The authority that provides solid waste and sewer services to Plainfield has cut $1 million in costs and has taken almost all steps necessary to increase revenues, Executive Director Duane Young said as Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority officials met with the governing body Monday.
PMUA attorney Leslie London passed out a pie chart detailing the mix of approvals sought for the authority to start taking outside business at the Rock Avenue transfer station, including a DEP designation as a materials recovery facility for Union County. That approval alone took a year and a half of effort and is now in a three-month trial period that began Feb. 1.
It was not until late in the discussion of four major topics that Councilwoman Rebecca Williams brought up a fifth - her constituents want to know, she said, why commissioners split over granting settlements totaling $725,000 to two former top PMUA officials who had already received $275,000 in prior settlements. PMUA Chairman Harold Mitchell, who voted "no" on the settlement, said two new commissioners went outside the arbitration process and negotiated directly with former Executive Director Eric Watson and Assistant Executive Director David Ervin, but he said the settlement can't be paid "because it can't be certified."
The process for funding includes a statement from the chief finance officer certifying funds are available.Click here for Plaintalker's post on the settlement.
"I don't see that item on the agenda," PMUA alternate Cecil Sanders. Commissioner Alex Toliver, who along with Sanders voted "yes" on the settlement, said the amount reflected a decrease from the $1 million resulting from arbitration which he characterized as stalled, with costs mounting for attorneys and arbitrators. When Watson and Ervin were offered the lesser settlement, "They said yes," Toliver said.
After more discussion over how the settlement came about, Young called it "a cost like any other cost," and said he would have to cut costs or increase revenues further to fit it in the budget.
"I await the direction of the board," he said.
Besides outside revenues and the state of PMUA finances, the other scheduled topics for PMUA's visit with the council were compliance with the pay-to-play ordinance and the authority's efficiency survey. London said the pay-to-play issue will be taken up at a PMUA committee meeting this week. The survey queried ratepayers on what options in service they might accept to keep rates stable.
Young said the PMUA has developed a favorable relationship with the Plainfield Area Regional Sewerage Authority, which conveys sewage from Plainfield and several other municipalities to the Middlesex County Utilities Authority for treatment. PARSA passes costs back to local ratepayers through PMUA to the tune of what Mitchell said was $700,000 per quarter. Young said PARSA helped PMUA by sharing equipment that identifies problems in the sewer lines, calling the authorities' ties "an open relationship that is only going to get better."
In public comment, PMUA watchdog Bill Kruse said he was shocked that the agenda was not dominated by the settlement. He called Mitchell's words on the lack of certification "hollow" and said Watson and Ervin can go to the American Association of Arbitrators and "get a judgment, so it's a done deal." Philip Charles, who organized the DumpPMUA group in 2009, said, "PMUA is living in la-la land" and cited cheaper rates in surrounding towns. He said while PARSA's rate went from $2.1 million to $2,.8 million, PMUA rates soared from $3 million to "over $11 million" in the same time span.
Questioning the increase, he said, "The council can disband PMUA with the stroke of a pen."
Charles cited $23 million in PMUA debt that he said will skyrocket when bonds start to come due soon, and faulted the governing body for not looking into comparative rates.
The PMUA is scheduled to reorganize at 6 p.m. Feb. 14 at 127 Roosevelt Avenue. Although the mayor has recommended six appointments (see here and here), the council made no move Monday to put them on the agenda for the regular meeting on Feb. 13.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Councilors and Madame Mayor,
ReplyDeleteHave you asked yourselves why Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson and PMUA attorney Leslie London argue that the Authority is not an “agency and instrumentality” of the City, when state law and our “Creation Ordinance” explicitly say it is? (NJSA 40:14B-4 and MC 1995-19)
Have you asked yourselves why the formula for the Solid Waste lease in the Inter Local Agreement (Section 203B) was scrapped, and why a $1.2 million cash subsidy was substituted in its place? Under what authority did this occur, given the absence of any other agreement or amendment approved by proper City Council resolution? Why does the Drakeford/Williamson brief, just several years old, mention a Solid Waste lease when another arrangement was in place for a decade or more? Why is the Sewer Lease portion of the ILA being portrayed as Revenue Sharing, both in public presentation and the city budget line? PMUA has never made a Revenue Sharing payment to the City according to its own financial statements. Why is this? What is the difference? Will I get an answer from my representatives?
Have you asked yourselves why PMUA commissioners have paid themselves hundreds of thousands in cash and benefits over the years in violation of State law and local ordinance? NJSA 40:14B-17 and MC 3:35-7 both limit compensation to $4500/yr. Will the City Council and Administration take action to recoup this money from the commissioners, noting the complicity of the PMUA attorney and management in the theft? Is theft in broad daylight enough cause to ask for the resignations of public officials who have participated in the act?
These may be hard questions to answer at 12:30AM, but I will sit here patiently awaiting them once you’re rested up.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Goldstein
Can someone please tell me how the PMUA incurred debt?
ReplyDeleteIf yesterday's meeting did not make it abundantly clear to the members of the City Council that there is no reforming the PMUA I don't what will! I have heard rumors that some council members are concerned that eliminating the PMUA would put the services in the hands of an inept administration. When will they realize that the commissioners are nothing more than an inept group of the mayors friends who have no intention of changing anything. So now we are stuck paying her friends, giving them health benefits, and allowing them to tell the council over and over, "We don't have to do what you tell us. We are an independent agency, but we will consider it." At least there is a better chance that the council can do something about a branch of the mayor's office than with the PMUA. I am almost at the point of giving up all hope that anyone in Plainfield will ever have the testicular fortitude to do something about the PMUA. That is why referrals to the Governor's Office, Attorney General, US Attorney, State Comptroller, and Union County Prosecutor's Office cannot stop. Can we at least write off our PMUA payments as charity donations because that is all they are!
ReplyDelete