Last week, we posted Jon Rosenberg's very polite letter to Montclair Town Manager Joe Hartnett, which asked him to "shed some light on the exponential increases in our water/sewage bills." This prompted more questions, even an outcry of "bait and switch" from some Baristanet readers. And at Tuesday night's council meeting, a crowd of outraged taxpayers disputed (not so politely) the new sewer "user fee." Councilor Ted Mattox tells us the way this was presented to residents is "somewhat deceitful". (...You can ask Mattox about that at our 11 a.m. online chat today.)
Hartnett shared his reponse to Jon with us.
Jon --- Thank you very much for writing and expressing your concerns. I certainly cannot argue against your premise about taxes being high (I’m a Montclair homeowner/taxpayer also). We are working very hard to contain our share of the taxes, but it is getting increasingly difficult. Just like homeowners, we are hit with rising fuel and energy costs, insurance, etc.We have restructured to reduce jobs, revamped our insurance program, frozen promotions, increased cooperative purchasing, cut the capital budget in half, and are always looking to save a buck. (I bought my desk at Staples for $300 and put it together myself. We try to be frugal.)
Yes, we took the sewer costs out of the regular budget, yet still have a tax increase. Many localities this year had tax increases of 8%, 10%, 12%, 13%, etc. Clearly, property tax reform is really a must in New Jersey and municipalities are the ones fighting the hardest for it, but it must come from the State level.
We are trying to do our part. We fought for two years to get our unions to do contributory health insurance, but ultimately lost the legal battle due to State laws that must be changed. Now we are strategizing another path to solve this problem. Unfortunately, things move much more slowly in government than in most businesses.
The breakdown of taxes in Montclair is that 59% go to the schools, 22% to the township, and the rest to Essex County. For the township, it is always a struggle to find the right balance between trying to have a good quality of life in the community and promote community and economic development, yet control taxes.
Should we eliminate all discretionary programs – parks beautification, Little League baseball, town swimming pools, senior citizen programs, First Night, 4th of July, etc. etc. – even though in total they are only a tiny fraction of the budget? Should we cut back on public building and street maintenance? Should we reduce Police and Fire coverage, which make up 33% of the township budget?
The costs for protecting our citizens and cleaning up from the storm of July 18th will be well over $600,000 – more than all the expense budgets for all Recreation programs – and equal to a 2% tax increase all by itself. How shall we fund that 2%? Cut programs? Eliminate ten Police Officers? Raise taxes? These are difficult challenges for our elected officials to decide. We think we have struck a good balance, given the circumstances, but will continue to try to do better.
With respect to the sewer charges themselves, I’m sure you know that all citizens and businesses in the Township discharge wastewater into the public sanitary sewer system. This wastewater must go to a sewage treatment plant to be treated before it can be discharged into the environment. Montclair’s wastewater goes to the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission (PVSC) for this environmental treatment and Montclair is billed directly by the PVSC to pay for this treatment.
The sewage treatment bill to the Township of Montclair has escalated sharply in recent years, going from $1,884,439 in 2003 to $2,724,707 in 2006, an increase of 45% in just three years.
To put this in perspective, this bill alone equates to $260 for every property in Montclair and is 25% greater than the other expense budgets of the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Community Services, Finance Department, Planning Department, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Recreation and Cultural Affairs, and the Department of Administration, Code Enforcement and Environmental Affairs combined.
In addition to the above costs, the Township also incurs the operating, maintenance, and capital improvement costs for the 100 miles of sewer lines in the Township.
Faced with these growing costs, the Township determined that a more equitable way of assessing these costs was to establish a sewer utility whereby users of the sewer system would be billed based on how much they are using the system rather than having taxpayers foot the bill equally. It also, as you correctly pointed out, helps with the township budget and taxes.
I expect this trend will continue in all municipalities – i.e., going to user fees instead of taxes – unless and until there is property tax reform. Some towns are charging people whenever an ambulance or Fire engine responds to their home. I also see program cutbacks in the future and more job reductions. Yet, consider this -- if the typical municipality slashed it’s workforce by 25% tomorrow, property taxes would probably still go up unless the schools and county did something.
Please be assured that we will continue to do our best to control taxes, preserve the quality of life in Montclair, and ensure a strong community for our and your children and future generations. And we certainly welcome ideas and input from anyone on how to do things better.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Joe Hartnett
No, Joe, don't cut back our police protection. But we can probably do without wayfaring signs. And town slogans. Or the deforestation of our ballfields. And, oh yeah, by the way, don't try to disguise a tax increase as something else. Our readers are too smart.
