FBCC votes to settle 2012 lawsuit over playground equipment

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
September 21, 2017 5:43 p.m.

 

At their September 19, 2017 Regular Meeting, Fernandina Beach City Commissioners (FBCC) voted 5-0 to spend $29,000 to settle a lawsuit with Columbia Cascade that has dragged on through Oregon courts since 2012. There was no discussion among commissioners prior to the vote.

Over the intervening five years, the city has spent upwards of $78,000 in legal fees and $29,000 in settlement of a $19,896.35 dispute over whether the city should have paid a sales representative or the manufacturer for playground equipment that the Parks and Recreation Department purchased.

On October 30, 2012, the City of Fernandina Beach was served with a complaint for Columbia Cascade Company v. City of Fernandina Beach et al., in the Oregon Circuit Court for Multnomah County, Case No. 12-1013287. In this case, the City paid a sales representative $19,896.35 directly through a purchase order for playground equipment. The sales representative stole the money and never paid the manufacturer for the equipment. The manufacturer, Columbia Cascade Company, sued the City alleging that the City should have paid the manufacturer directly. The City defended the case successfully through arbitration and trial. However, Columbia Cascade Company appealed the trial court’s decision. The appeals court remanded the case back to trial court. In order to avoid further litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, the City Commission decided it was in the best interest of the City to settle the case for $29,000.

Although it appeared that the city had won its case, the Appeals Court reversed this decision earlier this year. During an Executive Session in August, the FBCC apparently instructed City Attorney Tammi Bach to settle the case. (See: https://fernandinaobserver.com/2017/07/31/playground-equipment-lawsuit-columbia-cascade-vs-city-of-fernandina-beach/)

Suanne Thamm 4
Suanne Z. Thamm

Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.

7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Marlene Chapman
Marlene Chapman(@crew2120)
6 years ago

Has the “gentleman” who we paid over $19,000 to for this equipment been sued for the funds? Why would we pay directly to an individual, even through a P.O.? This sounds like very poor business on the part of the city! Again, thousands that we’ve spent, and for what? We paid over $128,000 for playground equipment and legal costs when we should have only paid $19,000, if we had paid the company directly!! CRAZY!

Dave Lott
Dave Lott(@dave-l)
6 years ago

Marlene,
Just as clarification, the City did not make a payment to an individual but to the individual’s company, Site Creations, that was working as an agent/representative of Columbia Cascade. I would think the City could now sue the individual for damages but whether he or his company has an assets is another question. I would also think that an arrest warrant would be possible for his acceptance of funds from the City and his failure to remit the proper funds to Columbia Cascade.
Then there is the bigger question as how far do you take a case based on the “principle” of the matter rather than the amount?

chuck hall
chuck hall(@bob)
6 years ago

a sad decision to have to make.

Mary Gorman
Mary Gorman (@guest_49347)
6 years ago

Not a good job on the part of the City and FBCC, all around. It’s just common sense that you don’t spend 5x the amount in question to litigate. Ridiculous.

Joe Blanchard
Joe Blanchard(@jlblan2)
6 years ago

Need new City Attorney. Her guidance appears to be very flawed else we wouldn’t be sued all the time.

Marlene Chapman
Marlene Chapman(@crew2120)
6 years ago

Dave, I understand what you’ve said an thank you for clarification of how the monies were received. It was always stated that we paid “an individual”. I also see what you are saying about how far to go it just seems that we, as a city pay out so much when maybe we could stop and look more closely before writing a check.

Patricia Kirschling
Patricia Kirschling (@guest_49353)
6 years ago

The City was well aware of Columbia’s involvement, as Columbia informed the City early on that regional representatives do not have the authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the company. The confirmation of the order by the City was signed after negotiations with Columbia, not Site Creations. The City received two invoices, with the first being from Columbia, which clearly is the company with whom they contracted. A second invoice comes in five days later from the vendor. Instead of paying the contractual obligation owed to Columbia, the City decides to pay the sales representative. It is difficult to ascertain the logic of the person who approved the invoice for Site Creations under these circumstances. If the City was so confused over which party to pay, it simply could have put both names on the check and sent it to Columbia. From my reading of the accounts, the red flags regarding Site Creations should have been up when the City was told by Columbia that regional vendors DO NOT have the authority to enter into contracts on their behalf.