SPONSOR LINKS
spacer

PRINT ADS

spacer

TOP HOMES

HomeSeller
Top Homes


 Home > News > Story

Published - Wednesday, November 26, 2008

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (3 comment(s))

City spends almost $17,000 more for loader

   Advertisement   
Advertise Info. Website Directory
.
A split Black River Falls City Council opted to spend about $17,000 more on a front end loader despite a bid for the machine coming in lower.

The council voted 4-3 at its Nov. 20 meeting to reject the lowest of five bids for the loader and went with the second-lowest cost. Swiderski Equipment in Waupaca had the low bid of $89,052 while the next lowest was $105,800 from St. Joseph Equipment out of La Crosse.

Superintendent of Public Works Todd Gomer said the issue was quality when it came between Swiderski’s New Holland 130B model and St. Joseph’s Case 621E,

“I feel this low bid is not the machine I want for 10 years for the city street department,” Gomer said.

However, Mark Wisinski, vice president and general manager at Swiderski’s Waupaca location, said the New Holland and Case machines are nearly identical machines. He said both have the same parts and are built at the same plant. With the exception of some cosmetics, Wisinski said the New Holland and Case loaders are the same.

“They are about as close to an apple-to-apple comparison you can get,” Wisinski said. “They are identical twins except one of them is yellow and one of them is orange.

“Everything is exactly the same except the price.”

Wisinski said Swiderski’s quote for the loader was much lower than other companies because Swiderski wanted to give the city the best price.

“We didn’t want to take advantage of you and overcharge you,” Wisinski said.

Gomer, though, said he was still uncomfortable with the New Holland loader based on research he did, and street department employees felt the same.

“They may be built at the same plant, but they’re different machines,” he said.

The council was divided on whether to go with the low bid or go with Gomer’s recommendation. Alderperson Don Mathews noted that both bids met the specifications set forth in the request asked for in early October and said not going with the lowest bid might set a precedent.

“What does this do to our bidding integrity for the city?” Mathews asked.

Alderperson Charlene Onstad said she wanted to go with the low bid but felt it was important to consider the advice of those running city departments.

“I want to take the low bid; I also feel the people who are using this machine (need to be) comfortable,” she said.

Although there was some discussion on delaying the decision to gather more information, Gomer implored the council to either make a decision or throw the bids out. Council members Bradley Rahmlow, David Johnson, Shirley Austin and Onstad voted in favor of going with the second-lowest loader bid while council members Randy Eddy, Jay Eddy and Mathews voted against it. Alderperson Pete Olson was not present at the meeting.

Wisinski said he was disappointed with the council’s decision and asked the city not request bids if it already knows what dealer or brand name it wants.

“In the future— I don’t know if you can do this — if you want a Case machine, then just bid for a Case machine,” he said.

City Clerk Bill Arndt said the city was not required to bid for the loader like it is for other purchases or projects, like a street project.

Prior to discussion on the loader, the council approved a $16,778 pickup truck purchase for the street department.
.
   Advertisement   
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

Jokey Smurf wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:06 PM:

" I was more impressed by scooter's analogy, than the story itself. Still confused though, the Case machine is gonna be worth more money later or not? How come that other company doesn't have the Case Model as well, since they are made by the same company? Jokey Smurf thinks front end loaders are no joking matter..lol "

justthefacts wrote on Nov 29, 2008 9:34 AM:

" If you search Machinery Trader for a 2000 New Holland LW130 and a Case 621 you will find that their average retail after eight years is $179 apart. They are built at the same plant and have the same maintenance history. If the City invested the $17,000 at 7% the net result would be $34,164 in ten years. Imagine the savings if they would have bought the other machine mentioned by Scooter. "

Scooter wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:46 PM:

" Just a couple of items not mentioned in the article---after ten years, which is the normal trade time, the new holland is worth $17,000 less than the case on trade in-- next--the county also had issues with new holland and did not accept a low bid from them a while back---last there was some questions on repairs---the closest place is Thorp. Most important is that the operators tested both the new holland and the case at the local city shop and they all felt the quality of the cheaper new holland would probably not last the ten years we look at for trade in time. "


PLEASE NOTE: Comments on stories that frequently update through the day disappear with each update.
The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Jackson County Chronicle.

Click here to report offensive or inappropriate comments. Please identify the comment you're concerned about, the story to which the comment was attached, the date of the comment and the person who made the post.

 Post a comment (150 word limit) »

Log In - If you have already signed up with The Jackson County Chronicle, please sign in now!
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Sign Up - To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, Jackson County Chronicle requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!

**Your Member ID and password will be required to log in. Your comments will appear under your user name.

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Company:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
*Address:
*City:
*State:
*Zip Code:
 

About Us | Advertise Online | Contact Us | Disclaimer | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | RSS | Webmaster | Website Directory
Copyright © 2009 The Jackson County Chronicle. All rights reserved.
Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.