The 2010 Municipal Budget

With the barrage of media coverage this year with everything related to local BOE budgets, the Dumont 2010 Municipal Budget seems to have received little attention.  Introduced on April 6, 2010:

The 2010 budget will require that municipal taxes increase $1,309,205 for support of municipal operations.  The 2010 municipal tax rate will increase 6.2 tax points or $237 on an average home assessed at $382,000.

Is my math incorrect or does that translate to a tax increase of 8.96% over last year?

Where is the outrage?

Recently the Council in Tenafly tried introducing their 2010 budget which had an 8% tax increase.  What happened?  According to the Record,

(Tenafly) Residents shared their concerns about a proposed 8 percent municipal tax levy hike at the May 6 budget workshop, causing the governing body to delay introduction of the spending plan.

The Dumont council held two hearings since the introduction, one at the senior center and another at borough hall.  Only one resident was present at borough hall to ask questions about the budget.  When asked whether the introduced budget reflected any cuts, the answer was no.  A number of other questions revealed that the Finance Committee seemed just as forthcoming as the BOE when it came to their respective budgets - if at all.  In addition, many practices seemed troubling as to how the municipal books were maintained.

When a request was made for the municipal budget's background information, this was the response:

...request for OPRA #29-documents that provided the background, details and basis for Dumont’s 2010 municipal budget introduction-is denied. The Borough attorney stated that it is considered deliberative work product and is not discoverable under OPRA and common law right of access.

Upcoming resolution being voted on the May 18, 2010 meeting appears interesting:

#10-156 Self-Examination of Dumont Municipal Budget *

How does that look when the council wants to "self-examine" a budget that they have refused to open to the public?  What does that say about their credibility?  Why are the budgets of Englewood and Mount Olive completely open and easily downloadable?  Is this similar to the BOE budget, where one resident thought it was "planned to fail"?

Since the council is reviewing the defeated BOE budget and suggesting further cuts, would it be fair to have the BOE review the municipal budget and suggest further cuts as well?

Every day I thank our Police for keeping our streets safe and our DPW for keeping our streets orderly.  I even thank all the staff in Borough Hall from Administrator to administrative assistants in all the various departments for keeping the borough's house in order.  Having said that, does this mean that our elected officials are relieved of their responsibility to negotiate new and re-negotiate existing labor contracts at every level to reflect the "shared sacrifice" currently experienced by residents?

Should the highest bidder get my vote, Parts II and III

In early February this year I wondered if the generous contributions of a borough professional influenced a council member's vote for the professional's re-appointment.

Apparently, two other council members seemed also to be beneficiaries at that vote.  On the February 2, 2010 council meeting, councilwoman Zamechansky could be heard praising the resident engineering firm:

Over the past year, I really have to commend especially Dominic for all the extra time that he took to stick with us to explain things, to do walkthroughs not just for the mayor and council, but for all the residents in town that the board members and I asked to do for them, the walkthroughs, really this helps everyone with the process, how, so that's my comment.

Councilman Manna chimes in later:

On the NJEIT Phase I project, uh, they've brought the project in ahead of schedule and the budget, so you know, uh, when we're looking at inputs and values and dollars saved, I can certainly, uh, both of us, Mr. Mayor, do thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Gentle readers, please feel free to correct for the record if I have misheard what the council members actually said.

Of the elected officials who spoke advocating the re-appointment of T&M Associates as the borough engineer, ELEC records show that a check for the state legal maximum of $2,600 was received by the primary campaign account of Ms. Zamechansky dated 01/11/10.  Records also show a check for the state legal maximum of $2,600 dated 01/05/10 was received by Mr. Manna's primary campaign account even though his primary election is not until June 2011.  Each campaign transferred $2,000 each to Mr. McHale's primary campaign account on 01/18/10, $525 each to Dumont Victory 2009 on 01/23/10 and $75 each to Mr. McHale's primary campaign account on 02/17/10 even though the mayoral primary election is not until June 2011.  All reports were filed with ELEC dated April 15, 2010.

If the endorsements were monetized, what was each word worth?  Ms. Zamechansky's statement came in at 68 words; approximately $38.24 per word.  Mr. Manna's statement came in at 46 words; around $56.52 per word.  Expensive words indeed.  Think that residents do not pay for this?  Think again.  Here is a recent quote for anyone wishing a copy of the proposed NJEIT Phase III project who wishes to take home a copy of the proposal plan and drawings since one need only look at the stack of documents and drawings to conclude that it seems hardly reasonable to review it in the clerk's office:  $63.50 for hardcopy and a whopping $276.00 for an electronic copy.  Apologies to folks who, like me,  received a letter that their property is affected by this construction project.  I would have considered shelling out $63.50 from my pocket for an electronic copy and sharing it with my neighbors, but $276.00 is a bit too rich for my budget.  Besides, what good is the borough website anyway, if it costs the borough $1500 per month for something that costs neighboring municipalities nearly 70% less?  I guess I will have to save that discussion for another day.

