| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Steve Myers
Site Admin
|
The City Council voted 6-3 Wednesday to spend more than $3.1 million to buy 20 new garbage trucks with opponents favoring two Flint companies that submitted lower bids.
The winning bidder, Auburn Hills-based Reefer Peterbilt, was $165,940 and $224,728 higher than local bidders C&S Motors, 113 S. Dort Highway, and Graff Truck Centers, 1401 S. Saginaw St., respectively.
The dissenters - Council Vice President Sheldon A. Neeley, 5th Ward Councilwoman Carolyn Sims and 9th Ward Councilman Scott Kincaid - argued the city should support Flint businesses. They also noted the city already uses similar Volvo and International garbage trucks proposed in the local bids.
But supporters, including administration and union officials, said the Peterbilt trucks were a higher quality and would save the city more in the long run on maintenance. One truck, city officials said, had cost the city more than $1.25 million on maintenance over the past five years.
The same council trio also were on the losing end of a proposal to pay for the trucks with an internal city loan from its sewer fund -a practice that helped fuel multi-million dollar deficits and a state takeover only a few years ago.
Kincaid said the city should use the city's projected $6.1-million general fund surplus to buy the trucks instead, but supporters countered the loan would be a better way for the city to finance a capital expenditure while saving the surplus for emergencies.
City officials also said the past loans from the sewer fund that caused the financial problems had not been formally approved by the council.
http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-33/113526841024210.xml&coll=5 |
|
|
Thu Dec 22, 2005 5:06 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
Guest
|
quote:
One truck, city officials said, had cost the city more than $1.25 million on maintenance over the past five years.
Why would anyone spend 1.25 million on repairing a 150,000 dollar truck? This is a clear case for Flint maintenance MISMANAGEMENT. There are guidelines that other government agencies use in determining repairs. Simple rule the USMC uses (if my memory serves me correctly). One time repair of 65% or cost results in disposal of equipment. 1.5 times cost of repairs over it's lifespan. Once you reach that point you then have to make a decision. If a major component needs repair or replacing and it's something like 50 % of cost. (I guess I should probably look that up in the MCO 4790, but the point is they should be following some guidelines, not just repairing it because it’s broken) Deadline equipment and dispose of it.
It is clearly mismanagement to allow a 150,000 dollar piece of equipment to cost more than double it's purchasing price to keep using in the fleet. What the hell are they doing down there in the Maintenance Dept?
This is the problem with the way Our Council and Mayor are making decisions. Because of poor management of the maintenance dept we base or purchasing decision on incorrect information. Again, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize this. You don’t have to be a fleet maintenance guru as myself, to realize that spending almost tens times to cost of something isn’t a good idea. The problem, isn’t that the Peter-Built’s cost more. It is that the argument used to purchase them is invalid. I know I cannot be the only person out there to see the completely obvious. Even if we buy the More Expensive Garbage trucks. We could still spend outrageous amounts to repair it. We haven’t corrected the problem. Which is someone making the decision to spend 1.25 million to repair a 150,000 dollar truck. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:13 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
Guest
|
ANOTHER THOUGHT!
I may have been a bit hasety. I'm working off a Flint Urinal Story, so there may be many facts that we do not know about. Let me explain.
If this purchase price included the following items. This may in fact be a great deal. While it doesn't excuse the ineptness of the maintenance supervison for allowing 1.25 million to be spent on one vechile.
If included in the Purchase price we received:
A) Truckservices
1. Preventive Maintenance package.
2. Mantenance Services and repair parts agreement.
B) Or training for city mechanics to work on these peices of equipment.
1. (although that would be a rather high price tag for just a few mechanics to be trained.
I will contact my councilman and see wether any of this was in the purchase agreement. I should know better than to just accept what the Flint Urinal says as FACT to begin with. I'll post a response once I've checked this out. |
|
|
|
Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:55 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
Guest
|
| I am now watching the city council meeting that decided to vote for these garbage trucks. I've never heard more ignorant reasoning for purchasing these trucks! Because of the money we've spent in repairs on the old ones. OK follow me here! So we buy more expensive trucks, this means usually MORE EXPENSIVE repairs! Since we run our City Maintenance dept by throwing excessive dollars at repairs by unqualified mechanics. What one thing makes you believe that we are going to spend less money on repairs of these new vehicles! HUH? The system of repairs is flawed. Thus how we can spend 1.25 million to repair ONE 150,000 dollar truck. The maintenance Management of the repair dept is flawed. So Screwing local businesses and spending more money for vehicles that are going to end up the same way. Because of inadequate repair, isn't going to solve the problem! The maintenance thing really bugs me. Because, that was what I did for years in the Marine Corps. Everything the council has said about the reasons why we purchased these, is based on false information. I guess when your covering up for someone. You'll go to great lengths to cover up for them. And you wonder why I keep calling this council a rubber stamp!. |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:56 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
Guest
|
Isn't there this thing called a warranty and extended warranties? Couldn't we also get by with less tow trucks if we ran the ones we had seven days a week and 16 hours a day. This would also have helped amortize costs better but oh well.
webmaster@mysearchisover.com |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:25 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
Guest
|
I guess I really do need to post a follow up. I also got to watch the meeting with the vendors. While I am not convinced they made the best decision. I can at least understand more why. It was a difficult one to make.