Comments (56)
Exactly, Joe take the wayfinding money and apply it to the storm damage bill. That's what many people said at the last town council meeting, though Joyce Michaelson, Gerry Tobin and Joe Hartnett looked utterly bored with the public comments.
It's pretty clear where the majority of public opinion falls on this subject, so whay are they so insistent on funding this program anyway?
Mike
wow, in one angry paragraph, the 'reporter' completely slams a reasonable explanation and assessment from the Manager.
I am amazed at the wayfaring issue, a miniscule portion of the lcoal budget that is an investment in increasing ratable properties.
That aside, the manager correctly makes several points about property taxes.
Critically that the municipalities are crippled by the state. We need to change the state legislature, the unions and supreme court justices. NOW. Property taxes are not a Montclair issue, they are a state issue.
Not to mention that the town operates on 22% of our property taxes and the county sucks up another 19% for, pretty much, nothing.
The school budget is 59% and seemingly untouchable.
That was a cheap shot Annette. I guess it was meant to get any serious discussion out of the way quickly.
>>>Unfortunately, things move much more slowly in government than in most businesses.
This is a big part of the problem: inefficiency. Here's a way to start Joe: Demand more accountablilty from your staff and encourage the BOE to do the same. Make 'em work -- in the same way the private employers expect their employees to work. Don't allow them to have cushy jobs where they have enough time to do part-time work and run consulting businesses. Also: Figure out exactly what you're going to get from a consultant before you write a check. Try to see if there's a way to do the same thing "in-house." In other words, run the town like a business.
>>>a miniscule portion of the lcoal budget that is an investment in increasing ratable properties
Not so miniscule at all, and I doubt it will incrase anything but a few visitor's ability to find things more quickly. The residents of Montclair do NOT need this (they know where things are), and if the downtown merchants want this - they can all chip in and pay for it themselves. Don't blame the State or County when we have people in town willing to spend our money in such ridiculous ways.
Annette is absolutely right and it was "not a "cheap shot".
We understand that budgets are tight, the feds are contributing less and less and the price of everything is going up, mostly due to energy costs.
But that is a very good reason to stop spending money on frivolous projects like the logo and the "wayfinding" project. To carefully scrutinize why we need to hire an expensive consultant for everything, and what relationship these companies have to the Manager and other town officials.
And, yes, it IS an insult to our intelligence to disguise a tax increase, make it no longer deductible, and pretend that it is in the interest of making things more "equitable".
And I still haven't gotten an answer to the question of whether our quarterly sewer bills in 2007 will equal the same $350 we are paying this year, or twice as much.
"The costs for protecting our citizens and cleaning up from the storm of July 18th will be well over $600,000 "
Yes! and what would it have been had the township been taking care of the trees using a certified arborist.
Estimates are that 25% of the damage would not have occurred.
I have heard that the trees at Edgemont Park were brought to the attention of the Superitendant of Parks & Shade Trees as being in need of care quite some time before the "microburst".Nothing was done.
How many of those giants could have been saved with some preventative maintenance ahead of time.
Yad yada yada Joe.
You're full of it.
"it dawned on me that the property taxes people pay to their municipal government are a real bargain in today’s world. "
Quote from Joe "I have to be paid the most" hartnett on the Montclair Offiail website.
Another point-- why can't we make the sewer bill more "equitable" (based on actual use) and STILL include it in the property tax bill?
Wow, Kevin, seems like you are the only one who missed the point.
Why can't we save money by spraying sewage along the NJT tracks? After all, the NJT itself does so.
My idea from a long-ago post of installing poopometers to measure usage still could work, too.
What would the salary be for a certified arborist? I suspect that many people would have complained about the frivolity of having such a person (probably a consultant!) on the municipal payroll.
Joe made a salient point here. I think the BOE should have its feet put to the fire too. The Wayfinding is the council's baby and other than the sewer authority, Joe keeps expenses in line.
The BOE has more beauracrats than you can shake a stick at and has no accountability to anyone other than getting a total budget passed where no one in town seems sure of what exactly makes up that budget. All the people on the board are also toadies of the mayor and council.
We actually had one volunteer and assesss the Edgemont trees for $0. It would have cost a lot less than 25% of $600,000.
There was also a volunteer who said that he's pay to have the island in Edgemont part landscaped and would maintain itas well for $0.
