THE VALUE OF THE PLANNING DIVISION
Good evening Council members. For anyone who does not know, I am Bill Nierstedt;I have been the Planning Director for the City of Plainfield for 17 years. As you are aware, Planning Division employees were recently advised that our jobs might be outsourced to consultants. We strongly believe that the work of the Planning Division cannot be outsourced without loss of service to our city residents, nor will any significant savings be realized. In making the recommendation to outsource, the functions of the division have been significantly underestimated. Numerous successes have not been acknowledged. The ability to generate ‘economy and efficiency’ as a result of outsourcing is not adequately substantiated. Risks and erosion of services to Plainfield residents have not been considered in detail sufficient to propose such action. Finally, there are other actions that can be taken to address issues within the Division without jeopardizing service. I submit to you that this proposal is ill advised, badly timed, not well thought out, and insensitive to the needs of our community. The goal of my presentation tonight is to convince you that taking this action is not in the best interests of Plainfield, and to give you reasons why having an internal Planning Division is by far the best option.
Let’s dismiss the ‘economy’ argument immediately, and put faces on this nebulous proposal. This proposal would affect the jobs and lives of four real people. They are licensed professional planner Scott Bauman who has given Plainfield 16 years of his experience, April Stefel, a licensed landscape architect who has given 10 years, Ron Johnson who has worked for the city three years and me. 46 years of experience for the city; over 80 years of professional experience. Together we work 6,697 hours/year. Including salary and benefits, our services cost the city $356,949, or roughly $50.00/hour. What will a consultant charge for those same hours? Based on the most recent response to an RFP issued by the Planning Division, a consultant would charge a minimum of $140/hour. Calculations show that that comes to a total of $937,580/year. That’s almost 2.6 times what the city pays the Planning Division for the same services. Thus a consultant would limit Plainfield to 38% of the hours the Planning Division currently provides. A review of recent RFP responses shows that all of the consultants charge more per hour than the city pays the Planning Division, so the only way they can submit a competitive proposal is by using less qualified and experienced junior planners and reducing the hours they will serve the city to 8/week. There will be no savings for the city unless the number of consulting hours is less than 38% of the Planning Division hours, and the city cost will increase when the consultant exceeds 38%. So consultants will charge more per hour and provide fewer hours of service to city residents. There is no economy savings here.
So why do consultants submit a proposal when their basic numbers are so much greater than the city’s current costs? Because their goal is not to provide the day-day services that Scott, April, Ron and I provide. They are after the escrow dollars that don’t show up in any RFP response. Let me explain. The law allows Scott, April and I to charge for our professional services. When we review site plans, attend board meetings and prepare planning reports, we charge the applicant, and the applicant pays the city for these services. So far this year we have billed over $50,000. A consultant wants these escrow dollars. They will charge every developer and resident who submits a board application more than we do, and they will charge for every minute. So, not only would this proposal cost the city more money, it would also cost developers and residents more money. At a time that we are encouraging development, this does not make economic sense.
Any efficiency argument must start with an understanding of what the Planning Division does. The RFP the city recently issued is sorely lacking in this regard. While it contains bullet points outlining responsibilities, they are so vague that they are open to individual and legal interpretation. Consultants had to make their own assumptions as to their level of effort required. The easy way to submit a low proposal was to reduce the number of hours proposed to work, reach the hourly limit of their contract and then return to the city for change orders. The only way to save money is to cut services. That is what they all propose to do.
