COUNCIL MEETING POTPOURRI part 1

It is a blessing to have Bernice report on the Council meetings. Plaintalker is factual and concise. The report on the "Tax abatement Monarch ordinance mirrors completely the long discussion that took place.Indeed one had to be there to understand that Corporation Counsel Williamson's role was not one of a legal advisor but as the author of the Ordinance. Thus, he was very active as the Administration's protagonist in trying to move the Ordinance for vote next Monday.

Williamson stated that the Monarch project was a partnership between Plainfield and the developer. However, neither he nor City Administrator Dashield could present the Council with convincing numbers to justify acting on the abatement. Dashield based his figures on a unit sale at $279000.00. Councilors questioned if that would be the going price in today's market, or if it was inflated.

Council members also questioned the wording of the ordinance as to who would be the beneficiary of the tax abatement and whether the abatement was transferable to a subsequent unit purchaser or only to the original unit owner. Williamson was of the opinion that the abatement would be in effect for the five year period.

It was learned that Dornoch or one of the shell corporations was paying taxes only on the land. Taxes on the building would not be applicable until a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Since except for the model units the kitchens and bathrooms have not been finished pending customization for each unit owner the building is considered not eligible for occupancy.

When the Tax Assessor was queried why the structure was not subject to taxation as an improvement on the land, the response was that the builder was always given an unspecified period of time to obtain the CO before taxes were levied, but the structured could be taxed as is.

In the more than an hour before the Ordinance was presented for action, there were other items that resulted in Council deliberation. One was Councilman's Storch report on matters concerning the City's Planning Board, pointing out that it can only express an opinion and that action rests with the Council.

The Dudley House status generated a prolonged exchange between Council members and Dashield. There was a 51 page detailed documentation of the proposed services by Organization for Recovery in the member's packet. Dashield noted that grant money would not be available before October at the earliest. Also Dudley House had to be certified by the State before it could resume operation and that the tentative agreement expired on 12/31/09 and provision had to be made for the next year.

Mapp introduced a suggestion that Palinfield revert to a calendar financial year rather then continue the present July 1 to June 30 Fiscal year. Although there was resistance expressed by Dasheild in part due to the lack of a CFO there was a consensus to explore the merit's of the change. It was pointed out that the State delayed its extraordinary municipal appropriations equally as long for those on a calender year as on a fiscal year. However a change would eliminate the confusion in the tax year bills which are on a calender base.

Dashield deferred his report on the status of the road renovations until Monday's meeting.