Montclair Township Council will hold a special meeting on Monday to introduce the 2024 budget.
Per the notice:
The Mayor and Council of the Township of Montclair will hold a Special Meeting on Monday, May 13, 2024 in Council Chambers at the Municipal Building, 205 Claremont Avenue, Montclair, New Jersey at 7:00 P.M.
The purpose of the Special Meeting is to introduce and approve the Municipal Budget. Other official action may be taken, and portions of the meeting may be held in Executive Session.
Per the agenda, a hearing for the budget (in document below) will take place on June 11. Also on the agenda is an executive session to discuss “Litigation,” specifically “Padmaja Rao v. Township of Montclair.”
Last year, Montclair held a public presentation on the proposed budget on May 8, 2023, with Montclair CFO Padmaja Rao. She was joined by then-acting township manager Brian Scantlebury, and Montclair’s former financial consultant Bob Benecke.
Ouch.
It is pretty odd that the draft budget isn’t done in the final quarter of the preceding year, that the public wasn’t invited to the department budget requests (as last year) and that nothing about senior center was on February’s draft budget. I just can’t believe how little accountability/transparency there is. It’s OUR money they are spending. We need a fiscally responsible Mayor and council. Look what happens when the political machine takes hold! Padmaja Rao excluded?!? She’s our CFO! By the way, when questio ed about Renee Baskerville’s event with Brendan Gill and Alixon, Carey Chevat and others, Brendan told me: “what political machine? There is no political machine.” Isn’t that the same machine that is fighting to restrict taxpayers from getting information through OPRA? We should all be HAPPY to pay our taxes, but when they are spent unwisely, we need to speak with our votes! Nobody is “owed” because they lost an election. Montclair is owed a smart Mayor who has done just as much service, but gives others who “need” to be in pictures credit, even when their voting records reveal they voted against many of the things they claim credit for. Montclair deserves competence, transparency and accountability. Get rid of the machine. Say no to wasting our money, please.
Chrissy,
The Department Head made their requests in two, open sessions televised/streamed on TV34… in November if my memory serves me well. The presentations were barebones narratives, more like snapshots of key needs and historical performance.
The 2024 Temporary Budget was developed in Q4, 2023 and approved by the Council Jan 2. Temporary Budgets are roughly 26% of the annual operating appropriations (debt/capital improvements are a separate calculation). It was amended on Mar 26 by the Council.
The Township closes out & reconciles the prior year’s accounts before finalizing the current full year budget to be introduced. We have a new auditor this year and I expect this has negatively impacted the timing. I can’t say how the legal rulings to date have impacted the budget process. That would be an interesting question to the Township Manager.
Is this what you are thinking of when you say Draft Budget? There might be some draft of the full year budget being passed around that I am not aware of, but definitely not published and not something one can OPRA.
Did you note the proposed increase to the property tax levy?
Budget hearings by department were available to the public but people couldn’t ask questions like the prior year and not much was discussed there.
The budget was never available to the public as it’s supposed to be despite numerous requests. It’s a closed process and all behind closed doors.
Approving the budget the day before the election? And using prior years’ funds to increase it by 3.5%?
This is all unacceptable. Time for a new manager.
What taxpayers and the candidates are not seeing is both the growing RATE of property tax increases and the growing reliance on the surplus to further fund spending levels over the last 3 Council administrations.
These are top-line figures that both groups can easily discern. The first Jackson Administration reset the bar lower on both resulting in property tax relief – to which they are to be commended. It didn’t last into the 2nd Jackson Administration and the Spiller Administration has taken it to the next level.
So when taxpayers and candidates bang on about affordability, don’t listen. Most don’t know enough to see for themselves how we are funding all these wishes and wants. Go ahead and spend. Just leave the pontificating at home. You guys just don’t know what you don’t know.
Have A Happy Election Day.
I agree. I’m pining after a town manager like Matt Cavallo, formerly of Verona. Or Matt Watkins. You want an honest person and a doer. Not a political hack.
Frank, do you just make this stuff up? The average tax increase during the eight years of the Jackson Council was a little over 1%. In fact, Jackson’s second term was better than his first one. During the years of his second term, his team formally adopted fiscal policies that got us AAA bond rating.Â
How about increasing the fund balance from $1 million to $7 million? (Spiller and Lapolla are beginning to squander it in the 2024 budget btw.) Jackson was not only laser focused on fiscal excellence, roads, curbs, parks, and playgrounds, he ended his second term with an unprecedented two years in a row zero tax increases.
