Monmouth County freeholders are on pace to equal or exceed last year's spending on lucrative contracts given to consultants and other professionals. Meanwhile, time is running out for the board if it will deliver on hinted cuts to a proposed $8.1 million tax levy increase.
The board will meet at 7 p.m. Thursday and is expected to act on the budget, which currently stands at $489 million. The budget was introduced Jan. 24, and board members since then have stated that reductions would be considered. No cuts have been made as of yet.
"As far as trimming the budget, we're doing things that people may not be aware of," said Freeholder Director Lillian G. Burry, a Republican.
Burry said it's "possible" reductions to line items will be made but declined to elaborate.
But the board largely hasn't altered how it does business with consultants and professional service firms or trimmed the amount of taxpayer dollars being paid out on those contracts.
On Feb. 14, the board approved spending $210,000 over the next year for two transportation consulting contracts. One of the contracts, which will send $120,000 to the firm run by Robert A. Roe, the former congressman, was unanimously approved. The board's Democrats said the county didn't need two transportation consultants, but they were outvoted by the board's three Republicans on the second contract, retaining Gibbons P.C. at $7,500 per month plus expenses.
In January, the board's Republicans rejected Democrat John D'Amico Jr.'s observation that some tasks in a financial consulting contract could be done at lower cost by in-house personnel, and the GOP votes carried the award of the maximum $80,000 contract to Public Resources Advisory Group to serve as the county's "general financial adviser." D'Amico wanted the board to award the contract at a reduced figure.
Such contracts are covered in the budget under a line item for "consulting and temporary outside services" charged to the freeholder board's account.
County Finance Director Mark E. Acker said $1.35 million is appropriated for that account in the proposed budget, equal to last year's amount. The board spent $1.274 million of that appropriation, Acker said.
"A couple of years back, the appropriation was $1.5 million, so it's come down," Acker said. "I wouldn't suggest to the freeholders that they lower it more, because you don't know what comes up in the course of a year. Of course, the money not spent stays here."
There are a number of similar accounts to hire professionals and consultants to assist with work in other departments, Acker said.
"If you add it up, it will come to several million dollars, but it's not a reliable figure for what is spent on consulting services, because there are other things included in that line item. For instance, money spent on nursing agencies is included in that account," Acker said.
Acker added, "Most people I've heard from are not unhappy with the budget, because they're not unhappy with the services they receive in return and the other benefits the county government provides."
But some residents say they are losing confidence that the budget will be slashed prior to its adoption.
The complete article is HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment