The resolutions were to authorize emergency bids for demolition services. to authorize a temporary appropriation of $250,000 to do the work, and to award an emergency contract to Yates Real Estate.
Council members charged they were not given advance information, and deplored the timing of the demolition as well as its impact on several adjacent businesses, including a restaurant damaged by falling debris. The woman who owned the restaurant for 32 years and a barber who was ordered to close his shop Friday expressed fears for their livelihood and that of their employees. The business owners said they were told the demolition would take place on March 24, but then had to shut down Friday. A translator for restaurant owner Maria Rosa said, " She had everything ready for the weekend and lost all the food she had prepared."
Council President Bridget Rivers' call for an investigation with a council-appointed attorney took on a political tit-for-tat tone when she compared it to a past council investigation into costs of an emergency town hall meeting called in 2010 by former Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs. The former mayor beat Mapp to win a second term in 2009, but he bested her in 2013. Since then, she has countered him at numerous public meetings and was on hand Monday. From the sidelines, she corrected Rivers on the amount of the town hall cost..
In public comment before the votes, Dr. Harold Yood raised many questions about the process, including why a real estate firm was to be hired for the demolition and who would be responsible for the damage to the adjacent building. Public Works Director Eric Watson said only two bidders responded and the city took the lowest bid. He said the company had more than $6 million in insurance.
Historic Preservation Commissioner Larry Quirk asked why the real estate firm was hired when the demolition firm could have been hired just as easily.
Real estate company owner John Campbell said, "I'd like to get in on the action if all you require is a real estate license."
Late Monday afternoon before the 6 p.m. meeting, Mapp emailed 17 pages of background information on the demolition to bloggers and others with this statement:
"The emergency demolition of the structure on North Avenue, over the weekend, has raised a number of questions, spawned speculations, and innuendos. Since my administration prides itself on transparency, I am releasing the attached documents prior to tonight's special council meeting. You are free to publish them in any medium of your choosing. I remain committed to leading an administration that will be professional in all of its dealings; an administration that will lay bare all of its financial dealings to the public at large, but more specifically to the people of Plainfield."
But Rivers and other council members claimed they were left in the dark. Councilwoman Vera Greaves called it "outrageous" that the council was not informed and said it seemed the administration was trying to run the city without the governing body.
"I just feel it was a sudden decision that was made," Councilwoman Diane Toliver said.
The ever-suspicious Councilwoman Gloria Taylor said, "I'm not sure who's telling what," and later added, "I smell a rat."
The documents sent by Mapp revealed a timeline that began with a Jan. 6 finding by the city's Division of Inspections that the three-story, fire-damaged building was unsafe and an imminent hazard. It said attempts were made to reach the owner. On Feb. 2, a structural engineer from Remington & Vernick determined that the building was "in imminent danger of collapse."
Another document said the city had sent owner Dexter Humphrey a notice of imminent hazard in January, with an order to demolish the building by Jan. 13 or face penalties of up to $2,000 per week per violation. Public Works Director Eric Watson said Humphrey first agreed to demolish the building, then changed his mind a week later. The city then solicited bids from six demolition contractors, but only two responded.and the lowest bid, for $214,000, was accepted. B&B Demolition Company, a sub-contractor for Yates Real Estate, Inc. the company up for council approval Monday, demolished the building on Saturday.
The packet included a report on the "accident" in which part of the three-story building fell onto the adjacent restaurant at 131 North Avenue.
The city received clearance on Friday from the DEP's Historic Preservation Office to demolish the three-story 19th Century building with the proviso that care be taken not to damage surrounding buildings, and that the Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission shall have the opportunity to review any new proposed design on the lot.
The $214,500 demolition cost was also supposed to cover back-filling the lot and bringing it to grade, though the bid from Yates Real Estate said any unforeseen remediation could cause additional costs.
