We haven't blogged for a while on the GW council meetings because, well, there wasn't much intensity to blog about. Yes issues were certainly put to the floor but the zest of the council deliberations were tepid so I wasn't motivated. So I was quiet. Anyway, one could easily read the coverage in the local media such as Westfield Leader or the online Clark-GW Patch as they are always there covering and taking photos. Garwood365 occasionally covers an item the council discusses, but he dwells more as a general GW news consolidator. The cranford chronicle 3 years ago pretty much abandoned covering GW....but I digress. Lots of good stuff last night, some heavy, some scary, some obfuscating, some good suggestions from the public and a recent highlight is also what is missing, that since the primary, councilman JM has not tried to demean or browbeat anyone from his seat although he did stay somewhat true to form and voted "no" on an item. This is at least noticed. And all this happened ending before 9pm which is great on our tolerance levels. To continue:
Garwood council meeting date: Tuesday july 9, 2013
Public in attendance: Total 29 incl 2 cops, WL and patch (cops there for their own info) Also includes around 12 people were from the Pointe and couple people lving along the brook (Last quantity is thanks to Joe Garritano who passed out a flyer June 12 to the brook people saying they should attend)
Start times:
Workshop: from 7:02 to 8:01
Intermeeting executive session #1: 20 min
Agenda session: from 8:15 to 8:52
Total duration (including the breaks up to exec session #2 that no one stayed for since no action): 1 hr 50 min
Hilites:
2 executive sessions: #1: The First one went from 7:05 to 7:24 right after the professionals gave their report in the workshop session. The topic was to discuss “potential litigation involving Flanagan’s Contracting”. The interesting item here is that Flanagan’s is the contractor who is performing the Rec complex project. No action taken and the reason is not released in the general public. #2: The second one was in the normal location right after the regular council meeting was over. This one is an ongoing issue of litigation involving the Boro administrator versus 2 defendants, the boro of Garwood and Councilman James Matthieu. The public did not stay for the duration and no action was to be taken anyway.
Scary #1: Boro assessment demand by Councilman Matthieu: Although he is correct that the boro did not have an assessment in 30 years, he is somewhat wrong in his statement that it does not reflect reality. He stated, the assessment of each house did not change over the 30 years while the market value of the house did. However, that is really irrelevant since market value is based on what one would pay and the prices are continually fluctuating (with a bias to the upside). He even used his two houses he bought in GW as an example of this justification of the assessed value detached from reality: That the higher cost house had a lower assessment and his lower cost house has a higher assessment. But this really disproves his statement. What he did not mention was the timing of the purchases where he purchased the higher cost house during the real estate bubble while the latter house was purchased in the housing recession. Cncl pres Todisco did talk recently to the tax assessor and the assessor noted that since so much time elapsed, the true action the M&C should deliberate is a full re-evaluation of the town, not just a drive-by assessment. The cost would be $200k (in lieu of around $40k.) Cnclmn JM in his quest to always keep budget costs down is ironically forcing the town to spend more. Cnclwmn AP did smartly note that what the M&C should do is request the tax assessors presence for an upcoming council meeting where the M&C (and hopefully the public too) can do a fact finding mission. Someone mentioned that this may increase county taxes but IMO that is incorrect since the county ignores our assessment and uses a state recognized equalized value/ annual market value with a 3 year rolling average to determine the county taxes we owe each year, not our own internal assessement. Cnclmn JM noted that there will be tax impacts although not a large change but with the new true taxed values, the newer homes and businesses won’t be subsidizing the older properties. This is of course is not true since any new developments that are built are actually “devalued” to the old assessment ratios. If any of this comes into fruition, impacts would probably as my opinion fall on the shoulders of the homes that did “under the radar improvements” and most definitely 2-family homes, to which there are many. Sadly, the Pointe condos complex which appears to be overburdened with a high tax rate due to the supposedly expensive value of the project actually should be paying less taxes, but not for the reason of a reassessment. If anyone followed my 10 years of concerns with this project, the Pointe complex, in observation by my construction expertise, truly is not an exclusive high value project it was purported to be. The sub-par construction was hidden away from the buyers, who spent big-bux for their condos, and they ended up right from the beginning overpaying both for the condo and for the property taxes. (The developer absorbed services into the complex he shouldn’t have; plus much remediation, reconstruction and a lawsuit resulted but that’s another story for another day.) Lastly councilor JM noted that he has yet to hear a cogent argument against assessment. How about "status quo"? Actually he should be the one making the cogent argument for the assessment to the rest of us. So far we really haven't heard anything solid. As and aside, I did note a possible assessment commission should be created as a consideration back when the republicans swept the M&C races in 2010. It was post #20 item #26. That's what JM shou8ld be pushing for: step #1.
Scary #2: Privatization of DPW trash pick-up (and we don’t mean the bulk pick up!) Councilor Bill Nierstedt broached the subject again of privatizing our trash pick-up but a lot more in detail this time. He would like to develop an RFP to request bids and cost of this work from private haulers. He noted that the boro itself would still be covering the costs in the property taxes. He wants our DPW director to work up the boro’s direct costs for what it costs. From all this the committee would then do a study to determine the feasibility of privatization. Boro attrny BR noted that the NJ DEP may have a model RFP for privatization. However, in the course of Q&A by residents, some info came out. The DPW would not be laying-off any personnel. Instead the man hours saved by the removal of the work by the DPW would ameliorate overtime, save on health care. Also the DPW would be freed up for a tentative 2 year back log of work orders on trees, painting, and maintenance of boro assets that has been pushed off. It was pointed out by a resident that it would just end up with the same DPW costs in the budget but now have additional budget impacts from the additional costs for the private garbage pick-up. Some of this cost may be lessened by upcoming 4 possible DPW retirements, and the new hire replacements would be at a lesser salary. This is called “breakage”. There are 7 employees in the DPW and the public did not hear anything about layoffs through attrition. In addition the public pointed out that at the UCUA’s Trash incinerator where the garbage is taken (by mandate), the UCUA tonnage fees are approximately $30-40/ton more if private haulers dump at the UCUA versus a public run DPW. BN assured this would not be the case since the boro would be paying for the costs. IMHO we doubt that, but this is all in study phase and that would now be checked out.
In addition to freeing up the DPW for the work order back log, cncl pres ST said she would then push for the DPW to take over the recycling which is presently contracted out at a cost to the taxpayers per household. This would be a savings of not only that cost but the recyclables would also be a revenue stream based on a sales value of the glass, plastic and paper commodities. Hopefully the above will all net out to zero or an overall savings to our taxes.
A resident AA smartly suggested that maybe this garbage privatization can be done for a 1 year trial. Another resident DD noted that the DPW should make a list of exactly what needs to be done to justify the existing manpower level if garbage is privatized.
The Brookwalk of June 29th: Saturday morning 2 councilmen BN and JM and the boro engineer DG assembled at the westerly end of our GW brook to walk the length to the easterly end. Per BN, this was to assess the condition of the brook, gabions, bed, any encroachments, overgrown foliage, or rats. He reported that the condition of the Gabions and brook are in very good shape for the nealy 30 years it was built. Coincidentally, our present boro engr DG was the boro engr overseeing the brook rehab project back then. Hilights: they saw fish, mallards, the gabion wiring needs some repairs in places, some man-made debris in the brook, BN pulled out one large bags of recyclables from the stream, east of east street is a lot of silt that gets backed up due to the “bottleneck” when the brook goes under the train tracks near Pathmark. There are lot of encroachments on the tops of the gabions from the residents storing bricks, blocks, water heater. The town will send out a general warning letter to all residents along the brook to remove any items. The tops of the gabions are town property. The private property goes up to the back edge. Below is some photos of the brookwalk. The irony was that the brookwalkers did not notice any subsidence nor rats, however, 2 residents spoke up about their subsidence and my neighbor actually saw a rat right around that time. This will be addressed in the future. As to the “bottleneck”, Cranford has a project on the books resulting from the Rahway River Conservation program. This should lower the level of the Rahway river going through Cranford by 4 feet. (unsure if the boro engr was referring to the river bed or just the river water level.)
An olive branch for the Pointe: As noted before in past entries, there has not been a good rapport between the residents of the Pointe condos and the boro itself. The main issue is their claim of overtaxation since their complex does not received certain services that the general public receives. Even though, they were really sold out by the developer, the town was working towards helping the Pointe out to alleviate ill feelings. Cncl pres ST has been the point person in this. At this meeting mayor PQ announced that by resolution 13-289 the boro will agree to take over the hydrant service costs from the Pointe association. This was a good step. The hydrant costs are now included in the budget just like all the other hydrant costs normally are. They are our neighbors and should be treated as such even though they live is a “complex” whose construction was a town precedent. There are more similar complexes on the horizon since this appears to be the direction NJ is going in and so the boro is on a learning curve of adaptation. St Annes is the only one on the books right now. Aeolian, Casale, may be considered as upcoming high density developments of the future if the property is ever sold. (only a prognostication).
The “no” vote: What’s a council meeting without a “no” vote from councilor JM? This one was a “consent agenda” resolution #13-287 to lease a copier for $375/mo. He did not elaborate on his vote.
Brookwalk photos:
