Monarch Performance Bond Up for Release

Council watchers had a bit of a task trying to decipher this item on Monday's agenda:

"APPROVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE RELEASE OF THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT BLOCK 324 LOT 10.01 COMMONLY KNOWN AS 342-406 EAST FRONT STREET/341-403 EAST SECOND STREET. –PLANNING DIVISION"

Those who went to the Plainfield Public Library to look at the City Council packet found out the property is The Monarch, which includes the Senior Center, Veterans Center and 63 condos. The developer, Dornoch Plainfield LLC, posted a performance bond in the amount of $334,089 with a $37,121 cash deposit after receiving Planning Board approvals in July 2007.

Now, according to the Planning Board's engineer, "there are no deficiencies" and the bond may be released.

Here's the interesting part to Plaintalker: The "Board Engineer" says the applicant should post a "maintenance bond" equaling 15 percent of the "cost of improvements" for a period of two years. The improvements are what got built on the land. The value, or cost, is not stated, but the developer early on alluded to a $15 million project. Because the building was split up into condo entities - the senior center, the veterans' center and the 63 residential condos - it is not easy for a layperson to confirm the "cost of improvements."

This is the sort of thing that someone in the cabinet might be called on to explain, but with the mayor as city administrator and no one named to replace Jacques Howard as acting director of Public Works & Urban Development, Planning Director Bill Nierstedt may be the explainer.

After all the "whereas" clauses, the action to be taken is to release the "performance guarantee and cash deposits listed therein." So what about the maintenance bond, we ask? Is that something new and separate, or not?

Maybe we shall find out Monday.

Another proposed resolution calls for a new resolution to fund four "seasoned police officers" to serve in the Urban Enterprise Zone. According to the full resolution, a prior application to the Urban Enterprise Zone Authority cited amounts that did not take into account changes in the police salary schedule. So R 441-10 must be rescinded and a new resolution must be approved for the application.

The curious thing is that both resolutions cite the same amount requested from the UEZA, which reviews applications and grants or denies use of accumulated sales tax from certified retailers in the city's Urban Enterprise Zone. The formula includes a gross amount, a 20 percent city match and a balance to be requested. As described in the new resolution, the total amount is $343,803.75 and the city's 20 percent match is $68,760.75, leaving $275,043.

The resolution to be rescinded was for a total of $335,621. The 20 percent match was $67,124. The difference is $268,497, according to Plaintalker's wee solar-powered calculator. Could the $275,043 cited for R 441-10 thus be an error? One would have to check the original of R 441-10 to see what numbers it actually had.

Maybe this can be clarified before the governing body votes on it. If it is a typo, it can just be fixed. But the council should be given correct information, even on such a small thing as a change in numbers.

Some may recall the $1.7 million typo in the FY 2009 budget. It took some fancy footwork to make it all better, but a closer look at the document before submission to the state Local Finance Board might have spared the city some trouble and embarrassment. Perhaps any document submitted to the governing body for approval should be vetted for errors before some nosy blogger or curious citizen gets into the administration's business.

--Bernice