|
|
Post by admin on May 10, 2007 16:12:27 GMT -5
www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/NEWS01/705100422/1004/NEWS01FOR: Rehab wells, pipes, manholes WHERE: Water Treatment Plant Council plans to borrow $350,000 Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/10/07 BY NICK PETRUNCIO FREEHOLD BUREAU Post Comment FREEHOLD — The Borough Council has introduced a $350,000 bond ordinance to fund improvements to the Water Treatment Plant and help pay for the acquisition of two vehicles. The improvements will include the rehabilitation of two wells, the replacement of doors and windows, the installation of a shower stall for workers, manhole rehabilitation and pipe replacement at the Water Works Road facility. The borough would make a down payment of $17,500 to finance the cost, and the remainder of the $350,000 would be borrowed. The pumps from the wells, which require rehabilitation every five years or so, will be removed, taken apart, reconditioned and cleaned thoroughly or replaced if necessary, according to Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina. He said the door and window replacement is needed because the water plant is a moist, humid place, and such items wear out more quickly there than in other environments. In addition to the improvements, the borough is seeking to acquire a street sweeper and a pickup truck. Money from general capital, as well as water and sewer capital, will be earmarked for the sweeper. The council is expected to hold a public hearing and then vote on the matter at an upcoming regular meeting.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jun 12, 2007 11:08:11 GMT -5
"The pumps from the wells, which require rehabilitation every five years or so, will be removed, taken apart, reconditioned and cleaned thoroughly or replaced if necessary, ....."
How has this reoccurring expense been funded in the past?
Would this not be a well planned, forcasted expense?
How many other times has this been funded through issuing bonds?
What are the terms and yield of the Bond?
Maybe I/ we all look to investing in these Bonds?
I suppose there is not Federal Grant Money available through some form of fresh water, clean water, public drinking water... federal initiatives?
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jun 12, 2007 12:33:59 GMT -5
I hate to be the one to bring up the obvious question...and I don't mean this as any type of accusation towards the council...but is this money the money we need to borrow is eerily close to the reported settlement that was reached with the advocacy groups (for lawyer fees and the fines that would have to be repaid to those who received violations). Could it be that because of this chunk of money that the town decided to settle at in order to "save a potentially larger cost" is now coming to bite us in the a$$  The number just seemed to be too close not to bring up this point. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 12, 2007 14:02:52 GMT -5
I hate to be the one to bring up the obvious question...and I don't mean this as any type of accusation towards the council...but is this money the money we need to borrow is eerily close to the reported settlement that was reached with the advocacy groups (for lawyer fees and the fines that would have to be repaid to those who received violations). Could it be that because of this chunk of money that the town decided to settle at in order to "save a potentially larger cost" is now coming to bite us in the a$$ The number just seemed to be too close not to bring up this point. I am dense today, I do not get your point. What does the settlement have to do with the water treatment plant? |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 12, 2007 14:16:54 GMT -5
Sorry, we could never convince our insurance company to pay for water plant improvements with lawsuit settlement monies. Wrong application of their money - wrong business to draw from.
By the way, if that would be the case, as of today, Mamaroneck (NY) would really be in hot water (pardon the pun). Did you see the size of their settlement? It's in yesterday and today's newspapers. And, THEY had to create a new muster zone. And, their police can not ask the day laborers about their legal statuses.
Same case, same parties suing them. And same attorney - Alan Levine (no, relation!). Uggggh.
Marc
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 12, 2007 14:36:26 GMT -5
Here was my point - just released...
Victory for Day Laborers in Mamaroneck
WNYC Newsroom
NEW YORK, NY June 12, 2007 —Day laborers have won the right to gather in Mamaroneck. Six workers sued the Westchester village last year, claiming they were harassed by police officers because they were Latino. A judge agreed and ordered the two sides to reach a settlement.
REPORTER: Mamaroneck's board of trustees voted to ratify it last night. Alan Levine, from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, helped represent the day laborers. He says the agreement means police cannot routinely ask day laborers about their immigration status.
LEVINE: They will not be told by police to move on from places that they are gathering on sidewalks and a court monitor will be appointed who will for a period of 3 years ensure the terms of the settlement agreement are being implemented.
