| Author |
Message |
    
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2628
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |     |
Is there a BOT meeting tonight? If so, can someone please post the agenda online? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2629
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:25 pm: | |
I see the agenda has now been posted online.
http://www.southorange.org/agenda.asp?page=2005/07-25-05rm.htm
Thank you.
I see the following items on tonight's agenda:
#05-16 – Bond Ordinance Providing for Capital Improvements in and by the Township of South Orange Village, in the County of Essex, New Jersey, Appropriating $3,000,000 Therefore and Authorizing the Issuance of $2,850,000 Bonds or Notes. - WHAT IS THIS FOR?
Resolution to Engage the Professional Services of SESI Consulting Engineers to Perform Engineering and Landscape Architecture Services for the Design of Site Improvements for the Tony Smith Sculpture. - WHAT WILL THIS COST TAXPAYERS? If it is more than 10 cents, I hope the BOT has the common sense to VOTE THIS DOWN. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 332
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:35 pm: | |
What happened to the discussion on the DRMC? Is it history? |
Tracey Randinelli
Citizen
Username: Traceyr
Post Number: 10
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:56 pm: | |
I don't know that they were ever planning on including the DRMC on the agenda--I pinned them down to the July 25 date at last month's meeting.
In any case, I hope lots of people attend tonight's meeting to remind the Village President and BOT of their promise to have more information on the DRMC tonight. |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 302
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:42 pm: | |
Ditto Tracey  |
Lucy
Supporter
Username: Lucy
Post Number: 152
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:41 pm: | |
It amazes me that they have $250,000 for a statue and when it comes to a DRMC manager they have no money after 5+ years of discussion. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:51 pm: | |
Lucy-
They APPROVED spending the money on that thing? When I ws telling my sister and some other people about the plans for the statue they looked at me in disbelief! |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2634
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:54 pm: | |
Lucy,
I thought the exact same thing. Mark - thank you for at least asking questions about the landscape architecture for the statue. We know know that will cost us 74 thousand out of a supposed 250 thousand of tax dollars that will be spent on this replication.
However, Mark - c'mon you could have requested it be voted on seperately and maybe even voted against it. Stop letting Calabrese lead you.into a corner like that. |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 11:22 pm: | |
Even after I watched the whole discussion, I was left unsure of what we have already agreed to, and what we are on the hook for. Is it $50,000 whether or not we move forward on the sculpture? First Calabrese said $50,000; then we started talking $250K again.
Could someone in the know please let us know where we actually stand?
The gazebo site was sounding like a done deal--again, could someone in the know let us know whether this is the case? |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 304
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:54 am: | |
It's a done deal.
The money was approved for it by a previous board.
The "contract" was already signed so the location will not move as well.
Both Mark and Terriann raised questions about it tonight which I GREATLY appreciated.
|
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 170
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:45 am: | |
Once again, where is OPEN GOVERNMENT?
WHY ARE WE CONSIDERING REMOVING AND REPLACING THE FOUNTAIN AND THE GAZEBO TO PLACE A STRUCTURE THAT IS OVERSIZED AND OUT OF CHARACTER IN THAT LOCATION?
WAKE UP!
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE NEWSPAPER IS THAT THEY WERE STILL CONSIDERING VARIOUS LOCATIONS. WHY WOULD YOU UNDO SOMETHING WONDERFUL THAT IS ALREADY COMPLETE!
ARE WE ACCEPTING THIS "GIFT" WITH THE RESTRICTION OF THAT LOCATION? AND WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?
WHY WOULD THE VILLAGE OF SOUTH ORANGE SPEND MONEY TO IMPROVE SOMETHING AND THEN ALONG THE WAY WASTE THE MONEY IT DID SPEND?
WAS THE MONEY USED FOR THE GAZEBO AND FOUNTAIN GRANT MONEY (STILL OUR TAX DOLLARS) AND IF SO AREN'T THERE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON THAT PROJECT?
THE SCULPTURE SCALE AND DESIGN ARE INAPPROPRIATE IN THAT LOCATION BY THE FIREHOUSE.
WHY? WHY? WHY? IS EVERYBODY SITTING BY AND WATCHING THIS?
