The mayor changed his mind.

Mayoral Aide Anthony Roberts faced off agains five members of City Council last night (Alex Bethea and Kathy McBride were absent) over the proposed Recreation budget for the coming fiscal year.

According to David Foster's reporting in the Trentonian, when the topic of Heritage Days came up, Roberts defended the Mayor's last minute decision to break a previous agreement to cancel the event this year.

"He changed his mind," Roberts said laughing.

 

That is supposed to be a good enough reason to spend $40,000 on a poorly planned, poorly executed and (if the last two years are an example) poorly attended festival?

Any experienced event planner will tell you that is not the way to produce a meaningful, rewarding festival.

If you measure success by the fact that you actually manage to mount an event, then this kind of half-assed approach is probably good enough.

Even though Anthony Roberts has stated otherwise, there doesn’t seem to be any real marketing of the event going unless you want to count the two images posted to the front page of the city of Trenton website. Where’s the information on the lineup of performers? Where is the information about how interested groups or vendors might get involved?

We can’t help wonder though, would this be good enough if the $40,000 was coming directly out of the Mayor, or Mr. Roberts’ personal funds? 

Why is it “OK” then, to proceed haphazardly and irresponsibly with the public’s money?

Because the mayor changed his mind.

 

Not good enough.

The city should be focusing its activities and money on providing the basic services of public safety and a functional infrastructure. If we can’t afford enough staff to make regular garbage collections or mow and maintain our parks, how can we possibly be considering funding festivals and parades?

If the governing body has to fret about the cost of accepting a grant that would help rehire a dozen police officers because it would mean raising taxes, how can we even consider having “end of year” parties or summer concerts?

It is not the purpose of the city to entertain the citizens. It is not for the city to provide activities. 

Yes, fund the pools. Give some money to the various sports leagues, but not their complete operating budget and only under closely monitored agreements.

The rest is just bread and circuses.

It is long past time for the city of Trenton to cut out the frivolous expenses and focus its meager and dwindling financial resources on what really matters.

Testing, Testing. 1, 2, 3.

When will it end?

When will Tony Mack and company stop spending our tax dollars on foolish purchases?

We had hoped that with Business Administrator Sam Hutchinson coming on board, there would be some slowing down of the Mayor's profligate spending.

Alas, that does not seem to be the case.

Take for instance this purchase from ProLine Music in Fairless Hills, PA.  The City of Trenton spent $15,793.97 to purchase a fairly sophisticated sound reinforcement (PA) system.

$15,793.97 of our tax money. For sound equipment that we probably don't really need.  And just where is this equipment being stored? Who will have access to it and track its use?

The purchase was paid for out of the FY2012 Recreation budget, specifically the "Electric and Communication Supplies" and "Recreational Equipment" budget lines. 

It would be nice if someone would provide a rationale, an explanation of why this purchase had to be made now.

With the city in such dire financial straights, is this the wisest use of our money?

What happened to the oversight that Mr. Hutchinson is supposed to be bringing to the table?

Was this really a sound idea?

No surprise here!

In the current (July 2012) issue of the Trenton Downtowner, there is an article about how the Mack administration decided NOT to utilize some grant management software that was costing the city $70,000 per year for a three year contract.

In the article, it is explained that the contract was pretty much airtight and the city was on the hook for the annual subscription fee whether or not anyone used the service.

Well, guess what?

That's right. eCivis has filed a complaint against the City of Trenton asking for the $70,000 owed for year two of the contract (June 2011-June 2012) and the $70,000 for the third year (June 2012-June 2013) that was due earlier this month.

There's another $140,000 plus interest plus attorney fees that was well spent.

More dollars, less sense.

"For Trenton, because of shoestring budgets that have always reflected little money, reduced money, or no money – we are accustomed to the idea of doing more with less."

                                                                                                    --- Doug Palmer, March 30, 2010


Yet he can haphazardly mail invitations to his speech…in several instances mailing two invites to the same person and address at nearly half again the required postal rate.  Maybe he meant to say "doing less but costing more."

We recognize that we’re talking pennies here: 61 cents vs. 44 cents; even when multiplied by the hundreds of letters that were mailed out.

