An open letter on the parks agreement

Dear Councilmen:

For the second time in just over a year, a few on the Council are anxious to terminate our services. This time, instead of termination "by reason of cost," it's couched as "budgetary constraints." We strongly agree that budget should be a major concern with all city projects.

Cost cutting can also be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Take the 2006 "by-reason-of-cost" termination that stopped the airport terminal "gateway" project along with losing $148,000 in grants. In its place, Nevada ends up with a metal building hangar that's well over-budget and still not built.

The latest "budgetary" termination ordinance proposes to squander nearly $60,000 in Parks funds for unused professional services. We respectfully submit 10 questions that should be addressed before any ordinance is brought to a vote. If "budgetary constraint" is really the driver behind this ordinance, why has the Council ignored re-negotiating both Phase I-Planning and Phase II-Architectural services? (We offered to negotiate a change in scope in December 2006 and again in the summer of 2007. Why has the city never asked to change the scope of services?)

After delaying for almost a year, why does the Council propose to scrap both Phase I & II services and start over with city staff selecting new architects? (The 2005 Parks Board and Council unanimously selected our Team for the projects from a slate of 28 firms.) How can the Council ignore the 2006 Park Board's unanimous vote to modify and proceed with our Team's services -- and on multiple occasions? Why were our fees at the Oct. 16 Council meeting characterized as excessive at 8 percent of cost, when in fact they're only about 2 percent? Why was a local Web site that regularly issues false and malicious attacks against our firm publicly promoted at the Oct. 16 meeting? Why was this same Web site pulled when the termination was added to the council agenda? Why did the City stall on attempts to restart the planning and not advise us of a "hold" on the project? (A single year of inflation could rob as much as $500,000 from the budget.)

With questions circulating about vested financial interests in Parks projects, why hasn't the council internally addressed conflict of interest issues?

Why the push to renovate a failing community center when at least three architectural firms have independently recommended against it?

Is spending $60,000 to stop and not complete "excellent" (from the ordinance) professional planning service in Nevada's best "budgetary" interest? When public coffers are spare, should planning be a priority?

Our firm has provided local and nationwide professional services at competitive market prices for over 33 years. We've brought considerable revenue into the local economy, paid a fair amount of local taxes, and donated countless hours to community services and improvements.

Surely we deserve honest and complete answers to these questions -- as do the citizens of Nevada.

Sincerely,

James J. Adams, president, Adams and Associates