Will attack on preschool funding come to haunt Plainfield?

As a former Abbott District, Plainfield schools are mandated and funded for full-day free preschool.

Plainfielders may well be concerned about how the funding of the mandated preschools for the group of schools formerly known as the Abbott Districts will play out, what impact that will have locally, and whether the City may have to pony up for a $7M bond the Mayor supported without Council approval.

The Star-Ledger sounded the alarm in a February 1 editorial (see here) after Senate Republican surface a plan to cut preschool funding by $300 million (see here) and shift the monies to suburban schools.

A few days ago, my February NJ Monthly arrived and, lo and behold, there was a long article on the successes of NJ's preschool programs -- viewed as a national model -- and the dark clouds on the horizon raised by funding issues (the article is viewable online here).

As the Ledger editorializes, it WOULD BE CRAZY to cut back a program whose success at eroding the differences between outcomes for poorer and better-off kids is measurable.

The funding cuts Republicans are looking at (Christie has foxily avoided comment) would mean reducing preschool in the former Abbott Districts (including Plainfield) to half-day programs.

The hardship on parents would be horrendous. The loss of the gains already seen would be inevitable.

But there is YET ONE MORE POTENTIAL OUTCOME FOR PLAINFIELD that is troubling.

The $7M UCIA bond funded the construction of a handsome new center for the BUF program.

Back in 2007, I discovered that Mayor Robinson-Briggs had written a letter to the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA) in support of a $7 million bond to build an additional new center for BUF's preschool programs at West 6th Street and Grant Avenue (see here).

This was after discovering that the required legal notice for the bond was run by the UCIA, curiously, in the Westfield Leader (see here), rather than the more widely read Star-Ledger. Could it have had anything to do with the fact that it would be far less noticed in the Leader? And less likely to raise eyebrows?

Upon further questioning, I wondered aloud if the City might be left on the hook should BUF ever default on the bonds (see here). At their September 27, 2007 meeting, the Freeholders were told by the County Counsel that, in fact, Plainfield MIGHT BE ON THE HOOK FOR THE BOND, but that the County certainly wasn't.

I was later told that the Mayor's letter alone could not bind the City, since she had failed to secure the Council's endorsement of the project by a resolution of support.

If the funding is cut and the local Plainfield preschool centers (see list 2010 list here; evidently not updated by Board of Ed yet) are forced to cut back to half days, the question of BUF's viability comes to front and center.

The Plainfield BUF, whose finances have been shaky for years, and is now totally on its own and not part of the larger BUF network, would be faced with an unrelenting bond payment schedule, despite falling financial resources.

Would the City of Plainfield -- meaning you-know-who, dear taxpayers -- be obligated for the bonds on the basis of the Mayor's letter of support?

We may yet get to find out.

---

• NJ Monthly, Feb/2011:  "Pre-K at budget crossroads"
  
• Ledger --
• 1/29/11:  "Proposal would shift money to suburban schools by cutting preschool hours"
  
• 2/01/11:  "Editorial: Class warfare on urban preschools"
  
• Plainfield Today --
• 9/19/07:  "Mayor pledges support for $7M UCIA bond for BUF"
• 9/28/07:  "$7M BUF bond may leave city on the hook"
• 2/03/09:  "No light at end of tunnel?"
• Scribd, 9/2007:  "Legal notice for UCIA bond to expand BUF preschool"
  
• CountyWatchers:  "How UCIA bonds work"
• Board of Ed:  "2009-10 Early Childhood Providers" | "Early Childhood Program Info"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Update on Dornoch/Monarch issues

News of the Plainfield Senior Center/Monarch condos developer Glen Fishman's woes in Rahway (see here and here), led me to check up on outstanding issues with the project at 400 East Front Street.

Fishman, who is reckoned to have invested $9 million in buying up numerous downtown Rahway properties, made an unusual appearance at Rahway's redevelopment agency's January 5th meeting.

He took the opportunity to update them on his Rahway projects and the news was mixed (renting his retail spaces) to bad (the Savoy development). One item that caught my eye was his reported statement that 'condos can't be built when they're selling for $150,000 a unit' -- which I was arguing was a more likely market-rate figure for Plainfield's Monarch units nearly two years ago.

This past December, I went over the outstanding issues (see here): a parking plan, the 'roof garden', the Veteran's Center and the rooftop solar panels.

Aerial view, December 2010. Neither solar panels nor rooftop landscaping.

As of today, though the City has halted towing of cars from the covered parking area, a parking plan has not been worked out with the Planning Board.

