Council rescinds latest budget amendment Time to adopt spending plan running out, according to statute BY CHRIS GAETANO Staff Writer The Edison Township Council voted to rescind its latest budget amendment, due to what was said to be a procedural error as well as lingering questions about some specific budget items. This move pushes the adoption of a budget to at least March, with a public hearing scheduled by the council for the end of February. The township's finances operate on a fiscal year timetable that ends in June, meaning that discussions of the next budget year would be set to begin in about four months. According to state statute 40A:4- 10 Adoption of Budget, municipalities must adopt a budget by March 20. The unanimous vote, which took place without discussion or comment during the Feb. 13 council meeting, essentially puts the budget process back to start, with progress on adopting an amendment essentially wiped clean. As it stands now, the proposed budget, without amendment, is about $115 million, which would represent a roughly 14 percent tax increase. An amendment from Mayor Jun Choi was said to reduce the initial budget's tax levy increase to about 9.8 percent as the first part of his potential three-year plan to stabilize property taxes. According to Councilman Anthony Massaro, the council had decided to rescind the budget amendment because a public hearing on it had not yet taken place and to adopt a budget amendment without a public hearing would "be a disservice to the taxpayers." Another issue in the delay had to do with acquiring state approval of certain aspects of the proposed budget amendment. BusinessAdministrator Anthony Cancro said the state Division of Local Government Services had not approved the full amendment yet, which was the reason why the completed document could not be provided to the council that night. Massaro also said he had concerns about a $700,000 revenue item stemming from a developer's agreement from an unnamed developer and noted that before he could move on, he would want more information about who this developer is and what he or she might want. "My reason to do this is if themayor has chosen to include $700,000 from that developer in our budget, and the budget is a public document, then the public has a right to know," said Massaro. He said he is prepared to pursue this information outside the council chambers if need be. When asked if he means pursuing litigation, he answered yes. During the meeting, many people expressed disapproval at how convoluted they felt the budget process has become. "It's really taken turns that I don't think anyone could have anticipated … I don't think anyone could have scripted this. This is very unusual," said council President Robert Diehl. "I apologize it's taken this long." Resident Joe Petrucelli, a regular at townmeetings, stated during themeeting's public portion that it was also important to know how much money had already been spent during the current fiscal year.He reasoned that since money for this year is already being collected and spent, despite not having an adopted budget, it makes sense to account for those funds when determining a spending plan for that same year. He also said it was important to know because looking at the line items can ensure that the government is not exceeding the amount that would be budgeted to them. Former Councilman Salvatore Pizzi agreed with this sentiment when he spoke during the public portion. "You are eight months into the budget and these appropriations are for a whole year. …You should ask the administration 'It's been eight months, do you really need this much now?' " said Pizzi. Cancro said that all the documentation that the council needs tomake an informed decision, including a 172-page line item account, has already been provided and that "there is no other documentation to give." He also said that both the current and previous chief financial officers for the township have certified each month that the township is not spending more than has been allotted. Petrucelli responded that the information should be released to the public instead of having to rely on a certification, so figures can be double-checked. This development is the latest in a series of budget-related difficulties in Edison. During the winter and fall last year, a great deal of conflict emerged between the Township Council - which at that point did not have the four new members - and the administration over the release of the line item budget details. The administration had dismissed these demands as political grandstanding, saying that the figures were still being worked on. However, certain council members, including Massaro, had accused the administration of stonewalling. The line item details were finally released to both the council - which at that point had turned over, with the winners of the last election taking their seats - and the public on Jan. 9. According to Cancro, when the township finally receives its approval from the state, a new document will be provided, with footnotes explaining its differences from the previous one. At that point, a full public hearing will be able to be held and a budget can be adopted. giving the civilian director actual police powers, which state statute prohibits. "[The ordinance] clearly would give law enforcement powers and day-to-day operations to the director, and that clearly comes under the statute of chief," said Wieners. When asked about other towns that have police directors, presumably lawfully, Wieners said that the structure there is different from what is proposed in Edison. He pointed to Elizabeth as a perfect example, saying that in that town, a police chief handles day-to-day policy while a director creates general policy. He said that the state PBA is adamantly supports a police chief in Edison rather than a police director and said that the organization is willing to pursue litigation if necessary. Township spokesman Jerry Barca, however, said that the administration is just as committed to a police director instead of a police chief. "We remain strongly committed to appointing a police director to help improve this police department," said Barca. Representatives from the township and the PBA met Feb. 15 to discuss the matter further, and both sides said that their conversation had been productive. "The mayor is considering a number of suggestions about the ordinance," said Barca. "The meeting went well. [There was] sharing of ideas. Communicating," said Wieners. Edison Mayor Jun Choi had proposed creating the position of civilian police director, which would be occupied by DEA agent Brian Collier, to head the department earlier last month. Choi said that this would remove politics from the force because the director would be held accountable directly to the administration, as opposed to a tenured chief, who would be much more difficult to remove if things go sour. Opponents of the civilian director measure, including the local PBA, have said that a chief 's tenure is the number one reason why a chief is preferable to a police director, saying that a director would lack independence from the administration, whereas a chief would be able to make decisions that are sound, regardless of whether or not they are politically unpalatable. Also at issue, though this was not discussed by the state PBA, is another measure that would remove the in-grade durational requirements from the force. As it is now, officers must have a certain number of years of experience before being able to be considered for promotion. Removing this requirement would allow Choi's nomination for deputy chief, Lt. Thomas Bryan, to bypass the needed ranks. Choi said that removing these requirements allows the most qualified officers to rise to the top quickly and that the current system can result in stasis and stagnation at the top ranks. Opponents have said that experience is very important and that having people skip ranks can be demoralizing to other officers who might be hoping to work their way up slowly through the ranks. Both measures came in the wake of the sudden retirement of former Police Chief George Mieczkowski in November. While there had not been a public hearing that night, some at the meeting expressed their views during its public portion. One resident, Lin Ziskowski, was particularly vocal against a police director and for a police chief, wanting Deputy Chief Mel Vaticano to fill that role. She spoke at length about what she felt were Vaticano's merits, including the amount of experience he has on the force, before concluding that the township would be better off if he were chief. "We do not need a police director when we have a candidate, a chief, who is more qualified to lead this department," said Ziskowski. A new public hearing on the matter is set to take place at the end of this month.