At Monday's agenda-fixing session, Councilman Cory Storch asked his colleagues to consider three resolutions, one thanking the PMUA Task Force for its work in reviewing the authority's operations, another to launch to study needed for the authority's dissolution and a third to ask PMUA commissioners to make an $8 million budget reduction to reduce the rates it charges city property owners.
Storch said the dissolution study and the budget reductions could go in parallel tracks, as the study would take time, but meanwhile the authority could move forward with the budget cuts.
Dissolution was one of the options presented by the PMUA Task Force at March 19 special meeting, as was the $8 million reduction. See Plaintalker's post here.
At the end of the March 19 meeting, Council President Adrian Mapp called for a council supermajority - five of seven members - to get behind a move to dissolve the authority. On March 28, Assemblyman Jerry Green said in a blog post that the city had the power to dissolve the authority, if certain steps were taken first.
Storch, Mapp and Councilwoman Bridget Rivers met with attorneys Monday afternoon who outlined state law requiring a study conducted by engineers, fiscal professionals and attorneys. Mapp said the talks provided "a good road map of where to go" toward dissolution. The study would need approval of the state Local Finance Board before any action could be taken to dissolve the authority.
But although Storch, Mapp, Councilwoman Rebecca Williams and Councilwoman Annie McWilliams agreed to vote on the matter next week, other members wanted to focus more on the $8 million budget reduction proposal and Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs was cool to the idea. Councilman William Reid expressed concern that under city control, sewer lines might be neglected and garbage would pile up as it had before the PMUA was established. Councilwoman Vera Greaves worried about the cost of a study and Rivers said the council alone could not take action, but needed the "buy-in of the administration."
The mayor said the city should seek experts who would do the study "gratis." She said there have been no complaints about PMUA services, just the rates, and raised fears of a garbage strike and streets "overrun with rats" if the city went back to private trash haulers. Other concerns were the fate of PMUA employees and the city's assumption of authority debt in the event of dissolution.
Mapp and the mayor, rivals in the 2009 election and widely expected to be contenders in 2013, sparred a bit when Mapp said he tried to call the mayor three times, but her voice mailbox was full. She countered by saying he could have just knocked on her office door. When Mapp asked her to pledge her cooperation, she asked to speak with the same attorneys who met with the council members.
"I think we can move ahead on this," Storch said. "The mayor's request to speak to the lawyers is reasonable."
He then handed the mayor a business card with contact information for the attorneys.
Storch urged a consensus on the study and also pushed for agreement on rate reduction. But Rivers asked whether the council had any power over the authority.
"You do not," Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson said, adding the council could only give recommendations.
"I think we as a council are making bogus resolutions that are falling on deaf ears," Rivers said. "We are continually stepping into people's back yard and we need to clean our own."
A further suggestion that the authority should rescind a $1 million settlement for two top executives also met with mixed reactions, but there was a consensus to put a council resolution up for a vote on Monday.
--Bernice
A citizen's task force can't stand in for a full-fledged audit and operational analysis. While everyone may their own personal opinion pro or con PMUA, the information required is not out on the table yet, so those Council members who raise their hands for dissolution in response to a private citizen's dare are way ahead of the facts.
ReplyDeleteBut some facts are clear- the financial arrangement between the City and PMUA (the Inter Local Agreement) has not been followed virtually from the moment the agreement was adopted; the City has lied about receiving revenue sharing payments (it has not, ever); PMUA commissioners (most, but not all) have illegally paid themselves $100,000s in healthcare and other benefits in clear violation of municipal ordinance and their own bylaws which cap compensation at $4500/yr; their theft has been abetted by PMUA's attorney and former management; the Authority's lawyers, auditors, and engineers have been contributing avidly to Jerry Green's campaigns for years; even PMUA Chairman (and former Councilman and Mayor) Harold Mitchell has called for the removal of Commissioners Dunn and Sanders after they subverted an ongoing arbitration process and awarded Watson and Ervin a kingly ransom in a settlement, although according to one high-placed PMUA employee, the pair of executive quitters left the Authority a "mess".
Despite all this, there is some rationale for keeping PMUA- its affirmative mission to keep the City clean and maintain the sewage system, both of which may suffer if the costs become wrapped up in tax games played by an ever-strapped City government.
