The Montclair Township Council in its first 2013 meeting
The Montclair Township Council had its first meeting of 2013 on January 8, a conference meeting in which they agreed to the establishment of four-way stop signs at Forest and Chestnut Streets and reviewed progress on getting the dredging of and retaining wall reconstruction at Edgemont Park’s pond started. While Township Manager Marc Dashield was able to go through most of the ordinances and resolutions on the agenda for January 22 quickly, the resolution re-appointing the town arborist sparked a debate over costs.
Four-way Stop Signs at Forest and Chestnut
On the four-way stop sign issue, Dashield reported that Township Engineer Kimberli Craft had gone back to the intersection of Forest and Chestnut Streets on December 10 and found the traffic flow not very different from the traffic statistics compiled in 2009. Craft continued to support the implementation of four-way stop signs there, and Dashield said that the conditions met the criteria for the signage, a development that pleased a couple of the members of the council.
Second Ward Councilor Robin Schlager said that she spent about an hour observing traffic at the intersection, and was alarmed at what she saw. “It’s pretty bad, especially with the blind spot coming up over Chestnut east and going west,” she said. “I would welcome a four-way stop sign there…and not only because it’s a bad intersection, but also just to slow the traffic down on Chestnut Street.” Deputy Robert Russo concurred, saying that traffic had to be slowed down wherever there is a school, and there are two schools—Montclair High School’s George Inness Annex and the Montclair Cooperative School—near that intersection.
Township Attorney Ira Karasick told residents who attended the meeting that an ordinance for stop signage at that intersection would likely be voted on for first reading by the first regular meeting on January 22, with a public hearing and second-reading vote by February 5. He suggested that the twenty-day waiting period for the ordinance to take effect could be waived by a two-thirds vote of the council in the interest of public safety.
“We’re gonna waive all these rules,” Deputy Mayor Russo, who had lectured residents on procedure regarding the stop signs at an earlier meeting, said.
“Oh, great! Did you get that? Councilor Schlager joked to reporters.
Edgemont Pond
On Edgemont Pond, Dashield did a recap of the dredging options for the public: Plan A—having the dredging material to be removed used as fill at Montclair State University, or Plan B—concentrating more on the retaining wall if the material proved to be too contaminated to use as fill. Dashield regrettably reported that preliminary tests showed too high a level of hydrocarbons to allow the soil on the pond floor to be used as residential-quality landfill, and while final tests would not necessarily preclude the use of the soil for fill at Montclair State, he did not anticipate such a result, which would force the township to go to Plan B. A cost analysis, however, shows that a wall and removal of up to 3,200 cubic yards of dredging material, less than in Plan A, can be paid for in Plan B’s $808,315 base price.
“What a disappointment,” Tom Nussbaum of the Friends of Edgemont Park, told the council. “It’s not over yet, but it seems like a long shot.” Nussbaum said he took solace from the possibility that land excavated to rebuild the pond wall could still be used elsewhere in the park, after having talked with Community Services Director Steve Wood about it, but he was clearly crestfallen at the possibility of a win-win situation in the arrangement with Montclair State falling by the wayside. Noting his group’s enthusiasm with the idea Dashield and Montclair State had put forward, Nussbaum thanked the council for the good-faith efforts at working with his group.
“If this means everything getting pushed back into the summer,” he said, “you won’t hear any complaints [from] us about this delay.”
Town Arborist
The resolution authorizing an agreement for arborist services proved to be a bone of contention in an otherwise humdrum review of items up for a vote on January 22. Dashield reported that First Mountain Arboriculture LLC’s Steve Schuckman, whose contract would respond more timely to calls and e-mails and evaluate his workload to see if he needs to expand it beyond one day a week. Dashield also explained that the cost, $85 per hour for 2013, was “within the parameters” of the going rate for tree consulting services. The contract with First Mountain, which expired on December 31, is late for renewal.
Upon hearing that the yearly projected expense for 2013 would be $53,000, based on one day a week, Councilor Schlager said, “That would make this person the highest paid person that we employ!” Dashield said it was wrong to compare a contracted person to an employee. Deputy Mayor Russo conceded that contractors have less costs owing to no benefits and a flat fee. But he and Councilor Schlager still wanted to know why there was such a huge cost for a one-day-a-week contractor.
“You can’t really look at it that way,” Dashield explained. “If you take it and look at it one day a week, of course it’s going to sound high. He’s providing us a service for a certain number of hours a week.”
