Readers debate long term sustainability on the Village Budget of employee wages, pensions and healthcare
When less than a 100 current employees and retirees consume over 50% of the Village’s annual budget in wages, pensions and healthcare, you have to question whether that’s an appropriate trade-off in a Village with only 25,000 people ? The BoE is similar, why should under 1,000 teachers and administrators (less than 4% of our Village population) consume 65% of our annual property taxes? It’s only going to get worse.
I was able to find a copy of the Village Budget Newsletter for the 2014 budget at the following link.
https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2014BudgetNews.pdf
According to this document, which is provided by our Village Manager, the Village has a combined total annual budget of $46.2 million. Out of the $46.2 Million, the Police Department budget expenses are $9.6 Million (20.78%) and the Fire Department is $8.2 Million (17.5%). Combined, Public Safety amounts to $17.8 Million dollars or 38.529% of the annual budget. I can’t help but wonder why you chose to exclude the Debt Service of $4.8 Million from your calculations. By doing so you create the illusion that the overall costs for Public Safety are higher than they actually are in reality.
If you’d read the Budget Newsletter you would have noticed that, excluding the $4.8mn in debt service which we have to pay as a Village in 2014, police, fire and emergency service wages & benefits consumes $19mn of what’s left of the Village budget, or half of the budget… spent on less than 100 active employees plus retirees. The Village municipal employees and retirees number far more than just public safety employees and retirees, and yet Public safety contractual salary increases represent more than half of total salary increases of $900K+ in 2014, and that doesn’t include unfunded liabilities (future retirement payouts to police & fire) of $7.1M (against a reserve of $479K). We had to lay off 10% of the Village workforce in 2010 just to keep feeding this beast, and that has led to a reduction in Village services for all Villagers. That’s a poor trend for Villagers
How Much Do States and Localities Spend on Their Employees?
Because providing services is the primary business of states as well as school districts, cities, counties, and other local governments, labor costs — i.e., wages and benefits — make up a significant share of their annual spending.
Wages and salaries. Wages and salaries make up about one-third of state and local governments’ general spending, on average, according to Census Bureau data. States spend a considerably smaller share (about 15 percent) than local governments (41 percent).
https://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3410
Not much different than other towns having to deal with so called civil servants.
Fire them all and the residents will pick up the slack.
Any while you blame all this on the towns union employes and what this is doing to your taxes. Don’t say anything about 2/3 of you property tax bill goes to the BOED. Its alway about the police, fire and other town unions. Why don’t share your hatred for unions with the teachers.
Regarding Village employees, why aren’t the sidewalks around Graydon and Village Hall/Vets shoveled or salted? Who dropped the ball on that — is the Village waiting for someone to fall and sue? The 24 hours after the snow has passed and walking in snow is not fun pushing a stroller. Nothing in the code mentions a minimal snow amount to follow these rules.
For clarification, the $46.2MM budget does not include the BOE. Our “total combined” budget is closer to $100MM.
With that said, a number of residents spent months analyzing the VOR budget numbers and highlighting the unsustainable trends. The new Village Manager was one of those residents. The report they produced brought to light many facts that are not well understood by most residents. A few important points are that municipal finance accounting is different from conventional accounting methods, such as GAAP. It is not at all intuitive. In addition, the way union compensation, and the contracts themselves, are structured make it very difficult for negotiators to quantify the true cost of an employee over his or her career. There are so many compounding increases built into the contracts that the small “annual increases” that municipalities report (which become new base levels) dramatically understate the actual financial liability over the contract. As a result, typical compensation for most police and fire employees has spiraled out of control.
There were a number of recommendations from the report that the Village Manager’s committee presented that made a lot of sense. Why hasn’t the Village Council acted on any of them. A good start would be to step back and re-assess (read “simplify) the structure of the union contracts that the Village Council approves. A little more transparency would make a big difference.
#6 said, There were a number of recommendations from the report that the Village Manager’s committee presented that made a lot of sense.
