| Author |
Message |
    
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15033
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 6:41 pm: | 
|
The lowest bid came in at 17.7m a few million above the original estimate due primarily to higher construction costs. The TC killed the ordinance for the 3 mil bond issue last night because it wasn't enought get the project started. They need 6 mil for that and they need to find another $157k in this year's budget to cover the gap.
Options on the table include cutting back on the building (like eliminating the 3rd floor) among other things.
Latest fully loaded number for the project is $20.8 million.
How come no one is discussing this?
Ouch. |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 6:49 pm: |
|
I was talking about this off-line today -
For that kind of scratch can't we just renovate it where it is, add an addition and still save $?
At least that won't take another ratable off the table. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5121
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:59 pm: |
|
...but Lydia, what would happen to my medical office building idea and that neat parking garage with train station access I suggested for the present police station site? That was a ratable idea, AND a parking idea...
Listen, I told you guys back when Vic, Jerry, and David were wielding the power on the committee, that they should have stopped their screwing around and do something.
No, it was all show and no go... politics as usual for these guys! Does anyone else remember the Township Committee meeting where they (the power brokers at time) said let’s let the next Township Committee deal with it? (picking the location for the new police headquarters) There were several sites on the table
and they had the power to do what ever they wanted...
Last nights political arrogance, jerking around, wasting time, and partisan nonsense is all they seem to be good at... If it isn’t their way it's no good. No compromises, no trying to make it better, just their way or the highway...
Now look at the mess they got us in "S"... So what say you about that big guy? Do you still want to discuss this further? Better question, do you still want to see these two guys get back in control? I say next year we vote David off the committee, and elect someone who knows how to work well with the rest of the governing body; and can maintain their concentration on the road to better things for our town… I love the way they said last night during one discussion, it doesn’t matter, we’re voting against it anyway...
The point is it does matter, "everything" you guys do and say up there matters a lot to all of us!!! 
|
letters
Citizen
Username: Letters016
Post Number: 573
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 9:11 pm: |
|
I asked this question during the debate over the new police station, I asked it again when TC members were running for election and I will ask it again now. Who is going to pay back all of these loans we are taking out? It's one of the things Bart Albini said last year that resonated with me.
I have always agreed with what Lydia said in her above post. It would be much, MUCH cheaper to fix up the existing building. We could add an addition, maybe build a third floor (the foundation would have to able to withstand the additional pressure), buy the business that is for sale between the police station and railway station and use that land and still have money left over with their budget.
Here's another thought that I suggested to them. You want a police presence on SA, fine. Buy that little building by the fire house, you know, the hot dog placed that went out of business. Everything there goes out of business because it is a lousy location. But it would be a great location for a sub-station. Enough parking for a couple of police cars so they could do foot patrol if needed. That's all you need to make a location safer. Not a big building.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15038
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 9:20 pm: |
|
Dearest Owsley,
You're going to have to force feed me heavy doses of LSD for about 6 months before I believe that the higher costs are the fault of Vic, David or Jerry.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5122
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 11:43 pm: |
|
9:11 pm: this may be bad timing Letters for this conversation, in more ways than one, although I've always loved that little old gas station on Boyden and Sprindfield Avenue that use to be there...
This morning I went to a meeting with State Senator Leonard Lance. He presently serves as the Senate Republican leader, and is also a member of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. New Jersey borrowed 2 Billion in 2002, again in 2003, and in 2004, before Senator Lance decided to sue the state from borrowing, and won...
FWIW, our state debt is over 33 Billion, which is more than our annual budget, and the third highest in the nation... The issues in government are always the same, keep borrowing, borrowing, and borrowing!!! Where, when, and how does it stop? I'll tell you, it stops when the spending is based on the revenue...
BTW, ..."S", I can't help you with the LSD, but let me say this about that... If you want to be honest, all you have to do is to look back and see who initiated the search for our new police headquarters and when? As for the Three Amigos, check back on their swan song at the end of 2002. It’s as far back as you need to go for the truth...
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15042
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 6:55 am: |
|
Dearest Arturo,
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying.
Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come.
Corporation tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday.
Man, you been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Mister City Policeman sitting
Pretty little policemen in a row.
See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky, see how they run.
I'm crying, I'm crying.
I'm crying, I'm crying.
Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye.
Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess,
Boy, you been a naughty girl you let your knickers down.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun.
If the sun don't come, you get a tan
From standing in the English rain.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob.
Expert textpert choking smokers,
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
See how they smile like pigs in a sty,
See how they snied.
I'm crying.
Semolina pilchard, climbing up the Eiffel Tower.
