MONDAY AT NOON

After a pleasant quiet weekend, a Sunday visit by my son and daughter-in-law, and having been spared the agony of having to watch the Mets’ bullpen’s debacle I was not in the mood to blog for this am.

However there is a Council meeting tonight and although everything on the agenda was determined last Monday there are several actions that will be watched tonight.

One is of course R 280-15: Resolution Authorizing the Assignment of the Lease of Dudley House from Sunrise House Foundation, Inc. to American Addiction Centers, Inc.

Is there a lease to be assigned? The background material on provides the original lease which expired 12/31/14. There is a provision for four five year extensions but no documentation has been presented to show that the option was exercised. If it has not been legally done, the resolution is mute.

Has Administration been derelict in its duty? Or, sloppy in information provided to Council and public as in the Motor Manager Ordinance?

The other factor is the PILOT Ordinance for the South Ave project which did not receive a sufficient yes votes to be included. If the members of the Council who voted against it or abstained do not provide adequate explanation other than BS about not having knowledge about the project or having been kept out of the loop! Do not vote to reconsider the PILOT tonight the only conclusion I can have is that this Counicl’s interest is self-serving by hampering the Administration.

JULIAN BOND

With the passing of Julian Bond at too young an age the world and this country has lost a truly remarkable man and leader in  racial relation' We all mourn this man of substance.

It is too bad that he or Colin Powell was not the first African-American President. The road would be smoother for the next one.

QUICKY

It is the Ordinance vacating the portion of Old South Ave that remained on the agenda due to the fact that public hearing had been  advertised, not the Motor Manager. Council has stated that they would table it.

Rather than doing so, the Council should reconsider the PILOT Ordinance unless their is legitimate questions about its terms which they might have read since Monday. The BS about not having been informed or not being in the loop in the negotiations only makes those Council members look foolish and/or stupid. It is time that this Council should do its fiduciary charge and work for the betterment  of Plainfield, not play party politics.

90000.00 more dollars in four  resolutions for ' Litigation Counsels" has been added. What is our legal budget, and costs for lawyers and paid claims this year and actual in 2014?

The transfer of the Dudley House lease has too many pages as attachments to study at this time. Unfortunately it is presented  sideways and I will have to rotate the pages after downloading to review.  I do not think that I will be able to go to the Library in time to review the  material. 

ABOUT THOSE REJECTIONS

Friday evening the Agenda for next Monday’s Council meeting will be made available for the public. The Councilors will have their packet to “study” over the weekend for the meeting. Missing will be the Resolution funding the Trainee 911 workers.

Also missing will be the Ordinances dealing with the South Ave. Redevelopment Project and the 25 pages of information which was in the Agenda Setting Session Budget.

Perhaps the “uninformed” Councilors will have read the PILOT agreement by now and by a 2/3 vote reintroduce the two Ordinances as new and vote on them Monday night. After all the only honest objection the negativist could have is the terms of the PILOT, not the concept has been new since they have already approved the need for redevelopment, had have an opportunity to learn about it at a public meeting; and should know that the Planning Board at present has under consideration for approval the developers plans.

The “Motor Manager Ordinances (2)” must be on the agenda since it was subject of a legal ad. The Councilors had announced that they will vote to table it.

Although the support material was not in this month’s packet by virtue of documentation now on the city site it had been available in February when the plan was previously introduced.

If although it does not seem possible as Public Safety Director Reiley wrote; 40% of a Police Lieutenant and 35% of a Fire Lieutenant daily time is spent on motor vehicle management then this plan makes sense since that is a waste of the services of a needed professional officer. In both cases this is not part of their job description.

The city has a roster OF 327 vehicles of various types including 232 in the Police division; plus 10 military Humvees. The centralization of their maintenance and use makes economic sense. However if it means an increase in the number of employees it does not fly. More info is needed.

Just as in the rejection of the resolution on the funding of 911 trainees, the Councilors objections to the Motor Manager seemed to have been based not on the merits of the proposal but rather on job patronage; “my guys not yours”.