The 'roof garden' seems to be the subject of a 'bait-and-switch' maneuver by Fishman/Dornoch/P&F Management.

It seems that despite the promotion to the Planning Board and the community, the actual construction of the roof deck will not permit the weight loads needed for the originally proposed landscaping. The resolution has been for Fishman/Dornoch/P&F Management to propose seasonal planters and outdoor furniture, which is to be stored in the Senior Center basement (presuming the Director agrees?). Can you say 'tacky'?

The Veteran's Center would require an agreement to cancel or void a provision of the developer's agreement that provides the space is to remain a sales space for the condos until the units are sold off. Despite the efforts of local real estate powerhouses ERA Reed Realty and Sleepy Hollow Realtors, fewer than one third of the units have been sold and closed and an even smaller percentage is actually occupied (leading one to conclude there are speculators buying units for rental).

Lastly, the rooftop solar panels (see Section 7. (a)(viii)).

From the developer's agreement, the solar panel section.

The Robinson-Briggs administration simply ignores any discussion of this provision in the developer's agreement.

What's with that?

Has Fishman/Dornoch/P&F begged off? If so, to whom? The Planning Board? The Robinson-Briggs administration? To Ms. DeFilippo and the Union County Improvement Authority?

As usual, we are still left with unresolved questions.

---

• Rahway Rising --
• "Dornoch 'dead in the water' on The Savoy"
• "Dornoch updates agency on retail properties"
  
• Plainfield Today: "Senior Center: More on developer's to-do list" | All coverage here.
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Despite questions, Council approves solar panel scheme

After looking the UCIA's solar panel 'gift horse' in the mouth by seeking answers to many questions, Plainfield's City Council last night unanimously approved Plainfield's participation in the UCIA's renewable energy initiative.

Two representatives sent by the UCIA (I could not hear their names, and only one of them's connection -- the Birdsall Service Group, engineering consultants; despite improvements, the miking at Council meetings remains execrable, IMHO) attempted to answer the Council's questions.

They spent a lot of time explaining that a lot of the questions couldn't be answered because the answers depended on how many 'entities' (local governments, boards of ed, and other governmental agencies) eventually sign on to the proposal. That included what final power costs would be to participants and what the percentage of savings would be.

A little last minute squeeze was applied by noting that the UCIA was facing a deadline on submitting its finalized proposal to the Local Finance Board in Trenton.

No knock against the young woman and young man, but the entire process to date has shown just how shabby the UCIA's management style is. The attitude seems to be, 'if we propose it, they will sign up' -- without a real care to explaining the project in a detailed and convincing manner (for some of the issues I raised previously, see here). No wonder Cranford, Berkeley Heights and Summit had questions about the program.

In contrast, Councilor Burney held up a sheaf of pages printed out from the Somerset County Improvement Authority's website which has detailed information on that county's solar panel initiative (see here). Compare that with the UCIA's website offering (see here), where there is a link to a form letter dated 'January 2010' and simply addressed 'Dear Municipal Official'. If that went to the Mayor's office, one has to wonder if it was ever passed along.

It was emphasized there was no risk to the city, and that the bonds were being guaranteed by the County (which, indirectly, means that the city and all the other communities in the county ARE on the hook).

Last night was also the first time I heard a) that the commitment is for FIFTEEN YEARS, and b) that the UCIA had conducted INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS for prospective participants. It didn't seem the Council had been aware of this either.

I simply cannot understand why, if communities whose participation was desired didn't show up for the 'informational meetings', the UCIA didn't have a flying squad charged with rounding up those outliers -- including making on-site presentations to the governing bodies as needed, and in a timely fashion.

Perhaps it's because this is Union County, and responsible bodies are just supposed to line up and do as they're told. Hmmmm.

Subsequent probing by Council members turned up two other interesting answers --

• The vendors' identities are not yet known, and
  
  
• The UCIA '[doesn't] have to go with the lowest bidder'.

This is, after all, Union County. Hmmmm.

---

• Plainfield Today:  "UCIA Solar Panel Plan: A gift horse to be looked over carefully"
• Somerset County Improvement Authority:  "Solar Developer RFP"
• Union County Improvement Authority:  "Renewable Energy Initiative"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

UCIA Solar Panel Plan: A gift horse to be looked over carefully

A gift horse that should be looked over carefully.

As Plainfield's City Council continues to look into the proposal to join with other Union County communities in the Union County Improvement Authority's solar panel scheme, it seems to me there are serious questions that need to be answered before the governing body can give its assent.

Despite the proverbial advice to 'never look a gift horse in the mouth', Plainfielders have learned from hard experience when dealing with the UCIA to heed the proverb at their peril.

