Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Highway storage facility bonding increase questioned

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919

    Highway storage facility bonding increase questioned

    A town board bond resolution, dated April 15, 2013, authorized the construction of a town storage building, at an estimated maximum cost of $865,000 and authorizing the issuance of serial bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $865,000.

    The Town Board Monday evening modified the Original Bond Resolution for purposes of increasing: (a) the estimated maximum cost of the project from $865,000 to $1,330,000 and (b) the amount of serial bonds authorized to be issued from $865,000 to $1,330,000.

    At the pre-file resolution comment session, prior to resolution voting, residents questioned and commented on the reasons for the $465,000 increase in cost in a less than two year period.

    Resident Lee Chowaniec: Mr. Abraham, you are the sponsor of the highway storage bond amendment so I will direct my questions to you. At the budget hearing, I asked Supervisor Fudoli in passing the reasons for the forthcoming bond amendment and the reasons for the significant increase in cost. His answer was that some mistakes were made. Can you elaborate on that statement and the reasoning for the significant increase in cost; $465,000?

    Councilman John Abraham: I will let Mr. Harris answer the question, but I know that we scaled down the construction size for the first building design (from 25,000 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft.) and the bids came in and were still too high. We couldn’t scale it down anymore or it would not be a usable building for the highway department. From the logistics part of it Mr. Harris can answer those questions.

    Chowaniec: Nothing has changed regarding the size of the building, the materials used, etc; in other words it’s the same size and design as was bonded for in April of 2013 for $865,000? It was answered that nothing had changed.

    It is my understanding that the estimated cost of constructing the building and the amount bonded fell short by $50,000. The town put in for a grant for the $50,000. Now two years later the town is amending the original bond and bonding for an additional $465,000. Why the increase?

    Abraham: Cost increase, delay of going to the bank …

    Chowaniec: Why wasn’t this bond amended near two years ago when the difference was supposedly only $50,000?

    Abraham: The last time we did the bonding was in April of 2013. We started working on this in July of 2013. It takes some time. I had to make sure I had four votes. I know the supervisor was not in favor of amending the bond. There were meetings that went by where I didn’t have four members to get a supermajority to pass the bond. It got pushed off at the last meeting because of the storm. I mean I’ll take my share of the blame as to why it was not done earlier.

    Chowaniec: I am not looking to blame anyone in particular. I am looking as what it took to cause a significant increase like this one. I have coming before this board for 15 years and have seen other projects similarly delayed and where the end result was millions of taxpayer dollars wasted. Here we are looking at an uptick of $465,000. I am not going to ask Town Engineer for an accounting. I am not here to lay blame on any particular individual but to say how disappointed I am in this board in how the process was handled and how taxpayers will once again have to pay for a mistake made by the town.

    Resident Dan Beutler: What Mr. Chowaniec spoke about reminds me of the Colecraft Building and the wasted millions of that project. Taxpayers are the ones that are going to pay for another mistake. I want to see the highway department get their building but this another example of this town board delaying a project and costing town taxpayers money.

    Resident Mike Fronczak: So, we are still going with a pole barn here; this is not going to be a brick and mortar building?

    Fudoli: Same structure? (to Town Engineer Robert Harris)

    Harris: Yes.

    Fronczak: So we actually going up over 50% in cost?

    Harris: No.

    Fronczak: Well it’s going up by $465,000.

    Harris: This bond also includes … we don’t want to change the bond and miss by $50,000. It includes money that wasn’t included in the $900,000 for relocating an electrical pole, some contingency, some engineering costs and some costs for the bonding. I don’t think when we bid it out again the complete construction costs re going to be $1.33 million. But I certainly don’t want a bond set at $1.1 million and find it’s $1.12. We have some room to make soft costs which is just about the $50,000 we didn’t have before. I don’t think we are going to see this come in at $1.33. If we re, we can still award it. But I think with this bond we can pay for things that if we did not have figured, like the $50,000, we will have the money to cover it. But I don’t think the construction is going to be $1.33.