First, it is painfully obvious you were part of the “team” that authored this so called report. The report is full of inaccurate information and failed conclusions, that is why none of the recommendations have been implemented.
Go back to your Ivory Tower and leave the hard working employees alone.
Unlike other posters I think it is a one side argument to speak just about municipal budget more specifically Police, Fire and DPW unions and not be concerned about the BOED. To be truly concerned about property taxes and unfound debt you can’t just single out the municipal employees. Some poster on this blog are content to do just that knowing that 2/3 of their tax are for the BOED. Why don’t the resident demand that the BOED form similar group to look over the BOED budget. ? Why is it that more often then not that these poster never post about 1000 k club of the BOED? Does it boil down to the posters use the money paid to the police as a smoke screen for there true hatred for them.
do we need a paid fire dep”t, how do other big towns do it. some how this can be cut a bit. the over time spent on police and fire are out of control. that needs to be cut . call the county to help the police.
Actually #7, I had nothing to do with the report. And I assure you, I do NOT live in an Ivory Tower. But, I I am a hard working taxpayer in this town and read the report carefully. Some of the points were so disturbing, I also spent fair amount of effort trying to verify the information. I was unable to find any “inaccurate information”.
Since you are clearly one of the hard working employees you reference and, thus, benefit from the tax induced generosity of your neighbors, perhaps you can enlighten us about which points and conclusions were wrong and what the correct facts are.
BTW, my guess about why some of the recommendations haven’t been implemented is that our Village Council is a feckless group of individuals, who are more concerned with their status on the Council than they are in standing up for a position that may be unpopular with a small group of vocal residents.
As for # 8 below, this poster is correct (except for the last sentence). However, This is not an “either/or” issue between the VOR budget and the BOE budget. Both budgets are big problems, which must be addressed. As I recall, the report stated that the Village Council asked the group to focus on the VOR budget, which the Council controls. However, I think it also went on to recommend that the Council and BOE should work together to address both budgets in a coordinated fashion.
” the over time spent on police and fire are out of control.” Enlighten us #9. You must have the figures? As for a Paid Fire Dept. this is an asset for the price it cost. It is one of the things that makes this town appealing. Just ask your local real estate agent.
“this poster is correct (except for the last sentence” Your probable right #10. I was over the top with that one. I try to look at the whole picture and not single out one group.
Your disclaimer is laughable. How could you possibly make the claim….
“I had nothing to do with the report”
and then follow that with….
” I am a hard working taxpayer in this town and read the report carefully. Some of the points were so disturbing, I also spent fair amount of effort trying to verify the information”
How did you verify the information? Who did you call to verify the information? What information were you trying to verify? If you are genuinely concerned with the property taxes in town why do you ignore the BOE portion of your bill which represents over 66% of your bill? Why haven’t I seen your rants about the BOE portion of your bill on this blog?
Sorry but you have no creditability. Deny you were part of the FAC all you want, your own words betray you.
Police and Fire Depts. are like your house insurance. You pay a lot of money for it and you will probably never use it but when you need it you really need it.
#6 “do we need a paid fire dep”t,” Are you going to volunteer.? Or are you going to leave that up to someone else. I know your are just a “big idea guy.”
One of the reasons we moved here in 1969 was a paid fire dept.
It’s the response time that makes a difference
And the volunteers do not sleep at the firehouses so the extra 10 mins is critical.
Also,there’s no way this town could fill a roster of volunteer firefighters.
They can’t even get enough to run the ambulance during the day so the fd has to respond to ambulance calls too.
If you want to lower the tax bite, cut the board of Ed (but that will never happen since most I’d our tempory residents are here for the schools)
a paid fire dept for 10 mill, I don’t think so. well how do other towns do it. fairlawn is just as big. and they do it just as good. so come on. you know that you guys must feel very lucky to have that job.
right.
we don’t need a mill dolor truck going to an ambulance call. give it up. this is not ny city.
Then move to Fair Lawn if their just as good.
Why don’t you go to the next council meeting or e-mail the VM #18.
