Posts Tagged ‘Trenton’

Maybe its just me but I think every politician in Trenton that’s ever used the words “Heritage tourism” should just shut the hell up.

You can’t even control the systematic destruction of what little “heritage” we have in downtown Trenton.

It’s pretty pathetic.

The Mayor’s transition committee is holding a citizen forum on Oct. 16.   I can’t seem to find out what plan it is they want the public to hear about.  Rather it sounds like its a forum to get input on “what should go into a plan”.

Listening to random citizens pretty much guarantees you’ll get random comments.   That’s not a great way to build a plan

I would have gone in with something like the following.

The Mayor’s Goals

• Trenton has a goal of building or significantly rehabbing 1000 homes in 1000 days.
• Today we have a total  27,500 residences in Trenton.   10,000 are owner occupied and 17,500 are rentals.
• Our goal is to increases this number to 28,500 residences where 11,000 are owner occupied and 17,500 are rentals

Additionally we have a goal of increasing Trenton’s tax base by $200,000,000.  That’s an average of $200,000 per home.  This is higher than Trenton’s current average but significantly lower than the average home price for Mercer County.

To this end, the City of Trenton will:

• Make available Trenton’s current inventory of city owned homes,
• Provide assistance in clearing title to abandoned homes and property currently with liens,
• Expedite zoning, permit and inspections approvals through a special process set up to accomplish this goal
• Make available subsidies of 10% of the value of a project over $100,000
• Offer a 5 year tax abatement

The City of Trenton’s  1000 Home jump start program is seeking

• Residential housing developers seeking to build market rate housing
• Bank qualified Individual homeowners seeking to build or buy a home
• Architects, General Contractors and Contractors seeking to work with buyers and developers in Trenton

The ask for the public should be

• Are there any questions?
• How can they help promote the plan? (through social media,  marketing program,  bounties)
• Would a neighborhood like to become part of a neighborhood enhancement program to make itself more attractive for buyers in this program (clean-ups, marketing, street repair, aggressive crime enforcement, identification of suitable properties)

Now that Reed Gusciora is Mayor and everyone seems to want to sing “Kumbaya“and forget how low he sunk to win the election, perhaps we can all rally around some measurable goals.   After all, isn’t that what people naturally need in order “move forward” in the same direction.

I’ve had any number of people suggest that we need to all work together.  But what does that even mean?

What is the work?  What are we trying to accomplish?  What are the best tactics towards reaching those goals?   How do the 85,000 citizens of Trenton pitch in?

Unless someone can answer those questions, the next person that suggests we all work together, is likely to get slapped.

Work together doing WHAT?

My confidence that Mayor Gusciora ever provides “goals” for his administration is low, albeit not as low as the confidence I had in Tony Mack or Eric Jackson.   It’s possible though.  I know at least a couple of people on the transition team that know what a measurable goal is.   However, I know that there are likely many others who would advise against setting goals.

But you know what, in some ways it’s too late. The Mayor has already made one big whopping campaign promise that can equate to improvements in three of the measurable goals we use to measure city success.  Reed says he wants 1000 new homes in 1000 days.   That’s pretty big.  Improbable, but nonetheless big.

This is a different kind of approach to the one Doug Palmer had.  The Palmer administration was always trying to hit home runs with big multi-million dollar projects that sounded impressive to voters.   Unhappily, by swinging for the fences all the time he struck out all the time and even hit some foul balls that injured people (the hotel).

1000 homes in 1000 days is more like trying to hit a bunch of singles.   He may not hit a 1000 but if his approach works at all maybe he hits 500, which is about 500 more than Palmer.

But what about the real goals that matter and objectively measure our success? ReinventTrenton and other groups use the following:

• Crime levels as measured by the Uniform Crime Report
• Population growth as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (in the case of Trenton, every year)
• Graduation rate as measured by the NJ Department of Education
• Median Household Income as measured by the U.S. Census, and
• Economic success as measured by our Tax Base

Let’s start with the three that Reed is sort of talking about: Population, Tax Base and Household Income.

