Police: We've said repeatedly that 33 police supervisors and commanders is more than we need to supervise fewer than 80 patrol officers. We are going to work with the Township Manager and Chief Sabagh to reduce that number and use the resources to hire more patrol officers and engage in more community policing. We've never said, and don't believe, that we can do the latter without the former.

Competition & Outsourcing: Not for the first time, ROC is mixing two statements. We've flatly committed to saving at least $1 million by introducing competition. Sanitation will be part of that, likely a big part. We do not know exactly how much we can save from sanitation alone, because no one has asked the question, but sanitation is only one of the services for which we will seek competitive bids. We view $1 million in savings from outsourcing as a conservative goal, not a pie-in-the-sky promise.

"We've said repeatedly that 33 police supervisors and commanders is more than we need to supervise fewer than 80 patrol officers."

And the specific commitment by your slate (as cited by Mr. Susswein himself ) is to "take a close look at whether all supervisory, command and administrative personnel are needed." That is NOT a commitment to cut. If you'd like to make that clearer please do. "we will cut...." is specific "take a close look" is not.

"We've flatly committed to saving at least $1 million by introducing competition."

Flatly committed?

From your site:
"Benchmark costs of municipal departments; investigate outsourcing with the goal of saving $1 million annually."

"investigate" ... "with the goal" is not a flat commitment Mr. Jacobson. It's a vague attempt at seeming to make a commitment while leaving an escape hatch.

"oh, darn. Our goal was not met."

I don't know how you or your slate views a commitment, but to me it takes the form of

"We WILL save one million dollars through outsourcing or some other way".

We need, literally, commitments we can take to the bank. Not wished for goals.

If all you can offer is goals. Fine, so be it. Just don't insult our intelligence by pretending it's a specific firm commitment when it clearly is not.

If our municipal government is operating so efficiently that competitive bids can't save us at least $1 million, that would be a high class problem to have, but I don't think you or I believe that's the case. We're going to get competitive bids, and where we can recognize savings for taxpayers by going with a responsible competitor, we'll do it. We believe the $1 million savings figure is conservative but no one can take anything to the bank until we have bids in hand.

On the police supervisor issue, as a former employee of a police department similarly sized to Montclair's, I've wondered why we need captains to command 18-officer shift platoons, while my former department (and South Orange, where I grew up) both have lieutenants commanding shifts. That's one of many issues we would discuss with Chief Sabagh and the Township Manager if elected. We're highly motivated to find answers here, because we view hiring more patrol officers as a critical need but realize we can't do so unless we find savings elsewhere.

It's also important to point out, ROC, that we're having this discussion because our slate has put out specific proposals. You're free to criticize us for saying we're not proposing cuts large enough for your tastes, but the point of our email today -- that we've been specific where the other slates have not -- is undeniable.

"It's also important to point out, ROC, that we're having this discussion because our slate has put out specific proposals. You're free to criticize us for saying we're not proposing cuts large enough for your tastes, but the point of our email today -- that we've been specific where the other slates have not -- is undeniable."

I have not seen specific commitments to cuts by your slate except for the personal benefits of the slate members. Regarding ares of municipal spending you've only specified areas to investigated for the possibility of cuts. (with gaping escape hatches in place) That's the difference and the point.

Debt Reduction: Rival candidates have promised to cut our capital spending by more than half, to $3.5 million annually, in order to "pay down two dollars in debt for every one dollar of new borrowing." That promise will be impossible to keep; we have too many critical road repair needs, and no candidate making this promise has said which projects s/he would forego. Our slate will pay down a meaningful amount of debt each year, which is more than any recent prior Council can say, but we're not going to over-promise in this regard.

Parking: No, ROC, "easier" doesn't mean "more expensive." Please read the statement on parking we put out over the weekend at www.formontclair.com and you'll see what I mean.

Library/Pre-K: The current Council has already found money in the current budget for the Bellevue branch. All three slates have said they will restore Pre-K funding to the $125,000 level of last year, and foregoing Council health benefits alone makes up for that increase.