That was turned down as well.
"Not to mention that the town operates on 22% of our property taxes and the county sucks up another 19% for, pretty much, nothing."
Does Kevin still live in Montclair?
"Joe made a salient point here. I think the BOE should have its feet put to the fire too. The Wayfinding is the council's baby and other than the sewer authority, Joe keeps expenses in line."
The problem is the BOE is appointed and as long as Ed want's them there, they'll be there. The town council on the other hand...
Also, I don't consider a 14% municipal tax increase (tax increase plus new sewer fee that WAS part of the taxes), holding expenses in line. Go ask your boss for a 14% raise this year and see what he says.
So out of curiosity, what is on the county budget and how does it benefit us here in Montclair?
Does anyone really think that if we had another certified arborist on staff that the damage from the storm would be less?
I wonder if next year, folks who want the Board of School Estimate to "rein in" BOE spending will come to those hearings and support reductions because I KNOW we'll see tons of parents screaming that we can't take a dime out of the BOE budget.
"Does anyone really think that if we had another certified arborist on staff that the damage from the storm would be less?"
Yes we do ED. And Yes we've called for tree maintenance and the Tree and Shade department has not responded. And YES Mr. Hartnett has been informed.
And NO nothing has been done about it.
And YES I'll sign a recall petition in order to get a council that will fire Joe "pay me the most" Hartnett and stop the ethical violations that you and your regime are participating in.
Ed raises a good piont. The BOE budget appears to be a sacred cow -- maybe it is time to take a long hard look at it, however painful. And can someone explain to me why we don't get to vote for who sits on the BOE?
Cause it doesn't pass a vote.
Ethical Violations? Better be a LOT more specific before you start throwing around phrases like that. And how 'bout having the nerve to use your real name when you toss around accusations.
I don't have to use my real name here- it's not required. And I don't threaten to puke either.
Isn't approving a contract without seeing it an ethical violation- isn't that what the Council did with the contract that was given to the consultant for wayfaring signs...to the tune of approx $120,000?
I think that as long as the major focus and attraction of people to Montclair is the reputation of the school system, you will always tend to have a population of activist parents. This town doesn't have much going for it for the non-coupled or childless couples. There isn't much of a adult singles environment here at all. Most things seem to be kid related and kid sacred. Of course once the kiddies are out of school, people flee because they no longer get much benefit from their high tax dollars. If my carpool to the city didn't start here, I'd find somewhere else more conducive to an adult oriented lifestyle. I still might.
It is not an ethical violation to approve a contract without seeing it. Did you sign up for cable without reading all of the fine print? Being lax or choosing an expedient route may not be the right thing to do, but calls of "corruption" or ethics violations are needlessly poisoning community discourse.
"It is not an ethical violation to approve a contract without seeing it."
I think it is when you are representing other people- as in being an elected official.
And yes I do read the fine oprint- and if I don't it's my own decision and my own problem --not the Town's.
"calls of "corruption" or ethics violations are needlessly poisoning community discourse."
Really! And what does the threat to puke do to community discourse?
Hmmm, so someone who has a fiduciary responsibilty to the community and doesn't bother to read the contract that he/she is signing isn't doing anything wrong.
I find that to be a very interesting concept.
I didn't say it was right to do -- I said it was not unethical. There is a difference.
So, does
NOT UNETHICAL = ETHICAL
Sounds like lawyer talk to me.
Sounds disingenuous!
dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "dis-in-'jen-y&-w&s, -yü-&s-
Function: adjective
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING
Gotta love Barista. Some moron who doesn't know what the word "ethical" means calls AppleTony "disingenuous" for pointing out that said moron is using the word incorrectly, thus proving that he or she also doesn't know what disingenuous means, even while providing the definition.
Some of you people are so stupid it's painful. Hopefully none of you went to Montclair High.
just to add to Jon's polite letter which pointed out water fee went from 2.00 cubic feet to 2.30 in April 2006, if you look at recent August 2006 bill, you'll note the water rate is now $2.52 per cubic foot, an increase of 9.6%!!
PS: why doesn't the town post the dollar rate per cubic foot for the new sewer rate on the town website??
My issue with the new sewer bill is twofold. 1) it is confusing: Is this my total bill for the year and I get the option of paying it in 2 installments, or is this bill of $250 half of what I owe this year, the other $250 being due in December? This would mean a $500 increase. Major moolah, and a lot more than the $260 he said the sewer system costs divided evenly by household. 2) When I water my lawn and garden, I am not stressing the sewer system. So basing my sewer usage on water consumption is inaccurate. What about families with large lawns and two people flushing the toilet?
