It's official: Seven Presidents Ocean Walk
BY KENNY WALKER Staff Writer
Much to the delight of residents, the Long Branch City Council approved a resolution to rename the boardwalk pathway along the oceanfront as Seven Presidents Ocean Walk at Long Branch.
The council was praised by residents at the Aug. 11 meeting as they voted to approve the resolution 4-0. Councilman Brian Unger was absent for the vote.
The idea for the renaming was presented at the July 28 meeting by Dennis Sherman, representing the Save Ocean Avenue Committee, who suggested the council make the name change by passing a resolution.
The original resolution would have resulted in changing the name of the boardwalk to Seven Presidents Ocean Walk.
However, some members of the administration requested that Long Branch be included in the name.
At first Sherman was reluctant to see the inclusion.
"We felt that Long Branch in the title would detract from the title," Sherman said at the workshop meeting. "We wanted to keep the ocean walk focus on the seven presidents' history."
Sherman did make some suggestions for other ways to include the city's name to the council and committee.
"You could have City of Long Branch underneath it," Sherman said. "That's kind of a long title."
He also suggested that when posted on the city's website, the words "at Long Branch" could be used.
Councilman Anthony Giordano, who originally questioned the name, seemed happy with that.
"Any literature, any letterhead, any discussion will have it be known as part of Long Branch," he said.
Council Deputy President Michael DeStefano was happy with the resolution and praised the committee for its work.
"It took them a long time to get here," DeStefano said, "and to finally get to this point. And if that's the way they feel, I don't think it's any detraction to exclude that as long as it's in literature and postings."
DeStefano went on to give examples all across the country of landmarks that do not include the name of the city where they are located, including Central Park in New York City and the Riverwalk in San Antonio.
"There are parks and historic monuments in a lot of cities that don't carry the name of the city," he said.
Giordano went on to say that he would like the resolution changed to carry the Long Branch name.
"I like Seven Presidents Ocean Walk, I just think it should say at Long Branch," Giordano said. "I just think the official name should be Seven Presidents Ocean Walk at Long Branch.
"People outside of the community would know where it is," he added.
At the end of the workshop meeting, the council and Sherman agreed to include "at Long Branch" in the signage.
"We are very anxious to get this resolution passed," he said. "I think it would be fine."
During the public participation portion of the council meeting, Sherman and a handful of other residents spoke in favor of the resolution.
"I would like to thank you for moving the resolution forward," he said. "By passing this resolution, we are now able to join all the wonderful parts of the oceanfront together."
Sherman went on to say that this would have a big impact culturally on the area.
"We are going to be able to inject a lot of history, art and the many things that will make the entire oceanfront one," he said, "make it in a way that everyone who comes to the boardwalk will now be able to enjoy and experience the history of Long Branch."
Bill McLaughlin, another member of the Save Ocean Avenue Committee, praised group members for getting the resolution on the docket.
"This small group of us got together to form the Save Ocean Avenue Committee," he said. "We have worked hard to enhance the area."
McLaughlin also praised the city for working with the committee.
"Many improvements were made, thanks to the city, especially Fred Migliaccio and Stan Dzuiba," he said. "If this resolution passes, then we can truly say that government is for the people."
Residents not directly involved with the committee also had some good words to say about the resolution.
"I would like to thank Bill McLaughlin and Mr. Sherman for all they've done," resident Lori Ann Vendetti said. "I hope you continue to beautify the oceanfront."
"I want to compliment all the people who got together for this resolution and the City Council," resident Harold Bobrow said.
Save Ocean Avenue members, in addition to Sherman and McLaughlin, are city residents Mary Jean Lepis, Bob Kenyon and Wally Bruchman. The group can be reached via the website at ttp://www.saveoceanave. com.
No Flash Detected
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Saturday, October 31, 2009
L.B. approves property reassessment contract
L.B. approves property reassessment contract
CFO: Assessments will go down
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — The City Council approved a contract last week to move forward with the reassessment of properties this fall.
The council voted 4-0 to approve a contract for Realty Appraisal Co. at the Aug. 11 council meeting. Councilman Brian Unger was absent for the vote.
The West New York company will receive $365,000 for services, which will be on the books for the 2010 tax year.
Long Branch Tax Assessor John Butow spoke to the council at the workshop meeting preceding the vote.
"We received two bids," Butow said. "We evaluated the proposals and the company we chose based on the different factors.
"We are here asking the city to approve the contract for Realty Appraisal Company," he added.
The other bid was submitted by Appraisals Systems Inc., Morristown, which made a $488,900 bid to complete the reassessment.
City Attorney James Aaron explained some of the other factors that led to this decision.
"Realty is not only the cheapest," Aaron said, "but it is also the only bid that had any experience with areas of redevelopment, of which we have significant areas.
"So that was another factor," he added. "Other than that, they are very professional."
According to Butow, the reassessment should start very soon.
"I spoke with the state today," he said. "They will fast-track out there to get approval, and then 10 days after that we will get feet on the ground and start the process."
The contract award comes just two weeks after the council approved $375,000 in appropriations for the reassessment.
Butow said last month that the Monmouth County Board of Taxation ordered the reassessment and that he will be overseeing the entire project.
At the July 28 meeting, Aaron explained exactly why the reassessment is necessary.
"The goal is to reduce the number of tax appeals," he said. "Since the tax appeals are based on the assessed value of the property, by doing this reassessment now, we're joining the League of Municipalities.
"They're attempting to do this to find a more equitable way of taxing the taxpayers in each municipality and to stave off the growing number of appeals, which will also cut down on the legal costs," he added.
Butow said the reassessment would reflect the market as of Oct. 1.
"This will result in the equitable distribution of the tax burden," he said.
Aaron explained that the gap between assessed value and market value is wide now, thus making the reassessment a necessary step.
"These are all key to dramatic changes in the ratio of sales and tax assessment," Aaron said. "The wider the ratios get between the assessed value and the market value, then you need these types of measures to bring everything back together again."
While the assessment will take place this year, the cost will be paid out over the next five budgets.
"You're allowed to write this off in five succeeding budgets," Chief Financial Officer Ron Mehlhorn Sr. said. "Put one-fifth in each budget and raise it, instead of doing a bond ordinance."
Realty Appraisal Co. also carried out the previous Long Branch reassessment, which took place in 2007. The reassessment was not well received by some, with many residents in Elberon upset with the results.
The city administration, however, sees a different outcome this time.
"I'm sure overall, everything will go down," Mehlhorn said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
CFO: Assessments will go down
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — The City Council approved a contract last week to move forward with the reassessment of properties this fall.
The council voted 4-0 to approve a contract for Realty Appraisal Co. at the Aug. 11 council meeting. Councilman Brian Unger was absent for the vote.
The West New York company will receive $365,000 for services, which will be on the books for the 2010 tax year.
Long Branch Tax Assessor John Butow spoke to the council at the workshop meeting preceding the vote.
"We received two bids," Butow said. "We evaluated the proposals and the company we chose based on the different factors.
"We are here asking the city to approve the contract for Realty Appraisal Company," he added.
The other bid was submitted by Appraisals Systems Inc., Morristown, which made a $488,900 bid to complete the reassessment.
City Attorney James Aaron explained some of the other factors that led to this decision.
"Realty is not only the cheapest," Aaron said, "but it is also the only bid that had any experience with areas of redevelopment, of which we have significant areas.
"So that was another factor," he added. "Other than that, they are very professional."
According to Butow, the reassessment should start very soon.
"I spoke with the state today," he said. "They will fast-track out there to get approval, and then 10 days after that we will get feet on the ground and start the process."
The contract award comes just two weeks after the council approved $375,000 in appropriations for the reassessment.
Butow said last month that the Monmouth County Board of Taxation ordered the reassessment and that he will be overseeing the entire project.
At the July 28 meeting, Aaron explained exactly why the reassessment is necessary.
"The goal is to reduce the number of tax appeals," he said. "Since the tax appeals are based on the assessed value of the property, by doing this reassessment now, we're joining the League of Municipalities.
"They're attempting to do this to find a more equitable way of taxing the taxpayers in each municipality and to stave off the growing number of appeals, which will also cut down on the legal costs," he added.
Butow said the reassessment would reflect the market as of Oct. 1.
"This will result in the equitable distribution of the tax burden," he said.
Aaron explained that the gap between assessed value and market value is wide now, thus making the reassessment a necessary step.
"These are all key to dramatic changes in the ratio of sales and tax assessment," Aaron said. "The wider the ratios get between the assessed value and the market value, then you need these types of measures to bring everything back together again."
While the assessment will take place this year, the cost will be paid out over the next five budgets.
"You're allowed to write this off in five succeeding budgets," Chief Financial Officer Ron Mehlhorn Sr. said. "Put one-fifth in each budget and raise it, instead of doing a bond ordinance."
Realty Appraisal Co. also carried out the previous Long Branch reassessment, which took place in 2007. The reassessment was not well received by some, with many residents in Elberon upset with the results.
The city administration, however, sees a different outcome this time.
"I'm sure overall, everything will go down," Mehlhorn said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
T.F council split on budget approval
T.F. council split on budget approval
Skudera: Budget issues were inherited
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The Borough Council approved the 2009 budget last week after several sessions of contentious debate.
During its Aug. 4 meeting, the council approved an amended budget with a 3-2 vote.
The vote was the same as the roll call when an amendment to the budget was introduced at the July 21 meeting, with council members Scott Larkin, NancyAnne Fama and Gary Baldwin voting to approve the budget, and Andrew Mayer and Duane Morrill voting against it.
The amended budget raised the tax rate by 2.7 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, while the budget originally called for a flat tax rate. The tax rate went from 35.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to 38 cents.
The total spending plan is $21.6 million with a tax levy of $11.4 million. The approved amendment resulted in an $805,823 increase in the tax levy. The increase will cost the owner of a house valued at the borough average of $343,760 an extra $92 annually in municipal taxes.
The amendment was in keeping with advice from Chief Financial Officer Stephen Pfeffer, who had urged the council to raise the tax rate to the maximum allowed by the state, which caps increases at 4 percent year to year.
"I can't support a budget that has an increase with this amendment without looking at what more we can do," Mayer said.
Baldwin, who pushed hard for approval of the amended budget, explained that the tax increase is necessary for the borough.
"Most of the budget is pretty non-discretionary at this point," he said. "We are not up to the 4 percent level; almost every other borough is. You ought to be moving it up a little bit every year because if not, you're going to be behind every year."
The council faced heat during the public hearing for the amendment, with residents pleading with the council to reconsider raising taxes and to instead cut services, including funding for the library and the recreation department.
Baldwin disagreed. He said the recreation department could be partially self-sustaining but would still need funding from the borough.
"There is a certain amount of tax money that needs to go to things like recreation," he said. "Recreation should not be fully funded by those kids or parents of those kids."
Mayer argued that the council should examine further which programs' funding could be cut back.
"Some programs are more self-sustaining than others," he said. "What's the threshold we are willing to pay from the borough's perspective?"
Baldwin said that cuts could be made, but it would affect the quality of life in the borough.
"I think we as taxpayers have to understand, even the library, you can go in and cut the library and save half a million," he said. "Is that the right thing for us to do for the citizens of this borough?
"We can lop off a couple of cops, get rid of some public employees; I can find a lot of money to save," he added. "But it doesn't make sense in the big scheme of things."
Not all residents supported making drastic cuts.
"We are all laborers in this town, and I don't want to see services cut for the kids' rec program," said Leo Lomangino, "and I don't want to see cops that may be my neighbor fired or someone who works for public works.
"Because if they get fired, they lose their houses, so it is all connected," he added.
Morrill agreed, saying, "That quality of life costs money, it doesn't come free."
Lomangino said that arguing among members of the council should not continue.
"I beg of this governing body not to politicize this budget," he said. "Really, let's lock down and get together. There are some great ideas right here, but let's not politicize it."
Tinton Falls Mayor Michael Skudera, who took office in July, distanced himself from the current budget.
"This budget is a budget we inherited," he said. "I took office little more than a month ago, worked with the administration to make cuts."
Skudera cited the late date in the year as the reason the council needed to adopt the budget.
"The problem is we are in August," he said. "Alot of the good ideas we had we can apply them to next year, but we are in August.
"If we don't secure the funds, we could start out 2010 in a $1.5 million hole," he added. "That's a lot to make up in one year. Bottom line is, we have looked at cuts and we have made cuts, but we're in August."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Skudera: Budget issues were inherited
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The Borough Council approved the 2009 budget last week after several sessions of contentious debate.
During its Aug. 4 meeting, the council approved an amended budget with a 3-2 vote.
The vote was the same as the roll call when an amendment to the budget was introduced at the July 21 meeting, with council members Scott Larkin, NancyAnne Fama and Gary Baldwin voting to approve the budget, and Andrew Mayer and Duane Morrill voting against it.
The amended budget raised the tax rate by 2.7 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, while the budget originally called for a flat tax rate. The tax rate went from 35.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to 38 cents.
The total spending plan is $21.6 million with a tax levy of $11.4 million. The approved amendment resulted in an $805,823 increase in the tax levy. The increase will cost the owner of a house valued at the borough average of $343,760 an extra $92 annually in municipal taxes.
The amendment was in keeping with advice from Chief Financial Officer Stephen Pfeffer, who had urged the council to raise the tax rate to the maximum allowed by the state, which caps increases at 4 percent year to year.
"I can't support a budget that has an increase with this amendment without looking at what more we can do," Mayer said.
Baldwin, who pushed hard for approval of the amended budget, explained that the tax increase is necessary for the borough.
"Most of the budget is pretty non-discretionary at this point," he said. "We are not up to the 4 percent level; almost every other borough is. You ought to be moving it up a little bit every year because if not, you're going to be behind every year."
The council faced heat during the public hearing for the amendment, with residents pleading with the council to reconsider raising taxes and to instead cut services, including funding for the library and the recreation department.
Baldwin disagreed. He said the recreation department could be partially self-sustaining but would still need funding from the borough.
"There is a certain amount of tax money that needs to go to things like recreation," he said. "Recreation should not be fully funded by those kids or parents of those kids."
Mayer argued that the council should examine further which programs' funding could be cut back.
"Some programs are more self-sustaining than others," he said. "What's the threshold we are willing to pay from the borough's perspective?"
Baldwin said that cuts could be made, but it would affect the quality of life in the borough.
"I think we as taxpayers have to understand, even the library, you can go in and cut the library and save half a million," he said. "Is that the right thing for us to do for the citizens of this borough?
"We can lop off a couple of cops, get rid of some public employees; I can find a lot of money to save," he added. "But it doesn't make sense in the big scheme of things."
Not all residents supported making drastic cuts.
"We are all laborers in this town, and I don't want to see services cut for the kids' rec program," said Leo Lomangino, "and I don't want to see cops that may be my neighbor fired or someone who works for public works.
"Because if they get fired, they lose their houses, so it is all connected," he added.
Morrill agreed, saying, "That quality of life costs money, it doesn't come free."
Lomangino said that arguing among members of the council should not continue.
"I beg of this governing body not to politicize this budget," he said. "Really, let's lock down and get together. There are some great ideas right here, but let's not politicize it."
Tinton Falls Mayor Michael Skudera, who took office in July, distanced himself from the current budget.
"This budget is a budget we inherited," he said. "I took office little more than a month ago, worked with the administration to make cuts."
Skudera cited the late date in the year as the reason the council needed to adopt the budget.
"The problem is we are in August," he said. "Alot of the good ideas we had we can apply them to next year, but we are in August.
"If we don't secure the funds, we could start out 2010 in a $1.5 million hole," he added. "That's a lot to make up in one year. Bottom line is, we have looked at cuts and we have made cuts, but we're in August."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
T.F council continues open space debate
T.F. council continues open space debate
Referendum resolution fails to gain approval
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Tinton Falls Borough Council could not come to an agreement on how the open space tax rate should be set at the Aug. 4 meeting.
For the second straight council meeting, the council discussed putting a referendum on the election ballot that would put the question of open space before voters, this time with the question in front of them as a resolution.