Fair Lawn cooked another house last week. Glen Rock has no FD during the day.
I would not want to live in fair lawn. And you would never get these lazy residents to volunteer for anything.
I am not sure why you feel the need to be so provocative. But, it seems obvious that you DID NOT read the report. One did not have to write the report in order to verify its accuracy. It referenced a great deal of budget and compensation data. Fortunately, the sources of all the data the report cited were all clearly noted. The VOR budget is publicly available and Ridgewood union contracts are available on the Village website. So, it was actually quite easy to fact check the report. Whether one agrees with all the committee’s recommendations is another matter. But, that is a question of personal judgement, not factual accuracy.
You still haven’t answered the question. What information was inaccurate and what should the report have said?
When insurance policies jack the rates up and become too expensive, consumers terminate the policy and find a different insurance company with more affordable coverage.
Well terminated the police and go find some affordable coverage.
Just like insurance. Affordable Coverage means higher deductibles and less coverage.
Anonymous Said,
I am not sure why you feel the need to be so provocative. But, it seems obvious that you DID NOT read the report. One did not have to write the report in order to verify its accuracy.
—————————————————————-
————————————————-
Anyone can read the report here.
https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2013FinancialAdvisoryReportFINAL.pdf
Answer me this…..
Why did the report show only an 8% increase in energy costs on page 7 identified as Utility and Bulk Purchases for the Village Budget for Gasoline, Diesel, Electricity and Natural Gas from 2001 to 2011? Below are prices from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the actual increase in dollars and percentage. I am very aware of these costs since my construction company consumes a considerable amount of these fuels and I have seen way more of an increase that the 8% that is indicated in that report. Either the information in the report is wrong or the Village has energy suppliers selling energy to the Village at quite a loss.
—————————————————————————————————————
Gasoline – 2001 – $1.46 per Gallon – 2011 – $3.576 Per Gallon or a 145% increase
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=a
—————————————————————————————————————–
Diesel Fuel – 2001 $1.401 Per Gallon – 2011 – $3.84 per Gallon or a 175% increase
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emd_epd2d_pte_nus_dpg&f=a
—————————————————————————————————————–
Natural Gas – 2001 – $8.43 per Thousand Cubic Feet – 2011 $8.91 per Thousand Cubic Feet
or a 6% increase
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3020us3a.htm
—————————————————————————————————————–
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=a
Diesel Fuel – 2001 $1.401 Per Gallon – 2011 – $3.84 per Gallon
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emd_epd2d_pte_nus_dpg&f=a
Natural Gas – 2001 – $8.43 per Thousand Cubic Feet – 2011 $8.91 per Thousand Cubic Feet
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3020us3a.htm
This comment was posted by a union hack. Please name one inaccuracy please? Actually, many of the recommendations have been implemented. The permanent FAC, and six sigma practices at Village Hall are two immediate recommendations that have been implemented so far. Four of the seven CBAs are being renegotiated in 2014/15, so many more of the recommendations will find their way in to the new contracts. You are inaccurate and your conclusions are wrong.
#26, your post proves you don’t understand the report, and that your claim of inaccuracies is wrong and without merit. The authors of the report deserve your apology. On p.7 of the report, it clearly states that the 8% number is a “compound annualized growth” rate from 2001 to 2011. That’s 8% growth per year over that period, not 8% growth from 2001 to 2011. Which means that if the utility bill was $100 in 2001, it more than doubled to $216 by 2011, or +116% over that period. Get your facts straight, and if you don’t understand what you are writing, then please stop posting. You’re just using a classic union ploy, taking incomparable figures to discredit figures that were sourced from the Village’s own budget. What’s in it for you to try and distract Villagers from the real issue here, which is that we’ve promised too much in terms of wage growth and benefits for too long?
Anonymous said,
Huh ? Clearly you are using a classic union tactic to discredit something factual that shines the light on union practices that are crushing property taxpayers. Give it a rest buddy.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
First, I am NOT your buddy. Calling me that shows your lack of respect. Grow up.
