Yesterday, at exactly 3:15 p.m., the Request for Proposals process for the South Park Street redevelopment project closed, with four contractors submitting. The lowest of the bids was just shy of a million dollars — $250K more than the allocated budget.
In addition to contractor representatives and a handful of municipal employees, the project’s architectural team and Councilor Cary Africk were present for the bid opening. Following the reading of the last bid, the mood was somewhat stunned, though Erik Maran, Principal of Smith Maran (pictured below, on left), Dave Lustburg of Arterial (pictured below, on right), and Montclair Township Engineer, Kimberli Craft all agreed that not hitting the target on the first pass is a normal part of the bidding process.
“It’s higher than the engineers estimated, but we’ll conduct a value engineering process to review the design, scope of the project, materials, etc. and try and get the cost down,” said Craft.
“These bids are very disappointing,” said Africk, a vocal proponent of the project. “Re-designs will be evaluated. No one is saying “well, we’ll just have to increase the numbers!”
Maran said that the design team will “huddle” with Craft today, to identify where the discrepancy between the bids and the budget are.
“I met with members of the Montclair Business Improvement District and the project’s Architects following the opening of bids,” Africk told Baristanet. “With them, and the town engineering staff, efforts are planned for a thorough review of the bid items, with the goal of reaching the planned project budget numbers.”
The project is targeted for a September start and a late October completion, but it’s unclear how yesterday’s bid process will affect that. While the group’s immediate reaction was obvious and they admitted disappointment, ultimately all agreed that they were optimistic — although it took a few minutes for them to reach that cautiously upbeat note.
told you so
Once approved for a million, difficulties will be encountered during construction. My estimate for final cost? 1.3 million.
Cancel this unneeded and wasteful project.
We’ve also lost the no-interest loans from the state, and this will not be completed in time for the revaluation, will it Mr. Africk?
I agree with you, ROC.
It’s like putting in a swimming pool when your job is uncertain and your house has lost value.
Agreed. Time to put the brakes on this project.
Anyone involved in project management knows to expect many change orders during the life of the project. Wait until they hit that underground river during excavation.
Is anyone surprised? We are in some deep doody here.
Projects to re design the look of the streets are un neccessary. What is a must is to conduct probes on the underlying system of culverts for the water issues and to resolve infrastructure problems that will certainly have its costs. Cancel this project and put a hold on any other re vamp ideas for Montclair Center because there isnt a strong plan in place that would make Montclair Center more successful as a destination. So why spend the $$$?
frankgg, it’s ego. “Look what I did when I was a council member.” That’s why we have a school we can’t afford. There’s no master plan – it’s just a bunch of individual projects that people want to take credit for making happen. Hodge podge.
Even if it’s ego. I don’t doubt anyone’s motives. I am sure everyone thinks they’re improving the township, but the fact remains we can’t afford it.
CANCEL!!!! I must admit that I was never a fan of this awful idea that will take away parking from an area that doesn’t have enough to begin with (I’d be livid if I were a merchant in the area), but even if you liked this idea it must be obvious that we cannot afford it.
I hope they come to there senses and cancel this project!
Let me keep this simple.
Our engineering staff not only submitted the $750K estimate, but re-affirmed that estimate (actually, they came in at $650K) one week before we published the RFPs.
I rely on their professional opinion.
The loan is in the bank. Not lost.
And it is not clear that we will “lose” the revaluation at all.
jersey — chill. This South Project has been discussed for 14+ years.
“jersey — chill. This South Project has been discussed for 14+ years.”
14 + years includes Crisco Court…the Siena…The Washington Street School…lots of un nessary teardowns…destroying our trees and insulting property owners for utility service….ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!! All of you involved in these mistakes…GET LOST!
SO for 14+ years nothing that needed to get done happened while this un-necessary project was discussed. Is that suppose to make people feel better?
How long was selling bits of town to the mold makers discussed? Seems that one could have used more time and attention.
“Most importantly, Reichman urged the council to move ahead with the project’s assumed start in early July, which would have the project completed within 8-12 weeks. This was emphasized for two reasons. Firstly, if the project is completed before October 1, 2011, it would allow the township to capture a no interest loan of $488,000 from the state to finance to project, called NJ-DBIZ.”
https://www.baristanetnew.wpengine.com/2011/02/council-takes-another-look-at-the-south-park-st-project/
Is Mr. Reichman incorrect, Cary?