JUST WAIT TILL IT IS UP AND THE VILLAGE WAKES UP AFTER THE DEED IS DONE....
WHY IS THIS A DONE DEAL?
HAS ANYONE SEEN THE OPEN GOVERNMENT LATELY? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2639
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:00 am: | |
Also, according to Calabrese last night, the contract for the $74,000 for the landscape architect was a "condition" of the "gift" that is costing taxpayers a total of $250,000.
Since when do you give a "gift" and stipulate precisely who must "install" it? |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 310
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:22 am: | |
Well I only learned of this issue at the last BOT meeting when Allan Rosen's concerns were brushed off and that's why I even looked into it.
I think people, in general, will be highly upset about this. But like I said, the contract has been done - the money was already appropriated by a previous board and there's nothing more to do unless a LARGE number of residents raise hell about the location... the money is apparently a done deal.
I still think SLOAN STREET is not APPROPRIATE AT ALL!!!!! And I think you would find a good consensus among the fire dept. and businesses that will be right next to it...
And also I heard a rumor (Trustee Rosner can you comment) that it was about a million dollars and S.O. is only picking up 250k. Is this correct?
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 98
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:38 am: | |
$74,000 for the landscape architect...hhhmmmm. Who might that be? Was there was an RFP floated to potential firms before the selection of Wm. Scerbo for current town landscape design? How was this $74,000 fee arrived at? Was it by competitive bid? Answers, please. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2118
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:41 am: | |
Sheena: The max cost to the village is to be $250,000. Some of that money is to be offset by private donations and grants. How much is the question. The statue is valued at $1,000,000.
It is still an unknown how much it will cost to maintain the statue in the future (mostly cleaning up bird turd and any grafitti).
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:46 am: | |
Good questions jj. And they require a response. |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:46 am: | |
How does one determine the market value of a sculpture such as this one?
The value of the sculpture is only relevant if we would ever consider selling it--and if there were a buyer interested in paying that price.
I'm not necessarily opposed to installation of this sculpture, but I'm not yet prepared to take statements like "it's worth 5 times what we're going to pay" at face value.
(edited for typo) |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1231
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:58 am: | |
If Bill Calabrese said the $75,000 for a landscape architect was a condition of the gift, this condition should be a matter of public information. |
washburn
Citizen
Username: Washburn
Post Number: 9
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 11:58 am: | |
talk it up...to answer your question, there doesn't seem to be open government in the village. certain committees are trying to push through projects that will beautify one part of the village at the expense of another part. namely the destruction of part of our park, ie the tennis courts, in favor of parking. as much as it is being denied, or the parking is being claimed as a byproduct of the river walk plans, which by the way sounds great, the rec. dept. which should concern itself with preserving our parks, not condoning the destruction of a wonderful place, is very confusing to me...than what do i know....i am just a taxpayer and voter with a looooonnnnng memory..... |
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 311
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:35 pm: | |
Washburn,
Did you attend the recreational advisory committee when it was discussed?
If you watched the BOT meeting last night, the board appropriated more funds to Janine Bauer who already went to the consultants to say that the village needed more proposals without removing the tennis courts... I don't think the Board would agree to that if they weren't concerned about the tennis community...
And I agree that a lot of the proposals do help alleviate the parking disparities, but to say that was the goal of the numerous volunteers who are environmentalists on those committees (River Committee) and the people who helped with the bike bath proposal is not fair at all... The parking was supplemental... |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6993
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:48 pm: | |
The only other town I can find that has bought (or been given) a Tony Smith recently is Beverly Hills. Fortunately for them, they acquired a work called Playground. Who could be against a Playground?
http://www.beverlyhillsbehere.com/cvbevents_print.asp?seldate=11/1/2005
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 2640
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:53 pm: | |
Dave,
Now that you mention it, South Orange Avenue does look exactly like Rodeo Drive.  |
washburn
Citizen
Username: Washburn
Post Number: 10
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 1:28 pm: | |
if more funds weren't given to janine bauer, the whole project would have been postponed for a while, thus jeopardizing the funding for the project. please understand, it is not my intention to demean the project or the volunteers who give so much of their time to the town. but to think that certain parties never even considered parking is just not realistic. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page