BOE Planning Committee
Tuesday May 17th
7:30am Humiston Board Room
Agenda:
1. Five Year Capital Plan
2. Project Updates
- Synthetic Turf & Track Replacement Project
- Cheshire High School Locker Room Project
- Dodd Kitchen Renovations - Final Phases
- Cheshire High School Roof Replacement Project
It's my understanding that the Cheshire High School air quality issues will be discussed during the Five Year Capital Plan and the cost could be significant. I will post details as I get them.
15 comments:
What's the dollar amount of a project that puts it into the capital budget? I realize the turf field has a grant and some public donations that are supposed to cover the total cost but shouldn't it be in the 5 year capital budget regardless?
The publicly stated claim is something that:
1) costs more than $110,000 and
2) has an expected life greater than five years
goes in the capital budget. But there's no steadfast rule with that.
For instance, if you read the details of the budget, it's not uncommon to see something like:
$5,000 new carpet
$15,000 bathroom renovation
$20,000 HVAC replacement
$50,000 truck replacement
$20,000 repaint parking lot lines
$110,000 miscellaneous improvements
Similarly, smartboards -- which cost about $7,000 each, I think -- are often grouped as a capital budget item.
The thing that annoys me though is when people talk about "cutting the operating budget" by $50,000... then turn around and stick that vehicle in the capital budget. It's totally disingenuous.
IMO, it's doing exactly what happens in Washington. It's simply shifting the tax increases to the future.
Instead of tax n spend, it's borrow n spend. And it's not just Washington and Hartford. It's Cheshire too.
Frankly, I don't think there's a good way to set hard rules for whether something goes in the operating or capital budget. But simply shifting something from the operating to the capital budget shouldn't give anyone bragging rights as being fiscally conservative.
Was there any update on the Norton Boiler project? I read an article in the paper, Waterbury Rep 5/22, that says that project is still not signed off by the engineer. Also it said besides the higher original price of $253,000 there have been a couple of change orders amounting to $12,000 and an additional $19,750 for installation of a fuel pump.
Makes you wonder why they didn't just stick to the original company, CT Combustion.
The project has been "done" for some time. The problem is that the contractor White-Bowman refuses to test the boilers with both oil and natural gas as required by the inspector. There seems to be a personal matter between Bowman and the inspector as was mentioned in the Rep-Am article last week. It's unfortunate that Mr. Bowman has decided to put his personal issues ahead of the needs of the students, once again.
All this because the town staff failed to notify the original winning bidder in time and that lawsuit is still pending I believe.
And the project was awarded to White Bowman at a substantial cost increase.
Meanwhile, this town council turns a blind eye to all of it.
Nice job.
It was the previous council that sealed the deal with WB. Not sure what the current council can do about it now.
If the project is done but not signed off by the engineer then I hope our TM is withholding final payment...but somehow I doubt it.
Nothing the town council can do about the contract. But they can do something about what caused this situation which is lack of supervision/leadership/management in town hall that led to the staff flubbing the notification to the original winning bidder.
I doubt we'll ever see the real number but the taxpayers should know what this mistake is actually costing us.
If Tim White was still on the town council he'd most certainly be demanding answers and the true costs of this project. Hopefully the Nov election will produce some new faces that aren't afraid to question the status quo.
What a surprise. Another tainted town project over budget and bowman is involved. Go figure.
There is no natural gas at Norton School. Convertibility was built in to the project for some flexibility but if and whenever there will ever be a supply of natural gas to Norton School is anybody's wild guess.
The boiler is working as it should. There was plenty of heat all winter at Norton School. It would appear that the consulting engineer has some obvious biases in the old bidding war that took place and it seems this is his payback moment.
May his services to the town soon RIP.
12:59 PM... thanks.
I did read the March 8, 2011 Council minutes. If I understood it correctly, (at the very end of the minutes) they indicate that the Council went into executive session. And after coming out, a settlement was agreed by the Council... 5-3-1, I recall. Falvey abstained. Ecke and two Rs opposed the settlement.
