Settlement Reached On Town Square Pavers
Dec 22, 2009 9:35 - 9 Comments
>
As most Rockville Central readers know, last year included a controversy over improperly installed pavers in Town Square. They had to be dug up and reinstalled. Everyone involved pointed their fingers at one another. (Here’s a recap from June 2008.)
The finger-pointing is behind us now, as a settlement has finally been reached in the competing lawsuits. The civil engineer will pay the City of Rockville $1.4 million.
This from the City’s press release:
The City of Rockville has reached a settlement in its litigation with Macris, Hendricks and Glascock, P.A., related to the failure of paver sections of Maryland Avenue, Gibbs Street and the plaza in Rockville Town Square.
Macris has agreed to pay the City $1.4 million and to dismiss its counterclaim against the City for $100,000 in exchange for dismissal of the City’s lawsuit against Macris and a release by the City of its claims against Macris. The settlement also provides that there is no admission of liability by either the City or Macris.
Macris, Hendricks and Glascock, P.A., contracted with the City to provide the full scope of civil engineering design services for the Town Center project.
In June 2008, after the failure of paver sections of Maryland Avenue, Gibbs Street and Town Square plaza, the City filed a lawsuit against Macris in Montgomery County Circuit Court, alleging that Macris had breached its contract with the City and its duty of care to the City in connection with the design of the roads and plaza that ultimately led to the failure of the pavers in Town Center.
Follow on Twitter
Hi Brad and CindyThanks for the update on the TC paver lawsuit.Do you know if the Mayor and Council for the City of Rockville is going to give back this $1.4 million to the citizens as a credit or refund on our real estate tax bill?Or maybe use this money when received to not transfer $950,000 to the parking fund in FY2010 from the general fund to pay for the Principal and Interest on the parking garage bonds or earmark this money for a specific purpose?Any suggestions out there citizens?Please reply or just email the mayor and council with your thoughts and suggestions. Some suggestions may be…1. For programs and services that the city provides…more for caregivers… ?2. To pay for FY2010 Stormwater Management Fee of TBD(Approx. $50) and to help citizens reduce the SWM fee for FY2010.3. To pay for the $950,000 transfer from the general fund(Tax revenue collections are accounted for) to the parking garage fund to pay for the Principal and interest payment on the parking garage bonds.The taxpayers orginially paid to have the TC pavers replaced in the amount TBD (approx. $1.5million?) in addition to the orginal cost of TBD($1.5 million)Also, do you know what the legal fees amounted to that we are going to pay from real estate and income tax collections? Is this money just going to be used to pay the legal fees to the attorney? and the citizens would receive no benefit from this settlement? and the citizens would lose $1.5 million in tax revenue? Is this what really happened here in this settlement?The City of Rockville is going to receive $1.4 million from this lawsuit…email the Mayor and Council and let them know what your Christmas wish list is on where these $$$ should be spent in the city!Thanks Brad and CindyHappy Holidays and Happy New Year!Respectively SubmittedRichard GottfriedCity of Rockville Citizen
I am happy to amplify the first comment. Yes, please let me (and my colleagues) know what to do with this money! I have no agenda here whatsoever and am happy to simply defer to the plurality of Rockville residents (but how to obtain this insight?). I like the idea of returning the money to the taxpayers through a one time credit (although the only good mechanism we have is to return it to homeowners, which perhaps treats the non-homeowners unfairly). I also like the idea of reducing the City’s borrowing (we are about to borrow as we move forward with the police station, for example; we could borrow less).I also like the idea of increasing the City’s contribution to caregiver agencies (although this is an ongoing expense, so that I would prefer to find an ongoing revenue source for this purpose). Please fill my mailbox with suggestions: PGajewski@rockvillemd.gov; if I hear from more than 30, I will try to report emerging trends (if any) of Rockville Central reader preferences back on this space!Meanwhile, Happy Holidays to All!