This is indicative of the Palmer administration’s careless and wasteful ways. At least he didn’t have the invitation letters FedEx-ed to the mailing list.

Thanks for an excellent demonstration of your style of fiscal management, Doug. Your credibility shrinks with each and every passing day.

It is the state's fault

{Yawn!}

Well, we weren’t too far off in our estimation of Doug Palmer’s speech regarding the governor’s proposed elimination of all aid to the city of Trenton. (Surprisingly, there were no shout outs to departing Acting Business Administrator Dennis Gonzalez and no blame laid at the feet of the opponents to the Trenton Water Works split and sale).

In a rather tired and repetitive speech before a packed city council chamber, Palmer pointed the finger squarely at the Capitol and the state’s alleged refusal to pay a fair share. He railed against the states refusal to allow development on the surface parking lots that surround some of the state buildings downtown.

In short, last night was an attempt at a Tent Revival-type meeting aimed at firing up the public’s passionate indignation at the Governor putting his foot down and refusing to fund the city’s spendthrift ways.

By and large, the attempt failed.

Palmer was unable to stir much emotion from the assembled crowd as he read through his prepared remarks.

We’ve heard it all before and I think all but the most die-hard Palmer supporters are tired of the twisted logic and half-truths.

Let’s remember that the parking lots around the Hughes Justice Complex are actually owned by the Trenton Parking Authority (TPA). The state has a 40 year lease with the TPA for those spots that brought nearly $1.3 million in revenue last year.

And then there is Palmer’s estimate that the state would owe $155 million in taxes if they paid the same assessment as other property owners.

Dan Dodson, who has formed a citizen’s group to look at AND FIX the city’s budget has come up with the following counter argument:

Mayor Palmer claims that the State should be paying us $155M if they were taxed at our rate (~let’s say 3% effective). That would equate to a valuation of state property of roughly $4.5B.
However, DCA estimates all public property in Trenton which includes State, City and Federal buildings (but doesn’t include schools and the arenas) at $1.4B. Based on this number and some analysis by Trenton Downtown Associationi and my own guesstimate, I’d say the State valuation is more like $1.2B. With that valuation in mind, the State would owe more like $36M/year in PILOT.
Trenton’s actual ratable value is $2.1B (the number our property taxes are based on).
A disagreement about this basic fact would lead to two radically different positions:

• 
  

  
  
  

  If the Mayor is right, then the State is a deadbeat like he said.

  
  
  
  
  

  If my calculations are right, then we’ve been receiving aid for a long time because the State currently funds us to the tune of $340M ($250M for schools and $90 for municipal aid).

  
  
  
  

In the coming days there will no doubt be more revelations on the topic of state funding. What we do know is that Doug Palmer failed in his effort to incite the crowd at last night’s meeting. It was, by most accounts, a waste of time.

Let’s hope that the Fix Trenton’s Budget group can provide some clearheaded thinking that can be brought to the table during negotiations with the state.

Same old tired song

The face of Trenton’s feckless leader appeared on the front page of the Trentonian this morning along with the headline:

PALMER DEMANDS OBAMA’S ATTENTION.

Which of course begs the question; just who does Mr. Palmer think he is to demand anything of anyone?

The article goes on to explain that Palmer, and other urban mayors, want to talk to President Obama’s key money men about more funding for their cities.

In a prepared statement available on the City of Trenton website, Palmer makes the case for federal funding for “Main Street” just as it bailed out Wall Street during the financial crisis of the last year.

“I understand the importance of stabilizing financial institutions. My point is, Main Street is where the innovations and jobs are – and we will need some focused support to get the economic benefit of the green economy and create jobs now.”

The problem in Trenton at least is that the city’s situation is actually the result of Palmer’s ineffective governance and policies over the past two decades.

For starters, there was the long time acceptance of Regional Contribution Agreements (RCAs) that allowed suburban community to buy their way out of affordable housing requirements by paying money to urban centers like Trenton. The net result was the development of various types of subsidized housing within the city that concentrated residents with the lowest incomes and highest need for services here instead of in the suburbs where the jobs are.

