Friday, May 1, 2015
Do You Get What You Pay For?
Lately, there has been an expression of concern over the idea of paying for a study. The matter is roads and drainage. We are to pay about $200K for two work plans. Some Village residents don't approve, and they don't understand why we should pay for something that has no tangible result.
I have had calls and e-mails expressing concern, or complaint, over this expense, and one of our neighbors, Steve Bernard, has circulated one of his typical e-screeds about it. The salient complaint is always the same: we should pay for a study, the result of which does not include any work done on the roads?
Funny enough, Steve Bernard happens to be an architect. As far as I know, that is his one and only profession. It's the only way, I'm told, he earns a living. Steve's job is to learn of someone's ambition regarding something they would like to construct, and to apply study and expertise to designing, or imagining, a structure that will fulfill that ambition. I myself am not an architect, and I have no idea what goes into the production of such a plan. When I was a member of the Planning and Zoning Board, I saw some architectural plans, and I could see what they're about. They're just pieces of drafting paper with drawings on them, representing the outlines, or schematic diagrams, of what the imagined building would look like. And despite the fact that the architect does not do any actual construction, you still have to pay the architect, after which you have to pay the builder who does the "real work."
Since architects make a living, but they don't actually build anything, I'm guessing their clients are asked to pay the architects only for advice and drawings. I imagine the fee depends on the scope of the intended work. Maybe it depends on the skill or repute of the architect. But one way or another, the client of an architect will pay money and walk away with no more construction than there was to begin with. Whatever was paid will not get one concrete block set. Is that strange? Is architecture an odd business? Should people who are asked to pay an architect for nothing but a scheme be up in arms?
I myself am a doctor. I'm not a surgeon. I just listen to someone's complaint, and I advise them what they should do about it. I charge for that service. And they don't have to take my advice. But they do have to pay for it. Should patients insist upon a free initial consultation, and only pay for services they agree to receive? In fact, should they only pay if they think they benefited?
We in the Village have paid for studies before. We've paid for traffic studies, and some of us have relied on the results of those studies. We've used them as reasons to make statutory changes, as in the speed limit. But the studies themselves represented only observation and measurement of traffic patterns, and sometimes advice about adjustments that could be made. The studies didn't do or change anything. They just gave us information. That's what the current proposed studies are intended to do. They're like a traffic study, or a doctor's advice, or an architect's drawing. They just provide vital information we could not get any other way, and we need that information in order to make the tangible, substantive changes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Apple... meet Orange.
ReplyDeleteAt this point I understand your position. But let's look at your example a little more closely: Someone wants to construct something (that is their choice) and needs an architect (or any other professional service for that matter) to provide the required plans for them to be able to move forward. This is done to fulfill "his/her desire" to construct something. This is a volunteer action/desision made on the part of this someone.
Moving along, this "someone" who sought out the architect has made a personal choice to build something and as such, is responsible to pay the fee personally. He/she is not looking at using tax dollars in order to pay for this service. Nor was this someone previously locked into using just one architect, without first shopping the cost. There would be no way to know if the drawings were priced competitively by not doing the required due diligence. Are you just going to blindly trust that the architect fees are fair? And let's also conclude that the fee for these drawings (whatever it is) will allow him/her to proceed forward without any other associated risk. Yes, they don't pay for the actual construction of the building, but there is no fear of loss regarding the cost of the drawings.
This proposed assessment (using new tax dollars) comes with no guarantees. Period. Well, correction, the guarantee is that our taxpayers will be responsible to foot the bill and that the engineering firm will get paid. That's it. Boom...Big difference!
The only purpose of these plans is to allow the Village to seek funding from the State. But there is no guarantee as to if we will receive any money at all, perhaps not even enough to cover the cost of the plans. Does that sound like a smart and good use of tax dollars to you?
Additionally, we're working towards annexation... what happens then if we're successful? We would need to amend or have new plans issued then. How much more do you want our taxpayers to pay for this then? Do you even know the cost?
Further, we have an election coming up in the somewhat near future with potentially, new commissioners being elected. What if the new commission doesn't share in your desire regarding ongoing special assessments and scuttles the entire movement? What value were these plans then?
Question, how much research has been done to conclude that our case of drainage and road issues are stronger than other municipalities that will also be in line with their hand out? What guarantee have we been given to the potential success of our case over theirs? The answer is that there are none. Don't sidestep this risk!
Who determined that storm water and road improvements are our biggest needs? What about improved street lighting? That would impact all of us... every night... not just when its raining. What about the old pipes that don't provide ample water pressure to some sections of our Village? That also would impact those residents in need, rain or shine. Big difference!
You mention that the Village has paid for studies before. That is correct, and they were paid out of our existing budget. They were not paid from some new, additional design of taxation. Nor were the fees in excess of $200,000.00.
Answer me this, where were the workshops and presentations to inform our community of this proposed new tax assessment? Where was the information as to the viability and comps for the expenses? How can we possibly consider something of this magnitude when it has had less disclosure and time consideration than in the swale ordinance... or fence discussion?
We elect commissioners to, in part, protect the interest of our residents. I hear what You want, loud and clear. You represent 1 out of 1079 homeowners. What about the other 1078? What do they want?