The resolution, written by Borough Attorney Brian Nelson, would give the council a yearly option to tax residents between 1.5 and 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. The open space tax rate is currently 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation.
However, the resolution failed at the Aug. 4 meeting for lack of a motion.
During an hour-long debate, council members said they were not comfortable with taking the decision away from the taxpayers as a reason why the proposed question failed.
"I'm just not comfortable with that," council Deputy President Gary Baldwin said. "If we use this as the referendum, we are going to then take from the taxpayers their right and privilege [to decide] how much money they want to give to the borough to buy open space."
"As much as I disagree with you, I agree with you on that; I'm not comfortable either," said Councilman Andrew Mayer, who has been a vocal opponent of cutting the current tax rate.
Councilwoman NancyAnne Fama was in favor of giving the council the authority to decide on the open tax rate each year.
"Wouldn't that allow us to have that flexibility if we need to purchase a particular parcel in a given year?" Fama asked. "So, if you didn't have anything on the pike, but if you have something, perhaps we can raise it up."
At the end of the night, the council approved a resolution to have Nelson draw up another question for the next meeting that would cut the tax rate to 2.25 cents per $100.
The resolution passed with a 3-2 vote, with Mayer and Baldwin voting against it. Baldwin later proposed cutting the open space tax rate to 1.5 cents, but that vote failed.
Three council members voted to have Nelson draw up another question, including council President Duane Morrill, whose vote was a change of position on the issue.
Morrill argued for the past two meetings against cutting the tax, but seemed to think that 2.25 cents might be a fair compromise.
"2.25 sounds like something we can look into," he said as he voted. "And again, we still have our options open for others."
The open space question will again appear on the agenda for the Aug. 21 meeting, but the council does not have any cushion to go back to the drawing board then, with the deadline to submit a referendum to the state being Aug. 27.
A decision to cut open space funding would give the council the ability to save the taxpayers a portion of their $103 yearly tax bill for a house assessed at the borough average of $343,760.
Earlier in the meeting, the council also approved an amendment to the municipal budget that would raise taxes by $92 for the average homeowner.
For Baldwin, cutting the open space tax is an opportunity to give back a portion of that increase.
"This is one way we can reduce that impact on you a little bit," he said. "I don't want to make that decision, I want you to tell me."
According to Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor, the borough collected $384,181 from the open space tax in 2007. After the borough's property revaluation in 2008, the amount collected rose to $876,746.
"The reevaluation increased the property values 128 percent, and now we are taking twice the money," Baldwin said.
Baldwin also suggested distributing a survey to residents to get their opinions on open space, but due to time constraints, that is not an option for this year.
While Mayer fought against cutting the tax, he said the survey might be a tool to consider for next year.
"Maybe if we start the survey now, and collect the information and talk about a referendum next year," he said, "we can also get some information about what's going on with the properties in Fort Monmouth by then, what kinds of deals we have with farmland acquisitions in the southern part of town," he added. "I want to see all the facts in front of me."
But not all of the council members believed waiting would be a wise decision.
"I think this is an area we can absolutely look at, and we shouldn't be waiting on it at all," Fama said.
"If we wait, we will again take this money from the taxpayers in a very difficult time," Baldwin said.
Baldwin and Fama again cited the reevaluation as a reason why cutting the tax is necessary.
"I think the right number is a dollar number the residents told us we can take," Baldwin said. "They have never told us we can take $876,000."
"For the [previous] five years, the residents have lived with an open space tax that generated roughly $400,000," Fama said. "In 2008 we doubled that to $876,000.
"This is a place to cut," she continued. "We are not suggesting that we do not have an open space tax."
Mayer argued that the value of open space would save the taxpayer more in the long run.
"You look at it as savings, I look at it as an investment," he said. "Every piece of development we save is going to save the taxpayers money."
At least one member of the borough administration agreed that saving land from being developed would be a saving for taxpayers.
"My personal opinion, I lean toward more what Dr. Mayer says, as far as development costs more in the long term than the preservation of the properties," Chief Financial Officer Stephen Pfeffer said. "Chasing the ratables basically increases taxes.
"The services out-cost what we can generate in taxes from that specific ratable," he continued. "The cheaper way to go is to buy up the properties and prevent that development."
Pfeffer also explained that a portion of the open space tax is used to cover debt services.
Baldwin disagreed with the point about development, saying that not all development is bad.
"A certain kind of development is good," he said. "The Planning Board is approved by this council to do the developing the right way.
"If you develop a piece of land with a good business partner, that's good," he continued. "This community needs to stay alive with some development."
"We have to look at what the real cost of development is," Mayer came back. "We have an increased cost of services, we have permanent destruction of our natural treasures.
"We have a lot of other environmentally sensitive areas," he continued. "We have to worry about pollution, an increased cost of garbage collection, police, everything else that comes with development.
"This is our opportunity to preserve green acres and our borough," Mayer added.
"And you'll still have $400,000 a year to do that," Baldwin responded.
Mayer rejected the contention that the revaluation is a reason why the open space tax should be decreased.
"I'm not sure from a business case standpoint we can determine what the right amount of money is," he said. "You see the increase in property values go up, the price of open space goes up."
While Pfeffer said that he is not in favor of cutting the tax, he did not paint a gloomy picture if the borough decided to do so.
"I did the analysis of the Open Space Trust Fund and the projections over the next five years," he said. "At this stage, I don't see a danger at any level of completely exhausting the fund."
Pfeffer said the borough is in good shape to pay off two properties purchased with open space funds — the Somers property and a tract on Wayside Road.
"All my scenarios basically have shown we are going to pay these properties off in cash by 2011," he said. "I do believe at this point the assessments are steady enough to support whatever we have to do, whether it is 1.5 or 3 cents. "
But Mayer cited prospective grant money as the reason the borough shouldn't cut the tax.
"We have looked very favorable with the state and the county with open space grants," he said. "Our current rate is one of the reasons they look at us very favorably."
While it will be the council's decision whether or not to place a question regarding the topic on the ballot in November, it will be the residents who make the final decision on it.
"I don't care how each one of you feels," resident Charlie Lomangino said. "It's not up to you."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Referendum resolution fails to gain approval
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Tinton Falls Borough Council could not come to an agreement on how the open space tax rate should be set at the Aug. 4 meeting.
For the second straight council meeting, the council discussed putting a referendum on the election ballot that would put the question of open space before voters, this time with the question in front of them as a resolution.
The resolution, written by Borough Attorney Brian Nelson, would give the council a yearly option to tax residents between 1.5 and 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. The open space tax rate is currently 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation.
However, the resolution failed at the Aug. 4 meeting for lack of a motion.
During an hour-long debate, council members said they were not comfortable with taking the decision away from the taxpayers as a reason why the proposed question failed.
"I'm just not comfortable with that," council Deputy President Gary Baldwin said. "If we use this as the referendum, we are going to then take from the taxpayers their right and privilege [to decide] how much money they want to give to the borough to buy open space."
"As much as I disagree with you, I agree with you on that; I'm not comfortable either," said Councilman Andrew Mayer, who has been a vocal opponent of cutting the current tax rate.
Councilwoman NancyAnne Fama was in favor of giving the council the authority to decide on the open tax rate each year.
"Wouldn't that allow us to have that flexibility if we need to purchase a particular parcel in a given year?" Fama asked. "So, if you didn't have anything on the pike, but if you have something, perhaps we can raise it up."
At the end of the night, the council approved a resolution to have Nelson draw up another question for the next meeting that would cut the tax rate to 2.25 cents per $100.
The resolution passed with a 3-2 vote, with Mayer and Baldwin voting against it. Baldwin later proposed cutting the open space tax rate to 1.5 cents, but that vote failed.
Three council members voted to have Nelson draw up another question, including council President Duane Morrill, whose vote was a change of position on the issue.
Morrill argued for the past two meetings against cutting the tax, but seemed to think that 2.25 cents might be a fair compromise.
"2.25 sounds like something we can look into," he said as he voted. "And again, we still have our options open for others."
The open space question will again appear on the agenda for the Aug. 21 meeting, but the council does not have any cushion to go back to the drawing board then, with the deadline to submit a referendum to the state being Aug. 27.
A decision to cut open space funding would give the council the ability to save the taxpayers a portion of their $103 yearly tax bill for a house assessed at the borough average of $343,760.
Earlier in the meeting, the council also approved an amendment to the municipal budget that would raise taxes by $92 for the average homeowner.
For Baldwin, cutting the open space tax is an opportunity to give back a portion of that increase.
"This is one way we can reduce that impact on you a little bit," he said. "I don't want to make that decision, I want you to tell me."
According to Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor, the borough collected $384,181 from the open space tax in 2007. After the borough's property revaluation in 2008, the amount collected rose to $876,746.
"The reevaluation increased the property values 128 percent, and now we are taking twice the money," Baldwin said.
Baldwin also suggested distributing a survey to residents to get their opinions on open space, but due to time constraints, that is not an option for this year.
While Mayer fought against cutting the tax, he said the survey might be a tool to consider for next year.
"Maybe if we start the survey now, and collect the information and talk about a referendum next year," he said, "we can also get some information about what's going on with the properties in Fort Monmouth by then, what kinds of deals we have with farmland acquisitions in the southern part of town," he added. "I want to see all the facts in front of me."
But not all of the council members believed waiting would be a wise decision.
"I think this is an area we can absolutely look at, and we shouldn't be waiting on it at all," Fama said.
"If we wait, we will again take this money from the taxpayers in a very difficult time," Baldwin said.
Baldwin and Fama again cited the reevaluation as a reason why cutting the tax is necessary.
"I think the right number is a dollar number the residents told us we can take," Baldwin said. "They have never told us we can take $876,000."
"For the [previous] five years, the residents have lived with an open space tax that generated roughly $400,000," Fama said. "In 2008 we doubled that to $876,000.
"This is a place to cut," she continued. "We are not suggesting that we do not have an open space tax."
Mayer argued that the value of open space would save the taxpayer more in the long run.
"You look at it as savings, I look at it as an investment," he said. "Every piece of development we save is going to save the taxpayers money."
At least one member of the borough administration agreed that saving land from being developed would be a saving for taxpayers.
"My personal opinion, I lean toward more what Dr. Mayer says, as far as development costs more in the long term than the preservation of the properties," Chief Financial Officer Stephen Pfeffer said. "Chasing the ratables basically increases taxes.
"The services out-cost what we can generate in taxes from that specific ratable," he continued. "The cheaper way to go is to buy up the properties and prevent that development."
Pfeffer also explained that a portion of the open space tax is used to cover debt services.
Baldwin disagreed with the point about development, saying that not all development is bad.
"A certain kind of development is good," he said. "The Planning Board is approved by this council to do the developing the right way.
"If you develop a piece of land with a good business partner, that's good," he continued. "This community needs to stay alive with some development."
"We have to look at what the real cost of development is," Mayer came back. "We have an increased cost of services, we have permanent destruction of our natural treasures.
"We have a lot of other environmentally sensitive areas," he continued. "We have to worry about pollution, an increased cost of garbage collection, police, everything else that comes with development.
"This is our opportunity to preserve green acres and our borough," Mayer added.
"And you'll still have $400,000 a year to do that," Baldwin responded.
Mayer rejected the contention that the revaluation is a reason why the open space tax should be decreased.
"I'm not sure from a business case standpoint we can determine what the right amount of money is," he said. "You see the increase in property values go up, the price of open space goes up."
While Pfeffer said that he is not in favor of cutting the tax, he did not paint a gloomy picture if the borough decided to do so.
"I did the analysis of the Open Space Trust Fund and the projections over the next five years," he said. "At this stage, I don't see a danger at any level of completely exhausting the fund."
Pfeffer said the borough is in good shape to pay off two properties purchased with open space funds — the Somers property and a tract on Wayside Road.
"All my scenarios basically have shown we are going to pay these properties off in cash by 2011," he said. "I do believe at this point the assessments are steady enough to support whatever we have to do, whether it is 1.5 or 3 cents. "
But Mayer cited prospective grant money as the reason the borough shouldn't cut the tax.
"We have looked very favorable with the state and the county with open space grants," he said. "Our current rate is one of the reasons they look at us very favorably."
While it will be the council's decision whether or not to place a question regarding the topic on the ballot in November, it will be the residents who make the final decision on it.
"I don't care how each one of you feels," resident Charlie Lomangino said. "It's not up to you."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Sunday, October 18, 2009
L.B. plans for Beachfront South despite controversy
L.B. plans for Beachfront South despite controversy
Critics: Court rulings show blight designation is illegal
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Long Branch will unveil a redevelopment plan to residents of the Beachfront South oceanfront zone next week, despite criticism that the plan is based on an illegal blight designation.
Councilman Brian Unger said last week that the blight designation and redevelopment zone designation in Beachfront South and MTOTSA are illegal and would be overturned in court.
"Many Beachfront South residents are confused by the city's actions and are asking why the Schneider administration still pretends that its blight designation is defensible in court when it is not," he said.
Beachfront South extends from Bath to Morris avenues, between Ocean Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, while MTOTSA, an acronym for the neighborhood contained within Marine and Ocean terraces and Seaview Avenue, is part of the Beachfront North II redevelopment.
Also weighing in on the matter was the state Public Advocate's Office.
"It is our understanding that the city's longstanding blight designation for the Beachfront South area has not been lifted and that this is proving to be a hardship for residents because it affects their ability to sell or obtain financing for their homes," spokeswoman Laurie Brewer wrote in an email.
Brewer cited a landmark eminent domain case in South Jersey
"Clearly, any blight designation must comply with the standard set forth in the New Jersey Supreme Court's 2007 landmark decision Gallenthin v. Paulsboro," she said.
According to Unger, there are several recent legal precedents, including Gallenthin, that have successfully challenged blight designations that laid the groundwork for the use of eminent domain to take private properties.
"There have been two or three major N.J. court decisions throwing out similar blight and redevelopment designations, including the city's own blight designation in MTOTSA," he said.
On Aug. 7, 2008, a state appeals court declared the three-street neighborhood is not blighted. The three-judge panel of the New JerseyAppellate Division unanimously reversed the June 2006 decision of Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, which allowed the city of Long Branch to condemn the MTOTSA neighborhood to make way for a luxury condominium development.
Unger said the city's failure to acknowledge those landmark rulings could prove costly and unfair to residents of Beachfront South.
"I think that City Hall has to acknowledge that the blight and redevelopment designation in Beachfront South is unfeasible, and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny or a legal challenge," he said. "I really don't want to waste millions more taxpayer dollars on failed legal strategies."
Unger went on to say that he wants to give residents an opportunity to discuss the situation.
"As policy makers, we need to give Beachfront South residents clear means to redress the situation legally," he said.
"I want our taxpayers to know what is at stake.
"We should avoid additional costly liabilities to their pocketbooks," he added. "In the end, the taxpayers pay for this nonsense."
The city has scheduled a meeting with the residents of BFS for Aug. 19 at City Hall.
The residents were alerted by a letter from Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr.
"After meeting with each of you individually and jointly over several months, we have developed a concept plan for Beachfront South," the letter stated.
Woolley explained what the city looks to accomplish in the meeting in an interview last week.
"We want to go over some modifications and clarifications," Woolley said. "We want to give these folks a chance to move forward with what they want to do.
"It's all part of the process," he added.
BFS and MTOTSA [phase II of Beachfront North] are two of the six areas labeled as redevelopment zones.
Also labeled as redevelopment zones are Pier Village, Hotel Campus, Broadway-Gateway and Broadway-Corridor.
Woolley said the city has met with the residents of Beachfront South in the past and Schneider said that he has stayed largely out of the talks.
"I have stayed away from these meetings," Schneider said. "I didn't want it to be about me.
"It's about the interaction with the residents and the planner," he said. "I don't want to be the buffer between them."
However, Schneider did say that he plans to attend the upcoming meeting.
The biggest issue at hand is the possibility that the city will
again, as it did in MTOTSA, use
eminent domain to condemn and take private homes in the Beachfront South zone.