Adding 1000 homes is a big goal but to measure the impact we need to make some assumptions.  First, what home price is necessary for the city to break-even between property taxes and costs to serve the property owners.  For Trenton, a house needs to be about $200,000, that’s somewhat lower than the average for Mercer County.   Let’s assume Reed does the right thing and targets $200,000 as the average price for these homes.

Tax Base

Trenton’s tax base is $2,395,945,829. Given the home price assumption, 1000 x $200,000 equals a $200,000,000 increase in our tax base. His goal should be $2,395,945,829 + $200,000,000 or roughly $2,600,000,000 ($2.6 Billion).

Population

Our current population is 84,964.  If 1000 new homes were added averaging, let’s say 2 people per home (just under Trenton’s average of 2.2).   1000 homes at 2 people per house equals 2000 new citizens.   Reed should have a goal of 87,000 residents.   That would be a healthy turnaround of 2.3% and above the growth rate for the State of New Jersey.

Household Income

Trenton’s current Median Household Income is $34,415 over 34,654 housing units (both houses and apartments).   To buy a $200,000 home, a household income will need to be at least 1/3 the value of the home, or $67,000 but let’s call it $70,000 to make the math easier.  If 1000 homes were added with an average household income of $70,000, the city-wide average could go up to reach a goal of $35,413, an increase of 2.9%.

The next two goals aren’t as dependent on the 1000 new homes, so perhaps Mayor Gusciora’s goals should simply reflect improvement trends over the last year.

Crime

Our Uniform Crime Reports  for 2017 are 3276.   This was down just over 1% from 2016.   If that trend continues Mayor Gusciora should be able to achieve a 4 year goal of 3147 by 2021 or a 1% yearly decrease.

Graduation Rate

The 2017 graduation rate was 70.14%, an increase of almost 5 percentage points over 2016.  That kind of improvement isn’t likely for 4 years straight, but he does get the benefit of a shiny new high school.   Without doing a lot of complicated trend analysis, I’ll simply throw out a goal of 80% by 2021.   Hamilton and Ewing are around 90% so this isn’t quite the average we need but it would be good progress.

It’s not important that the Mayor and his team adopt these exact goal values, but it is important that they express some measurable goals to the citizens of Trenton.  Maybe the Mayor thinks graduation rates could be 85% or only 75%.  What matters is there is a number goal.   I strongly suggest that these measures are used as they are publicly available, well understood and published by reputable 3^rd party sources.

If we don’t see goals published by the Mayor and agreed to by City Council, then reasonable citizens should question the dedication and ability of the new government to turn the city around?

We’ve got a new Mayor and a new City Council.   They obviously haven’t had a chance to do much but then again none of them have expressed any desire to meet any goal around the 5 measures listed annually in this report card.

The 2018 Report Card will tell us whether or not the Jackson administration actually did move the needle as Mayor Gusciora’s campaign team has claimed.

All five of the following are “lagging” indicators, meaning they represent the past, but they are objective and widely used measurements collected in a consistent way across the state and nation.   There’s no hand-waving with these numbers.

• Crime levels as measured by the Uniform Crime Report
• Population growth as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (in the case of Trenton, every year)
• Graduation rate as measured by the NJ Department of Education
• Median Household Income as measured by the U.S. Census, and
• Economic success as measured by our Tax Base

Crime is down a bit but we had more murders

The 2017 Uniform Crime Report represents last year’s crime

• Uniform Crime Reports for 2017 are 3276
• This is a decrease from 2016 of 1.1%
• Murders were up from 21 in 2016 to 23 in 2017

Trenton held basically holding the rate steady, though Trentonians have become more murderous over the years.  TPD cleared 15% of its cases in 2017 which compares favourably to Newark (9%) but unfavourably to Hamilton (31%).   Our crime is still much than the state average but for not getting too much worse I give Trenton a C in 2017.

Source: NJ State Police

Trenton gained a little population

Trenton’s 2017 census estimate is 84,964 residents.  This is a 1.1% increase from 2016’s population of 84,056 and flat since 2010.