A detailed report from Remington & Vernick said in January 2012 an engineer for the property owner found there was no danger of imminent collapse. Using photos, Remington & Vernick claimed to show deterioration over three years since the fire due to wind, rain and snow, and deemed the entire building in need of demolition. (Note: The Remington & Vernick January 2012 photo showing the side wall largely intact must have been just before a Plaintalker post on Jan. 20, 2012 that shows a partial demolition taking place and only the "Bull" portion of the Bull Durham wall sign remaining. This appears to refute the claim that the damage took place over the ensuing three years.)
Rivers wanted the council to vote Monday on hiring outside counsel for an investigation, instead of relying on Corporation Counsel Vernita Sias-Hill's word on the matter. But City Clerk Abubakar Jalloh said only items on the special meeting notice could be acted upon. The council's next agenda-fixing session is 7:30 p.m. April 6 and the regular meeting is 8 p.m. April 13, both in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
--Bernice
Although I find it horribly irresponsible that all this had been going on for 3months and the public and city council had no knowledge of it, the esteemed Ms.Taylor's olfactory skills were merely tingly from the former Mayor sitting in the audience.
ReplyDeleteThe Mayor turned over all the paperwork, emails, etc that involve the incident without having to be sued by the City Council. That alone is a lightyear step in the right direction.
The Mayors handling of this was sloppy at best and yeah, he should have his snout smacked with a newspaper...but any of The Former Hot Mess's buddies on City Council might want to remember... no money misappropriated, no money missing, and no crimes were committed... all the things they are dragging their feet on with regard to previous administrations. So they might want to stop clutching their pearls and playing the holier than though card.
- without the witchhunt.. I too hope this gets investigated simply to have the hidden facts out in the open.
ReplyDeleteIt's election time !!!
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that this is an important sentence: "The city received clearance on Friday from the DEP's Historic Preservation Office to demolish the three-story 19th Century building with the proviso that care be taken not to damage surrounding buildings, and that the Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission shall have the opportunity to review any new proposed design on the lot." It suggests that the city had to wait until it received this clearance, and that the building was taken down as soon as possible--meaning, the next day. Imminent collapse sounds like an emergency.
ReplyDeleteUCC Notice of Imminent Hazard dated Jan. 6; R&V structural engineer report dated Feb. 2; Rufus Demo proposal dated March 4. Yates' 12-days later. Watson & Izzo sidestepping the Planning Office and HPC delayed contact with the State, despite the appearance of a last minute approval. Personal relationships between certain public officials and the vendor ought to be examined. Nothing yet has been shown to suggest a dire emergency that required last minute notices to adjacent businesses, and after-the-fact Council action. This mostly seems like an attempt to present a fait-accompli and maximize profits. How much is built in and who was planned to share the haul will add an interesting chapter to this story.
DeleteDoes a dope smell different than a rat?
ReplyDeleteThanks Bernice for the info. Question: If council does not approve the appropriation and the work has already been done, what happens to the construction bill? I assume it has to be paid from somewhere...
ReplyDeleteRichard Stewart
I am guessing it would go to litigation.
DeleteRob :3:35 I was at the council meeting last night and the appropriate documentations were not presented at all. you said in your comments that the Mayor Mapp turned over all the paperwork that statement is not true.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Council asked the administration for the contract the City Administrator responded that he had no contract.
I agree with Mr. Campbell we have several real estate agencies that live and work in this great city of Plainfield.
Question 1 why did we use a real estate company to hire a demolishing company.
Response: that question was asked but the answer was not a good one.
Question 2 I saw a letter from one of the business owners that was giving to them by the City of Plainfield informing them that the building will be taken down on March 24th.
Why did the administration start the work on Saturday the 21st.
This do not look good for this administration at all.
Renee
Mayor Mapp didn't show up to his own emergency meeting. Wow.
ReplyDeleteI think we need to wait for the all the facts, but it seems that this situation may have not been handled in the best way, but it does not reek of Sharon's money games. Sharon's people on the City Council need to remember her and their history; the public remembers. If the building was ready for collapse and approvals were given, I'm glad it was done quickly, though the City Council should have been required to have an emergency meeting the day before.
ReplyDeleteBob you can try to paint this picture anyway you would like it. Blame it on the council but the facts re the facts. This administration hired a third party real estate company to hire a company to do the work.
