| Author | Message | ||
     Shelley Stile Citizen Username: Sstile Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2002 |
As far as doing an independent feasibility study to cover the new design and operation of the theater...given the fact that SOPAC has already spent nearly $1.5million dollars of your money without so much as a hole in the ground, my guess is that it makes more sense to insure that this project is viable before we all are held responsible for the tab of an additional $10.5million. Remember, if it fails, we are left with a huge white elephant in our downtown that we will continue to pay for. SOPAC/Village paysfor such a study , as they have been doing with everything else. The Village is loaning SOPAC the money via their loans and bonds so YES, we will all be liable for this project. As far as the original designers...Ford, Farewell & Gatch, they did an excellant job of designing SOPAC but they warned the Board that costs would be well above their budget as SOPAC/Calabrese continued to ask for more and more features saying they would find the money. FFG was under contract to redesign for free BUT the Board of SOPAC decided to pay them $650,000 for the plans and then pay Arnell COnstruction another $500,000 for redesign because Arnell claimed said they could build the project for $10.5million. Remember, the original stated budget was $7million. Arnell redesigned SOPAC with innumerable cost cuts affecting the design, theater size and facilities, materials used, etc until we are left with a sub-standard facility for an arts center, totally lacking in theater faciliites(no back or side stage space) All this money and only plans in our hands that ain't so hot! Mr Dahn knows FFG and he called for explanations. Mr Dahn is a highly successful architect and he agreed with original designs done by FFG. His firm, is redesigning the Count BAsie theater in Red Bank. His issues are with the Arnell redesign. Again, check out all details and correspondance on SOPAC at southorangesoar.com. | ||
| Shelley Stile Citizen Username: Sstile Post Number: 21 Registered: 12-2002 |
As far as doing an independent feasibility study to cover the new design and operation of the theater...given the fact that SOPAC has already spent nearly $1.5million dollars of your money without so much as a hole in the ground, my guess is that it makes more sense to insure that this project is viable before we all are held responsible for the tab of an additional $10.5million. Remember, if it fails, we are left with a huge white elephant in our downtown that we will continue to pay for. SOPAC/Village paysfor such a study , as they have been doing with everything else. The Village is loaning SOPAC the money via their loans and bonds so YES, we will all be liable for this project. As far as the original designers...Ford, Farewell & Gatch, they did an excellant job of designing SOPAC but they warned the Board that costs would be well above their budget as SOPAC/Calabrese continued to ask for more and more features saying they would find the money. FFG was under contract to redesign for free BUT the Board of SOPAC decided to pay them $650,000 for the plans and then pay Arnell COnstruction another $500,000 for redesign because Arnell claimed said they could build the project for $10.5million. Remember, the original stated budget was $7million. Arnell redesigned SOPAC with innumerable cost cuts affecting the design, theater size and facilities, materials used, etc until we are left with a sub-standard facility for an arts center, totally lacking in theater faciliites(no back or side stage space) All this money and only plans in our hands that ain't so hot! Mr Dahn knows FFG and he called for explanations. Mr Dahn is a highly successful architect and he agreed with original designs done by FFG. His firm, is redesigning the Count BAsie theater in Red Bank. His issues are with the Arnell redesign. Again, check out all details and correspondance on SOPAC at southorangesoar.com. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 2 Registered: 4-2003 |
Whew! I just read many posts in this thread, and while I would love to pick apart every sentence that rattles me, I will settle for two comments: 1) How could SOPAC be a "separate entity" as Mr. Rosner says it is, and still have John Gross as its Executive Director while he is a full-time employee of the Village of South Orange? My tax dollars at work paying his full-time Village Administrator salary (and, since the demise of Treasurer Mosca a few years ago, also full-time Treasuer), and now, also, Executive Director of the "separate entity" of SOPAC. To be on the full-time payroll of one organization (the Village of South Orange)while also being an Executive Director of a "separate entity" is unethical at best, and possibly illegal as well. Could Mr. Gross' multi-tasking have anything to do with why Supermarkets, Arts Centers, attention to detail, scale, and design have been missing from the Village for the last several years? 2) Shame on Mr. Rosner for blaming a resident volunteer (Eric DeVaris) for any problems associated with volunteer activities in which the government had full charge. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 260 Registered: 4-2002 |
Washashore: I never blamed Mr. DeVaris for anything. I am merely saying he was part of the project from the beginning and he certainly has an intimate knowledge of SOPAC. There were many volunteers that worked with the original architect and I think they all did a good job in getting to the point they did. It was unfortunate that Ford Farewell did not deliver on their promise and a lot of the work had to be redone. Mr. Gross is an acting executive director of SOPAC until the SOPAC search committee hires a full time exectutive director. Why wouldn't the village want it's CFO looking over the money at SOPAC. Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 3 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. Rosner: In response to your question "why wouldn't the village want its cfo looking over the money at SOPAC" gets to two of the major newspeaks about this mess: 1) If Gross is looking over Village money, (i.e. my money) then how could I (or any other tax payer) be denied access to SOPAC documents because it is a "separate entity"? 1984 newspeak is just as troubling in 2003. 2) Glad you admit that Gross, in addition to Administrator, is also CFO. And Acting Exec Director of SOPAC. So my question still stands: do you suppose that Gross' multi-tasking has anything to do with the lack of effective progress on Supermarkets, Art Centers, attention and sensitivity to design and scale? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 263 Registered: 4-2002 |
