UPDATE AT BOTTOM OF BLOG 6/17:
May 17th, 2011 Town Board Meeting.
At the May 17 Board Meeting there was a Public Hearing to discuss programs to spend federal Tax Dollars from HUD in the CDBG program. Part of that dealt with the roof at Pinegrove.
Some residents had raised the question of how much work or how much money needs to be spent on the roof. They thought it might be too much, and could that money go for the "poor people" it is intended to help instead of an overpriced roof.
For reference, here is the link to the LaBella revised property condition report about Pinegrove, and it has recommendations in there about the roof.
At the 1:08:59 mark of the video, Stephanie asks: "Are we as far out as bids for that work?"
MJD answers: "Um...not really."
Well, technically, that's not true. There was a Legal Notice in the May 12th Irondequoit Post which said:
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE TO
BIDDERS
The Town of Irondequoit Parks and Recreation hereby invites the submission of
sealed bids for Materials only; for roof trusses and related materials, and roof shingles and related materials. Bid packages are available for pickup on May 12,
2011 from the Department of Parks and Recreation. Sealed Bids will be received until
11:00 AM, May 20, 2011 in the Office of the Irondequoit Town Clerk, 1280 Titus
Avenue, Rochester, New York 14617 at which time all bids will be publicly opened.
Blah blah blah....
8 days to bid materials only for roof trusses and shingles and related materials? That's a short amount of time to review specs, architectural drawings, etc. and submit a completed bid package....dontcha think?
Here's the IPost from May 12th with the legal notice:
Bid Request May 12 2011
May 19th IPost legal notice to bidders for Labor:
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE TO
BIDDERS
The Town of Irondequoit hereby invites the submission of sealed bids for Labor only;
for installation of roof trusses and related materials, and installation of roof shingles and related materials. Bid packages are available for pickup on May 19,
2011 from the Department of Parks and Recreation. Sealed Bids will
be received until 11:00 AM, May 27, 2011 in the
Office of the Irondequoit Town Clerk, 1280 Titus
Avenue, Rochester, New York 14617 at which time all bids will be publicly opened.
Blah blah blah......
8 days to bid on labor only for roof trusses and shingles and related materials? That's a short amount of time to review specs, architectural drawings etc. and submit a completed bid package.....dontcha think?
Here's May 19th Irondequoit Post with the legal notice:
Bid Request May 19 2011
When Stephanie asks outright on the 17th at a TB meeting if they were as far out as bids for that work - MJD said "not really" - and there was a notice for bids 5 days before in the IPost from the 12th....so....you were as far out as bids for that work.
Why lie about it? And why wasn't the "head" of Parks & Recreation (Peter O'Brien) at this Public Hearing to talk about the almost $400,000 of HUD money he is "in charge" of?
Not liking this......
Here's the bid package - Out to bidders on the 12th, but the public was told "not really" when asked if the work was out for bid yet. Hmmmm.
Pinegrove Roof Project Bid Package 5-2011
UPDATE 6/17:
Looks like the Town "re-bid" the labor and materials for the roof replacement at Pinegrove. As far as I know - there was not a legal notice in the I-Post regarding this (I will double check to make sure, but I don't think there was.) Bid packets were available for pickup on June 7th (changed from the above "notice to bidders" I listed), and the bids would be opened at 11 am on June 14th.
Something "new" I have never seen before in any "notice to bidders" is a "Specification Deposit" - but it's in this current "re-bid" document. I believe that is because a resident has asked for a copy of the bid package, and was refused. Perhaps this $50.00 "deposit" is totally within the law - but I find it kinda wrong to do that. I don't recall it ever being done before, and I am thinking you are including this in the current bid notice to keep a certain resident from asking for, and receiving the package. I don't like that.
Anyways, the wording about the "Specification Deposit" is:
Specification Deposit: Plans and specifications may be obtained upon payment of fifty ($50) dollars for each set of documents requested. Refunds for payment of one (1) copy of the Plans and Specifications will be made to those submitting Bids on the forms furnished, if returned in good condition to the Town Clerk within ten (10) days from the award of the contract.
So, basically, you are charging residents $50.00 to look at, or pick up a bid package. If they don't submit a completed bid on the forms, you won't refund their $50.00.
Re. Dic. U. Lous.