ReplyDeleteNow had they just hired a company to do the demolishing It would not look under handed. The demolishing probably cost around $100,000.00 lets say. So the other $150.000.00 goes to this real estate company.
Why would the administration want to take the tax payer's dollars and give to a third party company?
Who is pocketing what that's the question?
I wish I could have made it to the meeting last night. I have some questions that need to be answered.
The truth will come out of the wash soon. You just wait and see and a lot of Mayor Mapps supporters are sure to have egg on their face.
I supported him also but I will always stand for what's right.
Robert
Mark
Robert or Mark or whatever your name is, your post is a great example of how extrapolating information to better understand a problem doesn't always work.
DeleteAndre Yates has owned Abbott Manor for years and had been just letting it fall further into neglect since he cant get approval for his "veterans home". He was before the HPC to get approvals for the roof, porch, and exterior repairs crying broke he couldn't afford it. Ask the neighbors in Van Wyck Brooks who have written letters to the city and complained about him and why hasnt inspections gone after him to take care of that property. Looks like Eric Watson just handed him a gift job and alot of money padded into that demo contract. Another tax payer gift just like the one from PMUA
ReplyDeleteHow much are the businesses going to have to take before they all leave? They get shot and killed, they have laws enacted, or trying, to cut into whatever little money they can make and now the city hires shoddy contractors to drop buildings on the businesses. What’s next, drone attacks? How are the business owners, employees and family's supposed to make a living now? Who pays for their loss? Can't use the paid sick leave, or can you. Now wait. Business owners can't collect on anything.
ReplyDeleteAnd the taxpayers have to pay for this. Maybe a movie deal can be made. Soprano's of the hood!
Hopefully the business owners all had insurance as should be required in their lease and they will be able to move forward.
DeleteTonight the Historic Preservation Commission will discuss what happened here. Neither I nor any of the other Commissioners had the slightest knowledge that this property needed our attention before March 20. We have a heavy agenda so I cannot promise what time, or for how long, we can address this matter, but I encourage anyone who cares about historic preservation in Plainfield to attend and be heard.
ReplyDelete"Neither I nor any of the other Commissioners had the slightest knowledge that this property needed our attention" - don't any of you drive around and look at the "inventory" in town? There aren't that many historic districts that someone wouldn't have noticed the condition of this building in the three years since it was destroyed in the fire.
DeleteWhat people are forgetting is the bigger picture not that this was not an emergency but why pay a real estate company to do the job in the sum of over $200,000.00. As bad as I have been looking for a way to blame the council for this I just can not. I am very sad but I still have faith.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:15 - you may be correct in that assessment and you may not be. There was another bid received that was slightly higher. I would consider the full picture before you make all these assumptions and others make crazy conspiracy theories. If the second bidder was a demolition company and they were higher priced and Yates was lower and had a partner/sub involved that is in the demolition business then that doesn't necessarily pose a problem. People subcontract all the time - might be why they invented the word. If you want to ask about the vetting process for vendors and subs that may be legitimate - but just the fact that a sub was involved really means little to nothing one way or the other.
DeleteThe lowest bid is not always the best bid -- evidence in this case is the poor job they did and mess that has resulted after the fact.
DeleteAfter all the bids are submitted a leveling sheet should be created to consider the pros and cons of each vendor.
Why would the City of Plainfield even consider a bid from a realtor? That does not make sense.
Anon 4:05 - you are right the lowest bid isn't always the best bid and in keeping that thinking the vendor with the most recommendations is also capable of making mistakes like B&B demo did. I have little doubt that the procurement process in City Hall requires a review and overhaul. I would remind you that while Yates may have been the vendor or record they, as a Realtor, did not do the demolition - that was done by a sub-contractor who was a demolition company.
DeleteMy guess is that in the end we will find this was a process issue and included areas of city hall that will require a review and an overhaul - such as procurement.
Removing single story buildings and expanding the demolition adds great value for the developer who now has a larger footprint for a high rise. The added value will exceed the lawsuits, but why are the taxpayers paying for any of this?