Elementary penguin singing Hari Krishna.
Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob.
Goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob g'goo. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5602
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 7:04 am: |
|
great song! |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11551
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 7:53 am: |
|
If the Township could have moved quicker on the matter the costs would have been less. If the oppositiion to putting the station on Springfield Avenue in general and the Bette White site (now closing I believe)in particular was for political purposes only, then some of the blame should fall on the "not so loyal opposition", including current TC members David and Vic.
I hate small town politics.  |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 8:51 am: |
|
It's a rock and a hard place.
The rock is that big shiny piece of candy police station that all have imagined as the so-called "anchor" and "castle-keep" of Springfield Ave. The legacy building that will serve the town as a first-rate facility for 70(?) or a hundred years. Having seen such a thing as possible I sense that few are wanting to literally go back to the drawing board.
The hard place is of course the tremendous cost right in the face of continuing and escalating tax-talk including the now surprise and immediate (approx $170K) cost of covering the new bond to be added to the budget in works.
I sense that the project will probably go forward as is, and that they will end up selling the present police site out of "practical" desperation for as much as they can get, (and for what use, -who knows?) to help "defray" the costs. Sadly it is just such a predicament of a long-ago Maplewood government that helped put us in the present pinch when they sold the land adjacent to the present police station that was then turned into privately owned office space of dubious use, -thus making it much more difficult to expand the present building. Meanwhile everybody said, "Hey now we own Springfield ave, -let's fix it up". -thus they went to Bette White who danced herself out of that one, -thus they went next door and made a deal with the new church, (praise the Lord). Meanwhile costs went up and the plans for the facility became more ambitious, (plans which do have great merit for the future).
If Maplewood government had only built the original police station much bigger in the 1800's we wouldn't be having all these problems. Couldn't they see that the Chinese in the early 21st century would be experiencing unprecedented economic growth and construction, rapidly buying up and fiercely driving up the price of the world's supply of steel? (no relation).
Construction costs will continue to rise dramatically just as New York has experienced with the World Trade Memorial site budget plans.
And so, we will eat the costs of the bonds spread out over time. We will have nice ceremonies at the police site, (groundbreaking in Aug and finished 1.5 - 2 years from now). We will not have quite such a large budget surplus as now, (3 mil which draws interest income and is more attractive towards future bond rating). The police will be delighted to shoot their guns in the basement firing range, Bart will bark about the debt service in his unsuccessful bid for a TC seat in November and there will be much furor and debate about how to use the present police station site, probably ending up as more parking use and another 3 story building with shops on the first floor and groovy residences, (adults-only please our schools are already crowded enough) upstairs. From there the new residents will have a nice view of the steam coming out of townhall.
|
oots
Citizen
Username: Oots
Post Number: 399
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 9:02 am: |
|
I am now raising my estimate on the final tab on the new police station from $25 million to $30 million.
how much will this impact the average house in real estate taxes?
oots |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 531
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 9:04 am: |
|
Steel,
You have my vote for #1 greatest MOL poster. Great writer, and fun to read.
Mary Jo |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 9:17 am: |
|
Ok Mary, -now you're just flirting with me, (please continue). |
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 9:23 am: |
|
How about , we just can't afford this . Didn't you just know this would happen . Gates , revals & polce stations whos running the show around here anyway ? |
HOMMELL
Citizen
Username: Hommell
Post Number: 185
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 10:11 am: |
|
I think the long-term benefits to the town outweigh the short-term costs (as high as they are). I just wish we could move this thing along and lock in some prices. Global economics (energy, raw materials, etc.) are taking their toll. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14342
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 11:28 am: |
|
Thank you, steel. You are insightful and fair.
|
hch
Citizen
Username: Hch
Post Number: 272
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
What a mess........
I'm sure it will only lead to further bickering among the TC, which will in turn just lead to higher costs.
|
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 5:55 pm: |
|
value engineering time... |
mtierney
Citizen
Username: Mtierney
Post Number: 934
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 7:51 pm: |
|
A source tells me that plans were drawn up for an addition to the present PD building that matches the wing that was added some 10+ years ago. It was done at that time "in case we need to grow more" let's have it all on paper.
Please do not bring up the wet basement rationale. Also, many folks suggested the town buy the Dunnell office building when all this new station stuff started. At the time, the building was up for sale. It would/could have made a great location for the court facility, plus lots of office space and parking.
Why does a small town need a mega-facility for our police? Dollar for dollar it has to be a wildly out of portion expense considering our population. It might be justified if the headquarters were for more than one town. I still like the concept of sub-stations on SA and/or Irvington, with the main PD where it is presently.
