Here's a thought for Plainfield's City Council as it wrestles with the surprise $287,000 in 'outfitting' costs for the new Senior Center. Bifurcate it!
At the risk of rousing the Grammar Grouch, I use the word for a second time in recent weeks -- but only because it fits what needs to happen -- splitting the issue.
The Robinson-Briggs administration is proposing (in the now-infamous Resolution 138-10) that the Council authorize the amount for the 'purchase' of the Senior Center condo unit.
The Council balked, with reason, because the contents of the resolution were not expected and caught them by surprise.
But there is a better reason: The developer's agreement (see discussion here) simply says the mortgage holder is to execute a WRITTEN RELEASE OF THE SENIOR CENTER in recordable form' (page 9, emphasis mine). As I said at the time, this would seem to indicate the Senior Center is the City's (with the possibility of having to cough up a dollar.)
Here's my suggestion to the Council (though Corporation Counsel is sure to resist); Don't mix apples and oranges.
Require Dornoch/Fishman/P&F to execute a deed of the Senior Center unit to the City for $1, as promised. That settles issue number 1.
Secondly, let Dornoch/Fishman/P&F submit a separate bill for the 'outfitting' work to the City. That sets the stage for settling issue number 2, allowing the Council to get down to the nitty-gritty on who knew what and when and why the Council was kept in the dark (see more here).
If the City ultimately refuses to pay, the developer has recourse to a tool that all the real-estate savvy Council members are well-aware of: They can slap a 'mechanic's lien' on the property.
That will ensure that if the City ever tries to sell the property without satisfying the lien (unlikely as it ever would be), the developer will be paid at the closing of such a deal.
That way, the Council could separate issues 1 and 2, and work out a resolution of the 'outfitting' charges in its own good time.
It's time for the Council to forcefully say to the Robinson-Briggs administration, 'Fork it'!
- Plainfield Today --
- 4/13/2010: "Council not happy with Senior Center bait-and-switch"
- 4/29/2010: "$287,000 surprise: Who knew what, when?"
-- Dan Damon [follow]
Posts
7 comments:
Dan: I don't see the resolution on tonight's agenda. Since it was tabled at the last business meeting there is a question of parliamentary procedure. If the Council doesn't bring the tabled resolution up tonight, doesn't it die?
an intriguing way to approach the subject to say the least!
I still don't see why we're not getting rid of this mayor and her "Surprises." I wonder how much she gets for such things. She has met our worst expectations and enough is enough.
Yes, fork it, or here, whatever will give the best result.
Recently I posted a blog on "tabling" motions. Although I believe that despite discussion about haveing information from Admin istration prior to tonight's meeting the tabling motion was open ended-no date set.Such a motion does not 'kill" the resolution and it can be moved to be considered at any subsequent meeting. If the motion is "to postpone (table is incorrect) indefinitely" then in essence the resolution is killed without a vote. (Sturgis)
Why should the taxpayers pay anything? Where is the agreement for these extras?
Taxpayers you all need to wake up and VOTE OUT the Green team,and the members who support the spend now and figure out how to make the Plainfield Taxpayers pay in the future with high taxes . Did anyone ever notice how many City Hall employees dont live in Plainfield? They spend our money abuse the rules and go home using Plainfield gas,and some with Plainfield cars to their towns with their pockets full!
Dan,
Excellent idea. We need to see the exact agreements and numbers for both "phases" of the project. We need to know the contractual basis for the $287K phase and who signed off on it. This seems to be straightforward to me: Why can't the mayor and her associates deal with it in such a manner? If someone in the administration exceeded their authority, that person should suffer the consequences, not the taxpayers of Plainfield. Let's hope that we see this issue resolved at a city council meeting and not just swept under the table (where no doubt a shredder is conveniently located).
Post a Comment