Second, I provided you with facts and figures that apparently you can’t refute so you resort to name calling by saying,
” It’s clear from your ignorance that you didn’t even bother to read the actual report or look at the sources before claiming “inaccurancies”, and even then, the only one you’re come up with is utility costs for the Village ?”
which is a juvenile attempt to avert attention to this obvious inaccuracy involving energy costs for the Village from 2001 through and including 2001 in the FAC report.
Third, That was just one example. How about this fact in the report, referring to Page 7, under the category of Debt Principal Repayment, the expense for this line item in 2001 is $670,000.00. In 2011 it grew to $2,989,000.00, which represents a Compound Annualized Growth of 16.1% . Surprisingly there is no explanation for this increase in the report? An increase of double digits over a 10 year period is certainly a red flag in any budget. A similar increase (13.6% Compound Annualized Growth) occurred in the category of Interest Expense, which considering today’s interest rates which have been at historic lows for many years now, should also be a concern, yet this was also not addressed in the report. Cleary a failure of this committee to provide a complete report.
Fourth, It appears that this report was written with a specific outcome already per determined and not an objective all encompassing evaluation of the entire Village Budget.
I just looked at page 7 at the link you posted. The reason for your confusion is that the “8% increase” you reference is the “COMPOUND ANNUALIZED GROWTH RATE” from 2001 to 2011. The “% Change” (shown in the column to the left) is the total increase over the period. In this case, the % change from 2001 to 2011 was 115%, or 8% CAGR over 10 years.
Before going off on a rant claiming that the report is flawed, you should have checked your facts. I am sure the authors of the report verified the numbers before presenting it.
I am not at all confused. I suggest you go back and look at the data I provided which is from U.S. Energy Information Administration, which you clearly ignored.
There is NO way the Village experienced a 115% change reflecting a compound annualized growth rate of only 8% when:
1) Gasoline prices in 2001 averaged $1.46 per Gallon and gradually increased to $3.576 Per Gallon in 2011 for a 145% increase.
2) Diesel Fuel prices in 2001 averaged $1.401 Per Gallon and gradually increased to $3.84 per Gallon in 2011 or a 175% increase.
3) Natural Gas prices in 2001 averaged $8.43 per Thousand Cubic Feet and gradually increased to $8.91 per Thousand Cubic Feet in 2011 or a 6% increase.
And I haven’t even mentioned the increase in electric rates.
Are you saying the U.S. Energy Information Administration is wrong? I would like to hear you explain how that could possibly add up to an 8% compound annualized growth or are the numbers in the report wrong.
Clearly you were confused between the total growth and compounded annual growth rate (your original post is quite clear about that) and now you are trying to back-peddle. I don’t know what bearing the US Energy Information you cite has on “Utility Expense & Bulk Purchases” or why you are so focused on this category that made up 3% of the budget in 2011. It is actually the first three items in the chart that are growing at an unsustainable rate and are projected to exceed the amount of the entire 2011 budget, according to the report.
Nonetheless, your question is really one for the Village Manager, since the budget numbers shown in the chart on page 7 were taken directly from the published VOR budget Newsletter.
Just as I thought, I provide facts and figures that prove that items in the report appear to be inaccurate and you claim I am confused and “Utility Expense & Bulk Purchases”. I have not changed the source of my data or my position that the report numbers are false. So explain how I am back-peddling, I would love to hear your logic.
And rather than prove the numbers I provided from the U.S. Energy Information Administration are wrong and the report numbers are correct you state
I don’t know what bearing the US Energy Information you cite has on “Utility Expense & Bulk Purchases” or why you are so focused on this category that made up 3% of the budget in 2011.
Allow me to help you understand, you challenged me to provide proof the report was inaccurate. I chose to use the example of “Utility Expense & Bulk Purchases” because when I read the report that expense stood out to me because I know how much fuel costs increased from 2001 to 2011 for my company.