So what does the Planning Division do? Planning has been an in-house Plainfield service since the 1960s. Through urban renewal, Model Cities, CDBG programs, the MLUL adoption, from Directors Elliot Weinstein, Gunthil Sondhi, John Szabo and me, the planning division has provided professional, unbiased, recommendations on housing, transportation, and land use to 12 administrations. Since my tenure began, the Planning Division has prepared the complex and innovative ‘197 Scattered Site’, Park Madison, Teppers, North Avenue, Marino’s, Elmwood Gardens, and South Avenue redevelopment plans, completed the 2009 Master plan reexamination, reviewed on average 40 Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment applications a year, coordinated the annual Six Year Capital Improvement Plan, prepared over 20 resolutions and ordinances for Council review annually, updated the land use ordinance on a bi-annual basis, maintained the city tax maps, updated and maintained the City Recreation and Open Space Plan, provided administrative services for the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Adjustment, Historic Preservation Commission, and Shade Tree Commission, and administered the Brownfield cleanups city wide. We drafted regulations- which city council adopted- that preserved residential properties and values by reducing permitted densities and increasing minimum lot sizes, prevented over crowding, the destruction of historic structures, and the introduction of non- residential uses in residential zones, kept rooming houses, Bayonne boxes, illegal residential conversions, juice bars, outdoor commercial storage operations, and cell towers in residential zones out of the city. We submitted and received grants for brownfield cleanups, shade tree plantings, historic preservation, trail, and city hall restoration grants. We wrote and advanced the transit oriented development standards for the Plainfield and Netherwood train stations, and are advancing the West End TOD. We submitted and received the NJDOT Transit Village designation. We conducted over 500 annual zoning reviews and advanced municipal court enforcement actions.
We also service over 1,500 in-person customer visits every year. That does not include the thousands of phone calls or e-mails. Residents are able to come to our office all day long to get answers. Where will they go after a consultant is hired? They will hear a phone message advising them to dial ‘1’ if they need zoning
information, ‘2’ for historic preservation information, ‘3’ for master plan questions, etc. They will be told that they will receive a phone call back, after the consultant turns on their clock, opens up the book and begins to research the question to which April, Scott, Ron and I know the answer off the top of our heads. Someone may be in the office between 10 and 2:00PM on alternate Thursdays, and maybe one night a
week. Efficiency perhaps; I prefer to call it loss of service for Plainfield residents.
Prior to being notified of our impending layoff, no one spoke to me about a sudden budget need. I ask if this Council is aware of a sudden budget crisis? Is there a larger plan to eliminate or outsource other employees or divisions? The administration advises they are proposing to eliminate our jobs because Plainfield is the last Union County town with an in-house planning division. That is not true, Elizabeth has a Planning Director; he performs different tasks than we do. So our jobs are being outsourced because the 1700 Winfield residents, or the 4,200 Garwood residents, or 7,600 Fanwood residents don’t have one? 18 of the 21 Union County municipalities are less populated than Plainfield, and we have to follow their lead? Plainfield is unique; we are a city; we are not like other Union County suburbs. The Planning Division has compared Plainfield to towns similar to us – the 53 other Urban Aid Communities. Towns like Asbury Park, Hackensack, Hoboken, Long Branch, Montclair, New Brunswick, Passaic, Paterson and Trenton. Communities with which
we share socio-economic and population similarities. Over half of these towns have in-house planning divisions. Plainfield is six square miles, has a population of over 50,000 people. Only two Union County towns have more residents. We have more historic districts than any Union County town, a state designated Transit Village, two transit oriented development areas, 10 redevelopment areas, two 100 acre county parks, the largest disparity of income, the greatest diversity of ethnic populations, more affordable housing than our fair share, more group homes. We have suffered the loss of our largest employer. Plainfield is not like other Union County towns. We have planning issues they have not yet conceived. There is no reason for us to follow their lead in regards to planning. We are also the only Union County town with two fully operating train stations; should we eliminate one?
Outsourcing government jobs has become standard operating procedure because private consultants say they can do the same job for less money. Many times it does not work because a consultant cannot cost less when they have to cover higher salaries, overhead, and professional liability insurance. The city currently outsources engineering; why can’t planning be out sourced? Because outsourcing engineering does not work. A city our size needs to have a full time in-house engineer. Our current 1 day/week consultant engineering simply does not provide engineering and infrastructure planning that our city requires. Updating flood maps and reducing flood insurance rates for our residents are two engineering tasks that have not yet been completed years after consultants started billing for them. Does this Council recall voting on increased engineering contracts for Remington Vernick? The same situation would exist in planning if this proposal were advanced.
Our city has a planning staff of dedicated, educated, experienced, certified and licensed individuals with a long institutional memory and vested interest that no consultant will be able to replace. We care about our city. Two of us live in Plainfield. With the unpaid hours that I put in, my wife thinks that I do also. We average over 140 hours/week – more than we get paid for; a consultant is going to charge for every minute. Four certified/licensed professionals with over 80 years of experience currently serve the people of Plainfield. We have an institutional memory that improves the development process because we have the ability to link
and take into account how various projects interrelate. We are able to meet with developers and provide historical context for their developments. Outsourcing means that the city will pay a consultant to learn the intellectual property that the current staff already knows.
The Administration wants a streamlined development process; so does the Planning Division. The Administration wants increased development in our city; so does the Planning Division. Is the Planning Division tough on developers? We consistently apply the code adopted by this City Council to all developments. We are unbiased, color-blind, and equal opportunity. We do not give away city assets. We fight for and protect neighborhood rights. The Planning Board recently implemented a Technical Review Committee in partnership with the administration. It is designed to help streamline the review process and save time for all involved by resolving issues before they come to the board. This process has been somewhat effective, but it has only been in practice for a short time. Nothing works perfectly overnight, and we have had some growing pains that need to be addressed. We can address them together. This proposal was sprung on the Planning Division and this Council without any discussion. I submit that an open discussion is needed to determine if ‘day to day’ Planning Division services should be altered or scaled back. Process improvement is something that the Planning Division welcomes. Discussion and review should be undertaken before radically seeking to eliminate the Division.
In closing, I state that this proposal will result in additional city costs, fewer services for our residents, and less work being undertaken or completed. If revenue needs to be increased, or expenses cut, I ask the administration to discuss the issues with me so that we can explore other solutions. Let’s sit down and discuss what needs to be done proactively and transparently, not antagonistically. In making your decision tonight, I ask Council members if an adequate plan has been put forth to enable you to confidently decide that the proposal will somehow save the city money, not cut resident’s services, and provide for all the tasks that the Planning Division provides. As it has not, I ask that you please do not support this proposal. I close with a quote from Susan Duerksen, director of communications for “In the Public Interest”. “Governments at all levels are just desperate to balance their budgets, and they’re grasping at privatization as a panacea. But there’s evidence that it often is a very bad idea with hidden costs and consequences when you turn over public service to a for-profit company”. I hope that I have clearly made the case that the city comes out
way ahead if it retains our planning division. Thank you.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Layoff Plan Advances, Outsourcing Costs To Be Reviewed
The City Council agreed Monday to move a Planning Division layoff plan to the Oct. 13 agenda for a vote, but will not approve outsourcing the division until further analysis of four bids received on Oct. 1.
Numerous speakers disagreed with the proposed outsourcing of the Planning Division, which serves four city land use boards in addition to seeking and monitoring federal, state and county grants and answering queries daily from developers and property owners. Many speakers were incredulous that the bidders could handle the workload at the costs quoted, and predicted change orders and other ploys to increase billable hours.
Corporation Counsel David Minchello and City Administrator Rick Smiley defended the proposed outsourcing as a means of cost saving and greater efficiency. Smiley said the current Planning Division staff, with salary and fringe benefits, costs $408,027 annually and another $75,000 is budgeted for consultants, for a total of $483,027. He said the four respondents to the request for proposals all projected "significant savings" greater than $200,000 to $300,000.
Planning Director William Nierstedt spoke for himself and the three others who would be laid off, reading a 12-minute statement on what the division does and challenging the notion that an outside firm could replicate it. The others, April Stefel, Scott Bauman and Ron Johnson, each ceded their three-minute allotment for public comment to Nierstedt. Among them, he said, they have 46 years of experience and work 6,697 hours a year.
Nierstedt said their compensation averages out at $50 per hour, while a consultant gets $140 an hour. Paying that rate for the workload would cost nearly $1 million, he said.
The city will only get an unlicensed junior planner for eight hours a week at the rate projected for outsourcing, he said.
"There is no economy or savings here," he said, surmising that the goal of an outsourced firm would be "escrow dollars."
Nierstedt and numerous other speakers said people will not be able to get their questions answered, but will have to wait for callbacks or maybe go to an out-of-town office. Other losses would be institutional knowledge of the city and its structures, easy interaction with the Inspections and Building staff, and even defense against developers who might want to skirt the rules.