Spiller did exactly the opposite. During his four years, consultants ruled unchecked. Quid pro quo awarding of contracts became the norm, which increased operating expenses with nothing to show for. I see HUGE administrative increases in Monday night’s proposed budget. I gather, he is using his last chance to award contracts to his buddies.
When I said “I agree” above, it was addressed to Towntalk, not to Frank Rubacky.
“(…) growing reliance on the surplus to further fund spending levels over the last 3 Council administrations.” Huh? This makes no sense. As McAlistair explained above, Jackson managed to invest in infrastructure while significantly INCREASING the fund balance. I don’t understand why Frank Rubacky is spreading misinformation.
McAlistair,
My post clearly could have been written better for reader comprehension. I said property taxes. I will reply further and clarify/be more specific in my attributions. I will also recheck my figures.
In the meantime, maybe you want to recheck your figures or clarify your terminology regarding the fund balance increases. I don’t disagree that there has been significant growth in the Fund Balance (1/1/2013: $5.4MM; 1/1/20: $16.9MM).
The proposed 2024 Budget using $8MM of surplus as Anticipated Revenues complies with the Jackson admin’s 2017 surplus policy.
Frank,
Good catch on the fund balance. I only looked at the first term. You strengthened my argument. So during the two terms:
1. Debt down $70 million, from $223 to $163 million
2. Fund balance up 3x to almost $17 million.
3. 1% average annual tax increase with three years of zero (2019 and 2020 consecutively)
4. Bond rating from AA- to AAA.
I admit that I’m in the Jackson fan club, but those are Hall of Fame numbers by any standard.
I guess naysaying just comes with life life in the arena.
McAlistair,
I stand by my original post. I will clarify in two aspects.
First, our household has one wallet and treat property tax levy and utilities fees as taxation. You may recall the substantial increases in water, sewer (& parking) rates in the Jackson 2nd term.
Second, the Jackson admin has to own school debt service under the BoSE. I didn’t factor this in, but know it is out there if you want to go down that road.
And for the record, municipal debt under Jackson admin remained almost constant: $73MM in 2013 and $70MM in 2020. The big debt reduction was in school debt…again, if you want to go there.
I’m open to any counter claims that my narrative is misleading. I’m always open to being schooled.
To be clear, the Jackson admin had a plan, strategies and EXECUTED. They also turned around the Utilities, especially that bankrupt Parking one. I am not undermining that. I’m simply saying they made choices. I like to think informed, well-reasoned choices. Maybe several not I would have done, but they were representing the broadest possible cross-section of residents & business owners.
The bottomline for me is that we are growing the size of local (muni & school) government at a significant rate. We have the highest debt level ever, by $50MM. Our operations, especially operating expenses are leaping forward. If everyone is fine, then I’m fine. I think. Maybe not. I have to protect my naysayer status.
Frank you are dead wrong on the use of fund balance in the 2024 budget. The policy states that no more than the prior year’s surplus generated will be used in the budget. The 2023 surplus generated was $7 million but $8 million is being used, i.e. dipping in fund balance by $1 million! Please stop!
Meredith,
I was dead wrong. You are correct – the 2023 surplus was $7,008,505.08. Thank you for checking my numbers.
“The proposed 2024 Budget using $8MM of surplus as Anticipated Revenues complies with the Jackson admin’s 2017 surplus policy.” – Frank Rubacky
When I said you were dead wrong, I was referring to your assertion that using $8M from the fund complies with Jackson Council’s policy. I then explained what the policy was. I don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish by giving a precise dollar figure. My point was that Lapolla was not in compliance with written policy. I have no idea what your point is – not the first time.
Meredith,
My point was you were right. I was simply showing I could correct my error with newfound precision by providing the exact number. That I could follow the math. Nothing more.
I offer the following knowing you can confirm or refute my numbers and, more substantially provide context to a trend I am seeing:
Jackson Admin #1 spent 79% ($10MM) of the 4 yrs of Operating Surplus to fund their budgets. Jackson Admin #2 in 2017 formalized this policy we refer to and spent 88% ($24MM) of the 4 yrs of Operating Surplus. A big jump in surplus and in spending. To their credit, they used a portion (20%? IDK) of this to provide property tax relief in the form of two 0% increases (per McAllister). The Spiller Council has spent 92% (almost the same $24MM amount) of Operating Surplus…in just 3 years. Without property tax relief. Of course, they get an asterisk because of 2021 being The COIVD Budget year.
My point being successive Councils are finding reasons to spend increasing amounts and percentages of surplus. Our savings account and the account the bond rating companies attach significant importance to.
How do you think the new Council should be using our savings account? By using I mean most efficiently and to the Township’s maximum advantage?