UM budget for 2010

At Thursday night’s Upper Merion (UM) Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting dealing with the 2010 budget, Reason, Facts, and Civil Discourse were scarce; instead, Emotions, Fear-mongering, and Intimidation were rampant.

It is without question that UM police do a superb, professional job of protecting the Township’s citizens and visitors, 24/7, 365 days of the year. They are also well-compensated financially for their absolutely essential, often dangerous, and sometimes life-threatening work. By comparison, in terms of danger and life-threatening situations, UM’s firefighters are volunteers who also put their lives on the line – for no pay at all – and who incidentally saw double-digit reductions in the financial support they receive from the Township for their 2010 operations.

Nevertheless, on Thursday I heard a lot of emotional appeals against temporary furloughs and the possibility of laying off up to 4 police officers (one officer did 2 tours of duty in Iraq, “my kids and your kids go to school with their kids”, crime will increase and police department morale will suffer), but little in the way of substance, a lot of inaccuracies, and very few facts. How did we get to this impasse?

We should start by admitting that there is a lot of blame to go around, and that this situation is not as “black and white” as some would have us believe. In the past year, I have spent considerable time informing myself about UM matters. I did so because I was running for a seat on UM’s BOS. While I was not successful in my quest, I learned a great deal about UM and hope you’ll indulge me as I try to share some of that information. Let’s take a look at some facts:

- Ongoing coverage of our local issues – including the budget, and BOS meetings – by local newspapers is poor. Evidence of this lack of coverage: the recent election results for UM Supervisors, Tax Collector and Auditor never appeared in the King of Prussia Courier, but were reported only in the Times Herald.

- The poor coverage of UM matters by local newspapers is rivaled only by the apathy of our own citizens, who typically don’t get involved until their own personal interests are directly affected. In some sense, this is human nature; however, the local newspapers do, at a minimum, post meeting times, and even though we have elected the supervisors to represent us, it does not relieve citizens in a democracy from the duty to stay informed and involved.

- For the past 6 or so years, prior to the current recession in which we find ourselves, the BOS allowed our cash reserves to be dipped into for 4 or 5 of those years in order to comply with State requirements that we have a balanced budget. By December 2008, we were in the throes of the current recession, the likes of which had never been seen by my generation, and we were facing a year of uncharted territory in a shaky and unsettled economy. One Board member, though, was prescient enough to warn against reliance on past revenue numbers as a predictor of future revenues and urged that the BOS be more proactive in preparing for 2009. At the risk of annoying those who will complain that hindsight is 20/20, I would suggest that those who voted for the 2009 budget did not take those conditions and that warning seriously enough.

- At one of the 5 Township budget workshops that I recently attended, a 1% EIT (Earned Income Tax) was discussed, as was a possible increase in real estate taxes over and above the increase for the Library Fund already included in the 2010 budget. In my opinion, if taxes were to be an issue, they should have been “on the table” much earlier in the year, particularly when it became clear that revenues were even worse than expected, and that ongoing cuts to services and belt-tightening measures in all departments were not going to be sufficient to stave off another year of delving into the cash reserves. Additional possible tax increases were only suggested at the 11th hour, and then dismissed. Why? Several reasons were cited: the acknowledgment that many township residents are among the ranks of the unemployed or who, if employed, had not seen any raises for the past 2 years, and would be hurt by an EIT or an increase in real estate taxes; the desire to have township employees, whose pay increase of 5% would remain intact, lead by example by sacrificing one day a month to avoid layoffs, and lastly, because coming so late in the year, an 11th hour adoption of a tax increase, even a “temporary” one, would not allow sufficient notice and public discussion by all affected.

- The 2010 operating budget contains drastic cuts to all department budgets – with one exception – the Police Department. The operating budget for Police Services comprises virtually 44% (43.82%) of the Township’s operating budget – the largest expense category by far – yet it still received a 1% increase in funding in the new proposed budget for 2010. In contrast, the operating budgets for Fire Protection, Safety & Codes, Public Works, Parks & Recreation & Library combined do not constitute as large an expense as the police, yet those budgets have all been slashed, as follows: Fire Protection (includes Rescue Services): -11.6%; Safety & Codes: -10.9%; Public Works (General Fund): -11.6%; Public Works (Transportation): -19%; Public Works (Parks): -20.8%; Public Works (Vehicle & Building Maintenance): -7.5% and -15.8%, respectively; Parks & Recreation: -8.7% and Library: -5.8%. As evidenced by the numbers, it is clear that even in these difficult economic times, the BOS places a high value on its police services and made deep cuts in other areas, in trying to find the right balance for its residents.

- A hiring freeze was implemented in 2009 and every department is making do with less. In contrast though, the police have remained staffed at a level that would be necessary only upon completion of the Village at Valley Forge. [The Board-approved total number of officers is 62; there are now 64]. At one of the budget workshops, Chief Ron Fonock explained that the 2 additional officers were hired in order to be proactive, specifically citing the amount of time necessary to train new police officers. Hiring and training officers in anticipation of significant population growth and expansion is good management, and it was a reasonable decision at the time it was made. However, circumstances have changed dramatically since then and the conditions justifying those additional hires have not materialized – as anyone can see who drives past the future site of the Village at Valley Forge. Good management likewise dictates that reasonable action be taken when conditions change.