This number is up, a little.  So that’s good.   New Jersey as a whole gained 2.4% in population since 2010 meaning that Trenton is not keeping pace.

For turning this thing around for the first time (since I’ve been tracking), Trenton gets an C.

Source: US Census Bureau

Graduation rates have go up!

The Trenton school district’s 2017 graduation rate was 70.14%. This is a good uptick from 2016’s rate of 66.55% and 2015’s rate of 68.63% and a huge improvement over 2014’s 52%

70% isn’t great BUT it’s a big improvement and indicates that something is happening.   Perhaps not having the old Trenton Central High building has stirred things up.

Hamilton and Ewing School Districts hover around 90% graduation rate so maybe it’s possible to get there.  Who knows, maybe the new school will make a difference.

Because the trend is up over several years, Trenton gets an C.

Source:  NJ Dept. of Education

Incomes in Trenton stayed flat

Median Household Incomes in Trenton grew slightly to $34.415 (2016 numbers) from $34,257 (2015).  These are very low numbers and show why it is that housing prices aren’t growing.    Furthermore, 27.6% of people in Trenton live in poverty.

New Jersey’s median household income is more than double Trenton’s at $73,702 over double Trenton’s income.

For having stagnant and very low incomes in one of the wealthiest states in the country, Trenton gets an F.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Tax Base is up a lot

Trenton doesn’t maintain a current publicly available tax list,  so I’ve to use the Dept. of Community Affairs web site.  It gives our tax base as $2,395,945,829  for year end 2017.  This is up almost $400,000,000 from 2016 and represents an 18% increase.  Quite frankly this is a big number and must be the result of the revaluation.

As a comparison, Hamilton’s tax base is over $8.5B and tiny Princeton’s is over $7B.

$2.4B in tax base isn’t enough to support Trenton by a long shot but it’s a big improvement even if it just reflects getting our tax rates somewhat straightened out.  For at least showing a bigger number, I give Trenton an C.

Source: Department of Community Affairs

Did the Jackson administration move the needle?  … Almost!

• The Education numbers are promising, the crime rate is down and our tax base has been overhauled
• Going strictly by the numbers, I’d say the needle moved.  However, its likely we didn’t see real investment of $400M in Trenton, just real revalution.

If a Mayor and City Council really were interested in progress they would highlight these 5 numbers in every meeting, every State of the City and with the State.    Every dollar spent would be to improve the numbers year over year.   Instead, for the 18^th year in a row (since I’ve lived in Trenton) all I get from our government is hand waving.

Link to the 2017 Report Card

Link to the 2016 Report Card

Link to the 2015 Report Card

Link to the 2014 Report Card

I like small voter turn-outs!

8,297 people voted in our May local election this year out of 39,731.  That’s about 21% but if you factor in how messed up our voter rolls are (thanks Mercer County Clerk’s office) and assume 10% of the people on the rolls no longer live in Trenton, then it’s more like 23%.   Compared to an election day featuring the first ever black Presidential candidate, that’s a low turnout.   But then, every turnout is low compared to that.

If one reads the research “Local Elections and Small Scale Democracy” by J. Eric Oliver, you can get perspective on Trenton’s voter turnout.

Here are some of the conclusions that the research informs:

Average turnout for “local only” elections like ours is 18% nationally.

We were above average at 21%. If higher turnout were important we’d move our election to November. Our current crop of council members, including Marge, Zac and George: declined the opportunity to do that.

High turnout might not matter in a place like Trenton.

Our turnout numbers were statistically significant. Statistically speaking if 1000 voters had been picked at random they would have generally reflected the will of the entire city.  This is especially true when a population is not diverse. My previous research has shown than Trenton not at all economically diverse.   Of course voters were not picked at random but still 8,000 votes may well have been statically significant enough in a population like Trenton’s.

Depends on who you ask.