The only thing I can find online is the UCIA's glossy pitch brochure (see here, PDF). I am not surprised that trying to float a $45 million bond issue with such thin information would cause questions to be raised.

This is the extent of the UCIA's description of the project's inter-relationships.

Everyone agrees going green is good. No one wants to be seen to be dragging their feet, and solar panels are the currently hot topic.

However, those are exactly the conditions under which well-meaning but relatively uninformed decision-makers can be scammed.

Already, Cranford (see here) and Berkeley Heights (see here) have put the brakes on participation, seeking answers to several questions. The two towns have now been joined by Summit (see here), which also thinks the program bears more investigation.

Here are some questions I think need satisfactory answers if Plainfield is to sign on --

DEFAULT SCENARIO

Private companies are to receive the bond funds to purchase, install and operate the solar panels. Setting aside the question of how these companies are selected (this is, after all, Union County), it is important for towns to know if they will be on the hook IF THE PRIVATE OPERATORS DEFAULT ON THE BONDS. Who then would be left on the hook? The municipalities? How much of the long-term risk of the project should a municipality be willing to assume?

PRICING

The private entity is supposed to own the panel installation and sell the electricity generated to the municipality or other entity, at a markup that includes servicing the bond debt and a guaranteed profit to the private firm. As prices are alway in flux and the public utilities are also working on 'greening' their technologies, what guarantee do the municipalities get that prices they must pay for the power they are generating will ALWAYS BE LOWER THAN THOSE OF UTILITY COMPANIES SUCH AS PSE&G?

MAINTENANCE

Who is responsible for maintenance over the long haul -- and not only of the panels, but of the underlying building fabric which may suffer deterioration as a result of the panels' installation? This is a question that should be settled now, rather than after an incident arises.

PROFITS

Is there some structuring of the financial aspects that provides a process for the municipality to participate in the profits of the venture over the long haul? Are the bonds structured so that the debt is amortized in addition to the interest being paid or will there be some 'balloon' payment down the road? If the private firm's liability for the bond principal declines over time as it is amortized, will the price structure change?

TERM

At what point, if ever, would the asset revert to the municipality? At what point could the whole deal be renegotiated? Forever is a very long time, and great care should be taken before entering a 'forever' agreement.

As Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene point out in a column in this month's GOVERNING magazine (see here) -- local governments are prone, on the one hand, to accept overly optimistic assessments of a project's costs and timelines, and on the other hand, to be disadvantaged by having less sharp negotiating skills.

They point to a study by William Eggers, Partnering for Value (see here, with link to PDF file), which outlines issues for local governments in public-private partnerships and what local government officials can do to improve their game.

Maybe the Council should even consider appointing a citizens committee to look into the matter and make recommendations.

At any rate, let's hope Plainfield's City Council looks this nag over pretty closely before deciding to buy.

---

• UCIA:  "Renewable Energy in Union County" (PDF)
• Ledger --
• Cranford, 7/19/10:  "With questions lingering, Cranford holds off on UCIA initiative"
• Berkeley Heights, 7/29/10:  "Township says no thank's to county's solar program"
• Summit, 8/11/10:  "Summit council questions county solar panel proposal"
• Governing:  "Partnering Up: The devil is in the details"
• William Eggers:  "Partnering for Value" (PDF)
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

A curious coincidence in 'Coffin Caper'? What Dan saw on South Avenue

Coffin spotted on Park Avenue (Courtesy of Maria Pellum).

Intrepid Plainfield bloggers Maria Pellum (see here) and Bernice Paglia (see here) wrote about the coffin pictured above, which was seen in front of a Park Avenue business yesterday.

Turns out it was a union informational protest over work being done at 1225 South Avenue, which is to be the new home of the Central Jersey Arts Charter School.

I have been following the story of the school's move from its Watchung Avenue digs to the new and much more spacious former ARC building on South Avenue.

Last week, on a trip to the Times Market, I spotted a red 'stop work order' sign on the front window and stopped to check it out.

Posted inside the building's front door were a Demolition Permit dated 6/18/10 and an Asbestos Stop Work Order dated 7/22/10.

Demolition permit dated 6/18/2010
(converted to black/white to enhance contrast)

Asbestos Stop Work order dated 7/22/2010.

Photo of doorway, showing permit, stop work order.

I am curious as to how this squares with the contractor's protestations as reported by Bernice (see here) --

...[a]lerted to the protest, Global Safety General Manager Mark Jovic said, "They're trying to slander my name."