Residents have every right to look at a bid package. Without being charged a "fee" for looking at it. If they want to make copies of it and pay for the copies....they should be allowed to do so. They shouldn't have to be charged a deposit for looking at them or getting a copy. The incomplete bid package isn't compromising anything for bidders or the Town....only a completed or submitted bid package that was released before the Town Clerk opened them at the time and date specified would be compromising to any bidders. A blank one doesn't hurt anyone. It's just a bid package. Relax. Stop denying residents the right to look at or get a copy of a blank bid package.
2011 Bid Roof Trusses
20 comments:
Even funnier, last year several people complained that projects/contracts that were supposed to go out to bid (per town law) over $10k but were not. Nothing was done about it, no public apologies or retractions in fact no response from anyone on the board regarding this. Now you have this and not only this but I believe at last months town board meeting they had on the agenda an item to raise the limit (dollar amounts) of projects that should go out to bid to make sure more companies get a fair shake at the business.
First the "several people" said $10k, then they said $5k....nobody knew what they were talking about - and Larry had explained all that in that April 20th, 2010 meeting on why it wasn't going out to bid. Here's the link to the video. April 20th, 2010 TBM.
Apparently, they are going to spend more than what Larry said they were going to and now it's out for bid....but according to MJD...it's "not really" that far out yet.
Good grief.
I think I remember that about increasing the limit - I will definitely check out the past few meeting videos and see what is up with that. Thanks for the heads up on that!
Just so disappointed.......
Just watched the video from April 20th, 2010 where they talk about the Pinegrove roof - at the 1:10 mark it starts.....about Passero with respect to roof replacement at Pinegrove not to exceed $10k - Larry says that Passero would be preparing plans and specs - at that time they didn't know what kind of roof they were going with....he said they might bid out two different roof plans....he speaks about the $175,000 grant "left over" for the roof of Pinegrove.
The resolution at this meeting was not for labor and materials (like the bid notices I posted on this blog).....it was for Passero to draw up plans and specs for what kind of roof they would agree to use at Pinegrove....and since Passero was familiar with Pinegrove and the Town has worked with them before, they decided on Passero to do the plans and specs. (At that meeting they said Passero.)
At the 1:17 mark they talk about RFP's and MJD explains why they don't have to do an RFP for this.
That meeting was about RFP's for plans and spec work that would be what is in the bid package when they finally figure out what roof they want. These bids (on the blog) are for the actual labor and materials for the roof that they chose to go with for Pinegrove.
(In looking at the bid package at the bottom of the blog, I don't see Passero's name anywhere on the architectural drawings. I see Frank Romeo, and CD Architects.)
So, basically, there was no RFP for the plans and specs (which is ok because they were under %5k supposedly - I'd like to know what the totals were though)....and now there is a notice to bidders about the actual labor and materials. Which is ok....but the public was told "not really" when it was asked if they were that far out as bids for that work....which is not ok.
Two different things....sorry if I confused everyone with my error in saying "they are going to spend more than what Larry said they were going to...."
My mistake! He did say at the 4/20 meeting that they had $175,000 to spend and why not make sure it's a good, solid roof that looks nice and will serve the building for a while.
I think the other thing everyone complained about was the Blue Springs Energy grant from EECBG - that was discussed/explained at the same meeting, prior to the roof discussion.
Note on Page 1 of the Bid Package it is Dated:
"May 19, 2011"
Under Bid Packages if states:
"Pick-up on May 12, 2011 from the Irondequoit Town Clerk."
WHAT !!! the advertisement is May 19
So did they tell their friends to pick it up on May 12?
Town Engineer spoke about a steep sloped trussed roof--both last year and this year.
Check page A-2.1 of the drawings.
The roof is the same pitch at the old one over the side entry. This is the exact location the TOwn Engineer said needed the pitch. Gotta wonder what Christian Duerr--architect is thinking.
Adding a very slight increase in pitch will not stop the ice.
Adding a very slight increase in pitch will not stop the ice.
Adding a very slight increase in pitch will not stop the ice.
For a year we listened to statements that adding the trussed ice house roof would take of the ice problem.
Does that mean that shingled buildings in Irondequoit with low pitched roofs do not have ice?
Page A-2.1 calls for OMG Insulation screws to be used to attach the structural members of his building system.
The building has a poured gypsum roof deck. Insulation screws are not to be specified or used to attach wood trusses to a gyp deck.
