(December 7, 2004) -- We urge Councilmembers not to approve a management doubling -- doubling! -- of $3 million for three previously approved three-year contracts with "construction management" firms with the Dept. of Public Works.

We believe the Council should refer this item to the Council's Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (Councilwoman Reyes Uranga, chair, Vice Mayor Kell vice chair, Councilwoman Gabelich, member) and insist on real data and serious answers.

This is not a reflection on the firms involved. It is the result of the desultory manner in which city management seemingly expects Councilmembers to approve massive expenditures of public money.

As we understand it, the $3 million previously approved and the additional $3 million now being sought don't by themselves construct things. These large taxpayer expenditures pay firms to manage constructing things. Exactly why City Hall management can't do this with the amount of money they already consume is a perfectly fair question.

This is the same city management whose majority had the gall to unionize despite many within City Hall's "six figure club" (Business Journal publisher George Economides' jibe at extravagant salaries), justified (managers claimed) because of their expertise.

We urge Councilmembers not to settle for accept some closed-door management "briefing" on this massive proposed $3 million expenditure. This is public money and a Council "briefing" isn't public. Assertions offered in briefings can't be publicly examined before the vote. In view of the magnitude of what's being proposed here, an 11th hour Council-delivered explanation from the City Manager or a subordinate really isn't adequate.

Management is asking the Council to fork over $3 million in public money on top of $3 million the Council was told would run to 2006. That basically amounts to a 100% underestimation by city management of the real taxpayer costs involved when management told Councilmembers they should begin the process. In our opinion, there's enough in city management's memo to merit questioning the Council's 2003 decision to spend the original $3 million.

Yet in logic we find Orwellian, city management cites the early depletion of $3 million it said 18 months ago would suffice as demonstrating the usefulness of services provided under the contracts. We are amazed.

LBReport.com posts city management's Dec. 7, 2004 memo text in full below. Read it and ask yourself if this is a good deal for you, other LB taxpayers and businesses.

Based on what we read, we remain unpersuaded. We believe the $3 million additional sum requires detailed answers in a Council committee, not some thin justifications at the end of a lengthy, exhausting Council agenda.

LB taxpayers have watched Councilmembers raise fees, shorten library hours, cancel district Council meetings and 1/4 of their public meetings to "save money" while still not fixing curbs, gutters and sidewalks to prevent standing water or providing police officers that LB's Police Chief said he needed a year ago. Other cities somehow manage to do both and more.

We're impressed that $3 million in additional spending can be so easily proposed. We can think of a number of places where that sum might be better spent.

Councilmembers should send this item to their Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for serious fact finding...and possible alternative recommendations as merited by the facts.

City management's agendized Dec. 7 memo text to the Mayor, Councilmembers and the public follows: