2/4/10 Presentation to Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders
I am David Weiner president of CWA Local 1081 located at 60 Park Place, Newark, New Jersey.
At last week’s Freeholder Board meeting I asked several questions about two ordinances that have been submitted to the freeholders for their approval. Despite assurances from Freeholder President Watson I would receive a written reply, the Administration had not provided our Union a response to the following questions as of the time I prepared this presentation this afternoon:
Ordinance #0-10-0004: BOND ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS COUNTY PARKS IN AND BY THE COUNTY OF ESSEX, NEW JERSEY, APPROPRIATING $1,500,000.00 THEREFORE AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $1,425,000.00 BONDS OR NOTES OF THE COUNTY FOR FINANCING SUCH APPROPRIATIONS.
According to the written response our Union received from Freeholder Board Budget Consultant Frank McEnerney on January 27, 2010 to our questions posed in this regard at the January 21, 2010 Freeholder Board public meeting, this ordinance “is for the “Park Rehabilitation Program which consist of general improvements to various Essex County Parks facilities including, but not limited to, feasibility study, environmental study, engineering assessment, asbestos remediation, landscaping, paths improvements, irrigation, parking facilities improvements, building improvements, and drainage improvements”.
Essex County Executive DiVincenzo has been quoted numerous times within the press, most recently with an article published within the November 29, 2009 edition of the Star Ledger asserting that “he has leveraged his office to reel in state Green Acres funds and paired them with county Open Space dollars to finance his park makeovers” and he has denied using any of the County’s taxpayers’ dollars to do so in response to my many public criticism of the scores of millions of dollars he has spent upon the parks, the golf courses and the zoo. On February 3, 2009 Joe D was quoted within the Star Ledger as asserting “"These projects ... do not increase our debt service and cannot be used for operating expenses or salaries". What is the truth?
Ordinance #0-10-0005: BOND ORDINANCE SUPPLEMENTING ORDINANCE 07-0034 WHICH PROVIDED FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS COUNTY GOLF COURSES WHICH BOND ORDINANCE AUTHORIZES THE ISSUANCE OF $950,000.00 BONDS OR NOTES OF THE COUNTY FOR FINANCING SUCH APPROPRIATIONS.
According to the written response our Union received from Freeholder Board Budget Consultant Frank McEnerney this ordinance “is the authorization for funding an appropriation that has been previously authorized in the amount of $7,000,000 in Ordinance #07-0034 for improvements at various County golf courses including, but not limited to, drainage, irrigation, cart paths, tree work, and bunkers”.
The August 25, 2009 edition of the Star Ledger reported Mr. DiVincenzo announcing his hiring the first ever superintendent of the County’s golf courses at an annual salary of $105,000, not including benefits. Mr. DiVincenzo was quoted as asserting “The funding for the projects came from the county's capital improvement budget, but DiVincenzo said it will be repaid through a gradual hike in user fees” and that “Revenue from the fees has increased by $150,000 from the same period last year and that the courses raise about $4 million a year in fees and golf ID cards”. Why then is the administration proposing to bond an additional nearly $1,000,000 on top of $6,000,000 for improvements to the County’s golf courses? What is the truth?
Bond Indebtedness: At the January 21, 2010 Freeholder Board meeting I believe it was asserted by the Administration upon the public record that the County has an annual bond debt with interest of $99 million per year. and a bond debt service payment of $90 million per year. Freeholder Clark asked what the total amount of bond indebtedness has been incurred by the County of Essex to date. I believe I heard Mr. McEnerney state that it’s nearly $1 billion. Is this true? Does the County of Essex actually owe a total of $1 billion in bonds? If so, why does the Administration’s profligate spending continue?
Resolution # 17. DEPARTMENT PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL AFFAIRS – CONTRACT AWARD TO SHAUGER PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, TO FURNISH AND INSTALL BENCHES, TRASH RECEPTACLES, AND TREES IN VERONA PARK AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $67,507.17.
Why is this resolution marked with the triple asterisk which means that “Formal Action May Be Taken” this evening? What is so imperative about the installation of benches, trash receptacles and trees in Verona Park that this resolution can’t be treated as a regular resolution and voted upon by the Freeholder Board at it’s next week’s meeting after the Freeholders and the public have had a chance to read, digest and carefully consider the merits of the proposed contract? Is Shauger Property Services actually planning to plant trees within Verona Park in February?