$45,850 for Pavement Management Software
Here is the proposal offered for the Pavement Management Software:
I can't help wonder about the $4,400 for GIS training, particularly the inclusion of additional "user stations" even though we apparently don't use our existing GIS station:Regardless, I think the idea of categorizing and prioritizing our street repaving schedule has merit. That's why offer an alternative. It's called:
Microsoft Excel
And it works like this... you create a "risk assessment matrix." You do this by creating a chart that looks like this:
(that's just an example) And you use that to set your priorities and to give people some level of expectation for the upcoming year. Perhaps the DPW could update it annually before the construction season (February??)... and the Council could approve/amend it. Then everything is written in stone. And deviation from the plan would be acceptable, but require a solid explanation when someone asked how "so-and-so's" road got paved... when "I" asked years ago.
You could also use this for sidewalks, curbs, tree trimming, etc.
PLUS... it reduces the chance for political influence.
Tim White
8 comments:
But why spend only $200. (max) on Excel when we can spend $45,000. on this other software?
--Matt, Matt,& Mike
"PLUS... it reduces the chance for political influence"
What's this? How could anyone think that political influence or that special interest groups, like the local Good Old Boys (developer), could persuade the TM to make the road improvements that they want. If you believe that could happen, then we don't need any software or plan, just let the special interests keep running things the way they want and keep awarding contracts to them.
There you people going again, trying to implement common sense when political favoritism and not caring about the taxpayers is more important.
Who thinks of this? Is all this surplus money burning a whole in their pockets? Check into this one because it smells bad...
Tim:
It all comes down to answering the question: "What you are trying to achieve? Are you interested in knowing what pavements need repair? Are you interested in knowing what is the most cost effective treatment that should be done? Are you interested in knowing how much needs to be spent for each year for the next 10 years? Are you interested in showing what can be delivered for future condition if your budget is increased by 10% or decreased by 10%? The spreadsheet may be a good idea, but start by clearly knowing (and stating) what problem you are trying to solve.
9:22 You missed the whole point.
Ah, Increasing Taxes - - -
Reading this information leads to confusion. For instance, is this particular vendor trying to drive home a deal with the town even though the town has not yet provided a description of what it wants, issued requests for proposals to multiple qualified bidders, received written proposals and evaluated this one to be the best of the lot?
Further, just how is this work currently performed? Or is none of this work actually performed at this point? And if it isn’t, then why start now? What is really in it for the town other than increasing costs to operate and therefore increasing taxes, ah increasing taxes.
Maybe increasing taxes by doing something we have never done yet isn’t a really good idea. Maybe before we charge off and buy this piece of software the highway maintenance activities should receive a detailed fresh public look so that everyone can understand where we are and why more should be spent to change. And while at it look at staffing to see if maybe this proposed expenditure could result in labor savings leading to staff reductions which might actually lead to either constant taxes or maybe even tax reductions.
What you are trying to achieve?
Proper road maintenance, IMO.
issued requests for proposals to multiple qualified bidders
The town issued an RFQ and reviewed the responses.
the highway maintenance activities should receive a detailed fresh public look so that everyone can understand where we are and why more should be spent to change.
agreed.
Post a Comment