This week, the voters in Upper Township Fire District No. 2, Tuckahoe, approved the district’s 2022 budget by a vote of 79 to 17. Typically, February fire district elections generate minimal voter turnout. This was no exception to that rule.
The election was important because the 2022 district budget contained funding for the purchase of a new fire truck to be used by the Tuckahoe Volunteer Fire Company. The purchase was listed at $910,000. We take no position on the need for the new equipment or whether the price represents current market value for such a purchase. Our concern is with the process.
Let’s be clear, the fire district’s purchase of the new truck meets the state requirements. A look at that process shows a set of requirements badly in need of reform.
A bit of background is necessary to appreciate how the purchase of this truck unfolded, why it was controversial for much of the time and how it ended up gaining approval in the budget process when many voters probably had little knowledge of what the budget contained.
In April 2021, Upper Township Fire District No. 2 asked the voters for approval for the purchase of a new fire truck for an amount set at $600,000. Only 63 voters cast ballots and the approval of the referendum issue was 53 for and 10 against. As the Herald reported in June of that year, controversy ensued when an anonymous letter sent to the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) questioned the purchase of the truck because the fire company had not presented its plan to the state Local Finance Board.
The letter also pointed to the fact that a vote at the fire district election in spring 2021 cannot be acted upon until after Jan. 1 of the following year. Yet, in meeting minutes of the Tuckahoe Fire Commissioners in 2021, there is a record of a contract signed for the truck by the volunteer fire company instead of the fire district and in advance of when such a contract could be appropriately issued. The purchase did not go forward.
In November 2021, the fire district called a special meeting of the commissioners, asked for public in attendance to vote on a new price of $910,000 and succeeded in getting 20 votes for the increased amount, with no votes against.
A representative of DCA explained that the process used, a public meeting of the commissioners, was allowed by New Jersey statute. In effect, an increase in the cost of the truck by more than 50% over what the voters approved at the April election could be approved by a public vote of 20 individuals at the special meeting. The process is allowed by the state, but it permits the fire district to alter the amount of public money to be spent on the purchase of the truck at a special meeting, which had very little public turnout.
It is true that the April election only produced 63 votes, but it had the advantage of widespread visibility of a referendum for voters who chose to participate. We all know that the announcements of special meetings are not widely advertised. Yet, 20 individuals who turned out were able, legitimately, to overturn the spending limit set in the April election. This process does not have the ring of transparency in the use of public funds.
The only remaining hurdle to completing the approvals for the purchase was the inclusion of the funds in the 2022 budget of the fire district. That budget came before the voters in February 2022 and, as is usually the case with fire district budgets, the budget was approved. It seems a good bet that many who voted, and many more who did not, would have been unaware of the significant purchase embedded in that budget.
The point is a simple one. A purchase that, along with other uses of funds, absorbed 93% of the fire district’s restricted surplus balance, no matter how justified the need, should be done with the fullest notice to the public and the broadest opportunity for the public to express approval or disapproval.
We are told the process used met the requirements of the statute, especially since the truck was not being financed with a bond issue. We call on the Legislature in Trenton to tighten the requirements, so that a realistic opportunity for public participation exists before so large a portion of public monies can be appropriated for use.
In this purchase, there were errors from the start, a contract signed before it could legitimately be signed, a greater than 50% increase in price approved in a sparsely attended special meeting, a public surplus of funds depleted and, perhaps most importantly, transparency tarnished.
———–
From the Bible: “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. Luke 16:10