“The loan is in the bank. Not lost.”
The entire $488k Or the $148K initial allotment?
“And it is not clear that we will “lose” the revaluation at all.”
“Secondly, the township will undergo a property revaluation in 2012. If the project is completed before October, it would, according to the report, “allow the cost of the [project] to be quickly recaptured through increased tax ratables from downtown properties.”
Again, Is Mr. Reichman incorrect?
“The committee’s report reiterated the project’s estimated cost at approximately $1 million. This includes $750,000 for the street-scape portion or redesigning of the street, and $250,000-$300,000 to remove and replace infrastructure below the street, such as a water main. This does not include the approximate $131,000 encumbered by the township to plan the project up until this point.”
That adds up to 1.2 million. What’s incorrect with those numbers, Cary?
I doubt Cary will respond with any substance to any of the above. Just as he avoided the linked post. Because, I believe, those assertions are likely to all be true and Mr. Africk cannot rebut them with anything except wishful thinking.
What do we have to do to stop all of this and get rid of these people…call Oprah Winfrey or something?
How in the world did Smith Maran let this happen? How did they budget the job if not by asking for bids? Scary thought.
Frankgg”….Call Oprah Winfrey or something?”
I think it’s probably more like re-call election or something.
Well, maybe we can contact CCM. I know they are concerned with the budget, however, maybe we can have CCM be the main group that has subgroups with town volunteers dealing with areas of expertise. So in addition to the budget, there could be a couple of people who having experience in planning. Is it worth pursuing? Honestly, nothing will get done through the “usual” channels. So maybe a group of citizens can find a legal way to overhaul what we have now.
3rd,
You can’t get a bid until it’s designed by the architect. But never in the history of mankind has something been designed and come in at or below its anticipated (hoped for) cost. So any prudent person when told (by the architect) that it “should” cost $750,000 would automatically assume a million.
remember this?
Cary: “The street is scheduled to be improved anyway (it’s falling apart) at a cost of over $300K.”
It was supposed to be 750K including the necessary repairs. Now it does not include the 300K in necessary repairs.
See how that works?
fixed link
Totally disagree with almost everyone here. Was just downtown today, as I am most days, and South Park Street needs help. A lot of help. It’s a terrible time economically, and our taxes ARE probably too high, but the place needs attention. Waiting longer will make it worse. That said, it has to be cost-effective to be worthwhile.
repave it, fix the sidewalks and other needed repairs and save a million dollars.
The needed repairs are two years past due, pending the grand vision.
“I met with members of the Montclair Business Improvement District and the project’s Architects following the opening of bids,” Africk told Baristanet.
Please correct me if I am mistaken…isnt the srchitect of the project also the chair of the Montclair Business Improvement District?
“repave it, fix the sidewalks and other needed repairs and save a million dollars.”
I would even say add a couple of big planters for a few hundred bucks and dress it up after it’s fixed.
Cary, i give you credit for coming on here and dealing with anonymous posters that hammer you at times. At least you try to explain your position and help people understand. I don’t know why you do it though, you should hide like the rest of the council.
“I would even say add a couple of big planters for a few hundred bucks and dress it up after it’s fixed.”
A few hundred bucks wouldn’t buy a single industrial grade planter. Let’s keep the needed repairs up on all Montclair’s current responsibilities before we add anything new and call it a day.
“At least you try to explain your position and help people understand.”
I don’t think he does. He tends to vanish when posts drift into the actual specifics.
I sincerely admire Cary and I am grateful for his hard work and dedication.
“He tends to vanish when posts drift into the actual specifics.”
Yes…but its probably so confusing for him to figure out whats going on with these stagnant situations. Overwhelming and very mindboggling…
Frank, You can often learn more from what a politician doesn’t answer or doesn’t want to discuss than what they do.
There is nothing “mind-boggling” about Mr. Reichman’s points as listed above. His comments seem to say it will cost 1.2 million dollars (before this latest hiccup), and that the no-interest loans and benefit from the 2012 revaluation will be lost.
Cary says “no”.
When asked where Mr. Reichman is incorrect, the conversation (as it has some many times in similar situations on past threads) simply stops.
