Print
Comment
Rate
City land purchase on hold
Thelma Grimes/San Pedro Valley News-Sun
In a nearly three-hour meeting Monday night, the Benson City Council approved everything from a new code for the cemetery to a new human resource policy to tabling a past agenda item that would have allowed city staff to move forward with a land purchase.
During the Oct. 12 meeting, the City Council unanimously voted to allow City Manager Glenn Nichols to spend about $80,000 to purchase a vacant lot and a house just west of City Hall.
The deal was put on hold Monday night when Nichols informed council that there is asbestos in the house, and local Realtor David DiPeso failed to inform the city of the problem.
Nichols said DiPeso is representing both the city and the seller, Richard Fasanella.
At the center of Monday's discussion was a seller's property disclosure statement that was not provided by DiPeso for the property located on 117 W. 5th St. A property disclosure statement requires sellers to disclose to buyers all known, material problems about properties they sell.
DiPeso provided a disclosure statement for the vacant lot, but not for the 5th Street property where the house sits.
A report passed out to the council by City Clerk Vicki Vivian shows that the council knew about the asbestos problem as early as Oct. 5. The report is from Asbestos Analytical of Tucson.
Nichols told the council the asbestos report only took small samples from the house, and the city is not sure how bad the problem is until further testing is done.
Nichols said Fasanella is not interested in paying for further testing.
Council voted to table moving forward with the purchase until the city can hire someone to inspect the property and provide an estimate of how much it would cost to remove the asbestos.
In other business, the council unanimously approved a new human resource administrative policy, which Nichols said staff members have been working to rewrite for more than a year.
While council members were generally pleased with the final version, Councilwoman Jo Deen Boncquet had an issue with the attendance policy. She asked Nichols why there is not a general policy that addresses all city employees.
Nichols said instead that department heads and supervisors would be responsible for their own employees and will implement policy as needed.
"You have to be fair across the board," Boncquet said. "If you are doing something for one employee, but not another, it's going to cause problems. You have to look at individual cases, but you need something a little more concrete to guide it. I think it leaves you wide open."
Before City Attorney Michael Massee gave a more detailed explanation, Nichols informed Boncquet that the situation with the city isn't the same as what it would be at a hospital.
Boncquet manages the nursing staff at a Sierra Vista hospital.
Massee said this part of the new policy was given a lot of thought.
"It was one of my criticisms and of the labor lawyer as well," he said. "The old policy said too much and too little. When you do something that specific you are wedded to that, and it gives you no flexibility. Department heads do have discretion on how to apply discipline."
One aspect of the new policy states that two consecutive days without calling in to a supervisor could be considered a voluntary resignation, Massee said.
After Nichols said the city doesn't have an absentee problem anyway, the discussion ended with Boncquet saying, "We'll wait until it becomes an issue."
Nichols stressed to council members that the policy can be updated and amended as needed.
Despite her concerns, Boncquet voted along with the rest of the City Council to approve the policy.
The council also unanimously approved a resolution to amend Chapter 15 of the city code, allowing Public Works Director Brad Hamilton to implement the America Public Works Association Management Practices for operation and maintenance of a municipal cemetery.
Councilman Al Sacco raised concerns with wording throughout the document, and didn't like that Hamilton would be given free reign to set policy.
Sacco said it would be like "writing a blank check" if council let Hamilton set the code.
Despite his objections in the lengthy discussion, he voted to approve the policy along with the rest of the council.
In a nearly three-hour meeting Monday night, the Benson City Council approved everything from a new code for the cemetery to a new human resource policy to tabling a past agenda item that would have allowed city staff to move forward with a land purchase.
During the Oct. 12 meeting, the City Council unanimously voted to allow City Manager Glenn Nichols to spend about $80,000 to purchase a vacant lot and a house just west of City Hall.
The deal was put on hold Monday night when Nichols informed council that there is asbestos in the house, and local Realtor David DiPeso failed to inform the city of the problem.
Nichols said DiPeso is representing both the city and the seller, Richard Fasanella.
At the center of Monday's discussion was a seller's property disclosure statement that was not provided by DiPeso for the property located on 117 W. 5th St. A property disclosure statement requires sellers to disclose to buyers all known, material problems about properties they sell.
