Just learned Plainfield police rescued some teenagers from a serious crash last night after their car hit a tree on East Front Street near Netherwood Avenue and burst into flames. A reader reported flames shooting twenty feet into the air.
Nice when 'serve and protect' means something other than gangsta goins' on!
Be thankful for our police and firefighters every day.
 |
Courier's new Plainfield 'microsite'. |
 |
Map shows current roster of microsites. |
 |
Councilor Burney's proposal: A random act of management? |
 |
The ordinances were posted by Councilor Burney (kit0415) on September 15th. |
...[t]he issue at hand is not tranparency - the issue at hand is more about compliance, accountability, accuracy and what no one wants to say in public: control.Let's grant Councilor Burney's point: He wants compliance, accountability, accuracy and...control.
My proposal: Would require the administration to provide the governing body with a list of all contracts executed by the Mayor along with a monthly list of purchase orders. By getting this information at the front end of the services, we can see and ask questions on purchase orders and contracts before services are rendered.The gist of Councilor Burney's proposal is getting CONTRACTS and PURCHASE ORDERS up front, giving a better chance at compliance, accountability and accuracy (he leaves out 'control' the second time around).
The Robinson-Briggs administration has argued that the bills ordinance would unduly burden staff by causing them to have to prepare more documentation and would disrupt the payment cycle (twice monthly now) by having the Council review bills (once a month) before the checks are cut.
If the administration is not ALREADY GETTING THIS DOCUMENTATION as part of its standard management practices, we need to be very fearful. If they are (it is, after all, standard fiscal practice in corporate America), then it is simply a matter of SHARING WITH THE COUNCIL ALREADY EXISTING DOCUMENTATION, which should be no big deal.
Councilor Burney's proposal, however, would REALLY GUM UP THE WORKS.
It might be one thing to require Mayor Robinson-Briggs to share with the Council CONTRACTS she has executed before the work is performed.
But PURCHASE ORDERS is another kettle of fish altogether. Unlike a BILLS LIST, which is all stacked up, ready for the checks to be issued at the press of an 'ENTER' key, PURCHASE ORDERS dribble in in a constant stream -- sort of like the alimentary canal of a living organism.
To cause PURCHASE ORDERS to be backed up for a once-a-month review by the Council would be like feeding your pet dog or cat every day but only letting them do their duty once a month.
It strikes me much more like one of the 'random acts of management' one would get from a mid-level Fortune 500 company manager who had never actually worked 'in the trenches'.
So, what we have before us are two roads, diverging in a wood as it were --Is there a better way?
Sadly for Councilor Burney, the Robinson-Briggs administration still holds the trump card under the current charter. As City Administrator Bibi Taylor said at last Monday's Council meeting, and I quote, 'the Administration has the power to request services and make payments WITHOUT Council approval'.
- The ORIGINAL Bills List ordinance, which Councilor McWilliams acknowledges does not give the Council control over expenditures by the Robinson-Briggs administration, but just oversight; and
- Councilor Burney's proposal for the Council to get lists of CONTRACTS and PURCHASE ORDERS in advance, on a monthly basis. (Let's leave aside for the moment whether Councilor Burney's ordinance would be vetoed, and whether it could surmount that fate.)
 |
Header of online (incomplete) version of flyer. |
 |
While the flyer was evidently originally created on 9/3/10, the update was made the morning of the 16th, the day of the first event. |
 |
Parking for retail customers is one of problems development faces. |
Storch pointed out that the Cretella proposal does not include enough parking for the retail establishments that will occupy the first floor facing West 2nd Street (not to mention the proposed rooftop nightclub previously discussed by Plainfield Today, see here), and that the Robinson-Briggs administration needs to resolve the outstanding PARKING issue with the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA) over use by the public of the parking deck situated at West 2nd Street and Madison Avenue.PILOT
The original developer's agreement between the City and the UCIA called for public use of the deck under certain conditions -- as well as many other unresolved items, including the PILOT covering the County Office Building -- all of which I have written about extensively (see notes at end of this story).
Unfortunately for Cretella and Plainfield taxpayers, the Robinson-Briggs administration has yet -- after nearly five years -- to resolve a single outstanding issue from the punchlist with the UCIA project. The failure to resolve the PILOT issue alone has cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue.
The PILOT resolution (344-10) was tabled because the Robinson-Briggs administration had failed to include 'sunset' language that would limit the entire life of the PILOT agreement to thirty years and no more, no matter how many times the property may change hands.
Despite having expressly asked for the clarified language, the Council found it had not been included in the resolution. Councilor Mapp underscored the point by noting that the new owner of 1272 Park Avenue had gotten approval for a further 30-year extension of the PILOT on that property in complete contradiction of the spirit, if not the letter, of the original PILOT agreement.
