Jump to content



Photo

Municipal Incompetence


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:19 PM

The story goes like this...The Department of Redevelopment was to come up with on half of a CSO project. The Sewer board the other half. After a lot of engineering costs the project was bid and awarded to a contractor. The total project was say 1.6 million. The Department of Redevelopment after the contract was awarded said, no we don't really want that project.  It might lead to a canal and politically it would be suicide to admit that the canal was ever a good idea. 

 

The contractor sued and wants $800,000.00 ( his anticipated Profit). The Department of Redevelopment said "oopsie" we now want the project. The contractor now says I want $300,000.00 more than the original price because of the City's delay. Total SNAFU by the Department of Redevelopment and the mayor. The Taxpayer takes it in the ear or is it the rear. Are you listening Shay?  Are  your minions so in love with City Government that they no longer print the news?


  • Not Super But Honest Mike, Kruger87, Jules and 3 others like this

#2 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,988 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:36 PM

Who is this "contractor"?? $800,000 profit on a $1.6 million job is 50% --- seems rather extreme to me. And now they want $300,000 more? If the City does proceed with this project, I don't think I would ever use said contractor again. Looks like he is gouging the City if his profits really are that high. And to ask for an additional $300,000 would almost guarantee that he would never be contacted again for another project. He might make out like a bandit on this project but I doubt he will ever be used again so he is only hurting himself in the long run. I agree with you that it was wrong to say no after the contract was awarded, but it is also wrong for a contractor to treat his customers this way if they want to continue in business for very long. Are you sure all your numbers are correct?
  • Sleepy and Need more cow bell like this

#3 Kruger87

Kruger87

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:57 PM

Say it isn't so!! I wonder who did the architectural drawings? I would bet it was a group with 3 letters and a member of certain politician's treasurer. In this case the contractor spent a lot of time and resources to place a bid. Maybe the RD department and the legal counsel should get together and figure out what it is they want and not change their minds when they realize they made a mistake. 

 

As for not being published, well sir we can write novels on what the media does not want us to hear about or read about. Especially this close to an election.



#4 Kruger87

Kruger87

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 02:02 PM

Who is this "contractor"?? $800,000 profit on a $1.6 million job is 50% --- seems rather extreme to me. And now they want $300,000 more? If the City does proceed with this project, I don't think I would ever use said contractor again. Looks like he is gouging the City if his profits really are that high. And to ask for an additional $300,000 would almost guarantee that he would never be contacted again for another project. He might make out like a bandit on this project but I doubt he will ever be used again so he is only hurting himself in the long run. I agree with you that it was wrong to say no after the contract was awarded, but it is also wrong for a contractor to treat his customers this way if they want to continue in business for very long. Are you sure all your numbers are correct?

It also sounds like a double take by the mayor who spearheads that RD board! Same Mayor who chastised Galligan for a Canal and then realized he might be building the same thing. As the the price hike after the initial bid, we the city had the right to say no after they opened it, they could put it back out to bid and take the chance of a cheaper bid or a more costly one. Contractors are like the group that you see at McDonald's every morning drinking coffee, they like to talk about politics!! Maybe the cost went up because the price of material has gone up, I know that was the excuse Moore gave when he spoke about extending the sewer taxes because the cost of materials has gone up since the original spec. 


  • Need more cow bell likes this

#5 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 02:12 PM

IM, 50% profit....and they were the low bidder on the project!!!!!

 

Goes to show how the taxpayers are getting screwed.......

 

moore, waiz, and merkley have to know by now how gig they screwed up by not going ahead with the canal project, but none of them have the gonads to admit their mistake. They talk about  the success the little park is they finally  constructed, but won't admit the canal would have brought in at least 10 times  the people and investment to the downtown.

 

I still have a letter from JTL, from back in 2011. moore had asked Jorge what option was the best for downtown, pipe or canal, and Jorge responded the canal was by far the cheapest route to go and offered the  greatest economic development. Why won't moore listen to those he is paying to give advice???



#6 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 02:21 PM

Look at T and C Contracting v. The City of Jeffersonville.


Edited by Stephen Voelker, 04 May 2015 - 02:27 PM.


#7 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 02:30 PM

Why won't moore listen to those he is paying to give advice???

 

Perhaps because the people who pay him are the taxpayers and they seemed to vote AGAINST the canal?

 

Has anyone every done a city wide poll of registered voters to get their opinion on the canal?  Has anyone considered making it a referendum and getting taxpayer PERMISSION?


  • IntegrityMatters, kelley, Kruger87 and 2 others like this

#8 Kruger87

Kruger87

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 02:33 PM

Look at T and C Contracting v. The City of Jeffersonville.

Come on now!!! You can't expect the News Tribune to post something negative against the Mayor before the elections!! After all they did not do that to TG when he was running. Wait a second they did didn't they? Wow I guess TG should have had a better relationship with them!!! Once again Censorship at its best when dealing with Moore!!!


  • Need more cow bell likes this

#9 Kruger87

Kruger87

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 02:37 PM

Perhaps because the people who pay him are the taxpayers and they seemed to vote AGAINST the canal?

 

Has anyone every done a city wide poll of registered voters to get their opinion on the canal?  Has anyone considered making it a referendum and getting taxpayer PERMISSION?

Great point Tina!!! If they did this they would get actual input from the residents and i would also invite potential developers to give some input as well. Then the problem would be would anyone up there even care about the input and information gathered.

The canal was the only rock Moore could thrown ar Galligan three years ago in that fight! Now the only thing Moore has to hang his hat on for this campaign is a $3.5 million boat docks and lets not forget how he forced those residents out. AS for the canal I could care less about it, first chance I get to sell my home I am out of here!! I am tired of the madness and the ego's that this city has to offer!!



#10 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 04 May 2015 - 03:08 PM

Have you seen any boat docks? Now two years since the eviction.


  • Kruger87, Donna and Need more cow bell like this

#11 Kruger87

Kruger87

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 06:57 AM

Have you seen any boat docks? Now two years since the eviction.

It was very important that the Mayor move forward with his plans for these docks though, it was part of the Master Plan he designed to attract people to the city. Not to mention a chance for waix to make his property down there look a little better and drive up the value!! The ironic thing is the fishing pier, why would anyone want to eat that fish out fo that river? The pollution form the barges are so bad.  Moores plan for this dock would be about the same if he placed the docks in the sewer plant.

Getting back on topic though, Moore and the other 2 two stooges will never admit to a mistake ever because they are above us all. Moore could care less about the taxpayers of this city. If he had a chance to help out the taxpayers or his brother, you know good ole Chuck is getting the helping hand.

 

It is sad to say that I look back on the man who was once a small business owner in this city and knew the struggles of making from day to day. Now he could cre less who he steps on to get what he wants. By any means necessary huh Mike? Mike Moore 1501!!!



#12 hmnelson3

hmnelson3

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 05 May 2015 - 09:02 AM

Welcome to Jeffersonville!!!


  • Donna likes this

#13 Kruger87

Kruger87

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 09:04 AM

Well if this was 3.5 years ago Moore would have burned Galligan at the stakes for this mess!! I wonder how long Merkley was put in time out for letting this go through without telling Mikey it looked a lot like a canal!!! Poor Merkley, No desert for you!!



#14 Kruger87

Kruger87

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts

Posted 19 May 2015 - 02:31 PM

Wonder why this is still not in the news?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users