Stop all large CIP projects. Keep the rest of the city services alone, except where there might be duplications or excessive spending.I expect the entire Mayor and Council to make the best decisions with how our tax dollars are planned.
Budget decisions should be made within the broader context. Conventional oil production stopped growing in 2005. America’s oil production peaked in 1970 and our oil use has declined since 2005. I suspect that this recession is our first post-peak oil recession. If so, it won’t end with a recovery as is the usual. Our recovery will be stalled by rising oil prices and go back into recession. So any found money shouldn’t be wasted on tax rebates. In the past we could count on rising property assessments and income tax, so that the occasional tax break was both possible fiscally and desirable as a check on excessive government growth. But now we face declining property assessments and income. So we should seek to avoid tax increases since they are hard on residents, but avoid tax giveaways since we will be having a hard enough time trying to balance the city books. What to do with one time funding sources like the paver settlement and the Pleasant Drive dollars? Spend it on one time actions that better prepare us for declining energy availability. 1. We could require all city businesses to provide bicycle parking, and use this money to pay for the bike racks. Buying the racks through the city allows us to provide a common style of rack and to buy them wholesale rather than retail as would be the case if we did this as an unfunded mandate. This would provide an important new city infrastructure. We should require the parking to be no further from the front door of a business than the next space over from the handicapped space, to help make biking more convenient and meet more of our travel demand with bikes. 2. We could support energy upgrades to our housing. Chevy Chase has a program that provides a rebate for home energy audits and for a portion of the upgrades recommended by that audit. 3. We could use the money to establish a Rockville Car Sharing Co-op. The cars could be based at apartment and town house communities to provide the density necessary for profitability, with used cars to keep the price low. The first idea is a one time cost for a long term upgrade to our city infrastructure. The second is a one time expense in that we can set the program to cut off when the money runs out. We clearly don’t have enough money here to meet our full need to provide energy upgrades to all older housing, but the idea does mobilize private funding to provide more bang for the public buck. The third idea is much more of a risk – its a bet that with an initial public investment we can create a self sustaining car share co-op that would allow many families to get by with only one car when they currently use two, or move from one car to none. The potential is there since it is cheaper for ten families to share a car than to maintain ten cars. This program could be very powerful if successful, but success isn’t guaranteed.
I would be happy if the money was refunded to the home owners (tax payers). I fail to see how it could be unfair for a refund to go those who paid the taxes. Maybe I am missing something though. I would also be happy if the money was used to pay down debt.
Mr. Kohut, One caveat that you may be missing is that non-homeowners also pay taxes. In addition to property taxes, all Rockville earners pay State income taxes. Some of the income tax collected by the State is then paid out to Rockville (an important revenue source for the City). Another caveat is that commercial property owners also pay property taxes, but Rockville’s tax credit, in the past, has only applied to homeowners.In other words by giving a refund only to homeowners, we would be overlooking commercial property owners and also all the residents who earn money and pay State taxes (kicked backed to Rockville) but do not own property. Having said that: we have chosen to do exactly that, through a homeowner tax credit, in the past several years, so there is certainly a precedent.
It may be worth noting that the paver settlement works out to less than $25 per citizen. Not tiny, but not enough to retire early. But the same amount could provide bicycle parking at every business in Rockville. This enhancement to our infrastructure would be long lasting and increasingly important as energy prices rise.
I suggest we use any windfall to pay down debt. As many seem to realize, this recession could last for quite a while, impacting revenues for the foreseeable future. In such an environment, it behooves the city to avoid new expenditures and tax rebates.(Of course, if we absolutely >must go shopping, I think free WiFi access for all of Rockville would have a far more profound impact on improving Rockville’s infrastructure than bicycle racks.
Did the City pay out-of-pocket, so to speak, to replace the pavers ? if so, this money simply repays the City for work already done.It seems the logical thing to do is put it in cash reserves, cause we just may need it. This is akin to George’s comment.That or go shopping. How about double guitars, crystal slop buckets, and chocolate microscopes?! (for those remembering the Simpsons show where the town struck oil)