In response to yesterday’s Patch article, “South Park Street Redesign Costs Go Just Above $1 Million,” Real Progress Montclair’s Mayoral Candidate, Karen Turner issued this statement:
I’m astonished by the tone and thought process of the town council on the extra costs related to the South Park Street renovations. The school Board of Education (BOE) and the budget working groups spent the last two years agonizing over ways to keep spending under control. Tough decisions were made. No stones were left unturned. Compare this to the thought process and decisions made by the Town Council in budgeting for the South Park project. According to a quote by Cary Africk, the town had $500,000 of debt available that they did not use as originally intended.
Real Progress Montclair believes if the Town Council passes a resolution to take on debt for a project and that project never happens, then that debt authorization should be canceled, not kept as a line of credit to be used when convenient. If it was in fact issued, like the article implies, the $500,000 should have been used to pay down debt when the project was cancelled and not held in a slush fund.
This is how our debt has gotten so out of hand and is currently $250 million – or almost $7,000 per person in Montclair. The town will spend $16 million to fund our debt service costs in 2012. This is more than we pay our police department and almost double what our fire department staff receives in salary and wages. There have been no controls in place, no oversight, no checks and balances.
LeeAnn Carlson, Real Progress Montclair candidate for Councilor-at-Large, says, “The next Town Council must require the Town Manager to fully account for how the taxpayers’ money is spent. Currently things are far too loose. We issue bonds for millions of dollars for projects like ‘street repair’ and ‘shade trees’, yet the details on how the money is actually spent is never provided. How many trees were planted last month? Last year? What streets were repaved last year, and at what cost?”
Karen Turner adds, “This town so desperately needs a town council committed to fiscal restraint and setting good policies for budgeting and accountability.”
Of course cost estimates are rising. Asphalt prices are sky rocketing because of oil. Cement prices. Pretty much any infrastructure material is on the rise.
Herb, that’s probably not why the costs are going up. I think it has more to do with brick, granite, benches, bike racks and some other cosmetics.
Most likely hidden conditions are the big overrun – long forgotten buried pipes, wires, Indian arrowheads, and the remains of union bosses have suddenly been discovered and now have to be carefully removed.
How can there be no Capital Project List for the whole town with forward projections as well. BOE Included!
Shouldn’t each department head be asked to produce this yearly? Prioritize and sent to the Manager to evaluated. Even posted on-line!
It should even include projections for 2yrs, 5yrs, and 10yrs out. We know things have “shelf lives” and can be evaluated.
This should even be applied to the Operating Budget and departmental spending. The MFD should know that Bullet Proof Vest are only good for 5-7 years depending on the manufacturer. They should know mileage on vehicles and estimate the need for new ones. Age and usage of Radio equipment, etc.
Mind boggling that we as citizens know so little and the department heads and manager do not take the fiscal responsibilities of their jobs serious.
Whatever slate/candidate is elected should ask for these things to be produced. If the current Manager and Department Heads cannot or do not have the ability to produce detailed budgets with future projections, THEY SHOULD BE REPLACED!
I 100% agree with Kyle.
“Mind boggling that we as citizens know so little and the department heads and manager do not take the fiscal responsibilities of their jobs serious”
Maybe I am the only one who does not find this mind boggling at all.
First of all you get what you pay for. Secondly, in order to take ones job seriously there needs to be a constant tangible threat of having ones job taken away. Not sure that exists.
The current town manager, who should be addressing this problem, seems to be working with the department heads to keep things secret from the townspeople. He certainly does not try to expose excessive costs and makes no effort to find ways to reduce them.
With a town government that is structured the way that Montclair is (due to the Faulkner act), we need a superior job to be done by the town manager. I don’t think that is what we have gotten over the last 4 years.
Each candidate should answer whether they would keep or replace the current town manager.
“First of all you get what you pay for.”
We pay a the departments heads very competitively in Montclair, even on the higher side for some when comparing to other comparable towns in NJ. Remember Municipal Salaries are public record.
maybe you meant: “you get what you voted for” because our elected officials hire the Manager, and in subsequent he controls the departments.
Kyle, When compensation is only relatively attractive against other low compensation it does not necessarily motivate. Also what is the structure, my understanding is these are salaries with no incentive comp. There also does not appear to be the necessary tangible threat of being axed. In the absence of the appropriate compensation structure and any real responsibility with respect to the outcomes of ones work do you really think people will take their job seriously?