- It was stated Thursday that this budget problem is a “temporary” one. While not incorrect in general, this statement must be qualified by the facts: recurrent budget shortfalls, uncertainty as to the duration of the recession, the significant decline in revenue, the current shortfall despite sincere efforts to significantly cut township expenses, and the reality of possible damage to the township’s AAA rating and subsequent borrowing power if a certain minimum level is not maintained in our cash reserves. These are all facts that one of the speakers – a police supporter from Norristown who drew one of the loudest responses from the crowd — admitted he was unfamiliar with, saying he was “not going to address the intricacies of the budget”, and instead would let “more educated minds deal with” such pesky things like the facts of the budget……

- Another speaker brought up Tredyffrin Township and suggested that we follow our neighbor’s example and “resist the urge to balance our budget with cuts to the police”. However, when presented by one of the Board members with the fact that Tredyffrin had actually made the difficult decision to eliminate three police positions (as reported in the Main Line Suburban Life, December 9) – he had no response. An often-repeated idea was suggested: that we will live in a markedly more dangerous community if we have any police furloughs. I wonder if anyone is really more fearful now to cross over into neighboring Tredyffrin Township because 3 police officers have been eliminated from its force through attrition?

- Contrary to what was stated at Thursday’s meeting by one of the police representatives, the police contract was not negotiated only “a couple of months ago”, but rather in August of 2008, just prior to this country’s economic collapse and when we were all still being led to believe that our economy was strong. Indeed, the 5.5% pay increase for Township employees in January 2009 and the 5% pay increase scheduled for January 2010 are a result of those August 2008 negotiations. [It should be noted that non-union Township employees have long benefited from the ongoing “tradition” of linking non-union/non-uniformed employee salary increases to the police’s union-brokered annual salary increases.]

- It was repeatedly stated on Thursday that UM is a “wealthy” community with prodigious sources of income and significant economic reserves. Indeed, we continue to enjoy low taxes, but our revenues are down now at every level - from retail taxes to real estate transfer taxes to permits; in addition, re-assessment actions based on reductions in property values are being continuously filed by UM businesses and individuals alike, and result in further revenue losses to the Township. Our cash reserves are dangerously low, near levels that could endanger our AAA bond rating. If you have not yet done so, I would encourage you to read the 12/2/09 Philadelphia Inquirer article on job losses in this "wealthy" area and the effect on its local economies. .

- Non-union, non-uniform township employees grudgingly agreed to 12 days furlough in 2010. As one brave civilian township employee attempted to explain to an audience that was largely uninterested in her presentation of facts: the employees were somewhat comforted by the thought that they were doing it for the general good of their fellow workers so that layoffs could be avoided. They also did it in anticipation and hopes of similar actions from the police employees. One can only surmise how the non-union township employees feel now to learn that the police employees are thus far unwilling to compromise in any way or to share in the across-the-board sacrifices that the rest of the township employees are and have been making.

- The BOS’s furlough proposal to the police is temporary, and would even be a way to maintain the extra two police officers hired in anticipation of the growth and expansion at the Village at Valley Forge. If economic conditions improve over the course of the year, furloughs could be modified or eliminated. Of course, because they are union members, they cannot be forced to agree to temporary furloughs and can insist on strict compliance with the collective bargaining agreement. Conversely, according to the provisions of that same agreement, the BOS has the option as part of its negotiated contractual right to permanently lay off police. Since there are no other BOS meetings in 2009, the 5-0 resolution passed Thursday evening gave the authority to the Township Manager to do so.

- One suggestion was made at Thursday’s meeting by a former supervisor, i.e., that police agree to give back some of their current 5% raise, with a promise by the BOS to make up the difference once the budget crisis is over [either due to increased revenues from an improved economy or a tax increase]. Regardless of whether his suggestion could or should be considered, it went virtually unnoticed by the raucous crowd.

As I think back to Thursday night’s atmosphere, I can say that I resent the strong-arm tactics of the crowd, many of whom were not local residents or even UM police officers, but who were brought in for the sole purpose of intimidating the BOS’s vote. I have absolutely no problem with spirited and highly charged, but respectful, debate of the facts, but good government is not and should not be based simply on who yells the loudest and who intimidates the most.

How many of those in the room Thursday night with the loudest voices - or even those who were quiet - took the time to come to budget workshops and educate themselves about the budget and our financial situation, or speak out at BoS meetings about the budget throughout this past year? Very few, if any, judging by the dearth of facts and excess of emotion displayed.

Though I know there is no easy answer to the current dilemma, I am encouraged by the fact that the police bargaining unit will be meeting with UM representatives twice this week, on Monday and Friday. I certainly hope that some “mutually agreed upon alternatives” can be found.

Moving forward, what can we do differently? There are, of course, some time-worn suggestions: anyone interested in the well-being of our community, economic and otherwise, should make their feelings known to township officials not just via mail or email, but by attending and speaking up at meetings and asking questions; they should demand better coverage of local issues by our local newspapers [we’ll see how well they will comply with that if this letter gets printed in its entirety!], and demand frankness and transparency from our elected officials.

One newer suggestion I would have is this: that UM establish a citizens’ advisory group along the lines of Tredyffrin Township’s BAWG [Budget Advisory Working Group], which begins to look at the township budget much earlier in the year than we do now. Tredyffrin’s BAWG, along with a Revenue Analysis team, was a collaborative effort that included a representative from a police and security consulting firm. [The headline in the Main Line Suburban Life of Nov. 18, 2009 was an attention-getter: “Budget workshop draws big crowd in Tredyffrin Twp”!] Perhaps if more citizens – more of the “stakeholders” in our township – were involved in the budget planning earlier in the process, there would be more facts out there, less misinformation, fewer unwelcome surprises, and a happier overall outcome for the residents of Upper Merion.

Welcome

Welcome to my experiment in sharing news of Upper Merion Township from my vantage point as a citizen.
Please add your ideas, comments and questions.
Let's see where this goes~