5 day bid periods
odd times on the specs
Fully improper specifications.
Town refusing to allow citizens to review the advertised bid package.
Then the omission of Removals in the bid specs. The one place where the most abuse comes in roofing.
HUD Experts said "this would never happen in the private sector".
Anonymous @ 7:18 -
How do you like the "new" bid? Fifty bucks to get a bid package, and if you don't submit a completed bid on the forms in good condition.....you won't get a refund.
Nice. $50.00 for a resident to look at an incomplete (blank) bid package.
Who the hell thought that one up?
$50.00?????
What the heck is going on?
This is open government!?!?!
I can not stand when government charges to much for something that we should be privy to.
Why not just let residents see what they want to? The more they deny, overcharge etc. the more room there is for residents to think there is something to hide.
So disappointed to read this...
Stay tuned because I think there is going to be more things you will be surprised and disappointed to see...
Speaking of Blue Spring Energy Group, does anyone know how many grants we have received or even applied for since hiring this group?
this portion of the meeting was discussed at length on Tuesday.
It was done differently than in the past in that they broke the bids out in 3 jobs instead of 1 job. labor, materials and engineering.
What also was stated (which I found curious) is that ROMEOLAND is the project manager for this project (replacing of a roof)WHAT???? Since when did we start hiring project managers? Isnt that what Larry is supposed to be doing? So we now hire project managers to oversee jobs that should be specified in the bids? And it just happens to be Frank Romeo? We also hire out companies to oversee grants that were received under the past administration (as far as I know not 1 grant has been awarded under this administration)(even though we are paying blue springs to search for grants for the town?)
It was also noted during this portion that "someone" sent in a fraudulant bid...hmmmm, I wonder who that could be. And finally it was stated that there will now be copies of the bid package available at town hall for someone to look at. (should there be that desire)
Part 1 -
"So we now hire project managers to oversee jobs that should be specified in the bids?"
I don't think they have to specify project managers in bids - a p.m. would probably fall under "professional services"....like an engineer, architect, land surveyor, attorney, physician, or insurance brokers.....which are "exempt from the competitive bidding process" as "the courts have held that professional services are not contracts for public work." - this is in NYS General Municipal Law, and what the town quoted in their resolution to change town law to coincide with the NYS GML.
But yeah....I agree....I would think "project manager" would fall under Larry's realm of "expertise" - he seemed to have a wealth of knowledge on the subject to go out and spec different roof types....why couldn't he manage the project?
I saw Romeo's name on the architectural drawings - didn't realize he was the project manager.
I think the amount of money to do the roof is a little overpriced - and I thought that same thing back when LaBella quoted $235,000 for roof reconstruction. Here's the page where LaBella quotes that.
It's less than what LaBella quoted, but it still seems kinda "conflict-of-interest-y".
About the grants....I do remember meetings where they talk about grants for certain departments or the Town itself....don't know if those were through BSE or if the departments themselves went through the process of getting a grant, or if they were grants that were "in the works" before the new administration took over. I'd have to review all meeting minutes/resolutions or watch every video since January 2010.
Since I'm too lazy to do that right now, my suggestion would be to go to public input and directly ask them to provide that information directly to the residents on their website, or at a subsequent TB meeting....or maybe even have a rep from BSE come to a meeting to report on all the work they've been doing. If it turns out that BSE hasn't been doing much....we should suggest that BSE no longer be the "grant peeps" - and see if there is someone out there who can do it better and cheaper.
I thought Favro used to do all the grants (and run the website apparently) - maybe we should hire him back? lol The guy was super smart and knew what he was doing.
Fraudulent bid? lol How was it "fraudulent"?
I'm glad that bid packages are available for residents to review, free of charge.....but they should be able to pay for copies if they want to as well. I just never saw that "specification deposit" before and speculated that it was related to a resident who wanted copies of them and was denied.
I heard that there was a gentlemen who used his right to speak at a public meeting to say that there shouldn't be any public input. He used his right to go up at public input and criticize others for criticizing others, and the reason that there should be no public input (besides himself apparently) is because people call the board "morons and clowns".
I've never heard anyone call the current board morons or clowns at public input. If anyone has, and can point me to the video where someone does.....I'd appreciate it.
As far as public input at the end of meetings.....I wouldn't have a problem with that because then people could comment on the current meeting's "goings on" instead of waiting until the next month's meeting to comment.