None of the RPM candidates attended last night’s Council meeting — at least, not that I saw. Steve Wood, Montclair’s Community Services Director, actually provided all the facts that RPM’s statement says aren’t known. He explained, among other things, how many trees his department planted last year and how many he expects to plant this year, the streets resurfaced last year and what’s on tap for this year (which, as Baristanet reports, unfortunately is painfully little), etc. The Councilors did a pretty good job, I thought, of questioning Chief Sabagh and Mr. Wood, and the department heads answered each question fully. I was particularly pleased to hear from Chief Sabagh, in response to questions from Councilor (and now candidate for Sheriff) Roger Terry, that we’re getting closer to a solution for our police officers’ radios cutting out due to interference from digital TV stations.
I certainly don’t disagree with RPM’s point about needing tighter accounting and better reporting to taxpayers — For Montclair is saying much the same thing. But let’s give credit where it’s due to our town’s department heads for doing their best under tough budgetary conditions.
Jeff Jacobson
Third Ward Candidate
For Montclair
Mr. Jacobson,
“Real Progress Montclair” is proposing a moratorium on new debt. Why isn’t “For Montclair” proposing anything as specific?
“None of the RPM candidates attended last night’s Council meeting — at least, not that I saw.”
In other words, you were there and they were not. Unless, of course, they were in disguise. Jeff, please do continue to keep us up to date on your whereabouts.
I have repeatedly, and publicly, corrected this misstatement of fact.
I have NEVER said we have $500,000 “left over.”
I have CHAMPIONED finding every penny not spent on a project and sought its return.
FOR YEARS I have pointed to this misuse.
The MANAGER said we have $500,000 AUTHORIZED, BUT NOT ISSUED bonds.
There has been NO BORROWING. There is NO MONEY hanging around.
Got it? The MANAGER. Not ME.
And if there were money hanging around I’d be the first to be shocked and call for its return.
Hey, I’ve been doing this for over eight years. I know what I’m doing.
Cary
stay,
They all can be fired for insubordination. The Manager(who is hired via the council) dictates to the department heads what individual department budgets are to be. He can also require specific reporting and analysis as part of their duties.
Joe Hartnett once produced a 5% reduction budget. There were staff reductions, furloughs, etc. It wasn’t pretty and it was controversial.
They have incentive, as the Council could pressure the Manager to produce tighter budgets, more analysis and reporting, stricter outlays of capital, planning, etc. If he doesn’t replace him, even if it means buying out his contract.
The next Council needs to opine on the current Manager’s performance, and if they were to select a new one, what qualifications, requirements and what benchmarks would you set for him/her.
“a monument to foolishness”
The original support basis for the Park Street Mall was to raise the property values of other buildings in that area to effectively pay for itself through increased tax revenues over time.
The original cost-benefit calculation by the CFC was done with a 750k price tag. Of course, we then discovered that this was not a realistic budget, that the Manager was told this by the architects involved but the information was ignored. The Manager and town engineer just decided the cost would be $750k. At the same time the Manager and Engineer did not get the project out for an RFP bid in time to make the reassessment time-table.
This limited any revenue uptick from this year to start.
Consequently, a new economic analysis should have been done to determine if the project was still viable as an investment. The general benefits to the Town and to residents and visitors are obvious, but a revised revenue-cost review should have been done.
But regardless, this is not a boondoggle. It was a planned investment. The problem is those executing within the Township did not roll it out properly to fulfill the original parameters of what was planned.
You can fault the execution…not the underlying idea.
“The next Council needs to opine on the current Manager’s performance …”
I have written words to this effect both here and on The Patch. Given the Manager’s responsibilities in this slightly bizarre form of government I think this is entirely appropriate. I also note that no candidate has said ONE WORD regarding the performance, or lack thereof, of the incumbent.
I keep seeing calls for transparency – OK candidates, try your hand with this.
“Consequently, a new economic analysis should have been done to determine if the project was still viable as an investment.”
Did you see that initial “analysis”?
The CFC relied on an assessment by the BID (you, know the chief proponents of the project) which “found” that property values would increase 10%. No analysis or reasoning behind that 10% assumption was ever offered.
We need REAL analysis, not BS analysis…
“The general benefits to the Town and to residents and visitors are obvious.”
Yes, they are. Spending $30,000 on landscaping my yard would also have obvious general benefits for me and the value of my property. Too bad I can’t afford it.
