Thursday, June 18, 2015
COUNCIL MEETING #4; OTHER RESOLUTIONS
Two other resolutions on the agenda initiated discussion among the Council members and as well as a few public comments.
The first one was strongly championed by Carlos Ponton a member of PACHA who followed his remarks in English with a Spanish translation.
The Resolution does not provide for the actual mechanism of providing the desired service or even authorizes it; as stated it is only an acknowledgement of a request. The resolve: “the Plainfield Advisory Commission on Hispanic Affairs (PACHA) strongly requests that the City Council provide a certified and qualified translator at all City Council meetings.”
The near 50% Hispanic population, with a substantial majority not understanding or being comfortable with English, should be so accommodated. There has to be a study on how it would be best to implement such services at Council and perhaps other important “Board” meetings without unduly prolonging the meeting. Cost factors as well as equipment needs must be determined.
Since there is no provision in the 2015 Budget, the earliest it could be implemented is next year. I would suggest that there be a joint commission of the Administration and the Council to conduct the study and bring in a viable recommendation.
The other resolution was the awarding a Demolition Contract to the Yanuzzi Group of Kinnnelon NJ to remove the debris at 117-25 North Ave. During the Public Comment period two local contractors, Oliver Brown and Rufus Young, who do demolition work complained about such contracts being awarded to outside firms taking work away from Plainfielders.
Taylor during her “nonpolitical” monologue regarding the Bilingual Day Care Center also decried the administration’s out-sourcing work that should be awarded to Plainfielders. When the Resolution was up for action; she made a motion to table it. Corporation Counsel remarked that the contracts had been awarded by the due processes prescribed by law and to cancel such a contract would most likely result in legal action against the city.
Since the job and specifics had been legally advertised for bids, the two local contractors had the opportunity to submit a low bid.
During the discussion Councilor Tolliver remarked that the hazard of the debris had been there too long and there should be not another delay. As to the question of additional charges during the removal for problems with the basement floor, Watson reminded that all that was request was removal and disposal of the debris with back-filling of the land.
Common sense final triumphed and the resolution was passed unanimously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not understanding why the translation cannot be filled by a member of the community or even someone from PACHA. Obviously, an organization who is concerned with baised translation would provide an indiviudual who is unbiased in order to maintain their image.
ReplyDeleteThere may be a large population of latinos in Plainfield (40% -- which by the way is a census percentage spread across different race groups) but what percentage of that population are adults who do not speak English? It certainly isnt 40%. That 40% number also includes children under the age of 18 (probably 1/3) who will not benefit from this type of service. So what is the actual percentage of the adult population that will benefit? 10% maybe? Based on that same census -- that would amount to about 5,000 adults.
So it is important to determine what percentage of the population this really benefits from this in relation to the cost that is required to hire professionals and any required technology.
Additional charges for the removal of the basement floor? Where does that go? The original project only required only that the building be demolished to sidewalk grade, and the debris removed, The current specifications enlarged the scope of work. The current specifications require that the foundation walls and footings be removed to 3 feet below the sidewalk elevation. The specifications further require that the 1st floor slab, if it exists, be broken into 1 square foot sections. For reasons that are not clear the engineer further requires that the CELLAR SLAB be likewise broken into 1 square foot pieces. How do you do this short of removing the entire demolished fill material between the cellar slab and the sidewalk elevation. It is unclear as to why this requirement was inserted. What is clear is that if this contingent work is not included in the bid price the additional cost could escalate dramatically. Beyond that, the specifications require that all the utility lines inside the building be cleaned and then filled with grout. How this work can be performed on small diameter water and gas lines poses a challenge and substantial cost if the specifications are enforced. My question is is simple: What is the scope of work defined under the contract which was awarded? Did Yannuzzi take exception to the specification requirements? Why is it necessary to break up the cellar slab? Why is it necessary to clean and grout the utility lines rather that merely capping them? Who will ultimately make the decision as whether or not to probe for the cellar slab, or abandon the attempt? If the decision is made to grout the utility lines and break the cellar slab how much will it cost? If Yannuzzi took exception to the scope of work as defined in the bid documents where is the fairness to the third bidder, whose higher price suggests that he intended to perform the work as specified. Who, if anyone, reviewed and approved the cope of wok specified by Remington and Vernick, the engineers, prior to the bid.?
ReplyDeleteGood point. None of the above specified in the data supplied for this resolution. May be part of the contract with Yates which I must look up. Under the circumstances it seems that the Two Brothers bid compared to the other two was like bidding on oranges instead of apples. There is a $145K difference in line 2 Completion of demolition etc .
DeleteAs I wrote in Bernice's blog, the BOE has the equipment. We used it at our meetings. The last few meetings I attended it wasn't used as no Hispanics attended. I suggest rather than spending money on a study, reach out to them, possibly even share the equipment.
ReplyDeleteI agree; the BOE belongs to the people in Plainfield and its assets should be available for use in the public interests. It should not consider itself a world unto its own.
Delete