Here is a clip showing the discussion of a proposed playground for Sandown North and sprinklers for Sandown North and Danville. If you watch the clip you will see:
- $521,000 is the new estimate for sprinklers in SN and $655,900 is the bid for sprinklers in Danville.
- The $250,000 cost for sprinklers told to us before the March election DID NOT include service connection to a pressurized water source. No one would take responsibility for misleading the board or the public with the $250k figure.
- We received ONE bid for the Danville sprinklers. Mr. Hughes comments that it is not “fair” to those bidding to put the project out to bid a second time. (We can conclude there is no need to consider what’s fair to the taxpayers.)
- The board is perfectly prepared to make decisions based on one bid.
- Dr. Metzler imaginatively explores using the money added to the budget at Deliberative for Danville sprinklers for SN sprinklers. (25 minutes into the clip)
- The district believes it is legal to spend money on a new playing field because they are not calling it a “playground.” Voters of the district denied funding for a “playground” at the last election by warrant.
- There is no undertaking whatsoever to obtain a fair number of estimates for the playground work or a minimum number of bids once approved.
- As for the traffic situation at Sandown North, the board votes to give Dr. Metzler complete discretion to do whatever he wants in regard to that without board approval or prior notification.
- The board votes to pay $8,000 out of surplus to correct the siding problem at SN despite having plenty of money in the facilities budget. Mr. Sapia says the source of the money is not pertinent to the discussion.
- Mrs. Steenson condescendingly lectures on the importance of being respectful to staff because, she says, they work for less than they could in the private sector. By this she means it is rude to question staff as to their need for money over their unexpended budget and that respect for the taxpayers is completely irrelevant.
Here’s the clip (you must turn up the sound):
P.S. Arthur Green voted against adding $250,000 to the budget for sprinklers in SN because there was no prior mention of the need for this in the two previous budget iterations before it came up in December. Sprinklers were not mentioned anywhere in the facilities spreadsheet of current and future projects and had never been, and no documentation whatsoever was given to the budget committee to justify the $250,000 amount. I would say Mr. Green was prescient on that vote because if there were now $250k in the budget it would be free cash added to the surplus and open season for “emergencies,” as is the now unusable $250,000 added for Danville’s sprinklers. That bit of wastefulness is thanks to Mr. Bealo’s impetuous motion at the last Deliberative session that was rapturously embraced by attendees who should now be feeling royally burned.