...Jovic surmised that the union, which alleged that his company was not in compliance with state regulations, was trying to force him to take on union workers. But he said of a dozen bidders on the job, not one union company applied.

Jovic said he fully complied with all state and local regulations and had received no violations. He began the job when the building had a private owner, he said, but upon finding out it had changed hands and was going to house a school, stopped work to regroup and meet stricter regulations that apply to schools.

"We did everything by the book," he said...

If everything was 'done by the book', why the Asbestos Stop Work Order?

Could there be more to this than meets the eye?

---

• Maria's Blog: "As seen on the streets of Plainfield..."
• Plaintalker II:  "Union protest raises eyebrows"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Council not happy with Senior Center bait-and-switch

Senior Center, under construction.

Hey, Plainfielders! The next time Jerry Green tells you something 'won't cost the taxpayers a dime', grab your wallet or purse and run, RUN, RUN in the opposite direction as fast as your little feet will take you.

If you don't, you're likely to find yourself subject of a bait-and-switch ploy.

A resolution (R-138-10) quietly slipped into last night's Council agenda provoked questions by the public that led to a Council discussion that ended with the resolution tabled pending answers to a number of questions.

Dr. Harold Yood (known affectionately to all as the blogger 'Olddoc') was the first to speak when the public comments section was opened up, and he zeroed in on the resolution, which was to authorize the mayor to execute an agreement with Dornoch Plainfield, LLC, for the PURCHASE of 400 East Front Street, Unit 101 for use as a Senior Citizen Center and Unit 102 for use as a Veterans Center.

Jim Pivnichny, Republican candidate for mayor last year, seconded Dr. Yood's questions.

Yood, Pivnichny and I all recalled that the Senior Center was supposed to be 'free' (Assemblyman Green's word) -- well, alright, it was to cost $1. That is the same amount for which the property was conveyed by the City to the UCIA and thence to the developer.

Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson agreed, but noted that that was for a 'plain vanilla box' and that the dollar amount involved here -- $257,000 -- was for work done to outfit the space for its actual uses.

This provoked a long discussion between Council members Mapp, McWilliams and Storch and the Administration over the expenditures, how they were decided upon, why they were so high, and whether or not there were other shoes to drop in this matter.

When Councilor McWilliams protested that the matter was being presented 'undiscussed' and that there was no money to pay for this, I thought I heard Mr. Williamson say it could be taken out of the bond ordinance for $4.4M which had been adopted just moments before.

Councilor Mapp stated in no uncertain terms that that was not permissible.

Councilor Storch moved to table the resolution. Having a second, Council President tried to bring the matter to a vote when Councilor Reid objected that he had a question. McWilliams explained that a motion to table is privileged, stops all discussion, and must be voted up or down before the meeting can move forward.

The Council voted 5-1 to table the motion (Reid voted no, Councilor Burney was absent).

I have two really big questions about this whole mess --

First, how could the Administration authorize work to be done to the tune of $257,000 without first coming to the Council for authorization to spend the monies?

Who authorized the work to be done? By whom was the work done? Were the state's public bidding laws violated in having the work done? Why was nothing ever presented to the Council before this? And why wasn't the matter on last week's agenda-setting session?

This reminds me of the extra-legal goings-on under Mayor Robinson-Briggs' first city administrator, who spent over $100,000 without Council approval. He left under a cloud.

Second, I question the reference to a PURCHASE of the Senior Center and Veterans Center units.

In the Developer's Agreement (see link at end of post), Section 9 (b) says that 'upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Senior Citizens Center, ANY HOLDER OF A MORTGAGE OR OTHER ENCUMBRANCE OR LIEN UPON THE PROPERTY in accordance with this Agreement shall execute a WRITTEN RELEASE OF THE SENIOR CENTER in recordable form' (page 9, emphasis mine). This would seem to indicate the Senior Center is the City's, period. Alright, maybe we'll have to cough up a dollar.

As for the Veterans Center, the Developer's Agreement addresses this issue in two places: Section 7. (a) (iii) says the veterans area shall be used as a sales model until all units are sold (page 4), and Section 8. (b), which provides that upon sale of ALL the condo units, the developer shall convey 'a fee simple interest' in the Veterans Center to the City for $1 (page 8).

If anything, the Administration has either got it wrong or is being disingenuous.

Since the Developer's Agreement is between the UCIA and the developer, what standing does the City have to modify any of the terms of the Agreement?

The Council is perfectly right to demand answers to the questions that have been raised before they do anything along the lines proposed by the Robinson-Briggs Administration.

NOTE ABOUT VIEWING THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT:

The upside-down issue came from the way Staples did the scan.