What happened? Inquiring minds would like to know. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9538
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 8:13 pm: |
|
how much of the high cost is due to the hot commodities (especially metals) market? re-bid it now. |
Larry Seltzer
Citizen
Username: Elvis
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 8:55 pm: |
|
>>What happened? Inquiring minds would like to know.
What happened is that those plans were drawn up before the public works lot next door was sold off to a developer who built the office building there. The planned extension would take away the driveway and garages on that side, depriving the police of parking which is already inadequate.
>>Please do not bring up the wet basement rationale.
Why not? It's disgusting down there.
>>Also, many folks suggested the town buy the Dunnell office building when all this new station stuff started. At the time, the building was up for sale. It would/could have made a great location for the court facility, plus lots of office space and parking.
We don't need a big separate cort facility, the court is not in use all that much.
There has been complete unanimity through the whole process among people who really look at the matter that existing building is wholly inadequate. Ken Pettis advocated for keeping the existing location because he thought it was the appropriate location. He did not expect to save much money keeping it there, as a substantial gut-and-renovate would still be necessary and the new parts would have to meet code for public emergency facilities including being earthquake-proof and ADA-accessible. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 506
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 9:18 pm: |
|
The cost overruns on the police facility are hardly some inevitable evolution of history or due to shortsightedness by long dead figures of the past. They are due to real live mismanagement that can and should be laid directly at the feet of the office-holding TC political majority who went out of their way to snag police endorsements and who fought to wrest control of siting the new police facility away from those who started the process. They did everything they could to stop an ongoing process in order put control of the process into their own hands. These are the results.
When Vic, Jerry and David were in the majority on the TC there were several reasonable proposals on the table for either siting the police station in uncontroversial, easily obtainable locations on or near Springfield Avenue. There was always the more expensive option of retrofitting the current site on Dunnell. All were politicked out of existence by Fred Profeta, who then couldn't get push through his own plan to use the Bette White site in the face of legitimate public protest. That idea was properly shot down by clearer-thinking people, but the delay in getting Fred to admit this was incredibly costly. In addition, we now have the incumbents adding every imaginable bell and whistle to the new police station, and if News Record stories are to be believed, it's because "green" projects are of special interest to the Mayor's family. I don't recall any of this getting a proper public discussion. Just head-nodding in a community that of course favors "green" and of course wants the police to be supported but isn't being leveled with about how decisions are getting made in their own government.
There is an election in a few weeks and I gather that most people -- including myself -- would simply rather not question the incumbents sharply about their 3-year record. That's because they are both very nice people, but I finally feel compelled to say it out loud: their tenure has been costly, both in rising tax dollars but even more importantly in a loss of truly open public process. I've not heard anything from either of them that makes me think they are concerned and running on a platform of changing direction.
When I moved to Maplewood, municipal taxes were flat, crime headed down year after year and people were not being constantly jerked around by their government with one outlandish promise or sensational crisis after the next. There was steady progress on all fronts, with real solutions found for real problems (not inadqueate responses and fake political maneuvering). The reval unleashed a storm of electoral anger that was skillfully exploited, but I still don't think people in Maplewood are to blame for the change. I think they are being misled.
|
mtierney
Citizen
Username: Mtierney
Post Number: 935
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 9:20 pm: |
|
Wrong! Those plans were drawn up after the old public works building morphed into the present Dunnell Building, not before. The Dunnell office building was in place for a number of years before the PD was renovated and added to.
One major problem with the present building is that the court is on the second floor - not ADA accessible. The Dunnell site would have allowed for a first level court room. The building also has an elevator which makes it ADA accessible for both floors.
"We don't need a big separate cort facility, the court is not in use all that much."
Not much need for a court facility? Yet we need a multi-million dollar police department? Won't the cops be catching any bad guys? With our apparently expected soaring crime rate, we might find ourselves very much in need of a large court room!
|
Ignatius Flambeau
Supporter
Username: Flamecoach
Post Number: 48
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:28 am: |
|
To me, it seems stupid to build a police station & courthouse for Maplewood when, before the police station fracas, the town council seemed to buzz with talk of "consolidating services" with neighboring communities.
