| Author | Message | ||
     Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1252 Registered: 3-2002 |
lol... I have to get one of those footers for my screen name. I appreciate Mark's response, although talking about the benefits of a Seton Hall partnership without talking about the numbers involved still seems premature to me. It has been my understanding that SHU asked for some changes in the SOPAC plans; until those are fleshed out, even site preparation seems premature. I wrote before about my difficulty that, at the time of the last election, the incumbent ticket claimed that the arts center would start construction in August, 1999. Mark notes that the original bids came in high, apparently because "the firm totally misled the village". From Eric and others, I've heard a different telling of that story. This strikes me as one of those situations that would benefit from full disclosure of what happened, why it happened and what we learned from it. It's hard to come to a reasoned consensus without documentation and agreement on fact. Proceeding without consensus is possible, but in a village of this size it isn't at all preferable. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 241 Registered: 4-2002 |
Brian: There has been a lot of information released. If any person wants a full explanation of the current status, they really should either come to a SOPAC meeting or contact John Gross. I think that what you are asking should come from the executive director. If Eric has a different story, I would love to hear it. I was not on the arts board when the bids came in and I am basing my information on the minutes and what I am told. From what I understand, Eric DeVaris was very involved and was certainly part of the process. I also heard that the original firm was suggested by Mr. DeVaris, so he might have a different take on the matter. However, this much was clear. The firm (Ford, Farewell) was given a budget and those working on the project were told that the project would come in for less. Not only was that firm wrong, but the bids came in more than 25% higher. Maybe Mr. Devaris would like to explain what his role was and what he thinks happened so we will all know. He has been very quiet on the issue for the last two years. I asked in public for the orignial volunteers to turn over and documents they might have, but so far it has not been forthcoming. Remember we thought the arts center was being built based on information that was given to us by the people on the arts board including Mr. DeVaris. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1262 Registered: 3-2002 |
Mark, I think the arrow needs to point the other way. The trustees are considering a commitment of several million dollars of public funds for an arts center. It is incumbent on the trustees and village employees to articulate the plan in a considered way for residents to review and support. Even if a referendum on such spending is not required, I think the communication on the proposed project should reflect a commitment to sell the idea to the entire community. As for Ford Farewell's involvement: I understood that their contract stipulated that, if the bids came in over the budgeted amount, the firm was obligated to redesign the arts center to fit the original budget. They were released from their contract without exercising that clause. If they were deficient in the original design, why weren't they held to their contract? Given that we're trying to understand why the bids came in high, I think the paperwork you want to review is more likely on file at Ford, Farewell. Let's commit to asking them to comment publicly on their view of this project. That's the kind of disclosure I was writing about above. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 244 Registered: 4-2002 |
Brian: There has been full disclosure about the Ford Farewell and I merely point out that Mr. DeVaris was very involved in the project. I agree that the trustees need to have a full review considering the investment. However, I think you understand why there would not be certain information given out until the contract is completed and signed. There was a statement given out with the outline and it is on the village website. Again, if you have a specific question, I think the exectuive director of SOPAC should be the person making specific statements and if you have any question, you should contact him or come to a SOPAC meeting. As for the exact details of the settlement with Ford Farewell, I can have the village attorney contact you with the full details which has all been made public before. I think you know full well that kind of question should be addressed directly to the attorney. When the BOE has a legal dispute, I would guess that the attorney for the BOE answers the question, and not the specific members of the BOE. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1269 Registered: 3-2002 |
lol... Mark, you're lawyering up. That's not like you  I think I understand why an agreement might not be discussed while negotiations are underway. I was asking if it was balanced for the village (or the L-w-V ticket) to claim it as a win while not disclosing what can't yet be disclosed. That's all I'd offer there. I appreciate the work done to provide information on the website, which I read periodically. Unfortunately, there are some things on the village site (like claiming Maplewood's Money magazine honor as our own) that diminish its credibility for me. For comparison, legal settlements voted upon by the BOE are approved in public and maintained as a matter of public record. Once approved, they can be addressed by any member of the Board. Before a settlement is reached, the Board president or the Superintendent is generally the only public face on an issue. The BOE's attorney primarily advises the Board, usually does not attend public meetings and seldom serves as a public spokesperson. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 75 Registered: 9-2002 |