Here's the fix --

Click on the document window and make sure it is loaded.

Right-click on the document and select 'Rotate clockwise'; this will make a quarter-turn of the document. Do it again and the document will be right-side up and easy to read.

If you're left-handed, you can rotate counterclockwise, as long as you do it twice.

Note however, that if you revisit the document in the future you will have to rotate it again.

---

• Plainfield Today: "Monarch Condo documents: Developer's Agreement"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Park Avenue subsidence: Reminder of unfinished UCIA checklist

Park Avenue begins to subside after UCIA fails to rebuild street.

Plainfield's Park Avenue between Front and Second Streets is sinking. Again.

The UCIA was supposed to reconstruct the street as part of the Park-Madison project which included constructing the new County office building, parking deck and retail buildings along West Front Street.

Emergency repairs had been done in the first term of the late Mayor Al McWilliams using some available funds. But it was acknowledged at the time that the repairs were temporary and not permanent, owing to the limited funds; only making Park Avenue safe to use until the street would subside again at some future point.

Where does the problem come from?

Back in the early 1960s, as part of the 'urban renewal' program that saw the shops, theaters and churches of the Park-Madison block razed, the awkward dog-leg intersections of Park Avenue and Front and Somerset Streets was reconfigured to remove the need for traffic-clogging double red lights.

At the time, the buildings were simply knocked down and the rubble bulldozed level and covered with fill. For years, the vacant lot was used primarily as a municipal parking lot. Under Mayor Harold Mitchell, the site was spiffed up with landscaping, a gazebo and benches, giving it a park-like air which lasted until the UCIA project.

All the while, the rubble on which the 'new' Park Avenue section was built continued to shift as air pockets collapsed, eventually leading to the emergency precipitating the stopgap repair measures.

This vintage photo shows the dog-leg intersection at Park and Front.

As Plainfield Today pointed out in a series of three previous stories (see links at bottom of this post), reconstruction of the roadbed by the UCIA was one of several checklist items from the Park-Madison development that remain uncompleted.

Here is the list (items that have since been completed are identified by text with a strikethrough) --

• Park Avenue Reconstruction -- Not even begun, though the City already paid for it.
• Relocation of the Park Jewelers Clock to the Plaza -- This is the famous clock from 'A Tree Grows in Brooklyn'.
• Plaza Repairs (NOTE: Some have been made, but this is an ongoing problem) -- The decorative fake brick oval surrounding the center of the Plaza is ALREADY cracked in many places.
• Streetscape -- There is a dispute over the failure to plant the Liberty Elms originally specified.
• Use of the Plaza -- Who will issue permits for events on the Plaza, the City or the County?
• Parking Meters -- The City was supposed to gather revenue from meters in the parking lot; none installed.
• Parking Deck -- Citizen parking in deck on evenings, weekends is supposed to be allowed.
• Dumpsters -- Screening dumpsters from public view has not been implemented.

Of the eight items, only two (minor ones at that) have been addressed.

Also note that there are questions about whether the project is still functioning under a 'temporary' Certificate of Compliance, and whether Plainfield is getting shafted on the formulation for the annual PILOT payments.

Time for Mayor Robinson-Briggs to revisit the unresolved issues?

Yes, hopefully before a sinkhole swallows up someone driving down Park Avenue.

---

• Plainfield Today --
• October 10, 2006: "The Joy of UCIA (Park-Madison)"
• October 11, 2006: "The Joy of UCIA (Park-Madison: The PILOT)"
• October 13, 2006: "The Joy of UCIA: 13 for the 13th"
  

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Monarch Condos: P&F/Dornoch end run around rentals prohibition?

Monarch sales sign was recently blown over by strong winds.

Notwithstanding Plainfield City Council President Burney's recent announcement that the proposed tax abatement for the Monarch condos is off the table, that does not mean the project may not be in desperate straits.

And, as the old saying goes, extremis malis extrema remedia, or 'desperate times call for desperate measures'.

My curiosity was piqued when city administrator Marc Dashield wrote in answer to a query by Councilor Adrian Mapp (see here) that sales of condo units was 'approximately 13-15 units'.

What's to be 'approximate' about? Either they are sold or they are not, right?

It's not quite that easy.

Actually, there are NO COMPLETED SALES YET, only contracts to buy units.

And, considering that some offers to buy were made as long as SEVEN MONTHS AGO, it is hardly any wonder that some prospective buyers are canceling their contracts so they can get on with their lives.

Faced with potential cancellations, rumors in the real estate community are that those with contracts are being offered 'use and occupancy' (U&O) agreements by P&F/Dornoch in lieu of closed sales. In residential real estate, U&O agreements are sometimes used when a buyer is unable -- but on the verge of being able -- to complete a sales transaction.