PILOT agreements are a vexing matter for municipal governing bodies throughout New Jersey. They present a 'damned if you, damned if you don't' scenario because the state requires them as a precondition for its underwriting development costs, thus tying a governing body's hands.
Should the governing body have the chutzpah to refuse the PILOT, it faces the wrath of taxpayers because projects will not go forward; unbuilt projects mean that NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER accrues to the taxpayers.
It is unfortunate that many taxpayers misunderstand the real advantages -- and disadvantages -- of PILOT agreements.
The advantage is that the ENTIRETY of the payments go to the city coffers, and in many cases those amounts can ACTUALLY EXCEED the revenue to the city if the property were paying regular taxes.
The disadvantage is that NOTHING GOES TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. In the case of age-restricted residences (such as 1272 Park Avenue), the exemption is less bothersome since there are (theoretically) NO CHILDREN using the school system.
When the project includes units that could house children using the school system (as in the Horizons project), other taxpayers are truly disadvantaged by having to pick up the share of school costs represented by those using the system but not contributing to it.
This is among other negatives of PILOT agreements as illustrated in the recent report by the NJ comptroller's office (see here, PDF).In the meantime, the Council -- at the prodding of Councilors Mapp and Storch -- seems intent to put a lid on the abuses by guaranteeing Plainfield's PILOT agreements will be for thirty years and no more. Period.
Until the state cleans up the issues with the use of PILOTs (are you reading this, Gov. Christie!), there is little local governing bodies can do -- except, of course, to turn down development. Given the sad state of city coffers, who would contemplate that?
 |
A 1-square-mile 'demonstration project' covering the most gunshot-prone areas would be cost-effective. |
Several Plainfield Today readers have taken me to task for the portrayal of Monday night's Council votes that resulted in the failure of the Council to override Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs' vetoes of two ordinances aimed at transparency and improved fiscal oversight (see original post here).
It was pointed out that I did not recap the votes in August by Councilors on the ORIGINAL ORDINANCES that Mayor Robinson-Briggs vetoed, thus giving the impact of Burney and Carter's votes more weight than they really deserved.
Point well-taken.
Here are the votes on the ORIGINAL ORDINANCES, taken at the Council's August business meeting --
ORDINANCE (MC 2010-22) - The 'Bills List'In the vote to override Mayor Robinson-Briggs' vetoes, Councilor CARTER stuck to her guns in SUPPORTING the Bills List, and was also consistent with her August vote in OPPOSING the Bid Threshold lowering ordinance. No surprise here.
This ordinance was passed 6-1. Councilors Burney, Carter, Mapp, McWilliams, Rivers and Storch voted yes; Councilor Reid voted no.ORDINANCE (MC 2010-23) - Lowered Bid Threshold
This ordinance passed 5-2. Councilors Burney, Mapp, McWilliams, Rivers and Storch voted yes; Councilors Carter and Reid voted no.
Thanks to Councilors Burney, Carter and Rivers, Mayor Robinson-Briggs will continue to operate like a thief in the night. For now.
Though Burney and Carter threw their support behind one or the other of the two ordinances Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs had vetoed, the bottom line was that the veto overrides each failed by one vote after lengthy and at times acrimonious debate. There never was any doubt that Councilor Reid would continue to back Robinson-Briggs, as he has consistently done in the past.
(Overturning the veto would have required the affirmative votes of five of the seven Council members, a so-called 'super majority'. The law actually says 'two thirds of the members of the full governing body'.)
The two vetoed ordinances were part of Council President McWilliams' F.A.I.R. (Fiscal Accountability, Integrity and Responsibility) legislative program (see links to her discussions of the program at the end of this story).
R 334-10 - 'BILLS LIST' ORDINANCE (MC 2010-22)
After finally getting to resolution 334-10, passage of which would have overriden the Mayor's veto of ordinance MC 2010-22 (the bills list), at 9:55 PM and debating it until 10:20 PM, the resolution failed 4-3 (Carter, Mapp, McWilliam and Storch for; Burney, Reid and Rivers against).
By contrast, ordinance MC 2010-22 had originally passed 6-1, with only Councilor Reid voting against. Somehow, Councilors Burney and Rivers had changed their minds.
Burney said he had come to the conclusion over the intervening weeks that viewing the bills list just before checks were run (and after services were provided) was not sufficient, adding 'we want transparency with teeth'.
Rivers did not offer any reason for changing her vote.