I tend to rely of the information that you provide ROC as the undisputable truth and truly appreciate the knowledge. But now whatawedo?
I don’t know the truth with regard to Reichman’s assertions, that’s why I asked one of our elected representatives.
I would keep it going with non-sequitors but I don’t live in Montclair.
RoC you ask a question at 11:22am and say that the “conversation stops” when Cary hasn’t answered you by 1:03pm. I say your expectations are too high and that you’ll have to wait a little while for Cary to respond.
Why don’t you try asking one of the other Councilpeople and see if you EVER get a response.
Quel surprise! Who would have thought it would go over $750K? ROC is right, it will probably be at least 1.3 mil when all is said and done.
What part of WE CAN’T AFFORD THIS does this Council never understand? Maybe they can afford to see their taxes endlessly escalate, but I cannot!
And don’t give me this hogwash about all the increased revenue that will come in. From taxing shopkeepers even higher, when they can barely keep up with the rent and taxes as it is? From all the shoppers that will flood into Montclair in this exciting economic climate?
This is the ultimate in poor judgment.
ROC, your prudence regarding Park Street is laudable.
You should also know that I did think of you and one of your better known causes when I read this article below. In the end, there is hope for us all.
https://www.earthtechling.com/2011/08/cfls-transcend-blue-statesred-states/
ROC,
Your $1.3MM projection is correct when you include the financing cost. Personally, I was betting on $1.6M all in. However, it seems to be a moot point as I understand the bond ordinance(s) for this project.
The TC approved the ordinance and the amended ordinance for an total of $750K. While I’m not a lawyer, the ordinance states any grants may be used to make direct cost payments or pay down the bonds. It doesn’t seem to say the Township can exceed the $750 total for the project – grants or no grants.
So, if I’m correct, then Cary Africk is also correct in saying it is $750K.
This is ludicrous. I’m just a little skeptical when it comes to motives with this crew. I hope they are not trying to solve the Siena water problems while “fixing water pipes” underground. Controlling mother nature will prove to be a lot harder than controlling public comments at town council meetings or anonymous postings on Baristanet.
I say do the repaving and fix the sidewalks and call it a day. Put the other plans on the back burner, at least until the town gets a handle on covering costs, capital and operating, with annual revenues versus more debt.
Actually, I spent 7 hours yesterday driving to Burlington Vermont. I do have a life outside the 40 plus hours per week of Council business.
It’s hard to address all the misunderstandings in the posts above.
Frankgg — slow down for goodness sake! You’ve got so many good points to make, but some things are more complicated than you say.
Here’s my advice – I know for a fact that the architects are working on ways to re-engineer the project. And believe me, these guys are working way beyond what they were paid to do, unlike another vendor who just stopped his work causing our schedule to slip.
Let Smith Maran do their work and come back to us.
And remember – our own Engineering department, and our Director of Community Services and our Town Manager ALL insisted that $750K was more than enough for this project.
(you see? just like I said)
ROC is in full glory.
I think we should start a pool going on how much over budget the Park St. project is going to be in the end. Given that Cary has said that things are “more complicated than you say” and that “I know for a fact that the architects are working on ways to re-engineer the project” and that he’s already begun to blame “our own Engineering department, and our Director of Community Services and our Town Manager,” I would put my chips on $2 million.
Happy August!
“And don’t give me this hogwash about all the increased revenue that will come in. From taxing shopkeepers even higher, when they can barely keep up with the rent and taxes as it is? From all the shoppers that will flood into Montclair in this exciting economic climate?”
This is close to the basis of my concern – and recommendation – for this project. The claim is that we’ll make the money back through property tax increases. However, this leaves the property owners (and the actual store owners, if they are not the same parties) either winning – because they take in more than enough to cover the property tax increase – or losing – because they don’t take in enough to cover the property tax increase.
It seems to me that those property/store owners should be the ones in control of this project’s financing. If they think they’ll benefit, then they should fund it. If they think they won’t benefit, then they should not fund it. Either way, why are we involved?
As it is, the property/store owners are getting a free ride just as happened with the “too large to fail” banks. We all know that they’ll appeal their way to avoidance of higher taxes if the income gains don’t appear. So they’ve managed to privatize any gains they might get while socializing any loss that might occur.
Haven’t we had enough of that recently?
