$150,000 to hire a building assessment consultant
In February this year the Council heard from a building assessment consultant. Here's the video of the meeting:
Now the Council is scheduled to vote to spend $150,000 on this consultant. Here's some of the information for the vote:
Everyone I know is cutting back, but not this Council majority. I don't see the need to hire another consultant right now.
Tim White
20 comments:
yea right and you fab four did a good job with those going out to bid
saved us alot of money
Good job boys keep up the good work
you blew itthis time
garbage - $150,000 more than expected
bussing - 200,000 more than expected
assessment consultant - $150,000
WAY TO WASTE A HALF MILLION DOLLARS !!! We could train a monkey to throw money out the window and they already like to toss their own shit
and the best you got is performance based contractsand senerity ranch
the elephant will lose big in nov
so much forthe conservative revolution
give it up even your own rep willnot run this fall
they will allvote dem
the smart and reasonable choice
too bad too late and outof touch
"WAY TO WASTE A HALF MILLION DOLLARS !!! "
I can tell by your comment that you are a genius.
Learn the facts about how a town should be run.
You don't go and give out non-bid contracts. That is as idiotic as you are.
I don't see 1 comment about this hiring from you...are you that stupid to think it is a good hiring?
Perhaps you are.
As for training a monkey to throw money out the window, it looks like we have 5 trained ones on the TC right now, perhaps you should join them,
So let's review the dem majority's fiscally responsible spending:
1. $20,000 on a pool consultant that did nothing.
2. $47,000 (give or take a couple thousand) on a company that tells us what kind of cracks our roads have.
3. Over $70,000 extra spent on the Norton boiler project.
4. An extra $90,000, or so, they took from the taxpayers with their new "fund balance policy" rather than giving any of it back.
5. $400,000 + (x 2 yrs at least = $800,000) wasted on the pool b/c they dragged their feet on doing anything about the bubble.
6. And $150,000 they want to waste on a building consultant - when they could put that money to better use.
7. $525,000 of wasted state tax dollars (our tax dollars)that they would use tomorrow, if they could, to put in that turf field at CHS.
TOTAL = $1,702,000
I'm sure I've left something out but this gives you an idea of how fiscally responsible the dems are.
This is where I fault the TM--he has the people that could do this assessment & tell us the 80-90% of th etings we need to know about our buildings but won't take the initiative to do it.
8:26 - I am not trying to nit-pick your figures, but some of the items are things that have been shot down and some are items that came up when the Republicans had majority. Also, to 5:22 5/25 - dont count the consultant cost until the papers are signed. It isnt a cost until we have to write a check.
With all the town employees that we already have, why do we need to hire someone else to do a job that can be done in-house?
Jus curious Mr. DeVylder...are you preparing to run for TC?
It appears from your constant berating of the Republicans on the TC that you want to run against them and join the free spending 5.
You can say all you want about how the Republicans on the TC pushed to do what was right by not awarding the non-bid contracts, but ir\t was the right thing to do. Who is to say that if we just gave them a 1 year contract that next year, when we are looking for a 5 year contract, we wouldn't be paying a lot more for the term of the contract. You can't say.
Which of those items came up when the Republicans were the majority??
Forgot to add the passing of the 4.4% increase in the teachers contract.
First, as I have stated before, I have more than enough on my plate for the next few years to even consider being on the council.
Second, I am berating the Republicans because they are only voting along party lines. The town council is a bi-monthly pissing match. They do not seem too concerned with spending $350,000 extra. Not 1 republican on the council has the nerve or independance to say "oops.. we dropped the ball on this one!" Instead, the Republicans want the taxpayers to think that we are saving $60,000 when the reality is we are spending $146,000 to get 60,000. In the last month, the Republicans cost the taxpayers almost as much as we spend per year on the pool.
The bidding process in this town needs to be reviewed. Simply saying that we will accept the lowest qualified bid doesnt cut it. How often does the low bidder come back to the council and request more money? Where did we save? If the town had not caught the bid bond fraud, where would we be when Coastal refused to show up because it was costing them money? We would not have a bond to cash in. We could take them to court and spend more money to get some back. I am a firm believer that cheapest is not always the best. Remember, "you get what you pay for."
Now for the list.
1 + 5 - anything involving the pool. The pool was approved in the mid 90's so all costs are associated with that leadership.(R's)
2 - Roads. I agree that was a waste of money. But at the same time, if Michaelangelo were to spend time driving around town, that would cause a stir too.
