IN YOUR CORNER
The Martin County Board of County Commissioners has never been more out
of touch with fiscal expenditures. There's been too much delegation of
authority to the County Administrator. When county commission oversight
is eliminated, there is no sense of urgency for the consultants,
contractors, or project managers to reduce costs or complete projects
within the assigned time frames.
Not our words, but those of a County Commissioner who won an award from
the Taxpayers' Association for his fiscal watchdog efforts in the first
year of his term of office.
He just may have a point. A random review of eighteen major projects
completed over the last two years having costs estimated at $47,000,000
showed Change Orders and their resultant cost overruns to equal 12%, or
a whopping $5,792,421 over and above estimate. These projects include
stormwater, road, airport, recreational parks and library projects.
Individual cost overruns ranged from +1.2% to +57% over the estimate.
Another point to consider, if they built in another ten percent
contingency in estimating the cost of a project before it went to bid,
this makes those overruns something that should be questioned, at best.
Also, these same projects averaged 63 days late, so if the old adage
"time is money" still holds true, taxpayers were shortchanged in yet
another fashion.
We have done a cursory bit of research, and staff has stated that
several projects in this sampling came before the Commission during
certain stages of progress. Of the eighteen projects used in this
sample, there were seventy-five (75) change orders. That appears to be
a great many changes in plans that were devised, price-estimated and
sent out for bid.
Would increasing oversight by the Commission help matters? Maybe. The
question is: how much oversight is required? Can it be achieved
without the process falling into the paralysis of micro-management by
the Commissioners?
What may be needed is a system that will allow the Commission to
participate in the decision process at critical points in the project
and some new rules to be followed by the project managers. The MCTA
will gladly assist the county in developing an approval format for
capital projects gleaned from our business experience, but applied to
county government vernacular.
In general terms, certain rules apply as follows: We have been told
that project managers sometimes spend "left-over money" on their
project at their sole discretion. All surplus money, or unspent funds
allocated to a project must be reported to the CIP Administrator.
Excess funds should not be spent in any way to change or enhance the
nature, specifications, quality, etc. of the assigned project without
first obtaining County Commission approval. This should only be done
after a new Request and Justification for Funds has been approved.
The County Administrator's authorization power should be limited to an
agreed to parameter; i.e., 3% or $10,000 on change orders exceeding
estimate or project guidelines. He may sign purchase orders, contracts
and the like of any dollar amount within the framework of the approved
capitol project, but those above that limit should go to the Commission
via the Consent Agenda or similar format to be approved.
Some over-spending, such as Stormwater projects, appear to be cases
where one job led to another, and the project expanded in scope because
the contractor and his equipment were on site, therefore it was the
practical thing to do. However, if the Commissioners want to eliminate
the appearance of cost and time overruns, this work must be justified on
its own merits and paid for as a separate project. Taxpayers, while
concerned with form, are more concerned with the bottom line.
There is much harm that can be done using too much oversight, as well as
in using too little oversight. The object is to achieve a workable
balance. If the current fiscal oversight is to be improved upon, it may
be best done with great caution until the desired comfort level is
achieved.