Last April, Unger proposed an ordinance eliminating the use of eminent domain by the city, but the ordinance did not get off the ground.
While there is no ordinance barring eminent domain, Schneider said last week it is not an option at the present time.
"Eminent domain is off the table," he said in an interview last week. "I've been very public that eminent domain will not be used in Beachfront South or MTOTSA."
However, Unger wants eminent domain to officially end and blames the administration for not enacting an ordinance barring its use.
"There is no solid defensible legal reason why the city can't immediately adopt an effective eminent domain ordinance," he said.
The Paulsboro case Brewer cited was successfully argued by Princeton attorney William Potter, of Potter & Dickson.
Potter filed a lawsuit against the city of Long Branch this spring on behalf of Kevin and Adele Fister and their properties, Fuschia Triangle Inc. and Coach Corp.
The suit claims the city used the terms "area in need of redevelopment" and "redevelopment area" while actually applying standards of "blighted" property or area that were rejected by the New Jersey Supreme Court Gallenthin Realty v. Borough of Paulsboro.
The Long Branch suit challenges the legality of the blight designation that underlies the city's entire redevelopment plan.
Potter briefly explained the ruling in an email last week.
"Basic points of Paulsboro is the court struck down the common metric of what is an area in need of redevelopment that is land, property, etc., [that] is under utilized [instead] only actual blight measured as continuing pattern of off site harm due to severe problems on the property," he said. "Not its relative future value as redeveloped is the proper measure."
However, according to Schneider, Long Branch did nothing illegal in labeling areas of the city as blighted.
"The blight designation was not ruled illegal," he said. "There is no determination as to the designation being inappropriate."
The Public Advocate's Office previously intervened on behalf of MTOTSA where the city was attempting to take the homes for a private development of upscale condominium units.
Public Advocate Ronald Chen's office submitted amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs in support of residents of three municipalities fighting their towns' use of eminent domain: Long Branch, Lodi and Paulsboro.
In the Long Branch brief, Chen asked the appellate court to allow the residents to have their day in court to challenge the city's use of eminent domain to condemn their oceanfront properties.
In addition to filing the briefs, Chen and his office staff studied eminent domain procedural findings and court records in towns across the state where officials are using eminent domain to acquire property for private redevelopment projects.
According to Schneider, the city and BFS residents have met several times since the new year in hopes that they can reach a common ground.
With the meeting two weeks away, Schneider doesn't think anyone should be commenting on the matter before that.
"We are working on adopting a plan with the residents," he said. "It's really inappropriate to say anything now."
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Critics: Court rulings show blight designation is illegal
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Long Branch will unveil a redevelopment plan to residents of the Beachfront South oceanfront zone next week, despite criticism that the plan is based on an illegal blight designation.
Councilman Brian Unger said last week that the blight designation and redevelopment zone designation in Beachfront South and MTOTSA are illegal and would be overturned in court.
"Many Beachfront South residents are confused by the city's actions and are asking why the Schneider administration still pretends that its blight designation is defensible in court when it is not," he said.
Beachfront South extends from Bath to Morris avenues, between Ocean Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, while MTOTSA, an acronym for the neighborhood contained within Marine and Ocean terraces and Seaview Avenue, is part of the Beachfront North II redevelopment.
Also weighing in on the matter was the state Public Advocate's Office.
"It is our understanding that the city's longstanding blight designation for the Beachfront South area has not been lifted and that this is proving to be a hardship for residents because it affects their ability to sell or obtain financing for their homes," spokeswoman Laurie Brewer wrote in an email.
Brewer cited a landmark eminent domain case in South Jersey
"Clearly, any blight designation must comply with the standard set forth in the New Jersey Supreme Court's 2007 landmark decision Gallenthin v. Paulsboro," she said.
According to Unger, there are several recent legal precedents, including Gallenthin, that have successfully challenged blight designations that laid the groundwork for the use of eminent domain to take private properties.
"There have been two or three major N.J. court decisions throwing out similar blight and redevelopment designations, including the city's own blight designation in MTOTSA," he said.
On Aug. 7, 2008, a state appeals court declared the three-street neighborhood is not blighted. The three-judge panel of the New JerseyAppellate Division unanimously reversed the June 2006 decision of Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, which allowed the city of Long Branch to condemn the MTOTSA neighborhood to make way for a luxury condominium development.
Unger said the city's failure to acknowledge those landmark rulings could prove costly and unfair to residents of Beachfront South.
"I think that City Hall has to acknowledge that the blight and redevelopment designation in Beachfront South is unfeasible, and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny or a legal challenge," he said. "I really don't want to waste millions more taxpayer dollars on failed legal strategies."
Unger went on to say that he wants to give residents an opportunity to discuss the situation.
"As policy makers, we need to give Beachfront South residents clear means to redress the situation legally," he said.
"I want our taxpayers to know what is at stake.
"We should avoid additional costly liabilities to their pocketbooks," he added. "In the end, the taxpayers pay for this nonsense."
The city has scheduled a meeting with the residents of BFS for Aug. 19 at City Hall.
The residents were alerted by a letter from Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr.
"After meeting with each of you individually and jointly over several months, we have developed a concept plan for Beachfront South," the letter stated.
Woolley explained what the city looks to accomplish in the meeting in an interview last week.
"We want to go over some modifications and clarifications," Woolley said. "We want to give these folks a chance to move forward with what they want to do.
"It's all part of the process," he added.
BFS and MTOTSA [phase II of Beachfront North] are two of the six areas labeled as redevelopment zones.
Also labeled as redevelopment zones are Pier Village, Hotel Campus, Broadway-Gateway and Broadway-Corridor.
Woolley said the city has met with the residents of Beachfront South in the past and Schneider said that he has stayed largely out of the talks.
"I have stayed away from these meetings," Schneider said. "I didn't want it to be about me.
"It's about the interaction with the residents and the planner," he said. "I don't want to be the buffer between them."
However, Schneider did say that he plans to attend the upcoming meeting.
The biggest issue at hand is the possibility that the city will
again, as it did in MTOTSA, use
eminent domain to condemn and take private homes in the Beachfront South zone.
Last April, Unger proposed an ordinance eliminating the use of eminent domain by the city, but the ordinance did not get off the ground.
While there is no ordinance barring eminent domain, Schneider said last week it is not an option at the present time.
"Eminent domain is off the table," he said in an interview last week. "I've been very public that eminent domain will not be used in Beachfront South or MTOTSA."
However, Unger wants eminent domain to officially end and blames the administration for not enacting an ordinance barring its use.
"There is no solid defensible legal reason why the city can't immediately adopt an effective eminent domain ordinance," he said.
The Paulsboro case Brewer cited was successfully argued by Princeton attorney William Potter, of Potter & Dickson.
Potter filed a lawsuit against the city of Long Branch this spring on behalf of Kevin and Adele Fister and their properties, Fuschia Triangle Inc. and Coach Corp.
The suit claims the city used the terms "area in need of redevelopment" and "redevelopment area" while actually applying standards of "blighted" property or area that were rejected by the New Jersey Supreme Court Gallenthin Realty v. Borough of Paulsboro.
The Long Branch suit challenges the legality of the blight designation that underlies the city's entire redevelopment plan.
Potter briefly explained the ruling in an email last week.
"Basic points of Paulsboro is the court struck down the common metric of what is an area in need of redevelopment that is land, property, etc., [that] is under utilized [instead] only actual blight measured as continuing pattern of off site harm due to severe problems on the property," he said. "Not its relative future value as redeveloped is the proper measure."
However, according to Schneider, Long Branch did nothing illegal in labeling areas of the city as blighted.
"The blight designation was not ruled illegal," he said. "There is no determination as to the designation being inappropriate."
The Public Advocate's Office previously intervened on behalf of MTOTSA where the city was attempting to take the homes for a private development of upscale condominium units.
Public Advocate Ronald Chen's office submitted amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs in support of residents of three municipalities fighting their towns' use of eminent domain: Long Branch, Lodi and Paulsboro.
In the Long Branch brief, Chen asked the appellate court to allow the residents to have their day in court to challenge the city's use of eminent domain to condemn their oceanfront properties.
In addition to filing the briefs, Chen and his office staff studied eminent domain procedural findings and court records in towns across the state where officials are using eminent domain to acquire property for private redevelopment projects.
According to Schneider, the city and BFS residents have met several times since the new year in hopes that they can reach a common ground.
With the meeting two weeks away, Schneider doesn't think anyone should be commenting on the matter before that.
"We are working on adopting a plan with the residents," he said. "It's really inappropriate to say anything now."
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Two years later, Wawa projects inches forward
Two years later, Wawa project inches forward
Chain planned for Shafto Road & W Park Avenue
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — While plans for a Wawa in Tinton Falls have been on hold for several years, the chain made a move forward last month.
The Tinton Falls Borough Council approved a resolution [R-09-272] by a 5-0 vote that allows the municipal clerk to file the plat for the planned street that is needed to complete the project.
According to Tinton Falls Director of Law Brian Nelson the plan is for a Wawa with a gas station and a strip mall on the corner of Shafto Road and West Park Avenue.
Nelson said the application already received Zoning Board approval a few years ago, and this resolution is strictly a legal procedure to facilitate the project.
"Is this the Wawa approved by the Zoning Board a couple of years ago for a gas station on the corner and a new road across to feed into phase 2, which is a shopping center?" Deputy President Gary Baldwin asked at the July 21 meeting. "We haven't talked about that for two years."
Nelson explained to the Borough Council that under the Permit Extension Act, the project could be put on hold for a longer period of time.
Nelson went on to explain why the resolution was up for approval at that time.
They permitted a plat [essentially a tax map] to the clerk which still needs to filed by t he county clerk," he said. "The issue here was because of that street there will eventually be a public street at that site.
"Because of that, the clerk wanted to ensure there was authorization from the council to file the plat," he added.
While the plat is for the street, it is not necessarily a commitment to the new street.
"It's not an acceptance of the street yet, but there are certain provisions in the Municipal Land Use Law where a plat can become a publicly dedicated street after inspections and everything is completed after construction," Nelson said.
Nelson said in an interview last week he would advise the council that, while the council is not required to pass an ordinance to dedicate this particular street, he would advise that they do so.
"Issues can pop up in the future where you need a documented record of when the road was dedicated," Nelson said. "It could be something like garbage collection or the snow plow."
The council confirmed that a small street would be needed for a multitude of reasons.
"It is a very short public street," Deputy President Gary Baldwin said during the July 21 council meeting. "And the need for it is so that there is safe access to the shopping center.
"So the gas station would be a triangular section of Shafto and West Park Ave.," he added. "Now the other street will allow egress and ingress from those two major roads so it doesn't block up traffic going in."
According to Baldwin, a requirement for constructing the gas station is that the site also has a shopping center.
"To put a gas station in you have to have a shopping center with it," Baldwin said. "So it's a short street and it's not a problem."
Nelson noted that the delays were on the part of Wawa and that the project was not stuck in limbo with the borough in any way.
"I guess they wanted to move forward [at this time]," Nelson said.
The action regarding the Wawa application comes just seven months after the Eatontown Planning Board unanimously rejected a plan for a Wawa 12-pump gas station at the site of the former Eatontown Roller Rink on Route 35.
Baldwin said he is particularly happy with this recent development, saying, "I think it's a good project and I'm glad to see it moving again."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Chain planned for Shafto Road & W Park Avenue
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — While plans for a Wawa in Tinton Falls have been on hold for several years, the chain made a move forward last month.
The Tinton Falls Borough Council approved a resolution [R-09-272] by a 5-0 vote that allows the municipal clerk to file the plat for the planned street that is needed to complete the project.
According to Tinton Falls Director of Law Brian Nelson the plan is for a Wawa with a gas station and a strip mall on the corner of Shafto Road and West Park Avenue.
Nelson said the application already received Zoning Board approval a few years ago, and this resolution is strictly a legal procedure to facilitate the project.
"Is this the Wawa approved by the Zoning Board a couple of years ago for a gas station on the corner and a new road across to feed into phase 2, which is a shopping center?" Deputy President Gary Baldwin asked at the July 21 meeting. "We haven't talked about that for two years."
Nelson explained to the Borough Council that under the Permit Extension Act, the project could be put on hold for a longer period of time.
Nelson went on to explain why the resolution was up for approval at that time.
They permitted a plat [essentially a tax map] to the clerk which still needs to filed by t he county clerk," he said. "The issue here was because of that street there will eventually be a public street at that site.
"Because of that, the clerk wanted to ensure there was authorization from the council to file the plat," he added.
While the plat is for the street, it is not necessarily a commitment to the new street.
"It's not an acceptance of the street yet, but there are certain provisions in the Municipal Land Use Law where a plat can become a publicly dedicated street after inspections and everything is completed after construction," Nelson said.
Nelson said in an interview last week he would advise the council that, while the council is not required to pass an ordinance to dedicate this particular street, he would advise that they do so.
"Issues can pop up in the future where you need a documented record of when the road was dedicated," Nelson said. "It could be something like garbage collection or the snow plow."
The council confirmed that a small street would be needed for a multitude of reasons.
"It is a very short public street," Deputy President Gary Baldwin said during the July 21 council meeting. "And the need for it is so that there is safe access to the shopping center.
"So the gas station would be a triangular section of Shafto and West Park Ave.," he added. "Now the other street will allow egress and ingress from those two major roads so it doesn't block up traffic going in."
According to Baldwin, a requirement for constructing the gas station is that the site also has a shopping center.
"To put a gas station in you have to have a shopping center with it," Baldwin said. "So it's a short street and it's not a problem."
Nelson noted that the delays were on the part of Wawa and that the project was not stuck in limbo with the borough in any way.
"I guess they wanted to move forward [at this time]," Nelson said.
The action regarding the Wawa application comes just seven months after the Eatontown Planning Board unanimously rejected a plan for a Wawa 12-pump gas station at the site of the former Eatontown Roller Rink on Route 35.
Baldwin said he is particularly happy with this recent development, saying, "I think it's a good project and I'm glad to see it moving again."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
L.B. beaches see record attendance, revenues
L.B. beaches see record attendance, revenues
Free admission in effect for seniors and youths
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — City officials received some good news last week: beach revenues are on the increase.
Danny George, beach manager, and Carl Jennings, director of the Recreation Department and Human Services, delivered the news at the July 28 workshop meeting.
"We have made a major jump as far as revenues are concerned, from both daily and seasonal," Jennings told the council. "In 2000 we made $126,604, compared to 2009, where to date we made $565,525."
So far this year, beach fees are up $20,000 to $30,000 from the same point in 2008, according to city Finance Director Ron Mehlhorn Sr.
This is the second year that the recreation department has had a policy of not charging youths under 17 and senior citizens for admission to the beach.
"It should be noted that 2000-2007 also included when our rates were different and we charged kids and senior citizens," George said. "[The] last two years is just strictly our new policy, and we've really jumped in numbers the last two years."
Some thought that a rainy month of June may have driven revenues down, but George said that wasn't the case.
"If you look at our numbers, we've only had four rain days," he said. "The weather has not really been that bad."
George said a lot of the beachgoers are coming from surrounding areas and check the weather in advance to plan their trip. George cited the July 25 weekend, where Saturday was expected to be nicer than Sunday.
"Like this weekend, everybody came to the beach, and the rain scared them off the beach, but they've already been there," council President Michael DeStefano said, agreeing with George.
"They already paid," city Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr. quickly added.
George then explained how well the beach did during that weekend.
"We did $27,000 by 1 p.m. [on Saturday]," he said. "Sunday was actually much better than Saturday, and we did a third of the business."
George went on to say that there have been many good days for the beaches lately.
"Two Sundays ago we did $38,000 in dailies," he said. "Our biggest day was the 4th of July, where we just about hit $40,000.
"Today, on a Tuesday, we did $9,300 and the beach almost looked like a Saturday because every Suburban comes in with two moms and seven kids," he added.
George also explained that the number of people could not be properly calculated with just the number of daily badges sold.
