More information gathered at the League of Municipalities Convention:
Clifton
- layoff plan - city administrator urged starting early so savings are not limited to a few months
- reduction in workforce - 102 positions including 20 vacant positions, 19 demotions, 49 permanent employee terminations and 14 seasonal terminations. This included 10 vacant police positions and 3 demotions.
- The savings from the reduction in force is reduced by increased unemployment benefit costs
- Non union employees absorbing increased co payments for drug benefits (from $10 to $20)
- 79 user fees increased
- Voluntary furloughs offered to save some employee positions but no-one came forward
- Superior police officers accepted 0% wage increase for 2010
Maplewood
- Council knew of $2.5 million shortfall early and worked closely with administration to introduce a budget
- layoff of 20 positions including 3 police positions
- Renegotiated FMBA contract (firefighters) to save $1.1 million and staff positions
- 12 furlough days per year (fire and police not included in this plan)
- raised user fees
- layoffs and furloughs resulted in staff morale problems
Montgomery
- county took over police dispatching, saving $600,000
- sharing IT Manager with Board of Education saving $50,000
- reduction in workforce from 166 to 137 over a two (or three?) year period
These towns are ahead of Plainfield in developing solutions to the fiscal crunch being felt all over New Jersey. At last nights Council meeting, the responsiblity for the budget shifted from the administration and Mayor over to the Council. There will still be a need for the Mayor and Council to cooperate in order to work with our unions to make the tax increase less devastating. We shall see.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Plainfield's budget - part three
Or what I learned at the NJ League of Municipalities Convention
The last post, part two, explained how the state has capped the annual increase in municipal expenditures (the annual cost of living cap on expenditures is usually 2.5 % with significant exceptions allowed for pension, health benefit, capital and other costs). I also covered how this affects Plainfield.
Now to the all important revenue side of the budget. Municipal revenues are heavily dependent on property taxes to pay for local services. Important miscellaneous revenues in Plainfield are state aid and local user fees, both of which are not increasing along with our personnel expenditures. In fact the economy is taking its toll on these revenues and they are going down.
So property taxes have to increase more than expenditures on a percentage basis to compensate for the poor revenue picture. In other words, a 2.5% increase in Plainfield's annual budget (and allowing for all the cap exceptions mentioned above) may require a 10% property tax increase! That is, in fact, the situation facing Plainfield right now.
That's what motivated me to take a trip to Atlantic City to the League of Municipalities Convention (at no cost to the city), to learn about strategies used around the state to cope with our fiscal dilemma.
In one workshop Robert Casey outlined five ways cities can cope:
1. increase miscellaneous revenues - Mr Casey said that there are limited opportunities here and in fact, Plainfield has already done some of the things suggested in this category.
2. reduce expense - he said cities have to operate as businesses and seriously reduce ongoing expenses and not just use one time fixes
3. transfer costs to another entity - Plainfield has used this approach - can anyone guess what it is - the answer is at the bottom of this post.
4. shared services agreements - to get economies of scale. An example shared was a town that split the cost of an IT Manager so each paid $50,000 towards the salary.
5. advocacy - lobbying the state legislature to take action on binding arbitration and unfunded mandates.
The take home lesson for me is that in the near term, while Plainfield needs to pursue each of the five general categories above, the most important way to control property taxes is to reduce local expenses.
In the next blog post, I will share details from three towns that are working hard to get a handle on the difficulties we all face. Here is a sneak preview - layoffs, furloughs and increased user fees.
- Answer from question about transfer of services - Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority
- Bonus question - who is Robert Casey? Winner gets mentioned on my blog. Awesome prize, right!
The last post, part two, explained how the state has capped the annual increase in municipal expenditures (the annual cost of living cap on expenditures is usually 2.5 % with significant exceptions allowed for pension, health benefit, capital and other costs). I also covered how this affects Plainfield.
Now to the all important revenue side of the budget. Municipal revenues are heavily dependent on property taxes to pay for local services. Important miscellaneous revenues in Plainfield are state aid and local user fees, both of which are not increasing along with our personnel expenditures. In fact the economy is taking its toll on these revenues and they are going down.