An attorney who often represents clients at the land use boards told the council, "You want someone strong working for the city of Plainfield."
"Your legacy will be how Plainfield develops while you're on the council," attorney Daniel Bernstein said.
A speaker who claimed 30 years of owning property in Plainfield called the city "an untapped gold mine" where development is imminent. As demands on the Planning Board increase, he said, "You want to give them premier service. The last thing you want is another level of bureaucracy."
Only one speaker lashed out at Nierstedt, claiming she has has "nothing but problems" with the Planning Division and alleging "unprofessionalism and bias" on his part.
Among council comments, Cory Storch said, "It seems to me the way we are saving money is by drastically reducing services."
But Eric Watson, director of Public Works and Urban Development, said there would be "no diminishment" and the Planning office would be staffed "five days a week, eight hours a day," with four to five people.
Storch said he would not support outsourcing unless he got a much more detailed explanation of the bids. Minchello said the bids are public documents available to anyone.
Of the six council members present Monday, Storch and Rebecca Williams were not in favor of moving the layoff plan to the Oct. 13 agenda, while Vera Greaves, Diane Toliver, Tracey Brown and Council President Bridget Rivers agreed to move it. Gloria Taylor was absent. The resolution will be to send the layoff plan to the state Civil Service Commission for approval.
The regular meeting is 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 13 in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
--Bernice
Monday, October 5, 2015
Who Composed That RFP?
With so much concern being expressed about the proposed outsourcing of the Planning Division, I just took another look at the request for proposals that was posted on the city web site on Sept. 10. Under the very long list of duties to be accomplished is this paragraph:
.
Our public sector experience exposes our Planners to a broad range of "Best Practices" in the area of land use regulation and community development. Consequently, we have a healthy respect for, and understanding of the issues faced by applicants, municipalities and their land use broads when processing and hearing land use applications. Additionally, our Planners bring a fresh perspective and knowledge of policy and decision-making to our municipal clients. We have expertise in providing the kind of leadership needed to successfully provide informed guidance and advice to management, appointed and elected officials.
This looks more like a pitch from an applicant than a request from a municipality. "Our municipal clients" - whose voice is that?
This made me wonder how the list of duties was formulated, and by whom.
Looking further, I saw that the RFP was changed to refer to "the respondent" and the current version on the city web site reflects what was printed in the Courier News on Sept. 11.
The respondent shall have public sector experience that exposes their professional Planners to a broad range of "Best Practices" in the area of land use regulation and community development. Consequently, respondent shall poses a healthy respect for, and understanding of the issues faced by applicants, municipalities and their land use boards when processing and hearing land use applications. Additionally, Planners should bring a fresh perspective and knowledge of policy and decision‐making to the municipality. Respondent must demonstrate appropriate leadership qualities needed to successfully provide informed guidance and advice to management, appointed elected officials, and appropriately respond to residents’ inquiries, concerns or clarification on their specific concerns.
Somewhat curious, no? Compare the full Sept. 10 version with the full Sept. 11 version.
As for tonight's meeting, the public can witness the council's discussion of outsourcing the Planning Division, but there is nothing on the agenda regarding action to outsource. Bids were opened only on Thursday. However, a resolution could be offered as new business next week or at the Nov. 9 combined meeting (agenda-fixing plus regular meeting).
--Bernice
.
Our public sector experience exposes our Planners to a broad range of "Best Practices" in the area of land use regulation and community development. Consequently, we have a healthy respect for, and understanding of the issues faced by applicants, municipalities and their land use broads when processing and hearing land use applications. Additionally, our Planners bring a fresh perspective and knowledge of policy and decision-making to our municipal clients. We have expertise in providing the kind of leadership needed to successfully provide informed guidance and advice to management, appointed and elected officials.
This looks more like a pitch from an applicant than a request from a municipality. "Our municipal clients" - whose voice is that?
This made me wonder how the list of duties was formulated, and by whom.
Looking further, I saw that the RFP was changed to refer to "the respondent" and the current version on the city web site reflects what was printed in the Courier News on Sept. 11.
