Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Bill Nierstedt's Remarks on Outsourcing

THE VALUE OF THE PLANNING DIVISION

Good evening Council members. For anyone who does not know, I am Bill Nierstedt;I have been the Planning Director for the City of Plainfield for 17 years. As you are aware, Planning Division employees were recently advised that our jobs might be outsourced to consultants. We strongly believe that the work of the Planning Division cannot be outsourced without loss of service to our city residents, nor will any significant savings be realized. In making the recommendation to outsource, the functions of the division have been significantly underestimated. Numerous successes have not been acknowledged. The ability to generate ‘economy and efficiency’ as a result of outsourcing is not adequately substantiated. Risks and erosion of services to Plainfield residents have not been considered in detail sufficient to propose such action. Finally, there are other actions that can be taken to address issues within the Division without jeopardizing service. I submit to you that this proposal is ill advised, badly timed, not well thought out, and insensitive to the needs of our community. The goal of my presentation tonight is to convince you that taking this action is not in the best interests of Plainfield, and to give you reasons why having an internal Planning Division is by far the best option.

Let’s dismiss the ‘economy’ argument immediately, and put faces on this nebulous proposal. This proposal would affect the jobs and lives of four real people. They are licensed professional planner Scott Bauman who has given Plainfield 16 years of his experience, April Stefel, a licensed landscape architect who has given 10 years, Ron Johnson who has worked for the city three years and me. 46 years of experience for the city; over 80 years of professional experience. Together we work 6,697 hours/year. Including salary and benefits, our services cost the city $356,949, or roughly $50.00/hour. What will a consultant charge for those same hours? Based on the most recent response to an RFP issued by the Planning Division, a consultant would charge a minimum of $140/hour. Calculations show that that comes to a total of $937,580/year. That’s almost 2.6 times what the city pays the Planning Division for the same services. Thus a consultant would limit Plainfield to 38% of the hours the Planning Division currently provides. A review of recent RFP responses shows that all of the consultants charge more per hour than the city pays the Planning Division, so the only way they can submit a competitive proposal is by using less qualified and experienced junior planners and reducing the hours they will serve the city to 8/week. There will be no savings for the city unless the number of consulting hours is less than 38% of the Planning Division hours, and the city cost will increase when the consultant exceeds 38%. So consultants will charge more per hour and provide fewer hours of service to city residents. There is no economy savings here.

So why do consultants submit a proposal when their basic numbers are so much greater than the city’s current costs? Because their goal is not to provide the day-day services that Scott, April, Ron and I provide.  They are after the escrow dollars that don’t show up in any RFP response. Let me explain. The law allows Scott, April and I to charge for our professional services. When we review site plans, attend board meetings and prepare planning reports, we charge the applicant, and the applicant pays the city for these services. So far this year we have billed over $50,000. A consultant wants these escrow dollars. They will charge every developer and resident who submits a board application more than we do, and they will charge for every minute. So, not only would this proposal cost the city more money, it would also cost developers and residents more money. At a time that we are encouraging development, this does not make economic sense.

Any efficiency argument must start with an understanding of what the Planning Division does. The RFP the city recently issued is sorely lacking in this regard. While it contains bullet points outlining responsibilities, they are so vague that they are open to individual and legal interpretation. Consultants had to make their own assumptions as to their level of effort required. The easy way to submit a low proposal was to reduce the number of hours proposed to work, reach the hourly limit of their contract and then return to the city for change orders. The only way to save money is to cut services. That is what they all propose to do.

So what does the Planning Division do? Planning has been an in-house Plainfield service since the 1960s. Through urban renewal, Model Cities, CDBG programs, the MLUL adoption, from Directors Elliot Weinstein, Gunthil Sondhi, John Szabo and me, the planning division has provided professional, unbiased, recommendations on housing, transportation, and land use to 12 administrations. Since my tenure began, the Planning Division has prepared the complex and innovative ‘197 Scattered Site’, Park Madison, Teppers, North Avenue, Marino’s, Elmwood Gardens, and South Avenue redevelopment plans, completed the 2009 Master plan reexamination, reviewed on average 40 Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment applications a year, coordinated the annual Six Year Capital Improvement Plan, prepared over 20 resolutions and ordinances for Council review annually, updated the land use ordinance on a bi-annual basis, maintained the city tax maps, updated and maintained the City Recreation and Open Space Plan, provided administrative services for the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Adjustment, Historic Preservation Commission, and Shade Tree Commission, and administered the Brownfield cleanups city wide. We drafted regulations- which city council adopted- that preserved residential properties and values by reducing permitted densities and increasing minimum lot sizes, prevented over crowding, the destruction of historic structures, and the introduction of non- residential uses in residential zones, kept rooming houses, Bayonne boxes, illegal residential conversions, juice bars, outdoor commercial storage operations, and cell towers in residential zones out of the city. We submitted and received grants for brownfield cleanups, shade tree plantings, historic preservation, trail, and city hall restoration grants. We wrote and advanced the transit oriented development standards for the Plainfield and Netherwood train stations, and are advancing the West End TOD. We submitted and received the NJDOT Transit Village designation. We conducted over 500 annual zoning reviews and advanced municipal court enforcement actions.