This seems to be my night for rants... I have to say, I haven't been keeping up with SOPAC at all, other than the puff pieces occasionally in the Gaslight. But in reading this board, all I can say is (sorry Dave R, banish me if you must), stop with all the f-ing finger pointing! This is EXACTLY what we're all tired of. Incumbents, challengers, all pointing fingers. Read this board, particularly the last few posts. If not finger pointing, then innuendo. I expect than from mayhewdrive (no offense intended - we constituents can get away with it), but not from elected (or hoping to be elected) representatives. And please none of the "I just answered his accusations." That's the grown up version of "he started it." This is supposed to be a discussion of the Arts Center, not a political stump. | ||
| Annie Modesitt Citizen Username: Modeknit Post Number: 16 Registered: 9-2002  |
Reading this thread encourages me to raise concerns I have as a South Orange resident and theater professional (I'm a currently non-active member of United Scenic Artists Local 829) - I've heard that the theater won't have a backstage scenic shop or work area, fly space above the stage or even a loading platform. Could this be true in the current incarnation of the designs? Without any decent backstage area the performance capability will be drastically reduced and the quality of even very small productions will be compromised. - I've also heard an orchestra pit may or may not be included. - I'm troubled that - from what I've read on these boards and in the News Record (most notably John Gross's Point of View piece) SOPAC budget numbers are being withheld on the premise that opening them up for the community to scrutinize would compromise the Village's ability to negotiate with theatrical professionals in future. If this IS the case it doesn't seem like a valid reason to withhold information from taxpayers. - Is there space allocated for wardrobe maintenance? I know this sounds unimportant, but if we're not going to have fly space or a loading platform, can we at least get well maintained costumes? - I'm concerned that Mr. Rosner says in his post of 4/16, "I do not know the reasons why the Harms Center is closing other than a lack of funding." This seems like an area where South Orange Village government could learn from the missteps of a similar NJ community. Mr. Rosner's attitude makes me feel he doesn't really want to know about failures of similar PACs in NJ. - I'm very worried about the auto traffic this PAC would bring. An Arts Center could be a great asset to South Orange, but there must be consideration given to the possibility that EVERY weekend in South Orange could become as busy as the 4th of July. I find the reiteration of previously announced information as NEW a trifle unsettling. I thought I'd heard that talks had started between the Village and Seton Hall YEARS ago on this SOPAC thing. I know of other theater professionals in South Orange who are more experienced than I in the management of professional venues. Why not open up the discussions on SOPAC to our MANY community members who work professionally in the theater? This seems to be a resource that hasn't been tapped in the planning of this project. These are just a few of my questions. As the mother of two small children it's difficult for me to attend a lot of SOPAC meetings - I wish there was more open coverage of the details of this issue. I am very impressed with the level of intelligent discussion on this issue on these boards - thanks! Annie http://www.modeknit.com | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4574 Registered: 5-2001  |
Woodstock, You can't expect to get away with that fingerpointing without being called on it, can you? ;) | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4575 Registered: 5-2001 |
And I am learning more from the debate, whether it's fingerpointing or not it sure is nice to have a responsive Village Trustee participating here with a very qualified candidate for Village President. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 245 Registered: 4-2002 |
Woodstock: I was just annoyed that Eric DeVaris is trying to act as if he was not involved with the arts center when his name was on all the signage. He has a very clear understanding of the project and I think that a lot of residents do not know what his level of involvement was since he is now trying to claim otherwise. Annie: Those are all very good questions and really good concerns. First, I am waiting for one of the professionals to give us his input regarding the Harms Center and what they are able to find out. I did not want to speculate, but of course we are finding out what the primary reasons were for the closing other than what was in the newspaper. The stage has been an area of concern. Clearly you have an understanding of theater and I appreciate the need for many of the items you mentioned. With the Seton Hall partnership, we are trying to incorporate all those features into the design. We do have theater consultants who give the SOPAC board advice as well as volunteers with experience in the theater. Rather than me trying to give you all the details of the stage and your concerns, I would rather invite you to the next SOPAC meeting for a discussion and a chance to ask other questions. Others have come and done just that and I think they now have a better understanding. There had been a conversation with Seton Hall well before I was on the board but at that time they were not interested. Last December they expressed an interest in coming back in the fold and they were now willing to become a partner in the venture. As for the traffic, there is a commitment to do whatever is needed to keep it flowing which will probably mean police officers and additional parking. We have sent out for bid to do a comprehensive traffic and parking study that will take the whole downtown into consideration. And yes there was one done before the project was considered, but given the changes in the downtown and a clearer picture of what it is going to look like we felt an updated one was needed. I have always welcomed more input from volunteers who want to offer their expertise and time. The village cleary thrives on volunteer participation, and this project has been no different. Brian: You were clearly looking for the details of the outcome of the Ford Farewell litigation and I think it best if I had the attorney give you the answer. South Orange was mentioned in the Money Magazine article with Maplewood. By the way, did everyone see the article in last weeks NY Times Real Estate section or yesterday's Star-Ledger? They both highlight the positive things going on in the downtown and what the village has done. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| snshirsch Citizen Username: Snshirsch Post Number: 22 Registered: 1-2003 |