On the other hand, if the intent is "build a new police station and we'll be in the driver's seat on a 'consolidation of services' proposal," then maybe it makes sense. But I have yet to hear that discussion.
|
Larry Seltzer
Citizen
Username: Elvis
Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 12:52 pm: |
|
mtierney: wrong. I've seen the plans. They show the extension north of the existing building and they don't show the office building present. The renovation and addition that was already done is on the south side. |
Larry Seltzer
Citizen
Username: Elvis
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 3:03 pm: |
|
One more point: Ken's plan for using the Dunnel site included taking the Nelson's building to expand parking. IIRC it wasn't substantially cheaper than the other sites. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4733
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Oh kathleen, your horse is DEAD already. But maybe you could go help the folks in South Orange. The Trustee situation there could really use your help. |
mtierney
Citizen
Username: Mtierney
Post Number: 936
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Larry, sorry, but you are wrong. Trust me, my source knows all! |
mtierney
Citizen
Username: Mtierney
Post Number: 937
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 4:50 pm: |
|
More specific data: Dunnell Building was done in 1988. The PD renovations and the addition was in 1993.
An addition on the north side of the PD would have provided a stately, monumental balance to the headquarters. Certainly more in keeping with Maplewood's traditional architecture in its public buildings.
The other problem mentioned regarding parking was resolved - the TC at the time approved the solution. I am told that a plan for an elevator was also presented which would have made the structure ADA accessible. As I recall, there was no serious thought to acquiring the Dunnell office building at that time.
The TC knew it had an additional option to expand the building if the need arose. From that to the current $20M proposal is a little mind-blowing. |
Larry Seltzer
Citizen
Username: Elvis
Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 10:02 pm: |
|
>> The other problem mentioned regarding parking was resolved - the TC at the time approved the solution.
What was the solution? I'm anxious to hear how they conjured up extra space in the area.
Perhaps there was a plan for a northern addition in 1993 but there was another one (for both sides) much earlier. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9590
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Hi Larry |
Oldstone
Citizen
Username: Rogers4317
Post Number: 716
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 4:03 pm: |
|
larry needs his wig fixed. |
extuscan
Citizen
Username: Extuscan
Post Number: 645
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 8:25 pm: |
|
There is already small addition on the north side already. It was done shortly after the first addition on the south side. Is this leading to any of the confusion? FYI it was done to accomodate 911 equipment that was larger than previously expected.
-John |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 9:16 pm: |
|
this is no big deal nor is it final...the town can reject the bids, beat the contractors up on their numbers or value engineer their current budget numbers.
As a FM in corporate America that does ALOT of construction, I can vouch that this is all too common. The bidding companies always bid high, never knowing what the actual budget is...
the town can always say, ahhh no, lets try this again. And since they hold the purse strings. They can request a rebid in whatever timeframe that pleases them...
Give it sometime to iron out folks..
-SLK
|
officerfriendly
Citizen
Username: Officerfriendly
Post Number: 23
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 9:40 pm: |
|
FYI
The south side addition was completed around 1991. There was never a north side addition done. Plans were made up, but nothing ever came of it.
officerfriendly
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5140
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
...so as you originally said "S", "How come no one is discussing this?" |
Marisa
Citizen
Username: Rissawerm
Post Number: 24
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 3, 2006 - 1:52 am: |
|
Mayor Profeta stopped by my house and asked to put a sign on my lawn for Petits/Leventhal. I asked him about their collective platform and at some point he mentioned a plan of selling the police station property to developers for condos for "people who just want to roll out of bed". He added the sale would help to offset the cost of the new police station and serve to add some additional tax revenue.
Has anyone else heard about this plan? |
Larry Seltzer
Citizen
Username: Elvis
Post Number: 15
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, June 3, 2006 - 7:17 am: |
|
The issue of what to do with the police station lot after the department moves has always been up since talk began of building a new police station. I think they did a study in the late 90's for what the most return on the lot would be and it was some specific number of condos, I forget the number, perhaps with light retail on the first floor. Obviously it would have to have ample parking for residents.
There are other suggestions: some people want to keep it for some public use. Others think office space is a good idea (Nancy Adams suggested this in the debate) even though, if you ask me, the perpetually unsuccessful office building next door would be a clue that there's not enough demand for office space there.
There is a task force that's been brewing for a year or so studying the matter to suggest an outcome for the lot. There are at least two TC members, local residents, other people from town. No real decisions have been made, but my money would be what the Mayor said to you because it would bring in the most revenue to the town. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15097
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 3, 2006 - 7:27 am: |
|
Why don't we turn it into a lawn sign factory? Big money in lawn signs. |
jem
Citizen
Username: Jem
Post Number: 1557
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 8:58 am: |
|
Nancy Adams actually said in the debate that the NJ office market is soft. From what I recall she suggested the building be used in a combination of retail and even possibly a small hotel. There was no flat statement from her that "the building should be used for offices." |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page