Author Topic: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.  (Read 3392 times)

debumblebee

  • Guest
http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline%5Fjerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=416077

Millions of pounds needs to be spent repairing States owned buildings in Jersey.

The Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel have just received a back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.

According to Deputy Tracey Vallois, the cost is so high because work on the buildings has been left for too long.

And who is supposed to pay for all these repairs?


Offline Mark Forskitt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
    • A View from the West
Re: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2009, 05:58:35 AM »
Its not her fault, I know, but I can't resist commenting. In the senatorial elections the now chair of the corporate services scrutiny panel, Senator Ferguson, was often heard to ask something along the lines of : what householder waits for the rot in the windows before painting them?  I think we may have found the answer to that one.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 09:30:04 AM by Mark Forskitt »

mpwpj

  • Guest
Re: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2009, 09:19:48 AM »
I wonder how much greater the cost of repairs is now because they've been left rather than being ongoing over the last 10years or so?  I wonder how incredulous and vocal some people would've been 5years ago if the States had budgeted £10million on repairs to buildings not in use, using the reasoning that if not now then it'll cost more in the future?

Damned of they do damned if they don't.

What I would have them do is look at whether £125million pound would be better used to build new facilities fit for purpose rather than path up the mish-mash of current buildings, that could then be sold/leased off.

Offline Goreyman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2009, 09:41:32 AM »
You mean buy up the proposed Waterfront offices no-one else will want?!?!

The cynic in me says they have deliberately allowed the properties to fall into dis-repair solely for this reason.

mpwpj

  • Guest
Re: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2009, 10:29:50 AM »
You mean buy up the proposed Waterfront offices no-one else will want?!?...
No I don't, but if a private developer want to build good quality offices, can't sell them and the States can take them on at an economical rate then why not?

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2009, 10:56:54 AM »
Because they are leaving behind other buildings ,which will only be of use in about 5 years time if and when the economy gets back online.
What was the purpose of the move by the Tourism Dept.
What was the purpose of the move by the Housing dept.
What was the purpose of the move from "Brand New" offices in David Place to new offices on the Waterfront by the JFSC?

These and other depts. are showing exactly why we do not like the civil service.They may have nicer offices but in what way will those offices enhance the services to the General Public? Remember them ? they are the people who pay your wages.
I have a Strategic Plan in mind , wholesale decimation of the Civil Service.

Offline Durendal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
Re: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2009, 11:21:35 AM »
Because they are leaving behind other buildings ,which will only be of use in about 5 years time if and when the economy gets back online.
What was the purpose of the move by the Tourism Dept.
What was the purpose of the move by the Housing dept.
What was the purpose of the move from "Brand New" offices in David Place to new offices on the Waterfront by the JFSC?

These and other depts. are showing exactly why we do not like the civil service.They may have nicer offices but in what way will those offices enhance the services to the General Public? Remember them ? they are the people who pay your wages.
I have a Strategic Plan in mind , wholesale decimation of the Civil Service.


Decimation only one in ten?

Not good enough

quinquimation would be preferable

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Re: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2009, 11:30:24 AM »
Word on the street - Normans are not replacing staff as they leave. Perhaps SOJ could learn from this?
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

mpwpj

  • Guest
Re: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2009, 11:32:49 AM »
Because they are leaving behind other buildings ,which will only be of use in about 5 years time if and when the economy gets back online...
That's why I asked why not if it were economical; you make a fair argument that it may not be economical, I'm not sure I agree, but I don't think either argument can be discounted out of hand.

rogueelement

  • Guest
Re: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2009, 11:40:20 AM »
OK on an economical basis then, You or I if we wish to buy something new , first establish that the new is better than the old, That is highly subjective when it comes to the STates. We then make an offer to buy , contingent upon selling the old , and making the appropriate arrangements with our banks lawyers. See any of that foresight being applied to States Property?

Offline Sarah Ferguson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Back dated bill for a hundred and twenty-five million pounds.
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2009, 11:06:38 PM »
I am glad you were listening to me Mark!

The proverbial first hit the fan in the PAC's hearings on the 2007 States Accounts with David Flowers.  The maintenance bill has always been used as a slush fund when things get tight.  There is a rumour that £500k was used from the maintenance budget a couple of years ago to pay the nurses wage increase.  I cannot vouch for the veracity of this but you get the drift?