If the project really is a money-maker, then the property/store owners should be eager to invest. If the project isn’t a money-maker, then why should we do it?
…Andrew
well said Andrew.
Alas, all the commenting here doesn’t make any difference. The project will go through and we will be on the hook for another loan and another expense we cannot afford.
There is one aspect of this project’s financial analysis that I have not heard discussed and may be directly linked to the value engineering process.
Simply put, what are the components of this design that maximize assessed value?
Taking the highly probable scenario that the design will be scaled back 33% to meet the $750K cap, does this mean the projected new assessed values will be 33% lower? Do certain design features weigh more heavily in the assessment calculation than others?
Slow down Cary? But this issue has become another one of those “just push the thing through and don’t listen to anyone” scenarios. We’ve all kind of had it…
This reminds me of the 700K Quiet Zone which ended up costing 1.2 million. Same as it always was. Bend over my fellow constituents.
So Pat,
How long before we can fairly Cary’s blown-off the substance of the topic yet again?
oops.
So Pat,
How long before we can fairly assume Cary’s blown-off the substance of the topic yet again?
It is my objective to have a project that comes in at budget.
Currently, the architects are working on alternative scenarios that will not meaningfully compromise the projects goals.
The loan is secure and not in danger.
I’ve researched the assessment situation and the time for project completion can slip, even to early 2012 although any potential revenue from a reassessment would also slip.
Substantial work has been completed on the infrastructure.
We cannot continue to go on with town projects that are killed by underestimation. The next project will be Edgemont Pond dredging/rebuilding, the money for which comes from a Green Acres Grant. Will the $800,000 for that project turn out to be insufficient? No one knows.
And lets not forget about other debacles in the town’s past, including the under estimated baseball field project.
If every project is estimated wrong, there’s something wrong with the process.
How about coming in under, or at, budget for a change? To their credit, the BOE managed this with the new school (regardless of what people may think is the non-necessity).
Like so much of the town’s finances, including the town debt, let’s give people the FACTS.
South Park Street is at its best JUST the way it is configured right now. We didn’t need a design project. Repair it just the way it is and leave it alone. This applies for Edgemont Pond and all other repair work that needs to be addressed.
Why do you need the expense for architects working on alternative scenarios if all you really need is repair work to be done and there’s no money for extras? It is necessary to do substantial repair work on the infrastructure all over town and understandable that money must be spent. Repair work procedure can be handled by the township engineering department. The township engineering dept is salaried to do that thinking and paperwork. When did the need for a design project arise and who ordered it? (Contrary to what was initially said, there was no public design competition)
Cary evades again. Enough with the double speak Mr. Africk.
https://www.baristanetnew.wpengine.com/2011/02/council-takes-another-look-at-the-south-park-st-project/
I’ll try to make it simple for you.
1. Is Mr. Reichman, Chairman of the Capital Finance Committee, incorrect when he says if the project is not completed by Oct 1 we will lose the interest-free loans? If he is incorrect, on what basis do you make that assertion?
2. Is the entire $488k “in the bank” as you say, or a partial allotment?
3. You said, “I’ve researched the assessment situation and the time for project completion can slip, even to early 2012 although any potential revenue from a reassessment would also slip.” Which seems to indicate you now admit some benefit of the revaluation will be lost. How much will be lost according to your research if the project “slips” into 2012.
4. Is Mr. Reichman, Chairman of the Capital Finance Committee, has said the true cost adds up to 1.2 million. What’s incorrect with those numbers, Cary?
(ask yourselves, Ladies and Gentlemen, why Mr. Africk won’t answer those questions directly and succinctly. He puts forth vague pronouncements like “The loan is secure and not in danger.” Which does not answer the question asked. Is this the same “openness and transparency” Africk I keep hearing about? )
I’m gong to rephrase #4 so as to (hopefully) disallow a slippery response.
4. Mr. Reichman said “The committee’s report reiterated the project’s estimated cost at approximately $1 million. This includes $750,000 for the street-scape portion or redesigning of the street, and $250,000-$300,000 to remove and replace infrastructure below the street, such as a water main. This does not include the approximate $131,000 encumbered by the township to plan the project up until this point.”
Specifically what is incorrect in that statement and why?
Thank you ROC
POSTED BY Cary Africk | June 30, 2011 @ 4:04 pm
Believe it or not this was a simple project.