Older, educated homeowners (like me) are statistically more likely to vote and were likely over-represented in the turnout on Tuesday. To the extent that Trenton does have diversity, the low turnout favored the interests of people like me.   It’s not a bad thing and is to be expected that long tenured residents that own homes will be more committed to voting.  They have a lot invested in the city.   I’m OK with a turnout that’s homeowner heavy.

Low Turnout favors the organized.

It takes effort and organization to get out the vote. Simply being organized enough to ask voters to vote increases turnout dramatically. In my book, being organized is a virtue that we want in a candidate.

So according to Mr. Oliver, Trenton’s low turnout, was higher than average and worked in my favor.

Sure we’d all like to see everyone have a voice.  But you know what, if you can’t take the time to be an informed voter, I’m not so sure I want you to cast a ballot that affects my family’s well-being.

In the past, we’ve seen voters brought to the polls to vote for the promise of a gift card or a turkey sandwich.   We’ve seen large amounts of money out of proportion with our city’s size being used to influence the vote. We’ve seen un-substantive campaigns that were nothing more than beauty contests.

I’d rather have a small number of informed and committed voters determine the fate of our city.

The State of NJ has found that Trenton Water Works carries a $12M surplus but that it employs 1/3 of the staff needed to properly run the utility.   The Jackson administration’s own proposed but never passed budget for 2018 estimates a $3.15M surplus that they gleefully carry forward into the municipal budget as revenue.

So, what gives?

If you look at the proposed but not approved budget, you also find that in 2017, the city budgeted $9.3M for staff but spent only $6.3M in salaries.  Additionally, they underspent $221K on social security because they didn’t have the people for whom they budgeted.

So really, the $3.1M surplus is all because the city didn’t spend what even it thought it should on TWW.  And of course, we know how that turned out:  Brown water, pink water, low pressure, boiled water etc.

To figure out the rea situation we need to dig deeper.

The State says we have 1/3 the employees we need.  Let’s take that at face value because we really don’t have a more reliable source for needed staffing levels at this point.

In 2017 we spent $6.3M on salaries, ~$1.7M in statuary benefits expenditures (SSA, Pension, unemployment) and $1M in sick pay and vacation.  That’s a total of $9M in staffing costs.

If we need three times the workforce then we’ll spend three times the staffing costs, or $27M.

For 2018 the city proposes to budget a total of $13.5M (salary, statutory benefits + vacation/sick pay).   Therefore, if we had proper staffing levels we would need to spend $13.5M more ($27M – $13.5M = $13.5M).

That $3.1M surplus quickly turns into a $10.4M deficit.

But wait there’s more!

The FY 2018 proposed budget lists 38 projects that need to be done to make the water utility safe.  They total in value up to $98.9M.  I have no doubt that these are needed but included in the budget only after the State began to take a serious interest.   Nonetheless, this $98.9M represents a large capital exposure.

The city has $16.5M saved up towards the $98.9M, so that leaves an exposure of $82.4M.  That’s a lot of money that we don’t have.   The projects will have to be paid for with debt.   I don’t know the city’s borrowing rate, but let’s assume its 8%. If you work out the math, that comes to a debt service (interest + principal) on that $82.4M of $9.6 over the next 15 years.   That’s another $9.6M added to our deficit!

So now it’s not a $10.4M deficit, it’s a $20M deficit.

TWW isn’t a money maker for the city of Trenton.   It’s getting ready to be a big money loser.  And guess what, that means your rates are going up, a lot. Our current revenue for TWW is only $54M.   If we need to spend another $20M so our revenue will have to increase 40%.   That’s punishing.

To say we should sell the thing is a complex proposition.

The proposal on the table in 2007 was to sell off the distribution system in the suburbs for $100M.   That could have retired a lot of debt.  We’d have lost some revenue but would still be selling water to the buyer.   That was one option.

We could sell the whole thing.  Perhaps we’d get some money out of it but at least we wouldn’t be exposed to the predicted yearly deficits AND importantly we wouldn’t be exposed to the risk of things going wrong (i.e. a Flint situation).

