Saturday, February 4, 2017

MONDAY'S AGENDA




Both the Hoos men and women basketball teams have a bad habit of blowing out their opponents in the first half and then forgetting how to play in the second half. Today was no exception.

The agenda’s link from Friday’s email stopped working today; I received messages that the address was not valid. This blog will be based on earlier and incomplete information.

One ordinance that I wanted more info was MC2017-05 which amends the Municipal Code relating to the City Council. I am assuming that it is to make legal the past two January’s actions by doing away with the Jan 1 or 2 reorganization meeting with the Mayor’s State of the City address. Politicians like nothing better than to post facto legalize what they have done.

The other ordinances for second reading should be passed when voted upon.

Administration’s resolution “G” designating Plainfield as a “Fair and Welcoming Community” is incomprehensible since the printout of the resolution only contains the “whereas” and no “resolves” Also I have a problem with the validity of the second and third “whereas”. I hope before this even reaches the business session Administration can clarify and justify this resolution.

Resolution “L” changing the contractor for third party administrator services mentions three bidders but does not list their bids and why a change from Inservco will benefit the city.

Resolution “R” which awards a contract for the Seidier Field Lights to the lowest bidder based on a letter from “Pennoni” whom a another resolution (Resolution T) will appoint retroactively to Jan. 1 as the consulting “City Engineers” mentions 4 bidders but lists only three. There is a difference of bids from $81700.00 to $139500.00 (the missing 4th) but no mention if the specifics are the same on all bids. This is info the Council should have.

Regarding resolution “T “was the position advertised and bids requested or just awarded as a professional contract?

Resolution “U” awarding a contract to the TARA DOWDELL GROUP to provide marketing and “strategic communications support” will cost the city nothing since funds are supposed to come from the “Urban Zone” account. However I am interested in exactly what services they will provide and how.

The new Ordinances are needed due to the change in what I presume is another limited partnership owned by the redeveloper. These should have no impact on the project or already approved perks.

Weather permitting and the outside elevator working I plan to attend this meeting. However today is Saturday and who knows.

5 comments:

  1. DOC THE TAXPAYERS ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR A PIO NAKING 90,000 NOW THEY ARE ADDING ANOTHER 60,000 FORTHE SAME TITLE COME ON DOC.

    LISA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liza, I am confused as to "A Pio NANKING", Do you mean Pennoni Associates, the engineering consultants? I would presume although I do not have the records that their work on the Rushmore concession stand and the Seidler Field lights were authorized in 2016 by the Council. Ever since years ago the city fired the in house engineer this has been a lucrative forget pay for play patronage item.If you have more info to clarify please advise.

      Delete
    2. What Lisa is trying to communicate is that the city is now paying Jacynth Clayton-Hunt roughly $90,000 as PIO and is now proposing $60,000 in UEZ funds for Tara Dowdell Group for marketing, rebranding, and promotion of the City of Plainfield. This is the same woman who mediated Mayor Mapp's December townhall titled "A Critical Conversation - Questions for a Changing America". Money well spent?

      Delete
  2. No Public Information Officer that the city have who used to siting the PMUA now she works for the Mapp administration. They do not need a consultant making 60,000 the
    consultant is doing the same job that the Public information Officer is doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope someone questions tghis tonight.

      Delete