The Mayor Dropped the Ball--Part One

The "on again, off again" Monarch residential tax abatement ordinance was off again last night; it was off because of my refusal to allow the issue to be discussed in closed session in violation of the Sunshine law. I took the position that the abatement ordinance did not meet the test for a closed session discussion and, since 4 votes were needed to go into executive session, and only 4 council members were present at the time, no executive session was held.

This is because I refused to give my consent. I became incensed when, in response to my objection to the closed session, the Corporation Counsel sought to justify what was a clear violation of the Sunshine law by claiming that the abatement discussion was a “continuation of contract negotiations that started in 2006.” If ever there was a "stretch" argument, this was one; it was an obvious attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Council President Burney, as transparent as he claims to be, came down on the side of the “make it work at any cost” argument of the administration, so much so that he still wanted to go into closed session although there were only 3 votes in favor--clearly, this would have been a violation. I informed the council president that 4 votes, a majority of the council, are needed for the passage of any resolution; it was only at this point that the attempt to hold an executive session was abandoned.

Later, I will provide my reasons in detail for why I say, "The Mayor Dropped the Ball!"

Regards, Adrian

The Public Speaks at Town Hall Meeting on Tax Abatement Proposal

Dear Friends,

I want to thank you all (attendance count: 54) for coming out on a humid and gray Thursday evening to share your thoughts on the proposed residential tax abatement ordinance at the public town hall meeting I sponsored. The purpose of this forum, which was attended by residents from all four wards of our city, was to provide you with an opportunity to express your views, pro or con, on the abatement proposed by the Robinson-Briggs administration for the 63 condominiums on East Front Street. Those of you in attendance held some very strong views on this controversial issue; judging from your comments (both spoken and written), it would be safe to say that the vast majority of Plainfielders are united in their opposition to residential tax abatements. I will be forwarding the list of the many questions raised at the forum to the mayor and her staff to give them an opportunity to provide answers to all questions prior to any further action on the proposed abatement. I will also be providing the list of questions to my colleagues so that they will be fully aware of their constituents' concerns. It is important that the city council, as the governing body of Plainfield, hear your feedback on the issues affecting our city, so I am glad that so many of you were able to attend.

In the spirit of transparency and ethical leadership in government, I have posted the video documentation of the meeting on YouTube for the widest dissemination possible.I will also find out when the video can be shown on Plainfield's public access channel on Comcast of Plainfield (PCTV-74) and will let you know the specific air dates. The first segment (of 6 episodes) is posted below, and I have included the links to the others. Additional questions were asked after the tape stopped rolling. Some of these questions were asked of the administration, so I am hopeful that they will have some answers for all of us at the council meeting. There is no reason, in my opinion, to give this proposal a second reading without these and other questions being answered to the full satisfaction of the governing body. I strongly urge you all to come to the Monday, August 17 meeting at the Municipal Court (Watchung Avenue and Fourth Street) at 8:00 pm to voice your opinion on this proposed ordinance.

--What happens if the building goes into foreclosure?
--Shouldn't the deed restrictions outlined in the original agreement prevent the units from being turned into rentals without prior city council approval?
--Can the senior citizens and veterans sections of the building open in September, as promised, even if all the units are not sold?
--I keep hearing that the project cannot be allowed to "fail." What is the definition of failure with regard to this project? Also, how do you define success?
--How many of the units have contracts and when are they supposed to close?
--How many of the units have closed as of today (Thursday, August 13, 2009)?
--Is the word "abatement" really just a substitution of the word "bailout," meaning the developer is seeking help from the city?
--When the seniors move into the new center, how much of the rent we pay for the old senior center will be put back into the city budget?
--Given the stalled projects that this developer has in Rahway and elsewhere, what assurances do we have that he won't abandon the project?
--Can the administration and the city council give an update on the financial "health" of this particular developer, given his other projects and in light of the Connolly bankruptcy?
--Will the city order an independent appraisal of the units to determine their true worth in the current market?
--What can the city do to make the surrounding area more attractive, i.e., controlling the loitering near the Ben Franklin Liquor Store?

In the coming days, I will be posting the impact of the tax abatement on the average homeowner. Finally, I would like to thank the elected officials and the residents who attended the forum, as well as the many volunteers (Dorothy, Carmencita, Will, Carol, Dan, Rebecca) who assisted me in putting it together.