"What you can't calculate is the [number] of seasonal," he said. "Our seasonal badges, we surpassed that with 200 more seasonal badges than we did all of last year.
"Not to mention every kid who is 17 and under," he added. "Our beaches are so crowded it's unbelievable."
George credited the policy of allowing children and senior citizens on the beach for no charge as a reason the beaches have been so crowded this season.
"What is amazing is the amount of kids," he said. "I believe the word is out. People know this year more than ever that 17 and under are free."
George said that last year there was a problem because the children would need to provide identification to prove that they were under 17. This year, that issue has been smoothed out.
"It has been easy on our ticket takers because we were so hard on them last year about the ID," he said. "They know now that they are not getting on without an ID.
"It's the best deal in town," he added. Jennings said that beachgoers did their research, and the low cost of the Long Branch beach was sought out.
"We must have gotten hundreds of calls before the season," he said.
George explained how the city is maximizing the beaches it has.
"We have 60 booths open and 15 beaches," he said. "Our goal was to spread down the beach.
"Our goal is put a lifeguard on, put flags up, and people will come," he added.
George also cited the number of beaches that have been packed this season.
"I think North Bath has never been more crowded," he said. "The train situation has been awesome. You just see people flying down to the beach."
Council members were pleased to hear about the crowded beaches and increased revenues, but were also concerned about increased expenses attached to the beach operations.
"We opened up a lot of beaches and stands, so our expenses are higher," Councilman Anthony Giordano said.
Woolley said that the city does not calculate daily expenses for operating the beach until after the season, but added that it was "an expensive operation."
The Long Branch beaches operate from Memorial Day to Labor Day. A daily badge is $5 and a seasonal badge is $35.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Free admission in effect for seniors and youths
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — City officials received some good news last week: beach revenues are on the increase.
Danny George, beach manager, and Carl Jennings, director of the Recreation Department and Human Services, delivered the news at the July 28 workshop meeting.
"We have made a major jump as far as revenues are concerned, from both daily and seasonal," Jennings told the council. "In 2000 we made $126,604, compared to 2009, where to date we made $565,525."
So far this year, beach fees are up $20,000 to $30,000 from the same point in 2008, according to city Finance Director Ron Mehlhorn Sr.
This is the second year that the recreation department has had a policy of not charging youths under 17 and senior citizens for admission to the beach.
"It should be noted that 2000-2007 also included when our rates were different and we charged kids and senior citizens," George said. "[The] last two years is just strictly our new policy, and we've really jumped in numbers the last two years."
Some thought that a rainy month of June may have driven revenues down, but George said that wasn't the case.
"If you look at our numbers, we've only had four rain days," he said. "The weather has not really been that bad."
George said a lot of the beachgoers are coming from surrounding areas and check the weather in advance to plan their trip. George cited the July 25 weekend, where Saturday was expected to be nicer than Sunday.
"Like this weekend, everybody came to the beach, and the rain scared them off the beach, but they've already been there," council President Michael DeStefano said, agreeing with George.
"They already paid," city Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr. quickly added.
George then explained how well the beach did during that weekend.
"We did $27,000 by 1 p.m. [on Saturday]," he said. "Sunday was actually much better than Saturday, and we did a third of the business."
George went on to say that there have been many good days for the beaches lately.
"Two Sundays ago we did $38,000 in dailies," he said. "Our biggest day was the 4th of July, where we just about hit $40,000.
"Today, on a Tuesday, we did $9,300 and the beach almost looked like a Saturday because every Suburban comes in with two moms and seven kids," he added.
George also explained that the number of people could not be properly calculated with just the number of daily badges sold.
"What you can't calculate is the [number] of seasonal," he said. "Our seasonal badges, we surpassed that with 200 more seasonal badges than we did all of last year.
"Not to mention every kid who is 17 and under," he added. "Our beaches are so crowded it's unbelievable."
George credited the policy of allowing children and senior citizens on the beach for no charge as a reason the beaches have been so crowded this season.
"What is amazing is the amount of kids," he said. "I believe the word is out. People know this year more than ever that 17 and under are free."
George said that last year there was a problem because the children would need to provide identification to prove that they were under 17. This year, that issue has been smoothed out.
"It has been easy on our ticket takers because we were so hard on them last year about the ID," he said. "They know now that they are not getting on without an ID.
"It's the best deal in town," he added. Jennings said that beachgoers did their research, and the low cost of the Long Branch beach was sought out.
"We must have gotten hundreds of calls before the season," he said.
George explained how the city is maximizing the beaches it has.
"We have 60 booths open and 15 beaches," he said. "Our goal was to spread down the beach.
"Our goal is put a lifeguard on, put flags up, and people will come," he added.
George also cited the number of beaches that have been packed this season.
"I think North Bath has never been more crowded," he said. "The train situation has been awesome. You just see people flying down to the beach."
Council members were pleased to hear about the crowded beaches and increased revenues, but were also concerned about increased expenses attached to the beach operations.
"We opened up a lot of beaches and stands, so our expenses are higher," Councilman Anthony Giordano said.
Woolley said that the city does not calculate daily expenses for operating the beach until after the season, but added that it was "an expensive operation."
The Long Branch beaches operate from Memorial Day to Labor Day. A daily badge is $5 and a seasonal badge is $35.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Tax bills go out & city sees relief on the way
Tax bills go out & city sees relief on the way
Sale of tax anticipation notes not necessary
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — It appears that the city has managed to avert a financial crunch with the use of some creative financing moves.
On July 14, Long Branch Director of Finance Ron Mehlhorn Sr. painted a gloomy picture for Long Branch, stating that he was unable to send out tax bills because the municipal tax rate had not yet been authorized by the county.
Without collecting taxes and with upcoming bills to pay to the schools and the county, Mehlhorn said at that time he might have to borrow up to $10 million in tax anticipation notes.
The $10 million, he estimated, would cost taxpayers an extra $200,000 to $400,000 in interest.
But during the July 28 workshop, Mehlhorn said the problem has been solved.
"There's been an outcry since the last meeting about the tax anticipation notes," Mehlhorn said. "With some innovative financing and a lot of hard work, it looks like we won't have to borrow money."
While the current situation is still bleak, there is help on the way.
"Where we stand right now, we have $672,000," Mehlhorn said. "The tax bills went out on Friday."
Mehlhorn said in an interview that people have stopped him on the street and said they've received their tax bills, which are due in August.
Long Branch will raise more then $70 million from the tax levy for the fiscal year. While some residents have already paid their taxes, the larger share of the first tax bill is not expected for a few weeks.
"It's going to take a little while for those to start coming in," Mehlhorn said.
He also said that the city would receive about $2.5 million in state aid on Aug. 3.
Mehlhorn previously stated that it costs between $1 million and $2 million a week to run the city, so with cash flow low, the state aid is coming at an opportune time.
He added that a $2.1 million bond was sold to an institutional investor two weeks early to give the city some extra cash.
During the interview Mehlhorn explained that selling the bond early is a departure from the city's standard practice.
"We usually sell one bond and buy another on the same day," he said. "Right now we have two bonds out."
Mehlhorn said the move will initially cost about $1,300 to obtain the $2 millionplus, but that the $1,300 will be recouped when the bond is sold two weeks from now.M
ore revenues, roughly $1 million, will be needed because the city's next scheduled payroll date is Aug. 7. The city also must pay $3.6 million to the county by Aug. 15, but that date is somewhat flexible, he said.
"I talked to the county, and if we don't have the $3.5 million for a couple of days or a week, we won't be penalized," he said. "Everyone has worked with us on this, so we will get through all right."
Mehlhorn said the biggest news since the last meeting was that the county certified the tax rate, thus allowing tax bills to be sent out.
"At that point [two weeks ago] we just didn't know," he said. "The problem was nobody owed [the city] anything, and I had payroll and school bills and county bills due."
We couldn't tax anyone, so it looked like I was going to have to borrow money," he added. "July is historically the worst month, with no taxes coming and the schools being able to request 20 percent of their money."
Mehlhorn credited his staff for working long hours and getting the tax bills out as quickly as possible.
"They did a great job getting them out," he said.
While Mehlhorn credited his staff, both the City Council and residents credited Mehlhorn.
"Thank you for getting the tax bills out," Councilwoman Mary Jane Celli said during the workshop.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Sale of tax anticipation notes not necessary
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — It appears that the city has managed to avert a financial crunch with the use of some creative financing moves.
On July 14, Long Branch Director of Finance Ron Mehlhorn Sr. painted a gloomy picture for Long Branch, stating that he was unable to send out tax bills because the municipal tax rate had not yet been authorized by the county.
Without collecting taxes and with upcoming bills to pay to the schools and the county, Mehlhorn said at that time he might have to borrow up to $10 million in tax anticipation notes.
The $10 million, he estimated, would cost taxpayers an extra $200,000 to $400,000 in interest.
But during the July 28 workshop, Mehlhorn said the problem has been solved.
"There's been an outcry since the last meeting about the tax anticipation notes," Mehlhorn said. "With some innovative financing and a lot of hard work, it looks like we won't have to borrow money."
While the current situation is still bleak, there is help on the way.
"Where we stand right now, we have $672,000," Mehlhorn said. "The tax bills went out on Friday."
Mehlhorn said in an interview that people have stopped him on the street and said they've received their tax bills, which are due in August.
Long Branch will raise more then $70 million from the tax levy for the fiscal year. While some residents have already paid their taxes, the larger share of the first tax bill is not expected for a few weeks.
"It's going to take a little while for those to start coming in," Mehlhorn said.
He also said that the city would receive about $2.5 million in state aid on Aug. 3.
Mehlhorn previously stated that it costs between $1 million and $2 million a week to run the city, so with cash flow low, the state aid is coming at an opportune time.
He added that a $2.1 million bond was sold to an institutional investor two weeks early to give the city some extra cash.
During the interview Mehlhorn explained that selling the bond early is a departure from the city's standard practice.
"We usually sell one bond and buy another on the same day," he said. "Right now we have two bonds out."
Mehlhorn said the move will initially cost about $1,300 to obtain the $2 millionplus, but that the $1,300 will be recouped when the bond is sold two weeks from now.M
ore revenues, roughly $1 million, will be needed because the city's next scheduled payroll date is Aug. 7. The city also must pay $3.6 million to the county by Aug. 15, but that date is somewhat flexible, he said.
"I talked to the county, and if we don't have the $3.5 million for a couple of days or a week, we won't be penalized," he said. "Everyone has worked with us on this, so we will get through all right."
Mehlhorn said the biggest news since the last meeting was that the county certified the tax rate, thus allowing tax bills to be sent out.
"At that point [two weeks ago] we just didn't know," he said. "The problem was nobody owed [the city] anything, and I had payroll and school bills and county bills due."
We couldn't tax anyone, so it looked like I was going to have to borrow money," he added. "July is historically the worst month, with no taxes coming and the schools being able to request 20 percent of their money."
Mehlhorn credited his staff for working long hours and getting the tax bills out as quickly as possible.
"They did a great job getting them out," he said.
While Mehlhorn credited his staff, both the City Council and residents credited Mehlhorn.
"Thank you for getting the tax bills out," Councilwoman Mary Jane Celli said during the workshop.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Group would rename, enhance L.B. boardwalk
Group would rename, enhance L.B. boardwalk
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Agroup of Long Branch residents is proposing a plan to create a unified boardwalk along the city's oceanfront that would feature art installations and a historical theme.
Save Ocean Avenue Committee member Dennis Sherman spoke during the July 28 workshop portion of the council meeting to discuss the committee's list of priorities to enhance the boardwalk.
The first priority listed by the group, which is working in conjunction with the Long Branch Historical Society, is to rename the Long Branch boardwalk.
"We are proposing for you to put forth a resolution to rename the boardwalk Seven Presidents Ocean Walk," Sherman said while presenting the council and administration with copies of the plans.
Sherman said he previously presented this idea, and the reaction was positive.
"The thought of creating a unified walk from West End all the way up through Seven Presidents Park [is something] all of you said was a good idea and would support," he said.
Since the previous meeting with the city, Sherman said, the committee has met with people and groups around the city, including the Long Branch Historical Society and Monmouth Health Center.
"Since that time, we have been meeting with local groups, talking to different people to get ideas about the ocean walk," he said. "The ocean walk is based on the [fact] that Long Branch has the unique oceanfront that no other Jersey Shore community has.
"It has clubs, it has beautiful beaches, it has some of the finest mix of venues," he added.
Sherman went on to cite West End, Pier Village, the Great Lawn and Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park as attractions that draw people to the area.
"The Long Branch oceanfront is probably one of the most beautifully unique all up and down the Jersey Shore," he said. "No one can match what we have."
One of the major thrusts of the plan is to incorporate more art and history onto the boardwalk.
Save Ocean Avenue, working in conjunction with the historical association, has proposed a plan to tell the history of Long Branch along the ocean walk.
"We have been meeting with the historical association; they have a plan to put up five plaques," Sherman said. "They would start where the grand hotels were and take us back through history."
Plans also call for a replica of the city seal to be placed on the walk.
Sherman cited the city's rich history as an inspiration for the plan.
"Long Branch is unique because the seven presidents visited here with many other famous people from the era," he said. "We want to bring the history back with the ocean walk."
Renaming the boardwalk is just one of the priorities of the committee, he said.
"We are asking you to not only pass the resolution, but to help us with the other priorities," Sherman said.
According to information he distributed at the meeting, some other priorities include creating artistic archways, additional flower pots and benches, improvements to the boards and railings along the boardwalk, improving the pedestrian crossing on Ocean Boulevard, and the creation of an art walk.
"We can have mosaics along the concrete slabs of the boardwalk," Sherman said. "There are plans to fix the boardwalk; there are plans for the railings. Where the boardwalk indents and goes out, [we want to] build some trellises."
Sherman acknowledged that some of the plans might be easier to put into place, while others, like extending the bike path, would be more involved.
"We want to extend the bike path from South Bath all the way up to Morris Avenue," he said. "There will be plenty of room for people to get up and back.
"There are problems with it, and Mr. [William] Richards [director of public safety] is working on that," he added. "That is one of our goals and will probably be one of the toughest ones."
Sherman cited increased projected revenues as a reason to get the plans accomplished, but in the end, he sees the improvements as creating a place where people can be active and enjoy Long Branch.
"If you're a biker or a walker or a jogger, you will be doing all of this through art, sculptures, murals, paintings and history," he said. "Long Branch is unique. We have a jewel; we have a boardwalk that can tie all the parts that developed over the years and that will develop."
Save Ocean Avenue members are Sherman and city residents Bill McLaughlin, Mary Jean Lepis, Bob Kenyon and Wally Bruchman. The group can be reached via the website at http://www.saveoceanave.com/.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Agroup of Long Branch residents is proposing a plan to create a unified boardwalk along the city's oceanfront that would feature art installations and a historical theme.
Save Ocean Avenue Committee member Dennis Sherman spoke during the July 28 workshop portion of the council meeting to discuss the committee's list of priorities to enhance the boardwalk.
The first priority listed by the group, which is working in conjunction with the Long Branch Historical Society, is to rename the Long Branch boardwalk.
"We are proposing for you to put forth a resolution to rename the boardwalk Seven Presidents Ocean Walk," Sherman said while presenting the council and administration with copies of the plans.
Sherman said he previously presented this idea, and the reaction was positive.
"The thought of creating a unified walk from West End all the way up through Seven Presidents Park [is something] all of you said was a good idea and would support," he said.
Since the previous meeting with the city, Sherman said, the committee has met with people and groups around the city, including the Long Branch Historical Society and Monmouth Health Center.
"Since that time, we have been meeting with local groups, talking to different people to get ideas about the ocean walk," he said. "The ocean walk is based on the [fact] that Long Branch has the unique oceanfront that no other Jersey Shore community has.
"It has clubs, it has beautiful beaches, it has some of the finest mix of venues," he added.
Sherman went on to cite West End, Pier Village, the Great Lawn and Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park as attractions that draw people to the area.