Washashore: What documents were you denied? The SOPAC board has released all documents except the ones that are still being negotiated or that have not been approved by the board. SOPAC does not have to meet the open public request act (OPRA), but has been releasing documents. Since the SOPAC board usually only meets once a month, some requests must wait for board approval. The supermarket developers has had several meetings with the planning board, Main Street and Mr. Gross. They have been trying to accomodate and work with everyone to bring a project that is acceptable to all parties. It has been a very open and long process, but I would not think it is fair to blame one person for those delays. They have been very sensitive to the comments and criticism about the design and the size of the building and there has been many revisions. The arts center design was already in place when Mr. Gross was hired by the village and the delays with that project had more to do with the original architect than any thing else. There have been many people involved with SOPAC and I would find it very hard to blame any one person. I also still feel that we were better for having delayed the SOPAC project untill we were more comfortable with the financial aspects and we had a major donor or partner (which we now have). As for the multi-tasking question, I would feel better in the long run if we seperated some of the responsiblities. I do not think that it has affected the items you mention, but in the long run I think the village would be better with a seperate treasurer and a seperate executive director for SOPAC. Of course, I have said this before, so it is nothing new. I also have been one of the biggest supporters of having a downtown management corporation which would also take on some of the tasks that the administrator is responsible for, and would free him up to work on some other projects. The village works with a limited budget and Mr. Gross does a good job. By the way, before some people get the wrong impression, Mr. Gross does have other people who work with him and do some of the work, but he has the ultimate responsibility. Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A | ||
| Annie Modesitt Citizen Username: Modeknit Post Number: 18 Registered: 9-2002  |
Mr. Rosner Thanks so much for answering my earlier question - I do appreciate that you're just about the only Village government representative to utilize these boards and help those of us who ask questions here get at least some type of answer Even if the reply is simply "it's not my area of expertise..." it's still good that you make the effort to answer. Obviously, though, the frustration level is high on the downtown redevelopment, SOPAC, the Beifus site, the Quarry - all areas where people feel they need advanced legal degrees or a heck of a lot of persistence to obtain information that should be made public. I do appreciate the difficulties of negotiation - as I mentioned in my earlier post I'm a Union member - but I have a sinking feeling that much of the information the public is crying out for is being hidden under the cloak of "potential point of negotiation with future artisans" and therefore not made available to the general public. The truth of the matter is, though, that if there IS no backstage, wing-space, scene shop, wardrobe area OR even a loading platform in the live theater then we shouldn't call it SOPAC - we should call it SORecH (South Orange Recital Hall.) It will not be a space that will draw professional level talent, so the whole "we-can't-open-the-books-because-it-will-hurt-our-future-bargaining-position-wit h-professionals" position is moot. It does look bad for John Gross to be in charge of both entities - I hadn't realized this and I'm grateful to you for your forthrightness in addressing this when asked about it on these boards. To be honest, if everything were going great downtown no one would probably care -but things AREN'T going great downtown. Sort of off topic - but not too far off - is this: I do knit - I write about knitting and design for hand-knitting magazines and teach locally and nationally at fiber festivals, museums, etc. I am familiar with most of the yarn shops in the area and I know they bring in a lot of LOYAL traffic to the adjacent businesses. I also know that not just one but TWO proprietors of yarn stores were looking into South Orange to open a shop in the past 3 years. I am not at liberty to discuss business names, but both were dismayed with the difficulty of dealing with the Village officials and the lack of "available" space in South Orange. I almost choked when one of these women (who now manages a VERY successful yarn store in a neighboring town) told me that she had been told there was NO retail space in South Orange that she could afford! All of that foot traffic that goes from her store to the neighboring businesses, cafes, boutiques - THAT could have been ours! We have stores closing and other shops sitting empty! How many more nail salons and dry cleaners do we need? Once again - thanks for taking the time to respond to questions on the board - I appreciate it as a citizen of South Orange - even if I don't always agree with the reply!! I do also GREATLY appreciate Brian O'Leary's postings - it's one of the reasons I am choosing to support him for Village President in the upcoming elections on the Open South Orange ticket Annie http://www.modeknit.com | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 264 Registered: 4-2002 |