ReplyDeleteWhy is everyone assuming this will be paid for out of tax payers money? The building is privately owned and if the owner doesn’t fork over the money for the demolition the city can and most likely will foreclose on the owner. Once this happens, I would imagine the city will sell the property as prime real estate and recoup all cost. Apparently things happened out of sequence but before everyone starts jumping to conclusions and pointing the hated finger, let’s just wait and see when all the facts are offered. If Yates sub-contracted the job and it was done without a written contact from the city, then I would imagine the onus would be solely on them. Either way, I don’t see this being a burden on the tax payers.
ReplyDeleteLet the election drama begin with the usual suspects throwing the mud!
I be curious to see if Yates Realty is a licensed contractor registered with the state of NJ. I also look into their insurance requirements. There is no contractor license number shown on the company letterhead.
ReplyDeleteA lot of fingerpointing at Mayor Mapp, but Eric Watson's fingerprints are all over this project. He issued the order to Yates RE on the 20th to begin demolition on the 21st without a fully executed contract or waiting for council approval on the 23rd. Indeed, one can infer from letter of the 17th from Yates RE that Watson wanted demolition to begin on the 17th, one day after Yates RE submitted its proposal, again without fully executed contract or even asking council for approval by way of a Special Meeting. Question is: did Mr. Watson hustle on his own or was he dancing to someone else's tune?
ReplyDeleteAlso, was Yates RE the low bidder? $214,000 PLUS "unforeseen expenditures" may not be lower than $220,000 cost certain submitted by other company.
Mayor Mapp called for an Emergency Meeting and didn't show up. If this was such an imminent dangerous situation, why leave it to the City Administrator and others to make the case? He took the cowardly way out and they did a horrible job at explaining what happened. Everyone involved should've been at the table to handle business in the correct manner. Not this piece meal crap. Mapp needs to take full responsibility for this fiasco. So much for transparency. This is no more than dirty politics and he is awaiting for a big payout. What is even more appalling is that he didn't have the decency to come out and confront the business owners nor show concern about their losses.
ReplyDeleteOnce again we are in a situation where, because the previous administration failed to do anything about this serious problem, the current administration had to take care of it and now gets pounded, and we taxpayers get the bill. WHY DIDN'T SHARON DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS WHEN SHE WAS MAYOR??
ReplyDeleteGood lord the posts on here are just ridiculous (with exception of maybe 5 or so) Its like CNN/Fox News reporting - all assumptions, innuendo, strange rushes to judgement and lots of odd emotional rants. Relax, wait for the facts and then come to a conclusion at that point.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this the second "emergency demolition" of a building in the North Avenue historic district in the last 6 or 7 years? Maybe it's time we accept the natural lifespan of these buildings and begin looking toward the future of this town instead of gazing romantically at its past.
ReplyDeleteBids were elicited. Show the Bid Documents and names of firms were contacted? . Was Yates included in the initial solicitation? Perhaps All Action was the only responsive bid. Their bid was $220K. The date of their proposal was 3/4. With only 1 response the door of opportunity opened. Som body p contacts Yates and says, let's find a company that will perform the work f less than the All Action bid and we can award Yates. . On 3/16, 12 days later, Yates bids just $214.5K 2.5% less. This is why public bids are taken are opened simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteThe correspondence is on Yates Real Estate letterhead signed by, Andrew Yates, General Contractor. An illusion. The work was awarded without a formality contract. There is a vague, insufficient proposal, which contains cautionary note that there could be extra charges if the Contractor encounters " "unforeseen conditions". There is no greater gateway to contractor claims than the inclusion of the undefined reference to, "unforeseen conditions". This is an invitation to litigation". A formal construction contract defines what constitutes "unforeseen conditions" and even then it is frequently a contentious matter. The host of other typical and well established terms and conditions contained in a properly drawn and executed contract are totally absent. You can go on line, and obtain at no cost, a form of contract from The American Institute of Architecture, a standard form of Agreement between an Owner, or Agency and a contractor. At a minimum this form would have protected the City to a large degree if there were not time to customize an Agreement. What any investigation should obtain is the subcontract between Yates and B&B. B&B should also be required to produce evidence of its insurance coverage.