ROC, actually, RPM isn’t proposing a moratorium on new debt — not that I’ve seen. They’ve used a variety of terms like (in Peter Zorich’s words today) “non-emergency debt.”
This year, as we learned from testimony last night, money will be bonded for such things as a new 911 system because our current system can’t be repaired anymore, new Glock handguns for our police, whose firearms already have exceeded the end of their recommended use period, and repairs of roads deemed “the worst of the worst” by the Town Engineer. The Department of Community Services wants to buy two trash trucks, which they say will be necessary in the future whether we outsource or not, because they’re now spending up to $40,000 PER TRUCK each year in operating maintenance costs to keep our 20+ year-old fleet on the road.
There definitely are other items on the list I’d question strongly. My slate has an op-ed up on Patch this afternoon talking about the $60,000 for an HVAC system for the animal shelter (which we should close) and other issues. But to look at the list overall is to realize that a flat “we won’t borrow for any reason” just doesn’t work. I assume RPM gets that, which is why they hedge their pledge.
For Montclair has pledged to pay down debt each year by capping new debt below the amount we repay and by saying no to unnecessary projects or projects that won’t pay for themselves. That doesn’t mean we can no to everything. Roads have to be repaired, our first responders need equipment, etc. The key is to be both cheap and smart at the same time.
Thanks!
Jeff Jacobson
Third Ward Candidate
For Montclair
“RPM isn’t proposing a moratorium on new debt — not that I’ve seen. ”
Thanks Mr. Jacobson, neither have I. And when asked for clarification Zorich and other’s vanish in a puff of opacity.
Since you are here Mr. Jacobson,
You say: “money will be bonded for such things as a new 911 system because our current system can’t be repaired anymore”
But just last week your slate said:
“We will, however, explore whether certain services, like police dispatch (for which Montclair has a state-of-the-art facility), can be shared with other towns in ways that benefit all sides.”
https://montclair.patch.com/articles/for-montclair-slate-releases-positions-on-police-fire
So which is it ???
p.s.
“RPM isn’t proposing a moratorium on new debt — not that I’ve seen. They’ve used a variety of terms like (in Peter Zorich’s words today) “non-emergency debt.”
But you guys haven’t even gone that far…. So why not?
” saying no to unnecessary projects or projects that won’t pay for themselves. ”
Seems like a lot more wiggle room to me than a “moratorium on new non-emergency debt.”
Oh, bother. I’m going to bed. I’m setting my alarm clock for May 8, when I’ll wake up and ask ROC who he thinks I should vote for.
Mr. Jacobson,
Does capital expenditure = debt?
“And when asked for clarification Zorich and other’s vanish in a puff of opacity.”
ROC..great line, it even made ME laugh.
I thought I addressed questions about RPM’s position on new capital expenditures (I seem to recall providing a very specific list of spending projects I deemed “non-essential” for which I was thanked for)
And you are right to point out that Harvey Susswein and Jackson/Russo have not made similar pledges about taking on new debt. Harvey simply says he will not issue more debt than is paid down. That will not come close to begin addressing the $250,000,000 debt burden. To my knowledge, Jackson/Russo have no stated debt reduction plan.
Peter Zorich
At-Large Candidate
Real Progress Montclair
Mr Zorich,
This is to what I was referring:
https://www.baristanetnew.wpengine.com/2012/04/montclair-council-weighs-budget-requests/#comment-288736
You’ve changed the term from “non-necessary” to “non-emergency”. And I was wondering what the difference was.
ROC,
[Assuming that the folks at RP understand this stuff]
“Emergency” has a specific meaning (if ill-defined) in terms of budgeting in NJ – “necessary” is purely subjective, so to promise no “non-necessary” spending is pretty meaningless.
For example: I’m pretty sure that a majority of your current councilors believe, and would argue that, the South Park Project is a “necessary” improvement.
No one could argue that it is an “Emergency”, even under the state’s fairly elastic definition.
“Emergency” has a specific meaning (if ill-defined)”
I’d love to know what the specific, ill-defined meaning is.
Well, if I were you, I’d want to know what the folks at RP mean by emergency (which I know you have already asked).
As far as the state’s definition to which I was referring – as I understand it – it’s whatever you can convince the folks at the DCA is an emergency situation – it probably varies from town to town – JH would probably be able to give you more insight.