Taken together, I applaud the Council for finally developing a little bit of spine, but I have to think that a concrete and existential decision regarding PMUA's status is a long way removed. Not until an independent audit and analysis is performed will we know what can and should be done. The Council should move forward on this without delay.
In the meantime, all the current sitting commissioners should be removed ASAP, an action for which there is more than adequate legal justification. We should invite a state appointed trustee to work with current management, as nothing but sweeping things under the rug will occur without outside pressure. (I've got to believe that when Jerry Green indicates he doesn't want the state involved, it is all the more reason to bring them in.)
Finally, once we see what has actually passed under the bridge these many years, it will be decision time. Because city government has shown a remarkably strong combination of dereliction and ignorance in many areas, the ultimate dissolution decision should be left with the voters by way of a referendum. Forget the 5-2 super-majority or a mayoral veto.
PMUA is good fodder for electioneering politicians, but calls for reform, and the all-important particulars, have come exclusively from individual citizens. We The People should decide this by means of the ballot-box.
I've got a date in mind for all the pieces to this puzzle coming together, November 5, 2013.
How much is the task force gonna cost?
ReplyDeleteCant you just simple have Municipal pick up and be done with it put fee in with property tax bill enough of this nonsense.
Brnice
ReplyDeleteAll this YADAYADAYADA
is simply foolish.
There is the simple problem of
respecting the title on this issue
Honorable Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs
is in the Executive seat and as CEO
She runs this City!!!
I do not see any better qalified contenders at this moment to back against her.
I hope that you have done your research into the sale of the sewer rights...What a steal for the private entity, who has become 21million dollars richer each and every year by owning this and the City by selling the rights for 19million dollars has made a huge blunder.
This has been and continues to be the worst mistake and as a business person you must be alarmed at this blunder.
I hope that you as a reporter should fact find this and expose it.
Lets recap the losses for which the PMUA has been carrying shall we:
Muhlenberg Hospital= $400.000.00 yearly loss
Connelly properties= $256.000.00 yearly loss
Fanwood municipality=$10 Million loss
Plainfield Mun =$2million loss
delinquent accounts =$28million loss
Cost to operate =$48million loss (carrying)
I do believe the total is a staggering $89million.
If the City with sucha poor bond rating would take over this entity I do believe that it will be more expensive due to the immediate recap of the above losses.
Think serously about this whoile issue of dissolving this entity.
If in fact the City does take this entity over then the employees whom have been loyal to this company and whom have criminal records
will be terminated and what do you think will happen. I believe in our youth becomming better adults only if we provide them with the proper incentives or alternative such as a decent opportunity like waste management.
DM, aka PCC, etc. is obviously PMUA's best friend. I am posting this comment as an example. There are certain dead giveaways that this is DM. Can you guess what they are?
DeleteThree exclamation points in a row. LOL
DeleteThe incorrect grammar, spelling errors, and the "shall we" give it away. LOL!
DeleteIt is so apparent when people are Sharon worshippers or Sharon herself. Let's get real. Only Vera Greaves would worry about the cost of a study, when the rate payers of Plainfield cannot afford these rates any longer. Let's do the study and then do what's best for Plainfield, and Sharon is not best for Plainfield. She never was or will be and she is not the queen of the queen city!
ReplyDeleteNice to know the mayor has such confidence in how she runs the city that she already knows it would be a disaster to come under her term at city hall (rats in the street). Way to go mayor! At least you are consistent in your ineptness, and I give you credit that at least you know it.
ReplyDeleteDissolve it already. Bring the service back under the City umbrella so that we can have some oversight by way of the ballot, should we not like the way in which the operation is being run. BTW, the City is already on the hook for the debt, as we ultimately guarantee the bonds. Study after study after study...and nothing has substantively changed. Dissolve it and stop wasting our time.
ReplyDeleteTo 6:05, you’re right the Mayor does run this city. Her and her puppet master successfully ran it right into the ground! PMUA needs major overhaul, not sure about dissolving, but definitely sure about outside investigation needed, along with the immediate removal of all board commissioners. Mr. Green pretends like the PMUA just got out of control, news flash, it’s been out of control for years and he as well as some council members knows this. He’s afraid they may dig too deep (and uncover what, the truth?).
