In the link below, I note Jim Thorpe has received a half-million dollar grant to spruce up its depot, but still needs an extra hundred grand for design and engineering work. The depot may have been crumbling internally, but it looked quite good when I saw it in 1999. In the newspaper article, it says most of the work will improve "paths, benches and picnic tables".

I'm sure I don't know the whole story, but I have to question if this work is really worth $600,000...

http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=2757446

Hello Bob

I'm as puzzled as you are. I'm always amazed at how much money gets put into this depot. I rode an R&N excursion to Jim Thorpe and a few friends and I noted the new asphalt shingles on the roof and turret instead of the original slate. Obviously whatever monies were recieved for the roof had no "in kind" strings attached to them. While the asphalt shingles looked 'ok' on the roof, they looked downright aweful on the upper 1/3 of the turret.

Six hundred thousand seems like a lot for benches and pathways. The concrete platforms and sidewalks seemed to be holding up well enough, and since the station is bordered by roads on three sides and a railroad on the fourth, I'm not sure where the pathways would be going. The small park across the street perhaps? Although even that seemed in fine shape. At lunch at a picnic table there on the 12th, although the tables seemed a little worn, I can't see half a million plus being spent on replacing them.

The only place I could see the money being spent, even close to the figure mentioned would be creating some sort of museum to augment the visitor center, which had a mountain bike and a canoe is its largest exhibits the last time I was there.

If I were a citizen of Carbon County, I'd be the first one in line asking questions right about now.

Dave Crosby

Is this in addition to the half-mil of work bid on the spring?

http://www.tnonline.com/archives/news/2004/03.06/carbon.html

Re: Jim Thorpe Street Project

I have a copy of the entire article and depending on how you look at it, it does seem to be a typical exercise in over-zealousness. The article states that they expect 56,000 visitors between January and September. "But the paths the tourists trod on are worn, cracked, and disintegrating. The picnic tables and benches are old and splintery, and the trash cans are 55 gallon drums in disguise. They also mention that the shrubs are out of control".

Carbon county administrator Randall Smith aims to spruce up the old Mauch Chunk tarin station and visitors center with a $500,000.00 government grant.

The grant would cover construction. The county will be required to contribute $100,000 for "design and engineering". (quotes mine).

The money may come from the state.

The artcile states that they will explore assistance form a local Representative (Keith McCall)

Project to be called "Old Mauch Chunk Streetscape".

County has applied for grant thru N'East Penn. Rural Trans. Planing Org, and N'East Penn Alliance.

They reccommend that the work be approved by the States Dept. Of Transportation Hometown/Safe streets Program

Final approval is expected this month.

The grant is part of a one-time 2.67 million allocation for rural counties including Carbon, Pike, Schuylkill, Monroe & Wayne.

The Hometown/Safe-streets ventuire is a new PennDot venture that uses Federal Transportation money to invest in downtowns and establish "safe" walking routes.

The grant is specifically designated for pedestrian sidewalk improvements and beautification.

Streets and parking lots are not included.

The plan is to eliminate traffic that passes through the Asa Packer Park, right in front of the station, and expand the park right to the front steps of it.

The intent is to create an attractive plaza and make the area safer.

Streetscape will be the next (???? My q's) step in a strategy to improve the park and station area.

The county is (presently) paying $492,073 (!!!! these are mine also) to replace the roof on the county owned depot, and install new doors and glaze, and paint windows.

It goes on to say that the local Rotary club will assist by building a gazebo.

So there is it. I don't think they left too many bureaucracy's out, seems to be county, state & local involved. The amounts seem to be staggering, as mentioned by prior posters. One would think that a local landscaper/gardner would be proficient enough to come up with a plan for far less.

I also distinctly recall seeing a previous article on cost-overruns associated with the roof replacement. In that article, the contractor had to go back to the granting authority ( Believe it was county commission) for additonal funds which caused a bit of a stir. I believe the increase was eventually granted. I'm kind of surprised that asphalt shingles were used, as the old slate definitely had the look and touch associated with it as built.

Oh well, government at it's best I guess.

Does the Sunrise diner have pork specials????

Dave are you related to the late Bing?

Len.

Unfortunately, such gouging by private companies, and its acceptance by elected officials give well-intentioned government programs a bad name. There is an awful lot of preservation work that has been accomplished that would not have happened had some form of public funding not been available. With our present huge deficit and war (holding back on further comment here), plus other world tragedies, I can't see money for half-million dollar depot roofs and picnic tables holding out too much longer.

When people wonder why certain parties are antagonistic towards government involvement in preservation projects, refer back to this discussion and compare, for example, the money going into this project versus, for example, what a restaurant owner would pay a private contractor for the same roofing-and-landscaping job on the same property.

One doesn't have to be a cult member or weapons-collecting militia member to have a firmly-entrenched cynicism about government and its money.

I agree, Bob. It baffles me that ISTEA money was used on preservation projects without any connection to improving transit infrastructure (no offense to anyone who took ISTEA dough -- it was there, you had to take what was offered). The system just shouldn't allow it.

Again, the spectre of how they do it in England rises.

Rob

Continuing with the sage of Gov't funding:

From yesterdays Bergen County (NJ) Record is an article titled:
"State doesn't follow up on grants, auditor says".

