Here’s some free, not “gated,” content that I haven’t yet seen in the local media: The county board of supervisors agenda for next week’s meeting. (BTW, the free website, mynevadacounty.com, becomes more robust all the time — with a police blotter that I link to on this blog, no less).
Some items on the agenda are:
•A resolution reducing County Executive Officer Rick Haffey’s pay to $159,600 and increasing the annualPERS retirement contribution made by him to 6.585 percent.
•A resolution increasing the cost of the pipeline project in DarkHorse by $13,267 to $828,317.
•A resolution authorizing work at the Rood Center to CW Fox Construction of Cool, not a local contractor such as Hanson Bros. The Cool firm’s bid was cheaper.
•The latest issue of the crop report is issued.
The agenda is here: 10-26-2010_Agenda.
Filed under: Uncategorized
A pipeline going from $13,000 to $828,000! Is that a typo? Quite a cost overrun, isn’t, it? Why is this the Board of Supervisor’s problem???
Jeff’s story reads correctly…”A resolution increasing the cost of the pipeline project in DarkHorse BY $13,267 TO $828,317″.
Not “a pipeline going from $13,000 to $828,000″. It’s a cost increase adjustment to the orignal cost.
Steve,
I’m not sure who to blame on this one–though it sounds like there is plenty gone wrong somewhere. I wonder where Meagher and Vernon are on this one?
I wonder why John Stoos hasn’t pounced, and pointed out that government never seems to do anything right?
Or that Steve Frisch has not pounced back to point out that it looks like Dark Horse is yet another project where private profits are privatized, and risk socialized?
Tony
I’ll just pounce back to say read it again buddy.
By the way I am still trying to figure out how private profits can be privatized.
Ok, let me try again. I still can’t figure out what the cost increase is about from what Jeff wrote. But it looks to me like the County is on the hook for an extra $815,000, and I really can’t figure out why. I thought you might know something.
But it looks a bit like when the private development at Dark Horse went south, the County somehow got stuck with a “cost over-run” on the pipeline.
My beef with such private interests is that when there is a profit, they never offer to share with the County. But when they have a major cost over-run, somehow the expense shifts back to the public coffers, rather than to the developer, or the bank which loaned them the money.
Sorry for the odd syntax. Hope this one is better.
Tony, calm down, it’s about a 1.6% increase. That’s all. It increased by 13,000, for a new total of about $828,000.
Not that the total isn’t something to have been ticked off about, but that’s old news. A drop in the bucket compared to present county payroll combined with future pension obligations that probably can’t be met.
OK I get it now Tony, and I think you have a great point.
If I understand the case, the developer went bankrupt, essentially stranding approximately 30-50 landowners within the Darkhorse development without services, including sewer and electricity. The county stepped in to finance the improvements.
I thought the Darkhorse sewer lines were only being financed by the county after the developer went bankrupt. My understanding was that the property tax assessment would pay back the cost of the infrastructure.
Do I have this right?
There is an interesting issue here about what the appropriate role of government is. Personally I think this is exactly the type of financing solution government can provide when the private sector fails.
By the way, to your point about profit derived from public sector investment being privatized, I think you also have a good point.
I would like to see a lending tool that provide capital to certain types of private sector activities, but if those activities return profit a portion should go back to re-paying the original investment.
We already do this in a way with government funded research and development through patent licenses.
Ok, Greg, now I see. 1.6%. I had originally read it as increasing from 13,000 to 828,000, rather than “by” $13,000. The power of a proposition.
As to the points that Steve raises, I am generally in agreement that government and the private sector need to work together for the greater good. But, I do find it ironic that private developers who otherwise resist government intrusion into “their” projects, end up expecting government to clean up after “our” failures.
The operative word is “cheaper” The lowest bid is not always the most cost efficient.
Hope the county saved enough money by awarding this bid to the “cheaper” contractor so we have enough left over to do it correctly the second time.
Also, we are awarding a bid which helps off set another county’s unemployment. What about our own? Awarding this to a local company saves us money in the long run.
This noted for the short sighted ones at the rood center.