Classifieds Business Directory Jobs Real Estate Autos Legal Notices ePubs Subscribe Archives
Today is April 21, 2014
home news sports feature opinionfyi society obits multimedia

Front Page » December 2, 2010 » Opinion » Viking Park fence questions
Published 1,236 days ago

Viking Park fence questions


Print PageEmail PageShareGet Reprints

By Stephen and Terri Manzanares
Price

Editor:

This letter is regarding the article in the paper: "Fencing at Viking Park followed East Carbon City's Correct Procedures (Sun Advocate, Nov. 11, 2010).

We attended the Oct. 26 council meeting to inform the council that the fence "repair" job at the Viking Park had already been completed, without a valid contract, and against the mayor's direct order to stop until he could check into why the job hadn't been formally authorized yet.

How come the article in the paper states that the city can just "hire" someone for the Viking Park fence "repair" job? This job consisted of installing approximately 250 feet and it should have been considered a new project.

At the Nov. 9 council meeting that we also attended, the city was requiring three bids for a separate fence "repair" job located in c-section. After reviewing the bids, they decided on the approval of one. We happen to know that this particular fence "repair" was for approximately 36 feet and 22 feet - a lot less footage than the fence at Viking Park. Why wouldn't they have just "hired" someone for this fence "repair" job too? According the article's first definition it is not subject to the normal bidding requirements if it's just a repair job, because it is being paid for with private insurance money.

According to the article's second definition if the city was building a new fence on city property, then it would need to go into the normal bidding requirements.

So why did this second fence "repair" job go into the normal bidding requirements? Wasn't this just a fence "repair" job? It's not a new fence on city property. Isn't this a double standard?

Regarding the Viking Park fencing, we're wondering: How come the other bidder worked without a valid contract? How come the other bidder still kept working against the mayor's direct order to stop? Why would the other bidder assume that he could bypass the normal protocol and it would be okay.

That's why "legal" contractors have state guidelines.

At the October 26th council meeting, the mayor pro-temp informed everyone in attendance,that both of the bids that were submitted for the already completed fencing at Viking Park still remained unsigned.

We're wondering why, after the fact, did a signature suddenly appear on one of the bids?

Print PageEmail PageShareGet Reprints


Top of Page


 
Web Poll  
January 28, 2014
Do you think the Utah Legislature should increase appropriations for public education in Utah beyond the current legislative trend in the past few years of funding only for growth in student population?
Yes
No
Unsure
Don't care

View Results

Opinion  
December 2, 2010
Recent Opinion
Quick Links
Subscribe via RSS
Related Articles  
Related Stories



Best viewed with Firefox
Get Firefox

© Sun Advocate, 2000-2013. All rights reserved. All material found on this website, unless otherwise specified, is copyright and may not be reproduced without the explicit written permission from the publisher of the Sun Advocate.
Legal Notices & Terms of Use    Privacy Policy    Advertising Info    FAQ    Contact Us
  RSS Feeds    News on Your Site    Staff Information    Submitting Content    About Us