DiPeso provided a disclosure statement for the vacant lot, but not for the 5th Street property where the house sits.
A report passed out to the council by City Clerk Vicki Vivian shows that the council knew about the asbestos problem as early as Oct. 5. The report is from Asbestos Analytical of Tucson.
Nichols told the council the asbestos report only took small samples from the house, and the city is not sure how bad the problem is until further testing is done.
Nichols said Fasanella is not interested in paying for further testing.
Council voted to table moving forward with the purchase until the city can hire someone to inspect the property and provide an estimate of how much it would cost to remove the asbestos.
In other business, the council unanimously approved a new human resource administrative policy, which Nichols said staff members have been working to rewrite for more than a year.
While council members were generally pleased with the final version, Councilwoman Jo Deen Boncquet had an issue with the attendance policy. She asked Nichols why there is not a general policy that addresses all city employees.
Nichols said instead that department heads and supervisors would be responsible for their own employees and will implement policy as needed.
"You have to be fair across the board," Boncquet said. "If you are doing something for one employee, but not another, it's going to cause problems. You have to look at individual cases, but you need something a little more concrete to guide it. I think it leaves you wide open."
Before City Attorney Michael Massee gave a more detailed explanation, Nichols informed Boncquet that the situation with the city isn't the same as what it would be at a hospital.
Boncquet manages the nursing staff at a Sierra Vista hospital.
Massee said this part of the new policy was given a lot of thought.
"It was one of my criticisms and of the labor lawyer as well," he said. "The old policy said too much and too little. When you do something that specific you are wedded to that, and it gives you no flexibility. Department heads do have discretion on how to apply discipline."
One aspect of the new policy states that two consecutive days without calling in to a supervisor could be considered a voluntary resignation, Massee said.
After Nichols said the city doesn't have an absentee problem anyway, the discussion ended with Boncquet saying, "We'll wait until it becomes an issue."
Nichols stressed to council members that the policy can be updated and amended as needed.
Despite her concerns, Boncquet voted along with the rest of the City Council to approve the policy.
The council also unanimously approved a resolution to amend Chapter 15 of the city code, allowing Public Works Director Brad Hamilton to implement the America Public Works Association Management Practices for operation and maintenance of a municipal cemetery.
Councilman Al Sacco raised concerns with wording throughout the document, and didn't like that Hamilton would be given free reign to set policy.
Sacco said it would be like "writing a blank check" if council let Hamilton set the code.
Despite his objections in the lengthy discussion, he voted to approve the policy along with the rest of the council.
 |
 |
|
| Grant funding misspent; birding trail built on land given to Hartley | SSVEC proposed power line discussion continues to draw ire |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of bensonnews-sun.com.
contradiction wrote on Oct 28, 2009 5:33 PM:
" Thelma, you printed contradicting statements,
You say the sale was put on hold when Nichols INFORMED the council that there was asbestos in the house at Monday nights meeting and that DiPeso failed to disclose it. Then, you go on to say that the council already new it from a report given to the council from an asbestos firm and that they were already aware of the issue as early as Oct.5, 2009.
Question, what did they know and when did they know it? If they already knew it then why was Nichols disclosing it at this Monday nights meeting. Maybe the question should be what did Nichols know and when did he know it? Why would Nichols have the need to disclose it to the council Oct. 27 at the council meeting if they already knew it on Oct 5th?. With his admiting having personal knowledge as early as Oct 5, 2009, why did he not inform the council of it before Oct. 12, 2009 Monday nights council meeting.
Even more, why am I having to point this, discrepancy out to you. As a reporter, you should have smelled a rat and exposed it yourself.
I also noticed that you didn't mention that the person that really exposed all of this and disclosed it to the coucil was former council member Dianne Tipton. Just can't say one good thing about her can you? If anyone needed anymore proof about your bias against her, they need look no further. "
You say the sale was put on hold when Nichols INFORMED the council that there was asbestos in the house at Monday nights meeting and that DiPeso failed to disclose it. Then, you go on to say that the council already new it from a report given to the council from an asbestos firm and that they were already aware of the issue as early as Oct.5, 2009.
