Outsourcing the Planning Division will save the city about $200,000 a year, officials said in a segment of the City Council's executive session Tuesday that was opened to the affected employees and interested members of the public.
The move would also increase efficiency, Economic Director Carlos Sanchez said. And out of 21 municipalities in Union County, only one other has an in-house planning division. He said developers who are interested in Plainfield have not made applications to the Planning Board because, they told him, "the processes and efficiency are not there."
The change would affect three full-time employees and one part-time employee. The division provides expertise to the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, Historic Preservation Commission and Shade Tree Commission and serves not only developers, but residents who just want advice about putting up decks or fences.
Corporation Counsel David Minchello said a request for proposals from outside firms will be in newspapers today. A layoff plan must go to the governing body, which can move for state review. The state can review the plan, make recommendations or reject it. If it is approved, employees will receives notices and be apprised of any "bumping rights" they may have.No action on the plan will take place until the Oct. 5 agenda-fixing meeting.
Residents opposed to outsourcing the division arrived at 6 p.m.Tuesday and waited an hour to hear the administration's rationale, many later speaking out in the agenda-fixing session that followed. Objections by residents and some council members included a loss of institutional knowledge about the city's physical characteristics and structures, as well as accessibility of current staff.
Councilwoman Gloria Taylor asked whether the administration had any discussion with the Planning and Zoning boards, but Minchello said the administration had to come to the governing body first. Rumors of the outsourcing had stunned land use board members, who rely on the planning staff for meeting preparation.
Up until Tuesday afternoon, residents were still speculating on the whys and wherefores when they heard that the matter would be discussed in an open part of the executive session. The affected employees and their supporters waited in the hall outside Municipal Court for the open portion of the executive session, which employees had requested through the Rice Notice law. The explanations shed some light, but did not lessen the heat of Planning Division advocates.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It was evident from many issues at City Council last night that home rule is a thing of.the past. Outside developers and outside union PAC are now pressing the administration and Council.
ReplyDeleteAside from specifying the number of Full Time Equivalent Employees working for the Planning Division, there was nothing of a personal or personnel nature that warranted holding this discussion in Executive Session. I even wonder if there can even be an open public portion of such a meeting outside of passing resolutions to enter and close the session. There was no summation of what was discussed during the closed portion, as required by the Open Public Meetings Act, nor was there an opportunity for public comment as is also required during all open public meetings. The ploy seems to have worked though. Most of the public who came out to voice their support for keeping the division were long gone by the time of the public comment portion at the end of the agenda session several hours later.
ReplyDeleteOutsourcing, as presented by this administration, comes off as just another half-baked idea. It is simply the claim that X dollars will be saved and efficiency will be gained. There is no discussion of how the procedure would work on a day by day basis, any marginally detailed cost-benefit analysis, or what metrics will be used to evaluate success or failure. Can anyone really believe Eric Watson's claim of saving $200K, or roughly 55% of the division's total annual expenditures? Do you mean to say that for about $15K more than we are paying Al Steinberg, the city's CFO, we will gain efficiency as well as access to a bevy of skilled planning professionals working diligently for the betterment of Plainfield? For that price we are likely to get only a low-level corporate functionary whose primary mission will be to generate fees above and beyond their firm's base retainer.
No doubt the ultimate cost in dollars will go up. Going down will be responsiveness to residents and developers, institutional knowledge of the city and its people, and proper oversight. All in all, it's a bad decision for the city, and makes me think of the high school sophomore who reads Ayn Rand and thinks they have seen the light.
Strikingly, itinerant demolition artist Andre Yates chose the evening to lambaste the Planning Director for unresponsiveness to his complaint about an unimproved parking lot across from City Hall on East 5th Street. He applauded the administration's proffered rationale of increased efficiency as the catalyst for outsourcing the Planning Division, and then walked off into the night with Watson. That whole scene was very odd, and left me wondering if his commentary was just a plant, in payback for the division's momentary obstacle of notifying (as required) the state's Historic Preservation Office of the impending Watson-Yates engineered North Avenue demolition in March that destroyed the adjacent Mi Buenaventura restaurant. (Will there ever be an investigation?)
Utilizing executive session to limit public scrutiny and questions is bad enough. Gutting the Planning Division to squelch oversight of the development process is far worse. If saving money is the prime motive, there are many other areas (Public Works and PMUA to name two) where the savings would be much greater. There is nothing inefficient about keeping an eye on developers who want to cut corners, let tenants move into buildings without Certificates of Occupancy, and steal electricity from PSE&G. But if the problem is bad now, it will only get worse once our planners are gone and replaced by corporate interests whose only loyalty will be to higher billings and obtaining the next contract.
What seems more peculiar about Andre Yates' property complaint is that it seems to be a matter more pertinent to Code Enforcement than Planning and, therefore, misdirected. Property maintenance? That's Code Enforcement. Illegal use? That's Code Enforcement. Should I be surprised that no one in the Administration (in on a not so subtle set-up) or on the Council (clueless or indifferent) corrected Mr. Yates?
DeleteGet rid of chief of staff position, that will save 100+K right there!
ReplyDeleteHear! Hear!