Then there is Palmer’s favorite complaint…”the state isn’t paying its share.” While the actual payments in lieu of taxes the State of New Jersey makes to Trenton may be calculated at less than the value the city would charge a private property owner, it is not the only state funding the city gets. Some people have estimated that 80%- 85% or more of Trenton’s fiscal budget comes from state and county government in one way or another. That means that the business entity of the City of Trenton is already living well above its means on the “largesse” of the taxpayers throughout the state.

An increasingly bloated and spendthrift administration and a dysfunctional school board appointed solely by the mayor have both contributed to Trenton’s woes.

Yes, the economic downtown has hit cities and hit them hard. But imprudent fiscal management prior to the recession was what weakened Trenton.

Before Mr. Palmer demands anything of the Federal Government, he ought to look at what his lack of leadership has contributed to Trenton’s woes and make the necessary cuts and corrections to the budget. (Which…three months into the fiscal year has yet to be submitted/approved).
As a couple of the wags commenting on the Trentonian website said:

TRENTON DEMANDS PALMER’S ATTENTION

Where ya been?

Yes, we’re still here. And we apologize for our absence/silence this past month. The denizens of the front stoop have been near catatonic as a result of the flood of arrogance and ignorance that has washed over the city of Trenton recently.

The proposed sell off of the part of the Trenton Water Works that distributes water to customers outside of the city is still in limbo. Those opposing the sale, including many who frequent the stoop, are hoping Judge Feinberg will reconsider her ruling in light of an engineers testimony that there is only one current system that would have to be separated into two, before any part could be sold off; and that in doing so, more than 5% of the customers on the city side of the system would be affected. In fact, a study commissioned by the City of Trenton itself spells out very clearly there is but one system that would have to be separated and outlines various improvements/additions that would have to be made to the “inside” system to maintain the current level of service to city customers. Documents pertaining to all of this can be found at www.trentonwater.com

The city’s budget mess has gone nowhere. There has been rhetoric and revised numbers from the administration and some members of city council, but little action. The sad truth is whether the outside water system sell off goes through or not, the current fiscal year (which ends June 30) is a train wreck of major proportions. The Palmer administration has engineered this mess with delays and misdirection in an effort to force council’s hand to pass the budget so late in the year that little can be done to curb expenses. Council is not completely off the hook, because as a body it should have demanded more information and more accountability from the Administration.

Veteran city watchers (some would say “gadflies”) have been pointing to a growing fiscal mess for years, yet no one: not the public, not the press and certainly not council ever challenged Palmer, Feigenbaum or Gonzalez on their statements to the contrary. Well there is no denying it now…Trenton is flat broke and drastic measures must be taken.

At the same time, the administration gave it self raises…sneakily, quietly and most likely illegally. Thanks to Frank Weeden and a group of concerned citizens, this is beginning to come to light.

Of course, Acting Business Administrator Gonzalez denies any wrong doing. Special Counsel, Joe Alacqua, has offered no opinion on this. We’ll get back to both of them in a minute.

A subheading under the budget woes category is the sad financial affairs of the city library system. Six months ago there was a great outcry about the layoffs and proposed branch closings. The long dormant “Friends” group showed some signs of revival in an effort to help out. A new group came together to form a foundation/fund to help bridge the gap between the city’s generous contribution to the library system and the real costs of keeping a main library and four branches fully functioning.

True a special deal was reached and all library branches have remained open, albeit with reduced hours. And there were layoffs.

But the “Friends” group has seemingly disappeared; volunteers willing to help out in the branches have reportedly been rebuffed; and the library board has yet to sign a memo of understanding with the foundation that would a) allow for the use of the $17,000 already raised and b) launch the search for more funding through grants etc.

Back to Mssrs. Alacqua and Gonzalez...the taxpayers are owed truthful and honest answers to the following questions:

Why does the city repeatedly enter into contracts with Mr. Alacqua for services that should be provided by the city attorney, Denise Lyles, and her staff? If we are in a belt tightening mode, why is it the Mr. Alacqua is being retained (along with numerous outside law firms) to do the city’s legal work? Some have suggested that Ms. Lyles is actually not capable of effectively carrying out the duties of city attorney, and that Mr. Alacqua and the other outside law firms are hired to do the work for her.