There are probationary operators on the 911 board who after a year will must be considered for a full time position after passing a civil service exam. As local citizens they would have priority over outsider who may have scored way better on the exam and would be better qualified. The impression was that those individuals felt that their jobs were in jeopardy if they were replaced by new trainees.

Not taken into consideration was that at present there are two Police officers assigned to 911 duty who could be on the street.

Council should revisit all three that they rejected, and make an honest decision based on our city’s needs not partyism. Good redevelopment is a must; competent 911 operators could be the difference between life and death.

ABOUT COUNCIL ACTION

Despite Council President Rivers’ rebuttal to my query if political motivation was influencing some of the Council’s decisions there were several possible decisions  at the Agenda session that would give on to consider that may be so. Ever since Mayor Mapp had assumed office it has become obvious that there is a majority of Councilors who too often give lip service to Administration proposals but do not support them.

Of the rejected three Administration proposed projects; a resolution creating a training program essentially for 911 operators, an Ordinance creating the position of Motors Manager; and a PILOT program for a South Ave. development the first two will be subject for a follow up blog.

Gloria Taylor complained that she and the Council had been left out of the loop in the discussions on the South Ave upscale apartment project.

Diane Tolliver claimed no one had told the Council about the PILOT or any tax abatement saying if she knew about it, she wouldn't be "sitting up here looking stupid.".

Although this time the support material for the resolutions and ordinances up for discussion on the agenda was not available on line, since they were included in the material available to the public at the meeting and I presumed at the Library; I am sure that all of the Councilors received them by last Friday.

Their packet is extremely large and often at least one Councilor has been suspected of not studying the material for the meeting. However none of those who raised objections as not being informed have never been so tainted. Yet if the material had been read the charge of being bushwacked is ridiculous.

If the objections had been on the length of the PILOT I would have no quarrel with the Councilors who were against the Ordinance. Perhaps better terms for the city that the developer would still find acceptable could be negotiated.

To raise an objection that they were not included in the process is facetious; it is not the Council’s prerogative to do the Administration’s charge of developing projects for the city.

The Council must review and if there is no question approve what is proposed, not create. It can and should recommend changes.

In this instance to claim no knowledge is ‘Clintonese” since the project has been on the table for over a year beginning with a presentation by the developer at which some of the Council were present. The Council had approved in2014 of a redevelopment study for that area. There is only one newcomer on the Council today.  

There was a Planning Board meeting the past Thursday in which the agenda listed a presentation for the redevelopment and the next one it is most likely that approval will be given. I failed to notice those concerned objecting Councilors there.

Realistically tax abatements in today’s economic atmosphere are a necessity for upgraded redevelopment. It is the type and terms that are important. 100% tax is unrealistic; reduced tax rate is one possibility but for communities in NJ where a PILOT income goes only to the community and not part to the school system and part to the county is the best solution.

PILOTs were mostly designed for commercial developments rather than residential although both have been the recipients. Plainfield will not be attractive to a commercial or manufacturing development, and must rely on upgraded residential apartments to stay competitive with neighboring communities, or become a slum city.

Plainfield has fallen behind Fanwood, Garwood, and Cranford in the east in adapting to the trend of renters not home buyers among the young generation.

Yes, in view of the past 18 months frequent Council rejection of the Administration’s plans, and the lack of cogent reasoning for any of the Council’s negativism Monday I am forced to conclude that politics played a major role. The public be dammed.

A SHORT PRELIMINARY BLOG

Six Councilors attended the Agenda Setting Session, and slightly more than a baker's dozen were in the audience. Non the less the meeting was full of fireworks which will take another  later Tuesday blog to discuss since the hour is late, and I have an appointment Tuesday morning.

As expected the proposed Ordinance creating a Motor Vehicle manager was again  rejected. In  due respect to the Council the Administration did not provide adequate documentation why this would be economically in the best interests of the city.

The big discussion was about an Ordinance which in effect  granted the proposed Developers of the South Ave. project a 30 year PILOT program.
By a vote of 3:2 with Councilor Brown abstaining this too was defeated. This will be the focus of my blog late Tuesday or Wednesday.