In the public comment portion of the meeting, resident Danielle Bush spoke of a meeting with state officials to discuss restoring the armory at no cost to the city, with a $1 lease. She asked the governing body whether members would consider such a plan, if an agency or company was willing to come in.
Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs then mentioned a multi-year lease for $1 and said a proposal had been brought to a City Council sub-committee regarding a tenant that would pay $6,000 in monthly expenses to use the armory. The mayor said the city could break the lease at any time.
Councilwoman Rebecca Williams said there had been a meeting with a group that builds charter schools and that the city would be "on the hook" as guarantor. The group needed a city buy-in in order to receive financing, she said.
Councilman Cory Storch noted the "dire financial straits" the city and other municipalities are facing and said the building would remain tax-exempt under such a plan, when it should be put back on the tax rolls. He said there is also a charter school half a block away.
Robinson-Briggs spoke in favor of the city's chance to get "a massive building" for $1 a year and said it could be used after 5 p.m. for other purposes. The charter school, she said, has already been in Plainfield for one year in a different location. The mayor alluded to a $5 million price tag if another entity wants the building and said the city can decide through June whether "to say yes or no" to the $1 deal.
Bush recently began attending council meetings and announced a run for the Second Ward council seat, but then declined to file. It was not clear how she got to be involved in talks with state officials over plans for the armory. In past discussions, Robinson-Briggs said in 2008 the city could purchase the armory for $650,000. Assemblyman Jerry Green said previously the city could purchase the building for $1.5 to $2 million with an interest-free loan, but it would have to be for a commercial use. The armory was also on a list of "stimulus" projects in 2009.
Plaintalker has attempted to get an update from the state on the status of the building, but most recently was referred back to the municipality for information.
Regarding the new proposal and use of the building after hours, Council President Annie McWilliams said the city already has the use of at least three community schools for such purposes.
"The city is not without cultural space," McWilliams said.
By way of commentary, Plaintalker would like to point out that the last "no cost to the city" project, the new senior center, is now the subject of binding arbitration over more than $250,000 in build-out costs, according to statements at the April 11 meeting. The governing body has also hired an attorney to probe use of city funds for a 2010 "town meeting" radio broadcast after the mayor's refusal to disclose details of the transactions. In addition, the city's new chief finance officer is only working 28 hours a week and is busy catching up on three years without a CFO, making it unlikely he can vouch for the soundness of this latest armory scheme.
Without full disclosure and an objective analysis of the risks and rewards in the current fiscal climate, the governing body would be remiss to agree to a city commitment on the armory.
--Bernice
Whatever the real version or "story" is...lets go with the most fanciful, pie in the sky one and run with it....that way, when it ends up screwing over the city and the taxpayers none of us will be surprised because we live in Plainfield. We can even start a contest to write the script for the Mayor at the City Council meeting as to her responses ( Have to throw in additional hand holding support from Bill Reid ) when asked how we got screwed on a perfect "no-lose" deal.
ReplyDeleteSell it and turn it into condos. Move it to the center of town and let a few houses be built in its place (not credible, but neither is the $1 cost either). But no giveaways and no commercial usage unless the object is to poke the neighborhood in the eye.
ReplyDeleteIn Plainfield we have to remember that we have a "pie in the sky" mayor who talks a great deal, but has never delivered on such. She isn't to be trusted with Plainfield's finances and we should have all the facts, or turn the deal down. Having a large building for $1 a year means nothing if it costs us thousands of dollars in utilities and little or no money is being made from it. Plainfield cannot afford to be the financial backer for any business either. I'm glad that we have people on the city council who do not rubber stamp everything the mayor puts forth. Those who do are just reckless and dangerous to Plainfield's bottom line.
ReplyDeleteBernice,
ReplyDeleteA clarification on this supposed multi-year lease for a dollar: the city of Plainfield would be paying this $6,000 per month for however long it would take for the charter school builder to get financing. Who knows how long it would take for this entity to get financing in place? Why not have the city stay out of it and let the state find some other entity to purchase the building and put it on the tax rolls? One of the major issues for me is putting the city on the hook.
At the subcommittee meeting, I asked the head of the company specifically why he needed to come before the city, rather than just going to the state and leaving us out of it--in my mind, the company could do what it wanted if it owned the building outright. He then said they needed the city to sign on as guarantor for this project.
I don't like the idea of this company using the city because they can't get financing on their own to build a charter school. Regarding the mayor's repeated assertions that such a space would be available to the city for use after 5 pm--frankly, the entity could do that anyway as part of a "good neighbor" policy with Plainfield. Also, as I have said many times, and as was reiterated by the council president, we have no lack of space for cultural events here in Plainfield. The community schools are available for city use and indeed have been used for a variety of events for years. They are big, clean, and spacious.
When I served on the Plainfield Cultural and Heritage Commission for several years, we did many events at the community schools and at the library--in addition, there are many churches with large spaces for cultural events. When I served on the Armory task force back in 2005, we looked at the idea of using the Armory building as a cultural arts center, but it was to also be revenue-generating for the city.
Times have changed since then, fiscally-speaking, and I am not convinced, given the overview of that subcommittee presentation by these charter school builders, that our city should be tied into any sort of agreement.