And what about the in the report, again on Page 7, under the category of Debt Principal Repayment, the expense for this line item in 2001 is $670,000.00. In 2011 it grew to $2,989,000.00, which represents a Compound Annualized Growth of 16.1% . Why is there is no explanation for this increase in the report? An increase of double digits over a 10 year period is certainly a red flag in any budget. A similar increase (13.6% Compound Annualized Growth) occurred in the category of Interest Expense, which considering today’s interest rates, which have been at historic lows for many years now, should also be a concern, yet this was also not addressed in the report. Cleary a failure of this committee to provide a complete report.
Why did you completely ignore my question about the Debt Principal Repayment or Interest Expense?
Are you kidding??? You compared the 8% compound rate in the report to the 145% total rate of increase for gasoline reported by the US Energy Department. THAT is apples to oranges, which is why several posters correctly stated that you were confused and explained the correct comparison. Now you are shifting to a NEW question, ignoring your mistake and attacking the authors of the report.
As for why teh report does not address “Debt Principal Repayment”, the answer can be found in the report’s introduction. It explains that the authors had limited time and access to certain information. At one point it says…
“It quickly became clear that our time and resource constraints would require us to focus on a smaller list of issues that met three criteria; 1) those that could have a material impact on the budget, 2) those that could realistically be addressed by the Village Council, and 3) those that could be addressed in a short period of time.”
Furthermore, the report specifies that the authors sought to focus on the areas that have the greatest impact on the budget, where even small improvement can have a large relative $$ impact. As a result, the report says it specifically focused on the three largest items, which comprised more than 50% of the 2011 budget. On page 8 it says…
“If these three items continue to grow at their current rate (Insurance at 99% and Pension & Social Security at 441%), the required funding for them will grow to $54,319,000 in 10 years (see chart below), which would require massive tax increases over the adopted 2011 Village budget. In fact, Pension & Social Security costs are on pace to be almost $26.9MM by 2021, which is equivalent to over 60% of the 2011 budget. These three items together are projected to be 122% of the entire 2011 budget by 2021.”
Clearly, there are many expenses and liabilities that offer opportubnities for reduction. I can’t say why the group didn’t focus on debt repayment. Perhaps the rates were very low or perhaps the debt was scheduled to be retired in the next few years. Either way, the report clearly states that they could not focus on ALL the issues in town and decided to explore those that offered the biggest bang for the buck, in the group’s opinion. If you would like to contribute to the solution, why not volunteer for the Financial Advisory Committee that was created to continue to explore these issues in the village?
Your explanation as to why the report did not address “Debt Principal Repayment” or the ” Interest Expense” is difficult to believe. Neither category would require much time to investigate and find out why they increased so much in a ten year period and what could be done to lower and control those costs. Claiming limited time and access to certain information is an excuse for a poor job. If I received a report such as this from my CFO or accountants which ignored these obvious concerns I would either send them back to complete the report or I would replace them with competent people who can provide a complete report.
There is one contradiction in this report.
On page 5 the report states the following:
The EAC made several recommendations including, the necessity of “thorough re-evaluation of existing salary step scales” and a “thorough re-evaluation of existing benefit packages.” Their opinion was that Village labor costs are the single most important fiscal responsibility of the Village Council, and the development of a long-range labor relations and compensation strategy was needed.
Interestingly, they observed that collective bargaining agreements were being negotiated against more skilled professional union negotiators, “without clear, comprehensive objectives and a long-range strategy—that is, the Village’s approach was ‘ad hoc’ in character.”
The statement above implies that the Village was at a disadvantage during Union negotiations because the Village was negotiating against “more skilled professional union negotiators.”
But then the report goes on to contradict it’s self on page 30,
C. Collective Bargaining Agreements
Village Labor Attorney and Special Re-Negotiations
a. Regrettably, we were not given an opportunity to meet with the Village’s independent labor attorney, who assists the Village Manager with collective bargaining agreement negotiations. Thus, our recommendations are being made without the benefit of guidance from the Village labor attorney.