Question, what did they know and when did they know it? If they already knew it then why was Nichols disclosing it at this Monday nights meeting. Maybe the question should be what did Nichols know and when did he know it? Why would Nichols have the need to disclose it to the council Oct. 27 at the council meeting if they already knew it on Oct 5th?. With his admiting having personal knowledge as early as Oct 5, 2009, why did he not inform the council of it before Oct. 12, 2009 Monday nights council meeting.
Even more, why am I having to point this, discrepancy out to you. As a reporter, you should have smelled a rat and exposed it yourself.
I also noticed that you didn't mention that the person that really exposed all of this and disclosed it to the coucil was former council member Dianne Tipton. Just can't say one good thing about her can you? If anyone needed anymore proof about your bias against her, they need look no further. "
Why wrote on Oct 29, 2009 12:32 PM:
" Why did the city do a study on asbestos in the house that they didn't own and that Nichols had not yet been given permission to persue a purchase on. They shouldn't be paying for any more studys. That would be the responsibility of the seller to show his property is fit to sell not the responsibility of the taxpayers.
The report was done prior to the Oct. 12, council meeting according to the News Suns report and was supposedly revealed to the council on Oct. 5,2009 before the Oct. 12, 2009 council meeting when they gave permission to Nichols to move forward with an offer.
Quite frankly I don't believe that the council members were ever informed or they would have taken that into consideration at the Oct 12, 2009 council meeting. Who withheld that information and why? Was it Nichols?
If Nichols new it and withheld that information he needs to be repremanded. He may have already allowed some staff to be exposed to the asbestos and his decision not to inform could have caused even more exposure to others such as children and anyone going into that building. He also needs to be educated in proper proceedures concerning the council and reminded that he is NOT in chargd like he used to be as Police Chief.
In looking at the purposed contracts, I also noticed that Nichols had initialed and signed many spaces left blank which is also a big no no on contracts. I don't think Nichols is qualified to sign any contracts on behalf of the tax payers. "
The report was done prior to the Oct. 12, council meeting according to the News Suns report and was supposedly revealed to the council on Oct. 5,2009 before the Oct. 12, 2009 council meeting when they gave permission to Nichols to move forward with an offer.
Quite frankly I don't believe that the council members were ever informed or they would have taken that into consideration at the Oct 12, 2009 council meeting. Who withheld that information and why? Was it Nichols?
If Nichols new it and withheld that information he needs to be repremanded. He may have already allowed some staff to be exposed to the asbestos and his decision not to inform could have caused even more exposure to others such as children and anyone going into that building. He also needs to be educated in proper proceedures concerning the council and reminded that he is NOT in chargd like he used to be as Police Chief.
In looking at the purposed contracts, I also noticed that Nichols had initialed and signed many spaces left blank which is also a big no no on contracts. I don't think Nichols is qualified to sign any contracts on behalf of the tax payers. "
Nana wrote on Oct 30, 2009 12:52 PM:
" When Tipton and Suagee were recalled the city lost their watchdogs. It appears some are now back to their old under the table tricks. The property was being sold by former mayor DiPeso!!! Thanks voters for voting out the two people who actually looked into and reported backdoor deals. The good old boys are now back and running on a full tank. "
I was there JTS wrote on Oct 28, 2009 5:12 PM:
What meeting were you at Monday night? Most of what you reported was never said. If the council already knew about the asbestos as early as Oct. 2, 2009, then why did they not go ahead and approve the contract to purchase the properties at this meeting and why was it not disclosed to the public at the Oct 12 council meeting when the proposed offer was approved?
Mr. Nicols never informed the council of the asbestos problem, though he did know about it, Diane Tipton exposed the whole issue to the council at the call to the public. She spoke for 5 miutes and you never mentioned it. I heard several council members thank her for bringing the whole issue to their attention and saving their butts and conciences from dispare.
You should have given her credit for what she did, protecting the public and city workers from being contaminated further thus saving the city millions of dollars in potential law suits and making sure that the council was duly informed of the issues before they clinched the deal, not to mention the decietful practice of Mr. DiPeso to withhold the information from council.
Tipton has gotton to you and the News Sun so deep that you will not ever mention her in any light except negative. What happened to just reporting what happened.
Though I know that you are a poor excuse for a journalist even I was really taken back by this out and out fabrication of what transpired at the meeting.
JTS "