Monday, March 29, 2021

Breaking News

It was just announced that a special meeting of the Common Council has been called for Monday, April 5, at 5:00 p.m., "to consider a resolution to accept a bid and a major contribution to cover the overage on the bid related to the Promenade Hill Park Project."





Gossips has learned that the "major contribution" is $600,000 from the Galvan Foundation. The bid to be accepted is undoubtedly the lowest bid for the project, which was submitted by A. Colarusso and Sons. Click here to join the Zoom meeting.

Correction and Update: I have been informed that the contribution to be considered is from the H. Van Ameringen Foundation not the Galvan Foundation. The contribution is to honor the late Henry van Ameringen. The amount of the contribution is $650,000. My source also told me, "Once awarded the contract Paul Colarusso has indicated they could contribute the shortfall which is around 100 thousand dollars."
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK

26 comments:

  1. Help me with the math here.

    Originally it was reported that the project is $500K over budget.

    Then, Gossips provided a nice breakdown of the respective amounts needed to reintegrate the nicer materials for this or that feature, which came to less than $400K:

    https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2021/03/not-really-big-deal.html

    So where's the shortfall of $100K? What am I missing?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Colarusso is 'contributing' the shortfall? Does your source mean to say they're lowering the bid price by $100k to get the contract and the goodwill? Money well spent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You must be right. If I've calculated correctly, then it can only mean that Colarusso is knocking off $100K from its bid.

      The Colarusso company's donation to our city is deeply appreciated.

      Delete
  3. Are they asking for any naming rights?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Colarusso is giving the city $100,000 in labor and materials, then a small plaque with their name on it is an appropriate thanks.

      Delete
  4. We were told the average bid was 1.8; the budget was 1.1; if the shortfall for the lowest bid is.75 the the lowest bid was 1.85
    these numbers do not add up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. correction to my math. The shortfall should read .70. 600k plus 100k
      the 100k from the bidder should be read as a "best and final offer"- BAFO - standard in RFP world, not a gift

      Delete
    2. It would be great to see a breakdown of all of the project's costs compared to the amount awarded in the DRI.

      Otherwise, what's the "shortfall" in relation to? What's the big picture? Why would anyone believe any of this without seeing a line-by-line estimate?

      Like the contribution of the H. Van Ameringin Founation, it would be appropriate for the litigious Colarusso company to make a GIFT of this [alleged] shortfall.

      Delete
    3. Amen to brother Friedman on the remarkable H. Van Ameringin.

      Delete
    4. For the record, I'm grateful for ALL local philanthropy.

      Delete
  5. Henry was generous alive -- this continues as his legacy. The City should name the entrance after him: his partner may be one thing, but Henry was a humanitarian and should be remembered as such. And whether ACS lowers its bid or does something else save the City $100k -- as long as it's legal, thanks to them. Both serve as an example that none of us are one "thing" alone and that together we're still capable of forming a single community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except we're not one "thing" when ACS sees fit to sue the City for doing what the Code requires. (Anyone know who paid for the City's defense?)

      It helps that ACS will now GIVE the City $100,000, and never mind the serial lies of the ACS attorney advancing his client's two applications before the Planning Board.

      Think I'm just being negative?

      EVERYBODY should read this letter to the City Planning Board in February from Hudson's former Corporate Counsel:

      https://cms3.revize.com/revize/hudsonny/Boards%20and%20Committees/Planning%20Board/2020%20Applications/175%20South%20Front%20St%20(Colarusso)/Dow%202021.pdf

      Delete
    2. Right on that score. Colarusso's welcome good will here should not be confused with bad faith on the waterfront, where the company has fought the city’s oversight in court and where it now proposes an up to 473% increase in gravel truck trips to and from the dock (from an average of 60 in 2019 to a proposed maximum of 284 per day going forward). With little public upside, this will increase noise, dust, disruption and hazards across the waterfront, exactly where the city is striving to encourage development that expands jobs and recreational enjoyment. What’s more, the company’s position is that the city has no right to regulate its volume--and despite claims of no current plans to expand further, it leaves the door open to exactly that.