Based on the minutes, I have no idea if the cameras were running. But the cameras are almost always off by the time the Council comes out of executive session. And this vote *should* have been televised as it speaks to some very serious issues, such as good government and proper management.
Regardless, while the pragmatist in me sees that settling has value... one should keep both the history of this project and the related accountability in mind.
This project cost the taxpayers an extra $80,000 due to a management error.
It almost certainly cost $10,000s of dollars in legal fees.
And I think Cindy at UTH mentioned that the settlement was $40,000. Based on my memory (from when I was in those executive sessions), that seems plausible.
So the history of this project includes probably an additional $120,000 to $150,000 in unnecessary spending.
But does it stop there?
No! Of course not.
In what way was there any accountability for this project?
Well, as the TM made clear... this was *not* the fault of staff. This was the fault of the Council not spending enough money!
So instead of holding staff accountable, the taxpayers had to ante up more money.
Yup. Because of this project, the taxpayers had to pay for a new software program... a "purchasing" module. Because THAT was the real problem! I think that cost the taxpayers another $3,000.
All of this reminds me of Washington and Hartford... if government screws something up... the real problem is that government didn't have enough "resources." So what's the result? Bigger government! And no one is ever held accountable.
Anyone happen to know if there have been any changes in the DPW management recently?
There is no natural gas at Norton School.
True, but...
if and whenever there will ever be a supply of natural gas to Norton School is anybody's wild guess.
Based on my discussions with Yankee last fall, they'll probably be building the Rte 42 pipeline in the near future (next year or two) or not for a long time. As of last fall, the construction of that pipeline was largely related to whether Yankee and the Town came to a larger agreement on energy services. And Yankee wasn't going to spend years negotiating something.
So based on my slightly dated knowledge, it'll probably happen relatively soon... or not for a long time.
Current Council members probably have some insight regarding the status of any negotiations with Yankee.
I was in a cheerful mood today until I came into this thread. Thanks Tim for the extra cost estimates. :-)
I'll get some details on the boiler project and post a separate topic about it. As Tim mentioned, there's no natural gas to Norton School so I'm not certain how NG can be tested there.
Tony, several months ago you said you had spoken to GF about a joint effort between GF and MM to streamline the management of town / school facilities.
Unsurprisingly, the TM said he had other priorities.
Have you been able to learn what those "other priorities" and time requirements are?
I mean besides the time required to stonewall you... whoops... I mean... explain the complex situation to you...
"Tony, several months ago you said you had spoken to GF about a joint effort between GF and MM to streamline the management of town / school facilities."
No, I don't know what the TM's other priorities were at the time. We kept pressing the idea of consolidating both maintenance depts throughout the budget process but no traction was made. The consensus among the BOE and Administration is that we'd see no savings by combining the two departments. Meaning that we wouldn't see cost-savings with reduced personnel. The argument was that whether there's 1 or 2 departments we'd still need the same number of people to maintain/repair the town properties.
This may very well be true but without a public discussion and/or sub-committee to look into it we'll never know. I didn't get much support from the BOE about it and I don't believe the TC had an opportunity to seriously consider it. I will raise this idea again this fall.
This may very well be true but without a public discussion and/or sub-committee to look into it we'll never know.
Agreed. And regardless of whether there is BOE support, I request you make a motion at a full BOE meeting and let them share their thoughts / votes publicly.
IMO, this is about two things:
1) incapable management; and
2) interpersonal relationships that are hidden in the shadows.
I don't see how forcing a vote -- and shining some light -- is a bad thing.
Thanks for considering it.
I read a recent letter to the editor in the WRA, where the head of the original bidding company Combustion responded to that paper's recent article about the Norton boiler project.
He mentioned several safety-related issues there. Does anyone know what is going on at Norton for real? If the State was/is involved from a safety point of view, what is really going on over there? Has the town really paid extra, and how can we find out?
Post a Comment