Last-minute budget amendment fails Some on council will try again; others question the point of doing so BY CHRIS GAETANO Staff Writer EDISON - A last-minute effort to amend the mayor's preliminary budget stumbled during a Nov. 28 Township Council meeting, over concerns that such moves would lead to layoffs and service reductions. While some members of the council are determined to press on with an amendment before the new council is sworn in next month, others believe that such efforts amount to little more than wheelspinning. The measure, which died when no one would second it, would have cut down the administration's preliminary $115 million budget to what was perceived as a more manageable level. If the preliminary budget, which was introduced to the council around the end of September, went through with no changes or revisions, it would represent a 15 percent tax increase. The amendment that failed in the council would have chopped the increase down to 5 percent. The move came from the council's frustration over a lack of detailed budget documents, which would have given them a line-by-line accounting of everything that was in the proposed spending plan. Township spokesman Jerry Barca said the administration does have every intention of giving out detailed budget documents and that the budget will be able to be viewed and questioned by township residents in an open public meeting with opportunity for comment. Unless this meeting happens within the next month, the current council will not be the ones conducting the budget hearing; four incumbent members of the council were defeated in the Democratic primary this year and will be replaced by the council members backed by Edison Mayor Jun Choi come 2008. Councilman Sal Pizzi said that, lacking the line item details, the council was going to use the latest annual spending report to determine where cuts need to be made. He was prepared to present the budget amendment during the Wednesday meeting, but said that last-minute information from the finance committee made him reconsider, saying that it would hurt the town. "I found out that the premise of some of my cuts or additions [didn't work]; the money wasn't there because of a revised annual report. So, I'm tweaking another budget amendment to present to the council," said Pizzi. He explained that he and others working on the amendment had been working with an inaccurate annual spending report that did not account for about a million dollars that had been used in tax appeals. This threw off his calculations and he thus said he could not support the original amendment in good conscience. He said that he would try to get a revised amendment together in time for the next council meeting in the hopes of passing an amended budget before he leaves office. Council President Charles Tomaro, who is also set to leave office at the end of the year, is skeptical that anything will come of this. He said that even if the amendment were sound, there is no way that it could be sent to Trenton and approved by the state Department of Community Affairs in time. "It's not going to happen. I know there's some council members who will try to make it happen, but I will not support it because, one, it will cripple the town and force layoffs. It would be great to get it down to 5 cents, but its not realistic. Even our auditor, who works for us, who audits the books, he recommended we never even consider that amendment because of its impacts to the residents of Edison," Tomaro said. Tomaro was also frustrated by the lack of a state probe into the dearth of information the council was receiving from the administration. He said the council had received a letter earlier in the week denying their request that the state investigate the absence of line-item budget details. However, he also said that he was not surprised, either, noting that the way the state law is set up, while the mayor is obligated to give the details to the council, there is no penalty for not doing so. "I almost kind of figured it was going to come back that way. … Yes, by law you're supposed to give it to us one week prior to the hearing, and he did not do that, but the end of that is there is no penalty for not giving it to us. … if that's his decision, that his decision, and we tried," said Tomaro.