To say that the town was at a disadvantage during negotiations while the Village was using the services of an experienced labor Attorney makes no sense to me at all, unless the labor attorney was completely incompetent, which is highly unlikely.
But I am sure you will have some wild and convoluted explanation for this obvious contradiction.
I have one recommendation for you, use spell check before you post, your spelling skills are a bit lacking…….
I don’t think they “ignored” them. As the report explained, they came up with a list of ideas and then narrowed them to those they felt they could address most thorughly. They also recommended a permanent committee to follow through on the areas that were not addressed. That committee exists today. So, perhaps you should submit your name to the Village Manager to be considered for that committee… you are obviously more qualified, more diligent and more competent than the volunteers who agreed to take on that thankless task.
You are grasping at straws to find fault in the report (so far you are 0 for 3). Your selective use of quotations misrepresent what the report said. Your first quote was taken from the EAC report 20+ years ago. The 2012 report happened to agree with their conclusions, as will anyone who has ever had experience negotiation with union negotiators, esspecially with large powerful national unions. Local municipal negotiators are almost never professional negotiators and are ALWAYS at a disadvantage. The unions rely on that. The guidance of a local labor attorney does not level the playing field, I assure you.
You conveniently failed to mention that, in recommendation “D” on page 30, the report went on to say…
“In light of the significant structural changes to the Village’s collective bargaining agreements proposed in this report, we recommend that the Village consider whether it could benefit by working with a labor attorney/firm with significant experience and success in restructuring collective bargaining agreements. The probability of success will be largely dependent on having a legal advisor and negotiating advocate, who appreciates the critical need to improve the fiscal condition of the Village and, who is committed to aggressively achieving the objectives set forth below. It is not clear to us that our current labor attorney is the appropriate choice. This may result in higher legal fees. However, we view this as a reasonable trade-off to place the Village on a more sustainable fiscal path.”
The report stops short of criticizing the current labor attorney’s effectoiveness. But, reading between the lines, it seems that the report is recommending engaging “hired guns” that have historical success in difficult labor negotiations. It sounds like the Village Council is more concerned with saving a few thousand dollars in legal fees at the expense of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars over the life of the contract. Pathetic!
They also recommended that surrounding municipalities join together to negotiate collectively, effectively turning the tables on the unions, who purposely isolate individual municipalities and stagger the negotiations with them to place municipalities in the weakest possible negotiating position.
You haven’t made a valid point yet and are now 0 for 4. We all get that you don’t like the report and are most likely a public union employee, despit your claims to work for a “company”. Your entitled to your opinion. But, I am done responding to your bogus points. If you really feel that these guys did such a poor job in the 90 days they were given and didn’t come up with any good ideas, then you should volunteer to joint the permanent committee. You may actually become more well informed than you are currently.
I am grasping at straws, really, lets review,
1) So far you haven’t explained how the Village could have possibly had just a 115% increase in Utility Expense & Bulk Purchases from 2001 – 2011, when the rest of the entire country experienced a 145% increase in Gasoline, a 175% increase in Diesel fuel, a 6% increase in Natural Gas and a 18% increase in electric rates during 2001 – 2011.
2) You explanation as to why the report FAILED by not examining the 16.1% increase in the Debt Principal Repayment or the 13.6% increase in Interest Expenses was an excuse and not a viable reason.
3) Even an uneducated person could see an obvious conflict between the two quotes from the report. Your claim that I used selective quotations to misrepresent what the report said is specious. The quotes were not changed or altered in anyway. Despite your denial the report clearly contradicts it’s self on this subject.
During our discussion on this subject a news article was released – Ridgewood reaches contract agreement with fire department- you can read the article at the link below.
https://www.northjersey.com/news/ridgewood-fire-department-reach-amicable-agreement-1.1188862
One quote stood out when I read it, see quote below:
“Other changes will affect recall (officers are guaranteed to make slightly more when responding off-duty), emergency medical technician and fire inspector stipends (the department is reinstating an EMT stipend and raising the fire inspector stipend in the first year) and more stringent caps on cash payouts for comp and vacation days, explained Lt. Justin O’Connor, a union negotiator.”
