Friday, October 2, 2015


A quick scan of Monday night’s agenda reveals many standout resolutions that bear reading the support material before commenting

Among those resolutions are one outsourcing printing, mailing and postage services for $30,000.00. Another Providing Enhanced Tax Reporting Services per ACA

There is a resolution for a 5 year Buyout Purchase Option Lease agreement for an “Office Server Edition Phone System” (458,916.88).

Several not specified on the agenda for Police Department purchases, and one (again? 0 for the Municipal and Police Division Generator Project. I thought this had been enacted earlier this year or last year.

Outstanding is a resolution awarding Final Payment to Yates Real Estate Inc. for the “Demolition of 117-125 North Ave for$129.000.00.

There is a Resolution for an additional $38,200.00 to the Yannuzzi Group for the Demolition Completion and Removal of debris from 117-125 North Ave.

How much has that North Ave fiasco cost us taxpayers in legal fees and settlements to date? We are entitled to an accounting and an explanation about why Yates was awarded a job it not only had no experience but was incapable of performing. Also why is it being paid for something it did not complete unless the contract was poorly written without legal support?


  1. Something fishy is in the air. Yates Real Estate submitted an invoice for $75,075, dated March 24, 2015, for demolition work done "to date". I'm not aware that Yates did anything else since. So where oh where did this other $54,000 come from? The City Administrator and the Director of Public Works and Urban Demolishment are hanging on the edge here and ought to have a good explanation after a drippy weekend of thinking about it. Even the original invoice demands scrutiny, let alone the questionable additional amount. It is highly irregular for a vendor not to pick up its own cost of hiring legal counsel to consult with and review a contract. So where is the investigation, and why is this derelict City Council sitting on its hands?

    You can see the invoice at this link-

    1. You are right Alan. Where is the investigation? Bridget Rivers, who was very vocal about the council starting one is conveniently silent now. Of course, we will never know why because the Council never explains anything. But for reasonable people who follow this, who would be the one most at fault for doing this? What Department Head might be blamed? How does that tie in with the council? Inquiring minds want to know.