So property taxes have to increase more than expenditures on a percentage basis to compensate for the poor revenue picture. In other words, a 2.5% increase in Plainfield's annual budget (and allowing for all the cap exceptions mentioned above) may require a 10% property tax increase! That is, in fact, the situation facing Plainfield right now.
That's what motivated me to take a trip to Atlantic City to the League of Municipalities Convention (at no cost to the city), to learn about strategies used around the state to cope with our fiscal dilemma.
In one workshop Robert Casey outlined five ways cities can cope:
1. increase miscellaneous revenues - Mr Casey said that there are limited opportunities here and in fact, Plainfield has already done some of the things suggested in this category.
2. reduce expense - he said cities have to operate as businesses and seriously reduce ongoing expenses and not just use one time fixes
3. transfer costs to another entity - Plainfield has used this approach - can anyone guess what it is - the answer is at the bottom of this post.
4. shared services agreements - to get economies of scale. An example shared was a town that split the cost of an IT Manager so each paid $50,000 towards the salary.
5. advocacy - lobbying the state legislature to take action on binding arbitration and unfunded mandates.
The take home lesson for me is that in the near term, while Plainfield needs to pursue each of the five general categories above, the most important way to control property taxes is to reduce local expenses.
In the next blog post, I will share details from three towns that are working hard to get a handle on the difficulties we all face. Here is a sneak preview - layoffs, furloughs and increased user fees.
- Answer from question about transfer of services - Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority
- Bonus question - who is Robert Casey? Winner gets mentioned on my blog. Awesome prize, right!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Plainfield's budget - part two
The state legislature recognizes that New Jersey property taxes are too high and will continue to escalate. There is a state law to address this, ineffective though it may be. This law states that local governments cannot exceed the previous years budget by more than 2.5 %. Sounds good, right? Unfortunately there are so many exceptions allowed that taxes can go up 10 or 15% anyway. In addition to the exceptions, a municipality may pass an ordinance each year to increase its expenditures an additional 1% (from 2.5% to 3.5%) and establish a "cap bank" permitting a town to increase its budget the following year if it doesn't need the full 3.5% expenditure increase in the current year.
Plainfield has passed such an ordinance every year I have been on Council. I started voting against this two years ago but have always been on the losing side of this vote. Passing this "cap waiver" ordinance this year would allow us to add $588,000 to our expense budget. This year I spoke out against this at each of the four meetings required for its passage - two agenda fixing two business meetings. This year my one "nay" vote sent the ordinance down in defeat. 5 votes are needed for passage and it went down with 4 yes votes to my one vote of opposition. Two Councilors were absent. It is critically important to understand the implications of the defeat of this ordinance :
Plainfield has passed such an ordinance every year I have been on Council. I started voting against this two years ago but have always been on the losing side of this vote. Passing this "cap waiver" ordinance this year would allow us to add $588,000 to our expense budget. This year I spoke out against this at each of the four meetings required for its passage - two agenda fixing two business meetings. This year my one "nay" vote sent the ordinance down in defeat. 5 votes are needed for passage and it went down with 4 yes votes to my one vote of opposition. Two Councilors were absent. It is critically important to understand the implications of the defeat of this ordinance :
- It forced the Plainfield administration to go back and make more cuts to the budget that will be introduced at the Council meeting this coming Monday, November 16.
- There will be no cap bank next year (fiscal year 2011) which will mean more drastic action will be required to address the inevitable increases in wages and benefits. Employee lay-offs will become more a more important budget balancing strategy.
- Proposing lay-offs will bring all parties to the negotiating table for serious talks about employee contributions to health benefit premiums, furloughs and wage givebacks.
- Without a credible threat of layoffs, the unions will not engage in substantive negotiations or renegotiations.
I do not like to see reduced compensation for city employees. But I do not like to see families lose their homes because property taxes are unaffordable. And the fact is that for many years government workers compensation increases have outpaced all other workers and are exceeding working families ability to pay. Unless we rebalance government worker compensation, we will see more and more city job positions eliminated. That would be most unfortunate.