REPORTER: Mamaroneck must also pay more than half a million dollars in the worker's legal fees and allow a new hiring site to open. Tensions began after a hiring site was closed and day laborers gathered on the streets to find work.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jun 12, 2007 15:21:54 GMT -5
Here was my point - just released... Victory for Day Laborers in Mamaroneck WNYC Newsroom REPORTER: Mamaroneck must also pay more than half a million dollars in the worker's legal fees and allow a new hiring site to open. Tensions began after a hiring site was closed and day laborers gathered on the streets to find work. OK, this is confusing to me, Mamaroneck closed a muster zone, was sued and opened up a new hiring site aka Muster zone for the day laborers, under cort order? Where we not told that these workers do not need to have a "Hiring Site aka Musterzone" under the law? At our last concile meeting I did hear that any street, at any time is the ad-hock "Muster zone e'mono". What was proven there? |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jun 12, 2007 15:25:18 GMT -5
Here was my point - just released... Victory for Day Laborers in Mamaroneck WNYC Newsroom NEW YORK, NY June 12, 2007 —Day laborers have won the right to gather in Mamaroneck. Six workers sued the Westchester village last year, claiming they were harassed by police officers because they were Latino. A judge agreed and ordered the two sides to reach a settlement. REPORTER: Mamaroneck's board of trustees voted to ratify it last night. Alan Levine, from the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, helped represent the day laborers. He says the agreement means police cannot routinely ask day laborers about their immigration status. LEVINE: They will not be told by police to move on from places that they are gathering on sidewalks and a court monitor will be appointed who will for a period of 3 years ensure the terms of the settlement agreement are being implemented. REPORTER: Mamaroneck must also pay more than half a million dollars in the worker's legal fees and allow a new hiring site to open. Tensions began after a hiring site was closed and day laborers gathered on the streets to find work. yes -- and Freehold will also keep paying 3 million per year to educate the children of illegal aliens. BTW -- It seems Mamaroneck could benefit from entering the 287(g) program -- though I wonder if they negotiated away their right to do so. BTW 2 -- It is difficult to understand this news story -- because as written -- it is unclear. When they say a "judge agreed," I wonder if that means they were found liable for harassment based on race. Also -- the term "ordered to settlement" is unknown to me. No one can be ordered to settle -- though if the Court says you are going to lose and you better settle -- that has the same effect. There would be a significant difference between finding race-based harassment and a finding that the Borough was issuing invalid "officers discretion" summonses. If there is an order or opinion in this matter -- I'd like to read it. |
|
leelye
Junior Member
Posts: 150
|
Post by leelye on Jun 12, 2007 16:03:20 GMT -5
"yes -- and Freehold will also keep paying 3 million per year to educate the children of illegal aliens."
Rich:
It's closer to $5.5 million per year !!
Leelye
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jun 12, 2007 16:59:22 GMT -5
Sorry, we could never convince our insurance company to pay for water plant improvements with lawsuit settlement monies. Wrong application of their money - wrong business to draw from. By the way, if that would be the case, as of today, Mamaroneck (NY) would really be in hot water (pardon the pun). Did you see the size of their settlement? It's in yesterday and today's newspapers. And, THEY had to create a new muster zone. And, their police can not ask the day laborers about their legal statuses. Same case, same parties suing them. And same attorney - Alan Levine (no, relation!). Uggggh. Marc Marc Just to clarify my question earlier... I was not clear how the different aspects of the settlement were being paid for. Automatically, I assumed this would be something the town would have to come up with additional tax monies to pay for, which would have meant taking that money from somewhere else (aka money for a Water Treatment Plant rehabilitation that we should have known was coming up this year, since it has to be done every 5 years or so and I would hope those who work with this equipment would have had an idea that they were going to be in need of replacement very soon). So, when I saw that we now have to borrow money for work that we possibly should have known was coming and should have already set aside dollars in the town's budget for, and when I saw that the dollar amount we were borrowing was very similar to reported costs for the settlement, it just triggered the question. As I said earlier, I did not intend for the question to be an accusation towards the council...it's just a matter of the thinking I explained above forced me to ask the question. There...if you weren't confused before, you should certainly be now!! |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 12, 2007 17:06:58 GMT -5
The big bucks are paid by the insurance company. The only exposure here, is a major increase in premiums and I'm not sure that has happened.
The $33K reimbursement for unfair fines collected by us, DO come from the Borough. I'm not sure of the status of these payouts, so far, though. The people that were fined, almost eons ago, have to learn of the reimbursements and must come forward within a relatively short period of time to prove they are entitled to a check. Many are probably long gone from Freehold and are no longer reachable. If they do not materialize, the money remains here.
Marc
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jun 12, 2007 17:15:50 GMT -5
The big bucks are paid by the insurance company. The only exposure here, is a major increase in premiums and I'm not sure that has happened. The $33K reimbursement for unfair fines collected by us, DO come from the Borough. I'm not sure of the status of these payouts, so far, though. The people that were fined, almost eons ago, have to learn of the reimbursements and must come forward within a relatively short period of time to prove they are entitled to a check. Many are probably long gone from Freehold and are no longer reachable. If they do not materialize, the money remains here. Marc Is there a time limit on this? Also, how much responsibility lies with the Boro to track down those who are owed this "refund"? I'd hate to have someone or some group surface a year or two from now and say that the Boro never properly went about notifying them that they were entitled to this refund, and then we're back in court shelling out more money. I am sure the council is doing their due dilligence on all of this, I am just curious about the particulars. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 12, 2007 17:20:05 GMT -5
Don't quote me on the time limit. No longer than a year. I think we may have had to place some public notices. But who looks for those? I'm sure the advocates are doing their part to track down the folks. But, it isn't to easy for anyone - trying to find forwarding addresses. The court is watching the process, now. I'm sure we're doing whatever they directed us to do. If we didn't we'd all hear about it!
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by LF39UEV on Jun 12, 2007 23:15:48 GMT -5
The big bucks are paid by the insurance company. The only exposure here, is a major increase in premiums and I'm not sure that has happened. The $33K reimbursement for unfair fines collected by us, DO come from the Borough. I'm not sure of the status of these payouts, so far, though. The people that were fined, almost eons ago, have to learn of the reimbursements and must come forward within a relatively short period of time to prove they are entitled to a check. Many are probably long gone from Freehold and are no longer reachable. If they do not materialize, the money remains here. Marc WILL YOU TELL ME THE 2006 PREMIUMS, VS THE 2007 AND THE 2008 PREMIUMS |
|