This is not about rebuilding the Twin Towers. It is, or should be, a simple streetscape project.
The project was conceived by an Architectural firm — Smith-Maran.
Rather than let his firm do the entire project, which they were superbly qualified to do, it “was decided” to have Smith Maran do “design” and the actual engineering, drawings, bidding, etc would be handled by Montclair’s own Engineering Department.
And our own Engineering Department decided to subcontract out some of the engineering drawings, which then had to go back to the Architect for review, etc.
This has resulted in unfortunate delays.
Compounding this situation is the situation of the below surface “culvert” which has been the “elephant in the room” for at least, oh, a good portion of the 120 years that it has been there.
It’s condition could have, and should have, been evaluated any time in the past DECADE.
It has only been evaluated in the last MONTH.
And to add further complexity, there is the issue of long standing flooding in the area, and people desire to use this opportunity to evaluate potential solutions.
Things like the culvert, and flooding, are really not part of the South Park Pedestrian Mall “project.” They are infrastructure which should have been addressed years and years ago. It is only now we are finally, and frankly, addressing them.
Readers should keep in mind that two of the reasons for completing this project ASAP are 1) the necessity of getting it in for the reassessment, October 1, and 2) the need to have the project COMPLETED before the Holiday Shopping season!!
As to frankgg’s accusations, these should be addressed in another thread, not here. We are trying to solve THIS problem.
I was just listening to and old Traffic song “Low Spark of High Heeled Boys” and thought if you changed the original meaning of High Heeled Boys to mean Capital Spending (and of course SPark is self explanatory), you would have an Authentically Local version of a great tune.
…oh I Love it! “Shoot out at the Fantasy Factory!”
Kendu DBC also comes to mind (DBC = dead brain cells)
Oh, ROC,
This is too easy….
John Reichman is a great guy, but I believe you’re misunderstanding what he said, or what was written. And perhaps I need to suggest to him to clarify the issues.
But here is my best info …
1. We will not lose the interest free loans. According to knowledgeable people I have spoken to we’d have to screw up for a year before there were complains.
2. Some of he money has already been given to Montclair, the rest is committed. Give me a break ROC, I’m not an accountant and I have no idea where any of Monclair’s money is. Under a mattress? In someone’s desk? In two dozen bank accounts? Under Walleroos deck?
3. If the reassessment is done October 1 I assume we can bill for the entire 2012. As the months slip by, each month could mean a month lost. Keep in mind though that reassessments don’t happen “automatically.” For one, the owner can appeal the new assessment.
4. I refuse to talk about he infrastructure costs. They are costs that would have been incurred anyway and are NOT part of this project.
“1. We will not lose the interest free loans. According to knowledgeable people I have spoken to we’d have to screw up for a year before there were complains.”
So you heard tell we’ll get the loans? From nameless “knowledgeable people”. We have a report from the CFC (all named people) and Mr. Reichman saying we won’t get the interest free loans unless completion is before Oct 1 and the best you can do to refute the claim is “someone” told you it’s not a problem? This is getting farcical, Cary.
“2. Some of the money has already been given to Montclair, the rest is committed.” As I suspected (and asked over an over). Doesn’t that make your statement “The loan is in the bank. Not lost.” fiction? Were you trying to falsely suggest all the money was received by the township? It took 3 attempts for you to finally admit only a partial allotment has thus far been received. Why is that?
“3. If the reassessment is done October 1 I assume we can bill for the entire 2012.” So when I ask you what’s wrong with Mr. Reichman’s assertion we’ll lose some degree of recoupment your answer is you “assume” not? Is this another “the money is in the bank” type statements or a “someone told me” type statement?
“4. I refuse to talk about he infrastructure costs.” You seemed to have no problem bringing them up before when you were suggesting they were within the overall 750K cost and we had to do them anyway. I also note you have not addressed the $131k design cost Mr. Reichman mentioned. Do you “refuse to talk” about that too? Why? Shouldn’t the design costs be included in the project as well?
Thank you ROC….WHAT??? OMG!!!
Take the free money and use it for infrastructure. Cancel the streetscape until our local government can figure out how to do a project that does not double in cost.
It should be very clear from the opaque, misleading, and sometimes absent responses in this thread the depth of Mr. Africk’s commitment to openness and transparency.