Good evening
Council members. For anyone who does not
know, I am Bill Nierstedt; I have been the Planning Director for the City of Plainfield for 17
years. As you are aware, Planning
Division employees were recently advised that our jobs might be outsourced to
consultants. We strongly believe that
the work of the Planning Division cannot be outsourced without loss of service
to our city residents, nor will any significant savings be realized. In making the recommendation to outsource,
the functions of the division have been significantly underestimated. Numerous successes have not been
acknowledged. The ability to generate
‘economy and efficiency’ as a result of outsourcing is not adequately
substantiated. Risks and erosion of
services to Plainfield
residents have not been considered in detail sufficient to propose such action.
Finally, there are other actions that
can be taken to address issues within the Division without jeopardizing
service. I submit to you that this
proposal is ill advised, badly timed, not well thought out, and insensitive to
the needs of our community. The goal of
my presentation tonight is to convince you that taking this action is not in
the best interests of Plainfield,
and to give you reasons why having an internal Planning Division is by far the
best option.
Let’s dismiss the
‘economy’ argument immediately, and put faces on this nebulous proposal. This proposal would affect the jobs and lives
of four real people. They are licensed
professional planner Scott Bauman who has given Plainfield 16 years of his
experience, April Stefel, a licensed landscape architect who has given 10
years, Ron Johnson who has worked for the city three years and me. 46 years of experience for the city; over 80
years of professional experience.
Together we work 6,697 hours/ year.
Including salary and benefits, our services cost the city $356,949, or
roughly $50.00/hour. What will a consultant charge for those same hours? Based
on the most recent response to an RFP issued by the Planning Division, a
consultant would charge a minimum of $140/hour.
Calculations show that that comes to a total of $937,580/year. That’s
almost 2.6 times what the city pays the Planning Division for the same
services. Thus a consultant would limit Plainfield to 38% of the
hours the Planning Division currently provides.
A review of recent RFP responses shows that all of the consultants
charge more per hour than the city pays the Planning Division, so the only way
they can submit a competitive proposal is by using less qualified and
experienced junior planners and reducing the hours they will serve the city to
8/week. There will be no savings for
the city unless the number of consulting hours is less than 38% of the Planning
Division hours, and the city cost will increase when the consultant exceeds
38%. So consultants will charge more per
hour and provide fewer hours of service to city residents. There is no economy savings here.
So why do
consultants submit a proposal when their basic numbers are so much greater than
the city’s current costs? Because their
goal is not to provide the day-day services that Scott, April, Ron and I
provide. They are after the escrow
dollars that don’t show up in any RFP response.
Let me explain. The law allows
Scott, April and I to charge for our professional services. When we review site plans, attend board
meetings and prepare planning reports, we charge the applicant, and the
applicant pays the city for these services. So far this year we have billed
over $50,000. A consultant wants these
escrow dollars. They will charge every developer and resident who submits a
board application more than we do, and they will charge for every minute. So, not only would this proposal cost the
city more money, it would also cost developers and residents more money. At a
time that we are encouraging development, this does not make economic sense.
Any efficiency
argument must start with an understanding of what the Planning Division
does. The RFP the city recently issued
is sorely lacking in this regard. While
it contains bullet points outlining responsibilities, they are so vague that
they are open to individual and legal interpretation. Consultants had to make their own assumptions
as to their level of effort required.
The easy way to submit a low proposal was to reduce the number of hours
proposed to work, reach the hourly limit of their contract and then return to
the city for change orders. The only way
to save money is to cut services. That
is what they all propose to do.
So what does the
Planning Division do? Planning has been an in-house Plainfield service since the 1960s. Through urban renewal, Model Cities, CDBG
programs, the MLUL adoption, from Directors Elliot Weinstein, Gunthil Sondhi,
John Szabo and me, the planning division has provided professional, unbiased,
recommendations on housing, transportation, and land use to 12
administrations. Since my tenure began,
the Planning Division has prepared the complex and innovative ‘197 Scattered
Site’, Park Madison, Teppers, North Avenue, Marino’s, Elmwood Gardens, and South
Avenue redevelopment plans, completed the 2009 Master plan reexamination,
reviewed on average 40 Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment
applications a year, coordinated the annual Six Year Capital Improvement Plan,
prepared over 20 resolutions and ordinances for Council review annually,
updated the land use ordinance on a bi-annual basis, maintained the city tax
maps, updated and maintained the City Recreation and Open Space Plan, provided
administrative services for the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Adjustment,
Historic Preservation Commission, and Shade Tree Commission, and administered
the Brownfield cleanups city wide. We
drafted regulations- which city council adopted- that preserved residential
properties and values by reducing permitted densities and increasing minimum
lot sizes, prevented over crowding, the destruction of historic structures, and
the introduction of non- residential uses in residential zones, kept rooming
houses, Bayonne boxes, illegal residential conversions, juice bars, outdoor
commercial storage operations, and cell towers in residential zones out of the
city. We submitted and received grants for brownfield cleanups, shade tree
plantings, historic preservation, trail, and city hall restoration grants. We
wrote and advanced the transit oriented development standards for the Plainfield and Netherwood
train stations, and are advancing the West End TOD. We submitted and received the NJDOT Transit
Village designation. We
conducted over 500 annual zoning reviews and advanced municipal court
enforcement actions.
We also service
over 1,500 in-person customer visits every year. That does not include the
thousands of phone calls or e-mails. Residents are able to come to our office
all day long to get answers. Where will
they go after a consultant is hired?
