Concerns have emerged regarding the mill and overlay project #2290 in West Fargo, following a memo that was included in the consent agenda of a recent commission meeting. The memo, which detailed the project’s costs and execution, has drawn scrutiny from local residents and transparency advocates. Questions have been raised about the decision-making processes and financial management surrounding the project.
Several critical issues have come to light. A key point of contention is the claim by city staff of “significant cost savings” achieved through in-house work, despite the absence of competitive quotes from private firms. Critics argue that without comparing costs from private contractors, it is impossible to assess the validity of these savings.
Additionally, the project faced delays, with staff work not completed on schedule. In the private sector, such delays could result in penalties, yet no such measures appear to have been applied in this case. Observers are questioning why the project was reportedly 12% over budget, a scenario that would typically place financial responsibility on private contractors.
Another area of concern is the disparity in quoted fringe benefits. Staff claimed that fringe benefits accounted for 37% of labor costs, while the departmental budget indicates a figure closer to 53%. This raises further questions about the accuracy of financial reporting.
The lack of stringent quality control procedures for staff work compared to private firms has also been highlighted. Critics suggest this exemption may have been a tactic to reduce costs, potentially compromising project quality. Moreover, the inclusion of pedestrian ramps in the cost review memo for transparency purposes has been challenged, as these ramps were allegedly part of a different project.
The financial discrepancies continue, particularly regarding a payment of $919,000 made to the contractor, which exceeds the original contract amount of $708,000. Questions are being asked about whether the ramps were integrated into project #2290 despite not being part of the bid. Some speculate this decision may have been influenced by a need to maintain higher assessments or soft cost revenues for the city.
Soft costs, which include engineering, legal, and administrative expenses, are consistently pegged at 19% of the project cost, regardless of actual expenses. For project #2290, these costs totaled $174,000, translating to approximately $250 per single-family home. The implications of inflated project costs can lead to increased soft costs, generating extra revenue for the city.
Further complicating matters, claims were made that assessments for single-family homes would rise from a budgeted $1,600 to $2,025 if the curb ramps were included, despite the ramps already being accounted for. If the contractor had not received the additional $211,000, the assessment may have dropped to $1,300.
The situation raises questions about potential legal implications surrounding the project. A lawsuit claiming that the project was not bid according to state law has been dismissed without prejudice, leaving room for future legal challenges. Observers are curious about the city’s intentions to pursue similar projects in 2026, especially given the recent controversies.
In terms of logistics, the sourcing of asphalt from Fargo instead of Minnesota, despite the contract stipulating otherwise, has also come under scrutiny. Additionally, there is concern regarding the purchase of 8% more asphalt than specified. Cost discrepancies have also been noted, with asphalt costing $84 per ton against a budgeted figure of $70 and a bid of $64.50.
The only aspect of project #2290 that has garnered some praise is the reduction of the assessment percentage from 80% to 50%. As these issues unfold, the calls for transparency and accountability in West Fargo’s financial dealings continue to grow.
David Withee, a member of West Fargo TAP (Citizens for Transparency, Accountability, and Professionalism), has been vocal about these concerns, stating that the community deserves clear answers regarding the management of public funds. The ongoing discussions signal a demand for greater accountability in local government operations.