New Jersey bestows millions of dollars every year on cultural groups, with no idea if the cash is spent properly, according to a new state report.

A team of state auditors that examined grants made in 2003 and 2004 concluded that the Dept. of State exercise virtually no oversight in handing out more than 28 million a year in taxpayer money.

The auditors found that the task of monitoring those more than 400 annual grants has fallen to a single state Dept employee, who is hopelessy behind, according to an audit released Monday. Missing paperwork made it even more impossible to determine if grant money was even reaching the intended recipients.

Shoddy practices at the State Dept. go beyond the grant program.

The agency is now more than two years behind on filing requests for microfilm copies of state records, the auditors found. In other instances, the State Dept. was making monthly payments to creditors without even reviewing the bills.

Ass't State Auditor Tom Meseroll said there is no evidence that the State Dept. does any monitoring of the millions of dollars it passes to civic and church groups every year.

"Our work definitely raises the question if this money is reaching the people it is supposed to reach and buying the things we're supposed to buy.

The article goes on to explain that the Dept. is in a state of "restructuring" , and has put in place several suggestions made by the auditors.

A spokesman for the state Dept. notes that the agency itself is "small" and "understaffed", it's employees shrinking by 10% since 2002. He notes that many people wityhin the agency are "wearing more than one hat".

But the agency has revamped intself, especially in the area of "faith-based initiatives" and is "fully confident" that all recipients in the program are worthy and spending the money properly.

The article defines "faith-based" grants as those that are awarded to church groups who operate community programs. These are part of a growing controversial movement nationally championed by the President and then Governor Christie Whitman.

The article states that only 10% of the State Dept's grants go to such projects.

The same state audit team also found that between July 2003 and Sept 2004 the state made 2.3 million in faith based grants without verifying if the recipients spent the money on the specific programs. Required on-site visits were not done.

The article also mentions several groups where discrepancies were noted. One of them was that since 2002, the State Dept. awarded 2.4 million to Marriot Services for managing the state-owned Trenton War Memorial without asking for sufficient documentation of expenses. The contract allows for $800,000 in annual losses the hotel incurs in operating the auditorium and performing arts center there.

The state Dept announced that this contract would not be renewed when it expires this year.

The article concluded with "in addition to managing the state archives, the 185 employee Dept. is charged with generating interest in state history and boosting it's cultural arts community. The Dept. loses money every year, taking in about 2 million in revenue while spending more that 41 million."

Makes you wonder who's watching the store.

It's common knowledge that government entities usually pay more for work and materials than a private firm or individual would. But from the contractor/suppliers point of view, governments can be a pain to work with. There will always be assorted standards/stipulations in the contract that private buyers don't care about and aren't required to consider. Governments are notorious for changing specs and details in the middle of a project. They don't always pay their bills promptly, no matter where the money is coming from. Another drawback is having your business dealings splashed all over the media. They often expect far more than they have agreed to pay for, and when they complain pubicly, your reputation can be seriously hurt even if you've done nothing wrong. These things are common at all levels of government.
Mike

As an aside, the Scranton CNJ Depot recently had its roof replaced with the correct slate, copper trimming etc. I believe (and I could be wrong) that ISTEA money was appropriated for the building several years ago and had to be used before it expired. Hence the roof was completed, but not much other work was done. I'm not sure how ISTEA monies were appropriated for the building, as it's right of way was removed decades ago.

Dave Crosby

If I remember correctly, the TEA21 authorizing legislation allowed states to use up to 10% of their funds for preservation.

There have been numerous projects - stations now used as visitor centers, etc. - that were rehabbed with TEA funds. Then there is NKP 765.

Also, the original project posted here may not be TEA funding. There are other federal programs that could be the source. This one actually sounds like something called (again, if I remember correctly) Q.23, which funds pedestrian improvements. It can only be used for construction, not engineering and design, etc.

JAC

Here is some food for thought from someone who has worked in industry. You find that when you deal with the government it is a pain in the butt to say the least. If your business is not starving for work, you bid a high enough price to cover any and all things that can screw up and then add on 20-50 percent. If you don't get the bid no big deal, let some poor lowballer loose his shirt fooling around with Uncle Sam. If you do get the deal you are compensated for your extra troubles. It is a real eye opener when you overbid by 50% just figuring you don't really want the job but will take it for a big profit and then find you are the only bidder or still way low and end up with the job.

While I don’t know the particulars in these cases, there are several things that may be going on…

When large grants like these are available, government agencies sometimes take care of nearby related infrastructure at the same time like side walks, street lights, drainage and many, many expensive items, which are specifically the core project.

Government agencies are tied by their own rules. In projects like this they can ignore nothing. All known deficiencies need to be addressed. The rules are complicated enough that they drive away some contractors, probably raising the price. I work for a municipal government. Internally our informal guide line is that a government project will cost 25% more than the same project done privately. We don’t like it, but by the time we write a specification that is tight enough to pass legal and public scrutiny, and do the drawings and planning that is required by state and federal spending rules, it is a fact of life.

Finally, slate roofs, copper gutters and historic preservation is very expensive. We as a group do incredible things with no resources. We use volunteers. We get donated materials. Government agencies can’t work this way. Also, station buildings can be big projects, much larger than a railroad car.

With all these things in mind, this may not be an indictment of the government agency, but rather a compliment to all of the grass root efforts.