Hate To See If We Had Taken A Direct Hit
Documents obtained from Charlotte Randolph's Administration reveal that it rented 1,100 water-filled dams at a cost of $175,000.00 per day in September and October, 2005 in the wake of Hurricane Rita. One set of 500 was used from Sept. 23 through Oct. 7, 2005 and an additional 600 from Sept. 23 through Oct. 14. Total rental cost, according to the invoices of the vendor, U.S. Flood Control Corporation of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, was $6,497,200.00. According to U.S. Flood's web site, tubes are 50 feet in length when they are filled. The standard configuration is 3 tubes , 2 tubes on the bottom, one stacked on top.
In a memorandum by Parish Administrator Cullen Curole, dated May 30, 2006, he writes that "[t]he tubes were installed saving countless hours of labor and material to protect the Lockport Community." (Wasn't it more like Valentine and upper Larose?)
Mr. Curole also writes that FEMA informed him that "rental was reimbursable, at least, at 75/25 cost share", meaning Lafourche Parish would normally be liable for 25% of the cost. In this case, 25% would mean $1,624,250.00.
Mr. Curole's memo also explains why the two sets of dams were kept in place for two and three weeks, respectively, as follows: "The rental timeframe was extended out of caution by DPW due to the continuing existence of storms in the Caribbean and Gulf. When FEMA questioned the continued use of these tubes, they were ordered removed." In other words, Ray Cheramie intended to maintain the dams in place for as long as he deemed storms were a threat to his and his fellow cattlemen's cows.
Curole continues: "The major problem with this product is that its sole use is for protection in times of emergencies. Pricing reflects the notion that use will be funded by FEMA as provided for in the Stafford Act. This FEMA-inflated pricing combined with counterproductive reimbursement provisions makes purchasing a tough intial investment."
WHAT?
Come on Cullen! You ain't saying the product is priced differently depending on if FEMA is paying or not, are you? Perhaps, the FBI may want to look at this operation, cuz it certainly sounds like fraud to me.
Did everyone in Charlotte Randolph's Administration lose their friggen minds after Katrina - 2 1/2 overtime to salaried employees, generators for Ray's family or not used, $6,500,000 spent on renting giant condoms to protect cows, without batting an eye and without Council knowledge or approval!!! It's like the discretion expected of a 5 year old locked in a candy store overnight.
What would have happened had we taken a direct hit?
This gang certainly ain't ready for this level of responsibility.
And this one, my friends, is the big Kahuna, the other shoe falling, the final straw. Somebody is going to jail, most likely a federal one, for this.
Documents obtained from Charlotte Randolph's Administration reveal that it rented 1,100 water-filled dams at a cost of $175,000.00 per day in September and October, 2005 in the wake of Hurricane Rita. One set of 500 was used from Sept. 23 through Oct. 7, 2005 and an additional 600 from Sept. 23 through Oct. 14. Total rental cost, according to the invoices of the vendor, U.S. Flood Control Corporation of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, was $6,497,200.00. According to U.S. Flood's web site, tubes are 50 feet in length when they are filled. The standard configuration is 3 tubes , 2 tubes on the bottom, one stacked on top.
In a memorandum by Parish Administrator Cullen Curole, dated May 30, 2006, he writes that "[t]he tubes were installed saving countless hours of labor and material to protect the Lockport Community." (Wasn't it more like Valentine and upper Larose?)
Mr. Curole also writes that FEMA informed him that "rental was reimbursable, at least, at 75/25 cost share", meaning Lafourche Parish would normally be liable for 25% of the cost. In this case, 25% would mean $1,624,250.00.
Mr. Curole's memo also explains why the two sets of dams were kept in place for two and three weeks, respectively, as follows: "The rental timeframe was extended out of caution by DPW due to the continuing existence of storms in the Caribbean and Gulf. When FEMA questioned the continued use of these tubes, they were ordered removed." In other words, Ray Cheramie intended to maintain the dams in place for as long as he deemed storms were a threat to his and his fellow cattlemen's cows.
Curole continues: "The major problem with this product is that its sole use is for protection in times of emergencies. Pricing reflects the notion that use will be funded by FEMA as provided for in the Stafford Act. This FEMA-inflated pricing combined with counterproductive reimbursement provisions makes purchasing a tough intial investment."
WHAT?
Come on Cullen! You ain't saying the product is priced differently depending on if FEMA is paying or not, are you? Perhaps, the FBI may want to look at this operation, cuz it certainly sounds like fraud to me.
Did everyone in Charlotte Randolph's Administration lose their friggen minds after Katrina - 2 1/2 overtime to salaried employees, generators for Ray's family or not used, $6,500,000 spent on renting giant condoms to protect cows, without batting an eye and without Council knowledge or approval!!! It's like the discretion expected of a 5 year old locked in a candy store overnight.
What would have happened had we taken a direct hit?
This gang certainly ain't ready for this level of responsibility.
And this one, my friends, is the big Kahuna, the other shoe falling, the final straw. Somebody is going to jail, most likely a federal one, for this.
posted by Carl A. Chauvin at 4:17 PM
2 Comments:
UDDER madness! UDDER greed!UDDER betrayal of public trust! An UDDER blatant act of disregard of the HOME RULE CHARTER! "BRINK OF GREATNESS" That's UDDER B.S.............One UDDER thing,CULLEN needs to read THE STAFFORD ACT.It would also help if he read THE HOME RULE CHARTER although it semms UDDERLY impossible for them to follow it!Meanwhile we are expected to vote for some UDDER taxes? UDDER disgust! UDDERLY NOT!!!!!!!
Ok, I'm not the lawyer, you are, Carl. Where's the criminality? As far as I know, there's no law against being stupid (if there were, everybody would have been in jail at one point or the other)
I'm not defending the Charlotte administration, just trying to understand.
Post a Comment
<< Home