The Jersey City Council unanimously approved (8-0) the preliminary $724,219,250.40 budget with a 1.9 percent tax hike in an up and down vote at last night’s meeting.
By John Heinis/Hudson County View
The Department of Public Safety would still receive the most municipal funding, $214,421,922 or just under 30 percent of the budget, with adjustments made to pay for 30 new 911 dispatchers ($6,731,557 in salaries and wages versus $5,877,573 last year).
The council expressed concerns about a lack of transparency from the Department of Public Safety at Monday’s caucus meeting, but that did not sway anyone to vote against the initial spending plan last night.
“Peter, I want to request … that we move 10.3 to the next meeting just so we can get clarity on exactly where all the funds went. I know, we just spent some time, we’ve been going back and forth and I just wanted to make sure all the questions get answered,” began Ward F Councilman Frank “Educational” Gilmore.
“You see the email thread, finance have their portion, but I think questions three, four, five, and six were not answered, we still need clarity on that. [Finance Director] Carmen [Gandulla] did give us a little clarity on the actual number, although it’s not zero, she explained that I guess when they close the books out it has to go to zero or something like that.”
Gilmore wasn’t raising questions specifically on the municipal budget, he was asking about a resolution asking the governing body to authorize the cancellation of unexpended budget appropriation balances since the grant periods had expired.
Assistant Business Administrator Peter Horton said the city accepted the grant money, the funds weren’t in the city account when it was time to pay a contractor to start their work.
“So the city paid the money up front, the $839,000 some dollars, and then after they paid that money, I think the contractor only used about $500,000 of that. There’s about $374,000 dollars that are left over, the city had to rescind that back to the state on the behalf of the federal government, which completely got rid of the $839,000.”
He continued that the state reimbursed the city afterwards, but that was after the contractor had been paid in full, therefore the money is going somewhere else, it is essentially the city reimbursing themselves for money that has already been spent.
Gilmore expressed further confusion about the numbers, to which Horton said the grants will always show zero since technically none of the grant money was spent.
“The city put the money aside, spent it out of its own budget essentially, because the money, the grant, didn’t arrive to the city yet, so they money from the grant is always technically there, we’re just using it to reimburse ourselves since the grant funds were never spent.”
Nonetheless, Gilmore reiterated that the email chain still raised a number of questions that remain unanswered.
“What I’m saying is when you guys hand us these documents, right … why isn’t it articulated in black and white and furthermore, why aren’t the directors coming and explaining what happened with the money? What’s so hard about that?”
Horton replied that the directors attend caucus meeting and that the administration had been in contact with his staff, to which Gilmore said he still wanted clear, direct answers in black and white.
“This has been since February! It has to be in black and white! I’m confused, I’m looking at numbers, I’m listening to statements, I’m watching replies on the email from the grants department, the lady clearly articulated she cannot answer these questions, the email trail went cold,” he said before getting interrupted by Council President Joyce Watterman asking to table it, which Business Administrator John Metro agreed with.
