How to Cut? Taking a Look at the City Budget
By Shane Smith • Feb 2nd, 2010 • Category: Blog, News, PoliticsAfter last week’s volatile City Council meeting, where hundreds of angry residents protested a proposed municipal budget that would impose a 25 percent property tax increase on them, and what with Gov. Christie taking aim at special municipal aid as one of his first acts in office, the Healy administration may feel that it’s stuck with the Hobson’s choice of raising taxes or cutting services — in fact, this year the eventual choice may end up being both.
Mayor Healy and the members of the City Council’s budget subcommittee — Ward A councilman Michael Sottolano, Ward D councilman Bill Gaughan and Council President Peter Brennan — have provided numerous examples over the past few weeks of how the city has already deeply slashed services. City employees have been furloughed and rumors of impending layoffs have become a likelihood. Twenty-six fire companies became 22. Department directors were asked to cut their budgets a minimum of ten percent. But these efforts were not enough to prevent tax increases; as the city begins a new year rife with economic uncertainty, soft real estate numbers and a tight credit market, that spells big fiscal and political trouble for the administration.
Taking a step back from this year’s budget fracas, there are other issues that local good-government activists, elected officials and everyday citizens now find themselves asking. Such questions go beyond the mere choice of whether to raise taxes or cut services: Why does the city regularly introduce a draft budget well into the fiscal year, instead of well in advance of its start? Why do we depend so heavily on one-time revenue injections to fill budget gaps? How much development money poured into the city during the golden real estate years, and where did it all go? Who in the administration is considering the budget as a whole and setting stable overall priorities?
The Independent will be closely following the budget process in the coming weeks and months; along the way we hope to help answer these questions and others, and perhaps raise some new ones. For today, we leave you with two lists of cost-cutting suggestions from Ward E councilman Steven Fulop and good-government activist Dan Levin. We can’t say at first glance whether the implementation of any or all of these ideas would end up being a net benefit for the city, but as a wise person once said, “the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
As a city councilman, Fulop intends to make his cost-cutting suggestions by way of legislation. In a statement released last week, Fulop announced that he will introduce three measures at the next council meeting that he claims would save the city a combined total of “several million dollars.” He calls these bills “a first step” and urges his fellow councilmembers “to search for ways that they can cut several million dollars … and not merely be a rubber stamp on a horrible budget.”
- One ordinance would allow the public to decide whether to move municipal elections to coincide with the November general election. Fulop estimates this will save around $1.5 million, although City Clerk Robert Byrne has previously estimated this figure at $350,000.
- Another would eliminate city-paid health benefits for City Council members and the board members of the Municipal Utilities Authority and the Jersey City Incinerator Authority. Estimated savings: $500,000 annually.
- Finally, Fulop will introduce a resolution to request that the city outsource the responsibilities of the Division of Animal Control to the Liberty Humane Society, which receives a significant portion of its funding from a city contract for shelter services. Estimated savings: $800,000 annually.
Local good-government activist and 2009 mayoral candidate Dan Levin has been making noise about the city’s financial health for years. At last week’s City Council meeting, he gave the members an extensive “off-the-cuff list” of cost-cutting suggestions. Excerpts from this list are quoted below.
- Financial Master Plan (five year). Plan and anticipate expense and revenue.
- Shared services with the Board of Education (from IT to printing to maintenance).
- Combine Fire and Police Director positions (and their offices) into one Public Safety Director (we already have Fire and Police Chiefs).
- Eliminate the Deputy Mayor positions.
- Cap tax abatement contracts at 10 years; no extension of tax abatements.
- Independent review of municipal and school budget.
- Review finances to identify … funds allocated (by ordinance/bonds) but never spent.
- Energy audits.
- Digitize all documents and print on both sides of the paper.
Like what you've read here? Please consider making a donation or becoming a sustaining member. As a grassroots news organization, we rely on community support -- as well as paid advertising -- to survive.
Shane Smith is the co-publisher and associate editor of Jersey City Independent and NEW magazine.
Email this author | All posts by Shane Smith
You could also take away all benefits for all part-time workers, consultants, temps and interns and such, and put a stringent cap on overtime for any future contracts for any labor or public works projects – seriously, if they can’t do the job in a fixed amount of time, they shouldn’t be rewarded for it and the public shouldn’t have to continue to fund it.
I’m not sure eliminating health benefits for City Council members is a good idea. Those members already covered through Medicare, pensions, or private retirement plans can continue using those plans; everyone else should be covered by the city. Eliminating it altogether will force those council members not previously covered to find additional sources of income. Correct me if I’m wrong, but city council salaries are pretty low. Combine a low salary with an expensive necessity, and you have a situation ripe for conflict of interest and corruption.
By all means, eliminate it for the board members of the Incinerator Authority and Municipal Utilities; membership on those boards is not meant to be a full time endeavor. Yes, it may seem like some of our council members are absent most of the time, but I’d like to think that they consider governing the city a full time job.
Does anybody know how much Council members make? Or how many Council members currently hold other salaried employment? Nidia Lopez makes a point of calling herself a “full-time” councilwoman in her profile on the city website: http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/citycouncil.aspx?id=1220
and I seem to remember Michael Sottolano claiming the same thing last year, but it’s no longer mentioned in his profile.
Maybe if our council members received salaries comparable to neighboring cities (NYC City Council members make $112,500 base salary), we could make them less susceptible to graft and corruption and more focused on the business of running the city.
Just a thought.
Council salaries are under $40k a year; almost each person holds another job of some sort. Sottolano is retired from a city job — he worked for the city for 37 years, so he’s pensioned and insured. Donnelly might be the exception at this point. He used to work for the city but wasn’t allowed to do that and be a council member — I am not sure if he has found a new non-city job yet since being appointed councilman.
Thanks Jon. It’s shocking how little salary council members bring home. At less than $40,000, I guess it’s pretty much understood that members need to hold on to another job. It’s a situation that can’t be great for the people of this city; how easily council members might see their position as a means of furthering private ambitions rather than fulfilling egalitarian motives, as a stepping stone to more powerful public and private jobs where the salaries are in the six figure range. Imagine the myriad conflicts of interest when public officials also hold private employment in the same city (I guess we don’t have to imagine, actually).
These are individuals who decide the fate of millions in taxpayer dollars, and yet they make peanuts (comparatively) for the privilege of doing so? Wow, not good.
I
1-Require all property owners to pay taxes. All property owners including the Mayor and require proof of payment.There are too many individuals and entities not paying property taxes.
2-Make the Tax Returns and Finances of all elected and appointed City Officials public information, subject to annual audit by publication
3-Eliminate tax abatements to developers.We no longer have to give an incentive to developers to build in Jersey City. Jersey City is no longer an eyesore, it is a Destination and a desired one.If we cannot eliminate tax abatements, then reduce them to 5 or 7 years.
4-Impose a penalty or rebate of abatement, or prorate the abatement if a tax abated property is sold within the abatement period.This includes transfer of title or deed to another entity without incurring a profit
5-Convert all City pension plans into 401k’s, so that the City workers can be on par with the rest of working America.
6-Make all furloughed, terminated, resigned City workers go on COBRA, like the rest of America.End the carryover of major medical benefits into retirement at City Expense.
How about cutting out the $10,000 per year housing stipend that Superintendent Epps is given? This guy makes three times as much as teachers at top salary are making, yet when asked how Christie’s budget cuts would effect our school system he has nothing to say. Maybe trimming his fat salary and housing stipend would give him an idea as to the impact of these cuts.