Do we all have to attend the SOPAC borad meetings in order to have the same questions answered over and over again by the interested parties. Your constituents, the homeowners and taxpayers of the Village of South Orange? Why aren't these board meeting minutes public so that we can all know what the he** is going on. I have to tell you, these threads of he said, she said, he did, they are hiding, and so on and so on are getting ridiculous. The only good thing is that Dave has provided you a place to put it in writing. Why all the behind closed doors, every question I see raised here is perfectly valid, and never answered with more than, 'that's a valid question, come to our meetings'. Who's got the time, except those who enjoy the power that comes from the seemingly clandestine knowledge of what is going on. Let me see for myself and don't make it so damn difficult. What are you hiding, if anyone can come to the meetings, if anyone can read the minutes, why can't you make it all easily accessible and public. It can't be in the best interests of the Village if you aren't willing to stand up the scrutiny of anyone who may have a valid point to make. Who knows, it may save the Village money and aggravation in the long run. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 208 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, The Money Magazine article clearly named Maplewood as the winner. For South Orange to try to steal their glory is really distasteful. South Orange was mentioned as having block associations, but the honor was given to Maplewood. In the Star Ledger last December, they printed the following: "It's funny. They're copying every thing we do over here," said Bill Calabrese, the South Orange village president and a local pharmacist. As a South Orange resident, I find that embarassing. We should be embracing our neighbor, not exhibiting petty jealousy. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 247 Registered: 4-2002 |
I just did a full post and it disappeared. I did not even get the file locking message. I think Brian has intercepted my replys. SNhirsch: No, not everyone has to attend the meetings. I just felt that Annie had very specific questions and would benefit by coming to a meeting where she could get the answers from the executive director or one of the experts on SOPAC. I am not an official spokesperson for SOPAC and only try to answer general questions. SOPAC is a seperate entity. They do have open meetings and they are advertised. Anyone who wants the minutes can request them by sending an email via the village website (www.southorange.org). SOPAC has nine voting members and three paid employees. We have been given input from many volunteers and I certainly welcome any input we can get from people who have experience in this area. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 77 Registered: 9-2002 |
I wanted to apologize for my rant last night. I was tired and frustrated. My wife and I are very seriously considering putting our 3-1/2 year old house on the market for no other reason than our taxes are now pretty much on par with our mortgage. And our mortgage is not cheap. $50k a year on housing is really approaching the ridiculous. Finding another place to live will be tough. We don't want to move further out, but Essex county is pretty much a non-starter, since no one seems to be able to figure out how to fix the tax poblems here. The rest of NJ seems to be only marginally better (except for a few pockets of sanity). So again, please accept my apologies. The fact that there is even a discussion going on here is still better than none at all. | ||
| Shelley Stile Citizen Username: Sstile Post Number: 16 Registered: 12-2002 |
I would like to address the most recent developments and issues raised concerning SOPAC. First off Mr Rosner, I knew that somehow Eric DeVaris would suffer at the hands of the incumbents who seem to think that they can lay the blame for the present SOPAC mess on him. For everyone concerned, SOPAC's original Board did have representation from many upstanding members of the community, amongst them Mr. DeVaris. Bill Calabrese appointed his friend and sidekick, Dave Bressen ,to head up activities for him. Under Mr Bressen, many fine individuals with much to offer left...due to utter frustration and disgust. I know for a fact that Eric met with Bill a couple of times to voice his concerns over the fact that the construction consultant's remarks were not being heeded as well as the fact that Mr Calabrese made far too many decisions contrary to many professional and Board member opinions. There have been many members that have come and gone due to the fact that their opinions and concerns were not being addressed. SOPAC's funding, bonds and loans, were approved by the present BOT with very little investigation on their part, if any! They looked at a financial/business plan and a meager feasibility study with little hard data behind it and gave their approval of the funding. At present, SOAR's many concerns and questions, as well as Bill Dahn's (local architect) have NOT been adequetely addressed. I have had to file a mediation request with the State OPRA(Open Public Records Act) to have a formal mediation proceeding in order to procure information, I.E. consultant's reports, etc. from the Village. These are reports and information that we have been attempting to legally access since January 31st of this year! Roadblock after roadblock have been placed in our path by Mr Gross as well as the Village Attorney, Ed MAtthews. Bill Dahn went over the present drawings for SOPAC three weeks ago and he felt that all of his concerns about a shoddy building ,unnecessary code costs , cheap materials, etc., etc, were confirmed. He is now in the process of costing out the entire project, at his own expense and initiative with other professionals, in order to show the Village why he feels this facility can be built better and for possibly less money. His requests for information, filed also three months ago, are still not completed (far from it)and his last request to Mr Gross has gone unanswered for the past three weeks! He too may be forced to go to the state for mediation proceedings! As far as backstage and side stage access areas ...there are none!!!!! That is only the tip of the iceberg of the findings of