Believe me when I tell you there is a level of frustration at my end too. Although this was my first term on the board it seems that it took forever to get Mr. Beifus to get project to the planning board. I am glad that the demolition has started and that it is progressing. I do think that most of the documentation that was requested for SOPAC has been released. Some of the more technical documents (building plans) require that the person sign off on why they want them and that they will not be given to anyone else (that is due to post 9/11 security issues and the Federal government rules regarding such). Again, I ask you not to always believe everything you read on this board by certain posters. A lot of the items you asked about regarding SOPAC are going to be included in the revised plans as a result of the partnership with SHU. I know the concerns and the SOPAC board does have a professionals who understand exactly the issues you refer to. As for the person who has the knitting store, I did personally speak to her and gave her the name of two landlords that had space available in her budget. One of the spaces was rented out by the time she was able to call and the other landlord has changed his mind and is not looking for a new tenant yet (there is still a store there but is rarely open and his indicated they might retire this year). By the way, I still feel the landlords have a responsibility for filling their stores, although the village will always help anyone who asks. If someone told her there was no space available for the rent she wanted to pay, my guess is that comment did not come from a village official. Also, Main Street does assist potential storeowners who want to open a store and several of the Realtors in town have been very helpful. Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1275 Registered: 3-2002 |
Sorry I have been away for a few days. As mentioned in another thread, a week's worth of illness around the family. I appreciate woodstock's reminder about pointing fingers. I didn't intend for my comments to read that way, and I'll redouble my efforts to avoid repeating it. I have three concerns about SOPAC: that it was promised as "coming this fall" as part of the 1999 campaign, and we have not seen real progress since then; there appear to be some aspects of the design that would preclude attracting the kinds of regional performances that its business model is based on; and the current contractor has responsibility for design and construction, with cost underruns accruing wholly to the builder. The last point makes me want to better understand the design before we proceed. I'm willing to wait until until the recommended plan is developed and can be presented without compromising negotiations, but I don't accept that a facility that will be build with millions of dollars of local funds is "controlled" by a 501(c)3 that does not have to reveal such information. Public funds, public disclosure, public input - seems simple. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 266 Registered: 4-2002 |
There have been public meetings, there has been public input and there has been public disclosure. We will continue to have open meetings, we will continue to seek public input and we will continue to have public disclosure. And I will continue to state that I felt better about delaying a project rather than try to meet a goal that was based on bad information from a professional architect. The architect was chosen by the volunteers who were working on the project. Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4587 Registered: 5-2001  |
I don't recall reading about public SOPAC meetings in the Gaslight, which lists Board of Adjustment meetings, Board of Health meetings, Board of Trustee meetings, Cable TV advisory board meetings, Community Relations Committee meetings, Library Board meetings, Planning Board meetings, Rent Leveling Board metings..... No mention of SOPAC meetings. Not this month. Not in March. Not in February. Not in January. Not in December. When was the last "SOPAC public meeting" and why wasn't it included in the Gaslight? | ||
| David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 3 Registered: 4-2003 |
I'm with Dave. After having Mark scold me for raising questions without having attended a SOPAC meeting, I got to thinking that I have never read about a SOPAC meeting to attend. (For backup, I just checked the Gaslight and the S.O. website, and there is no meeting on the schedule to be found). _____________________ www.opensouthorange.com Vote Line B on May 13 | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 269 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: The problem with meetings like SOPAC is that the meetings are usually announced around 2 - 3 weeks prior to the meeting. The Gaslight prints the meetings that are set in advance. Since the SOPAC board has had to be flexible because there are so many people with different schedules. I will try and post the meeting dates on here going forward. Every SOPAC meeting has an open session. The next meeting is scheduled for May 19th (I think it is at 7:30 P.M.), but I will try and confirm the date and time the week before. Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A | ||
| noracoombs Citizen Username: Noracoombs Post Number: 10 Registered: 8-2002 |