"The Long Branch oceanfront is probably one of the most beautifully unique all up and down the Jersey Shore," he said. "No one can match what we have."
One of the major thrusts of the plan is to incorporate more art and history onto the boardwalk.
Save Ocean Avenue, working in conjunction with the historical association, has proposed a plan to tell the history of Long Branch along the ocean walk.
"We have been meeting with the historical association; they have a plan to put up five plaques," Sherman said. "They would start where the grand hotels were and take us back through history."
Plans also call for a replica of the city seal to be placed on the walk.
Sherman cited the city's rich history as an inspiration for the plan.
"Long Branch is unique because the seven presidents visited here with many other famous people from the era," he said. "We want to bring the history back with the ocean walk."
Renaming the boardwalk is just one of the priorities of the committee, he said.
"We are asking you to not only pass the resolution, but to help us with the other priorities," Sherman said.
According to information he distributed at the meeting, some other priorities include creating artistic archways, additional flower pots and benches, improvements to the boards and railings along the boardwalk, improving the pedestrian crossing on Ocean Boulevard, and the creation of an art walk.
"We can have mosaics along the concrete slabs of the boardwalk," Sherman said. "There are plans to fix the boardwalk; there are plans for the railings. Where the boardwalk indents and goes out, [we want to] build some trellises."
Sherman acknowledged that some of the plans might be easier to put into place, while others, like extending the bike path, would be more involved.
"We want to extend the bike path from South Bath all the way up to Morris Avenue," he said. "There will be plenty of room for people to get up and back.
"There are problems with it, and Mr. [William] Richards [director of public safety] is working on that," he added. "That is one of our goals and will probably be one of the toughest ones."
Sherman cited increased projected revenues as a reason to get the plans accomplished, but in the end, he sees the improvements as creating a place where people can be active and enjoy Long Branch.
"If you're a biker or a walker or a jogger, you will be doing all of this through art, sculptures, murals, paintings and history," he said. "Long Branch is unique. We have a jewel; we have a boardwalk that can tie all the parts that developed over the years and that will develop."
Save Ocean Avenue members are Sherman and city residents Bill McLaughlin, Mary Jean Lepis, Bob Kenyon and Wally Bruchman. The group can be reached via the website at http://www.saveoceanave.com/.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Monday, October 12, 2009
T.F. considers cutting open space funding
T.F. considers cutting open space funding
$876K collected in 2008 for open space
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The Borough Council discussed at its meeting last week the possibility of a referendum that would seek voter approval to cut the open space tax almost in half.
The contentious discussion took place during the workshop portion of the July 21 meeting, after the council introduced an amendment to the 2009 municipal budget.
The current tax rate for open space is 3 cents for every $100 of assessed valuation. That rate was set by a November 2005 referendum that raised the rate from 1.5 cents per $100.
A major point of discussion at the meeting was that after the recent revaluation that took effect in 2008, the amount of money collected from the open space tax rose dramatically.
According to Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor, the borough collected $384,181 from the open space tax in 2007. After the revaluation, the amount collected rose to $876,746 in 2008.
Some members of the council said that a referendum seeking approval to lower the open space tax rate could possibly save taxpayers $58.10 annually. Taxpayers currently pay just over $103 a year into the open space fund.
However, the council was split on whether or not this was the right time to cut down on open space taxes.
Council Deputy President Gary Baldwin pointed out that the previous referendum was passed before the revaluation took place.
"With the receipts going up so high with the revaluation. I think it's time to take a look at that," he said.
The two councilmen who seemed to be the most opposed to cutting open space funding were Andy Mayer and council President Duane Morrill.
Baldwin took issue with the two councilmen, who earlier had voted against the budget amendment.
The amendment, made in line with the recommendations of Director of Finance Stephen Pfeffer, raised the tax rate and will increase homeowners' tax bills by $92 per year.
"I sit here tonight and listen to you [Morrill and Mayer] adamantly vote against a small increase to help us next year to keep us from getting into trouble," he said. "Your reason for that is simply you're tired of asking the public for more tax money."
For Baldwin, the jump in taxes after the revaluation is the reason the borough needs to drop the rate on the open space tax.
"They approved 3 cents, moving from 1.5 to 3, but at that time the approval gave this borough an opportunity to buy $350,000 [open space property]," he said. "It didn't give us permission to give us [more than] $800,000 from the pockets of the taxpayers."
For Mayer, who was not present during the meeting but weighed in on speakerphone, it is too soon after the previous referendum to consider another.
"The last open space referendum was voted on by the voters in November of 2005," he said. "It wasn't that long ago."
Mayer also cited the unanswered questions relating to the closing of Fort Monmouth as a reason why the open space tax should not be cut.
"The property at Fort Monmouth, we really don't know what's going to happen with that," Mayer said. "Now really isn't the right time to evaluate changing it."
Councilwoman NancyAnne Fama also is concerned that the tax rate may be too high for the open space tax.
"Mr. Mayer and Duane [Morrill], you just voted against the budget amendment," she said. "I'm sure you're aware that in 2006 the tax receiptswere just under $400,000. With the revaluation, those receipts have more then doubled."
Fama went on to say that open space is important, but with revenues decreasing, cutting the open space tax is a way to give back.
"We all agree with open space," she said. "We all want fields for kids, but we do have to also tighten the belt."
Morrill's argument was that open space land is a lot cheaper to maintain than developed land.
"I think it will be a lot cheaper to keep open space," he said.
Mayer claimed that there isn't a lot of undeveloped land in the borough, but there is some on the south end of town that could be acquired with open space funds.
"There's some land on the south end of town that if we don't act sometime in the near future, that land's going to be gone forever," Mayer said. "This is really our only opportunity to prevent further developing in town by acquiring this land."
"If we buy the property, we also have expense associated with that," Fama said. "Whether it is developed or purchased by the town, there is still cost associated with that.
Morrill also said there wasn't much land left and that he is aware of the possibility of the borough building an indoor sports center and a softball field.
Business Administrator Bryan Dempsey said those are things that the borough may desperately need.
"Unless we come up with some kind of indoor facility, it's going to get harder and harder to have activities for the children because of limited space and competition for that space," he said.
Dempsey also gave a brief history of open space in Tinton Falls, saying that the borough purchased three pieces of property in 2001 but just one piece of property since the last open space referendum.
But for Baldwin, the issue is taxes and giving residents back a little something in a tough economic climate.
"We can cut this budget really down low, and you can give up a lot in this town, but I don't want to do that," he said. "So this is a chance for maybe to relieve this little bit of increase, and if we are lucky and get the revenues back up in some of these areas, then this will all be just a moot point."
Mayer, who earlier in the evening advocated for cutting expenses rather than raising taxes, said there is just not enough time to consider the change and that he opposes rushing this decision.
"I didn't want to increase the taxes without looking at what we could do with reducing the operating expenses in the borough," he said. "I don't think today's the day to do that [cut open space]; open space doesn't grow on trees.
"I'd like to find some more facts about Fort Monmouth and see what we can do about working down our debt," he continued. "I'm not interested in bonding any more money.
"Do we really want to progress any further if we don't know what is going to happen with Fort Monmouth?" he asked. "Do we want to wait another year on this?"
Baldwin argued that Tinton Falls is too far away from knowing the impact that the closing of Fort Monmouth is going to have on the borough.
"We are still a ways away from knowing the impact the Army is going to have on us," Baldwin said. "We are powerless to do anything against it anyway."
Another factor for Mayer was that the open space tax rate helps in applying for grant money.
"Our current open space rate helps out with grants as well," he said. "We are looked at very favorably based on our tax rate on that."
Baldwin said he would be willing to cut open space funds if it means that there is less of a chance that the borough would have to cut personnel to save money.
"Open space is an investment, but employees, police officers, recreation services, parks — that's an investment also," he said. "When we start cutting those investments because of open space, I'm not sure that's a good trend."
At the end of the meeting, newly appointed Borough Attorney Brian Nelson explained the options the borough has if a referendum is not put before voters in the general election in November.
"You could legally do a special election, but that would be quite costly," he said. "If you don't have a question adopted by Aug. 21, then you'd have to have a special election, which I don't think you'd want to do."
The deadline to submit a referendum question is Aug. 21, which means that the council must act and agree quickly in order to add to the ballot a question about changing the open space tax rate.
Nelson said he would prepare questions for the Aug. 4 meeting.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
$876K collected in 2008 for open space
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The Borough Council discussed at its meeting last week the possibility of a referendum that would seek voter approval to cut the open space tax almost in half.
The contentious discussion took place during the workshop portion of the July 21 meeting, after the council introduced an amendment to the 2009 municipal budget.
The current tax rate for open space is 3 cents for every $100 of assessed valuation. That rate was set by a November 2005 referendum that raised the rate from 1.5 cents per $100.
A major point of discussion at the meeting was that after the recent revaluation that took effect in 2008, the amount of money collected from the open space tax rose dramatically.
According to Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor, the borough collected $384,181 from the open space tax in 2007. After the revaluation, the amount collected rose to $876,746 in 2008.
Some members of the council said that a referendum seeking approval to lower the open space tax rate could possibly save taxpayers $58.10 annually. Taxpayers currently pay just over $103 a year into the open space fund.
However, the council was split on whether or not this was the right time to cut down on open space taxes.
Council Deputy President Gary Baldwin pointed out that the previous referendum was passed before the revaluation took place.
"With the receipts going up so high with the revaluation. I think it's time to take a look at that," he said.
The two councilmen who seemed to be the most opposed to cutting open space funding were Andy Mayer and council President Duane Morrill.
Baldwin took issue with the two councilmen, who earlier had voted against the budget amendment.
The amendment, made in line with the recommendations of Director of Finance Stephen Pfeffer, raised the tax rate and will increase homeowners' tax bills by $92 per year.
"I sit here tonight and listen to you [Morrill and Mayer] adamantly vote against a small increase to help us next year to keep us from getting into trouble," he said. "Your reason for that is simply you're tired of asking the public for more tax money."
For Baldwin, the jump in taxes after the revaluation is the reason the borough needs to drop the rate on the open space tax.
"They approved 3 cents, moving from 1.5 to 3, but at that time the approval gave this borough an opportunity to buy $350,000 [open space property]," he said. "It didn't give us permission to give us [more than] $800,000 from the pockets of the taxpayers."
For Mayer, who was not present during the meeting but weighed in on speakerphone, it is too soon after the previous referendum to consider another.
"The last open space referendum was voted on by the voters in November of 2005," he said. "It wasn't that long ago."
Mayer also cited the unanswered questions relating to the closing of Fort Monmouth as a reason why the open space tax should not be cut.
"The property at Fort Monmouth, we really don't know what's going to happen with that," Mayer said. "Now really isn't the right time to evaluate changing it."
Councilwoman NancyAnne Fama also is concerned that the tax rate may be too high for the open space tax.
"Mr. Mayer and Duane [Morrill], you just voted against the budget amendment," she said. "I'm sure you're aware that in 2006 the tax receiptswere just under $400,000. With the revaluation, those receipts have more then doubled."
Fama went on to say that open space is important, but with revenues decreasing, cutting the open space tax is a way to give back.
"We all agree with open space," she said. "We all want fields for kids, but we do have to also tighten the belt."
Morrill's argument was that open space land is a lot cheaper to maintain than developed land.
"I think it will be a lot cheaper to keep open space," he said.
Mayer claimed that there isn't a lot of undeveloped land in the borough, but there is some on the south end of town that could be acquired with open space funds.
"There's some land on the south end of town that if we don't act sometime in the near future, that land's going to be gone forever," Mayer said. "This is really our only opportunity to prevent further developing in town by acquiring this land."
"If we buy the property, we also have expense associated with that," Fama said. "Whether it is developed or purchased by the town, there is still cost associated with that.
Morrill also said there wasn't much land left and that he is aware of the possibility of the borough building an indoor sports center and a softball field.
Business Administrator Bryan Dempsey said those are things that the borough may desperately need.
"Unless we come up with some kind of indoor facility, it's going to get harder and harder to have activities for the children because of limited space and competition for that space," he said.
Dempsey also gave a brief history of open space in Tinton Falls, saying that the borough purchased three pieces of property in 2001 but just one piece of property since the last open space referendum.
But for Baldwin, the issue is taxes and giving residents back a little something in a tough economic climate.
"We can cut this budget really down low, and you can give up a lot in this town, but I don't want to do that," he said. "So this is a chance for maybe to relieve this little bit of increase, and if we are lucky and get the revenues back up in some of these areas, then this will all be just a moot point."
Mayer, who earlier in the evening advocated for cutting expenses rather than raising taxes, said there is just not enough time to consider the change and that he opposes rushing this decision.
"I didn't want to increase the taxes without looking at what we could do with reducing the operating expenses in the borough," he said. "I don't think today's the day to do that [cut open space]; open space doesn't grow on trees.
"I'd like to find some more facts about Fort Monmouth and see what we can do about working down our debt," he continued. "I'm not interested in bonding any more money.
"Do we really want to progress any further if we don't know what is going to happen with Fort Monmouth?" he asked. "Do we want to wait another year on this?"
Baldwin argued that Tinton Falls is too far away from knowing the impact that the closing of Fort Monmouth is going to have on the borough.
"We are still a ways away from knowing the impact the Army is going to have on us," Baldwin said. "We are powerless to do anything against it anyway."
Another factor for Mayer was that the open space tax rate helps in applying for grant money.
"Our current open space rate helps out with grants as well," he said. "We are looked at very favorably based on our tax rate on that."
Baldwin said he would be willing to cut open space funds if it means that there is less of a chance that the borough would have to cut personnel to save money.
"Open space is an investment, but employees, police officers, recreation services, parks — that's an investment also," he said. "When we start cutting those investments because of open space, I'm not sure that's a good trend."
At the end of the meeting, newly appointed Borough Attorney Brian Nelson explained the options the borough has if a referendum is not put before voters in the general election in November.
"You could legally do a special election, but that would be quite costly," he said. "If you don't have a question adopted by Aug. 21, then you'd have to have a special election, which I don't think you'd want to do."
The deadline to submit a referendum question is Aug. 21, which means that the council must act and agree quickly in order to add to the ballot a question about changing the open space tax rate.
Nelson said he would prepare questions for the Aug. 4 meeting.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Amended Tinton Falls budget calls for tax hike
Amended Tinton Falls budget calls for tax hike
Council will vote on budget at Aug. 4 meeting
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Borough Council followed the advice of the borough's finance director and introduced an amendment to the 2009 budget that would both cut some expenses and raise taxes.
The council adopted a resolution at the July 21 meeting by a 3-2 vote that would raise the tax rate by 2.7 cents per $100 of assessed valuation.
The tax rate will go from 35.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to 38 cents.
The total spending plan is $21.6 million, with a tax levy of $11.4 million. The proposed amendment resulted in an $805,823 increase in taxes.
The proposed increase would cost the owner of a house valued at the borough average of $343,760 an extra $92 annually in municipal taxes, according to Director of Finance Stephen Pfeffer.
Pfeffer had urged the council to revisit the budget, which as originally proposed, did not raise the tax rate from last year.
He also said that the borough cut more than $52,000 in expenses, which is the reason why the tax increase came in below what Pfeffer previously suggested, which was that the borough go to the state-mandated 4 percent cap on increases in the tax levy.
Low revenues and bleak prospects for the future is the reason Pfeffer initially suggested that the Borough Council amend the original zero-increase tax levy.
For Pfeffer, this amendment will help Tinton Falls in the coming budgets.
"I've prepared an amendment to the 2009 budget that accomplishes many of the problems that we discussed at the last meeting," he said in addressing the council. "We did find another $52,153 [cut from expenses]."
With the increase in taxes and exp enses trimmed, the budget increase over last year now comes in under the s tate-mandated maximum tax cap.
Pfeffer said the amendment allows the budget to compensate for the low revenues from permit fees and interest earned experienced in the early part of this year.
"The amendment basically is put forward to reduce our miscellaneous revenues to an amount that we could realistically collect," he said.