I found this part of that quote interesting (explained Lt. Justin O’Connor, a union negotiator.”) I had never heard of Union Officials being designated by military style ranks, so I did some research. After a few calls I learned that the Village has NEVER negotiated against what you claim are ” large powerful national unions.” Lieutenant Justin O’ Conner is a Lieutenant on the Village Fire Department, a Village employee. It turns out that the Village has ALWAYS negotiated directly with it’s employees in each union not the “large powerful national union officials” you claim. The fact is that during some, but not all past negotiations, a few of the local unions have retained the services of an Attorney during negotations. The article refers to past negotiations with the following quote “and that arbitration and the heavy use of lawyers would be avoided.” So once again this shows the report and your representation of the negotiations is not only misleading it is flat out wrong.
Since you chose to speculate about me and my profession by stating:
“We all get that you don’t like the report and are most likely a public union employee, despit your claims to work for a “company”.”
Allow me to respond. First, learn how to spell if you are not going to use spell check.
1) esspecially = especially 2) effectoiveness = effectiveness 3) despit = despite
There has to be some reason you are defending this report so much. The only logical reason would be you hate Unions, Village Employees and are envious of their income and benefits is because you were a Village employee who was terminated for cause.
Your statements are misleading and wrong #39. If the cost of natural gas (+6%) and electricity (+18%) grew much less than the 115% overall increase, then obviously the Village utility bill increase for gasoline and diesel was offset by the cost of their natural gas an electric bills from 2001-2011. If you don’t understand the math, I suggest remedial elementary school. Also, these were the actual figures reported in the Village’s own budgets in 2001 and 2001, so the fact that you are questioning the figures themselves means that either you think the Village reported incorrect numbers, or someone was cooking the books. If you have any insight on the latter, I suggest you volunteer the information to Roberta Sonenfeld, the Village Manager.
The EAC report they referred to was written in 1991. If you had actually read the introduction to the FAC report on pages 3-4, you would have understood why they referred to the EAC report of 1991. Given it appears you didn’t read the actual FAC report of Nov 2012, I’ll post what was written: “Ridgewood’s Village Council formed a similar independent Economic Advisory Committee (EAC) in 1991 to address serious budgetary concerns at that time. Like our committee, the EAC was a volunteer group of diverse business leaders, with various areas of expertise. As with our committee, Mayor Svarre asked the EAC to “review municipal operations, procedures, and expenditures in order to identify potential cost savings, cost avoidance, cost sharing and sources of added revenue.” Unlike our committee, they were given a year to conduct their research and present their recommendations to the Village Council. Some of their recommendations were implemented. Others were not. After reading the EAC report from over 21 years ago, we were shocked and disappointed to find that some of those not implemented are among the recommendations that our committee has outlined below. We sincerely hope that the current Village Council will have the wisdom and courage to act, thereby avoiding the urgency for another “independent” review of the Village budget and management process in the future.”
Anonymous said,
Your statements are misleading and wrong #39. If the cost of natural gas (+6%) and electricity (+18%) grew much less than the 115% overall increase, then obviously the Village utility bill increase for gasoline and diesel was offset by the cost of their natural gas an electric bills from 2001-2011. If you don’t understand the math, I suggest remedial elementary school. Also, these were the actual figures reported in the Village’s own budgets in 2001 and 2001, so the fact that you are questioning the figures themselves means that either you think the Village reported incorrect numbers, or someone was cooking the books. If you have any insight on the latter, I suggest you volunteer the information to Roberta Sonenfeld, the Village Manager
_______________________________________________________________________
Lets see if you can back up your numbers. Where did you get the cost of natural gas up +6% and electricity up 18%. Please site your sources. Please provide numbers to support your thesis that the increase for gasoline and diesel was offset by the cost of their natural gas an electric bills from 2001-2011.