The respondent shall have public sector experience that exposes their professional Planners to a broad range of "Best Practices" in the area of land use regulation and community development. Consequently, respondent shall poses a healthy respect for, and understanding of the issues faced by applicants, municipalities and their land use boards when processing and hearing land use applications. Additionally, Planners should bring a fresh perspective and knowledge of policy and decision‐making to the municipality. Respondent must demonstrate appropriate leadership qualities needed to successfully provide informed guidance and advice to management, appointed elected officials, and appropriately respond to residents’ inquiries, concerns or clarification on their specific concerns.
Somewhat curious, no? Compare the full Sept. 10 version with the full Sept. 11 version.
As for tonight's meeting, the public can witness the council's discussion of outsourcing the Planning Division, but there is nothing on the agenda regarding action to outsource. Bids were opened only on Thursday. However, a resolution could be offered as new business next week or at the Nov. 9 combined meeting (agenda-fixing plus regular meeting).
--Bernice
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Crossing Guards Need Facts on Pay
Once again, crossing guards are on the agenda as a discussion item. The council meeting is 7:30 p.m. in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
Here are some past Plaintalker excerpts on the issue of crossing guard pay:
September 2008
As the City Council prepares for budget deliberations for FY 2009, school crossing guards came out in force Monday to ask for higher pay and other demands.The crossing guards currently make $10 t0 $13 per hour, but need to make $15 per hour in order to qualify for unemployment when school is out, a spokesman said.In addition, jackets assigned to guards are designed for men and do not fit full-figured female guards, representative Melvin Cody said.The city currently has 43 designated spots requiring school crossing guards, but only 34 guards, Cody said. Sworn officers must then cover the crossings at a much higher pay rate.
January 2013
In public comment, resident Melvin Cody said crossing guards deserve a raise and crossing guard William Shaw said he had served 10 years with only "one decent raise." Shaw said crossing guards in Westfield get $19 per hour and vigorously argued for an increase here, citing the guards' service in all weather and an instance where a guard took on a fatherly role in dissuading a young girl from using bad language. Mapp, Storch, Brown and Williams spoke in favor of considering a raise during the budget process. But City Administrator Eric Berry said, "Consider it done," and the audience, including several crossing guards, broke into applause.
June 2013
Budget lines that were cut included crossing guards, despite a recent plea for a raise. The $15,000 decrease in salaries and wages and $3,000 cut in other expenses matched what was actually spent last year, officials said.
Click for a post on crossing guards' pay from May 2015.
From a Sept. 12, 2015 post:
Crossing Guards - Rivers said crossing guards told her they only got a 22-cent raise.City Administrator Rick Smiley said the guards were included in a recent salary ordinance, but Rivers said the guards said they had not gotten a raise. Councilwoman Vera Greaves said if they only got 22 cents, it was an insult. Councilwoman Tracey Brown said they provide a vital service Rivers again insisted the raise was 22 cents.
No one was present from the crossing guards to clarify the matter. In May, a large number of crossing guards came to a council meeting to protest not having a raise, but were informed of thesalary ordinance that increased their maximum pay from $14.30 hourly to $19.
Commentary: Melvin Cody, who served as spokesman for the crossing guards, passed away in April 2014. As it appears in the post from May 2015, crossing guards came to the council meeting ready to protest when in fact their item was on the agenda, included in a salary ordinance. I mentioned this to some of the crossing guards who were waiting before the meeting, but they had been given a different impression and were told to show up.
The crossing guards are under the Police Division and it would seem relevant to have either the police liaison to the guards or Personnel Director Karen Dabney give background on the issues, which according to past
Here are some past Plaintalker excerpts on the issue of crossing guard pay:
September 2008
As the City Council prepares for budget deliberations for FY 2009, school crossing guards came out in force Monday to ask for higher pay and other demands.The crossing guards currently make $10 t0 $13 per hour, but need to make $15 per hour in order to qualify for unemployment when school is out, a spokesman said.In addition, jackets assigned to guards are designed for men and do not fit full-figured female guards, representative Melvin Cody said.The city currently has 43 designated spots requiring school crossing guards, but only 34 guards, Cody said. Sworn officers must then cover the crossings at a much higher pay rate.