"Our analysis shows that our revenues have fallen off dramatically since 2008 and even somewhat in the beginning of 2009."
While municipal taxes will be going up, the owner of a home valued at the borough average of $343,760 will still see a $110 reduction in taxes overall because of reductions in the tax levy in both the Monmouth Regional and Tinton Falls school district budgets.
At the meeting, Pfeffer explained some of the revenue line items that were ultimately reduced.
"The major accounts that we reduced were the municipal court, interest on investment, Uniform Construction Code revenue and hotel tax revenue," he said.
"We went through various line items," he added. "Some had to do with changes in professionals, some had to do with just certain things that occurred in the last two months."
But one of the major problems affecting the borough's finances is the depleted surplus, which now stands at less than $50,000.
"How much is going to come from surplus?" Councilman Scott Larkin asked at the meeting.
"$3.15 million," Pfeffer answered, adding, "I think that left us with about 40- some-odd thousand [dollars] in surplus."
For Pfeffer, the current level of the surplus is a less than comfortable situation but is something he realizes is going to be an issue moving forward.
"If I had my way, I'd like to have a whole month's worth of payroll as the rainy-day fund," he said. "That would be approximately $600,000.
"But that's just not the reality of today, given the state has mandated certain changes in the budget," he added.
The revenue shortage is something that may have major effects on future budgets, according to Pfeffer.
"What we really need in order to get through 2010 is for the economy to pick up and our revenues to come in substantially higher than what we anticipated in the budget," he said.
Overshooting the projected revenue numbers would do a lot for future budgets, including replenishing a depleted surplus, he said.
"Because what that would do is replenish the surplus, and in 2010 that would reduce our reliance on taxes and also hopefully get us in [under] the levy cap," he said. "The key is how much above those numbers can we generate? The more we generate, the better we will be in 2010."
The way the economy is currently situated, coming in over the projected revenue figures may not be a realistic goal for Tinton Falls, he said.
"If the economy stays where it is and revenue stays where it is, we will have a major problem in 2010," Pfeffer said. "It would obviously be a lot worse if we didn't have this amendment."
Pfeffer predicts that without the amendment, the borough could possibly face a shortfall of about $1.5 million, which would force the administration to find alternative ways to raise the money.
"We would have to find a way to get inside the levy cap by making drastic reductions or by taking alternative measures, which would be looking for approval from the state and/or taxpayers," he said.
Pfeffer figured that without the amendment, the borough could possibly add $850,000 to the $1.5 million revenue shortfall for next year.
Councilman Andy Mayer, who voted against the budget, said he would rather find a way to not raise taxes.
"I just keep wondering if there is more to not impact the taxpayers as much," he said.
Mayer and Pfeffer went back and forth at the meeting over what seemed to be a difference in philosophy.
"I think the original point of the amendment was to get us as close to the maximum levy cap as we could," Pfeffer said.
"We could be looking at the revenue side; to balance that, we need to keep looking at the expense side," Mayer said.
"I agree, and the mayor has instructed us to keep doing that throughout 2009 so there is a positive impact in 2010," Pfeffer said.
"My fear is by increasing the taxes and by providing that revenue, there is less incentive to keep looking at those expenses," Mayer said.
"In this environment, I would have to disagree," Pfeffer said. "I think from the standpoint of the employees here, most of them now understand the gravity of the situation, and everyone seems to be pitching in and cutting costs as much as possible."
Mayor Michael Skudera said the borough did the best it could in looking to cut expenses.
"We have looked at different cost-saving measures," Skudera said. "Some of the things we looked at so far [are]: the prosecutor's salary is lower, the borough attorney is not taking health benefits, [and] the public safety position that was lowered to save money."
But those efforts did not satisfy all of the council members.
Larkin expressed concern that what was once considered a good budget now has so many holes in it.
"I'm sitting here with a sense of disappointment that we are here looking at additional monies on what was described a couple months ago as a good budget, and how things changed that dramatically that we are here," Larkin said. "I don't want to be back here again next year."
Larkin ultimately voted yes on the amendment, but Mayer and council President Duane Morrill voted against the amendment.
"I really don't like the idea of looking at tax increases right now, especially in this economic time," Mayer said.
Morrill said he understands that it is a tough economic time for Tinton Falls, but also feels the pain of the residents in the current economic climate.
"I also understand the borough is in hard times, but so are our residents," Morrill said as he voted against the amendment. "I drive through the neighborhoods, and every day I see another house up for sale and another one of our residents pulling out because they just can't afford to live here.
"It's tough times, and I can't see raising money and chasing more residents," he added.
A public hearing on the amendment is scheduled for the Aug. 4 council meeting, to be followed by a vote on the budget amendment.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Council will vote on budget at Aug. 4 meeting
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Borough Council followed the advice of the borough's finance director and introduced an amendment to the 2009 budget that would both cut some expenses and raise taxes.
The council adopted a resolution at the July 21 meeting by a 3-2 vote that would raise the tax rate by 2.7 cents per $100 of assessed valuation.
The tax rate will go from 35.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to 38 cents.
The total spending plan is $21.6 million, with a tax levy of $11.4 million. The proposed amendment resulted in an $805,823 increase in taxes.
The proposed increase would cost the owner of a house valued at the borough average of $343,760 an extra $92 annually in municipal taxes, according to Director of Finance Stephen Pfeffer.
Pfeffer had urged the council to revisit the budget, which as originally proposed, did not raise the tax rate from last year.
He also said that the borough cut more than $52,000 in expenses, which is the reason why the tax increase came in below what Pfeffer previously suggested, which was that the borough go to the state-mandated 4 percent cap on increases in the tax levy.
Low revenues and bleak prospects for the future is the reason Pfeffer initially suggested that the Borough Council amend the original zero-increase tax levy.
For Pfeffer, this amendment will help Tinton Falls in the coming budgets.
"I've prepared an amendment to the 2009 budget that accomplishes many of the problems that we discussed at the last meeting," he said in addressing the council. "We did find another $52,153 [cut from expenses]."
With the increase in taxes and exp enses trimmed, the budget increase over last year now comes in under the s tate-mandated maximum tax cap.
Pfeffer said the amendment allows the budget to compensate for the low revenues from permit fees and interest earned experienced in the early part of this year.
"The amendment basically is put forward to reduce our miscellaneous revenues to an amount that we could realistically collect," he said.
"Our analysis shows that our revenues have fallen off dramatically since 2008 and even somewhat in the beginning of 2009."
While municipal taxes will be going up, the owner of a home valued at the borough average of $343,760 will still see a $110 reduction in taxes overall because of reductions in the tax levy in both the Monmouth Regional and Tinton Falls school district budgets.
At the meeting, Pfeffer explained some of the revenue line items that were ultimately reduced.
"The major accounts that we reduced were the municipal court, interest on investment, Uniform Construction Code revenue and hotel tax revenue," he said.
"We went through various line items," he added. "Some had to do with changes in professionals, some had to do with just certain things that occurred in the last two months."
But one of the major problems affecting the borough's finances is the depleted surplus, which now stands at less than $50,000.
"How much is going to come from surplus?" Councilman Scott Larkin asked at the meeting.
"$3.15 million," Pfeffer answered, adding, "I think that left us with about 40- some-odd thousand [dollars] in surplus."
For Pfeffer, the current level of the surplus is a less than comfortable situation but is something he realizes is going to be an issue moving forward.
"If I had my way, I'd like to have a whole month's worth of payroll as the rainy-day fund," he said. "That would be approximately $600,000.
"But that's just not the reality of today, given the state has mandated certain changes in the budget," he added.
The revenue shortage is something that may have major effects on future budgets, according to Pfeffer.
"What we really need in order to get through 2010 is for the economy to pick up and our revenues to come in substantially higher than what we anticipated in the budget," he said.
Overshooting the projected revenue numbers would do a lot for future budgets, including replenishing a depleted surplus, he said.
"Because what that would do is replenish the surplus, and in 2010 that would reduce our reliance on taxes and also hopefully get us in [under] the levy cap," he said. "The key is how much above those numbers can we generate? The more we generate, the better we will be in 2010."
The way the economy is currently situated, coming in over the projected revenue figures may not be a realistic goal for Tinton Falls, he said.
"If the economy stays where it is and revenue stays where it is, we will have a major problem in 2010," Pfeffer said. "It would obviously be a lot worse if we didn't have this amendment."
Pfeffer predicts that without the amendment, the borough could possibly face a shortfall of about $1.5 million, which would force the administration to find alternative ways to raise the money.
"We would have to find a way to get inside the levy cap by making drastic reductions or by taking alternative measures, which would be looking for approval from the state and/or taxpayers," he said.
Pfeffer figured that without the amendment, the borough could possibly add $850,000 to the $1.5 million revenue shortfall for next year.
Councilman Andy Mayer, who voted against the budget, said he would rather find a way to not raise taxes.
"I just keep wondering if there is more to not impact the taxpayers as much," he said.
Mayer and Pfeffer went back and forth at the meeting over what seemed to be a difference in philosophy.
"I think the original point of the amendment was to get us as close to the maximum levy cap as we could," Pfeffer said.
"We could be looking at the revenue side; to balance that, we need to keep looking at the expense side," Mayer said.
"I agree, and the mayor has instructed us to keep doing that throughout 2009 so there is a positive impact in 2010," Pfeffer said.
"My fear is by increasing the taxes and by providing that revenue, there is less incentive to keep looking at those expenses," Mayer said.
"In this environment, I would have to disagree," Pfeffer said. "I think from the standpoint of the employees here, most of them now understand the gravity of the situation, and everyone seems to be pitching in and cutting costs as much as possible."
Mayor Michael Skudera said the borough did the best it could in looking to cut expenses.
"We have looked at different cost-saving measures," Skudera said. "Some of the things we looked at so far [are]: the prosecutor's salary is lower, the borough attorney is not taking health benefits, [and] the public safety position that was lowered to save money."
But those efforts did not satisfy all of the council members.
Larkin expressed concern that what was once considered a good budget now has so many holes in it.
"I'm sitting here with a sense of disappointment that we are here looking at additional monies on what was described a couple months ago as a good budget, and how things changed that dramatically that we are here," Larkin said. "I don't want to be back here again next year."
Larkin ultimately voted yes on the amendment, but Mayer and council President Duane Morrill voted against the amendment.
"I really don't like the idea of looking at tax increases right now, especially in this economic time," Mayer said.
Morrill said he understands that it is a tough economic time for Tinton Falls, but also feels the pain of the residents in the current economic climate.
"I also understand the borough is in hard times, but so are our residents," Morrill said as he voted against the amendment. "I drive through the neighborhoods, and every day I see another house up for sale and another one of our residents pulling out because they just can't afford to live here.
"It's tough times, and I can't see raising money and chasing more residents," he added.
A public hearing on the amendment is scheduled for the Aug. 4 council meeting, to be followed by a vote on the budget amendment.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Enivronmental commission meets in L.B.
Environmental commission meets in L.B.
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — The city's newly formed Long Branch Environmental Commission met for the first time and officially drafted bylaws recently.
The group was appointed on June 22 and met for the first time on July 13.
The commission members discussed issues including the "Change a Bulb, Change the World" campaign.
The campaign was spearheaded by Mellaci and was featured at the recent Oceanfest celebration on July 4.
"Four hundred and seventy people pledged to the change their light bulb campaign," Mellaci said.
Mellaci also explained that the campaign has grown in the past three years.
"This is our third year," she said. "I thought we did great the first year, the second year was better. I expect this year to be even better then that."
With 470 already signed up, the initiative still has plans to collect more signatures.
"The last year, I think we had about 700 or 750 people sign on to the campaign. This year we are already at 470," Mellaci said. "We haven't started our library campaign yet. They are a great source of dissemination of information to the public.
"They get a lot of pledges," she added. "We signed up about 300 or 400 people down there."
The campaign educates the public about which light bulbs are best to save on energy.
"My concern is a lot of people don't know that compact lights are hazardous," Teitelbaum said. "You have to take them to Home Depot, you can't take them to Hazmat."
The commission will meet on the second Monday of each month and is led by Long Branch resident Mark Smiga.
"Our initial goal is to try to raise public awareness that we exist," Smiga said.
Commission members are Mark Smiga, Marcia Blackwell, Faith Teitelbaum, Dick Honymar, Rich Garlipp, Jennifer Smiga, Richard Lee and Ceil Mancini. Also involved are city employee liaisons, Carl Turner and Michele Bernich of the Planning Board and Carol Mellaci of the Division of Purchasing.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — The city's newly formed Long Branch Environmental Commission met for the first time and officially drafted bylaws recently.
The group was appointed on June 22 and met for the first time on July 13.
The commission members discussed issues including the "Change a Bulb, Change the World" campaign.
The campaign was spearheaded by Mellaci and was featured at the recent Oceanfest celebration on July 4.
"Four hundred and seventy people pledged to the change their light bulb campaign," Mellaci said.
Mellaci also explained that the campaign has grown in the past three years.
"This is our third year," she said. "I thought we did great the first year, the second year was better. I expect this year to be even better then that."
With 470 already signed up, the initiative still has plans to collect more signatures.
"The last year, I think we had about 700 or 750 people sign on to the campaign. This year we are already at 470," Mellaci said. "We haven't started our library campaign yet. They are a great source of dissemination of information to the public.
"They get a lot of pledges," she added. "We signed up about 300 or 400 people down there."
The campaign educates the public about which light bulbs are best to save on energy.
"My concern is a lot of people don't know that compact lights are hazardous," Teitelbaum said. "You have to take them to Home Depot, you can't take them to Hazmat."
The commission will meet on the second Monday of each month and is led by Long Branch resident Mark Smiga.
"Our initial goal is to try to raise public awareness that we exist," Smiga said.
Commission members are Mark Smiga, Marcia Blackwell, Faith Teitelbaum, Dick Honymar, Rich Garlipp, Jennifer Smiga, Richard Lee and Ceil Mancini. Also involved are city employee liaisons, Carl Turner and Michele Bernich of the Planning Board and Carol Mellaci of the Division of Purchasing.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Funding secured to complete L.B. pier design
Funding secured to complete L.B. pier design
House approves Pallone's request for $300K
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Long Branch pier and ferry terminal took another step toward being shovel-ready last week when the city secured $300,000 in funding.
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6th District) announced that the U.S. House of Representatives approved a fiscal year (FY) 2010 Transportation and Housing & Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill that includes his request for $300,000 to complete the design and engineering phase of the Long Branch Pier and Ferry Terminal, according to a press release from Pallone's office.
In April, the city closed its request for proposals (RFP) for a lead designer to provide oceanfront pier and ferry terminal design and program management services.
As listed by the RFP, the contract will be funded jointly by the federal government and the city.
On Monday, Long Branch Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr. said the administration and a committee are reviewing proposals received.
Woolley said that the city hopes to have an announcement for a contract for the pier design in about 30 days.
"We are working through all the proposals," Woolley said. "We hope to have a contract in about 30 days and we are looking forward to getting the architectural design process started."
As for the funding, Woolley credits work by the mayor, council and administration as crucial to securing the additional funding.
"It was the result of a lot of work with the congressman," Woolley said. "We are very pleased we got it."
The projected ferry project is expected to connect Long Branch with lower Manhattan and, according to Pallone, would create 1,200 jobs during the construction phase and 600 full-time jobs once operation begins.
"During these difficult economic times it is important that we invest in infrastructure projects that will create jobs and improve communities," Pallone said in the release.
Pallone also expects the ferry and pier to benefit Long Branch from a tourism standpoint.
"The project will also boost the tourism market, enhance interstate commerce and attract residential and business investment along the Jersey Coast," he said.
According to Pallone, he requested the funds earlier this year.
News of the funding comes after the Long Branch City Council adopted an ordinance in March approving $1 million in bonds for the pier redevelopment project.
The ordinance authorizes a $50,000 down payment and $950,000 in bonds to finance the design of the pier and ferry terminal. The funds will pay for the preliminary design and engineering plans, but do not cover administrative costs.