    Councilman Mark Aquino: What are your figures?

    Harris: My best estimate on what this will cost to complete construction is $1.05 million; and we’ll see some day if I am right. I may be off by a little bit, but I don’t think it will be enough to exceed the set bond amount.

    Fronczak: Is it going to be radiant heat like the last time?

    Harris: Floor heat like the last time.

    The four council members voted for resolution approval. Supervisor Fudoli voted no.

    Fudoli voted to approve the April 2013 bond resolution but has adamantly opposed amending the 2013 bonding application and adding to the cost of the original project's under-estimated costs.

  2. #2
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Abraham: Cost increase, delay of going to the bank …
    The cost of which item increased by $465,000

    Materials?

    Did interest rate climb that much that the bonding cost $465,000 more?

    Did labor costs increase on the project?

  3. #3
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    The cost of which item increased by $465,000

    Materials?

    Did interest rate climb that much that the bonding cost $465,000 more?

    Did labor costs increase on the project?
    Didn't the town engineering firm underestimate the original projected costs? Thus, all bids came in over the projected cost

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    didn't the town engineering firm underestimate the original projected costs? Thus, all bids came in over the projected cost
    bingo!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    The Four Controllers and their present/past Dem Majority have done this on everything they have approved building in the past.

    They routinely under estimate costs - then say they will down size to save money - the costs always go up. Its a bait and switch game with these people - they vote to approve a project - then start making changes. Theres always - cost over runs - plan changes and unforseen problems.

    If they hired consultants - why wouldn't the cost of installing/moving a electric poll be thought of ? Makes no sense !

    They claimed the Cole Craft building could not be used - because of structural issues and mold ! Has the new owners had to correct all those issues before moving in ? I doubt it - they exaggerated the issues because they didn't want to move there. Yet all along the used it for storage until it was sold. Now we rent space from a local supporter.

    After all these games our over - the four Patronage Builders will be telling voters how under Supervisor Fudoli our debt load has increased. They will once again go back to yearly tax increase to cover their spending.

    All while telling all their Town Employees , "Look at what we did for you" - no co pay insurance - high wages and benefits. All on the backs of tax payers.

    It will be a Happy day when Councilman Stempniak retires - and stays gone this time.

    If voters don't radically change the Town Board and Town Hall next year - I fear many more years of uncontrolled spending and eventual multi Million dollar cost to update infra structure that has been ignored.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    For further clarification

    At the public comment session, after the resolutions are approved, Mike Fronczak further questioned the board on the storage building amended bond.

    Fronczak questioned the bidding and bonding process declaring the town should know first the hard numbers of the cost before bonding takes place. “When contractors now hear that we are bonding for $1.33 million and have that kind of money to spend, that will influence their bid. It will be $1.33.

    Councilman Mark Aquino: That’s not true. We did the public safety building and we bonded a certain amount of money and we didn’t spend some of that money. We bid it all out, there were separate parts, and it doesn’t work like that; at least most of the time. It’s still a competitive process.

    Fronczak: I am not saying that it is not competitive. What I’m saying …

    Aquino: But your saying statement … it didn’t. The police building was a perfect example because, I forgot $8 or $9 million we bonded ($10 million) and it came in less and trhere was an open bid.
    I want to go back to this project. This board relied, and we have a strong support of Shutt’s company, and Bob (Town Engineer Harris) on him estimating the cost of the project. That’s who we rely on. For some reason the cost came in higher twice. We tried to get it lower. We shortened the size of the building and did a lot of things. Sometime estimates didn’t come in, but there’s no doubt that building needs to be built and there’s a need for it.

    Just because we are authorizing a $1.33 million bond doesn’t mean it’s going to come in at $1.33 million. It may be $1.0 million. Another point is that we sold the library building. It is my intention, I don’t know about the rest of the board, is to use some of those proceeds to lower that loan.

