The Demolition of 109 E. Main Street: Part II
At the April 17, 2018
Commission meeting the demolition of 109 E. Main Street was discussed by the
public and the commissioners. The commissioners asked the auditor to answer citizens’
questions. That’s not his job. The auditor’s role is that of a watchdog. He is to
examine the financial records of the city looking for any irregularities,
discrepancies, omissions or violation of the law. Parent stated over and over
that Mr. Cesaro was his friend. Commissioner Parent’s friend should not be
auditing the city’s finances, an independent, nonbiased auditor should. How
can Mr. Cesaro now objectively look at the financial records of the city and
evaluate their compliance and accuracy, if he made the recommendations. This is
like the old story of the fox guarding the hen house.
The City is paying a lot
of money to the Chief Financial Officer, the Purchasing agent and the City Solicitor.
Why was the auditor advising the city how to fund the demolition, how to vote,
whether public comments were allowed, and whether the demolition was an emergency?
Commissioner Parent as the Director of Revenue and Finance with many years of
experience on the Commission should know the process.
Even though Santiago had
taken it upon himself to unilaterally enter into an oral/illegal contract with
Perryman Excavating and even though Perryman Excavating had already submitted
bills for preparatory work, a resolution was introduced to hire Perryman
Excavating. Commissioner Udalovas opposed the resolution and stated her
reasons:
"While I understand
and respect the role of each of our personnel …., I cannot grasp the rationale of
our legal representation to allow the situation to progress without considering
the welfare of our city's finances and accountability to its taxpayers,"
She said she had asked for additional estimates and invoices on March 26th. She
also stated: “It is my evaluation that the contracting of services in this case
has not followed the due process necessary to uphold the fiscal accountability
of the Commissioners to the taxpayers of Millville.”
Despite Commissioner
Udalovas’ comments and the fact it is her department, Santiago, Parent, and
Cooper voted yes. Commissioner Udalovas voted no. Commissioner Pepitone was absent.
The $1.5 million to pay
for the demolition was taken from surplus, which had been built up to a healthy
$8.9 million by the last Commission. Santiago’s team had already taken $6
million from that surplus to fund all of its new spending and salary increases
while avoiding a tax increase so only $1.4 million is left. Such a low surplus
fund may cause the City’s credit rating to go down which will be very costly
when the City borrows money.
Unfortunately the budget
passed 4-0, which was the number required to pass. The budget vote needs 2/3rds
not just a simple majority. Commissioner Udalovas had it within her power to
stop the illegal Perryman contract. If she had voted no on the budget it would
not have passed and she could have insisted that the budget be amended to
exclude the money for the Perryman contract. The Commission would then be
forced to seek additional bids in order to award the contract legally and
competitively. By voting yes, the city now has appropriated the money to pay
the $1.5 million demolition bill. You can be sure the experienced politicians
and staff in the room Tuesday night were not going to explain her options to
her. Hopefully Commissioner Udalovas will continue to be a voice for the
citizens of Millville and seek some independent advice on the tough questions.
So what could $1.5 million
dollars do for the city of Millville?
1.The city could demolish the old Wheaton Factory, the
Fath building, and the old rescue squad building.
2.The city could demolish 100 derelict houses.
3.The city could purchase a building for the police
athletic league.
4.The city could reduce taxes by 10 cents.
During the meeting
Santiago said, "We understand that many are anxious about seeing the
building come down as we are. In a perfect world, the building would have been
down already, and we would have been moving on to the next stages of the
project." This statement makes one wonder what the next stage of the “project”
is and whether this was all about some bigger plan the citizens are not being
told about. Could it be that the real end game here is to put a new police
building on High and Main Streets? This end game takes one of the best
commercial corners in the City and turns it into another tax-exempt downtown building.
That is just not smart for economic development or business.
Comments