Mr Dahn, as well as Stece Friedlander, a local theater arts consultant who works for a firm in the City. If anyone wants to read about the entire story, please visit the SOPAC section at southorangesoar.com. On the site you can find all correspondance from Mr Dahn to John Gross and the BOT concerning SOPAC as well as additional information. It is fairly unbelievable. Harms Center did not go out solely because of funding, are from it. The present economic climate had a great deal to do with the problems. Most Arts Centers right now are struggling as are the movie theaters. Our design for the Arts Center aspect of SOPAC are totally lacking in terms of facilities as well as recommended seating so that with the present plans, we will be hard pressed to succeed. As far as the traffic situation...I believe that there has not been one done for SOPAC. The BOT asked the PArking Authority to pay $60,000 for a study but I understand that they were turned down. My feelings are that the entire project should be put on hold immediatly until the consultant's reports can be seen, the re-pricing of the project by Mr Dahn is completed and most important, an independent consulting firm, both for construction and theater arts,(not hired by BOT or SOPAC) can come in and do a real, statistically valid feasibility study utilizing the present plans (the other study done 5 years ago had a very different design scenario and is now obsolete) and economic conditions . The we may have a better understanding and know for certain whether this project is viable commmercially and financially. I urge all concerned residents to attend the next BOT meeting and make your feelings and concerns known. The next meeting is this MOnday the 28th at 7:30pm at Village HAll. Also, the SOPAC Board will be meeting on May 19th at 7:30pm in Village Hall, second floor conference room. All are free to attend. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 252 Registered: 4-2002 |
Shelley: How does Mr. Devaris suffer if people know that he was very involved with SOPAC up to about one year ago? I think that should be a positive. After all, he is an architect and I know he had input into the architecual firm that was originally used. There was an independent construction firm bought in by Seton Hall that did review the project. I have had several conversations with Mr. Dahn and I have been trying to help get him all the material he has requested. Again, as far as the Harms Center is concerned, I will wait till I hear from one of the consultants to SOPAC what the problems there were along with what our concerns should be in this economic climate. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 80 Registered: 9-2002 |
Shelley, if the project should be put on hold, who will pay for that? Who will pay to bring in these outside consultants? No offense intended to Mr. Dahn, but what makes him more qualified than the people that did the original work? You also call for "an independent consulting firm, both for construction and theater arts,(not hired by BOT or SOPAC)" to "do a real, statistically valid feasibility study utilizing the present plans ... and economic conditions." Again, I'd ask, who will pay for this, especially if you don't want the BoT or SOPAC to pay for it. I'm neither questioning nor acknowledging the value of these activities. But from where will these funds come? The way my property taxes are going, I could build SOPAC in a few years. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 36 Registered: 3-2003 |
M.Rosner: A couple of questions to clarify matters: As I understand the financing, it will be in the form of grants and loans and the injection of funds from Seton Hall. With regard to the loan portion, will this be in the name of SOPAC or the Village, and if by SOPAC, is the Village a guarantor? Also, with regard to operating expenses, who will be responsible. I recognize that there will probably be an apportionate between Seton Hall and SOPAC with regard to the expenses attributable to the theater, but I am really trying to get a handle on who is responsible for what and ultimately the whether the taxpayers of South Orange have any potential liability. Also, has a movie operator been selected and is there any type of letter of intent or other understanding? I realize that this might be complicated to answer, but please don't suggest that I attend a SOPAC meeting. I think these are extremely relevant matters that the public, at least the readers of this board, might be interested in knowing. Thank you again for your participation in these discussions. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 257 Registered: 4-2002 |
Doublea: The reason I suggest people go to SOPAC meetings or contact John Gross by email is that I am by no means the resident expert on SOPAC. I understand that I am the only one posting on here that has any official knowledge, I was one of the more recent appointments to SOPAC and I might have a better understanding than most, I do want people to know that they can get much more detailed answers from other sources. However, the village does have a potential liablity. It was one of the major concerns and another reason the project was delayed. None of the SOPAC board members would give an ok until we had a better understanding. I do know that the partnership with SHU reduces the potential liability and I hope we never have that kind of deficit. The village and Seton Hall will be sharing in the operational expenses of the live theater. This was very important to the village and it helps to minimize any potential liability. At this point, we are talking with several movie theater operators. We were waiting for the project to get back on track before we continued negotiating. At this point, I am sure we can find an operator that we will be happy with, but I am not sure what the income will be from the movies. After the next SOPAC meeting (if I am re-elected) I will post a summary of where the project stands as well as any other updates. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for 5/19/2003 (I will be away that week so I won't be able to attend). Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 38 Registered: 3-2003 |
M.Rosner: As a helpful suggestion, please make sure that the "operational costs" of the live theater include all indirect as well as direct costs. I'm sure this has already been addressed. |
