Hoepfner’s actions called into question by Councilman Brown
In early 2004, the St. Charles City Council approved a contract with Crawford, Murphy, and Tilley (CMT) Engineering Company to do a study that would assess the city’s sewer system and future needs. In early 2005, the St. Charles City Council was presented a report from then Public Works Director, Mike Pratt, received from CMT outlining over $48 million of sewer improvement costs for the City of St. Charles. Shortly after the presentation, the St. Charles City Council, urged by Councilman Gieseke, decided to obtain a second opinion to reevaluate the findings. The St. Charles City Council hired Donahue and Associates to perform the second opinion and report to the Council. Donahue and Associates worked for over 3 months and determined that there were over $12 million in savings to the city taxpayers in construction costs for upgrading and updating the sewer system.
The City of St. Charles Public Utilities Meeting held on Wednesday, August 17, 2005, seemed to be running smoothly until the committee reached item 6 on the agenda. Item 6 read “Request for Qualification for the Missouri Sewer Treatment Plant Project (referred by councilman Hoepfner)”. This project involves the study in which Council authorized Donahue and Associates to reevaluate a proposal by CMT Engineering. Donahue recently completed the review, and their proposal resulted in the city’s saving over $12 million in construction costs.
Councilman Hoepfner indicated he was not comfortable with Donahue doing the engineering work because they had recently done some engineering for the city and wanted to change a price after submitting their bid. Mike McKee, a representative of Donahue and Associates, was in the audience. He stood up and said that statement was not true, and pointed out the company felt it would be better to use a higher-grade pipe, which would increase the cost. Mr. McKee also pointed out they had intended to incur the additional expenses and they had never asked the city for additional monies. Mr. McKee said, “We gave you a guaranteed cost, and we plan to live up to our guarantee.”
The discussion continued as to the city’s going out for qualifications for people to bid on the newly proposed project. Council members Brown and Greer thought that it was improper to let another engineering company reengineer Donahue’s conceptual plans. Councilman Hoepfner indicated he was comfortable with certain engineering firms and it was not necessary to submit for additional qualified companies. He said he was comfortable with EMC and indicated he was in favor of EMC meeting with Archard Engineering (his preferred company) and Donahue in hopes they would form a team and do the project together.
Councilman Brown then challenged Councilman Hoepfner stating, “Mr. Hoepfner it appears you have a conflict of interest and you should abstain from any further discussion in this matter.” Councilman Brown stated to Mr. Hoepfner, “You’ve been involved in negotiating privately with these companies prior to this meeting and you have a conflict of interests, and if you continue, you’re putting yourself, as well as the city, at risk.” Mr. Hoepfner sat there quietly and did not respond to Brown’s statement. Brown continued, “You’ve been doing this kind of thing for a long time and it would appear to be unethical and improper, and for us to sit up here and force a company to do business with their competition for any reason is wrong.”
Brown said Donahue was the company who came up with the plan to save the city money, and they are the ones who should perform the work. Donahue was the company who was willing to give a guaranteed $12 million savings and to force them to use your special company would prevent them from adhering to their guarantee.
President of the Council, Rory Riddler stated he had no problem allowing the three companies to get together, but would be opposed to mandating a cooperative agreement between the three. Riddler stated, “Let’s take some cool-off time and wait and see what the three of them come up with.” Councilman Brown stated, “These actions are risky, and I will not be a part of it.” Council members Brown and Greer voted ‘no’; Councilman Hoepfner voted ‘yes’. Brown then asked the Clerk, “Did he vote on this? Did Hoepfner vote on this?” The clerk shook her head and indicated he voted ‘yes’. Brown stated, “Make that part of a record, and make sure this tape is saved.”
After the meeting adjourned, The First Capitol News asked Brown what he meant by his statements during the meeting. Councilman Brown stated, “Mr. Hoepfner has an appearance of a conflict of interest, and his strong-arm tactics have got to come to an end.” Councilman Hoepfner’s actions were exacted as an active lobbyist for developer CSM & Associates and have created a lawsuit against the city. Councilman Brown indicated he was considering opening an investigation and said he feels there may be a clear breach of code of conduct. Brown said he was concerned that Councilman Hoepfner planned to interfere with the meeting between the three companies. Riddler said he will make sure the companies meet without any further interference from councilman.
Mike Mckee said This would be a positive move for the taxpayers of St. Charles. Choosing us is a no brainier, the city benefits because:
The City shifts the risk of project cost overruns to the program management
team.
The City shifts the risk of operational effectiveness to the program management team.
The City shifts the risk of project management from its staff to the program manager. The program manager becomes an extension of the City’s staff.
The City ensures management continuity over the implementation of the facilities plan through its life cycle.
The City shifts the risk of operational cost to EMC.
ttt