In 1987, a fire destroyed the Long Branch pier, and since that time the city has acquired redevelopment rights and is ready to rebuild the pier and other amenities, including retail, restaurants, an amphitheater and a children's play area along the oceanfront.
The pier project is divided into three components:
The Core Pier, which will be the main structure and will cost approximately $36.3 million. Plans call for the pier to extend 900 feet from the boardwalk into the Atlantic Ocean.
The high-speed ferry terminal and docking facility, slated to cost $20.2 million, would provide a direct route from the Long Branch region to lower Manhattan at a travel time of 40 minutes. The pier will contain a docking system, as well as the ticketing and waiting areas required for the ferry operation.
The final component is the amenity uses at an estimated cost of $32.5 million, which include retail, restaurants, event space, a public winter garden, outdoor amphitheater, entertainment space, fishing area and a children's play area.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
House approves Pallone's request for $300K
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Long Branch pier and ferry terminal took another step toward being shovel-ready last week when the city secured $300,000 in funding.
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6th District) announced that the U.S. House of Representatives approved a fiscal year (FY) 2010 Transportation and Housing & Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill that includes his request for $300,000 to complete the design and engineering phase of the Long Branch Pier and Ferry Terminal, according to a press release from Pallone's office.
In April, the city closed its request for proposals (RFP) for a lead designer to provide oceanfront pier and ferry terminal design and program management services.
As listed by the RFP, the contract will be funded jointly by the federal government and the city.
On Monday, Long Branch Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr. said the administration and a committee are reviewing proposals received.
Woolley said that the city hopes to have an announcement for a contract for the pier design in about 30 days.
"We are working through all the proposals," Woolley said. "We hope to have a contract in about 30 days and we are looking forward to getting the architectural design process started."
As for the funding, Woolley credits work by the mayor, council and administration as crucial to securing the additional funding.
"It was the result of a lot of work with the congressman," Woolley said. "We are very pleased we got it."
The projected ferry project is expected to connect Long Branch with lower Manhattan and, according to Pallone, would create 1,200 jobs during the construction phase and 600 full-time jobs once operation begins.
"During these difficult economic times it is important that we invest in infrastructure projects that will create jobs and improve communities," Pallone said in the release.
Pallone also expects the ferry and pier to benefit Long Branch from a tourism standpoint.
"The project will also boost the tourism market, enhance interstate commerce and attract residential and business investment along the Jersey Coast," he said.
According to Pallone, he requested the funds earlier this year.
News of the funding comes after the Long Branch City Council adopted an ordinance in March approving $1 million in bonds for the pier redevelopment project.
The ordinance authorizes a $50,000 down payment and $950,000 in bonds to finance the design of the pier and ferry terminal. The funds will pay for the preliminary design and engineering plans, but do not cover administrative costs.
In 1987, a fire destroyed the Long Branch pier, and since that time the city has acquired redevelopment rights and is ready to rebuild the pier and other amenities, including retail, restaurants, an amphitheater and a children's play area along the oceanfront.
The pier project is divided into three components:
The Core Pier, which will be the main structure and will cost approximately $36.3 million. Plans call for the pier to extend 900 feet from the boardwalk into the Atlantic Ocean.
The high-speed ferry terminal and docking facility, slated to cost $20.2 million, would provide a direct route from the Long Branch region to lower Manhattan at a travel time of 40 minutes. The pier will contain a docking system, as well as the ticketing and waiting areas required for the ferry operation.
The final component is the amenity uses at an estimated cost of $32.5 million, which include retail, restaurants, event space, a public winter garden, outdoor amphitheater, entertainment space, fishing area and a children's play area.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Friday, October 9, 2009
Tinton Falls mulls stricter noise ordinance
Tinton Falls mulls stricter noise ordinance
Time limit, use of meters among concerns raised
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The borough may follow the lead of some of its neighbors and amend its noise ordinance, and is weighing whether to include a noise curfew or decibel limit.
The noise ordinance was the topic of discussion at the July 7 workshop session that followed the Borough Council meeting.
The idea of giving the noise ordinance more clout was initially brought up by newly elected Councilwoman NancyAnne Fama and was met with support from other council members.
"I had a conversation with the [police] chief [Gerald M. Turning Sr.] today regarding the current noise ordinance, which really doesn't have any time specifications," Fama told the meeting.
"I just wanted to bring that up to council to see if we could research that a little bit," she added, "see if we might take a look at the current ordinance and see if we can take a look at some reasonable times to examine it."
According to Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor, the ordinance currently on the books was written in 1982 and is not too specific.
"It's kind of a blanket-type ordinance on noise," Mount-Taylor said in an interview last week.
"It's pretty much a good neighbor policy. If you're having a party and it's 10 o'clock, then turn down the music."
She said the ordinance reads, "It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which annoys or is likely to annoy or disturb the peace, quiet or safety of others," the ordinance states.
There is no mention of decibel limits, and the only time specification mentioned is for construction and repair, which is to be done between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.
The ordinance does mention that possible noise violations may include horns, radios, yelling, television, loudspeakers and noise produced by animals.
According to Mount-Taylor, it's not an easy law to enforce.
"It's a hard thing to regulate," she said.
She said the topic was expected to be discussed at the July 21 workshop meeting.
At the council meeting, newly appointed council President Duane Morrill also said he had discussed the noise ordinance with the chief.
Morrill said he was surprised that there is no time specified when noise must be curtailed.
"I spoke with the chief tonight; I couldn't believe it," he said. "Every time I have a party, they [police] seem to show up right after 11:30 p.m. I figured that was the time. Apparently not."
The council agreed to look into setting a specific time when noise must be cut off, and Morrill suggested that the time might be different on certain days.
"One of the options we may look into is the possibility of different times for the weekends compared to the weekdays," he said. "You may want to make it a little later on the weekends."
Mount-Taylor warned that specifying a time might not be the best way to approach the problem.
"Even though there isn't a time, keep in mind when you're doing times, there are people that work all night long and sleep during the day," she said.
One provision discussed was the possibility of requiring permits for people to have parties.
"It doesn't have to be a fee, maybe it just has to be a process," Fama said.
She recounted a recent incident when noise issues became a hassle for both partygoers as well as the police.
"I saw a story just recently of someone whose nephew was going away to Iraq," Fama said. "At 9:30 in the evening they were having a family party, and the police were called. I'm sure the police didn't want to be there."
One question raised was whether the noise ordinance would be in effect for both residential and commercial zones in the borough.
Turner said complaints are mostly in residential areas, but the council may look toward a uniform set of rules.
Council members also spoke about having a strict decibel-level limit, but Business Administrator W. Bryan Dempsey said he has concerns with that aspect of the noise rules.
"My only concern is that when we start getting into decibel levels, we have to have someone who is certified with the decibel machine," he said. "So when it's called out, whether it's a police officer or zoning officer, they have to be responsible for that."
If the council needed proof that noise is a problem in the borough, they could just turn to their white-haired police chief, Turner quipped.
"Look at my hair. How many [noise complaints] do you think we get?" he said. "We get a lot of them."
In a light moment, the council was ready to blame one of its own for the noise problems.
"Do they all come from one place?" council Deputy President Gary Baldwin asked, pointing at Morrill, at which the crowd erupted with laughter.
While Baldwin joked, he also said he understood that noise might be a serious problem for some residents.
"I think we need some help," he said. "There shouldn't be a time limit on noise. If you make too much noise at any time, it could be offensive."
Fama said she is just looking to preserve quality of life in the borough.
"I think the goal would just to be reasonable and understand that people need to get to sleep and don't want to be woken up early in the morning," Fama said. "I will follow up with the chief and come back with some recommendations that we can talk about."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Time limit, use of meters among concerns raised
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The borough may follow the lead of some of its neighbors and amend its noise ordinance, and is weighing whether to include a noise curfew or decibel limit.
The noise ordinance was the topic of discussion at the July 7 workshop session that followed the Borough Council meeting.
The idea of giving the noise ordinance more clout was initially brought up by newly elected Councilwoman NancyAnne Fama and was met with support from other council members.
"I had a conversation with the [police] chief [Gerald M. Turning Sr.] today regarding the current noise ordinance, which really doesn't have any time specifications," Fama told the meeting.
"I just wanted to bring that up to council to see if we could research that a little bit," she added, "see if we might take a look at the current ordinance and see if we can take a look at some reasonable times to examine it."
According to Borough Clerk Karen Mount-Taylor, the ordinance currently on the books was written in 1982 and is not too specific.
"It's kind of a blanket-type ordinance on noise," Mount-Taylor said in an interview last week.
"It's pretty much a good neighbor policy. If you're having a party and it's 10 o'clock, then turn down the music."
She said the ordinance reads, "It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which annoys or is likely to annoy or disturb the peace, quiet or safety of others," the ordinance states.
There is no mention of decibel limits, and the only time specification mentioned is for construction and repair, which is to be done between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.
The ordinance does mention that possible noise violations may include horns, radios, yelling, television, loudspeakers and noise produced by animals.
According to Mount-Taylor, it's not an easy law to enforce.
"It's a hard thing to regulate," she said.
She said the topic was expected to be discussed at the July 21 workshop meeting.
At the council meeting, newly appointed council President Duane Morrill also said he had discussed the noise ordinance with the chief.
Morrill said he was surprised that there is no time specified when noise must be curtailed.
"I spoke with the chief tonight; I couldn't believe it," he said. "Every time I have a party, they [police] seem to show up right after 11:30 p.m. I figured that was the time. Apparently not."
The council agreed to look into setting a specific time when noise must be cut off, and Morrill suggested that the time might be different on certain days.
"One of the options we may look into is the possibility of different times for the weekends compared to the weekdays," he said. "You may want to make it a little later on the weekends."
Mount-Taylor warned that specifying a time might not be the best way to approach the problem.
"Even though there isn't a time, keep in mind when you're doing times, there are people that work all night long and sleep during the day," she said.
One provision discussed was the possibility of requiring permits for people to have parties.
"It doesn't have to be a fee, maybe it just has to be a process," Fama said.
She recounted a recent incident when noise issues became a hassle for both partygoers as well as the police.
"I saw a story just recently of someone whose nephew was going away to Iraq," Fama said. "At 9:30 in the evening they were having a family party, and the police were called. I'm sure the police didn't want to be there."
One question raised was whether the noise ordinance would be in effect for both residential and commercial zones in the borough.
Turner said complaints are mostly in residential areas, but the council may look toward a uniform set of rules.
Council members also spoke about having a strict decibel-level limit, but Business Administrator W. Bryan Dempsey said he has concerns with that aspect of the noise rules.
"My only concern is that when we start getting into decibel levels, we have to have someone who is certified with the decibel machine," he said. "So when it's called out, whether it's a police officer or zoning officer, they have to be responsible for that."
If the council needed proof that noise is a problem in the borough, they could just turn to their white-haired police chief, Turner quipped.
"Look at my hair. How many [noise complaints] do you think we get?" he said. "We get a lot of them."
In a light moment, the council was ready to blame one of its own for the noise problems.
"Do they all come from one place?" council Deputy President Gary Baldwin asked, pointing at Morrill, at which the crowd erupted with laughter.
While Baldwin joked, he also said he understood that noise might be a serious problem for some residents.
"I think we need some help," he said. "There shouldn't be a time limit on noise. If you make too much noise at any time, it could be offensive."
Fama said she is just looking to preserve quality of life in the borough.
"I think the goal would just to be reasonable and understand that people need to get to sleep and don't want to be woken up early in the morning," Fama said. "I will follow up with the chief and come back with some recommendations that we can talk about."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
West End tracks may get safety upgrades
West End tracks may get safety upgrades
Councilman says railroad crossing poses dangers
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
KENNY WALTER Long Branch Councilman Brian Unger thinks this West End railroad crossing poses dangers to pedestrians and vehicles.
LONG BRANCH — Councilman Brian Unger is pushing city officials to take a look at the railroad tracks that traverse West End Court in the West End section of the city.
"This is about the stretch of railroad tracks between Brighton Avenue and Cedar Avenue, behind the Foodtown, behind the Chase Manhattan Bank there," Unger said at the July 14 City Council workshop meeting.
According to Unger, the site is unsafe for both pedestrians and vehicles.
"I see kids cross the tracks from the neighborhood," he said. "I've seen people carrying groceries across."
Unger said that sometimes the tracks pose a problem for him as well.
"I've been on that road [West End Court] in the winter when it's icy and have had trouble negotiating the turns," he said.
"There are points along the tracks where the tracks are literally a couple of feet from the roadway," he added. "The tracks are totally exposed."
NJ Transit police have posted a sign at the crossing.
While admittedly not an expert on safety engineering, he does believe through his own experiences and observations that this is a problem.
"I do feel like this is a safety hazard," he said. "I'd like to see a thick, strong iron fencing to stop automobiles and pedestrians from crossing the tracks."
Unger is requesting that New Jersey Transit take a look at the site and make some recommendations.
"They may say it's perfectly safe, 'Sorry there's nothing we can do,' " he said. "They may say, 'Gee, you're right, we have to do something.' "
According to Unger, a call will be placed to the NJ Transit Asset Management Department to schedule someone to come out and look at the site, which he hopes will happen within a month.
Unger expects the mayor and city administration to look at the site with safety experts provided by NJ Transit.
"They have to make a determination about whether or not it passes their safety requirements," he said.
A NJ Transit spokesman said last week he was unaware of the track crossing conditions and would look into Unger's concerns.
Unger said that because the area in question is just a few feet from the tracks, NJ Transit has the right-of-way and will fund any changes needed to the site.
Unger said pedestrians crossing the tracks aren't really supposed to be doing so.
"There is a sign up, you're not supposed to be walking across there," he said in an interview. "It is against NJ Transit rules."
One problem with the site is that there is no one to regulate it, he said.
"Apparently, they [NJ Transit] have police that drive by there," he said. "But I wouldn't imagine they are out there often."
Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley said there have been some issues with the site in the past.
"I think the issues have been people on Cedar. Occasionally, somebody rather than making the left onto Market has made a left onto the tracks, or even a right onto the tracks," he said. "Usually, it's been somebody who's been relatively disoriented."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Councilman says railroad crossing poses dangers
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
KENNY WALTER Long Branch Councilman Brian Unger thinks this West End railroad crossing poses dangers to pedestrians and vehicles.
LONG BRANCH — Councilman Brian Unger is pushing city officials to take a look at the railroad tracks that traverse West End Court in the West End section of the city.
"This is about the stretch of railroad tracks between Brighton Avenue and Cedar Avenue, behind the Foodtown, behind the Chase Manhattan Bank there," Unger said at the July 14 City Council workshop meeting.
According to Unger, the site is unsafe for both pedestrians and vehicles.
"I see kids cross the tracks from the neighborhood," he said. "I've seen people carrying groceries across."
Unger said that sometimes the tracks pose a problem for him as well.
"I've been on that road [West End Court] in the winter when it's icy and have had trouble negotiating the turns," he said.
"There are points along the tracks where the tracks are literally a couple of feet from the roadway," he added. "The tracks are totally exposed."
NJ Transit police have posted a sign at the crossing.
While admittedly not an expert on safety engineering, he does believe through his own experiences and observations that this is a problem.
"I do feel like this is a safety hazard," he said. "I'd like to see a thick, strong iron fencing to stop automobiles and pedestrians from crossing the tracks."
Unger is requesting that New Jersey Transit take a look at the site and make some recommendations.
"They may say it's perfectly safe, 'Sorry there's nothing we can do,' " he said. "They may say, 'Gee, you're right, we have to do something.' "
According to Unger, a call will be placed to the NJ Transit Asset Management Department to schedule someone to come out and look at the site, which he hopes will happen within a month.
Unger expects the mayor and city administration to look at the site with safety experts provided by NJ Transit.
"They have to make a determination about whether or not it passes their safety requirements," he said.
A NJ Transit spokesman said last week he was unaware of the track crossing conditions and would look into Unger's concerns.
Unger said that because the area in question is just a few feet from the tracks, NJ Transit has the right-of-way and will fund any changes needed to the site.