I believe serious and painful action must be taken to bring property taxes under control. If we don't act at the municipal level, we are postponing the inevitable and it will be even more painful that what we face today.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Life Just Got Safer on Kensington Ave
Speed humps have been installed on Kensingtion Ave! This street has long been a speeders paradise in spite of the 25 mile speed limit. The only traffic calming device this street had up till now was potholes. With the much needed paving of Kensington winding down, speeding would have become an even bigger concern.
Speed humps are different than rumble strips or speed bumps. They are more effective because failure to slow down will damage the underside of your vehicle. They make walking and biking more safe and so must be a part of any successful traffic circulation plan.
Speed humps are not preferred by fire and police officials. They don't like to slow down when they are driving to a crime or fire scene. They have successfully prevented installation of speed humps in Plainfield until now. Elected officials must balance their concerns with the need for pedestrian safety in residential neighborhoods. And it is true that speed humps must be used judiciously - good examples are streets like Kensington or Belividere Other towns including Westfield and South Plainfield have made good use of speed humps.
I have been an advocate for speed humps for my five and a half years on the City Council. So this is especially gratifying to me. I want to thank those responsible for the decision to use speed humps on Kensington. Rashid Burney was a strong advocate and Mayor Robinson Briggs dealt with the barriers posed by public safety officials. My advocacy was stalled until they jumped on the band wagon.
It's important to celebrate progress in Plainfield. Going forward we will have to make major changes to our roads program to keep it moving and make it more affordable. I am happy to say that traffic calming is now part of the plan.
Speed humps are different than rumble strips or speed bumps. They are more effective because failure to slow down will damage the underside of your vehicle. They make walking and biking more safe and so must be a part of any successful traffic circulation plan.
Speed humps are not preferred by fire and police officials. They don't like to slow down when they are driving to a crime or fire scene. They have successfully prevented installation of speed humps in Plainfield until now. Elected officials must balance their concerns with the need for pedestrian safety in residential neighborhoods. And it is true that speed humps must be used judiciously - good examples are streets like Kensington or Belividere Other towns including Westfield and South Plainfield have made good use of speed humps.
I have been an advocate for speed humps for my five and a half years on the City Council. So this is especially gratifying to me. I want to thank those responsible for the decision to use speed humps on Kensington. Rashid Burney was a strong advocate and Mayor Robinson Briggs dealt with the barriers posed by public safety officials. My advocacy was stalled until they jumped on the band wagon.
It's important to celebrate progress in Plainfield. Going forward we will have to make major changes to our roads program to keep it moving and make it more affordable. I am happy to say that traffic calming is now part of the plan.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Plainfield's 2010 budget and property taxes - part one
I have a lot to share about the municipal budget, having served as an elected official through 5 city budgets and 6 school board budgets in the last 15 years. This is the first of three blogs concerning the Plainfield 2010 budget and will serve as an introduction to the process.
The budget process starts with with the Mayor and administration drafting and introducing a budget to the Council. At the time of introduction, this budget is sent to the NJ Department of Community Affairs. From that moment, the budget is in the hands of the Council. Its final form and adoption is the responsibility of the Council.
It is mid October and the City Council has yet to see a budget or even get an estimated property tax increase. The final adoption typically takes place in October, November or December. In a particularly difficult year, it might take until January. By the way, the budget year starts in July - the previous July, not the following one. To be fair to local government, the state rules make it impossible to strike a budget before the year begins and almost impossible with the first three months of the year! Still, it is worrisome that the Council hasn't seen or heard anything about the administrations budget.
Once we get the budget, the City Council will hold budget hearings to review each departments requests in depth. In my five years on Council, these hearings have led to the Council making various adjustments, mostly to cut expenditures. Examples include reductions in police and fire overtime pay and many cuts to to non-personnel budget lines that were underspent in the previous year. There were a few areas where Council increased expenditure such as staffing for road repair crews.