If that is the case, then why is Ms. Lyles in the position?

In the case of Mr. Gonzalez, just how long can he hold the title of “Acting” Business Administrator? We have always been under the impression that “Acting” directorships must be acted upon by council within 90 days of their designation. By our calculations, the clock ran out on Mr. Gonzalez’s status about a month ago.

Similarly, Fire Director Laird has an “acting” prefix to his title. This part-time city resident (he rents former Business Administrator Jane Feigenbaum’s Mercer Street home) commutes to/from his “weekend” home at the shore in an unmarked city owned and fueled SUV. A home, by the way, where he wife and daughter reside, vote, attend school, etc. Laird’s 90 days were also up sometime in March by our calculations. Yet his appointment hasn’t come back up before Council. Could it be his “shaky” residency status?

And then there is Police Director Bradley. By all accounts a welcome and refreshing change for the administration of Trenton’s beleaguered and understaffed police department, there is still the question of whether the Director is a bona fide city resident or not.

More legal fees to pay as Mr. Palmer defends his arrogant, self-serving interpretation of “the law.”

Is it any wonder we’ve been speechless these past few weeks? There is so much to comment on it is hard to know where to begin.

Come to think of it, that is probably the reason Mr. Palmer didn’t give his annual “State of the City Address” for this fiscal year. Even Doug couldn’t bring himself to stand in the usually packed Council Chambers and tell the gathering that “Trenton is on the move” without throwing up in his mouth at least a little bit.

But on the other hand

This blogger giveth and this blogger taketh away

Where we had to give a nod to Trentonian Columnist L.A. Parker the other day, his inaccurate statements on Friday have given us a change of mind. We agree with Greg Forester's entry on the misinformation contained in Parker's May 16 column.

Let's set the record straight on a couple of points that Mr. Parker misstated:

1) The city council has not already approved the gun purchase. If that were the case, there would be no discussion or docket item. The action that was previously approved was a budget line item to replace the aging Glocks in the city's arsenal. Just because the item is in the capital budget does not need it has to be spent in whole or part.

2) The argument that it is not a $200,000 lump sum expenditure, but rather spread out over 20 years at $10,000 per is ridiculous. Whether you accept his and former Police Director Santiago's math or not, it's $200,000. There is an offer of free guns on the table so the capital expenditure is not needed. Period.

3) The cost of $25,000 for Glocks is only if the department opts to "upsize" to a .45 caliber gun vs. the current .40 caliber (and there is, research tells us, very little difference between the two size rounds). Would you prefer to hit with a slug from one over the other? Not us. If the city stays with the .40 caliber Glock, there will be no cost for the one-to-one gun swap. Only if we swap the .40 caliber Glocks for new .45 caliber Glocks, would that $25,000 cost be incurred.

In conclusion, Mr. Parker is entitled to form his opinions and he's paid to express his thoughts.

He should, however, make sure he has his facts straight before he holds puts them out there for public consumption.

And, one other thing...the city taxpayers who will be shouldering the costs of the city's deficit should be given due consideration when council decides this issue.

The opinions of the non-resident former Police Director and the non-resident Trentonian columnist should not be given a second thought.

Next up: paid parking for city residents?

Tonight's city council conference session (5:00 pm, second floor of City Hall) includes a presentation on fee structures. One of the items listed is "Parking Enforcement."

Don't be surprised if the powers that be propose a fee structure for residents in the permit only parking areas of Trenton.

Permit parking is usually granted when there is a direct conflict between residents and visitors for the limited on street parking. Areas around the hospitals, ball park, arena, train station and downtown have had permit parking ordinances enacted so that residents have first dibs on available parking spots.

The system was designed so that permits and visitor passes would be reissued every couple of years to aid enforcement efforts. As is typical in Trenton, the system was let go to the point where enforcement is nearly impossible in some areas due to the large amount of resident turnover, counterfeit passes, etc.