      Delete
    3. A municipality regulating a company's truck volume does bring it dangerousy close to regulating a private anterprise.

      It's for that reason that the 2011 Common Council anticipated that future Planning Boards would maintain the existing ONE LANE causeway road. If it's consitutional question whether or not the City can regulate truck numbers, it can certainly regulate the way that the trucks reach their destination.

      And anyone who says that the South Bay caseway road is one-way is a liar. The Code says "ingress to and egress from."

      The current owner is only using it one-way so that it can say "it's a one-way road," and people around here are actually stupid enough to believe them!

      Delete
    4. Also, in 2011 nobody could have imagined that the property would be sold so soon.

      Now we're doing the same thing, supposing that the Planning Board review is for the current owner only, and the current owner's estimate of future truck numbers.

      Instead, the question should be focused on the NEXT owner.

      The way to do that is to ask, How many trucks IS IT POSSIBLE to run to the waterfront, whether or not the current owner intends to do so.

      Let's not make the same mistake we did in 2011 when, in fact, the current review is FOR ALL TIME.

      Delete
  6. Glad to see that the original plan to use good materials on the project will survive. I hate poured concrete, and we will probably not have another opportunity to get this right for another 100 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But is the lowest bidder able to promise the materials that were originally planned?

      Does anyone know the answer to that, really?

      Delete
  7. I find it odd that lately I often agree with John Friedman.
    I find it strange that this forum in particular seems to focus on the negative side of the ledger.
    I know of no entity (Galvan) that has contributed more to our community, but there is rarely a mention of contributions on this forum.
    Their contributions to the Salvation Army, the Columbia Greene Community College (and many, many other organizations) have benefited a very large part of our community.
    It also strikes me that very rarely do the critics have a recommended solution.
    The Colarusso company has also contributed a lot to our community. The fact that part of their business involves hauling gravel to load on barges is a necessary part of what needs to happen for the country's infrastructure to be built and maintained. Who among the critics is willing to stop driving on concrete roads, concrete sidewalks,..? The NIMBY crowd needs to have some solutions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't just announce that "the Colarusso company has also contributed a lot to our community" without saying what the contribution was.

      Aside from their excellent products used on our roads and sidewalks, etc., everyone assumes you're referring to some sort of a gift to Hudson, above an beyond normal business transactions.

      I'd genuinely like to know what you're referring to.

      Delete
  8. "It also strikes me that very rarely do the critics have a recommended solution." YES, YES, YES!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait, which critics? Just "the critics"?

      Before the Ameringen Foundation made its generous offer, more modest offers were called in by residents with fewer resources. The Foundation's huge and sudden donation, appreciated as it is, just wiped out any recognition of the other offers.

      I'd say that the majority of the would-be grantors were all "critics," and yet they came forward with offers of materials and donations for the beautification of our unique Promenade.

      You didn't know about these unreported "solutions," did you?

      Well now you do, so you can stop complaining yourself.

      Delete
    2. Actually, I did assume that people would step up with donations, and did not expect them to toot their own horn here. You're the one who called yourself a veteran complainer.

      Delete
    3. I wasn't able to offer anything, but I was thankful to those who had. A great opportunity for you to make a snide comment though.

      The "veteran complainer" bit was a gag. Nobody in Hudson can ever accuse me of being a simple complainer. Rather, others complain because I stand behind my word. Not being a hypocrite, now that's something to toot one's horn about.

      Delete
  9. Thanks to Eric or Henry or whomever who made this happen. A bonus is that it might help mitigate the animus which stalks this city, which makes my skin crawl. Stick to the merits, and try in good faith to break bread with those with whom you might disagree. I say this as one whose participation in the public square in Hudson is attenuated. I got that message, and understand. I love my life anyway, even with a weak heart.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Does no one remember that expensive and time consuming mess the taxpayers were absolutely forced into with "Galvan to the rescue" gift and the Senior Center?

    ReplyDelete