I wanted to post the video as quickly as possible, so the slight problem with the sync (the audio lags) will be corrected within the next day or so.

Episode 2
Episode 3
Episode 4
Episode 5
Episode 6

Again, I thank you all for coming out to this town meeting, and I look forward to the next one. I will let you know the date as soon as it is confirmed.

Regards,

Adrian

P.S. There was an unrelated question about the $10.00 garage sale permit fee charged by the city, and a statement that the city hall library is simply to small for the agenda meetings, and that the meetings go on too long. A few residents complained about the changes to the meeting schedule, favoring a return to the old schedule of 2 agenda sessions and 2 public meetings per month.

Town Hall Meeting on Proposed Monarch Tax Abatement

Dear Friends,

I will be holding a town hall meeting this coming Thursday, August 13, at 7:00 pm at the duCret School of Art (1038 Central Avenue in Plainfield) to discuss the administration’s proposed ordinance to give a residential tax abatement to the developer of the Monarch condominium property, located on East Front Street.

This issue has generated a lot of interest in the Plainfield community. I have received numerous emails, telephone calls, and blog comments from constituents who have expressed grave concerns about this proposed ordinance (as have my council colleagues). In a previous post, I stated my opposition to it (see below).

However, I feel that it is important to have a public hearing to get feedback from you, Plainfield residents and taxpayers, before the ordinance goes to second reading on Monday, August 17.

Residents and taxpayers deserve a forum to be heard, where your concerns are the focus of the meeting, as opposed to a brief “privilege of the floor” at a council meeting. After all, we are elected to represent your interests. I want to be able to clarify for you what abatements are about, and how this one (designed for residential buyers) differs from the usual abatements.

Although I am the Third Ward councilman, this meeting is, of course, open to all. It is the first of regular town hall meetings that I will be setting up for my Third Ward constituents. You asked for real transparency in city government, and I pledged, when elected, to provide that transparency, along with honest, ethical leadership. You, the residents and taxpayers, have to live with the decisions made on your behalf by this governing body, so it is incumbent upon us to give you an opportunity to weigh in on those decisions before they are finalized, and to play an influential role in the future of Plainfield.

What happens at the council table will affect all of us for years to come, so I hope you will be able to attend and offer your opinion on this important ordinance.

Regards,

Adrian

Town Hall Meeting

Hosted by 3rd Ward Councilman Adrian Mapp

Topic: Monarch Tax Abatement Ordinance

Thursday, August 13, 2009

7:00 pm

duCret School of Art

1038 Central Avenue, Plainfield

Passing the Budget: Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Of the 51 municipalities in the state of New Jersey operating on a fiscal year (July 1st – June 30th), only seven have already passed their budgets as of last week; the others are awaiting a decision on the pension deferral legislation and extraordinary aid. The reason most, if not all, the other 44 municipalities have not adopted their budgets is because they all have levy cap problems, and municipalities with levy cap problems have to apply to the Local Finance Board (LFB) for a waiver. If a waiver is not granted, municipalities would have to reduce their budgets by the amount by which the budget exceeds the levy cap. In the case of Plainfield, that number is just over $3 million. Currently, the LFB will not hear any applications for waivers until a decision is made on the pension deferral legislation and on extraordinary aid.

Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs has been urging the council to accept the 50% pension deferral, suggesting that this is the only feasible way to ease the property tax burden on our residents. This "urging" is misplaced, however, because based on the way the legislation is currently written, municipalities will not have a choice to defer or not to defer--deferral will be mandatory.

A 50% deferral for Plainfield will equate to $2.7 million, leaving Plainfield with a need for approximately $300,000 to get below the levy cap and avoid the need to go before the LFB for a waiver. It is likely that Plainfield will receive extraordinary aid to the tune of at least $300,000.

So, as it stands, Plainfield and other municipalities are between a rock and a hard place: they are over the levy cap and they need a waiver from the LFB. They can’t get a hearing for a waiver from the LFB because of the pending pension deferral legislation and a decision on extraordinary aid. Therefore, Plainfield cannot adopt its budget in its present form; the budget would have to be cut by a minimum of the amount by which it exceeds the levy cap, which is just over $3 million.

Between a rock and a hard place is not a good place to be, especially in these harsh economic times. However, tough times call for tough decisions and tough love.

It’s time for the mayor and council to make the tough decisions.

Regards,
Adrian