Responding to resident pressure, the Shorewood council is considering options for a new engineering service model. The contract for the current provider, Bolton & Menk, (p.6) expires in December 2025.
Watch the meeting discussion here.
On July 14, administrator Nevinski did a high-level overview (p. 2) of different options along with background of Shorewood’s engineering history.
- Shorewood hired its first full-time engineer in 1995 and eventually added public works director to his job description.
- An assistant engineer worked with him from 2001-2008.
- A cost analysis done in 2013 showed there was little cost difference between in-house and contract engineers.
- In 2019, Shorewood issued an RFP for an engineering firm, released the staff engineer and hired Bolton & Menk.
Residents have been vocal about their perception of conflict of interest with the present scenario. Council members have the same concern. Why? Engineer Budde works for Bolton & Menk. That firm receives the majority of contracts for the city. According to Nevinski, the “misconception” of Bolton & Menk is indicative of what he says is a misunderstanding of the role of the city engineer.
“The appearance of a conflict of interest can be as damaging as an actual conflict.” — Judge Sandra Day O’Connor
The role of a city engineer:
- On-site to solve project glitches, resident relations, and monitor contractors;
- Manage the project financials and apply for grants;
- Complete the punch list at project’s end.
- Review private property development for utility installation and any effect on adjoining properties.
With the current Shorewood model, every service; from answering resident or council questions to overseeing contractors is billed hourly.
- $6.8 million–including 4 major projects in 4 years plus smaller projects (lift station rehab, well house work) was paid to Bolton & Menk.
- Average costs for “general” engineering is about $150k annually, or 20% of the $6.8 million.
Council members were clear that their intent is not to develop an entire engineering department, but to improve the current system.
- Discussion focused on concerns about conflict and oversight.
- Stressed that any consulting engineer be separate from the firm used for other engineering services to avoid “conflict of interest.”
- Benefit of staff engineer: Not billed for every question or action taken; have a better handle on oversight. This was not to preclude using outside firms for special services.
- An in-house engineer would be more cost effective for the city’s challenges: storm water management, water infrastructure and road maintenance.
- In-house would be in alignment with the ordinances, especially right-of-way.
DiGruttolo said she was “gob smacked” that the city paid $36,000 for Bolton & Menk to develop an RFP for the fire department “chiller.” The council learned about the expenditure after the fact.
The next council meeting on this topic will include:
- More hard facts and numbers to understand the cost effectiveness of an in-house engineer, including direct and variable costs and improved efficiencies.
- Viability of the public works director- a civil engineer–taking on more direct management of the consultant or shifting some of his work to another public works employee.
Council goals:
- “Synchronization, we all want to be aligned and growing at the same pace in the same direction … a staff engineer adds more efficiency.”- DiGruttolo
- Council must consistently ask the cost of plan revisions before approving them.
- Provide active oversight to limit scope of projects.
- Improve transparency for the public.
Gorham admitted that the council has ignored the ongoing controversy and has allowed the public perception to fester. “We have not addressed what has been heard from residents about lack of controls.”