One aspect of the budget that often gets overlooked is the capital budget for expenditures having an expected life of at least 5 years. I did get a look at the 2010 proposed capital budget Thursday night at the Planning Board meeting (Planning Board reviews this first and sends its recommendations to the Council). The administration is proposing bare bones capital expenditures, probably a good idea in the current economic climate. Most expenditures are for grant funded projects, with the exception of engineering for next years road paving program which would be bond funded.
The second part of my budget blog will be more exciting - I promise. Something unusual happened at the last Council meeting that went under most people's radar. I will need a little more time to post on that.
The budget process starts with with the Mayor and administration drafting and introducing a budget to the Council. At the time of introduction, this budget is sent to the NJ Department of Community Affairs. From that moment, the budget is in the hands of the Council. Its final form and adoption is the responsibility of the Council.
It is mid October and the City Council has yet to see a budget or even get an estimated property tax increase. The final adoption typically takes place in October, November or December. In a particularly difficult year, it might take until January. By the way, the budget year starts in July - the previous July, not the following one. To be fair to local government, the state rules make it impossible to strike a budget before the year begins and almost impossible with the first three months of the year! Still, it is worrisome that the Council hasn't seen or heard anything about the administrations budget.
Once we get the budget, the City Council will hold budget hearings to review each departments requests in depth. In my five years on Council, these hearings have led to the Council making various adjustments, mostly to cut expenditures. Examples include reductions in police and fire overtime pay and many cuts to to non-personnel budget lines that were underspent in the previous year. There were a few areas where Council increased expenditure such as staffing for road repair crews.
One aspect of the budget that often gets overlooked is the capital budget for expenditures having an expected life of at least 5 years. I did get a look at the 2010 proposed capital budget Thursday night at the Planning Board meeting (Planning Board reviews this first and sends its recommendations to the Council). The administration is proposing bare bones capital expenditures, probably a good idea in the current economic climate. Most expenditures are for grant funded projects, with the exception of engineering for next years road paving program which would be bond funded.
The second part of my budget blog will be more exciting - I promise. Something unusual happened at the last Council meeting that went under most people's radar. I will need a little more time to post on that.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The City Council and the Mayor
When Plainfield government does something good, the credit is shared by elected officials. Then things are not right, the blame must be shared. More importantly, the solution must be a shared decision.
Those of you who follow local government may see that something has changed with the Council. Concerns about the performance of city hall are increasingly expressed by Council members. Some of these concerns come out at public meetings and others must, by law, be addressed privately.
You will know how well the Council is working together and how well we are working with the Mayor by tracking some current issues between now and early 2010:
Those of you who follow local government may see that something has changed with the Council. Concerns about the performance of city hall are increasingly expressed by Council members. Some of these concerns come out at public meetings and others must, by law, be addressed privately.
You will know how well the Council is working together and how well we are working with the Mayor by tracking some current issues between now and early 2010:
- 2010 budget - how will we rise to the challenge of reducing expenses to stay within the state requirement of a maximum 2.5% increase in expense over 2009. This will require more cooperation between the Council and Mayor than ever.
- If lay-offs and union contract give backs are part of our budget solution, will the Council speak with one voice. Will the Council and Mayor speak with one voice. When there are differences in strategy, will all parties put their cards on the table respectfully and make compromises to achieve real solutions?
- Will the Council get straight answers by the next Council meeting to questions regarding the transfer of Dudley House to a private not for profit organization?
- Will the Council and the Mayor ensure that the Muhlenburg Community Advisory Group has a fully operational complaint procedure so that citizens know where and how to make complaints and that they are resolved within specified time frames?
These are some of the current concerns/issues that our city government is charged to deal with. Get out your score cards to measure the performance of each Council member, the Council as a whole and the Mayor. We all need to be held accountable individually and even more importantly, as a team. It will take a team approach to navigate Plainfield through some very challenging problems and times.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Monday night Council agenda
I am posting to alert citizens to the fact that there are two new items on the Council's agenda for Monday's business meeting:
1. A resolution for the transit oriented vision study. The city will apply to use $80,000 from our Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) fund to pay Rutgers and NJIT to assist Plainfield in creating a vision for our downtown and along our rail corridor. I plan to vote yes for this resolution.