Deputy Mayor Russo suggested that a full-time arborist would provide more services and be better able to communicate with residents. Dashield replied that a lot of day-to-day tree work is done by Community Services, and that the arborist mostly consults with regard to where and how trees are planted. Mayor Robert Jackson said he was open to the possibility of a full-time arborist, and Dashield said he would look at other towns to see how much they pay for arborist services.
Gun Buy-Back Program
In an update on the proposed gun buy-back program, the county responded to Montclair’s idea by suggesting a three-day countywide program—possibly to be held on February 14, 15 and 16—with the county providing $50,000 and Dashield opined that it would be more effective to join the county and receive additional funds.
Two suggestions on the arborist::
1) A good practice would be to attach a job description to any independent contractor service agreement subject to TC resolution.
2) Establish a fee schedule for all arborist consulting services related to a stipulation by a town board or commission, or where required by ordinance.
I think $53,000 is a lot less than we would wind up paying a full time person who would also get medical benefits and a pension. Let’s not try to add to our payroll, please.
“…and Dashield said he would look at other towns to see how much they pay for arborist services.”
Umm…Duh !
Please do not add another person to the payroll because we want to 1.) bring down the hourly cost of the services, and 2.) provide more services to residents. First, our employee costs have a steeper growth curve than private contractors and we are likely not including all the real costs of an full-time arborist (vehicle/gas/insurance, health care, pension, overhead). Second, perhaps we should try a different contractor who may be more responsive to calls & requests and may be more efficient. Third, before we make permanent decisions, maybe a type of smart device could provide GPS tracking for contractor work days, to see where time is being spent. Fourth, I think checking to see how other towns provide the arborist function is a very good idea. Let’s find out what services they provide (vs. public works employees), how many hours per week are used, what type of accountability/tracking/reporting the arborist provides, and how similar the geographical area is to Montclair.
Since I was on the Council and gladly approved contracting Schuckman, perhaps a few facts are in order?
Prior to Schuckman our in-house cost to plant a tree were over $750, each. We are now paying, thanks to Steve’s negotiating, approximately $150 per tree. We are getting bigger trees, and we are obtaining a 1 year guarantee. If you figure we’ve planted 600 trees since Steve’s been around, that’s a savings of $360,000. Steve has also negotiated our fees on tree removal dramatically downward, and someone could also make that calculation.
Oh, and did anyone mention his relationship with the NJ Tree Foundation? I think he got us about another 300 trees, at zero cost to the township, through that route.
I’d also take a look at our capital budget and how that has been better managed since Steve became involved. Both Marc and Frank Mason, our CFO, were part of that improvement too.
When we had our “own” arborist, I’d estimate a salary of at least $100K, plus benefits, including PENSION, of at least $30K per year.
Steve pays his own insurance, does not have a town vehicle, pays for his own gas, pays for his own cell phone, pays to attend training, etc.
Oh, and we are also operating with fewer people in the shade tree department, and Steve has worked very effectively with them.
And to reaffirm Marc’s comments: Schuckman is NOT an employee.
As to the “highest paid person?” Compare Steve’s $85 an hour to what the town is currently paying to plumbers, electricians, and other tradesmen. Not to mention what we are paying to outsource “drafting” fees for our engineering department.
If anyone would like to make it their mission to find misplaced spending, I’ll gladly give them a map. You’re looking in the wrong place when you’re looking at Schuckman.
Cary Africk
Cary,
I certainly have no problem with the choice of Mr Schuckman, his comp, and as an independent contractor. I also think you indirectly provide support for my job description suggestion.
One unappreciated component of efficient organizations is how they handle “institutional memory”.
Creating job descriptions – especially written based on personnel that have successfully expanded the role beyond the basic requirements – is a no-cost way to formally embed higher performance standards and a map for ongoing process improvements.
$53,000 for one day a week? Tell you what, I’m no trained arborist, but I’ll take the job and throw in an extra day a week. Heck, I’ll work 2.5 days a week while I’m training.
One day a week ( 52 days) at 53k per year equals $1019.00 per day.
How does that square with $85.00 per hour ? Is this person actually working 12+ hour days?
Well-said frank R. Agree and hope the TC adopts this practice across departments. Good step toward transparency and accountability too.
In my four years on the Council I was shocked to learn that NO ONE has a performance review, nor are there job descriptions.
Nor were other practices, such as measurable objectives, in evidence.