Mr. Rosner: You say that meetings are announced 2-3 weeks prior to the meeting. At what point are they SCHEDULED? I would think that a formal board of a 501(c)3 corporation would have monthly meetings scheduled a good deal of time in advance. If that is so, why can't those dates be publicized when they're scheduled? Better yet, why can't SOPAC meet at a regularly scheduled time (fourth Tuesday of the month, for example) like the other Village committees do? It would make it much easier for Village residents to be informed as to the dates of meetings. I only ask because I get the impression that public SOPAC meetings are held on a "yeah, you know we haven't met in a while, we probably should have an open meeting" basis. I remember being at a Board of Trustees meeting a few months back where the board was asked when the next SOPAC meeting was, and the date was basically decided right there. It seems to me that a corporate board's meetings should be a little more formalized than that. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2003 |
For the last two months I have been with a corrupt web browser in my computer and could not access MOL, just at a time when I wanted to do so the most. Well, after long-long hours on the phone with Verizon, AOL, and Microsoft, two house visits from Verizon technicians, and a complete restore of my hard drive, I am now here and ready to communicate with my neighbors. I start with this thread because my name has been mentioned here a few times. I am surprised that Mr. Rosner demonstrates here so much unawareness on the going-ons of such an important and controversial project as is SOPAC when, as our Village trustee, should be on top of all essential information regarding this project. Mr. Rosner, as our trustee, you should have known that Ford, Farewell, Mills and Gatch, (FFM&G) a reputable architectural firm with several theaters in their design background, was selected by a group of architects, engineers, and planners of Main Street’s Design Committee, which I was chairing at the time. You should have known that, Mr. Rosner. Mr. Rosner, as our trustee, you should have known that FFM&G presented initially the Village with an excellent architectural design, within the original budget. In the two years that followed there were numerous meetings between the architects and the SOPAC Design Task Force, chaired by Mr. Calabrese, and in his absence, by Mr. David Bressen. During these meetings, in which I was a participant, Messrs. Calabrese and Bressen kept adding or changing planning and design features. On every occasion FFM&G alerted them of the fact that their requests would increase the costs of the project; this is well documented in the minutes of the meetings recorded by FFM&G. You should have known that Mr. Rosner. Mr. Rosner, as our trustee, you should have known that the firm of FFM&G was fired, after the town had spent approximately $650,000 for their services. Mr. Bressen, who has no design or construction experience whatsoever, blamed the architects for the high bids, and it is that notion that prevails now around the Village. This could not be any further from the truth. It is my humble opinion, and that is only my personal observation of the proceedings at the time, that what brought the demise of the architects, was their effort to make Messrs. Calabrese and Bressen understand that they cannot get what they want and still keep within the budget. Mr. Rosner, as our trustee, you should have known that I, along with the other two Main Street members of the Design Task Force, were told by Mr. Bressen that we were not allowed to participate in meetings of the group dealing with budgetary/financial and schedule issues; and that we were only there to comment on design issues. You should have known that Mr. Rosner. Mr. Rosner you state in your thread of April 19, that Eric DeVaris has “been very quiet on the issue for the last two years”. Before you made such statement, Mr. Rosner, you should have known that I have been kept out of the loop for the last two years. You should remember, Mr. Rosner, receiving your copy of a May 2001 letter from the then president of Main Street, Ms Cathy Faughnan, to the Village trustees, stating that Main Street representatives to the SOPAC Design Task Force “have been attending the Task Force’s meetings regularly until last December 2000. Since then they have not been given notice for any subsequent meeting, yet we know that the process is continuing with the evaluation of the bids and the re-evaluation of the design…. We respectfully request that the Main Street Design Committee is apprised: a) of present status of the project; b) of any design revisions made since the submission of the bids, and c) of the highest and lowest bids. We also request that our two representatives are included in all future meetings pertaining to the design of the project. This will give us the opportunity to appreciate the difference between the projects estimate and the submitted bids, and in turn enable us to continue offering our expert advice”. You should remember receiving this letter, Mr. Rosner, because the SOPAC project is important to all of us, and the exclusion of valuable volunteers from such project is a serious matter. Ms Faughnan’s letter remained unanswered. Main Street representatives were not invited to participate to any meetings on SOPAC until November 2001, when the design of the new architects was presented. As our trustee you should have known that, Mr. Rosner. Mr. Rosner, as our trustee, you should have known that the new design presented by Arnell was a trimmed down version of the FFM&G plan, which for the sake of making the budget, eliminated features like: footing vibration isolation, exterior wall acoustic insulation, backstage space, dressing rooms, loading platform, and orchestra pit. In the spring of 2002 Main Street’s Design Committee highlighted most of these deficiencies. That was my last involvement on the project. You should have known that Mr. Rosner. Mr. Rosner, I take two exceptions on your post, both from your last paragraph. The financial and scheduling information was given to the Village trustees by a group of persons which did not include Eric DeVaris, as you state. And you state that you “asked in public for the original volunteers to turn over documents they might have…” Sorry, but don’t expect any documents from me: I am a private entity; at least until the elections of May 13. There is so much that you should have known as our trustee, and didn’t, Mr. Rosner. I am glad I can offer here some information. Eric DeVaris | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4591 Registered: 5-2001 |