Essentially, the buyers are granted 'use and occupancy' of the premises for a stated length of time for a stated amount of money, at the end of which the deal is expected to close.

(The twist here is that it is P&F/Dornoch which is unable to complete the sales transaction -- not enough units are sold, and there is no Certificate of Compliance.)

You can be forgiven for thinking it sounds like RENTING, which is not part of the Developer's Agreement.

Does it happen anyway? Youbetcha. In Rahway, the developer of the Sky View at Carriage Plaza condos simply started renting units in disregard of the development agreement which prohibited same (see here).

But the Monarch situation is complicated not only by the fact that the agreement does not allow rentals, but also that there is NO Certificate of Compliance, which would allow legal occupancy of any units.

Is P&F/Dornoch trying to make an end run around its Developer's Agreement with the UCIA?

Could be.

But in any event, the City is likely to be the last to find out.

---

• Plainfield Today: "Monarch condos: More wrinkles than Dorian Gray"
• Mapping It Out: "Answers to tax abatement questions"
• Rahway Rising: "101 units accounted for at Sky View"
  

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Mapp hits a nerve on missing Monarch documents

Some in Plainfield grouse about Councilor Mapp's style.

I think time would be better spent on the substance of the questions he raises, particularly with regard to the Monarch condos.

(I am NOT talking about the exchange between Mapp and Council President Burney on whether or not an Executive Session last week would have been in violation of the Sunshine Law. For that, you can read Burney here and Mapp here.)

No, I'm talking about the SUBSTANTIVE issues Mapp raised, namely that the Mayor appears to have failed to execute the documents necessary for the whole Monarch project to move forward.

Mapp's bill of particulars runs as follows (see original post here) --

1) Resolution 281-06, adopted on June 21, 2006, that required Mayor Robinson-Briggs to execute an agreement with the UCIA; and

2) Resolution 402-06, adopted on August 23, 2006, amending the original resolution and requiring the Mayor to execute another agreement with the UCIA. The following facts are critical to this discussion:

The Inter-local Service Agreement (ILA) between the City and the UCIA, which was part of Resolution 281-06 that was to be executed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk, was never executed.

Resolution 402-06, which made reference to an ILA dated July 05, 2006, in its first paragraph was flawed because no such properly executed ILA exists;

Resolution 402-06 attempted to amend resolution 281-06 to add the Monarch city-owned site to the sites intended to be controlled by the UCIA, but this amendment, which was required to be executed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk was never executed.

In summary, none of the agreements between the City and the UCIA in its role as the city's redevelopment agency were ever executed.

If these documents cannot be produced, the whole Monarch development project is in a tremendous pickle, all hinging on whether the city actually conveyed the property on which the condos sit to the UCIA. Flowing from that is the issue of the basis for loans by banks to Dornoch Plainfield.

The Council alone, as the corporate body of the City, can alienate (sell) public property. It can only take action through a written document which it formally, publicly approves (in this case a Resolution).

How does anyone know the decision of the Council has been effected? A copy of the resolution, noting the governing body's adoption and date thereof, must be signed by the Secretary to the Governing Body (in this case, the Municipal Clerk) and the Mayor, the city's elected chief executive.

Councilor Mapp is arguing that THESE DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE FOUND and are PRESUMED NOT TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED.

Has he hit a nerve?

I think so.

In checking the site traffic statistics for CLIPS (with a link to Councilor Mapp's blog post) on the day of Mapp's Monarch piece, I noticed a spike. Looking closely, it appears that the number of readers of the Mapp post was 320, approximately FIVE TIMES the number Councilors usually get when CLIPS highlights their posts.

Who could be so interested in this item?

Could it be the principals involved: City officials and legal counsel? the UCIA and its legal counsel? developer Glen Fishman/Dornoch Plainfield and legal counsel? lenders to Fishman/Dornoch?

Somehow, I don't think this is the last we will hear of this matter.

It would be well to pay attention to Mapp's substance and not his style.

---

• Councilor Adrian Mapp: "The Mayor dropped the ball - Part 2"

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Monarch Condo documents: Developer's Agreement; Abatement impact

Having the Monarch condos DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT and TAX ABATEMENT IMPACT available will help Plainfielders better understand the issues at stake in the tax abatement proposal the Council will act on tonight.

Thanks to Councilor Adrian Mapp, I have been able to post the documents online.

Careful scrutiny of the documents will throw some of City Administrator Marc Dashield's assertions into doubt.