    While we may have made a mistake with respect to the lower bonding, we also did something correct by selling the building (library) hoping that that’s going to be an offset. We don’t want to have to come back and reauthorize the bond. It takes 45 days for a bond to go through.

    Town Engineer Robert Harris: If you want to bond you have to hope the contractor keeps his bid open longer than he has to because you have only 45 days and he can walk. You can’t get a bond in 45 days.

    Fronczak: Just looking for an improvement in the system.

    Supervisor Fudoli informed Fronczak that the bidding process is sealed where no bidder knows what another competitor is bidding and that it behooves the competitor to bid within the true cost of the project or he will not get the contract to do the project.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    There has been times when they didn't take the lowest bid - there are times when they run into "cost over runs" (increased costs) -

    They should know what they want to spend before they bond (borrow) the money - they all seem to lack hard numbers or factual answers. They say they rely on consultants - yet the consultant didn't see a cost for a electric poll and its relocation ?

    Its all a big shell game - Mr Abraham stated it took him a while to convince the other Dem Controllers - well if he went to them and said - "I don't know the cost - not sure of what we are getting - could you vote yes"? -

    I guess its hard to sell a deal that way - why would anyone say yes - but they do - time and time again.

    The next step is to roll the contract to a supporter by manipulating the specs. Then leave room for "unexpected costs" - you know like a toilet or something like with the Police/Court building. Or wheel chair accessibility items - you know little things.

    And lets not forget the added expense for upgraded cement floors to be able to handle the floor heating system ! Wouldn't want the snow ploys to catch cold !
    Last edited by 4248; December 17th, 2014 at 07:44 PM.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,919
    http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...llion-20141227

    Democratic Council members said the earlier bids on the project were higher than anticipated due to an increased cost in materials, labor and equipment. The original $865,000 bond dated to April 2013 and was for a 25,000-square-foot facility that has since been downsized to 20,000 square feet. The pole barn is to be built behind the existing highway department building next to the salt barn at 525 Pavement Road.

    Councilman John Abraham Jr., who sponsored the amended bond resolution, said bids twice came back too high. The town then slightly scaled back the project, but still had to amend the bond for it. However, he acknowledged under questioning from Chowaniec that the building’s size is the same as what it would have been at the original $865,000 cost. If it were downsized beyond the 20,000 square feet , it would not be big enough to make it functional for what the highway department needs, Abraham said.


    Call it disingenuous, CYA, spin, BS, or outright lie, those are apt descriptors to the two paragraphs above.

    The storage building was scaled down from 25,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet long before the 2013 bond was approved in 2013. It is the same sized building and nothing more was added in materials or equipment. The 2013 bond was amended because materials, equipment, and the moving of two poles that were meant to be in the 2013 bid process were not included as they should have been.

    This oversight caused more delay, higher construction costs and more taxpayer money. The town hopes to come in at $1.05 million. We shall see. But even then taxpayers we bear another $150,000. Add this to the already millions wasted on the Walden Avenue Colecraft Building purchase for a police/courts building that never occurred. This is still part of that project process.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    The bottom line is the Controlling Party Players spin, contort, misinform and lie.


    As far as cost to tax payers - like the Colecraft Building fiasco - the shooting range for Police to "curb overtime costs" - this new building, with heated floors so the snow plows don't catch cold -

    there is nothing the Concerned Resident taxpayers can do - and the other tax payers don't give a sht .

    Nothing truly changes in Lancaster one Party rule Town Hall - the talking heads may change - the games the same.


    Happy New Year - Please don't drink and drive.
    Last edited by 4248; December 29th, 2014 at 12:34 AM.
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 54% increase in highway dept storage facility costs
    By gorja in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 12th, 2014, 11:04 PM
  2. Lancaster Highway storage building status; where is it?
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 10th, 2014, 12:15 PM
  3. New highway storage facility on hold
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 8th, 2013, 02:06 PM
  4. Lancaster rejects bids for highway department storage facility
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 9th, 2013, 04:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •