(16) How do you feel about the city’s use of consultants such as EE&T and EarthTech and lobbying firm the Ferguson Group?
Alston: I am pleased with the efforts of the Ferguson Group in particular. The return on investment with the Ferguson Group has been tremendous. They have addressed our needs effectively. We (the council as a whole and sometimes as individual councilpersons) sometimes have priorities which do not coincide with funding sources and cycles in Washington. However, the Ferguson Group moves on these funds (and potential legislation which creates funds) when timely.
Consultants in general are supposed to provide an entity with expertise that it does not have in house. Consultants also are sometimes mandated by certain rules related to certain endeavors. EE&T/EarthTech has been overall a good fit for us. They certainly bring a level of knowledge which we don’t have in house. I feel we have made effective use of consultants.
Gupton: We rely on the use of consultants too much. The city should hire its own engineer to counter and coordinate with consultants when they are employed by the city. This should cut down the prolonged use of consultants and result in a savings for the city.
Harper: My concern about the city’s extensive use of consultants for water and sewer management comes from my business experience. Consultants are very valuable for businesses to learn about a new process or to get them through an adjustment period. But consultants are very expensive and must divide their focus between all their customers. The city manager has said that in the three years prior to 2004, $1.2 million was spent for consulting fees to these companies. That’s $400,000 per year – before our current construction project. For $100,000, the city could probably add a professional engineer specializing in overseeing engineering and construction for water processing – leaving $300,000 per year to pay for engineering for very specific projects, reduce the water bills or increase the fund balance.
As I have said, $80,000 is a lot for a city our size to pay for lobbying in Washington when Greenville paid the same amount and got a much larger return on its investment. Roanoke Rapids has received $20 million over the last 10 years with the mayor and city manager doing the lobbying. My suggestion is that the city pay $30,000, the Kerr Lake water system pay $30,000, and the Embassy foundation pay $20,000 for the Washington lobbying effort.
Daeke: Consultants who produce positive results enhance the city staff’s ability to bring in new resources and generate new, innovative ideas outside of our present mind-set. However, results must exceed costs.
Yount: To begin with, we need to do our own lobbying and compare our results with those of the Ferguson Group to benchmark the success of both efforts.
As for other consultants, I am gravely concerned about the city’s reliance on them. We have come to depend on consultants far too much, and we do not exert control and proper oversight. This is not advantageous for Henderson.
When I first came on the council, EE&T asked for a budget amendment to increase a CIP budget to $465,000. This was at the first of the year, and a request for $300,000 for the same study project had not been granted the previous June during budget deliberations. I had the first of many questions. I wanted to know why the $165,000 increase and why was it necessary to do this now when it was turned down just six months before. I questioned the costs that I thought were excessive as the money was only going to fund a study. The council finally reined it in to $120,000 for that year alone and took out around $100,000 in contingency costs and costs for meeting with Oxford and Warrenton. My questions went a long way toward saving the city money. Later, the council was presented a scoping document for this same study with an identical document that was to be sent to Raleigh for approval. However, the two documents were not the same. The one sent to Raleigh called for studying the Neuse River Basin, which could have added tremendous costs to the study, while the one presented to our council did not list the Neuse as a study area. So again I started asking questions. When I asked about the differences at a committee meeting, the consultant insisted both were the same. Only when I pointed out the differences in black and white in both documents did he acknowledge I was correct.
This same group of consultants engineered the plans for the intake project now going on at Kerr Lake. The original backup intake, which is a vacuum system, had never been tried or tested, but EE&T proposed a new intake at a depth below the present one. Evidence shows problems with their plans and designs, and some parts of the design did not meet code. Changes had to be made to the electrical part of the project, which are resulting in more costs and delays in construction as Mark Warren pointed out to the council.
Also, EE&T could not find an inspector to oversee their work, and EarthTech had to take on these responsibilities. It was pointed out that EarthTech’s advice immediately saved $40,000; so, my question would be how much had already been squandered? I point out all of this to show our failure to closely oversee their work. This same consultant group, EE&T, has proposed and engineered the design for the $20 million expansion on the regional water treatment plant. I think when the city of Henderson allows consultants to propose projects, plan and engineer the same project, oversee and manage the project, and when the city does not have a professional engineer on staff for oversight, then the city is at a great disadvantage.
Wester: Consultants have a role to play and are a cost-effective way of hiring the right people to do a specific job. They bring to the table knowledge and their professional relationships from which we benefit. Hiring additional city staff would not replace the need for consultants!
I do not believe that the city could do a better job of lobbying than the Ferguson Group. Our return on our investment has been 948 percent and does not include the professional advice that comes in addition to the dollars. They are professionals and are educated in the process. They are connected to a process that can only be accessed by Washington “insiders.” They will be there day in and day out. They are in a position to make our elected representation in Washington more effective. They should also be judged by the quality of their advice and not just the appropriations they help us to receive.