ReplyDeleteRivers is and has been inept - at best! They are so "concerned" with the costs of a study because they know we are being robbed. $8 million overcharged. We will soon be talking real money.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it the State is coming to do an investigation. Nothing that I have heard suggests that recent events have contravened this initiative. It is suggested that in consideration of launching an audit the City Council communicate with the DOCA, ask them to describe the intended scope of the pending investigation, and the schedule for conducting it. The State's effort may well stand in the shoes of an audit.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the forthcoming Council proposals include a "demand", "request", "application", "suggestion". "plea"; I don't know what to call it, for a $8,000,000 reduction suggests an ambivalence in purpose, aside from it being an unachievable goal. The PMUA is too encrusted in bureaucracy, burdened with bad contracts, and lacks the intellectual initiative to make cost reductions of this proportion. With dynamic leadership 3 to 4 million may be achievable. To go beyond that requires the introduction of private services.
The greatest savings can be achieved as follows:
1. Dissolution
2. Return of Sewer program to City.
3. Return solid waste collection to City and City takes competitive bids for residential solid waste collection including those services which are now defined as Shared Services.
4. Establish in the contract with the low bid private hauler rates for collecting illegally dumped waste on a unit price basis.
The prospect of the present employees losing their jobs under this scenario makes the above initiative improbable.
The next scenario is for the City to assume the present duties of the PMUA. This could result in nothing more than a transfer of the present operation, without concomitant cost reduction. It depends on how it is organized and administered. If nothing else, the public would get tax relief. A footnote to this would be that the City assumes sewer maintenance and residential solid waste collection and contracts Shared Services. On inspection it can be seen that the current Shared Service Fee is illegal. The PMUA has the obligation under the Charter to present figures once a year demonstrating that the fees charged are justifiable. The amount of the Shared Service fee can not be justified. This fee has been made arbitrarily high to discourage people from opting out, and to create the illusion that the residential collection fee is lower.
The Mayor, Greaves and Reid will never get on board. They will deflect, stall, whine and obstruct reform. With any rational plan for the future the "streets will not be overrun with rats", the sewers will flow, and the solid waste will be collected in a timely and efficient manner. As to the "bug-a-boo about the debt; the debt must be paid by the residents of the City. It will not disappear, NOR will the obligation be any less, OR MORE, if assumed by the City. If this debt and interest are paid through our taxes we will be entitled t a tax exemption on the amount paid. The 1995 geniuses who created this problem launched a start up enterprise,in which they had no prior experience, appointed men to run it who did not have sufficient background, and oversaw the operation with political cronies rather than selecting experienced professional people who might well have provided guidance to the executive staff enabling a successful outcome. The result was that we have a 23 million dollar Bond debt, with interest running, and rates 2 to 3 times higher than exist in comparable communities.If this were a private corporation it would have been long bankrupt.
The Council should stay its course....listen to Mr. Green.
At Monday's Council meeting I told the Council that I had opposed setting up PMUA back in 1995 or 1996 when it was established simply because in taking it out of the city administration, it would no longer be in our property taxes, which in themselves are deductible for income tax purposes.Plainfielders have now lost that tax deduction for more than 15 years and the PMUA "leadership" has grown into a monster. The frontline workers are terrific--they work hard and do a great job--but top management is entirely different. The new boss is trying to fix it but I frankly think that it is unfixable and I hope that when (not if) the City absorbs it he will be the head of the appropriate division of Public Works. The $1 million settlement is the latest outrage by the commissioners who allowed that to happen. My position (if it isn't already clear): absorb it back into the city; hire the frontline staff and the new exec director and anybody else who does a good job as city employees; and get rid of those commissioners that support the buyout. That way we will regain the property tax deduction we''ve all lost and there will be real accountability!
ReplyDeleteTo 6:05am - where do you work? I want to make sure I never apply for a job there because obviously your role model of what a CEO is supposed to do is pathetic.
ReplyDeleteAttended my first Council meeting on Monday... It was like being at a live circus (What a joke)...Every resident of Plainfield needs to attend at least one meeting. Wake up call we need to save ourselves and not count on the elected officers we have now........
ReplyDeleteDottie makes a very good point
ReplyDeleteA tax benefit would be great!
Anything the the Mayor is "Cool" to .......
ReplyDeleteRUN AWAY