There are lots of options to reduce our exposure to losses, bad service, contaminated water, bad management, corrupt employees and all the other things that have plagued us via TWW over the years.   But the first thing Trentonians need to put behind them is the notion that Trenton Water Works is a money maker and an asset worth having.

Running TWW well is NOT strategic for the city of Trenton.

A well-run water utility won’t attract new homeowners, it won’t improve school performance and it won’t stop crime.   Those are the activities on which our government needs to focus.

There are smart advisors who can work out a good deal for Trenton, but first voters need to at least entertain the notion that Trenton Water Works isn’t the key to Trenton’s future success.

For the past 28 years, home-ownership in Trenton has been on the decline.  This isn’t me saying this, it’s the U.S. Census Bureau who tracks this statistic for all American cities.

Since 1990, home-ownership in Trenton has declined by 5,500 units or 35%.  In 1990 the housing split was 51% home owners and 49% renters.  By 2016 the split is 37% home owners and 63% renters.

This picture should scare the living daylights out of anyone who owns a home in Trenton.  It’s very possible that you may be the only one left to turn out the lights when Trenton closes.

Most people would say home-ownership is good for a city and its residents. I have no reason to dispute that.  It only makes sense that a homeowner would be more vested in the state of their home, the cleanliness of the area around them and the future of the city.

This idea is borne out by research conducted by J. Eric Oliver in his book Local Elections and the Small-Scale Democracy. Mr. Oliver found that homeowners voted in almost double the proportion than did renters.  Let me say it again, homeowners vote at double the rate of renters.  According to his statistics, 70% of homeowners will regularly vote while only 40% of renters cast a ballot.   This makes sense as the value of a homeowner’s largest investment is directly tied to the fortunes of a city.

Trenton politicians run against this trend.

None of the 2018 Trenton Mayoral candidates have established a strong position on how to make Trenton attractive for homeownership.   This, despite the overwhelming evidence that homeowners vote in big numbers.   The results shown in the above graph bear this trend out and suggest that previous candidates and Mayors have given scant attention to owner-occupied neighborhoods like Hiltonia, Hillcrest, Mill Hill and Franklin Park.  They’ve been oblivious as Chambersburg and South Trenton have become predominantly rental.Trenton has steadily become less attractive to homeowners during the Palmer, Mack and Jackson tenures.   It seems counterintuitive that this would have happened.

Mr. Oliver’s book suggests an answer to this puzzle.  His research analyzed positions taken by candidates and the factors that drive them in small cities arranged by three characteristics of the city: size, scope and bias.  Size is self-explanatory.  Trenton is on the big side of small cities (< 100,000 in population).   Scope is the range of services the city provides.  Some cities may rely on county or states to provide services.  Some outsource services.  Trenton has a large scope in that most of our services are provided directly by the City of Trenton (water, police, etc.). One notable exception in Trenton is that the school system is quasi-independent.  Bias is how uniformly resources are distributed and is probably the most important characteristic to consider for Trenton.

Bias happens when special interests or political machines can unevenly distribute resources to their own constituents.   In other words, they redistribute the winner’s spoils.  Mr. Oliver gives a New Jersey example in his book that I found illustrative.

“As an example, consider the political importance of a garbage contract for a rich township like Princeton, New Jersey, compared to its impoverished neighbor Camden. With a median family income above $125,000 a year and an average home value of over $1 million, it is highly unlikely that many of Princeton’s 16,000 residents work for garbage companies (although they may own one). When the township hires a garbage company, it is probably importing all its labor and services. On the other hand, a garbage contract for an impoverished place like Camden (with an unemployment rate well over 30 percent) means dozens of good jobs for its residents. When Camden hires a garbage company, its leaders will thus be under considerable political pressure to hire Camden residents and to employ a locally operated firm. Camden officials who decide the garbage contract will, in turn, probably expect continued support from the company and its workers. The garbage contract, simply by virtue of Camden’s poverty, will be a major source of political contestation whereas in Princeton it is simply a contract to be filled.”

