    
Moderator
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 68
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 9:09 am: |     |
PETTIS / LEVENTHAL RESPONSES
RESPONSES FROM PETTIS/LEVENTHAL
TO MOL QUESIOTNS POSED BY RYAN/DELUCA
1. As chair of the CBAC this year, Ms. Leventhal suggested increasing police and fire staffing and police salaries while also keeping tax increases below the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Given increases in insurance and other salary costs at a rate above the CPI, what specific staffing and service cuts would you make in the municipal budget to achieve these seemingly contradictory goals?
The police and fire chiefs supported these proposals on the basis of significant reductions in overtime costs in both departments. These reductions in overtime would pay for most of the cost of the additional personnel, as acknowledged by Ms. Michele Meade, the town's business administrator, when the budget was being prepared earlier this year. The township committee, particularly Messrs. Ryan and DeLuca, never took these requests seriously. Consequently, the township staff never made a thorough analysis of the actual personnel costs including the effects of reduced overtime.
To make up any additional budget shortfall required to achieve the staffing increases, the township committee should consider: careful scrutiny of other departments whose actual spending last year did not exceed CPI; elimination of the second bulk trash pick-up (cost of almost $100,000); and modest reduction in the town's surplus, which is currently greater than needed (mainly due to the large tax increase last year).
The proposed increase in police staffing would have an immediate positive impact on improving the low morale among our police officers. The four additional officers would allow implementation of a new scheduling system. The present system is based on a 7-day rotation and causes officers to always have the same day of the week off from work, thus leaving many officers with no weekends off. In the police chief's justification for the personnel increase, he stated that the "current staff minimums and workload limit the ability to create specialized units which allow for job advancement and change." These problems of staffing, scheduling and low job satisfaction are closely interrelated. They have contributed to the 40% attrition in the department over the past 5 years. The proposed staff increase is a budgetary solution that could greatly improve the situation.
A word about the Citizen's Budget Advisory Committee (CBAC) is in order. The members of the CBAC are citizen volunteers, as the name implies. It is composed of several subcommittees that work semi-independently of one another. Consequently, the CBAC presents a series of recommendations intended as input for the township committee's annual budget process. The CBAC does not produce a unified, comprehensive financial analysis of the entire municipal budget. Messrs. Ryan and DeLuca are fully aware of the structure and purpose of the CBAC. For them to claim a contradiction on the part of the CBAC, or Ms. Leventhal, is cynical and does not support a constructive debate of the real issues.
2. Your literature speaks of the Springfield Avenue Development Project as being "cosmetic changes" yet the work follows the strategy of the Maplewood Economic Development Plan, prepared by a nationally respected planning and development firm. What parts of the Economic Development Plan do you disagree with and what are your alternatives?
The report in question is the "Economic Development Report for the Township of Maplewood" prepared by Abeles Phillips Preiss and Shapiro (APPS) in 1999. It is an excellent consultant's report and has much useful information in it. However, as a strategic plan for economic development it leaves much to be desired. The report was prepared under the guidance of the Maplewood Economic Development Commission, which has since been dissolved by the township committee. The report has never been adopted as official economic development policy for the town, either by the township committee or the planning board, which also reviewed it.
It appears to us that the phrase "Springfield Avenue Development Plan" was invented by the Ryan & DeLuca campaign. We are not aware of any formal, comprehensive plan that has been developed or approved by the town for development of Springfield Avenue. There is clearly a major construction project underway to enhance the physical streetscape of Springfield Avenue, and there is ongoing, ad hoc recruitment of new businesses. But a comprehensive economic development plan for Maplewood is still lacking.
For purposes of this discussion, let us assume that the Springfield Avenue Development Plan is actually Section 4 of the APPS report. This section mainly provides recommendations for configuration of the new streetscape and related zoning changes. It is contains a wealth of worthwhile information and appears to be the guidance for the current streetscape construction. Perhaps most notable is Section 4.2.6, which actually discusses economic development. Here the report proposes "Rather than approaching specific businesses, the Township <sum> should launch and aggressively market a program that offers assistance to new businesses looking for vacant or available space in Maplewood, and offers marketing and permitting assistance. Such a program will give Maplewood the appearance of a business-friendly community, and will encourage new and expanding businesses searching for space to consider Maplewood <sum> Publicize the program well in order to encourage new and expanding businesses!
to consider Maplewood. Promote the program on the World Wide Web, and through ads and press releases in New Jersey business publications. In addition, information packages should be sent out to regional commercial real estate agencies." Unfortunately, while we feel that this is perhaps the most important aspect of the recommended strategy for Springfield Avenue, it has not yet been implemented.
