledged as the A&E of record for the project. Since then, Bart and Larry have awarded another contract to Strand for county bridge work. This week, the Building Corporation voted to increase Strand’s contract another $60K “to cover additional work on structural design problems that have been discovered”. Yet the same media release has the Owner’s Representative, Jim Corey, telling us that “all is fine.” We were told we would be in the new addition by Christmas of 2005. Brick has not yet been completed on the building. We were told that brick should not take more than 3 months. Greene County had a very mild winter – why is the brick not complete and windows in?  $2.5Million Line of Credit In spring of 2005, Bart, Larry and the attorney, pushed for a $2.5Million dollar line of credit for the courthouse project. I disagreed with this because no one had analyzed all aspects of the project’s problems, delays and future – this line of credit was executed based on 7 guess-timated numbers by Jim Corey and the county attorney. My concern then and now is that $2.5Million will not finish the project and we will be in front of you – the taxpayer- again. Due to the fact that the new addition was not complete last fall, external heating had to be brought in – by the contractor. Deduct that from the $2.5M line of credit. In summer of 2005, Strand came in front of the Commissioners regarding a change order for over $6000 for closets in the courthouse addition. I questioned the excessive cost of these closets. That is the last time that Strand or Jim Corey has been in front of the Commissioners regarding the building project. This project is so tight under wraps, it should make one wonder. In November 2005, I made a motion in a commissioner’s meeting to have another public information meeting held. Bart has yet to arrange this. I also wish to point out that Jim Corey, the Owner’s Representative lives near the Indiana/Ohio state line and when he is in Greene County, we pay all expenses. I also believe Jim Corey was made an employee of the Building Corporation.  Phone Bids Fast-forward to the telephone system bids. Strand Engineering developed the specifications for the phone system based on the entire project. Strand was tasked to analyze the responses and present to the Board of Commissioners, 2 bid responses that fit the specifications. Strand is paid hourly. This is your money. Bids from Hi-Com of Lyons and Cornwell of Bloomington were presented to the Board by Strand for $40K+ and $26K, respectively. Hi-Com came back to the Board and shared with us that there was an error in their bid response. The Board agreed to review the two bids again. Upon reviewing the bids, I found what appears to be a discrepancy between the number of phones bid by each vendor and the training costs. Hi-Com’s training costs are greater than $4000. There appears to be a difference of 48 phones between the two bids. Unit phone costs are $185. This is a lot of money. Our illustrious Building Corporation and Jim Corey, the Owner’s Representative for the courthouse project have chosen to speak negatively of this phone bid process. What they do not appear to realize is that if Hi-Com bid to the spec’s correctly – the second time – their bid is by far the best and cheapest bid. And the taxpayer is assured of a sound, fair and legal process Instead, it appears there are those persons that would rather the bids be awarded with no oversight. This is how Greene County got into this mess in the first place. I work for the taxpayer. It is my responsibility to make certain that dollars are spent wisely and correctly. I take this responsibility very seriously.