I was elected to be prudent with the public dollars--elected officials have yet to hear from our constituents on this particular issue--all we have are selective facts and unproven assertions. Given the alarming status of the so-called $1 senior center--now going into arbitration--we all know the high cost of "a dollar" here in Plainfield.
Rebecca
As far as the Armory,it had the potential years ago to become a really great local flea market unlike that waste of space downtown, but Laddie Wyatt put a stop to that!!!!
ReplyDeleteAnd with Plainfield Government, when someone starts their speech with it's only a dollar . . . remeber the Senior Citizens Center and let's face it , the local politicians ain't too bright when it comes to business ventures or money!!!!
I was at the meeting and heard what the Mayor said, and it's clear that the Mayor does not have an educated understanding of how to handle finances. Her explanation was a "too good to be true" scenario . . . and if it's too good to be true, it usually is.
ReplyDeleteThe Plainfield Armory has tremendous potential as resource for the community. I attended last years charette at Washington Elementary School and remember the discussion concerning the Armory. During a break-out group session, numerous ideas were produced. I was chosen to present the groups findings to the audience. Unfortunately since then none have taken root.
ReplyDeleteI recently held a meeting with a group of professionals in the arts industry. They suggested a multi-purpose facility would provide the city with the greatest flexibility of use. I am aware of the financial costs associated with the building. I think a public-private partnership where these costs could be mitigated would be most fiscally responsible way to move forward but there isn't much time. Prudent investments and fiscal responsibility are not mutually exclusive positions. To get it done will require hard work but we can do it.
"Politics is the art of the possible."
-Otto Von Bismarck
Why would the City agree to go to "binding" arbitration for the Senior Building? This truly amazes me because if the arbitrator rules for the developer, the City has no alternative but to accept the arbitrator's ruling, whereby a loss in Court could be appealed. Further, it's a contract dispute and the facts may have been disposed of in a quick summary manner before the Courts. Just my 2 cents.
ReplyDeleteIt's refreshing to hear from Rebecca ... one of the few voices of reason in this city.
No one is mentioning how much money it will cost to bring the Armory up to code. Who pays for that?
ReplyDeleteBernice,
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 6:20 pm brings up the other part of the armory costs that the charter school builders elided--that of bringing the structure up to code. The costs associated with mitigating the hazardous waste (it is on the state's list), making it ADA-compliant, and so forth are projected to run upwards of $1.5 million. I don't know who the arts professionals are that Tony met with (I am one, by the way), but as I said, there have been many discussions over the years about how best to use that building. The armory committee that I served on contained a number of arts professionals as well as the city's Economic Development Deputy Director and the Admin and Finance Director. I don't know what Tony is referring to when he says "there isn't much time," unless he is talking about the arbitrary timetable the state gave. I say arbitrary because, when the subcommittee first met with Assemblyman Green back in January, he said that the decision had to be made in 30 days--I told him that there is no way we could be pressured into making what would be an instantaneous decision on such a proposal. I said that the state could wait until we had an opportunity to discuss it at length, and that I would not be rushed into it. The other members of the subcommittee concurred. I don't know what the sense of urgency is that Tony is referring to, since he was not at the meeting. A public-private partnership is NOT optimal in this economy for this dinosaur of a building--a true cost/benefit analysis would probably show that, and experienced finance professionals with a true understanding of this kind of deal would need to make that determination. That determination, as anyone with fiscal sense will tell you, cannot be made in a rush. To go ahead and take on the added burden of upkeep and possible upgrades in the absence of any specifics would be foolish on the part of the city. We don't even have an economic development director, and half of the cabinet is "acting." We need professional expertise, and we need true community buy-in for any venture to be successful.
Rebecca
Funny. What I am referring to concerning there not being much time is the State in fact has given the council until June 30th, forgive me if I'm wrong. We shouldn't make any rash decisions but we shouldn't sit on our hands either. The city also needs to look at potential structural issues, possible remediation, all these issues take time. Finding that developer may take more than just a few days so let's put together a package and try to attract some investors. As I mentioned there are lots of ideas out there for the armory but none are backed with cold hard cash. But make no mistake the armory is one of those buildings even in its current state that other municipalities would love to have for $1 dollar a year even with the monthly expenses.
ReplyDeleteLastly I want to say this I know it is campaign season. Silly season. I'm a professional and act accordingly. My ability to stay focused and disciplined is unshakable and was forged in the Marines. Tact under duress is one of the leadership traits you learn as a Marine. You develop this while you're choking in the gas-chamber. My experience in the banking and finance industry spans 3 decades and I've done very well over that time. I feel sorry for those who spend all their time criticizing others instead of producing the ideas and solutions our city needs to move forward. Giving them respect is sometimes difficult but its important to remember service should never be about you its about helping others and that makes it all worth it. As a candidate how you conduct yourself in a campaign says volumes about how you will legislate. With honor, class, and integrity is how I plan to serve.
Touchy, touchy--lol. I want all to understand that the state deadline is arbitrary, and not based on any exigent circumstances. That was my point. I will attempt to address this on my own blog, Bernice.
ReplyDeleteRebecca
Yes, and let's not forget all the good $ spent on the downtown RR building in the 80'1 which was then promptly knocked down for a new and better one.
ReplyDelete