2. An ordinance creating an IT position including a salary range and job description. I will vote yes for this also.
These items should have been on the agenda for last Mondays meeting. I was expecting to see them at that time. It is unfortunate that we are not following our normal procedure for these important and necessary initiatives. I hope an explanation is provided for this. Nevertheless we need to move forward on both fronts.
Since I have been very involved with the vision proposal I can shed more light on that process than on the IT initiative. We have been working hard with Rutgers and NJIT to craft the vision proposal so it meets Plainfields needs. There has been input from the Council, the Mayor, City Administrator and the Planning Board members. This proposal has received attention from the Courier News (a favorable editorial this past spring) and I have reported on it at several Council and Planning Board meetings. In addition to meeting Plainfields needs the study needs to align with the academic calendars of both partner institutions. We have a timetable that all parties agreed to and it includes an approved Council resolution by 8/17. That sets the stage for an application to the state UEZ office and eventual approval so that all partners can get to work this fall and into 2010. So I am not happy that this was not up for discussion last week and I promise to have a full discussion this coming Monday. But we need to approve this resolution now.
I should also note that there is a lot of speculation that the Monarch tax abatement will be put back on the agenda Monday. I have not heard this and I do not believe that a group of Council members would orchestrate such a move without disclosure to the rest of the Council. Call me naive but we will know for sure on Monday. This has become a hot button issue because people are upset about their taxes and PMUA fees. When this does come back to the Council and if we do vote on it, many will say a yes vote puts you in the developers and Jerry Greens pocket. All I can say is that neither Jerry Green or the developer has lobbied me for this tax abatement. I am not categorically against tax abatements and am still gathering and weighing the facts in this particular proposal. If I do vote against it, I will still be open to the possibility of tax abatements in the future if I think they will help Plainfield.
Lets focus on the facts and not the personalities.
1. A resolution for the transit oriented vision study. The city will apply to use $80,000 from our Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) fund to pay Rutgers and NJIT to assist Plainfield in creating a vision for our downtown and along our rail corridor. I plan to vote yes for this resolution.
2. An ordinance creating an IT position including a salary range and job description. I will vote yes for this also.
These items should have been on the agenda for last Mondays meeting. I was expecting to see them at that time. It is unfortunate that we are not following our normal procedure for these important and necessary initiatives. I hope an explanation is provided for this. Nevertheless we need to move forward on both fronts.
Since I have been very involved with the vision proposal I can shed more light on that process than on the IT initiative. We have been working hard with Rutgers and NJIT to craft the vision proposal so it meets Plainfields needs. There has been input from the Council, the Mayor, City Administrator and the Planning Board members. This proposal has received attention from the Courier News (a favorable editorial this past spring) and I have reported on it at several Council and Planning Board meetings. In addition to meeting Plainfields needs the study needs to align with the academic calendars of both partner institutions. We have a timetable that all parties agreed to and it includes an approved Council resolution by 8/17. That sets the stage for an application to the state UEZ office and eventual approval so that all partners can get to work this fall and into 2010. So I am not happy that this was not up for discussion last week and I promise to have a full discussion this coming Monday. But we need to approve this resolution now.
I should also note that there is a lot of speculation that the Monarch tax abatement will be put back on the agenda Monday. I have not heard this and I do not believe that a group of Council members would orchestrate such a move without disclosure to the rest of the Council. Call me naive but we will know for sure on Monday. This has become a hot button issue because people are upset about their taxes and PMUA fees. When this does come back to the Council and if we do vote on it, many will say a yes vote puts you in the developers and Jerry Greens pocket. All I can say is that neither Jerry Green or the developer has lobbied me for this tax abatement. I am not categorically against tax abatements and am still gathering and weighing the facts in this particular proposal. If I do vote against it, I will still be open to the possibility of tax abatements in the future if I think they will help Plainfield.
Lets focus on the facts and not the personalities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