Or, they could do it like Penfield does and have public input at the beginning and end of the meetings.
So - anyways - read an article in MPN about two Republicans who want to run to give voters a choice. Bob Moore and Rob Nottell.
I've heard of Bob Moore but not Rob Nottell.
I dont know how it was fraudulant. The supervisor was asked how many bids they received she replied "2" "and 1 fraudulant bid" and went on a tiny bit about it.
Regarding the grants that have been awarded so far the only ones I know if were from specific departments like the police department who always seems to look for their own small grants for equipment or dare, etc. I have not read or heard about any other grants, good point, I may just write the board to ask about this. You are corrent, Favro seemed awesome at finding the town grants.
You are also correct, they dont have to have a project mngr go out for bid but in all the years watching tb mtgs I have never heard of a seperate proj mngr especially one of this nature to oversee a roof being put on correctly,really? The people you hired dont know how to do this??? Have you? I may be wrong but I always thought that the Larry H of the town did that stuff. He is an engineer after all.
I have heard of and know Bob Moore but I have never heard of the other gentleman. I am surprised though that the co chair or vice chair of the party is now running to give the people a choice but the same group isnt trying to give another choice for supervisor? Did he or did he not attend the republican committee mtg? Did their committee support or not support the cross endorsement? Something seems odd about this turn of events. Though I am in support of a choice which I strongly believe is democracy.
"Did their committee support or not support the cross endorsement?"
I believe the County Committee held their meeting first, and cross endorsed at that meeting....then the IRC had their meeting after it was all said and done. Whether they knew what the County Committee was going to do....I don't know.
I'm surprised the Democrats haven't found anyone for Supervisor....considering all the complaints on the IDC blog about MJD.
They did know what the county was going to do because the supervisor had been speaking with both parties.
As for the democrats not finding someone, I dont know if they have or if they have not but I would assume they stopped looking when they had an agreement between BOTH parties to cross endorse. Seems a little like breaking a gentlemans agreement to me.
The letter that went out to committee members said that the three of them talked with both county chairs "several days ago"....so I am assuming the County knew and approved the cross endorsement and then told the respective IRC and IDC to do what they're told, and cross endorse them.
I don't know what happened at the IRC meeting (whether there were people who disagreed, or what the vote was), but it seems - according to quotes in the paper that the Democrats overwhelmingly supported this cross endorsement at their meeting the week before.
Maybe, when the IRC finally got around to having a meeting about it, Moore wasn't one of the ones who agreed with it and decided to go out on his own and give people a choice.
I thought some Dems might do the same...but...apparently they overwhelmingly support this whole "experiment".
I would expect Republicans to run against Democrat TB members....that's what is supposed to happen. I would expect the Democrats to run against a Republican Supervisor....that's what is supposed to happen.
All I know is, I give them credit for stepping forward and giving people a reason to go to the polls. Whether you vote for them or not...at least now there is a choice and a reason to go vote (if they get their signatures etc.).
"Seems a little like breaking a gentlemans agreement to me."
In a way, I agree. But, I should get used to it...they did it in the City for Mayor, why wouldn't they do it in the burbs for Town Board/Supervisor?
They know what's best. :/
true dat
I wonder about Mr Barones status as a 501c3. He has the right as chair of his committee to place ads about town board people he also has the right to carry petitions for a candidate but I do believe it goes against the rules to place ads (negative) about 2 town board candidates (not the supervisor or judicial) and carry petitions for Mr Moore who is the gentleman running against the 2 incumbants.
I didn't see the ad, but wonder what it said at the bottom....did it say it was paid for by the 501c3 or by Richard Barone himself?
Is his committee a 501c3?
If it was through the 501c3 then that might be a problem, although "some lobbying, both direct and grassroots, is allowable, but should not represent more than 10-20% of the organization's activities, nor consume any more than 10-20% of the resources of the organization." - got that quote from here.
If the 501c3 did pay for and place the ad....then they may be within their rights.
If Barone did it on his own with his own money - then, there is no problem with it (in my opinion).
Has anyone seen the Ament petition yet? Some friends have told me (but I havent seen it) that it shows Redder as 1 town board candidate and (wait for it) Andrea Elliot as the other? Which is his wife? And she isnt using her full name all of a sudden? Hmmmmm....
Post a Comment