1. The Developer's Agreement

The city designated the Union County Improvement Authority its redevelopment agent and sold the parcel on which the new condos and Senior Center stand to the UCIA for $1. The UCIA, in turn, designated Dornoch Plainfield LLC with Glen Fishman as principal as the developer of the project and sold it the property for $1.

The full Developer's Agreement (pages 1-22), plus the legal description of the property (pages 23a-b), and the Administrative Costs Agreement (pages 24-30) are online. They can be read or printed out below (my apologies that it appears upside down, have a help ticket in with the online provider -- you'll have to print it out or, like Olddoc, stand on your head...) --

---

Dornoch-UCIA Agreement

---

2. Estimated Impact of the Tax Abatement proposal

Councilor Mapp has prepared a table estimating the impact to the taxpayers of the proposed 5-year tax abatement plan, which can be viewed or printed out below --

---

Monarch Tax Abatement Worksheet

---

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Mayor Sharon photo opp at new Senior Center today

Plainfield senior citizens will get a first look at their new Senior Center at 11 AM this morning, when Mayor Robinson-Briggs is scheduled to host a ceremony there.

It's a good thing that the Seniors are finally getting their new center, and I certainly hope they enjoy it.

It's a bad thing that it is not what they were promised (size) or need (parking).

It's also a bad thing that it is not 'free' as Assemblyman Green is constantly touting. The city is now a glorified renter in the new building with a 13% share of the operating costs -- in perpetuity. Some 'free'!

This is in contrast to the original plan for the Senior Center, where the City would have owned the building outright and used rents from commercial/professional tenants to pay off the bonds, eventually turning the Center into a load-free asset for the City.

So much for the Assemblyman's 'positive' contribution. (Well, it is maybe, but to the UCIA, and not to the City.)

Jerry also said at a Seniors' meeting back when the project was being discussed that the Dornoch building would be 'just like Cranford Crossing', the condo project which is mere steps from that town's train station, includes a sizable parking deck, and is in an attractive shopping district.

Assemblyman, I know Cranford Crossing. I've been to Cranford Crossing. I've seen the Cranford Crossing shopping district. Assemblyman, this is NO Cranford Crossing.

And this is without taking into account the questionable transfer of the property to the UCIA for $1. (Since this was a 'development' project and not a REDEVELOPMENTproject, word is the property should have been offered to the HIGHEST BIDDER. Certainly it would have fetched more than a measly dollar, no?)

The builder, the politically well-connected Fishman family's Dornoch organization, which can't get it up in Rahway (see ongoing troubles with their Savoy project here), is delivering the goods for Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs. Could it be because there is no mayoral race in Rahway this year?

Despite the fact that with upwards of twenty redevelopment plans on the books and seemingly countless projects being proposed, the fact remains that after three and a half years, Mayor Sharon can boast of only this one project's completion.

But have no fear, somehow I feel a political mailer coming on -- with a smiling Mayor Sharon, in front of the new building, perhaps hugging a worker -- telling us how lucky we are to be Living In The Promised Land Through Unity In The Community.

---

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Was DeFilippo cash to Green a payoff?

Was Jerry Green paid off by Charlotte DeFilippo to the tune of THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS?

Many Plainfielders are intrigued by the question of whether Assemblyman Green has improperly benefitted personally from his relationship with Union County Dem chairperson Charlotte DeFilippo.

Not many people know that Jerry grossed THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS in the sale of a property he owned to the Union County Improvement Authority, of which DeFilippo is the executive director.

The transaction, which took place quietly in 2007, came to mind when I came across the following written by Assemblyman Green in a recent piece he titled 'Real Politics' (see full story here) --

...some elected officials use their power for personal benefit, while real politicians use their influence for community betterment.

A noble sentiment, but I wondered which side of the equation the Assemblyman is on.

Have you been lucky enough to sell any of your multiple properties to a well-juiced political operative? Well, why not?!

Windfalls of this magnitude don't just happen by luck. The stars, as they say, have to be aligned.

There is an old saying, 'A politician who is poor is a poor politician'. And this certainly seems to be true of the Assemblyman.

What intrigues me, now that the heat is being turned up on the investigation into DeFilippo's wheeling and dealing -- especially in real estate -- is whether the trail is leading to Plainfield.

Was Charlotte's Camelot Title Agency involved in the transaction?

Was there any quid pro quo?

Has Jerry made his contribution to DeFilippo's legal defense fund?

And will he need to be starting one of his own?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Should Jerry come clean? Vote now in the poll at top of the right-hand column.