January 2013
In public comment, resident Melvin Cody said crossing guards deserve a raise and crossing guard William Shaw said he had served 10 years with only "one decent raise." Shaw said crossing guards in Westfield get $19 per hour and vigorously argued for an increase here, citing the guards' service in all weather and an instance where a guard took on a fatherly role in dissuading a young girl from using bad language. Mapp, Storch, Brown and Williams spoke in favor of considering a raise during the budget process. But City Administrator Eric Berry said, "Consider it done," and the audience, including several crossing guards, broke into applause.
June 2013
Budget lines that were cut included crossing guards, despite a recent plea for a raise. The $15,000 decrease in salaries and wages and $3,000 cut in other expenses matched what was actually spent last year, officials said.
Click for a post on crossing guards' pay from May 2015.
From a Sept. 12, 2015 post:
Crossing Guards - Rivers said crossing guards told her they only got a 22-cent raise.City Administrator Rick Smiley said the guards were included in a recent salary ordinance, but Rivers said the guards said they had not gotten a raise. Councilwoman Vera Greaves said if they only got 22 cents, it was an insult. Councilwoman Tracey Brown said they provide a vital service Rivers again insisted the raise was 22 cents.
No one was present from the crossing guards to clarify the matter. In May, a large number of crossing guards came to a council meeting to protest not having a raise, but were informed of thesalary ordinance that increased their maximum pay from $14.30 hourly to $19.
Commentary: Melvin Cody, who served as spokesman for the crossing guards, passed away in April 2014. As it appears in the post from May 2015, crossing guards came to the council meeting ready to protest when in fact their item was on the agenda, included in a salary ordinance. I mentioned this to some of the crossing guards who were waiting before the meeting, but they had been given a different impression and were told to show up.
The crossing guards are under the Police Division and it would seem relevant to have either the police liaison to the guards or Personnel Director Karen Dabney give background on the issues, which according to past
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Planning Division's Fate To Be Discussed Monday
Members of the public who are monitoring the proposed outsourcing of the Planning Division should be on hand by 6:30 p.m. Monday to hear City Council discussion of the topic.
The administration proposed the outsourcing for an estimated $200,000 in savings and a more streamlined handling of development applications, although residents have disputed both reasons.
Personnel matters are usually discussed in closed session, but as permitted under the Rice notice law, affected employees have requested that the that the portion of the governing body's executive session regarding the outsourcing be open to the public. The executive session begins at 6:30 p.m. in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
On Sept. 8, supporters of the Planning Division came out and waited to hear the council discussion. See Plaintalker's report on the discussion of outsourcing here.
Since then, the city has published a request for proposals on outsourcing Planning and Zoning and has received bids on Oct. 1.
At Thursday's Planning Board meeting, Planning Director William Nierstedt mentioned Monday's public hearing and said bids had been received for the proposed outsourcing. In answer to Plaintalker's email Friday, Council President Bridget Rivers said people should arrive by 6:30 p.m. Monday to be on hand for the public discussion regarding the Planning Division outsourcing.
The Planning Division provides support to the Planning and Zoning Boards as well as the Historic Preservation Commission and the Shade Tree Commission. See the Planning Division's mission statement here.
Residents have expressed skepticism that an outside firm can provide the same amount of attention to land use issues that the in-house Planning Division provides, but officials say all but one other of Union County's 21 municipalities rely on outside firms for planning and zoning services.
--Bernice
The administration proposed the outsourcing for an estimated $200,000 in savings and a more streamlined handling of development applications, although residents have disputed both reasons.
Personnel matters are usually discussed in closed session, but as permitted under the Rice notice law, affected employees have requested that the that the portion of the governing body's executive session regarding the outsourcing be open to the public. The executive session begins at 6:30 p.m. in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
On Sept. 8, supporters of the Planning Division came out and waited to hear the council discussion. See Plaintalker's report on the discussion of outsourcing here.
Since then, the city has published a request for proposals on outsourcing Planning and Zoning and has received bids on Oct. 1.
