Now the governing body plans to cancel a $3.9 million balance, as the funds were not needed for the original purpose. Still in dispute is a payment of $287,371.97 to the developer for condo fees and fit-out of the center at 400 East Front Street that was described as having been built “at no cost to the city.” The City Council balked at the payment in April 2010 and, according to Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson, the amount is in mediation between the city and the developer, Dornoch Plainfield LLC.
The bond cancellation is up for discussion at Monday's agenda-fixing session, 7:30 p.m. in City Hall Library. The regular meeting is 8 p.m. July 18 in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
The 2003 construction plan was one of several floated after a 20-year lease ran out on a building at 305 East Front Street, where the center was housed since 1989. After the lease expired, the city paid monthly rent while officials mulled various ways to come up with the brand-new center that seniors desired.
Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs welcomed Dornoch after she took office in 2006 and made the no-cost senior center a pledge of her re-election campaign in 2009. The project, dubbed The Monarch, had a new senior center on the ground floor and three stories of condos above. A one-day grand opening was held just before the June 2009 primary and the center opened for good in November 2009 after she won the general election.
The tab of nearly $300,000 for fitting out the building and paying condo fees surprised the council and the matter remains unresolved. The senior center and a veteran’s center are both condo entities, although the veteran’s center has not yet been turned over to the city as it is being used as a sales office for the residential condos.
Councilman Adrian Mapp, chairman of the council’s Finance Committee, called for the cancellation of the senior center bond ordinance after learning that bond proceeds had been used to pay for WBLS to appear in the 2010 July 4 parade.
According to a New Jersey statute, bonds are only supposed to be used for the purpose stated when they are issued.
40A:2-39. Application of proceeds
The proceeds of the sale of obligations shall be applied only to the purposes for which such obligations are authorized. If, for any reason, any part of such proceeds are not necessary for such purposes, such part shall be used to pay such outstanding obligations, or if in the opinion of the governing body it is in the best interest of the local unit such part may be appropriated to and used to finance the cost of any other purpose or purposes for which bonds may be issued.
L.1960, c. 169, s. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1962.
A print-out of disbursements from the bond ordinance shows costs for public notice and attorneys’ and auditors’ fees from 2003 through 2005. Starting in 2009, costs for shipping and janitorial supplies, a security system, $10,830 for pool tables, $52,334 for furniture, $3,815 for a gate at 400 East Front Street, various amounts for sewing machines and restaurant supplies and floor cleaning equipment turn up on the list, which has transactions as recently as June 24.
The city must pay $2,750 monthly in condo fees for the senior center. Williamson told the council recently that a city bond counsel said it was permissible to pay the fees out of the bond ordinance. If so, cancellation of the bond ordinance will mean the fees must be paid out of some other funding source in the future.
--Bernice
This is one hell of a convoluted web. What's particularly troubling is using bond proceeds to pay for WBLS to appear in a parade, and for operating expenses (despite the bond counsel, who more than likely is just a political contributor whose business is pocketing taxpayer money).
ReplyDeleteThe fiscal recklessness of this city is beyond belief. It's easy to lay blame at the feet of the mayor and her in-and-out, part time, for-hire, administration. There's nothing but games and scams coming from them. But, knowing that, where's the City Council when it comes to clamping down, before it's too late, and we're all on the hook? They rather want to seem faked out too so they can become indignant in the wake and score some minor political points. We, the rest of us, stay on the hook and pay the price. Clamping down means saying 'No' the first time, before the damage is done and the bait and switch rifles our coffers.
Now we will be presented with another more-detailed pitch for converting the Armory. It would have the City as the master lessee for a 30 year term, and the property would be developed as a charter school with public 'art/cultural center' overtones.
That's good bait. We can suck more money from the school district, the developer gets the cheap financing with city backing, and gets to extract a $350,000 developer fee, and we get traffic safety issues, a long term obligation, and a 'freebie' for something that would be better situated at a more central location.
Think Monarch. Think Veteran's Center. Think Teppers basement. Think Recreation. Think WBLS. Think emergency summits. Think eight years of interest payments for money not needed. Think before you act and know that sometimes the best action is to just say no the first time, especially when the track record for fiscal responsibility from those selling the dream is so abysmal.
Which of Sharon's relatives work for WBLS. This mayor is ripping us off and she shows no sign of slowing down. I also know she lied when she said we'd get a "free" senior center. She often lies and cheats to before an election. How is it free if we pay a condo free (rent) and how is that cheaper than what we were paying before. I'm tired of this mayor lying to me and taking me to the cleaners. Are you?
ReplyDeleteMmmmmm....so..can we skip the theatrics of the Mayor moaning, wailing, pounding her chest and screaming "why me, how could you" when the New Democrats vote no, and her cheerleading squad votes yes and then months down the road after all the back and forth useless rhetoric and no changes to the original proposal one of the New Dems changes their vote and we do it anyway??
ReplyDeleteJust all vote yes...we'll roll our eyes and everyone will utter the word free with a gasp at the new meaning of the word free and we can move onto new business.
There. Problem solved. The Mayor knows all she has to do is keep coming back again, again and again and eventually someone folds. She has outplayed the city council at every move so lets acknowledge that and move on.