From: fred kirby
Date: Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:29 AM
Subject: Proposed Waste Water Treatment facility
To: Rodger Craddock <email@example.com>
Coos Bay Mayor Crystal Shoji:
Dear Mayor Shoji:
As spokesperson for the city, may the people have a response from you re the subject matter and DA Frasier's 26 September letter, as amended, next week? Are there four lawbreakers sitting on the Coos Bay city council?
In a big bold letters headline on 27 September, The World newspaper informed the people of this planet that, in the opinion of the local DA, four sitting council members "may have broken the law".
I write to you as a somewhat confused taxpaying citizen of Coos Bay. For the benefit of council candidates who do not have 13 years, or 13 months, exposure to the wastewater treatment facility history and who are being asked opinions; and for the public in general who watch Coos Media recorded council proceedings; and for the readers of The World who go no further than to read headlines and who are begging for a response from their elected representatives; it is respectfully requested that you set, as an agenda item, or otherwise, at the next scheduled council meeting, time for a meaningful discussion of the content of District Attorney Frasier's 26 September letter re the subject matter and provide all council members with an opportunity to respond to the people.
Receipt of a copy of DA Frasier's 26 September letter, as revised, causes grave concerns. Mr. Frasier who is neither an expert in contracting or in the construction and management of wastewater treatment facilities, in large part, relied on input from the city manager to form his opinions. For months, council candidate deVriend and I have independently been doing all possible to understand the subject matter. I am certain that others have done the same. This citizen has previously expressed written concern to the council and city manager that the current wastewater related "RFP" on the street should have been, at best, a request for information. I have every reason to believe that the efforts and objectives of Mr. Brick, Daily, Leahy and Vaughn were and are intended to assure that the taxpayers receive the best wastewater treatment facility for the lowest cost over the next twenty years. However, I consider the latest RFP effort demanded of the city manager to be time wasting and bidder misleading - RFP's are issued in contemplation of a contract award; not to cover a fishing expedition. MBR vs SBR and privatization will be an immediate concern and decision of the next seated city council. Related exorbitant citizen user fees that will grow almost 400% in twenty years may also be revisited.
For clarity, may the people who have read recent The World newspaper articles re the subject matter, including the Frasier letter, who are preparing to vote soon be provided with answers to the following:
Re the DA 26 September letter:
DA Frasier acknowledges that he has relied heavily on input received from the city manager when rendering his findings. Is DA Frasier's letter fact based? If not, what should be corrected immediately?
Re pages 4 and 5, Section 3, sub items 3, 4, and 5.
Many of us have been led to believe that privatization of the wastewater treatment facility would result in tens of millions of dollars savings / cost avoidance over the "status quo plan" proposed by city staff. Which is correct - has privatization (based on an unsolicited proposal by local company DB Western) been found by staff and independent consultants to be ($27,000,000) more than the city plan or is there a fact based lower number for an alternate plan? And, is the higher $27 million cost caused by the privatization concept proposed by DB Western or is it caused by privatizing combined with a different treatment concept (MBR vs SBR)? I note that in items 6, 7 and 9 - council member Brick's motions requested proposals, not RFP's.
Re page 5, items 9 and 10 and page 9
Was council member Brick's motion before the council on 20 September written by DB Western? Was the RFP currently on the street written by DB Western? Governments across the planet legally release RFP's that have been written by interested potential bidders daily. If written by DB Western, did an experienced wastewater expert read the proposed RPF and assure the full council or committee of four, of which you were a party, that the RFP content did not give an unfair competitive advantage to anticipated bidder DB Western? In lines 6 and 7 of item 9, is it correct that only the appointed committee was empowered to prepare a RFP? Should the DA's comment read that only the committee, a committee of non technical disciplined individuals, unqualified to render technical proposal assessments, evaluate the proposals received, if any?
Re page 6, third full paragraph
I attended all meetings referenced by Mr. Frasier, or I watched meetings as recorded by Coos Media, except one work session. The city attorney employed by the people was present at each meeting and participated in each meeting discussion. Certainly one aspect of the city attorney's role is to assure that city business is conducted professionally, ethically, and in accordance with all governing law. City council members are lay, not legal, folks. I do not recall any warning by counsel to any council member that the latest contemplated council actions or actions of the appointed committee, including the RFP currently on the street would be outside of public contracting laws. Published council meeting minutes are in excruciating detail. Where may we find mention of this lawyer warning to council members?
Recent council action, or lack thereof, causes other concerns and questions re the subject matter - questions to be asked and answered by the next assembled city council. GOD willing, the next council will be informed sufficiently to make an immediate decision re this matter..
Thank you for helping citizen taxpayers understand the subject matter and the Frasier letter.