Anonymous said,
The EAC report they referred to was written in 1991. If you had actually read the introduction to the FAC report on pages 3-4, you would have understood why they referred to the EAC report of 1991. Given it appears you didn’t read the actual FAC report of Nov 2012, I’ll post what was written: “
_____________________________________________________________________
I agree, the EAC report they referred to was written in 1991. Unlike you I have read the report. You like to quote the report but you left out one very important statement from page 5 of the 2012 Financial Advisory Committee report which states:
“they (the 1991 report authors) observed that collective bargaining agreements were being negotiated against more skilled professional union negotiators, “without clear, comprehensive objectives and a long-range strategy—that is, the Village’s approach was ‘ad hoc’ in character”
“Although these observations were made 21 years ago, they are the same observations that our committee is making today, with regard to employee compensation and benefits.”
The last sentence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the committee who assembled the 2012 Financial Advisory Committee report agreed with the 1991 report finding regarding negations. And now we know both reports were wrong on this fact.
So tell me why did you chose to ignore this part of the report? Did you think I didn’t see it? Or were you hoping I didn’t read the report so you could try to pull a fast one?
The numbers were taken from the Village budget of 2001 and the Village budget of 2011. Case closed.
You said the report was full of “inaccuracies”. And yet, this is your only complaint ? What is there to disagree with here ? The report simply stated that if the Village lacked clear, comprehensive objectives and a long-range strategy when they negotiate collective bargaining agreements, that they would end up with an “ad hoc” approach, i.e. only coming up with CBAs designed for the specific 4 years of that contract, without considering the broader implications or long-run costs to Village taxpayers of all of the promises being made in each contract. What’s your problem here, apart from your complaint in general that Villagers would volunteer their time in both 1991 and 2012 to try and make recommendations to the Village Council to put Village finances on a more sustainable, long-range path ?
Valley has a full service EMT service with 80 staff members(https://www.valleyhealth.com/Programs_Services.aspx?id=1086 ). Our volunteer EMT service is duplication, staffed mainly by RFD members who just had their EMT stipend reinstated in the new CBA. Where do our volunteer EMT ambulances take patients most of the time anyway ?
I am a little confused on why you are so focused on the utility bill of the Village which was onbly 3% of the total $46 miilion annual budget in 2011, but I’ll humor you because you seem to be so adamant about the sources used in the FAC report Here they are: 1) https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2012BudgetNewsletter.pdf Please note that the Adopted 2011 budget included $1,494,784 spent on the utility expense & bulk purchases. 2) “Ridgewood Reports – Spring 2002”, which showed the Adopted 2001 budget spent $694K on the utility expense and bulk purchases. That’s a compound annualized growth rate of 8%, so the report is accurate. Make an OPRA request if you don’t believe the Village’s own figures, but stop complaining here.
Anonymous said,
The numbers were taken from the Village budget of 2001 and the Village budget of 2011. Case closed.
__________________________________________________________
Oh I see you believe everything your told by the Village. Good thinking Comrade.
Anonymous said,
I am a little confused on why you are so focused on the utility bill of the Village which was onbly 3% of the total $46 miilion annual budget in 2011, but I’ll humor you because you seem to be so adamant about the sources used in the FAC report.
__________________________________________________________
You asked, and I responded to your request to point out inaccuracies in the report, plain and simple. You chose to accept the Village provided data, I chose to rely on independent sources the clearly show the data in the report is inaccurate or false.
No comment on the “powerful national unions negotiating against the poor village inept officials. Tell me how accurate that statement was, I am listening.
So the state’s bipartisan panel on pension and health reform found that without a course correction, these costs will absorb 23% of the state budget – $8 billion – within two years, roughly double the portion today.The amount of pension checks sent out will also roughly double to almost $17 billion by the end of 2017 from $8.7 billion in 2013. For perspective, the millionaire’s tax favored by Democrats would raise $600 million a year, barely enough to make a dent. There is no feasible way to raise taxes high enough to cover this cost. The same is true on the spending side. You could fire every state employee tomorrow, and you still wouldn’t raise enough money to fill this hole.