DeleteOutsourcing the Planning Department will weaken Plainfield and mostly likely cost as much or more in the process. The Planning Board budget for 2015 is $365K. It is impossible to see how outsourcing it will save $200K.
ReplyDeleteOutsourcing rarely delivers the costs savings and benefits it promises. Experts have determined that for an outsourcing engagement to be successful for the client, and additional 5%-10% of the contract amount must be spent to adequately oversee and manage the outsourcer. Director Watson knows this personally. During the budget review he requested the Council allocate budget for an in-house Engineer to oversee the Engineering outsourcing firm because it has failed to deliver the value it promised to the City.
The entire Planning Department budget is less than 1/2 of 1% of the City’s $78M budget. If the Administration is genuinely interested in reducing expenses through outsourcing they should focus on the Police and Fire Divisions which have a combined budget over $26M, which is 1/3 of the City’s budget. In addition, with their enhanced early retirement benefits, those divisions create a huge future debt obligation for the City. This year alone, the City’s contribution to the Police and Fire retirement fund is over $5.5M, which in addition to their budget. Let’s compare $365K for the Planning Department VS. over $31M for the Police and Fire Divisions. If you were truly looking to save money what would you outsource?
Outsourcing the Planning Department will weaken Plainfield’s land use Boards by depriving them of a trusted in-house resource that is working in the best interest of the City. Instead, with an outsourced Planning Division with only clerical oversight of the outsourcing firm, the City will be prey for unscrupulous developers who just want a quick easy approval to build so they can make the money and get out of town. The City gets stuck with the consequences.
Tom Kaercher
I agree with most of this, especially the emphasis on saving money through (gradual) force reduction in the police and fire depts.
DeleteTwo disagreements: the developers who must be pushing for this don't want to make a quick buck and then get out of town, they are here among us and have no intention of leaving the golden goose behind.
Secondly, we are assuming the competence of the whole planning division based on the public appearances of its head. That may or may not be true. What usually is true is that long term employees in any business are both blessing and curse: good institutional knowledge and loyal to employer but often outdated knowledge and skills and weaker grasp of outside best practices.
Well said 2:04p. There is an assumption by people who have no working knowledge of the Planning Board's day to day activities that the department is performing at a proficient level.
DeleteMaybe and maybe not.
During the last several years I have had occasions to interact with the Planning Board. They have in all instances acted promptly, courteously and professionally. Given the volume of diverse issues they process it is inconceivable that an outside consultant could operate in as timely a fashion or at any where close to the current in house cost. If Mr. Watson and his friend Mr. Yates have had difficulties with the Department I think that that is an endorsement to maintain the Department. When Mr. Watson can produce a bona fide proposal from a reputable independent consultant that states that this Consultant will promptly process all applications for, say, an annual lump sum 20%. or so, less than the current departmental cost, then the allegation that out sourcing will save money might, just might, be worthy of study. Remember that under17 years of Mr. Watson's direction the PMUA managed to increase their rates to approximately 250% of what neighboring communities charge for waste disposal. This was the unanimous finding of an independent special committee 3 years ago. What credibility can we place now on Mr. Watson's unfounded oral representation regarding savings? We might also recall that had the Planning Department's recommendations regarding the procedure by which the demolition on North Avenue should have been conducted been followed that the Buenaventura would be open tonight where it originally was.
ReplyDeleteBill Kruse
The entire concept of outsourcing the Planning Department smells bad. It is a blip in the city budget - a blip that does offset its costs with fees - which was never mentioned. If cost savings is what the administration is after then they should start with the other areas with larger budgets like Public Works as a whole. Public Works could have numerous functions outsourced and they could really take a hammer to the recreation department since that group has budget that results in very little ROI.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they are focusing on Planning tells me that someone is getting a favor and/or it is payback for some behavior. I am starting to think that Mayor Transparent is drinking from the kool-aid bowl of Jerry Green. We have the makings of another autocrat on our hands.
If there was a solid reason for outsourcing planning then they wouldn't have had such a ridiculous presentation on Tuesday. It appeared that they wrote their comments 5 minutes before the meeting started. Comparing Plainfield to other Union County towns ONLY is interesting. There are a lot of other cities/towns in the state and region that we could also compare ourselves to as far as opportunities for development, population size etc. To misrepresent Elizabeth as a town that outsources its planning is also lame - since Elizabeth has a mixed model - very similar to Plainfield's
$200,000 savings - all should remember that this number was mentioned by the Administration - is a ridiculous figure and my guess is they will screw up the RFP to try to get to that number (and then we will all have to pay for the cost overrun OR they will say "it is $200,000 savings over a 5 year contract" - which is a standard shell game approach to this kind of process.
Then to make such random statements about efficiency and professionalism is in poor taste without substantive information to back it up. How long does it take an application to work through the process? How does that compare to other planning departments (including those outsourced)? Are there processes in place as mandated by the city that are causing delays? Has there been an effort to help reorganize the planning department to be more efficient? My guess is no - since there isn't a solid operations manager in city hall.
I am not convinced that they city has the ability to structure a proper RFP for an outsourcing exercise nor are they capable of managing a transition or implementation of such a project.
Sadly, the administration may get what they are asking for - and the city will have to pay the price for years to come. Just like the decision to outsource the Engineering department - a huge screw-up itself.