Bellaire Still Undecided on Paying Contractor

Kailey Carpino

BELLAIRE -- Village Council continued to discuss debt issues in Bellaire during Thursday's council meeting.

During council's meeting on Dec. 21, council voted to pay off debt from emergency sewer work.

Clerk Mary Haglioizou said that council had received a letter from a representative at Southpointe Industries stating that the village has a $37,875 debt to the company. Southpointe stated that they could sue the village if the debt was not paid.

Solicitor Paul Stecker said that Southpointe completed work on the village's sewer system early last year, but the company did not send an official purchase order to be approved by council.

According to Councilwoman Janet Richardson, the work was done on an emergency basis after a sewer line broke and caused a "hazardous waste situation." For that reason, Southpointe did not fill out any official paperwork before completing the repairs.

Fiscal Officer Marla Krupnik said that the village did not have enough money in the sewer fund at the time to pay for the work. She said that there is enough in the fund now.

"I find this whole thing extremely distasteful," Councilman Mike Doyle said.

He said that he understood that proper procedure was not followed, but Southpointe still completed the work.

"There's no argument that they deserve pay," he said.

Stecker explained that the village has two options, to pay the debt or take the issue to court. He suggested that the village transfer money from the general fund to the sewer fund to pay the debt.

Stecker also stated that if Southpointe did attempt to sue the village, the village may not be found responsible for the entire debt.

During the Dec. 21 council meeting, Richardson made the motion to pay the debt to Southpointe and stated that she wanted to avoid a lawsuit.

Councilmen Jerry Olack, Robert "Bubba" Kapral and Doyle voted against the motion. Council members Elizabeth Dugmore, Jerry Fisher and Richardson voted in favor, creating a 3-3 tie.

Mayor Edward Marling broke the tie and voted to pay the debt.

Following the Dec. 21 meeting, Olack got in contact with Stecker to discuss the issue further. According to Olack, Stecker said that Marling should not have voted on this issue due to a conflict of interest.

Council said that they did not know what conflict of interest Stecker was referring to, and Stecker was not present at Thursday's meeting due to the recent death of his wife. Marling did not comment on the issue.

Richardson said that it may be a conflict of interest since Marling was the one who did not follow protocol when the work was done.

"Apparently the mayor can't break the tie, so we're back at square one," Krupnik said.

Richardson also questioned the motives of the council members who voted against paying the debt. She said that Olack, Kapral and Doyle who voted no could be planning to countersue Marling.

"The only other option that I can think of is to get sued, and the village pays the additional legal fees. Then what? Is it over? Is there anything else that could happen? Well, maybe, someone would want to countersue the mayor because he didn't have the PO (purchase order) and expect him to refund that money. That's the only other thing that I can see happening. I'm not sure. That's why I'm asking the people who voted no, why," she said.

Doyle said that he voted against paying the debt because he felt that it was the best legal option after hearing Stecker discuss the issue during previous council meetings.

"It comes down to legalities and protocol, and the comfort zone of people and their liability that they wish to share," he said.

"I really feel that it's distasteful that we're almost being ostracized because we exercised our vote that we felt was in the best interest of the village and the protocols that are in place," Doyle said.

Richardson said that not paying the debt is only making the situation worse.

"We have incurred an additional $1,600-plus to the village in interest payments, and it still isn't paid. The village will also incur additional legal expenses because Southpointe does intend to sue us," she said.

Dugmore stressed the need to follow procedures in the future so that the issue does not happen again. She said that even in emergencies, the proper paperwork must be completed.

"We understand that emergencies come up, and occasionally that will happen and we will not be able to get a purchase order immediately. We have to be diligent about these purchase orders. ...It has got to be gotten under control. It has got to be followed up on. Plain and simple. We have a limited budget in this village and we need to follow these procedures to the letter," Dugmore said.

Marling said that council should not discuss the issue until Stecker returns.

Doyle said that he agreed that council should wait and get Stecker's advice on the issue.

"We're speaking about legal matters when the village solicitor is not here, and there is a question of liability and protocol," he said.

Council and village officials plan to make a final decision on whether or not to pay the debt at their next meeting at 6 p.m. on Jan. 18 when Stecker returns.

Council plans to contact David Jingle, owner of Southpointe Industries, to explain the situation and state that village officials need more time to decide on the issue.