"Our slate will pay down a meaningful amount of debt each year, which is more than any recent prior Council can say, but we're not going to over-promise in this regard."

It's almost Orwellian. You claim to be "more specific" that other slates who mention specific dollar amounts. And in the same breath "commit" to payback a " meaningful amount of debt each year" ? How is that being more specific? You've also provided (yet another) escape hatch with "say no to any project that is not important to public safety or that is not expected to pay for itself within a reasonable time."

"Please read the statement on parking we put out over the weekend at www.formontclair.com and you'll see what I mean."

I did. http://formontclair.com/2012/03/29/our-positions-the-montclair-parking-authority/ The only specific thing I saw was that the collector should use the secure bucket. You also say "a consultant" found the payroll "bloated" by 15% yet don't even specifically say the payroll should be cut 15% should it?

ROC, the new parking statement (specifically concerning muni-meters and other improvements) is here: http://formontclair.com/2012/04/28/lets-improve-the-parking-situation-in-montclair-by-jeff-jacobson-candidate-for-third-ward-councilor/.

On reducing the debt, by all means, ask Mr. Jackson which proposed repair and replacement projects he will forego in order to meet his stated goal of reducing the capital budget to $3.5 million.

...Oh, I found the weekend statement.

You want to add expensive "Muni Meters" Like I said, more spending.

Here is my favorite part of your weekend statement:

"Hoboken reported a 30% increase in parking revenues from installation of muni-meters, and that was without changing its metered parking hours. " (with a link to: http://www.metricparking.com/08_16_09.html)

No "Hoboken" did not. The manufacturer of the muni meters did. And revenue is only one part of the calculation anyway. This kind of either sloppy reference (believing the sales pitch) or purposeful exaggeration ("Hoboken found") is precisely the kind of bamboozling that's led to our out of control debt.

ROC, what in the world are you talking about? The Hoboken quote in the linked article is "the City saw a 30% increase in revenue," and several news articles have quoted the same figure for Hoboken. That's not revenue to the meter company; it's revenue to the town. And Frank, many of these meters cost a lot less than $15,000. The ones you place on streets cover only eight spaces because you don't want parkers to have to walk too far to get to a meter; the larger ones go in lots and cover the entire lot.

The idea here is to get proposals and see what opportunities exist to increase both revenues and the number of parking spaces.

No you misunderstand.

That "article" is a PRESS RELEASE on the manufacturer's site. Perhaps not the most reliable source independent information on the products THEY SELL!

get it?

And, it being a press release and all they only mention revenue.

I might have a Bed and Breakfast which has 4 rooms, and I might borrow 5 million to double the size of my B&B and thus (violá!) have "increased revenue". It remains to be seen, however, if that loan is a good idea.

ROC, my article linked to two sources for Hoboken's increased revenues. The press release was one, this is another: http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2011/11/hoboken_to_complete_switch_to.html. You'll note that this second source claims a 40% increase in revenues; I used the more conservative of the two in my comments respecting Hoboken.

Anything else, or can you and I now agree that it makes eminent sense to get proposals for muni-meters and see what those proposals tell us?

"You'll note that this second source claims a 40% increase in revenues;"

Wrong again Jeff. The article says "With more parking and shorter meter repair time, he said revenue could increase by as much as 40 percent."

Catch that "could increase..." ? The city official who put in the meters said revenue "could increase..." Stop the presses! Headline "CITY OFFICIAL CLAIMS HIS IDEA A GOOD ONE".

That's almost as bad as our oft cited justification "it will pay for itself".

You've got to read carefully. A press release by the manufacturer and the hoped-for-what-MIGHT-happen speculation of a city official are precisely my point Jeff.

Got it, ROC. New York City was wrong to do this, Philadelphia was wrong to do this, Hoboken was wrong to do this. Only you have the wisdom to see through the hype.

When we say where we would find savings, you respond with "we can't take that statement to the bank; they're only promising a study." When we say we want to study something, like muni-meters, which numerous cities and towns have converted to successfully, you say "terrible idea."

