Sunday, March 6, 2016
AGENDA SESSION MONDAY
The “Sick leave” Ordinance is one of four up for second reading. I for one feel that this well intentioned ordinance is not in the best interests of the local community. The impact on small business has not been well thought out, nor the potential impact on their employees. Non-profits are also subject to the provisions of this ordinance.
I am posting some pertinent portions of the Ordinance
"Employee" is as defined in N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(h) who works in Plainfield for at least 80 hours in a year except that "Employee" for purposes of this Ordinance does not include any person employed by any governmental entity or instrumentality including any New Jersey school district or Board of Education or (b) any person who is a member of a construction union and is covered by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by that union.
(5) "Employer" is as defined in N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(g) except that Employer does not include (a) the United States government; (b) the State or its political subdivisions or any office, department, agency, authority, institution, association, society or any instrumentality of the State including the legislature or judiciary; or (c) Plainfield.
(1) With respect to Employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement in effect at the time of the effective date of this Ordinance, no provision of this Ordinance shall apply until the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement; however, if the terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement provide paid sick leave that is more generous than provided by this Ordinance, those terms of the expired collective bargaining agreement apply to the extent required by law.
Once again this is an action that should be in the province of State Law not local municipalities especially one that cannot create a negative atmosphere for small enterprises.
The other three Ordinances for second reading deal with the Sou5th Second Street needed redevelopment
The 2016 executive budget is up for introduction. The Councilors will have had time to study it before action. If accepted I believe that it then goes to the State for approval.
There is a resolution awarding a contract to Pennoni Associates of 90K for consulting engineering services. In other words the City Engineer. The contract calls for 8 hours a week services. Undoubtedly there will be additional resolutions during the year for specific projects. Once again would be better off will the full time Engineer rather than outsourcing?
There is a resolution increasing the 38,200.00 authorized to the Yanuzzi Group for completing the demolition of 117-25 North Ave to $114,000.00. This is in addition to the monies paid to Yates. How much has this supposedly improperly “emergency contract” actual cost the city to date including legal fees and compensations? How much more is our liability?
With schedule presentations and discussions this should be an informative meeting.