The rate payers association has been active with your council. We value your input please send us your comments.
| Original Message ----- From: <mailto:Arrowprt@aol.com>Arrowprt@aol.com To: <mailto:geoinch@vianet.ca>geoinch@vianet.ca Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 9:55 AM Subject: Landfill compaction George, I am sure that you and your Assoc. are aware of the awarding of the Landfill compacting and site covering contract to Kelly Hickey for his services to supply an excavator and operator as needed to compact and cover the land fill site dump areas for $108.00 per hour You are also aware that Mr Hickey submitted a quote this past spring to supply to our Municipality the same the equipment to do whatever is required (work to be identified by our road supertindent) in our Municipality at a rate of $66.00 dollars per hour. Why are we, the ratepayers paying $42.00 per hour more for the same equipment to do the same work??? This additional gouging of $42.00 per hour more will no doubt cost the ratepayers thousands of additional tax dollars to do the same work that Mr Hickey promised to do for $66.00 per hour. I phoned Frank Tod to receive an explanation but as usual all you ever get with Frank is his message machine and he never returns calls. You, as the chairperson of the Ratepayers Assoc.have an obligation to look for this type of corruption being committed on a regular basis by our Council and bring this matter to the public's attention. I await you answer on the above important noted matter. Sam |
| Dear Mr. S. Dunnett As you know, the tendering process is designed to obtain the best competitive price for a service and the $108 hourly rate submitted by Mr. Hickey was the lowest of the three tenders submitted for the landfill compacting contract. Based on this, there is no reason to believe that the Municipality is not getting the best price available. The $62.50 submitted earlier by Mr. Hickey has nothing to do with the landfill compacting contract. In obtaining these figures, I had a conversation with Ron Catcher in which he was of the opinion that the excavator being used by Mr. Hickey was not compacting the landfill as well as the bulldozer which was previously used. Although much heavier than the bulldozer (14 tons vs 8.5 tons) he thought that the bigger tracks on the excavator would result in a lower pressure on the ground. To determine the pressure (per square foot), measurements were made of the ground area covered by the tracks of both a bulldozer and an excavator. The bulldozer tracks measured 9 feet on the ground and 18 inches across. The ground area covered is 27 square feet which indicates a ground pressure of approximately 630 pounds per square foot. The excavator tracks measured 9 feet 8 inches on the ground and 24 inches across. The ground area covered is 38.7 square feet which indicates a ground pressure of approximately 724 pounds per square foot. There can be no doubt that the downward pressure exerted by the excavator is appreciably greater (about 15%) than that exerted by the bulldozer which would result in better compaction of the landfill. Mr. Catcher also said that the compaction would be improved if the plastic bags in the landfill were shredded and that the bulldozer tracks accomplished this better than the excavator tracks. Since plastic bags make up only a small percent of the landfill volume and since the tracks would shred only the bags on the surface, it is very unlikely that shredding is an important factor in the compacting process. We, therefore, conclude that the excavator compacts the landfill better than does the bulldozer. Another feature that was noted was that the cost per compacting is very much less when done by an excavator. The last three invoices submitted by the previous contractor, using a bulldozer, were $5375, $3190 and $4475 which average $4347 per compacting of the two landfill sites and GST was not charged. The only invoice submitted by Mr. Hickey for compacting the two sites was for $1974.78 which includes GST. There can be no doubt that the Municipality will realize savings of thousands of dollars over the life of this contract. George Inch Chairman |
| The board of directors has also written to the council a copy of the above letter and we have commended them on the choice of the new contractor. We have suggested that additional compaction of the landfill may be of benifit to extending the life of the landfill sites |
| Municipality of Magnetawan Council As you know, there was widespread disapproval of the decision to limit pedestrian travel on the Dam Trail. We are aware that the previous mayor met with the MNR and agreed to the restrictions that the MNR placed on the Trail and that this decision is binding upon the current council. From private correspondence, it has been learned that this decision was primarily based on the dangers associated with ice and snow. In view of this hazard being confined to the winter months when there is little or no public interest in using the Dam Trail, would it be possible to reopen discussions with the MNR to consider the possibility of limiting the restrictions to the winter months and letting the public use the complete Trail in the summer. This trail is certainly one of our best tourist attractions and it is recognized that our economic well-being is dependent upon the tourists. If renegotiations can remove this irritant, both the local citizens and the tourists will be pleased. Geroge Inch -Chairman |
ITS NOW OR NEVER! STOP
ASSESSMENT ANARCHY!
|
Name |
Phone number (705) |
|---|---|
| 387-1227 |
Name |
Phone number (705) |
|---|---|
| 382-1074 | |
| 387-1260 | |
| 387-1460 | |
| 387-4954 |
Contact the web master: webmaster1@magratepayer.ca