The insurance certificate shown I view as a miracle. I do not believe any Carrier would insure a Realty company for demolition. What should be confirmed is to request the Broker to provide the "Code Number" for the coverage. Insurance companies understandably charge different premiums for different risks. A small company that works on residential construction is not charged the same premiums as a company that, for example, does high rise steel erection, pile driving or demolition. The insurance industry assesses the industry experience record and the individual contractor's claims records. Every Trade has a code number that identifies the particular Trade. The AAAA 4A's Insurance Agency Corp. that provided the certificate should be contacted immediately to provide the Code number for the Trade which their policy covers. The hope is that B & B has proper coverage.
As to the collapse of the party wall I watched B&B drop the spud through the building. When there is conspicuous risk of damage you do not employ this crude method of demolition .At least not proximate to a sensitive area. When there is the prospect of collapse the Contractor must resort "hand work". A crew, typically with pneumatic hammers, either on scaffolding or supported on the existing structure if it is competent, that jack hammers the wall to be demolished removing small sections by hand. Placing ply wood on the roof of an adjacent structure after the horse had fled the barn is hardly a noble gesture. The demolished building was a conspicuous 2 stories higher th n the now damaged adjacent 1 story building. It might have occurred to someone that bashing the existing building might result in debris falling on the adjacent building. Or, am I missing something?
Whether Mayor Mapp was complicit in this debacle, or naïve, remains to be seen. He has done a great deal of good for Plainfield and there is no way to avoid his critics from having a field day. The last question is who was in charge on behalf of the Mayor who received the bids and ultimately recommended the award to Yates, and oversaw the project on behalf of the City?
Bill Kruse
These were NOT bids, but selective calling to a few choice persons. A 20 day notice via a legal ad in the Ledger/Courier would have launched a flood of interested companies ... but none would have the you know who connections.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right. My apologies for an inappropriate use of the word. Bill Kruse
DeleteAnon 3:57 this is what happen when you do something wrong. When the previous administration was wrong and Lord knows 80% of the time they were wrong the bloggers wrote about it and we post our comments. Now you Mapp supporter's thought he was going to come and save the day with only 1.4months in Mayor Mapp is doing the same thing but worst.
ReplyDeleteYou are obviously a Jerry fan. Mapp is definitely not worse than Sharon and she was off more than 80% of the time. If we leave things to the Sharon and Jerry fans on the City Council and if jobs city, county, and state jobs keep being given away for favors, Plainfield will be in dire straights. I hope people pay attention and get everyone related to the Sharon debacle out of office and we get a clean start. The people of Plainfield deserve to have a transparent and open government. Mapp's people did jump the gun, but at least people's safety was at the heart of it, not shady alterior motives as we had in the past.
DeleteMore to my prior comments on the insurance. The Code that I referred to is the CIT number. It can be obtained form the Broker who placed the policy, 4A's Insurance Corp., with a phone call. If the policy does not include demolition operations then there appears to have a purposeful misrepresentation with attendant potential serious consequences. Whereall this appears to be is that we have the work suspended with a backhoe perched on top of the demolition rubble, a General Contractor (Yates) who is not going to get paid, and a subcontractor ( B & B Demolition ) who will probably only be paid, if Yates is paid( which coukld be never ) two businesses who have had to suspend operations, and whose premises or damaged undoubtedly checking the yellow pages for attorneys, a Council whose primary motive is not to remediate the mess, rather to embarrass Mapp, and the public helplessly standing by knowing that whatever happens they are going to pay for resolving the mess. If I were the one Mapp delegated to administer this deal I would be very nervous tonight.....and tomorrow night...and... Bill Kruse
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right! This building stood and deteriorated for years and SRB did nothing about it. Just another mess she left for Mapp, and now that he gets it cleaned up, he has to deal with a Council majority that wants Sharon back. Too bad his top admin people jumped the gun without waiting for Council approval--BIG MISTAKE--and now Mapp will br blamed for their premature action. If I were either of those folks I would be nervous too.
Delete