Any time you want to come and debate me in the open, I'd welcome it. This sniping from the shadows grows tiresome.

"Got it, ROC. New York City was wrong to do this, Philadelphia was wrong to do this, Hoboken was wrong to do this. Only you have the wisdom to see through the hype."

We're not New York or Philly or even Hoboken. Our landscape is not urban. We have orders of magnitude less parking traffic than any of those other places. It doesn't take much wisdom to see that.

I will say this debate is indeed about a specific proposal. Something which can be discussed at length with actual quantitative facts. Im not sure how questioning the basis of your assumptions is "sniping".

Too bad we can't have a similar discussion of your savings and cuts, because (aside from your health insurance) you have not proposed any specific actions (other than study) for anything else.

I am harsly critical of specific proposals of spending increases with vague promises of areas to "study" for cuts and savings. Because that is precisely what's been the problem in the past. "lets spend now! and we'll plan to save later with something else".

I'm sure discussing that grows tiresome indeed.

The metrics provided are ambiguous. Is $15K the cost for a single pay station meter, and does that replace meters that took in an aggregate of $700-900 per year or does it replace up to 8 meters that EACH took in $700-900 per year?

Stuck,
$15K is single pay station well suited to cover a defined space lot. Primarily, because you don't have to go back to your car. Doesn't cover the extras. Just like us buying a smart phone.
Muni meters are a relatively unsophisticated upgrade from coin meters. Sort of like netbooks. I could list the pros and cons, but I'm tired. The big plus is no defined spaces. Depending on the mix of compacts to SUVs, you can add-lose as much as 25% of your original spaces. Just on a common sense basis, is walking 40' to/from a muni meter to place a paper receipt on your dash sound like a big upgrade? OK, for dinner and a movie. What about picking up a coffee and picking out a new pair of glasses? And there definitely, unequivocally will not be any zone transfer privileges (pay in one zone and use remaining time in another zone).

Frank, you've lost me here. Where have we proposed "bond[ing] thousands of debt for upgrades to Church Street"? And surely you're not suggesting that we have a glut of parking spaces downtown and couldn't benefit from increasing the number by 10%-15%, as muni-meters would allow us to do?

By the way, Millburn converted its outdoor lots to muni-meters, not (yet) its streets. That's a possibility for us, too. All will depend on results of an RFP. We should take the step that maximizes new revenues with the minimum investment.

Jeff,
I full support converting the lots in a phased implementation where the increased revenue cover the new machines. Upper Montclair is an excellent case study here in town of a 77 space lot that would show the cost/benefit analysis plus some important lessons learned about equipment, lighting and maintenance among others. Totally focusing on the muni meter aspects.

In my view, expanding the current (one- or two-hour limit) meters to 9:00 PM isn't feasible. Particularly with respect the one-hour meters, people can't exactly run out of a Wellmont show to feed the meter and run back in. Muni-meters would give us the flexibility expand to four-hour parking in the evenings. Yes, we'd need to increase enforcement hours, too, but we have ideas on how to do that economically. And note, by the way, that the winning South Park bid includes installation of muni-meters, so we should start seeing hard stats once that street reopens.

As for your 3-4 year number, I still don't know how you're deriving it. I've looked at this a few different ways and come out with at least $100 in additional revenues per block, per week, or $5000 extra per year, conservatively. That's from adding an extra space per block, requiring each new parker to pay the fee and slightly expanding the parking hours.

Jeff,
We sold 56 municipal-owned (not MPA) parking spots for which we got $155,000-$175,000. It is out of of that sale of assets that the muni meters are being paid for.

Paine,

the griping about anonymity usually comes when they can't support a point in their argument. It's a method of distraction and deflection. After all, if these machines were really only $4000, the politician would be all to happy to tell you where they could be had. I'm sure the people in Hoboken would like to know, they paid (according to Mr. Jacobson's own source) $8000.

No residents have either...