Plowing, at $175/Hour

by Allan Appel | March 18, 2008 1:14 PM | | Comments (9)

IMG_3881.JPGA jaw dropped when it was learned that the schools are paying $175 an hour to plow snow.

The jaw belongs to Board of Education Member Michael Nast (at right in photo). It dropped Monday night at a meeting of the board’s Finance and Administration Committee.

The jaw-dropping occurred during a presentation by Aramark, the controversial company hired to oversee custodial and grounds maintenance work in city schools.

IMG_3877.JPGSteve Percival (on the right, with longtime school construction project manager Claude Watt), Aramark’s man in charge of custodial and grounds maintenance, came before the committee to clarify a contract item: It was line item 7 in change order #1 to Contract #2062 for snow removal services to All American, LLC, of Peck Street in New Haven.

Nast hadn’t heard about this one. “$175 and hour for snow plowing?” he exclaimed.

“Why so much! That’s more than we pay our lawyers!”

“It’s the bid price, the going rate,” said Percival.

Then Nast wanted to know why it had to be by the hour, as opposed to the job.

Percival’s boss, Andrew Butler (pictured below) clarified, that Aramark has contracted with a number of companies on a unit pricing basis, and on responsibility for different zones within the school system for plowing and sanding in the case of snow.

“This contract,” he said, “is for stand-by services and in the case of, for example, when we have a storm that affects only one school or two. It’s for when we don’t need to do the whole system, when we need to sand or plow just a certain area.”

“The price,” Percival added, “includes the driver, truck, sand, and other needed equipment.”

Was Nast mollified? His facial expression seemed suggest that “resigned” might be a better description.

Then another item came up on the agenda: Claude Watt requested $40,840 for audio visual upgrades at the auditorium of the Wexler/Grant School.

“Doesn’t this ever end?” Nast was heard to murmur. He might have been referring to the fact that Wexler Grant opened in 2002.

And fellow committee member Frances Padilla asked, “Why so expensive for a projector?”

Staffers like Watt, BOE Chief Operating Officer Clark, and school construction coordinator Sue Weisselberg are always prepared with detailed answers. It turns out Wexler Grant is one of the few schools in the system with a genuine auditorium, as opposed to a cafetorium, or space that doubles as cafeteria, gym, and auditorium.

Accordingly, said Clark, the entire community uses the fine space for meetings and many musical and theatrical performances. When the auditorium was built, there was a screen, but no built-in projection facilities. The upgrade, which will include a modified “rear view” projection to enable, for example, the illusion of scenery to projected onto the stage, will be integrated into the current system and in the few of staffers be a real plus not only for the school but the whole community.

Weisselberg said Watt had been working with engineers and Wexler/Grant officials to find a way for this upgrade that was doable without punching holes in any walls. She said the proposed cost does the trick and is cost-effective.

Where does the money come from? It’s still in the capital construction budget for the building of the school, unspent. And that’s the hitch; if it’s not spent, it risks being turned over to the city for reallocation. The money can be spent only for Wexler, and so why not?

The committee voted to approve and send to the full BOE.

There was one more possible hitch, Watt explained: Because the projection system is not a repair, it just might be considered an “ineligible” cost by the state, which, as usual, gives the lion’s share of the money for school construction. Ineligibles are gray areas, lately changing, of costs considered not reimbursable.

Another hitch is that the closing out of the project has been formally done through submission of the EDO49F form, although a final audit is still pending. An expense after a close-out might be considered non reimbursable.

If the state considers the projection system ineligible, then who foots the bill?

Claude Watt suggests that there are fund already set aside for this in the roughly 20 percent of the cost of Wexler Grant, which the city pays for through bonds. (The state covered approximately 80 percent.)

IMG_3879.JPGAs to the Aramark $175 for snow plowing, the conversation will likely continue for that one in a bigger arena as the Board of Aldermen’s Education Committee has a public hearing scheduled on food and facilities maintenance services Tuesday night at 6.







Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: Gary Doyens | March 18, 2008 2:55 PM

This sound and projection system is a want, not a need. If the state rejects this expenditure, and it seems likely, it is because they judge it to be a want, not a need too. Proposing to tap a capital construction fund from 2002 of unspent dollars, simply because it is there..and when rejected, add it to the borrowing bill property taxpayers are footing is wrong, shortsighted and disgraceful. Some adult should have said, NO. City of New Haven borrowing now consumes 13% of the budget and property taxes are slated to increase by 11.1% - nearly $20 million this year. Enough is enough.

Posted by: Common Sense | March 18, 2008 4:00 PM

When is the BOE and City of New Haven going to get serious about controlling the budget? We are facing numerous financial problems and need to learn to say no! The 2008-2009 City Budget has to be a lean one. Every department must tighten their belts and face reality. Better management of the work force can get the job done. We rely on the Board of Alderman, Finance Committee, and various Boards and Commissions to oversee departments and ensure effeciency. Less politics and more commitment to residents and taxpayers is needed.

Posted by: Ned | March 18, 2008 4:13 PM

You would think that the kids might be able to paint a backdrop for their stage? Here's an idea for their next performance: "The Massacre of the Innocents"

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 18, 2008 6:07 PM

They need to bid the snow out on a by inch and tier contract. They know that. And so does All American

Posted by: david streever | March 18, 2008 11:27 PM

The Plowman is really going to enjoy all that extra green in his pocket if it snows. 175 an hour! He might even move out of his mother's place.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | March 19, 2008 3:26 AM

Ned, OMG!!!

It took a while, but I am really beginning to appreciate your curmugeonly humor!!!

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 19, 2008 8:05 AM

Ned does bring up a great point. THE ARTS. I realize that it is modern day tech. but the painting of scenes makes it possible for kids without parts to be included. hmmmmm Well we are Hollywood East now....???

Posted by: jeffreykerekes [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 19, 2008 2:26 PM

Not only is $175/hour for snow removal a waste of money, we have looked through the 2008-9 City Budget and found a number of other concerns. We put them together into this document.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 19, 2008 9:26 PM

Correction !!

Our latest doc referenced above on questions about the budget mentioned the Fire Department and it should have referenced the Police department.

It should read:

2. Police Services. Contract reserve of $900,000 (p64). This is in addition to the existing contractual payments and signals to all that the City is prepared to increase wages by 5.3% in the next round of contract negotiations (Personnel costs in Police Services are $33.767 million so $900K over the new contract months in 2009 represents 5.3%. In the interest of transparency this item should be included in Dept 201 (Police Services)

Get the updated version here.

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35