At Thursday's Planning Board meeting, Planning Director William Nierstedt mentioned Monday's public hearing and said bids had been received for the proposed outsourcing. In answer to Plaintalker's email Friday, Council President Bridget Rivers said people should arrive by 6:30 p.m. Monday to be on hand for the public discussion regarding the Planning Division outsourcing.
The Planning Division provides support to the Planning and Zoning Boards as well as the Historic Preservation Commission and the Shade Tree Commission. See the Planning Division's mission statement here.
Residents have expressed skepticism that an outside firm can provide the same amount of attention to land use issues that the in-house Planning Division provides, but officials say all but one other of Union County's 21 municipalities rely on outside firms for planning and zoning services.
--Bernice
Friday, October 2, 2015
Elmwood Gardens Still on Track for Townhouses
Randall Wood, executive director of the Housing Authority of Plainfield, said today it is not true that the Elmwood Gardens property has been sold. The work now going on at Elmwood Gardens is asbestos remediation, he said.
Bid opening for the planned demolition of the former housing complex is Oct. 8.
Misinformation that appeared online "will be legally dealt with," Wood said.
As previously reported here, the former housing complex will be replaced by 60 townhouses.
Bid opening for the planned demolition of the former housing complex is Oct. 8.
Misinformation that appeared online "will be legally dealt with," Wood said.
As previously reported here, the former housing complex will be replaced by 60 townhouses.
Heating Season Starts
Not long ago, it was hot and humid. But now that the temperature has dropped by about 30 degrees, it's time to note Plainfield's heating rules for rental properties.
Heating Requirements. Except as hereinafter stated, from October 1 of each year to the next succeeding May 1, the interior of every dwelling unit or rooming unit, bathroom and water closet compartment shall be maintained at least at sixty-eight degrees Fahrenheit (68°F) whenever the outside temperature falls below fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit (55°F) during the daytime hours from six (6:00) a.m. in the morning and eleven (11:00) p.m. in the evening. At times other than those specified, interiors of units of dwelling space shall be maintained at least at sixty-five degrees Fahrenheit (65°F) whenever the outside temperature falls below forty degrees Fahrenheit (40°F).
Except as hereinafter stated, from May 1 to October 1, every dwelling unit, rooming unit, bathroom and water closet compartment shall be maintained at a temperature of sixty-eight degrees Fahrenheit (68°F) during the daytime hours from six (6:00) a.m. in the morning and eleven (11:00) p.m. in the evening whenever the outside temperature falls below fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit (55°F). At times other than those specified, interiors of units of dwelling space shall be maintained at least at sixty-five degrees Fahrenheit (65°F) whenever the outside temperature falls below forty degrees Fahrenheit (40°F).
In meeting the aforesaid standards, the owner shall not be responsible for heat loss and the consequent drop in the interior temperature arising out of action by the occupant in leaving windows or doors open to the exterior of the building.
Heating Requirements. Except as hereinafter stated, from October 1 of each year to the next succeeding May 1, the interior of every dwelling unit or rooming unit, bathroom and water closet compartment shall be maintained at least at sixty-eight degrees Fahrenheit (68°F) whenever the outside temperature falls below fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit (55°F) during the daytime hours from six (6:00) a.m. in the morning and eleven (11:00) p.m. in the evening. At times other than those specified, interiors of units of dwelling space shall be maintained at least at sixty-five degrees Fahrenheit (65°F) whenever the outside temperature falls below forty degrees Fahrenheit (40°F).
Except as hereinafter stated, from May 1 to October 1, every dwelling unit, rooming unit, bathroom and water closet compartment shall be maintained at a temperature of sixty-eight degrees Fahrenheit (68°F) during the daytime hours from six (6:00) a.m. in the morning and eleven (11:00) p.m. in the evening whenever the outside temperature falls below fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit (55°F). At times other than those specified, interiors of units of dwelling space shall be maintained at least at sixty-five degrees Fahrenheit (65°F) whenever the outside temperature falls below forty degrees Fahrenheit (40°F).
In meeting the aforesaid standards, the owner shall not be responsible for heat loss and the consequent drop in the interior temperature arising out of action by the occupant in leaving windows or doors open to the exterior of the building.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