I must emphasize that the campaign contributions and the account transfers in this discussion, also known as "wheeling", are activities currently legal in the state of New Jersey; however, the Ordinance and Resolution Committee chaired by Councilman Stylianou is attempting to enact local legislation based on model ordinance supplied by Citizen's Campaign that would outlaw this practice.  The ordinance is already on the books in nearly a dozen Bergen municipalities and dozens of NJ municipalities and counties. 

One would think that coming off the heels of the Record investigative report and follow-up, council members might express concern in being seen as dragging its feet.  After two months and four meetings, green shoots of progress may finally be emerging.  But one has to wonder whether the green shoots cultivated by Mr. Stylianou can survive the trample of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), concerns expressed by Mr. Manna and Mr. McHale, both advocating the proposed ordinance's perfection over speedy adoption with future updates if and when needed.

Mr. Stylianou's excellent idea proposing the ordinance to be retroactive to 01/01/2010 signals his commitment to reform.  Will he prevail, or will he be unable to overcome opposition from other council members appearing either unable or unwilling to kick the habit of generous campaign fund injections  in 2010 and beyond from firms doing business with Dumont?

Connect the dots...

Select Borough Public Meetings

There have been many new additions this week on the video site.

4/27 Joint Land Use Board Meeting

4/28 Ordinance & Resolution Board Meeting
        Part 1 - Revised Rent Leveling Board Ordinance, Park and Playground Ordinance
        Part 2 - Campaign Finance Reform (Pay-to-Play) Ordinance

P2P Ordinance is the subject of a recent editorial and the meeting received some press attention.

Happy viewing!

Finally, some good news!

Motivated by Board Member Ken Melamed's letter to action, I attended the Joint Land Use Board Meeting on Tuesday April 27.  Do you find it interesting that the board meeting could not be located on the borough calendar for any month in 2010?  I hope this oversight is rectified soon.

Anyway, at the meeting it was announced that T-Mobile, the cellular operator applying for a variance to erect a tower on 75 Armour Place (Block 203, Lot 19), is in active discussion with the borough of Dumont to see whether the carrier can relocate the tower application to place it on borough property so the borough could earn some revenue and (possibly) offset future property tax levies.  Do you see the ring of antennas on the radio tower about three-fourths the tower height?  Currently MetroPCS is leasing that space from the borough and is paying $2500 monthly, their own utilities and a 3% yearly raise for the 5-year term.

Video is available here.

Please refer to this earlier post for background.  Stay tuned for (hopefully) further progress and eventual success!

Free? How about $15,000? Just Say No.

Back in 2008 and again in 2009, when folks asked why the council decided against televising council meetings, they responded that their "research" indicated the cost was too prohibitive.

As gentle readers like you know that I have been providing recordings of select council and other public session meetings since December 2008, accessible by anyone, anywhere in the world reachable via the internet 24/7/365 and realize that I have been doing so spending less than $300 to date, would you like to know why the council has not done so yet? 

While I remain uncertain as to why, I have found the following that make the reason economic unlikely.  In Dumont Borough Codes Chapter A546 and adopted on March 19, 2002 as Ordinance 1269, aka Cable Franchise Agreement.  In part, the borough receives the following free of charge:

• One high-speed cable modem and monthly Internet access service, including a standard installation to one municipal location designated by the Borough;
• Network up to three additional personal computer terminals in the designated building (four computers total) to the cable modem;
• One high-speed cable modem and monthly Internet access service, including a standard installation to all state-accredited primary and secondary public schools within the Borough;
• One high-speed cable modem and monthly Internet access service, including a standard installation to the municipal library;
• A noncommercial public, educational and governmental channel for the Borough use, upon request by the Borough. This channel may only be used for noncommercial programming.

So what does this cost?  In this ten-year agreement, Dumont receives 2% of gross receipts, which for 2010, the borough anticipates this revenue to be $189,214, almost double from 2009 of $95,000 anticipated.  The contract continues:

In consideration for the rights granted by this ordinance, Cablevision shall provide the Borough with a one-time grant of $15,000 to be used by the municipality for cable and/or other telecommunications-related purposes, including to supplement PEG access related production and programming efforts in the Borough.

So where did the grant go?

Who is to blame this time?

Why is the Mayor of Englewood so intent on having council meetings streamed live and archived for anytime access?

 
Excerpted from the article:
 

He added, "I want to make it as easy as possible for residents to get information about their government so they can participate in critical issues."

Huttle said the current economic crisis meant that the council needs transparency "more than ever." The city, he said, is at a critical stage in the budget process and transparency is essential in order for the residents and taxpayers to be informed.

"It’s past time to show the people who elected us that we are serious about running a transparent, open government on their behalf," Huttle said.

I guess we will just have to do with lip service here in Dumont and completely trust our elected officials.