"My issue with the new sewer bill is twofold. 1) it is confusing: Is this my total bill for the year and I get the option of paying it in 2 installments, or is this bill of $250 half of what I owe this year, the other $250 being due in December? This would mean a $500 increase. Major moolah, and a lot more than the $260 he said the sewer system costs divided evenly by household. 2) When I water my lawn and garden, I am not stressing the sewer system. So basing my sewer usage on water consumption is inaccurate. What about families with large lawns and two people flushing the toilet? "
as I understand, if your recent bill received was $250 you will owe other half or $250 in December. The actual annual charge is based on your water usage in the months of Jan-Mar ONLY, so your lawn watering doesn't impact it. Its basically an annual charge based on water used in first quarter of year (in winter when usage is generally lower). Whether town plans to change that formula, is not known, at least based on how its explained on town website
Bob,
remedial reading may be in your future - the definition of disingenuous was posted by me above.
I did have to look it up since I don't use it on a regular basis. And yes I do know what it means and meant what I said.
Is appletony a lawyer- if so I didn't know- but he was still full of it.
Calling someone a MORON isn't very nice. I'll post the definition here in case you don't know what it means (you're obviously not very well read).
mo·ron
Pronunciation: 'mor-"än
Function: noun
Etymology: irregular from Greek mOros foolish, stupid
1 usually offensive : a mildly mentally retarded person
2 : a very stupid person
Regarding Mr. Hartnett's reply about 45% increase in town's sewer bill:
"The sewage treatment bill to the Township of Montclair has escalated sharply in recent years, going from $1,884,439 in 2003 to $2,724,707 in 2006, an increase of 45% in just three years."
I found this level of increase staggering, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The PVSC is just another bloated, well greased patronage machine that we pay for. See article below of 10/05 from Morris Daily Record on the PVSC.
"Political connections dampen Passaic Valley-
Accusations of conflict of interests taint sewerage commission operations"
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/NEWS01/510020362/1005
What if any power do the indivudual town members of PVSC have regarding their budget? or or we just stuck paying whatever they tell the town (and now us) to pay?
It's not my fault that you choose to not think carefully. I expect that your sloppy use of the word "unethical" is just the tip of the iceberg. Do you throw things at the T.V.? Are you always yelling at kids to get off your lawn? Do people always steal "your" parking space? Some people create their own misery and never realize that they are the cause. Enjoy looking up big words -- it'll serve you well in life if you stick to it.
I'll ask it again since you chose not to respond- and this is what you seem to be saying
So, does
NOT UNETHICAL = ETHICAL
appletony,
It's not my fault that you don't have a logical brain or don't choose to use what was given you.
No I don't do any of the above.
Do you talk on a cell phone while driving and eating a sandwhich? I picture you doing so.
Do you try to run over elderly ladies when they are in crosswalks? I can see it.
Do you still beat your wife.
I may have to look up some words now and then but at least I'm not a smug apologist for Ed "The Puking Mayor" Remsen.
First of all, I am
sorry that I responded as intemperately as I did.
I'm not an apologist for anyone. I just think that claims of corruption and unethical behavior should have some grounding. Saying it's wrong to vote for a contract that hasn't been read is far different from saying that it's unethical.
It is wrong and unethical for someone with fiduciary responsibility for public funds to sign a contract without reading it. It is not standard business practice.
OOPS - there I go looking definitions up again--MY BAD
Adj. 1. unethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices"
wrong - contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie"
ethical - conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior; "an ethical lawyer"; "ethical medical practice"; "an ethical problem"; "had no ethical objection to drinking"; "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants"- Omar N. Bradley
2. unethical - not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds"
dishonourable, immoral, base, dishonorable
wrong - contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie"
It is impossible to tell if the moron who initially misused “ethical violation†is the same moron who then posted and misused “disingenuousâ€. It looked like the work of the same idiot to me, but if it wasn’t, I sincerely apologize for confusing you two morons. After all, each of you has the right to be judged on your own shortcomings.
Moron #2 writes:
Calling someone a MORON isn't very nice.
And hiding in anonymity and calling the mayor a crook is? You continue to demonstrate that you are a very stupid person, so, as per your own definition #2 above, I will continue to refer to you as a moron.