---

• Ledger: "Probe focuses on Union politicos" (11/09/2007)
• PolitickerNJ: "Lesniak, Cryan form legal defense fund for DeFilippo" (5/07/2009)
• Jerry Green's Page: "Real politics" (3/24/2009)
• NY Times: "Carlos Hank González, coiner of famous bon mot" (8/13/2001)

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

$7M BUF Bond May Leave Plainfield On The Hook

With the County Counsel saying that perhaps the City of Plainfield is on the hook if BUF defaults on the UCIA bonds but that the County certainly wasn't, the Board of Chosen Freeholders voted last night to consent to the offering of $7M in bonds by the UCIA to underwrite BUF's pre-school project.

The only 'no' vote was from Freeholder Mapp, who earlier said that while he was pleased to see funding coming toward Plainfield, this kind of investment deserved buy-in from the City Council, who know nothing about the project or the bond.

Mapp further said that he wanted "to be assured that some study has been done to show a revenue stream that will support the bond" and moved to table the ordinance pending further information.

Freeholder Sullivan, taking issue with Freeholder Mapp, said "we have to approve any and all projects they [the UCIA] put forward ... they have done their due diligence or they would not have presented it to us."

Apparently flummoxed by Mapp's motion to table, the chair dithered. Finally the Board voted to suspend the rules. Mapp was then allowed to move to table the ordinance. His motion died -- are you ready for this? -- for lack of a second. The ordinance was then quickly passed.

Where are we?

THE BOND

We have a quasi-governmental public authority -- the UCIA -- now authorized to bond $7M for a nonprofit organization, referred to in the ordinance as the 'Black United Fund-Plainfield Project'.

No one knows who is responsible for paying off the bonds should BUF default. But we do know it is NOT Union County, and it may be the City of Plainfield, per the County Counsel.

Question: Does BUF have to put up the 5% up-front money -- that would be $350,000 -- before the bond is issued, as the City does when it bonds?

THE CITY'S 'SUPPORT'

Freeholder Mapp stated that the "governing body [of Plainfield is] unaware of the project and the bond. He also said he believed there should be "buy-in" from the City Council.

Yet all we have to show the City's support is a letter from Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs, dated August 7th. I have put in an OPRA request for that letter, which is due today, and will report on the letter later once I have a copy. Suffice it to say, a support letter from the Mayor cannot bind the City to repay the bonds should BUF default on them.

THE PROJECT

No one -- except for Mayor Robinson-Briggs, the UCIA, and, presumably, Assemblyman Green -- knows about the nature of the BUF project.

Is it new construction or the expansion of the existing facility?

Will it be at the BUF Center at West 7th and Central Avenue or at the former Grant Avenue Community Center site at Grant Avenue and West 6th Street or at another site altogether?

How can a project of this scope -- $7 million -- be envisioned without the knowledge or review of the Planning Division or the Zoning Board (or perhaps the Planning Board)?

How can bonds be issued if there are no plans? If there are plans, why have not the Council and the Planning Division seen them?

FURTHER QUESTIONS

Let me say that I'm not necessarily opposed to this project. How can I be, since I -- and everyone else -- know only what we read in the ordinance that has come to light. What DOES concern me is the lack of transparency.

When Assemblyman Green and I chatted at the Friends of the Library's wine-tasting last weekend, I asked him if he had any idea why so many people find this story of interest (it has rated nearly 5 times the normal page views for a 'hot' story). The Assemblyman said he couldn't guess, as hardly anyone would have known about it except for Plainfield Today.

But there are FURTHER questions.

Who is "the Torain Group" cited in the ordinance as having asked the UCIA to bond BUF's project? I have been told they are financial advisors to BUF. But I find it curious that Googling them only turns up one reference -- a PDF of the legal notice of the ordinance, published in the Westfield Leader on September 13, 2007.

By way of contrast, Googling the late Leona Helmsley's dog 'Trouble' nets 265,000 links -- and 'Trouble' only got $12M. Shouldn't the Torain Group get at least a few more hits?

Having been surprised to find the Senior Center project using non-union labor, is it fair to ask if BUF will be required to use union labor?

Lastly, we need to know if BUF will be exempt from the requirement of following the state's Public Bidding Law. If it need not, does that mean that the letting of contracts for the work can be done solely at the discretion of BUF's board? If so, it could provide a wonderful opportunity to reward 'friends'.

Whose friends, you ask?

---

• Plainfield Today: "Mayor pledges city's support for $7M UCIA bond you never heard of"
• Westfield Leader: "Legal Notice: Ordinance 657-2007, UC Board of Chosen Freeholders"
  

-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/