Wednesday, March 25, 2015

HPC Left Out of Demolition Process, Members Say

Members of the Historic Preservation Commission said Tuesday they were unaware of problems that led to demolition of an 1895 building in the North Avenue Historic District and received no advance notification of Saturday's emergency action.

April Stefel of the Planning Division told the board of her efforts late last week to gain compliance with state requirements for emergency demolition of historic property after learning that the process had been set in motion.

"I am afraid these kind of things would put the city in jeopardy," she said, noting various pending grant applications that require state approval.

Commission Chairman William Michelson said he was concerned that "somebody decided two or three months ago that the building had to be investigated and nobody told Planning."

The building at 117-125 North Avenue suffered a devastating fire in December 2011. Demolition was considered, but owner Dexter Humphrey said he intended to rebuild it. The building then stood open to the elements for years until Construction Official Joseph Minarovich sent Humphrey a Jan. 6 notice of "imminent hazard" and ordered its demolition. Humphrey agreed, then changed his mnd, according to a memo from Public Works Director Eric Watson, who cited a Feb. 2 engineers' report on the structure that also declared the building in imminent danger of collapse.

According to Watson, Yates Real Estate Inc. was selected as the contractor. Business owners on the block were told demolition would take place on March 24. But the work was done by a sub-contractor on March 21, in advance of a March 23 special meeting to seek City Council approval.

In public comment at Tuesday's meeting, this writer noted the district had once been closely monitored by the late preservation advocate William Hetfield and by business owner Henry Johnson, but there no longer was a district association in place to watch over it. I suggested the commissioners might do well to visit the district and check the interior of the blocks as well as the streetscape. The building that was demolished appeared sturdy from the street, but its entire rear  portion was was crumbling. 

At Monday's special meeting, the governing body took umbrage at  receiving information on the need for demolition after the fact and rejected resolutions to authorize the emergency work, an allocation of $250,000 and a contract for Yates Real Estate. Council President Bridget Rivers called for an investigation and hiring of an outside special counsel to conduct it.

The entire packet of documents, including Watson's memo and the engineer's report, is now online at the city web site. Mayor Adrian O. Mapp released the documents Monday afternoon to show the administration's desire for transparency.

--Bernice

24 comments:

  1. So i guess jerry and his stooges on the council would have prefered the building fall on some one rather than decisive action taking place when we have imminent danger t our residents.

    The incompetence of the puppets on the council is mind boggling. I guess as Jerry likes to say they have to ask is permission before they even go to the bathroom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:03- The 'decisive action' you seem to be applauding was hardly decisive, as the timeline of events clearly indicates. Only stooges would have approved the three resolutions without taking a step back to get some legitimate questions answered. I would have preferred it if the Council had tabled the entire agenda until all the questions were fairly formulated and the administration was given an opportunity to respond, but lacking that temporary outcome, voting 'No' was the only sane thing to do for the moment.

      Delete
  2. Clearly, based upon the outcome of the Monday meeting, the council has many questions for Director of Public Works and Urban Development Eric Watson, whose recommendations were the ones followed. Mr. Watson stated that he made calls to six companies to get quotes to do the demolition and received responses from two.

    The questions for Mr. Watson include queries on his decision-making process in terms of which contractors to call (were they from a list of state-approved demolition contractors?), and why he made the recommendation to the administration of that particular general contractor, Yates Realty, to do the job. Judging from the numerous comments on the blogs over the past few days, the council and the public have the same questions and concerns about how Mr. Watson came to recommend Yates, rather than requesting a bid from B & B directly. I have received emails suggesting other kinds of connections--I am hopeful that all this will be plainly and transparently explained.

    The engineering report I received stated that the building was in danger of imminent collapse, and that more recently, a great deal of debris had been falling from the building. The overriding concern must always be the safety of our residents and the pedestrians in the area. It is indeed unfortunate that Mrs. Rosa’s business was damaged during the demolition. Her insurance adjuster, as well that that of the building’s owner, will, I am sure, be out to assess the losses.

    I am committed to the rebuilding of the businesses that suffered during the past week, as they have been a vital part of the North Avenue Historic District for many years—in Mrs. Rosa’s case, for decades.

    Rebecca

    ReplyDelete
  3. Judging by the 17 pages of documents it appears Eric Watson acted on his own volition. We can place blame on Eric but didn’t we see this coming? For whatever reason the Mayor hired him and now he has him caught up in a scandal. It all looks a little to convenient, almost like it was by design to present the Mayor in a negative light. I would go as far to say, it looks like something Jerry Green would concoct.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here we go trying to push the blame. All I will say is that watch how this plays out. People please speak to B. N.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When your right your right and I usually do not agree with Councilwomen Williams but she is absolutely correct.