Yes there is a thing called extended warranties and warranties. Now whether they actually got an extended warranty or a PM Preventive maintenance service plan, I couldn't say 100% either way. I watched the meeting. While it seemed organized it got pretty confusing.
I believe many very good points by Vendors and the Maintenance Dept (which seems to be heading the right direction) were not given enough weight. However, Not everyone would have picked up on these items. I had the benefit of rewind.
MD (Maintenance Dept) mentioned how much they had spent on newer vehicles. Warranty covered and not covered. MY POINT (MP) damage isn't warranty so don't blame repair dollars for the need for more expensive Peter Builts (PB).
Again many good points. The MD wants to standardize parts. (This is way to long overdue) So MP since we already have Internationals Continue on with those. Not replace a fleet with vehicles that will need a whole new parts room full of repair parts!
PB module design over Volvo. Gees Right on the Money there! Whose idea was it to ever introduce a Volvo into Flint's fleet. There are websites dedicated to running down Volvo's just for the reasons they mentioned in the meeting.
I think Kincaid had it half right. I could have seen purchasing Half internationals and Half Peterbuilts. But not half Volvos and internationals.
BTW (stealing 100,000 from former city councilman and putting that back in the General Fund is PEANUTS compared to spending an extra 1.5 million for the PB's.) Warranty work for the Internationals could be done right here in flint. There is an authorized dealer. Now they said PB would allow the City to do warranty work and bill it back. I'm interested to see how well that works out. See part of my problem is I'm basing many of my thoughts on how the Maintenance Dept has been run for years and also a new supervisor that thinks Vibration has something to do with alignment. If you know anything about vehicle repair and maintenance you'd know Alignment doesn't cause vibration. It can't, bad tires 96% of the time, Bad brakes 3.5% of the time, bad front end parts .5 % if the time. Never once because of alignment. At least that's been my experience in over 15 years in the maintenance business. Civilian and Military.
The older grey haired fellow seemed to have a pretty good grip on what is needed down there. First time I've seen any speak logically and with some real facts. Not made up opinions that I've heard in the past. I just don't understand the "hard on" everyone has for the PB's?
If maintained as the gentleman mentioned (that hasn't gone on in years) They wouldn’t be in the shape they are in. I believe they are making decisions based on poor maintenance as to whether to buy one over another. I personally believe that either one if maintained properly will perform equally as well.
They talked about taking concessions in their pay. So I’m guessing they prefer to pay 1.5 million more for one truck over the other. Rather than get their concessions back. Because, the longer it takes to get the city into the black and stay there. The longer they will go without a wage increase. So if the trash pick up people, the Union, the Maintenance Dept feel that spending more will make their moral better. Personally I’d rather have more money to make my moral better. Not twice as expensive garbage trucks.
I’ll tell you this though. I can at least understand why they voted the way they did. I still don’t agree. But, with all the information they were bombarded with. Without any special training in maintenance and procedures. I may have voted the same way. Except that the Flint dealer should have been the winning bidder. On that point I would not have faltered. Since, the way the maintenance dept had been run for years is not the way to decide on new vehicles.
I still cannot believe someone was sleeping at the wheel and spent 1.25 million on a 150,000 garbage truck. And here is the problem with that example. I look at that and it reeks of mismanagement. The council looks at it and says we are spending too much money to repair them. |
|
|
|
Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:31 pm |
|
|
rapunzel
Guest
|
Interesting at tonights council. Dale Scanlon speaks to council. CNTF task force member. Says he has long advocated for new trucks. Since we now have trucks that can pick up all types of debris including regular trash pick up. We no longer have a need for our community task force. Working with his group has been over 500 volunteers from different area communities. We will not schedule community clean ups this summer.
Note that on these clean ups we pick up illegally dumped piles that the city drivers will not pick up. There may be more to this... but what the heck I am not riding the back of a garbage truck this coming summer!!!!
More power to ya, Peter built! |
|
|
|
Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:25 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
| I won't get to see that until this next weekend. I think I'm going to need to put the dogs outide and sound proof the walls. They really get upset and run for cover when I watch the Council Meetings. This is really getting bad. I'm going to have to lock up the shotgun. So I don't shoot the TV. I came pretty close on that peter-bilt contract. |
|
|
|
Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:46 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