We also service over 1,500 in-person customer visits every year. That does not include the thousands of phone calls or e-mails. Residents are able to come to our office all day long to get answers. Where will they go after a consultant is hired? They will hear a phone message advising them to dial ‘1’ if they need zoning
information, ‘2’ for historic preservation information, ‘3’ for master plan questions, etc. They will be told that they will receive a phone call back, after the consultant turns on their clock, opens up the book and begins to research the question to which April, Scott, Ron and I know the answer off the top of our heads. Someone may be in the office between 10 and 2:00PM on alternate Thursdays, and maybe one night a
week. Efficiency perhaps; I prefer to call it loss of service for Plainfield residents.

Prior to being notified of our impending layoff, no one spoke to me about a sudden budget need. I ask if this Council is aware of a sudden budget crisis? Is there a larger plan to eliminate or outsource other employees or divisions? The administration advises they are proposing to eliminate our jobs because Plainfield is the last Union County town with an in-house planning division. That is not true, Elizabeth has a Planning Director; he performs different tasks than we do. So our jobs are being outsourced because the 1700 Winfield residents, or the 4,200 Garwood residents, or 7,600 Fanwood residents don’t have one? 18 of the 21 Union County municipalities are less populated than Plainfield, and we have to follow their lead? Plainfield is unique; we are a city; we are not like other Union County suburbs. The Planning Division has compared Plainfield to towns similar to us – the 53 other Urban Aid Communities. Towns like Asbury Park, Hackensack, Hoboken, Long Branch, Montclair, New Brunswick, Passaic, Paterson and Trenton. Communities with which
we share socio-economic and population similarities. Over half of these towns have in-house planning divisions. Plainfield is six square miles, has a population of over 50,000 people. Only two Union County towns have more residents. We have more historic districts than any Union County town, a state designated Transit Village, two transit oriented development areas, 10 redevelopment areas, two 100 acre county parks, the largest disparity of income, the greatest diversity of ethnic populations, more affordable housing than our fair share, more group homes. We have suffered the loss of our largest employer. Plainfield is not like other Union County towns. We have planning issues they have not yet conceived. There is no reason for us to follow their lead in regards to planning. We are also the only Union County town with two fully operating train stations; should we eliminate one?

Outsourcing government jobs has become standard operating procedure because private consultants say they can do the same job for less money. Many times it does not work because a consultant cannot cost less when they have to cover higher salaries, overhead, and professional liability insurance. The city currently outsources engineering; why can’t planning be out sourced? Because outsourcing engineering does not work. A city our size needs to have a full time in-house engineer. Our current 1 day/week consultant engineering simply does not provide engineering and infrastructure planning that our city requires. Updating flood maps and reducing flood insurance rates for our residents are two engineering tasks that have not yet been completed years after consultants started billing for them. Does this Council recall voting on increased engineering contracts for Remington Vernick? The same situation would exist in planning if this proposal were advanced.

Our city has a planning staff of dedicated, educated, experienced, certified and licensed individuals with a long institutional memory and vested interest that no consultant will be able to replace. We care about our city. Two of us live in Plainfield. With the unpaid hours that I put in, my wife thinks that I do also. We average over 140 hours/week – more than we get paid for; a consultant is going to charge for every minute. Four certified/licensed professionals with over 80 years of experience currently serve the people of Plainfield. We have an institutional memory that improves the development process because we have the ability to link
and take into account how various projects interrelate. We are able to meet with developers and provide historical context for their developments. Outsourcing means that the city will pay a consultant to learn the intellectual property that the current staff already knows.

The Administration wants a streamlined development process; so does the Planning Division. The Administration wants increased development in our city; so does the Planning Division. Is the Planning Division tough on developers? We consistently apply the code adopted by this City Council to all developments. We are unbiased, color-blind, and equal opportunity. We do not give away city assets. We fight for and protect neighborhood rights. The Planning Board recently implemented a Technical Review Committee in partnership with the administration. It is designed to help streamline the review process and save time for all involved by resolving issues before they come to the board. This process has been somewhat effective, but it has only been in practice for a short time. Nothing works perfectly overnight, and we have had some growing pains that need to be addressed. We can address them together. This proposal was sprung on the Planning Division and this Council without any discussion. I submit that an open discussion is needed to determine if ‘day to day’ Planning Division services should be altered or scaled back. Process improvement is something that the Planning Division welcomes. Discussion and review should be undertaken before radically seeking to eliminate the Division.

