Teaneck Blog

Casting a wary eye on Teaneck politics and municipal affairs

Monday, May 14, 2007

Wallflowers

One of the most frequently mentioned buzzwords in New Jersey politics is "shared services." Whether or not a program of consolidating resources and forming partnerships across town and county lines to save taxpayer money is the answer to all, or even a significant portion, of the state's fiscal problems remains to be seen. Nonetheless, most observers would allow that there are some relatively simple steps that could be taken to cut costs by joining forces with neighboring municipalities to eliminate redundant infrastructure or to secure discounts by purchasing supplies in bulk.

That said, we have heard relatively little about such initiatives in Teaneck. Given the fixation shared by Mayor Katz and the Council majority on finding ways to lower property tax bills, one would think this largely painless method of lowering expenditures would constantly be in the headlines. Instead, we have been occupied with ambitious development plans that are both contentious and, at least in the short term, unlikely to yield any real tax savings. The Mayor's suggestion to explore the use of shared services to combat the gang problem last week was one of the few times the concept has been invoked publicly over the past few months.

While we in Teaneck have battled over future direction, neighboring towns have already taken some tentative steps toward putting theory into practice. As the Record reported yesterday, "Hackensack and seven other towns -- Rochelle Park, Maywood, Elmwood Park, Saddle Brook, Garfield, Fair Lawn and Paramus -- formed the Central Bergen Consortium six months ago" to find ways to reduce costs through sharing as the Northwest Bergen Consortium of thirteen towns in our area has been doing for a while. As other towns pair off with their dance partners, we in Teaneck could be left standing alone with only our spiraling tax bills to keep us company.

Though it may not command a prominent place in the proceedings, the most important item up for discussion on tomorrow's Council agenda may be item #3 under "Old Business": Shared Services. There may be more glamor in talking up major new developments than implementing plans for joint bidding for road paving, but the only thing that really matters is the bottom line. Officials must remember that it's lower tax bills and not higher ratables or any other metric that is the ultimate objective here.

12 Comments:

At 5:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our municipal departments are extremely reluctant to share Teaneck's "superior" services with the "inferior" equivalent departments roundabout Teaneck.

 
At 7:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was an op ed piece in the Record this morning which, athough written by a partisan Republican operative, may have some bearing on this and the previous blog discussion:

* In an effort to create more big and wasteful bureaucracies, Trenton has promoted the notion that school districts and towns should be consolidated and offered so-called incentives to do so. But if consolidation and regionalization worked to save money, then regional school districts and big cities would be the most cost effective. They aren't. They are, instead, the most wasteful forms of government, so what's the point of creating more of them?

Consolidating school districts and towns has the ring of merger and is not quite the same thing as sharing services. But you can imagine how larger scale purchasing and administration of services may not always result in greater economies of scale. I for one would definitely want to be very careful before entering into a consortium with towns like Hackensack, Garfield and even Fair Lawn.

* A recent report issued by a Wall Street bond rating firm says that the [4% municipal and school spending] caps will force local governments to use up more of their surplus funds, leaving little cash reserve for emergencies. The report, according to the Trenton Times, predicts "some townships may actually raise taxes to account for future shortfalls."

Just thought that was interesting in light of the discussion on "rounding up" the tax rate and the impact its elimination could have on towns' surplus funds.

 
At 8:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous 5:27;

Are you joking? Teaneck's "superior" services? This has got to be a joke if I ever heard one!

 
At 8:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both the municipal government and the school system already participate in shared services through group buying consortiums in Bergen County. Just because they weren't acknowledged in the article doesn't mean it hasn't already been happening for some years. The fact is, other towns (large and small) are now jumping on board where we have led.

 
At 9:47 PM, Blogger Teaneck Blog said...

Thank you, Anonymous 7:49 pm, for the link to the opinion piece. I agree with your assessment of the essentially partisan nature of the piece. Nonetheless, I think it is worth responding to the point about shared services.

First of all, the author seems to take issue with state mandated consolidation and regionalization (read: elimination of small, independent suburban school districts), which is not what we are considering here. But let's take his point and apply it to our discussion. While it is undoubtedly correct that adding extra layers of bureaucracy and administration that are far removed from the actual schools or towns they are meant to be serving will have the opposite of the intended effect, it is equally certain that each one of the 566 municipalities in the state does not need a full complement of local officials, facilities, and equipment. There are certainly savings to be realized there. Should the state compel Teaneck to document that it has found ways of sharing services for the sake of sharing services? Certainly not. Teaneck should aggressively seek ways to share services because it makes financial sense to do so, not because it suits someone in Trenton. Just because massive, plodding, centralized governments are inefficient doesn't mean we can't save a few hundred thousand dollars by sharing heavy equipment with Hackensack or putting contracts out to bid jointly with Bergenfield.

 
At 10:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it interesting how the tone of the blogger seems to always be negative and attacking Mayor Katz and the Council. Why didn't you e-mail the manager or the Mayor and ask "I was wondering, I have read a lot about shared services. what is Teaneck doing." you probably would have heard how Teaneck buys from all the same cooporatives you mention plus more.

Mayor Katz just mentioned at a Council meeting a few weeks ago how we are now sharing services with Hackensack's DPW, and that under his leadership for the first time the town is trying to share services.

you just said when it came to gangs
"The answer to Chief Tiernan's plan need not be an unqualified yes, but it also cannot be "no way." " - why didnt you mention Mayor Katz's quote in the article "called for a regional solution to the problem. "We're exploring all options," Katz said. "Including perhaps sharing services with some of our neighboring towns that have the same issue."

 
At 11:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the area communities have the same gang problem.

 
At 7:37 AM, Blogger Teaneck Blog said...

I find it interesting how the tone of the blogger seems to always be negative and attacking Mayor Katz and the Council.

Listen, I'm no Edward Stack, but I am in the main supportive of this Council and its goals. :-) Where I sometimes differ is in how to accomplish them. If what was written here was the most "negative " "attack" they faced, I think the Mayor and the Council members would be quite pleased.

 
At 10:00 AM, Blogger Halo30k said...

I think the town does a awful job in how they manage our resources. Everybody wants local control which means poor service delivery, no use of best practices in our muni services. The parks are in poor shape, the schools for the price are average. If we have any opportunity to share or trade or leverage we should do it. Its just good management science in any field.

 
At 10:01 AM, Blogger Halo30k said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 3:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Teaneck just spent 20k on a new rescue boat that it won't ever use. If a boat is really needed than the county police or a neighboring FD can respond.

Duplication of services.

Your taxes at work.

 
At 4:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

20k for a boat...what a god awful waste of money!
But I guess the Township likes to waste money especially if they keep getting suckers like us that allow them to keep wasting it!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home