    The question is Why did Mr. Watson choose a real-estate company?

    When you read the comments it clearly do not say this was not an emergency. What people are saying is why was a third party person choose to hire a demolishing company.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why would Public Works handle its own bids when there is a procurement department at city hall? These functions should be handled centrally for a variety of reasons - one of which is to make sure that proper protocol is followed. I hope this was just something that got confused in the documentation that was presented and this was actually funneled through Administration and Finance for bidding.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Bernice,

    The obvious questions about how and why this became a last minute emergency, when this building was damaged in 2011 and the engineering assessment of its dangerous condition was done in January and known about by the Administration since Feb 2, and all the apparent sleight of hand corruption in selecting a non-qualified contractor to do the job. In yesterday’s blog, you wrote that on January 13th the City threatened to fine the owner $2,000/week until the building was made safe. Why wasn’t the City fining the owner $2,000/week since January 2012 for not repairing his building? After three years that fine would have covered the demolition. Also, before the City Council approves any money for this demolition, I would hope the appropriate lawsuits are filed against the building owner to recoup the costs.

    I am very displeased with the with the Mapp Administration’s handling of this. They did not aggressively go after the owner to repair the building before it became unsafe, once it was deemed unsafe they failed to notify the public and the Council in a timely manner about the need to abolish it and to make public the RFP process to do the work, and they violated established protocol by commending the work before obtaining the proper authorities from the Council. There should be a full investigation of this matter and the individual or individuals who mishandled it should be held accountable.

    Tom Kaercher

    ReplyDelete
  8. WHERE IS THE CONTRACT?
    HOW MUCH WILL THE REAL ESTATE COMPANY BE PAID?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This was very irresponsible of this administration and that's the bottom line.

    ReplyDelete
  10. FYI: I have sent a list of questions regarding the "requested time frame" that Mr. Watson referred to in the memo dated Monday, 3/23. I have asked for clarification on the dates, because by Wednesday, 3/4, only one quote (from All Action) had been received. Obviously, the request for quotes went out soon after the Remington/Vernick February report on the imminent collapse.

    The timeline is of concern because on Friday, 3/13, the council had been asked about its availability for a special meeting that would have taken place on Monday, 3/16. That meeting didn't happen--I am assuming that not enough councilors were available to have a quorum.

    However, Friday, 3/13, is before Yates Realty even sent Mr. Watson a quote (their quote didn't come in until Monday, 3/16). Why was this company given extra time, as it appears? My assumption is that All Action would have gotten the contract--unless the timeline was extended to Monday, 3/16--in which case Mr. Watson could have contacted other companies. This is why I have the question for Mr. Watson about the "requested time frame" that he mentioned.

    I have no doubt that the building needed to come down--that much is clear, after 3 years of neglect and exposure to the elements. The photos I saw showed that 3rd floor and the roof totally fallen through to the 2nd floor, and the debris around it which has continued falling posed a clear danger--I think about the "what if" aspect in terms of pedestrians and am glad that no one was hurt.

    However, the question of why this company is the one that has folks scratching their heads. I am hopeful that Mr. Watson (and perhaps Mr. Izzo and the Purchasing Agent) can address all my concerns as quickly as possible.

    In answer to the question as to why a contractor was used--generally speaking, a general contractor often subs out the work to other entities. In looking at B & B, however, they have a larger range of services--that is why I asked the question. General contractors, per se, are not an issue. The concern in this case is, "Why this particular company?" I will share Mr. Watson's response to my queries on my blog.