In closing, I state that this proposal will result in additional city costs, fewer services for our residents, and less work being undertaken or completed. If revenue needs to be increased, or expenses cut, I ask the administration to discuss the issues with me so that we can explore other solutions. Let’s sit down and discuss what needs to be done proactively and transparently, not antagonistically. In making your decision tonight, I ask Council members if an adequate plan has been put forth to enable you to confidently decide that the proposal will somehow save the city money, not cut resident’s services, and provide for all the tasks that the Planning Division provides. As it has not, I ask that you please do not support this proposal. I close with a quote from Susan Duerksen, director of communications for “In the Public Interest”. “Governments at all levels are just desperate to balance their budgets, and they’re grasping at privatization as a panacea. But there’s evidence that it often is a very bad idea with hidden costs and consequences when you turn over public service to a for-profit company”. I hope that I have clearly made the case that the city comes out
way ahead if it retains our planning division. Thank you.

17 comments:

  1. I think Joc Howard should have been giving the same respect. He took his layoff like a champ. Get over it Neirdstadt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a heartless and/or bitter individual to tell someone else to get over losing their job.

      Downright hateful.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Neirstedt, given the grace of time, will recover. The people of Plainfield will not. They will be the perpetual victims of this ill advised act. I can remember the howls that erupted when it was suggested that the PMUA be dissolved. The prospect of the loss of jobs was much lamented. The PMUA employees didn't receive the prospect like "Champs". What's wrong with Mr. Neirstedt attempting to salvage his, and his department's jobs.? Bill Kruse

      Delete
  2. Joc Howard left a mess that the city is still working to clean up. Who are you kidding?

    ReplyDelete
  3. What mess Joc Howard did a magnificent job. Mr. Neirdstadt will recover. He will be able to find work else where. If this move will save the taxpayers money then what's the problem

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one as yet has placed an analysis before us that reflects any saving. The only representation has been advanced by Mr. Eric Watson who has thrown out an unsubstantiated number. I don't remember seeing a degree in City Planning in Mr. Watson's resume; nor a degree in Accounting. nor a degree in City Administration. What I do remember is Mr. Watson resigning from the PMUA of his own volition and then suing the PMUA for money clearly outside the scope of his contract. I remember the preposterous award to his buddy, Yates, for a category of work outside of Yates experience. I am watching with disgust the process unfolding by which Yates, whose work was terminated for cause, is being paid, unchallenged, on the strength of a bill which the Yates themselves submitted. A proposed payment absent an audit as to the true value of the work completed prior to termination.. If payment to Yates were denied, I wonder, given the irregularity of the contract award, and subsequent performance, whether Yates would have the temerity litigate? Remember, both parties have to pay their attorneys. Certainly, if the Council held firm the prospect of a negotiated settlement with Yates for a sum less than Yates has requisitioned looms large. If Yates is paid in the amount requisitioned, and no investigation authorized, the entire Council is complicit. God Bless the United States of America, God help Plainfield. Bill Kruse

      Delete
  4. Isn't it always best to analyze a problem before putting forth a solution?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very well said ... but is not the public comment for "Residents" ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think this will save money. As anyone who had utilized the services of an architectural or engineering knows, it is expensive as heck. $150+ an hour. We are getting a discount with the current staff. This is wrong for Plainfield. A community this size needs more than rent-a-planners.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What happens if the taxpayers don't see a cost savings? Can we sue for recovery? Can we deduct the extra costs from the administration's pay?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing you WON'T see is the Planning staff we have now. They will have disbanded and gone elsewhere. Don't break the egg thinking you can unbreak it later.

      Delete
  8. Anon 9:08 - I think that is a great idea. Lets push to have payroll deductions put into the outsourcing contract in the event that they don't bill for just the RFP amount. Some of these people move around from one city/county job to another so we should include retirement accounts too.

    And by the way - if this outsource goes through and doesn't work out (as 98% of the city knows it won't) the process to rebuild an in-house planning department will be painful and costly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The irony here is Bill finds himself in the same place as the guy he fired in Garwood - crazy times

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr. Neirdstadt is an intelligent individual, whom maintains a valuable knowledge of, and actually cares about the City of Plainfield. It would be a shame for him to be replaced by a company(s) that neither know nor care about the community. Why this is even on the table is beyond comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bill Nierstedt did not "fire" "the guy he fired in Garwood." Those two towns (not cities like Plainfield) merged their Planning Departments and are working together. And of course politicians in Plainfield would rather fight than cooperate. so.Plainfield just goes on and on with politicians figuring out how to "fix" problems by imposing ideas like this on our citizens and our committed, competent, and dedicated Planning staff--whose work quality will be lost to us just when we need it most.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm an outsider currently looking to invest in Plainfield. I recently had the pleasure of meeting with a Planning Department staff member who was very knowledgeable and helpful. Having spent the past 30 years dealing with numerous town planners/architects/engineers as well as consulting firms providing "similar" services, I must unequivocally say that while outsourcing may seem like a "bargain", the tax payer will definitely suffer from the great reduction in services. It is clear to me that Bill and his staff are passionate about their work and service to the constituents of Plainfield. I seriously doubt that a consultant has the same level of passion or any feeling of duty to the municipality. It also goes without saying that it would be difficult to find consultants who would have a fraction of the amount of historical knowledge of Plainfield.

    ReplyDelete