Road Commissioners Approve Beitner, Hammond Contracts; Discuss Chair Concerns

Grand Traverse County road commissioners approved contracts at a special meeting Monday for two major upcoming projects: the Beitner Road bridge replacement and the reconstruction of Hammond Road. Road commissioners also had a tense discussion – their second in a row – about Chair Alan Leman and potential conflicts of interest in his role.

Road Projects
Road commissioners approved a cost participation agreement with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Monday for the Beitner Bridge replacement.

MDOT opened bids for the project Friday, with four received. Anlaan Corporation was the low bidder at $3,738,880.47. Federal funds will cover 80 percent of the project, with the Grand Traverse County Road Commission (GTCRC) responsible for the rest. GTCRC also recently paid a $100,000 contract with Molon to remove the old bridge and will pursue FEMA reimbursement since the bridge collapsed in the April floods (pictured). The board also approved a $384,500 contract with OHM Monday for engineering oversight for the new bridge.

Once MDOT finalizes the Anlaan contract, GTCRC can begin coordinating on the construction schedule, says GTCRC Manager Dan Watkins. The hope is to get the new bridge complete before the end of the year. Team Elmer’s is a subcontractor on the project and “anxious to get going,” Watkins says.

Team Elmer’s will be involved in another major project. Road commissioners approved a $3.2 million contract Monday for the reconstruction of Hammond Road between Carlisle and Townline roads. In addition to new road, the project will extend Hammond’s two eastbound lanes through the Three Mile light and reconstruct that light. The signal work will come in a separate bid and likely total $400,000-$500,000, staff said. Elmer’s hopes to begin before the end of July and is contractually obligated to finish work through at least the intersection before school starts, Watkins says. Any remaining work at that point would be west of the intersection.

Chair Role
For the second meeting in a row, road commissioners had a tense discussion Monday over concerns Chair Alan Leman is acting outside his duties as a road commissioner.

The issue first arose at the board’s June 25 meeting during review of a memo from GTCRC’s legal counsel. The memo states that road commissioners cannot conduct business outside of public meetings or have a direct or indirect financial interest in GTCRC contracts (with narrow exceptions). Road commission duties are limited to policy formulation and approvals, with day-to-day operations entrusted to staff. If a board member transacts business or makes GTCRC decisions outside of meetings and without board approval, that likely violates the Open Meetings Act, the memo states.

The memo was prepared by Henn Lesperance after multiple employees complained about Leman to road commissioners. Concerns ranged from Leman personally going out and measuring driveways or negotiating with property owners on easements to hand-delivering bids for companies he’s affiliated with to suggesting staff not pay contracts because he believed materials weren’t up to spec.

Several of those concerns related to a sand order road commissioners approved this spring. When the order first appeared on a February agenda, Crystal Aggregate Materials was the lowest of five bidders. Leman – who also owns a materials company called All Aggregates – told the board the price was too high. He convinced the board to rebid the order, saying more competitive bids might come in if it was better advertised with clearer specs. Doing so complicated what is normally a sealed-bid process, as any bidders would now know the prices previously submitted and could outbid them.

When the second round of bids was reviewed in April, the number of bidders had dropped from five to four. Only one was a new bidder, Fischer Corporation. Leman’s company, All Aggregates, crushes materials for Fischer. When Fischer faxed in its bid and was told GTCRC doesn’t accept faxed bids, Leman hand-delivered the bid to staff. Road commissioners roundly condemned that move in June, with Commissioner Alisa Korn saying it “put the staff in a bad position” and Commissioner Joe Underwood adding that kind of personal involvement should “not ever, ever, ever, ever happen.”

Fischer came in lower than all first-round bids. However, Crystal also lowered its bid for the second round and ultimately won the contract. During that meeting, Leman did not disclose a conflict of interest nor mention his business ties to Fischer. He later told The Ticker he would’ve disclosed that if Fischer was the winning bidder, pointing out he too voted for Crystal.

Leman later criticized the quality of Crystal’s materials and told staff they shouldn’t pay the company’s invoice – a suggestion staff felt compelled to follow. The unpaid invoice prompted a second round of debate Monday. Watkins cited numerous staff and industry experts who said Crystal’s material was of a better quality and lower price than what GTCRC previously produced in-house. While road commissioners acknowledged the bid language was confusing – stating in one place materials should meet state minimums and in another higher GTCRC standards – most said they accepted staff’s assessment of the quality and should pay Crystal’s bill.

“We signed a contract for this sand, and we have an individual on this board who actually has an interest in sand product stopping us paying a contract that we approved,” said Underwood. “That is a problem. And it’s probably a violation of the new county ethics code…I mean what is going on here?” Road commissioners voted 4-1 to authorize staff to pay Crystal’s contract, with Leman opposed.

Leman defended his actions at both the meeting and in an interview with The Ticker, saying he asks tough questions and gets personally involved in GTCRC issues because his industry experience makes him a knowledgeable advocate for taxpayers. He pointed out that rebidding the sand order saved GTCRC tens of thousands of dollars. He said it was important to ensure GTCRC gets what it pays for with materials, adding that staff have “zero experience” with materials while he produces them for a living.

Leman – who also provides materials for Elmer’s, though for projects outside of the GTCRC area, he said – affirmed he wouldn’t get personally involved in a bid process again. He also told board members he’d bring issues to them for consideration rather than acting on his own. But he bristled at suggestions he’s run afoul of the law, calling the Henn Lesperance memo “vague and incomplete” and asking the board to respect his process of doing research, making site visits, and talking to people to gather information. “Please don’t try to control how I feel necessary to do my job,” he read from a prepared letter Monday.

Watkins also read a letter to the board. He said he had a “professional obligation” to raise concerns and seek clarification when receiving direction that may conflict with laws, board policies, or organizational standards. “Doing so is not an act of resistance,” he read. “It is an essential part of responsible leadership and good governance.” Multiple road commissioners assured staff they were free to bring concerns forward and should not fear retribution, emphasizing they are protected by law from retaliation.