Remarks by Scott Meggers
194 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 7 of 8
Sorry. Sure. No, I so if we if we didn't spend that 100 the extra hundred this year, I mean Do you think you'll have your melter up by next year to where we could actually use that money to actually doing it in-house versus contracting out so it would be more beneficial to us so you can put more money towards that or no?
Because we've got $150,000 for $27,000 and then $250,000 for $28,000. When you hire a contractor for the year, how much can they get done doing that type of work?
So $150,000, how many linear? I'm just a guess. Just throw a dart at the board.
No, I understand. I'm not asking for a hard number. I was just kind of an idea.
Because, I mean, I would rather, I don't know, I'd rather push that off, adding the $100,000 to that and pushing it off a year maybe. I don't know. It's just me thinking, the general fund as well.
I can live with that. You said that, Greg, about people talking about our striping in town, and I've heard that too.
I know that in talking to department heads about this, it's very beneficial for us to have those positions. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we contractually with, to like outside firms, I think we saved about $360,000. Is that about correct?
So I think that was in the talking of like, we're moving away from not moving completely, but as much as we can, because you look at that savings, we can put that and have that in house. And then sometimes talking to staff too is like, sometimes when you have somebody not in house you lose some translation. So sometimes it takes longer to get to where we need to get to that. It costs us more.
And I think by adding those two, I know there's some work that we need to get done, and we can't do that because of this as well. So, I mean, it's something that I'm totally in agreement and moving forward with this.
I know that Cecil and I have had lengthy conversations about this machine, and I think starting on working on parking lots and a way for us to – I know we talked about doing on the – I know we talked about on, like, the Martinez Trail.
the concrete option versus the asphalt option and I know the concrete option is going to be a lot more expensive but where we have this machine and we have the staff to learn how to use it and everything else I think it's I was really pushing back on this machine and the more we've talked through it I think the more it makes sense but I do want the rest of council to weigh in on this too because I didn't think it was a necessary thing we needed to have and one question you asked me that I did find out there is a possibility for anyone
And I know that the other question was too, I I'd made was the, the size of roller we had in house to be able to use, to, to, coincide with that? And I question, like, do we have a big enough machine? And you came back with what your information was on.
And, again, if we can learn how to use it and we save that 25%, 30% of hiring outside entities, I think that's a smart move as well. I forgot about how much we were going to save on those two projects, too. Again, there's been some good conversations about it because I was not for it in the beginning at all. So thank you, Cecil.
You got it with 277? Should be 260. Huh? Oh, 260,000.
Sorry. Sorry. Was there any type of grant money or anything for this project?
Not on this one. And I know we've had conversations about this, that it does bring people to our park and town to – because it's kind of like not very – I mean, it's pretty unique, I guess, for what I'm trying to say. And so I agree with that, but then I'm like going – I look at it and go, well, could we spend that $260,000 somewhere else or build something back up? So that's my two cents about it. I'm not a bike guy. I mean, I bike, but not – that type of bike. That's not my type of skill set. I think that's Stacy's skill set.
I don't know. I just wanted a conversation about it.
Well, I know we were kind of pushing a little bit, too, to actually, I won't say quit bonding so much, but to where we can pay some of this out of cash. Is that even an option to do that, to where we wouldn't have to bond something like this for 20 years, to where we could just say you pushed it a year and it could pay cash for it? I'm just asking a question. I know we'd kind of been trailing that way a little bit, but I didn't know if that was something we're going to get into deeper going forward or not.
So 10, 11, 12, is it more irrigation related or is it more...
So is that, are they having a ton of issues with them?
I don't know. I'm a golfer and I know what the revenue generation is for the course and I know how much pushback we had because of what we spent last year. That's my only pause. That's just my two cents on that. If the irrigation system was in disarray and it couldn't operate, stuff like that, maybe I'd have a different opinion on that. But that's kind of where I'm at with this part of it. So that's just my two cents.
I know it's, it's, it's one of those things where we spent that money last year and we got kind of the pushback to go, maybe if we push it another year, we would get, I know it's, I know exactly what you're saying.
But I don't know that you could actually do this cut in half to achieve what you're trying to do.
Oh, I got you. Okay, I understand. Okay, I understand.
Which it will be more than 660 at that point, but just the nature of it.