3 - Norton boiler. Low bidder and a crappy engineer created problems that are being blamed on WB and the Democtats.
4 - Dont know too much about this issue
6 - Not voted on yet
7 - Turf. Was discussed, researched, and a request was made for the money, but appears that it will not happen in the near future. No spending.
Teachers - Just a big cluster f*ck.
"...Remember, "you get what you pay for." ..."
Last time what we paid for was a trash hauler who has recently changed his residence from in-town to the federal slammer because of fraudulent bidding practices. After that you'd suggest doing future business with that firm based on a hand shake and a high five?
You gotta be kidding, trusting such a firm on its 'word' alone without a formal documented bid process would have been a STUPID thing for town government to do. Believing that the town will come out ahead if it just informally negotiates, in a dark corner of town hall, each and every town procurement is very much like believing in the tooth fairy too.
12:50
Re: 1 & 5 - The pool was said to be "self sufficient" - it's on paper. You can't blame the R's. The D's were the ones who wanted to spend the 20K on the pool consultant - it was their idea.
The Boiler - The bid was accepted and the company was reliable. Even with the slight price adjustment they were lower than the company that got the job. It really boils down to who the current council wanted for the job.
The D's created a new "fund balance" policy. Tim should have the info in his archives if you care to learn about it.
The building consultant not being voted on yet - just wait until tonight - my guess it will go through.
The turf - You got it a bit backwards. The money was accepted from the State (our tax dollars) and then the turf committee began their discussions & research. Problem is when the committee is made up of a majority who want the turf, then their findings cannot be considered reliable. They have ten years to use the money - believe me, as soon as they see a chance to do it, they will.
The teachers - we're up to 16 retirements now. I doubt any teachers will get laid off. They got their cake and are eating it too!!
If WB is so great how come the gas pipe put in for the HVAC job at one of the schools didn't pass inspection? How come I hear that there's often cost overages on many of their jobs they've done?
May 27, 2009 1:44 PM
A STUPID thing to do? The council was told AJ's offer WAS A GOOD OFFER by other towns and haulers. Dumbass Tim could not get that into his egotistical brain. Great job spending the equivialant of 2.5 teacher salaries. Voting for Tim was a STUPID thing to do.
P.S. - AJ is now a resident of the town of Cheshire again.
"...P.S. - AJ is now a resident of the town of Cheshire again...."
What, no press release in The Herald and no ankle bracelet? Here's hoping the poor guy can stay out of trouble this time.
"...Great job spending the equivalent of 2.5 teacher salaries...."
You quasi-liberal, no rules needed types, always in the end seem to default to wanting to pay for teachers above all else. Every discussion needs some statement about adding yet more dollars to school budgets or worse yet whining about responsible budgeting through budget increases.
Truth be known our school age population is shrinking and over time our public schools, just like American businesses need to become more productive. The time to increase teacher productivity is now.
How a mind can perform - - linking a hard working responsible TC member with an ex-felon and hypothetical prospective teacher lay off - - give us a break next time please, and enough with the vile language too.
Of course we all know why the Building Assessment Consultant vote failed - it was only because Miss DeCaprio was not present at the meeting - she had her baby. If she were there, it surely would have passed. Thank goodness for small miracles!
So let me get this straight:
We don't have any money in the budget to help a local food bank but we have money in the budget to transfer and pay for a building consultant?! Luckily the vote failed on the consultant.
"Second, I am berating the Republicans because they are only voting along party lines."
Are you kidding me??
That is the biggest joke I have heard come out of your small brain.
I recall Tim Slocum voting with the D's to give WB the Norton Boiler.
Tell me when any of the D's broke party line?
Don't include Dill on this...
You are nothing but a joke DeVylder. You should run so someone could whip you in an election and you will see that there aren't many people who agree with your kind of politics.
To push the teacher's contract under the rug as a "cluster f**k". lets remember who was doing the f**king....the D's
You obviously agree that Tim is the only person on the TC who delivers the message to the people or you wouldn't spend so much time here. Give him the credit for that at least.
Mr. DeVylder, why is it that when the vote is 5:4 the 4 Republicans get the credit for voting along party lines? This is a rather tilted explanation of the reality. To be fair it may have been a party line vote but to be sure the 5 D's were dead wrong.
which vote are you refering?
Mr. DeVyl.
Your post - your second bullet point explaning your beratement policy.
Post a Comment