Council President McWilliams valiantly asserted the issue was TRANSPARENCY of the Administration's spending practices and developing a partnership with the Council and not any attempt by the Council to attack the Mayor or Administration.
R 335-10 - 'BID THRESHOLD' ORDINANCE (MC 2010-23)
She pointed out that, except for Plainfield's special charter, Councils in hundreds of communities in the state review bills before payment. She also noted that as an ordinance, the change transcended the personalities and conflicts of the moment and would bind future mayors and councils to a pattern of open and transparent financial transactions.
Councilor Storch remarked that he thought it 'unseemly of the Administration to draw a line in the sand, telling the Council to neglect its fiduciary responsibilities'.
Before the vote was taken, Council President McWilliams assured Councilor Burney that there was no conflict between the resolution under consideration and his DE NOVO proposal, which she said could be put in the form of an ordinance and taken up next month. To no avail, as it turns out.
Mayor Robinson-Briggs' veto of the ordinance that LOWERED THE BID THRESHOLD for contracts stood in another 4-3 vote.Though Mayor Robinson-Briggs may have won the contest last night, it may well be a Pyrrhic victory, as it leaves her painting herself as militantly opposed to transparency in Plainfield's fiscal affairs, absolutely unwilling to step into the light, and devoted to furtive secrecy. This is not what 21st-century taxpayers are looking for in their elected officials.
The Administration argued in favor of the higher thresholds that Republican Gov. Chris Christie had set earlier this summer (though he POINTEDLY left local governing bodies the room to set lower limits if it wanted).
Council President McWilliams argued that the higher limits would mean the relinquishing of the Council's financial oversight of much of the work performed for the City, saying 'this means there will be many contracts we [the Council] will not see'.
On this vote, Councilor Burney sided with Councilors Mapp, McWilliams and Storch. Councilor Carter, as she had in the original vote on the ordinance, sided with Councilor Reid and Councilor Rivers, who switched from previously supporting the ordinance to now opposing it.
 |
State's investigation highlighted matters inviting questions of Dr. Bailey's collusion or competence. |
 |
The long-awaited memorial was unveiled Saturday. |
 |
The Honor Guard opened the ceremonies. |
 |
Captain Ed Santiago was master of ceremonies. |
 |
The crowd included members of the city's 911 emergency service. |
 |
Plainfield's finest, in parade formation. |
 |
PBA President Andre Crawford addresses the audience. |
 |
Mayor Robinson-Briggs delivers her remarks. |
 |
Council President Annie McWilliams honors the fallen officers. |
 |
The audience listens attentively. |
 |
Milt Campbell, Plainfield hero, honored in parade in front of City Hall. |
 |
This van was crushed by a falling tree Tuesday evening. |
...Michael Townley's extrapolation from potholes to hazardous trees ("What you don't know can't hurt you") does not take into account the New Jersey Shade Tree and Community Forestry Assistance Act of 1996 (P.L.1996, c.135).I was alerted to the tree that fell and crushed the van by Plainfied Today reader 'OB3' who posted a comment that very evening.
That statute provides liability protection for municipalities that deal with hazardous trees according to a management plan modeled on state guidelines and acceptable to the State Forester. To meet those guidelines, the municipality must prioritize its hazardous trees and deal with them in order, the most hazardous first.
Prioritization takes into account not only tree condition, but also location. For example, a dead tree overhanging a sidewalk near a school is a more serious threat than a dead tree on a low-traffic street. The tree near the school would find itself near the top of any reasonably constructed priority list.
To avoid taking note of which trees are hazards because that knowledge exposes us to greater risk of lawsuits is to subvert the intent of the 1996 law, the language of which makes very clear that its purpose is to help communities deal with liability problems ("properly planned and implemented local community forestry programs can provide the necessary basis for local governments to reduce or eliminate liability associated with local tree care programs").
Prioritization of tree hazards is good public policy because it permits the City to remove the most serious threats to public safety and because it complies with the 1996 statute, thereby providing liability relief.
The alternative is to rely on luck to avoid injury when trees or limbs fall in heavily trafficked areas.
Does documentation of hazardous trees require that each tree with a flaw be remedied or removed? No. It's a rare tree that has no flaws. Remedying every hazard would consume the entire municipal budget in most towns. What is required for state approval (and its attendant liability relief) is a reasonable plan of action to remove tree hazards in a prioritized way.
Plainfield needs a tree census and has unsuccessfully applied within the last few years for state grants to carry one out.
Gregory Palermo, Chairman
Plainfield Shade Tree Commission
 |
The culprit? A dead tree just inside the County's Green Brook Park. |
 |
The Plainfield Police Memorial has been under construction over the summer. |
Posts
All Comments