Frank: As usual, you are a voice of reason and intellect.
johnop,
Yes, Steve does work a minimum of 12 hours a day when he works here. He has also put in weekends and other time that he has not “put in for.”
The analysis is not $53,000 vs something else. It is, as Cary’s infers, a sub-department cost which includes savings elsewhere, apparently due to Steve Schuckman.
Question now is that since these savings are known, could another person continue to realize them. Probably. Still, I don’t begrudge the Arborist a single decent payday per week.
I want to come back to the topic of the Edgemont pond dredging. I am uncomfortable with content of the municipal discussions reported here and elsewhere. My discomfort is that financing pressure on the wall project may be obstructing a proper plan for addressing the hydrocarbon contaminated sediment. If so, it doesn’t have to be this way. Both can proceed as the numbers shared so far indicate the pond remediation will likely be far in excess of the wall cost.
The purpose of the new wall, as it was presented to me, was for aesthetic purposes and to prevent further erosion of the pond banks. So, it makes sense to prevent clean soil from adding to the volume of sediment to be remediated.
I was also surprised at the notion repeated by the Friends of Edgemont Park that the sediment could be remediated in situ. Since we are removing 3200 cy, most likely at hazmat costs, the risk & liability issues alone would make this unlikely.
The Township should hire an expert firm in this specific field to develop a full plan. Hydrocarbon contamination is extremely common and each site is unique. Hydrocarbon contamination does also not automatically classify the material as hazardous, although New Jersey has a tight standard…but, exceptions exist. There are also many non-technological cost mitigation strategies available – even for a relatively small & shallow site as this.
So, proceed with the wall, but please start now on the remediation plan as some very viable options take a very long time to work through the environmental regulatory maze.
As a result of my OPRA request I am now looking at a report from Potomac-Hudson Environmental, Inc that finds:
“The preliminary results indicate that several polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a subset of the BN compounds, exceed the applicable Residential Direct Contact (RDC) and/or the Non-Residential Direct Contact (NRDC) Soil Remediations Standards (SRS) in all of the samples. The specific PAHs exceeding the SRS are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzol(b)fluoranthene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. These exceedances require that, upon its removal from the pond, the sediment be disposes of as contaminated (not hazardous) waste and not utilized as clean fill.”
More details are too follow, according to the report, and I have requested these.
I would “presume” that the “brilliant idea” to spread this over parts of the park, as suggested by the Town Manager is October, is no longer being considered.
Testing started a long time ago. This apparently is the second company to do testing. The first company submitted a low bid to do the work, and as far as I can tell supplied the town with reams of raw data and no conclusion. Perhaps that’s the reason their $10,000 low bid was $60,000 less than the high bid. Didn’t anyone say “Gee, I wonder how they can do the work for sixty grand less?” Apparently not.
I will also OPRA for more financial details on the Green Acres money. It keeps getting referred to by municipal officials as a “Grant/Loan.” I am sure the letter from the County spells out EXACTLY how much is a grant vs. a loan.
This project should be done RIGHT. Leaving contaminated sediment in the pond, to be dredged a few years from now, is foolish. Who knows, although the sediment is now classified as “contaminated,” and not “hazardous,” in a few years standards might change, more contaminant may be deposited and it will cost us MORE.
In the meantime, we may want to post a sign suggesting that any fish caught in the pond not be eaten. Hmmmm …. I wonder … if the geese eat the algae that is growing in the contaminated muck, is the goose poop now “hazardous waste?” Will they start to glow at night?
This is quite a good discussion on the Pond and contamination. From my knowledge of this, Cary is right on the money as well as Frank. I looked at the original bids and their pricing and a large part of each bid was the removal of the sediment.They understood the contamination then. Shouldn’t this have caused people to look into this issue more and understand its implications? We should do it correctly now and how this money is coming into Montclair is a good issue that I am glad Cary is looking into. To many conflicting answers come from our “dear” town people.
As for the arborist issues, when in the world are we going to understand that towns have to operate as a business entity in some degree? I do not believe his price is to high, maybe more work from him and better customer relationships but please, the guy seems to do well for our town.Cary laid out what he has done, I doubt others could have saved that kind of money.
As a first step, the Township might want to contact Potomac-Hudson Environmental and ask them whether the Edgemont Pond aerators should be turned off.
There you go again, Frank, providing useful information. You need to get with the times and start hyperventilating.