They will hear a phone message advising them to dial ‘1’ if they need
zoning information, ‘2’ for historic preservation information, ‘3’ for master
plan questions, etc. They will be told
that they will receive a phone call back, after the consultant turns on their
clock, opens up the book and begins to research the question to which April,
Scott, Ron and I know the answer off the top of our heads. Someone may be in
the office between 10 and 2:00PM on alternate Thursdays, and maybe one night a
week. Efficiency perhaps; I prefer to
call it loss of service for Plainfield
residents.
Prior to being
notified of our impending layoff, no one spoke to me about a sudden budget
need. I ask if this Council is aware of
a sudden budget crisis? Is there a larger plan to eliminate or outsource other
employees or divisions? The
administration advises they are proposing to eliminate our jobs because Plainfield is the last Union County
town with an in-house planning division.
That is not true, Elizabeth
has a Planning Director; he performs different tasks than we do. So our jobs are being outsourced because the
1700 Winfield residents, or the 4,200 Garwood residents, or 7,600 Fanwood
residents don’t have one? 18 of the 21 Union County
municipalities are less populated than Plainfield,
and we have to follow their lead? Plainfield is
unique; we are a city; we are not like other Union County
suburbs. The Planning Division has
compared Plainfield
to towns similar to us – the 53 other Urban Aid Communities. Towns like Asbury Park,
Hackensack, Hoboken,
Long Branch, Montclair,
New Brunswick, Passaic,
Paterson and Trenton.
Communities with which we share socio-economic and population
similarities. Over half of these towns
have in-house planning divisions. Plainfield
is six square miles, has a population of over 50,000 people. Only two Union County
towns have more residents. We have more historic districts than any Union
County town, a state designated Transit Village, two transit oriented
development areas, 10 redevelopment areas, two 100 acre county parks, the
largest disparity of income, the greatest diversity of ethnic populations, more
affordable housing than our fair share, more group homes. We have suffered the loss of our largest
employer. Plainfield is not like other Union County
towns. We have planning issues they have
not yet conceived. There is no reason
for us to follow their lead in regards to planning. We are also the only Union
County town with two fully operating train stations; should we eliminate one?
Outsourcing government
jobs has become standard operating procedure because private consultants say
they can do the same job for less money.
Many times it does not work because a consultant cannot cost less when
they have to cover higher salaries, overhead, and professional liability
insurance. The city currently outsources engineering; why can’t planning be out
sourced? Because outsourcing engineering
does not work. A city our size needs to
have a full time in-house engineer. Our
current 1 day/week consultant engineering simply does not provide engineering
and infrastructure planning that our city requires. Updating flood maps and reducing flood
insurance rates for our residents are two engineering tasks that have not yet
been completed years after consultants started billing for them. Does this
Council recall voting on increased engineering contracts for Remington
Vernick? The same situation would exist
in planning if this proposal were advanced.
Our city has a
planning staff of dedicated, educated, experienced, certified and licensed
individuals with a long institutional memory and vested interest that no
consultant will be able to replace. We care about our city. Two of us live in Plainfield.
With the unpaid hours that I put in, my wife thinks that I do also. We average over 140 hours/week – more than we
get paid for; a consultant is going to charge for every minute. Four certified/licensed professionals with
over 80 years of experience currently serve the people of Plainfield. We have an institutional memory
that improves the development process because we have the ability to link and
take into account how various projects interrelate. We are able to meet with developers and
provide historical context for their developments. Outsourcing means that the city will pay a
consultant to learn the intellectual property that the current staff already
knows.
The Administration
wants a streamlined development process; so does the Planning Division. The Administration wants increased
development in our city; so does the Planning Division. Is the Planning
Division tough on developers? We
consistently apply the code adopted by this City Council to all developments.
We are unbiased, color-blind, and equal opportunity. We do not give away city
assets. We fight for and protect neighborhood rights. The Planning Board
recently implemented a Technical Review Committee in partnership with the
administration. It is designed to help
streamline the review process and save time for all involved by resolving
issues before they come to the board.
This process has been somewhat effective, but it has only been in
practice for a short time. Nothing works perfectly overnight, and we have had
some growing pains that need to be addressed.
We can address them together.
This proposal was sprung on the Planning Division and this Council
without any discussion. I submit that an
open discussion is needed to determine if ‘day to day’ Planning Division
services should be altered or scaled back.
Process improvement is something that the Planning Division welcomes.
Discussion and review should be undertaken before radically seeking to
eliminate the Division.
In closing, I state
that this proposal will result in additional city costs, fewer services for our
residents, and less work being undertaken or completed. If revenue needs to be increased, or expenses
cut, I ask the administration to discuss the issues with me so that we can
explore other solutions. Let’s sit down and discuss what needs to be done
proactively and transparently, not antagonistically. In making your decision tonight, I ask
Council members if an adequate plan has been put forth to enable you to
confidently decide that the proposal will somehow save the city money, not cut
resident’s services, and provide for all the tasks that the Planning Division provides. As it has not, I ask that you please do not
support this proposal. I close with a
quote from Susan Duerksen, director of communications for “In the Public
Interest”. “ Governments at all levels
are just desperate to balance their budgets, and they’re grasping at
privatization as a panacea. But there’s
evidence that it often is a very bad idea with hidden costs and consequences
when you turn over public service to a for-profit company”. I hope that I have clearly made the case that
the city comes out way ahead if it retains our planning division. Thank you.
Posts