    Rebecca

    ReplyDelete
  11. I get so sick of reading these blogs. Jerry Green and his minions really are pathetic. Of course the Mayor can accept some blame for this, probable his biggest fault was to hire Eric Watson. But wait, what exactly are we blaming him for? Because so far all I’ve read is a bunch of innuendos and speculations. The fact of the matter is Jerry Green is running so scared that he has his flunkeys posting a bunch of anonymous comments to make this seems like the city is about to come to a screeching halt. GAFG! I’m a taxpayer and I don’t feel like this is costing me a dime. The demolition and resale will be a benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey I call 6 friends and one of them will make a contribution ... err I mean a successful clearance of the site.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For those who did not read my previous blogs I repeat. What apparently occurred is that there was an informal ORAL solicitation for prices for the demolition, rendering confirmation of the parties contacted and their responses difficult to confirm. This resulted in receiving not 2, but 1 response. This opened the door of opportunity to find someone to front the job if a price could be obtained from a legitimate demolition contractor for less than the $220,000 price submitted. What supports this is that the $220,000 price proposal from All Action Demolition is dated, March 3, and the Yates proposal surfaced some 13 days later on March 16. In addition, who would think of inviting Yates to perform the work. Yates has no experience in demolition. They certainly do not have demolition license, they do not even have so far as It can be determined a General Contractor's license. They are registered to do work such as home renovations and improvements. There is not a prayer that Yates could obtain third party General Liability insurance covering Property Damage and Personal Injury for this hazardous work. What they submitted was a Certificate attesting to a Commercial Lines policy which is business insurance. Useless. A phone call to the Broker who issues the certificate will clarify this matter. Given that damage has occurred we can only hope that Yate's subcontractor, B & B Demolition has insurance ? What can not be recovered is an indemnity and hold harmless which should have been in place. This provision requires the Contractor to provide the defense,and the cost of the defense, if the City is named in any suite, as will undoubtedly occur absent a settlement between Yates and the property owner.
    My suggestion is as follows:
    1. Do not award the contract to Yates. The tough part of the job is complete. All that remains is to remove the demolition rubble.
    2. Have B&B submit a bill for time and materials for the one day's work with customary margin and pay B & B directly.
    3. Have Public works use their own loader, or rent one with an operator, to load out the remaining debris. There is about 700 cy. This is 24 - 30 cy containers. Allow 30 containers. Pay the PMUA $500/container, which totals $15,000. Say the machine and 2 laborers perform the work in 5 shifts ( figure 6 containers a shift..They should load 10$ 15,000
    .Environmental monitoring at $1,500. day, another $7,500 .
    Total estimated cost to complete the work $37,500.

    Estimated cost of work performed on 3/21 to be paid to B&B.

    1. 1 days work for the Komatsu and operator 10 hours, say $4,000.
    2.Two small machines with operators @$ 1,800 day each, $3,600.
    3. Environmental Services $3000.
    4. 6 laborers @ $300 each, $1800.
    5. Trucking, 2 ways, 3 machines, , $6,000.
    6. Fuel, gas, air small tools $2500
    7. Insurance, permits etc. $3000.
    8 Container rentals 2 - paid with salvage of scrap iron.

    Total $23,900
    Overhead and profit 21% $ 5,020
    Total Cost $ 28,920
    Contingency for unanticipated $ 10,000,
    Total Saturday work $38,920

    From above cost to complete $37,500

    Final total estimated project cost to City $76,420

    If I am off by $25,000, which I do not think I am how do you get a price of $214,500????????
    Bill Kruse


    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great idea. Also save some of the bricks to be used in some way if a new building is to built in its place so can still save some history. Maybe bricks can also be used to repair other old buildings.

      Delete
  14. Hell-o ??? Obviously anyone you call knows of Plainfield's track record so how likely would they be to give a price on the phone with such flimsy plans and direction? In retrospect the ones who did not give a price were the really smart ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely correct. There was no way any legitimate Contractor was going to get the work.

      Delete
  15. Everyone Listen to Council women Williams she is asking the correct questions.

    It's not about the project itself guys. It's about the WHY!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I know for a fact had this administration just hired a demolishing company there would be no story.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm not sure why everything always become about Jerry Green. I'm starting to think Adrian Mapp is posting anonymously to divert attention from his own misgivings. This has nothing to do with Jerry Green and everything to do with Adrian Mapp. He runs this city as if it were his own. If he would have followed the appropriate course of action, council, I'm sure, would not have voted the way they did.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Even if you take the $214,000 'low-bid' at face value, and that Eric Watson called six potential vendors, you should ask yourself why only two responded. Back in 2011, a few weeks after being placed on the PMUA Board, and a few weeks before he voted to hand Mr. Watson his $625,000 settlement, Cecil Sanders was gifted with a $13.750 deconstruction project on Leland Avenue. Even that job, coming in at just 6.5% of this one, supposedly drew four interested parties. Of course Sanders came back looking for about $8,000 more, and in both instances another company had to be found to actually do the work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same shinnanigans as is occurring now. It was the model for future enterprise.

      Delete
  19. The Historic Preservation Commission left out, Council left in the dark, business owners too. Looks like Mayor Mapp is running the city on his own terms.

    I wonder who will be paying for the businesses that were destroyed due to falling debris. The city I would image. Thanks, Mayor!

    ReplyDelete