Oliver, J. Eric. Local Elections and the Politics of Small-Scale Democracy (Kindle Locations 661-669). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Does that sound familiar?  It should.  You can’t talk about a project in Trenton where someone with an interest in city employment won’t make that argument.  Our Mayor and City Council generally consider whether a contractor will employ city residents and therefore de-prioritize the importance of cost and service.  When they do this, they de-prioritize the interests of home owning taxpayers.

Size matters because voters in a larger city like Trenton are more disengaged than in a smaller city like Hopewell as voters are less personally connected to office seekers, according to Mr. Oliver. Scope matters because a larger city has a lot of money to throw around.  But bias is also a factor as it provides the reason why homeowners can be left out of the political calculus.  In Trenton, homeowners are ignored because a Mayor and City Council can become beholden to special interests (city service providers, affordable housing developers, and labor unions, etc.)) that feed off of bias in our city government. The problem is made bigger by our large scope and is enabled by the relative size of the city and disengagement of its voters.

Is there a way out for Trenton?

Yes.  Let me explain.

If you’re a homeowner in Trenton, then you must know that we are more Camden than Princeton in that special interests not aligned with your own are hard at work.   While all you really want are low property taxes and a high level of city services, including water, police, schools and public works, others don’t share your concern.   It’s natural.

However, even though the ranks of homeownership in Trenton have been decimated, they still vote in higher proportions than renters.  Voting still matters though candidates can and do certainly still lie to us about their vested interests (i.e. who’s funding them now and in the future).

For a candidate to be believable as a pro-homeowner candidate then their platform, fundraising and speeches need to put homeownership front and center. Making Trenton attractive for residential investment must be their only “focus”.   They must stand out as the “homeowner” candidate.

This means trimming non-essential services that don’t directly benefit homeowners.  It means investing more in making it easier to develop and improve property. It means increased school choice. It means more responsive police and public works departments.  It means new economic development. And, most of all, it means that there is a plan for the tax rate to eventually go down.  Trenton’s tax rate is the highest in Mercer County and as high as a mortgage rate.

This is hardcore stuff, but Trenton is in decline and has been for some time.  We are losing population.  Our per household income is losing ground vs. the rest of the state.  And obviously homeowners are leaving.

Voters will have to understand that they have a very real threat  if we continue to elect politicians who can’t or won’t address the issues of homeowners, they will likely never recoup the investment in their houses and  the situation will only get worse.  Taxes will continue to rise as property values decline or stay stagnant.   Services will continue to deteriorate until we hit rock bottom and look even more like Camden or Detroit.
It’s hard to say whether our decline is already too severe to recover from without an existential catastrophe like Detroit’s bankruptcy or Camden’s worst in the nation murder rate.  However, not trying to elect leadership with a real focus on reversing the homeownership trend just isn’t an option.

Notes from the first gathering of Fans of Trenton’s Irresponsible Blogger

Members the “Fans of Trenton’s Irresponsible Blogger (FOTIB)” Facebook group met in person on November 8, 2017 at Trenton Social to the upcoming municipal election in May 2018.   We created a prioritized list of issues that our candidates should be prepared to have positions on and plans for.   Also, given that the position of city councilperson is so poorly understood, we created a list of virtues the candidates should have.

The group of over 20 activists gathered at Trenton Social included some of the city’s best thinkers and doers, including 3 bloggers.

FOTIB 2018 Election Issue List

Some issues are grouped for with similar or closely related items.  (n) indicates repeated issues, therefore high priority.

New blood/thinking in the governing process (6)

• Structure of the administration – departments (2)
• Setting measurable goals
• Budget before fiscal year starts

Cleanliness and Appearance of City (4)

• Presentation and upkeep of parks
• Litter / Dumping
• Road conditions / lights

Specific plans to attract commercial ratables (4)

• Processes for assistance to new business
• Property tax rates for commercial

Change to the governance structure. Currently strong Mayor (2)

• Staggered Council terms
• Changing form of government
• Term Limits

Other Top Issues

• Accountability to ethical standards
• How to make Trenton Schools appealing to citizens who send kids out of district
• Position on current police/law enforcement contracts
• Police residency options
• Vacant property plans
• Position on the State plan for office buildings downtown
• Workforce preparedness and vocational training.

