Difficult-to-explain political maneuvering by Monroe’s Democrat City Council majority potentially has put the city’s citizens in a tough spot.
Last week, the Council again deferred action on a pair of master service agreements with two established engineering firms. Use of MSAs occurs commonly in local governments, which basically is like a retainer: on short notice, the city could call upon these entities to provide services at agreed-upon rates. For example, if a water or sewer line became inoperative or a sinkhole opened up on a street, a firm could be called quickly to the scene to map out a fix and then a contractor (likely on a different agreement) could implement that as quickly as possible to minimize disruption. Shortly thereafter the Council would pass an ordinance declaring that emergency and appropriating money for the repairs.
Without MSAs, there’s no guarantee that issues could be addressed rapidly and probably would cost more. The city’s current arrangements expired at the end of June, before the Council first took up the ordinances that then were tabled at the majority’s behest. MSAs also allow work to commence on regular non-emergency projects as yet without appropriations.
The proposed five-year MSAs are pretty standard. While some set a flat monthly fee, these set individual hourly charges for tasks performed by certain personnel. The city is not obligated to use the firms and can end the bargain in no longer than 30 days if the city requests that.
Yet the Democrat majority has stalled on the matter. Multiple meetings have happened between the no party Mayor Friday Ellis Administration and the apparent point woman from the Council for the issue, Democrat Councilor Juanita Woods along with Tony Little, the former president of the Southside Economic Development District whose time on its board became so controversial that less than a year ago Woods wanted him deposed, even as she had picked him for it (eventually he left it after his term expired).
Woods suggested, and Little in comments echoed, the idea that the agreements were unsatisfactory because they were open-ended, which simply isn’t the case. Rates are fixed and if the city thought they were (or could become, as the text allows an annual adjustment by the firms) too high, it can bail out relatively easily. Nevertheless, she asked for and received a 60-day extension although Council Democrats indicated they could have the measure on the next meeting’s agenda.
An absolute air of mystery surrounds the repeated delays by the Democrat majority. Woods said there are points to them needing clarification, but they are in a form commonly used. And the complaint she brought up is a nonissue. Plus, why is Little involved in negotiations, such as they are?
It seems that Council Democrats are playing for time, perhaps with a goal of replacing or broadening the firms to be parties to agreements. These also have provisions for subcontractors, so making that provision more amenable to including certain favored firms also could be the ploy. In the past couple of years, the majority has had a history of trying to steer city business towards firms it sees as disadvantaged that as a class it favors.
Regardless, there’s no genuinely good reason to sit on this even if with a motive of angling for some kind of patronage deal. Without an MSA in place for engineering tasks, the city risks slower crisis response and higher costs to mitigate. Neither does the citizenry any good.
No comments:
Post a Comment