Fate of employees left to new council
Jackson officials weigh options for local building dept.
BY DAVE BENJAMIN Staff Writer
The Jackson Township Building Department is still in existence and will be at least until the Jackson Township Council meets on July 22.

DAVE BENJAMIN Jackson construction official Barry Olejarz speaks to the Township Council during a meeting at which the future of the township's building department was debated.

At that time, the future of the building department will be determined by new council members Mike Kafton, Mike Reina and Bobbie Rivere, who will take their seats at the dais with present council members Ann Updegrave and Scott Martin.

At their June 24 meeting, council members voted 3-2 in favor of extending the life of the building department, at least until a decision can be made on an ordinance that would create the position of director of inspections and a resolution that would authorize a contract to outsource the work of the building department.

The future of the building department has been discussed in recent months from a financial point of view.

The debate centers on whether Jackson should keep its own building department, which in some years has operated at a loss, or hire a firm to provide inspections and divide the profits with the municipality.

If the council eventually votes to eliminate the building department, it will mean the loss of jobs for current municipal employees.

Voting in favor of carrying ordinance No. 26-08 to the second meeting in July were council members Angelo Stallone, Martin and Updegrave. Councilwoman Emily Ingram and Councilman Jason Gudaitis voted not to carry the ordinance that proposes the creation of the new director of inspections position.

Stallone, Ingram and Gudaitis ended their terms on the council on June 30. They were replaced on the governing body by Kafton, Reina and Rivere as of July 1.

A related resolution, 225R-08, was also carried at the June 24 meeting, postponing the decision to outsource the work of the building department. Stallone, Martin, Ingram and Updegrave voted to carry the resolution, while Gudaitis voted no.

If the resolution is eventually approved, the work of the building department, including inspections of all kinds, will be turned over to the EIC Corp., Jersey City.

The June 24 council meeting drew a standing room crowd of more than 300 residents, members of Jackson's fire departments, building inspectors, union members from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and other township employees.

Township Engineer Daniel Burke discussed the net operating income of the building department over the past eight years, the permit filing and fee history, and a staff analysis.

Burke said much of the fluctuation in the department's finances is due to the construction activity in Jackson.

"The department runs on its revenues, and the revenues dictate what it can spend," he explained. "This chart shows the extreme fluctuation over the years."

During the open public portion of the meeting, AFSCME Vice President Patricia Wood said privatization of municipal services does not work. Wood pointed to the $90,000 cost of hiring a director of inspections and somebody over that individual - the township engineer, who would be the head of community development - who could make as much as $130,000 a year.

"Figure it out," Wood said. "That's $220,000 and a company that would have to be overseen in Jersey City."

AFSCME President Mike Nicoletti asked the council members to postpone a decision on the building department until the new council members were in office and could look into the matter.

Cassville Fire Company Fire Chief John I. Alchevsky said he was speaking on behalf of the township's fire chiefs.

"The township fire chiefs are vehemently opposed to ordinance No. 26-08," he said. "At this point there is a perception to hamper, restrict and eliminate the statutory and regulatory authority of the construction official's office."

Alchevsky said that on June 10 during the first reading of the ordinance, there were questions by members of the public and from council members.

"One question that could not be answered is what information has been obtained so that the council could make an educated, sound decision," he said. "We also heard two (new council members) respectfully request that this be held until the council's reorganization in July. Not honoring this request most definitely promotes the perception that this matter is being rushed by the mayor so that it will not have to deal with a council that may not unanimously agree … . We urge the council to consider the importance of the greater public good in this matter."

Alchevsky said the Jackson fire companies see the inspectors as an asset, a resource and an ally because they will make sure that work was done correctly and with safety in mind.

Speaking on a personal level, Alchevsky said that when it came to his own home, an inspector was always there to guide him in the proper direction.

"I always felt comfortably assured that my home and family were as safe as possible when the job was finished," he said. "Most important, the members of the Jackson Building Department are public service specialists."

He said a private vendor might be more concerned with profits.

"We, the firefighters, have the opportunity, more often than not, to witness the potentially and sometimes tragic results of unsupervised, substandard types of construction," Alchevsky said. "That is why we highly value the work done by the building department."

Resident Arthur W. Burns said, "I don't understand why this has to be decided tonight. Are you guys just rubber-stamping this?"

Blanche Krubner, who is a member of the Jackson Planning Board, said she considered the proposed ordinance to be one of the worst ideas that has ever come before the council. She asked how the private vendor would be paid.

Mayor Mark Seda said 35 percent of what the private vendor collects in fees will be returned to Jackson.

"They're doing this for a profit, not pro bono," Krubner responded. "They're keeping 65 percent. Why are you sending the money out of the community? You said yourself, the income cannot be predicted."

Krubner said there is no benefit to the employees who would lose their jobs if the building department is eliminated and no benefit to the community.

"What are we saving?" she asked. "And how long will it take this foreigner to learn the geography of Jackson? I am shocked and appalled that this is the solution you came up with in a time of economic need."

Krubner said she also did not like the idea of what she called a super-paid administrator.

"What are they administrating?" she said. "They have to deal with a company long-distance that has no attachment to Jackson."

Resident Dan Gross said he had not heard that the council looked into the matter other than from a dollars-and-cents point of view.

Updegrave said a private company hired to do the inspections can do anything the municipal building department can do.

"What about a fire or other emergency?" Gross asked. "Will they be there with the information that is needed by the emergency services?"

Building department employee Kevin Schmalz said, "All you people here are about to decide my future, the future of my children and the future of my home. I'd like to compliment Mr. Martin and Ms. Updegrave. They were the only two people who had any interest and contacted our department and Mr. Olejarz."

Schmalz was referring to Jackson construction official Barry Olejarz.

Schmalz said the EIC Corp. conducted about 560 inspections a month in Bridgewater, Somerset County, and said that was the highest average the company had. He said the Jackson building department averaged 1,366 inspections per month.

"They can't do it," he said, referring to the Jersey City firm. "They don't have the manpower."

Olejarz then spoke and directed his comments to Mayor Mark Seda.

"Let's set the record straight, mayor," he said. "You were informed what was going on with the numbers when you were the liaison … to my department. Those numbers indicated a surplus. Basically, mayor, we [also] had a 45-minute conversation about an individual who was making comments. How many times did he make donations to your election? Basically, he was going to have me fired through you."

As to the current issue regarding the future of the Jackson Building Department, Olejarz said he submitted seven plans that described ways to save the department.

Seda said only one suggestion reached a level that was acceptable.

"Now you're saying this, but you never met with me," Olejarz responded, and he indicated the cost savings for laying off employees. "If you take all nine, you would save $1,002,231. We worked on it and we did come up with numbers."

Eventually, Stallone said there were a lot of things he did not have the opportunity to look at and said he would like to leave the decision regarding the building department to the new council.

The members of the governing body then voted to carry both items of business into July, when the three new council members who took office on July 1 will have the opportunity to decide how to proceed on the matter of the building department.