City Council Candidate Virtues

• Moral compass (2)
• Honesty/transparency
• Knowledge of Trenton
• Open minded
• Tenure
• Understands the job
• Ability to negotiate / diplomacy
• Understanding budgets as policy instruments
• Understanding policy and how government works
• Ability to creatively solve problems
• Being available
• Ability to use technology
• Follow up
• Courage to do the right thing

Usually when families don’t have a lot of money, they get very good at budgeting.  It helps to plan spending so you don’t get surprised later in the month or year.

Organizations budget for that reason, but also to make sure they’ve allocated funding to important initiatives that advance the goals of the organization.   The budget is a central planning document that gets everyone in the organization aligned.   This true for companies, schools, non-profits and most governments.

This should not be news to anyone in America.  Every literate America knows that organizations must have budgets.

And yet, the City of Trenton operates without a one and has done so for years.  It should be no mystery then that we have a sense of aimlessness in our effort to revitalize.

“What?”, you ask, “Trenton does have a budget, the Mayor submits one to Council every year”.

Fellow citizens, that is a charade.  Last year’s budget for fiscal year 2017 (that’s July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017) was not approved by City Council until April 2017.   That’s 9 months into the fiscal year.  For 9 months, we had no budget.

The City Business Administrator is planning to draft a budget for 2018  in October.   That’s four months after the 2018 fiscal year has started.  It will be months before City Council approves it.   Who does that?

It’s not just bad business its in violation of our own City Code.  Our city code is clear: violation of it.

§ 2-78 Budget preparation.

A.  The budget shall be prepared by the Mayor with the assistance of the Business Administrator. During the month of November, the Mayor shall require all department heads to submit requests for appropriations for the ensuing budget year and to appear before the Mayor or the Business Administrator at public hearings which shall be held during that month on the various requests. On or before the 15th day of January, the Mayor shall submit to Council his/her recommended budget together with such explanatory comment or statement as (s)he may deem desirable.

B.  The Business Administrator, with the assistance of the Director of Finance, shall prepare all estimates of non-property tax revenues anticipated for the support of each annual budget.

The City Code, our law, says that the Mayor must submit a budget to Council by January 15 for the ensuing year.  The ensuing year begins July 1.

This timing makes sense.  It gives the Council and the public time to react and for the administration to make changes.

I’ve heard every excuse there is from our city leaders.   The most common one is “we don’t know what the state will give us.”   Do you suspect that any company in America knows its revenues for the upcoming year?  Of course not.  They must estimate.  If things go wrong, they adjust.   But no one wades into a fiscal year without a plan.  No one.

Unless you’re a city government like Trenton.  OR Minneapolis, which also didn’t submit a timely budget and is now being sued by its tax collector.  Is that what it’s going to take in Trenton? Are we going to have to sue ourselves to force our government to act responsibly?

We realistically can’t fix the 2018 fiscal year.  It will be as bad as all the previous Jackson years (though hopefully we won’t have another $5,000,000 stolen).   However, we can avoid re-electing the perpetrators of this debacle.  That includes the current Mayor and any sitting or past council member.   They are all complicit in the mismanagement of our city and our money.

I have written many times about the budget process in Trenton and its many failing and opportunities.  It’s a source of frustration for me that even after collaborating with some of Trenton’s most knowledgeable citizens to recommend improvements, our city leaders have roundly ignored us.  All we  want is well-run, transparent government that plans for improvement.

Here are a few of the previous Reinvent Trenton Articles on our Budget:

Trenton is adrift because it operates without a budget

Trentonians favor fewer services and lower taxes

Trenton’s Budget won’t fix itself

Governor Christie is trying to throw a lot of money at Trenton.  Notably he wants to build an $18M pedestrian bridge from the Capitol building to the Delaware River.  This report highlights the city’s progress (or lack thereof) in 5 basic measurements.   One has to ask whether that kind of investment will move the needle in improving any of these important measures.

