As expected, the circumstances surrounding the resolution entering into an interlocal services agreement [ILSA] between the city and the Union County Improvement Authority [UCIA] took center stage at last evening's Council meeting.
Public comment underscored concerns with the process by which the agreement was moved along. To the public, it appeared to come from nowhere in the middle of Monday evening's meeting, and then was slated for passage on the immediately following Wednesday. It was not noted on Monday's public agenda. No copies were made available to the public on Monday.
At the end of the day on Tuesday, the Clerk's office was confused about whether the resolution was available for public perusal as they believed the Council had not yet seen it.
Perhaps most remarkable of all, it appeared on Wednesday's agenda as a consent item -- meaning that it would be passed in a blanket vote with a host of other items, without discussion. As resident Barbara Kerr pointedly noted in her comment, the Council was prepared to discuss waiving the residence requirement for summer lifeguards and NOT to discuss this redevelopment resolution which could involve millions upon millions of dollars in projects.
Yet Council President Blanco stated that the resolution had gone out -- in a second packet -- to the Council on Friday, and that the item was known to the Council before Monday's meeting. The eloquence of Councillor Don Davis in arguing for speedy passage did not trump other Councillors' concerns that it be discussed.
Councillor Storch in particular bristled at the way things were done. He said that he had not seen the resolution until Sunday, and that he was disturbed "mostly about the process," noting that he was going to vote for the resolution "not because the administration has earned a favor, but because it's good for Plainfield."
PT learned that the negotiations between the city and the UCIA have been going on for months, with at least some of the Council privy to the details. So why was its introduction so poorly managed?
Everyone is in favor of development projects. There is a widespread belief that new stores, homes and offices will add to the city's ratables and relieve the never-ending pressure on residential property owners to do the heavy lifting. [More on that another time.]
There is much to be said for an agreement with the UCIA since the city -- thanks to the recalcitrance of past Councils -- has no redevelopment agency of its own, unlike the similarly-sized New Brunswick. Charlotte DeFilippo is said to run a tight ship. She uses smart people. The UCIA has a proven track record. Projects move along. That is all to the good.
The Council has shown it wants to reserve its rights of review and refusal. That is also to the good. Let's see how this unfolds.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST -- There were two other items that caught PT's eye.
The mysterious $55,000 that was proposed to be transferred between two budget lines had a brief moment in the spotlight. Though the item was a non-consent one, presupposing at least some discussion, it appeared to be going down to defeat without any comment, when Councillor Storch -- evidently distracted by something else -- asked President Blanco what they were voting on. Council President answered that it was the question of "the money for the July 4th parade entertainment." Whereupon Councillor Storch voted no. The final tally was 5 - 2 against the transfer. $55,000 for entertainment, beyond the regular parade budget?!
PT was somewhat surprised by the manner in which the renewal of liquor licenses took place this year. All of the licenses were grouped into batch resolutions covering those licensees in each category: bars, retail stores, clubs, etc. They were then taken up as non-consent items and passed with roll-call votes. All this seems to ease the traditional June crush of liquor license renewal which has been such a long tradition. That's a good thing. But two things puzzled PT. Aren't all liquor license matters supposed to be handled by the Council sitting as the local Alcoholic Beverage Control Board? Which means adjourning the regular Council meeting, convening as the ABC, conducting the ABC business, closing the ABC meeting and reconvening as the Council. Aren't licensees supposed to face a hearing in which the public may challenge the renewal of the license. [Given the enduring problems with such establishments as La Bamba and Pueblo Viejo, this seems like a not unimportant point.] Neither of these things happened last night, far as PT could tell. Does that mean the renewals are defective in any way? Would it be good to hear from the Corporation Counsel [or is it Corporation Council?] that there is no defect here?
Finally, as for the way the people's business is conducted under the new, compressed regime of Monday agenda settings followed immediately by the Wednesday business meeting, the exchange between resident Keith Biddulph and Council President Blanco was revealing.
When Mr. Biddulph asked why the redevelopment resolution was introduced in the manner it was on Monday evening and then slated to be voted on so hastily on Wednesday, Council President Blanco replied, "That's what we do on a regular basis."
-- Dan Damon
Not getting your own CLIPPINGS email daily? Click here to get started.*
No comments:
Post a Comment