After years of "we're working on it" representatives of Trenton's Traffic and Engineering Division of Public Works have floated the idea of annual parking permits being issued for a "nominal fee."

If this is proposed and passed, it will be another instance of penalizing the tax paying citizens for the city's mismanagement.

Let's hope any such trial balloons are shot down immediately.

Are you listening, Council?

Earthlink has halted all of its work in Muni-WiFi systems and is officially pulling out of the as yet uncompleted Philadelphia network after three years. Why are we contemplating a "commitment" to a $250,000 contract with a small, unknown company with even less of a track record?

We already have Automatic Vehicle Locators in our Police Vehicles. Why are we soliciting bids for a new system?

The CitySide housing units are a fiasco. Why give a second thought to helping the owners bail out of their self-made mess with City financing, PILOTs, and property swaps?

Our Civilian Police Director does not live in the city as required by law (you said so yourselves with your vote in December), took sick days Monday and Tuesday and yet appeared before the Plainfield City Council Monday night. (Remember back in December when you chastised him for not being present and accessible to you and the citizens?) Why don't you go all the way and terminate his employment by the city?

The Administration has actively pursued and fired employees for non-residency, even when they've maintained an apartment in town and only lived away on weekends. Why are you allowing Communications Director Irving Bradley to split his residency?

Personnel Director Raisa Walker, presumably under oath, stated in July of 2006 that the City of Trenton had not issued any residency waivers to any employees in six years. Business Administrator Jane Feigenbaum stated in January of that same year that Mr. Santiago had been granted a residency waiver. These statements clearly contradict one another. What are you going to do about it?

The city is broke and broken. We need you to stop the stupid, illegal and wasteful spending and start repairing the civic infrastructure.

The price is not right.

Back in October, a topic of discussion was the bad choices our city leaders make when it comes to handling our tax dollars. In a posting it was noted that we were throwing another $78,000 at the stupid neon fire helmet on the Trenton Fire HQ building while our central high school building was falling apart.

This week we are treated to the news that the fate of the grand old lady on Chambers Street is all but sealed. A recommendation has been set before the Board of Education to vote to build a new high school and demolish the existing one. It's all about costs, we're told.

Estimates to renovate the 75 year old high school run more than $250 million dollars. Money that the city certainly doesn't have and that the fiscally irresponsible Schools Development Authority (SDA)--formerly the corrupt and mismanaged Schools Construction Corps (SCC) frittered away. So the SDA is offering to fund an estimated $90 - $100 million for new construction.

While many in the community want to see the building saved and returned to its former glory, a majority on the school board and Superintendent Rodney Lofton seem inclined to give in to the State's demand to build a new school.

A special meeting has been called for 5:30 pm January 22 a the Schools Administration building on North Clinton Avenue. The meeting appears to be more of a concession to those pushing for preservation than any real attempt to discuss alternatives to demolition.

"I think the conversation is over," Lofton is reported to have said.

So, if a new school is built, does anyone think it will last 75 years or more? Will a new school be constructed as well as the existing one was? Will it be maintained better than the current one is?

And how environmentally sound is it for this allegedly "green thinking" city to tear down and haul off a huge building? What about the price of demolition and disposal of the material from the current school site? Has that been calculated into the cost estimates for abandoning the existing school and building a new one?

This is just another prime example of the inability of Trenton's leadership to deal with problems in a reasonable and realistic way. We repeatedly mismanage things until they are beyond repair and then throw good money after bad building new.

We let our water department infrastructure deteriorate to the point where it is "more cost effective" to sell it off to the highest bidder than to make the necessary investments in maintaining a first class system that can help generate income for our cash strapped city.

We run up huge amounts of police overtime expenses instead of hiring and retaining the adequate number of officers needed to make a real and lasting impact on public safety.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to pay the price of all this neglect and mismanagement. It is time to pay up and stop making the same stupid management decisions over and over again.

Deferred maintenance is not a productive or effective way to manage our assets.

Whether it is a police department, water utility or the public high school, they were all looked upon as investments in the city's future. We need to rededicate ourselves to preserving and maintaining those assets because we cannot continue to build anew.

The cost is just too high.