It’s not enough, to say we did something, or are working on something or want something to happen.  Rather, the results are what matter.

All five of the following are “lagging” indicators, meaning they represent the past, but they are objective and widely used measurements collected in a consistent way across the state and nation.   There’s no hand-waving with these numbers.

• Crime levels as measured by the Uniform Crime Report
• Population growth as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau (in the case of Trenton, every year)
• Graduation rate as measured by the NJ Department of Education
• Median Household Income as measured by the U.S. Census, and
• Economic success as measured by our Tax Base

Crime is up and so were murders

The 2016 Uniform Crime Report represents last year’s crime

• Uniform Crime Reports for 2016 are 3313
• This is an increase from 2015 of 8.7%
• Murders were up from 17 in 2015 to 21 in 2016

Holding the rate steady would give the City a C, but since the both the murder rate and crime index increased I’m giving it a D.

Source: NJ State Police

Trenton is losing population

Trenton’s 2016 census estimate is 84,056 residents.  This is a 1% decrease from 2010’s population of 84,913.

You can’t revitalize a city by losing population.  It implies that our economy is shrinking, we’re not a desirable place to live and that our property values are going down.   New Jersey as a whole is gaining population at a 1.7% rate.

For continuing to lose population in growing state for the 4^th year in a row (since I’ve been tracking), Trenton gets an F.

Source: US Census Bureau

Graduation rates have declined

The Trenton school district’s 2016 graduation rate was 66.55%.  This is a slide backwards over 2015’s rate of 68.63% which had been a big improvement over the year before.

Just about 2/3 of Trenton kids are graduating now.  But still 1/3 don’t graduate high school which is appalling and continues to explain the high level of lawlessness in the city.

The State of NJ is spending a fortune on a new school but I’ll guess it won’t fix our problems.   We also have a new superintendent but Trenton is a bit of a revolving door in that regard.     One of these days Trentonians will do the right thing and lobby for school choice, county-wide integration or both.

Because we slid backwards, Trenton gets an D.

Source:  NJ Dept. of Education

Incomes in Trenton are down yet again

Median Household Incomes in Trenton are down again to $34.257 (2015 numbers) from $35,647 (2014).  These are the latest numbers we have but represent a disturbing trend in Trenton.  Not only are we losing people, but evidently, we’re losing higher income people.    Furthermore, 28% of people in Trenton live in poverty.

New Jersey’s median household income is more than double Trenton’s at $72,093.

For having shrinking incomes, a 4^th year in a row in a wealthy state, Trenton gets an F.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Tax Base is up a bit

Trenton doesn’t maintain a current publicly available tax list,  so I’ve to use the Dept. of Community Affairs web site.  It gives our tax base as $2,022,437,610 (just over$2B) for 2016.  This is up  from the $1,996,653,658 I reported last year.   The number includes properties with abatements and PILOTs so I think its likely indicative.

It’s tough to say whether this inconsistent reporting is really indicative of $22M in new investment.   However, I do know that $2B is enough of a tax base to support the city and we need something like four times the tax base to pay for our municipal and school budgets.   We have a long way to go and not too many projects in the pipeline.

As a comparison, Hamilton’s tax base is over $5B and tiny Princeton’s is over $6B.

For a tax base that at least isn’t shrinking but will nonetheless lead to higher taxes I give Trenton an D.

Source: Department of Community Affairs

Is the city turning around?  Not yet!

• The numbers are about the same as last year
• If you believe numbers don’t lie then we’re not really improving

If a Mayor and City Council really were interested in progress they would highlight these 5 numbers in every meeting, every State of the City and with the State.    Every dollar spent would be to improve the numbers year over year.   Instead, for the 17^th year in a row (since I’ve lived in Trenton) all I get from our government is hand waving.

Link to the 2016 Report Card

Link to the 2015 Report Card

Link to the 2014 Report Card