Well, I guess I got to just say that I think it is nuts to make people pay their large annual sewer bill in two installments, 2.5 months apart, just in time for the holidays. If you are going to call it an "installment" then tell us what the annual charge is and break down the payment schedule. The way it is worded on the bill (and described on the website) is confusing and misleading.
I'm still unclear as to how it is "fairer." Are there a lot of households out there paying significantly less than the $270 it would cost if we just divided the pie equally? My water consumption is not seriously above average. I have Japanese low flow toilets, I have a front loading washing machine, a small yard, and no dishwasher. Plus my kids hate to bathe. Anybody out there want to impress me with their weeny sewer bill?
I make my kids poop in the backyard and only drink rainwater that we save in old milk cartons! so there!
/well, except for the pooping in the backyard part and the drinking rainwater bit...
Is the budget for the Sewer Authority online somewhere?
If it is, it should be relatively easy to see where the January through June collections came from, and went. Logically, it would make sense for the town to transfer an amount equal to what the sewer authority would have collected during the six months from the tax account to the authority.
Door #2 - It would be equally easy for the town to hold on to the six months collections via the tax process and let the authority bill its way toward breakeven in the future.
I still thing we have been hoodwinked. Retroactive laws are unconstitutional and prohibited.
I would have to agree with hiding in baristaville. Retroactive laws have repeatedly been struck down. They violates both the state constitution and the federal constitution. The federalisht Papers No. 78 espressly forbid such actions. "the legislative authority; shall pass no ex-post-facto laws. (retroactive laws passed after the event).
According to a reply I received from Ms. Michaelson, the 2 payments we are supposed to make this year represent the same annual cost we will pay next year, only next year the payments will be divided into quarters and will therefore be smaller.
She said that our final 2006 property tax bill will not include sewer charges.
My question to her remains-- What about the other tax bills we paid in 2006, which DID reflect sewer costs? Seems to me we should be getting a refund, or else we should not be paying the full amount of these new sewer bills.
No refund for you as Ms M is gaslighting you.
You will contiunue to pay--2007 payment for the POoPOO Authority is supposed to be quarterly but it will be quarterly at the cost of the biannual payments that you paid this year.
If you had 2 payments of $350 in 2006 you will have 4 payments of $350 in 2007.
SORRY!
Well, POOPOO, that is unacceptable.
I will not be paying again for what I have already paid in my tax bill.
They can deduct it from the final 2006 tax bill, or they can send us a refund, or they can make the current sewer bills smaller.
I don't take kindly to being robbed.
Furthermore-- what is up with the Passaic Valley Sewage Authority? Can they just raise their prices indiscriminately whenever they feel like it, and we just go along meekly like little lambs? On what do they base their increases, Mr. Hartnett?
This whole area is so rife with corruption you can smell it.
Maybe some nice laywer would be willing to file a class action suit Pro Bono.
Just think of the Headlines!
I will now post Joyce Michaelson's response to my question about whether we are paying twice-- once in the earlier tax bill, no in the sewer bill-
"2006 first and second quarter bills were estimates for 2006 based on the adopted 2005 budget. The fourth quarter payment will adjust what the budget is and what you owe. Â It will be less than the estimated third quarter because budgets were not complete at the time it was billed. Â The 2006 budget does not include sewer charges.
Nuts, but true!"
Still begs the question of why this had to be done, eliminating part of our tax deduction and making it look like our property taxes didn't rise as much as they really did.
But I'm sure the answer will be that it's more "equitable".
"Does anyone really think that if we had another certified arborist on staff that the damage from the storm would be less?"
The Town does not have ANY arborists certified by the NJDEP, nor to the best of my knowledge has anyone passed the ISA certification test.
And yes, at least TWO Certified Arborists, including a NJDEP Certified Tree Expert, have said that proper pruning would have saved considerable sums of money on tree damage.
Oh, and by the way? So did one of the subcontractors who were cutting up the fallen trees.
The Township is experiencing large increases in costs that they have little control over. That being said, I would have felt better seeing a 10% tax increase in the Municipal portion of the tax bill, rather than a 6% increase and the creation of a Sewer Authority.
The perception of the Sewer Authority is that it is in place in order to make a necessary unpleasant increase look more attractive. Some people are calling this deceptive.
"Does anyone really think that if we had another certified arborist on staff that the damage from the storm would be less?"
Posted by: Ed Remsen | August 18, 2006 11:35 AM
Ed,
You don't know that we have (0) ZERO certified arborists on staff.