--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, James Keady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Friends of Asbury Park:
>
> This Friday the City Council will be holding a special Executive
Session
> meeting to discuss the state of the Waterfront Redevelopment. As I
> understand it, the goal of this meeting is to develop a collective
vision
> and plan of action for the Waterfront in light of the current state
of
> progress, market conditions, the City budget, etc.
>
>
my comments, give them nothing, hold there feet to the fire, be
consistent to us long time taxpayers, i never remember getting a tax
bill which said , oh if you dont want to pay its ok we will let it go
to a future date, enough is enough already thank you for asking
>
>
>
> Facts on the City Budget and the Waterfront Redevelopment
>
> On June 20, 2007 the City Council approved a $ 35.5 million budget
with a
> minimal increase in the City tax rate (not including county and
school rate
> increases.) This amount is similar to last years; however, since
the 2004
> budget the City Council majority has increased spending by just
over $8
> million.
>
> If the state had not come to the aid of certain City Council
members' pleas
> for help, our minimal tax bill increase would have been $2,685 per
> household, on an average assessed home of $150,000.
>
> The City Manager has stated that, "It's going to be a few years
before we
> can balance a budget with our own revenues."
>
> Larry Fishman of Asbury Partners has stated that, "I think the
city's going
> to have to plug that gap ($7.5m) for another year."
>
> Asbury Park's deficit was supposed to be eliminated back in 2002
when the
> city sold all of our waterfront properties and pavilions. Citizens
were then
> told in 2005 that the surplus of $11million from the sale of the
Sewer bond
> would go to "plugging the budget for the next three years." As
proof to
> support this bond and to gain approval, the City presented a report
to the
> Local Finance Board stating that Asbury Park will have "annual
recurring
> revenue beginning in 2006 to 2008 equaling $4.2 m in phase 1; (and)
phase 2
> will be on line in 2008-2009 with an additional $4.2m."
>
> The following is a list of deficiencies on the part of Asbury
Partners under
> the terms of the recent Dispute Resolution Agreement:
>
> A. Convention Hall (Schedule B)
>
> (i) Window Replacement Program. The window replacement program was
to be
> completed in May 2007. Asbury Partners subsequently indicated that
this
> program would be completed by September of 2007. On May 31, 2007,
Asbury
> Partners indicated that the condition of the window openings
necessitated
> repair of those openings and that fabrication of the replacement
windows
> would be deferred until the details of the necessary repairs were
completed.
> The Recent Submission indicates that reconstruction of the window
openings
> has begun but there is no definitive completion date.
>
> (ii) Interior Store Replacements. Interior Store Replacements were
to be
> completed in September of 2006. An updated projection by Asbury
Partners'
> representatives was July 2007. To date, this work has not
commenced. On
> April 19, 2007, Asbury Partners indicated that a bid award was
expected on
> April 20, 2007. The Recent Submission indicates that construction
will
> commence in September and be competed in December of 2007. However,
the City
> is still awaiting indication that the SHPO has approved the interior
> storefront design.
>
> (iii) Arcade Entrance Structure Repair. This work was to be
completed by May
> 2007. Revised projections from Asbury Partners' representatives
were that
> the work would commence in early April and would be completed in
August
> 2007. On May 31, 2007, Asbury Partners indicated that revisions were
> necessary to existing plans and that a permit modification would be
applied
> for. The Recent Submission indicates that construction will start in
> mid-September, and be completed in December 2007.
>
> (iv) Exterior Store Fronts and Entry Doors. This work would be
completed in
> April of 2007. To date, this work has not been commenced. On May 4,
2007,
> Asbury Partners indicated that an extension for submitting bids was
granted
> with the new deadline being May 18, 2007. The Recent Submission
lacks any
> definitive timeframe for the completion of the work.
>
> (v) Entire Building Renovation Design. Construction documents were
to be
> complete in September 2007 with renovation work to begin in October
2007. To
> date, Asbury Partners has not undertaken the schematic design which
was
> scheduled to be complete in January 2007. The Recent Submission
does not
> indicate any definitive timeline for this work.