We are uncomfortable with certain recommendations made in the APPS report. For example, it recommends that the town create an "overlay zone" that would allow the business district to extend approximately 100 feet into the existing residential neighborhoods on both sides of Springfield Avenue. Implementing such a recommendation without a clear statement of philosophy and vision could lead to unforeseen adverse consequences. The report also recommends that the town consider liberalizing its zoning ordinance regarding fast food restaurants on the Springfield Avenue as a means of promoting economic development. Given the public outcry last year over the proposed KFC restaurant, we are not comfortable with this particular recommendation.
We believe an economic development plan must be based on these building blocks:
- An overall statement of vision and objectives that reflects community consensus.
- A real plan for economic development, not just construction and zoning, that will attract business owners and developers to Maplewood.
- A comprehensive project plan presenting key milestones, schedules, and resources required to achieve the goals.
- An economic planning professional on the township staff to lead these efforts.
When these elements are in place, Maplewood can have a true economic development plan.
3. The CBAC recommends that the "jitney pay for itself". It also suggests "raising the cost of the combo, parking permit and/or jitney pass as well as expanding an hour in the evening will make the jitney a break-even service." Furthermore, at a public Township Committee meeting, Mr. Profeta spoke of a jitney fee that would amount to $150 per year. The Transportation Committee has recommended keeping the jitney fee at half the parking fee to encourage more ridership. Do you support the current policy of the Transportation Committee or are you in favor of the CBAC recommendation to charge higher fees for commuter parking and the jitney?
We support keeping the cost of the jitney as low as possible, without placing an undue burden on the rest of the municipal budget, and we support keeping jitney fares below commuter parking fees to encourage ridership.
This question as posed here is based on a false premise, namely that the CBAC and Transportation Committee are diametrically opposed on this issue. In fact, the Transportation Committee is attempting to study the situation so as to determine whether the current fee structure is sound. They have requested detailed cost information from the town, but this data has not been forthcoming. Messrs. Ryan and DeLuca are fully aware of this situation but, to date, neither they nor the township staff have met the Transportation Committee's request. There are many legitimate budgetary questions concerning the jitney, including the actual allocation of costs and the extent to which it should be subsidized by the general budget.
We see the important issues with the jitney service as follows:
- The jitney service is a valuable asset to the town. It is convenient, eliminates the need for about 125 commuter parking spaces and contributes to a healthier environment.
- Fees collected for parking, jitney or combo passes should go toward offsetting the cost of providing the jitney service.
- As grant funding decreases, ways need to be found to make up the lost revenue. Otherwise, the town will need to cover the cost by having all taxpayers subsidize the jitney whether they are a riders or not.
However, in order to determine whether the cost of the jitney service is actually covered by revenue from all the commuter passes, we advocate the following:
- The town must provide to the Transportation Advisory Committee accurate information on expenses and income, which was requested by the committee over one year ago.
- The cost of fuel for jitney operation should be separated out from the total cost of fuel for other town vehicles; combining them is now the budgetary practice.
- Expansion of the jitney's evening hours and use of the jitney between rush hours be explored.
- The use of collection boxes, for fees from riders without passes, should be continued.
Many of these factors suggest the potential for activity-based budgeting for the jitney service. Such an approach would facilitate decision making about the setting the fees.
Finally, it might be helpful to share the full context of Fred Profeta's comments about jitney fees. These were made during the township committee's budget deliberations earlier this year. Mr. Profeta was exploring the acceptable price-point for the jitney service. He noted that jitney fees in South Orange, at $150 per year, seemed to be tolerated by the riders there. This is more than twice Maplewood's fee of $60. However, a fee of $200 per year in Chatham had evidently contributed to the failure of a jitney service there. Mr. Profeta thus concluded that a maximum of $150 per year was what the market could bear in Maplewood. He did not recommend or support a specific increase in the fee.
While Mr. Profeta is a supporter of ours, his public remarks do not in any way constitute official positions of the Pettis & Leventhal Campaign. We find it interesting, however, that Messrs. Ryan and DeLuca saw fit to include Mr. Profeta's insights as part of their participation in this MOL debate.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page