Eric, thanks for your perspective on this. FFM&G does nice work. I think they did the new NJ Shakespeare Theater at Drew University. This part of your post stands out for me:
Without acoustic insulation, it's kind of silly to open a Performing Arts Center next to a TRAIN, isn't it? Furthermore, we can kiss goodbye many many professional theater companies, as the Actor's union demands dressing rooms for actors. I wonder if there's any way we can get the original and new SOPAC renderings and specifications to post and discuss here, as we may find other architects with ideas and solutions willing to contribute. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 272 Registered: 4-2002 |
Noracoombs: As far as I am concerned we should have a set meeting and we have tried to pick a time that would work. We started with the third monday of the month, but due to holidays, that forced changes in Jan. and Feb. In March, most of the non-elected officials could not make it on the third Monday so we picked a Saturday morning (there were 7 or 8 residents that made it). Going forward we are trying to schedule the meetings for the third monday as we had been doing (May 19th for those who want to come). I will say again though that we try to accomodate the non-elected volunteers when picking a date to make sure we can have as many people at the meeting as possible. David: I did not mean to "scold" you and hope that you can make it to future SOPAC meetings. Mr. DeVaris, congratulations on your first post. Thanks for the updates. I did not say I did not know all that information. I said I was not the official spokesperson for SOPAC and I said I was not at the earlier meetings so it would be better if people who were there came forward with the information or questions be directed to the executive director. I would think since you were the chairperson for a while and have so much information that you might want to share with the current volunteers. Especially, since you now admit that you have documents and you were acting as a volunteer for the village. Are you worried that there might be information in those documents that you do not want released untill after May 13th? Since many of those meetings took place before I was a trustee, I had to rely on people who were there or who were willing to share information. For instance, even after the changes, Ford Farewell still completely miscalculated the expected bids which came in over their own projections. I guess you would defend them since you were the chairperson of the volunteers that picked that firm. I never received Ms. Faughnan's letter and at no time in any of my discussions with her did she ever mention the letter or concerns regarding SOPAC. And for those who do not know, I have been on the SOPAC board since the end of last summer. As a village trustee we were given updates and financial information regarding the project. However there was very little that happened between the Ford Farewell fiasco other than one of the bidders who came forward to work with the village on coming up with a revised plan that could be built within our budget. Once the revisions were done we started the review and hired a contract manager to make sure the building met the specifications. An outside consultant did testing to make sure that the acoustics were satisfactory as well as the footing vibration of the building. Currently we are working with Seton Hall to put back in the orchestra pit, loading platform and other features to make this a theater that will meet all our goals. Funny how Mr. DeVaris is willing to blame others for the early problems of SOPAC, while saying all the problems were caused by others. Nice Mr. DeVaris. Funny how you want to distance yourself from the project at the same time you decide to run for an elected office. Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 214 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well, by my count that is 3 out of the 3 Open South Orange Candidates here online & engaged in a discussion on issues and only 1 out of the 4 incumbents here. Where are Mr. Calabrese, Mr. Taylor & Dr. Rosen? Are they so out of touch to know that we even exist? Or are they so disinterested in engaging with the public that they refuse to participate or to listen to opposing viewpoints? I think their actions (or lack thereof) here speak volumes about how they have governed. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 273 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: The acoustic insulation was not eliminated nor was the footing vibration. Of course you can not have a theater next to a train without insulation. The question was how much was going to be needed? An independent firm was bought in and did a study during peak hours weekday 4 - 7 P.M.). In fact, one architect says we could still go further, but better to be safe than sorry. I do not think any one questioned the quality of Ford Farewell. What was in question was their ability to design a building and delivering on what they said they were going to do. Despite what Mr. DeVaris says, every other person who was involved says that they were assured that even with the changes the bids would still come in significantly lower than the budget. Plain and simple, Ford Farewell could not deliver what the village requested and what they promised. Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1282 Registered: 3-2002 |
Eric has offered several concrete documents and dates for his account. Is there a way to advance this dicussion beyond what people have said about what happened? Perhaps the change orders compiled by the original architect could be reviewed to see what was requested and how it was handled. Beyond that, we're kind of at an impasse. |