>
> B. Casino (Schedule C)
>
> 1. Arcade
>
> (i) Entire Building Renovation Design. Schedule C indicates that
> construction documents are to be complete in September 2007 and that
> renovation is to commence in October 2007. Schematic Design
scheduled to
> occur in January 2007 has not commenced. The Recent Submission
indicates
> that this project has an expected plan date of Spring 2008 but
provides no
> definitive timeframe for the work.
>
> 2. Carousel
>
> (i) Construction of the new roof was to be complete in June of
2007. To
> date, that work has not been completed. In March of 2007, Asbury
Partners
> indicated that the completion date was estimated at August of 2007.
The
> Recent Submission indicates that the expected completion date is
October
> 2007.
>
> (ii) Entire Building Renovation Design. A schedule for work from
Schematic
> Design to Commencement of Construction would be provided by Asbury
Partners.
> The Recent Submission indicates that this project has an expected
plan date
> of Spring 2008 but provides no definitive timeframe for the work.
>
> 3. Power Plant (Schedule D)
>
> a. New Roof for Power Plant. Schedule D indicates that construction
would be
> completed in June 2007. An Asbury Partners' representative
estimated that
> this work would be completed in September 2007. To date this work
has not
> been completed. The City Recent Submission indicates a completion
date of
> October 2007.
>
> (i) Entire Building Renovation Design. Schedule D indicates that
> construction documents would be completed in September 2007 and that
> construction would begin in October 2007. To date, Schematic Design
that was
> to commence in January 2007, has not commenced. The City received a
progress
> report on September 14, 2007, which indicates that this project has
an
> expected plan date of Spring 2008 but provides no definitive
timeframe for
> the work.
>
> 4. Infrastructure (Schedule E)
>
> a. The infrastructure work on Kingsley Street relating to the
stabilized
> base for all trench work was scheduled to be complete May 31, 2006,
has not
> been completed.
>
> b. Signage Work. Scheduled to completed April 15, 2007, has not been
> completed.
>
> 5. Joint Issues (Schedule F)
>
> a. Asbury Partners has not complied with the City's timely demand
for the
> funding of escrow payments necessary to pay City personnel, as set
forth in
> Item numbered 7.
>
> b. Asbury Partners has not submitted to the City its annual reports
to
> N.J.S.H.P.O relating to the Convention Hall and Paramount Theater as
> required by the Historic Preservation Easements since April 7,
2006, in
> accordance with its obligation under Schedule F of the Dispute
Resolution
> Agreement. The Recent Submission indicates that this work is in
progress.
>
> c. Asbury Partners failed to move the Palace Amusement Murals by
August 1,
> 2006 or comply with the recommendations of conservator, Paul
Himmelstein.
> Construction activities have begun at the Wastewater Treatment
Plant,
> subjecting the murals to an increased chance of damage. The Recent
> Submission indicates that a September 2007 move is planned.
>
> In addition to the above, there also are joint issues that must be
addressed
> by the parties as more specifically set forth in Schedule F of the
Dispute
> Resolution Agreement. For example, the parties must resolve
Schedule F Item
> number four relating to the transfer of Green Acres parcels to the
City
> subject to an agreement regarding approved uses. Further, the City
and
> Asbury Partners must resolve issues relating to Schedule F Items
numbered 9
> and 10 dealing with the dispute regarding the taxation of Block 227
and the
> determination of the sale price for Block 222, respectively.
>
> In addition to Asbury Partners' failure to comply with obligations
under the
> Dispute Resolution Agreement, they have also failed to satisfy the
following
> material obligations under the Redeveloper Agreement.
>
> 1. Redeveloper's failure to construct the beach clubs in accordance
with
> Section 3.13.
> 2. The failure to complete work in connection with the re-opening
of Sixth
> Avenue in accordance with Section 3.15.
> 3. The failure to make any "good faith" effort with respect to the
> integration of the Charms Building into any development by a
subsequent
> developer in accordance with Section 3.16.5,
> 4. The failure to continue to implement the infrastructure
improvement
> master plan as presented and accepted to the Mayor and Council in
2005.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Councilman James W. Keady
>
> 1 Municipal Plaza
>
> Asbury Park, NJ 07712
>
> TEL: 732.502.5196
>
> EM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> www.cityofasburypark.com
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
