Shared services works, Pezarras says

The Township has been questioned both at council meetings and through letters to the editor in several local publications about the savings derived from a shared service agreement with Toms River and whether the agreement is beneficial to the taxpayers in Brick Township.

The answer to that question is a resounding yes! The township has realized a savings of $281,199 through July 31 of this year and is on pace to save between $450,000 and $500,000 by year’s end. All the documents verifying and supporting these numbers are available in the town hall for any member of the public to examine.

In Mr. Lamb’s letter, “mayor’s numbers don’t add up” printed in the Bulletin dated Aug. 6, Mr. Lamb sets forth a series of numbers that draw an “apples to oranges” comparison. While it is true the amount spent out of the construction budget was $1,135,265.83 during 2008, this figure does not include accrued expenditures for services rendered through Dec. 31, 2008. These are expenses that accrued during month of December and were not paid until 2009 and totaled $21,180. They were attributable to services provided before Dec. 31, 2008, and charged to a “reserve” account in accordance with State Budget Law under NJSA 40A: 4.

The true amount spent for services rendered during 2008 was $1,156,445.83, not $1,135,265.83. In addition, his numbers do not reflect all costs paid by the township that are affiliated with an employee, such as the cost for pension contributions, employer payroll taxes, and more importantly health benefit costs.

When these costs are added to Mr. Lamb’s analysis, the aggregate expenditures for the inspectors that were part of the reduction in force total $982,620 for 2009. This means the tax rate would have been increased by $2.08 cents more had the township not entered the shared service agreement with Toms River.

Mr. Lamb compares funds spent in 2008, albeit absent of accruals, to an amount allocated for spending in the 2009 budget for the construction department. This is an “apples to oranges” comparison. The proper comparison would be an “allocated to allocated” analysis of the construction office, which shows a total decrease in the department of $84,547 or 6.77-percent reduction from 2008 to 2009. Not the 2.5-percent increase as stated in Mr. Lamb’s letter.

Mr. Lamb’s letter goes on to talk about revenues, and again he utilizes an “apples to oranges” comparison wherein he compares the actual revenue received in 2008 to the “anticipated” revenue incorporated in the budget. NJSA 40A: 4, known as the budget law in the state, says you may anticipate an amount of revenue in the current year’s budget up to but not exceeding the amount of revenue actually realized during the prior year.

Since the township realized $1,109,399.40 during 2008, it could have anticipated a maximum of $1,109,399.40 in its 2009 budget and not a penny more. With the actual revenue realized from permits decreasing steadily over the past few years — 2006 $1,205,166; 2007 $1,117,918; and 2008 $1,109,399 — the Business and Finance Committee did not find it fiscally prudent to anticipate the revenue to the maximum allowable by law.

The township hopes to realize the $1,058,000 from permit fees anticipated in the budget by Dec. 31, 2009. We will not know if we meet our goal until the daily receipts from the construction office are recorded on Dec. 31, 2009. As of July 31, 2009, the township has collected $509,253, an average of $72,750 per month. If we assume we will collect this amount every month through the end of the year, the projected total revenue for 2009 $873,003, clearly under the amount anticipated in the 2009 budget, and further illustrating a decline in revenues from permits.

In keeping with the open-door policy of this administration, I offered to discuss this matter or any other matter having to do with the township, with Mr. Lamb, but he has yet to respond.
Scott M. Pezarras
BusinessAdministrator/CFO
Brick