Sunday, January 07, 2007

Council agenda 1/9

Sorry for getting this up so late. I've been pretty busy this weekend.

The consent calendar doesn't seem to have anything that'll cause a stir on Tuesday. It has the usual: 7 grants, ranging from $200 to $12,000.

Old business has one item. Although not required, there was no vote on the "legislative package" last month. I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion on this. I'm not sure where the conversation will go, but as I mentioned in a previous post... it may be worthwhile discussing the "prevailing wage" law.

As I see it, the basics of this law are: any government funded construction project that exceeds certain dollar thresholds is automatically required to pay the "prevailing wage." The prevailing wage is a level paid to unions... a level higher than that which is often paid to non-union shops. Basically, this means that when a town construction project exceeds certain dollar amounts, the town has to pay more. The dollar thresholds are: $500,000 for new construction & $100,000 for retrofits.

Last year, there was a bill introduced in the legislature to increase those dollar amounts to $1,000,000 and $400,000 respectively.

I support increasing the thresholds. And I believe that any reasonable person would support increasing the thresholds by some amount. My rationale is that, at minimum, those levels should be indexed for inflation. My understanding is that those levels have not changed for many years.

How does this impact the town? Well, the school window projects cost more if they cost more than $100,000. And we're spending a lot more than that. Furthermore, I've been told that the typical cost increase related to the "prevailing wage" is 20-30%. Assuming all these numbers are true (and I have not researched them), when the town spends $400,000 on new windows at Norton School, we may have been able to get those same windows for $325,000, IF the prevailing wage law had been changed. I'd certainly prefer to see the taxpayers save that $75,000.

I don't see how any reasonable legislator opposes increasing these levels by some amount.

New Business

A. $75,000 gift to the library from the Cheshire Nursery School Association - I can't see this turning into much of a discussion.

B. Purchasing procedures - I need to read up on this, but I'm guessing that this is housekeeping.

C. Annual disclosures of conflicts of interests - This is interesting. Although this is "annual," I don't recall ever having done this before. Hmmm... Anyway, I'll disclose my conflict right now... I work for People's Bank. And the Town is a People's Bank customer. So whenever any votes come up that relate to People's Bank, I should recuse myself. Frankly though, the only time those votes come up are usually with saving money without impacting services. So the votes are always unanimous.

D. Approval of proposal for design services by Milone & MacBroom for improvements to Bartlem and Mixville Parks - I think this is for about $10,000. I'll need to read up on this one. But part of this is to rebuild the ballfield at Mixville. And if the town can build a stronger relationship with private organizations, like CYB (Herald, by Greg Lederer), I think this is probably worthwhile.

E. Approval of final design for fire station - I'm fine with this.

Tim White
Town Council, 4th District

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Goodness me do we really have to have another round of the stupid Legislative Package-I have had enough of it-its over and done-
Can't we get on with the business of the town like the budget and the North End Development and the pool and many other pressing issues.
Get it going council-don't bet bogged down!!

Anonymous said...

Watch for the guy on the left side of the table to make a big deal about the firehouse and how he thinks it is not money well spent. How he can say this is is amazing.Another AWM on the loose.

Anonymous said...

Angry white men, thats who we are
We are frustrated with life
we like going to the bar
We fuss and we wine
We love Rush really fine
But we cant't get elected to the General Assembly because we complain about binding arbitration all the time

Anonymous said...

I guess these angry white male jingles make me think that the person posting them is a fool...i'm not angry or male and I read the blog to get info on whats going on....does this person have a blog for the democrates in Cheshire...i would read that too...

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:40 and 4:43 - again, one in the same. FYI - I spoke to a volunteer fireman who admitted the fire station didn't need all the upgrades and changes so I guess it's a matter of opinion. Seems the dems were convinced it was necessary, although who's to say it really was. Maybe the project could have been scaled back a bit, you know, get rid of the weight room request. Did you ever think of it that way? Apparently there's some firemen that see it that way too.

Anonymous said...

There are many of the firemen in Town who think the South End Firehouse upgrade is a waste. The same people will speak in private but nevr in public about their concerns in the Fire Department. The Fire dept is wasting lots of money, running too many pieces to calls, using dept vehicles for personal use, ordering new equipment for the new trucks instead of using the equipment from the just retired truck. Ask the Fire dept how many chain saws they have now, more than Home Depot. Ask them why they have to spend $3000 on each truck for a fancy front end grille. The firehouse modifications are part of the grand plan to have a paid fire dept, it is that simple. Sit and watch how many trucks are rolled out of the South End station to calls in the South End,not many, because there is no one there to respond to the calls.All call support comes from the Headquarters building.

Anonymous said...

You are all nuts. I am sure that you voted for a zero school too.

Anonymous said...

anon 9:03 I think you're the nut believing everything that a few on the council may tell you. Just talk to some of the volunteer firemen yourself. Think of the money that may have been saved!

Maybe someone should start posting about the happy white men on the right side of the table - happy because they're spending our hard earned tax dollars without doing all their homework.

Anonymous said...

The R's, by mistreating the firemen, are driving Cheshire toward a paid department. You may save some small dollars but someday soon we will be spending $2-3 million a year on a paid department. You tell me if it is worth it?

Anonymous said...

Angry white boys
We dont like the firemen
We rant when we can
We will be sent packing
in 07

Anonymous said...

Public safety is an important aspect of our town. Let's support our police and firemen.

Anonymous said...

I do support our police and fire dept....have for over 30 years as a taxpayer in Cheshire. Supporting the fire dept doesn't mean I have to support a big add on to one of the firehouses when I hear from some firemen in town that we don't need it.
As far as a paid fire dept...it's been said for quite a while now that that's where we're headed (add on or no add on).