Unger said pedestrians crossing the tracks aren't really supposed to be doing so.
"There is a sign up, you're not supposed to be walking across there," he said in an interview. "It is against NJ Transit rules."
One problem with the site is that there is no one to regulate it, he said.
"Apparently, they [NJ Transit] have police that drive by there," he said. "But I wouldn't imagine they are out there often."
Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley said there have been some issues with the site in the past.
"I think the issues have been people on Cedar. Occasionally, somebody rather than making the left onto Market has made a left onto the tracks, or even a right onto the tracks," he said. "Usually, it's been somebody who's been relatively disoriented."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
State and county delays crunch city finances
State and county delays crunch city finances
Tax bills on hold pending review of tax rate
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Layoffs and furloughs at the state and county level have delayed the delivery of quarterly tax bills in Long Branch, according to the city's finance chief.
Ronald Mehlhorn, Long Branch finance director, said last week that the city might have a cash flow problem until the budget is certified and the city is able to mail out tax bills.
"Everything is so far behind," Mehlhorn said in an interview July 15. "We don't have certification on our tax rate."
Mehlhorn said he received certification of the budget from the state, but that the tax rate must be certified by the county, which had not yet happened as of last week.
"We have the budget [certification] from the state; we are just waiting for the county to certify the tax rate," he said.
Mehlhorn said that with jobs disappearing at the state and local level, it has been a struggle at times just to get information.
"Everyone is just so inundated that we can't even get through to them," Mehlhorn said. "It's a sign of the times. They have fewer bodies, but the work increases."
According to Mehlhorn, quarterly tax bills are due on Aug. 1 most years, but because of the delay, the quarterly tax bills have not been sent out. Even when the budget is finally certified, it will be a few weeks until the money is collected.
"We have to give people 25 days' notice before we can bill them," he said.
Mehlhorn said at the July 14 City Council meeting that it costs between $1 million and $2 million a week to run the city.
He said the city might have to borrow around $10 million to stay afloat. He also estimated that interest on the funds borrowed could be between $200,000 and $400,000.
Mehlhorn also said at the council meeting that the city won't be refunded that money from the state, and that the funds may need to be borrowed before the Aug. 7 payroll date.
The funds would be borrowed in the form of tax anticipation notes, which are usually borrowed from large brokerage firms and paid off when taxes are collected.
He said the limit on how much the city can borrow is 30 percent of last year's tax levy.
For Mehlhorn, this is a new experience.
"This is the first time it's ever happened this late," he said.
Once the tax rate is certified, it may be a long couple of days for employees in Long Branch.
"When we get the certification, we will work all night to get the tax bills out," he said. "I'll have everyone in the place stuffing envelopes."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
No Flash Detected
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Tax bills on hold pending review of tax rate
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — Layoffs and furloughs at the state and county level have delayed the delivery of quarterly tax bills in Long Branch, according to the city's finance chief.
Ronald Mehlhorn, Long Branch finance director, said last week that the city might have a cash flow problem until the budget is certified and the city is able to mail out tax bills.
"Everything is so far behind," Mehlhorn said in an interview July 15. "We don't have certification on our tax rate."
Mehlhorn said he received certification of the budget from the state, but that the tax rate must be certified by the county, which had not yet happened as of last week.
"We have the budget [certification] from the state; we are just waiting for the county to certify the tax rate," he said.
Mehlhorn said that with jobs disappearing at the state and local level, it has been a struggle at times just to get information.
"Everyone is just so inundated that we can't even get through to them," Mehlhorn said. "It's a sign of the times. They have fewer bodies, but the work increases."
According to Mehlhorn, quarterly tax bills are due on Aug. 1 most years, but because of the delay, the quarterly tax bills have not been sent out. Even when the budget is finally certified, it will be a few weeks until the money is collected.
"We have to give people 25 days' notice before we can bill them," he said.
Mehlhorn said at the July 14 City Council meeting that it costs between $1 million and $2 million a week to run the city.
He said the city might have to borrow around $10 million to stay afloat. He also estimated that interest on the funds borrowed could be between $200,000 and $400,000.
Mehlhorn also said at the council meeting that the city won't be refunded that money from the state, and that the funds may need to be borrowed before the Aug. 7 payroll date.
The funds would be borrowed in the form of tax anticipation notes, which are usually borrowed from large brokerage firms and paid off when taxes are collected.
He said the limit on how much the city can borrow is 30 percent of last year's tax levy.
For Mehlhorn, this is a new experience.
"This is the first time it's ever happened this late," he said.
Once the tax rate is certified, it may be a long couple of days for employees in Long Branch.
"When we get the certification, we will work all night to get the tax bills out," he said. "I'll have everyone in the place stuffing envelopes."
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
No Flash Detected
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
City opts to repeat reassessment
City opts to repeat reassessment
High volume of appeals of '07 valuations cited
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Long Branch City Council approved an ordinance last week that will pave the way for a complete reassessment of the city's properties.
At the July 14 meeting, the council voted 4-0 to authorize special emergency appropriations for the assessment. The appropriations will cost the city $375,000. Councilman Anthony Giordano was absent for the vote.
According to Finance Director Ron Mehlhorn, a request for proposals (RFP) would go out within 10 days of the meeting for a firm to carry out the reassessment, and city Tax Assessor John Butow will be in charge of the process.
According to Butow, the proposals will be opened on July 31 and a contract will be awarded sometime in August
Butow sent an email last week that explained among other things what his role is going to be in the assessment.
"I will be overseeing the project, reporting to the city administrator and the Monmouth County Board of Taxation," he said.
He also said that it was ultimately the county's decision to move forward with the assessment.
"The city spoke to the Monmouth County Board of Taxation regarding the state of the real estate market in Long Branch," Butow said. "After considering the facts, they ordered the city to move forward with a reassessment."
City Attorney James Aaron explained what the city is looking to accomplish with the reassessment.
"The goal is to reduce the number of tax appeals," he said at the meeting.
According to Butow, there have been 400 tax appeals filed by residents at the county level this year. The last day for hearings is July 31, and the city will have word on the judgments sometime in August or September.
According to Aaron, the reassessment will be complete within the calendar year.
Aaron also said that with the poor housing market, other municipalities are taking similar measures to limit tax appeals and costs.
"Since the number of tax appeals are based on the assessed value of the property, by doing this reassessment now, we're joining the legion of municipalities," Aaron said. "They're attempting to do this to find a more equitable way to taxing the taxpayers in each municipality and to stave off the growing number of appeals, which will also cut down on the legal costs."
Both the city administration and residents believe that the end result of the reassessment will be that property values go down based on the current market.
"So what you're saying is that the mean amount will probably end up going down in the market that we have right now?" Ocean Boulevard resident Harold Bobrow asked at the meeting.
"That's exactly right," Aaron answered. "We will be looking at this particular market, rather than a market way back when, when the economic times were different."
Butow said the reassessment would reflect the market as of Oct. 1.
"This will result in the equitable distribution of the tax burden," he said.
Aaron explained that the gap between assessed value and market value is wide now, thus making the reassessment a necessary step.
"These are all key to dramatic changes in the ratio of sales and tax assessment," Aaron said. "The wider the ratios get between the assessed value and the market value, then you need these types of measures to bring everything back together again."
Butow agreed with the reasoning for the assessment, saying, "The main reason is the recent decline in property values."
While the assessment will take place this year, the $375,000 cost will be paid out over the next five budgets.
"You're allowed to write this off in five succeeding budgets," Mehlhorn said. "Put one-fifth in each budget and raise it, instead of doing a bond ordinance."
When asked if the special emergency appropriation could be used for other things, specifically to televise council meetings, Mehlhorn said it couldn't.
"Special emergency is limited to things like the assessment or storm damage," he said. "Any other budget, when you look at emergencies, you have to explain why it was not anticipated at the time of the budget."
Mehlhorn also said last week that not all the funds would be used for the actual reassessment.
"Not all that money is for the assessment," he said. "Some can be used if they find they have to do revisions to the tax map. Most of the money will be used for the assessment, though."
According to Butow, the previous re-assessment was completed for the 2007 tax year and the firm awarded the contract was Realty Appraisal Company, West New York, N.J.
Residents, particularly those in Elberon, were not happy with the rising property values from the last assessment, but city officials expect a different outcome from this one.
"I'm sure overall everything will go down," Mehlhorn said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
1-800-FLOWERS.COM
High volume of appeals of '07 valuations cited
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
The Long Branch City Council approved an ordinance last week that will pave the way for a complete reassessment of the city's properties.
At the July 14 meeting, the council voted 4-0 to authorize special emergency appropriations for the assessment. The appropriations will cost the city $375,000. Councilman Anthony Giordano was absent for the vote.
According to Finance Director Ron Mehlhorn, a request for proposals (RFP) would go out within 10 days of the meeting for a firm to carry out the reassessment, and city Tax Assessor John Butow will be in charge of the process.
According to Butow, the proposals will be opened on July 31 and a contract will be awarded sometime in August
Butow sent an email last week that explained among other things what his role is going to be in the assessment.
"I will be overseeing the project, reporting to the city administrator and the Monmouth County Board of Taxation," he said.
He also said that it was ultimately the county's decision to move forward with the assessment.
"The city spoke to the Monmouth County Board of Taxation regarding the state of the real estate market in Long Branch," Butow said. "After considering the facts, they ordered the city to move forward with a reassessment."
City Attorney James Aaron explained what the city is looking to accomplish with the reassessment.
"The goal is to reduce the number of tax appeals," he said at the meeting.
According to Butow, there have been 400 tax appeals filed by residents at the county level this year. The last day for hearings is July 31, and the city will have word on the judgments sometime in August or September.
According to Aaron, the reassessment will be complete within the calendar year.
Aaron also said that with the poor housing market, other municipalities are taking similar measures to limit tax appeals and costs.
"Since the number of tax appeals are based on the assessed value of the property, by doing this reassessment now, we're joining the legion of municipalities," Aaron said. "They're attempting to do this to find a more equitable way to taxing the taxpayers in each municipality and to stave off the growing number of appeals, which will also cut down on the legal costs."
Both the city administration and residents believe that the end result of the reassessment will be that property values go down based on the current market.
"So what you're saying is that the mean amount will probably end up going down in the market that we have right now?" Ocean Boulevard resident Harold Bobrow asked at the meeting.
"That's exactly right," Aaron answered. "We will be looking at this particular market, rather than a market way back when, when the economic times were different."
Butow said the reassessment would reflect the market as of Oct. 1.
"This will result in the equitable distribution of the tax burden," he said.
Aaron explained that the gap between assessed value and market value is wide now, thus making the reassessment a necessary step.
"These are all key to dramatic changes in the ratio of sales and tax assessment," Aaron said. "The wider the ratios get between the assessed value and the market value, then you need these types of measures to bring everything back together again."
Butow agreed with the reasoning for the assessment, saying, "The main reason is the recent decline in property values."
While the assessment will take place this year, the $375,000 cost will be paid out over the next five budgets.
"You're allowed to write this off in five succeeding budgets," Mehlhorn said. "Put one-fifth in each budget and raise it, instead of doing a bond ordinance."
When asked if the special emergency appropriation could be used for other things, specifically to televise council meetings, Mehlhorn said it couldn't.
"Special emergency is limited to things like the assessment or storm damage," he said. "Any other budget, when you look at emergencies, you have to explain why it was not anticipated at the time of the budget."
Mehlhorn also said last week that not all the funds would be used for the actual reassessment.
"Not all that money is for the assessment," he said. "Some can be used if they find they have to do revisions to the tax map. Most of the money will be used for the assessment, though."
According to Butow, the previous re-assessment was completed for the 2007 tax year and the firm awarded the contract was Realty Appraisal Company, West New York, N.J.
Residents, particularly those in Elberon, were not happy with the rising property values from the last assessment, but city officials expect a different outcome from this one.
"I'm sure overall everything will go down," Mehlhorn said.
Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
1-800-FLOWERS.COM
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
T.F. postpones budget adoption
T.F. postpones budget adoption
Finance director: Revenue decline may force tax hike
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The borough's finance director again advised the Borough Council last week not to adopt the proposed budget but to consider raising taxes to offset revenue losses.
At the July 7 council meeting, Tinton Falls Director of Finance Stephen Pfeffer spoke to the council for the second time about the poor revenue outlook the borough is facing for the remainder of 2009 and beyond.
This time the council, which reorganized on July 1, opted, by a unanimous vote, to carry the budget to the July 21 meeting and to take a look at whether or not to amend it.
On May 5 the Borough Council introduced a $21.8 million spending plan that calls for a $10.6 million tax levy, but the decline in revenues throughout 2009 may put Tinton Falls in a difficult situation for future budgets, Pfeffer previously advised.
Pfeffer suggested at the June 16 meeting that the budget should increase to the maximum cap tax levy of a 4 percent annual increase, and repeated the recommendation at the council meeting last week.
"Basically it's the same recommendation that I made on June 16 along with the borough auditor about going to the maximum cap levy under the law," Pfeffer said.
Pfeffer said at the meeting that he expected to see a decline of $1.1 million in the borough's surplus.
However, last week Pfeffer said the situation might be a little worse than the original projections.
"If revenue stays no worse than flat, we can have a cap levy issue of $1.5 [million] to $2 million in the 2010 budget," he said.
One issue in the budget that remains uncertain, he said, is the possibility that the state will increase the cost of health benefits.
"The newspapers are reporting that the state health benefits may see an increase of upward of 20 percent. There is a provision in the law for a cap waiver when the state health benefits exceed 4 percent, so that will have some impact on my numbers," Pfeffer said. "At this point, we don't know where that's going."
As currently constituted, the tax rate is 35.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, which is the same as last year's budget. Pfeffer suggested raising that.
"The increase, going [up] 2.8 cents, is approximately $850,000," he said, adding, "which is approximately $98 on the average home."
One point Pfeffer wanted to get across is that overall taxes for Tinton Fall residents are down.
In April, Tinton Falls residents voted to pass the school budgets for both the Tinton Falls School District and the Monmouth Regional School District, which, according to Pfeffer, resulted in a school tax reduction of $206 a year for residents.
Under Pfeffer's proposal, municipal taxes would go up by about $98 per household.
"Going to the max allowed by the law, the average homeowner in Tinton Falls will receive a decrease of $108," he said. "Originally, they would have received a decrease of $206."
For Councilman Andy Mayer, cutting expenses is a better option than raising taxes.
According to Pfeffer, that is something that has been looked at but would not make a big change in the budget.
"We've gone through the budget on three different cycles with the departments, and they have made cuts every time," he said.
"But the bottom line for most of the departments [is that] their share of the budget is very small," he added. "We are talking only about things they have direct control over. They don't control salaries, they don't control health benefits, and they don't control the pensions.
"So, really, they have limited amount of control over the budget themselves."
Pfeffer said the departments might cut as much as they can and that they pretty much know how the rest of the year is going to play out.
"I feel that for the most part, we've taken care of them, and now we've gone through six months, so we have a pretty good idea of what we're going to spend for the rest of the year," he said.
Pfeffer said, basically, that no matter how much the budget is trimmed, declining revenues due to the recession are going to offset the borough's cuts.
"It's not anything that's going to offset where we stand right now," he said. "It's all revenue-driven."
At the June 16 meeting, Pfeffer said the majority of the revenues come in the summer months and that he did not have the numbers for June.
While the hope was for a strong June, the reality was that revenues did not improve.
"The revenue picture did not get any brighter in June," he told the council.
One item where Pfeffer hoped revenues would be up was from the hotel tax, but they are headed in the wrong direction, he said.
"Actually, the hotel tax was off more then I was hoping for," he said. "That's actually going backward."
Pfeffer has hoped that revenues would improve in the coming months, but realistically it does not look feasible, he said.
"The cap is really revenue-dependent, and if the revenues pick up for the last six months, then everything can change dramatically going into next year," he said. "But as we stand right now, nothing is indicating that's going to happen."
With the state-mandated cap on the tax levy, the options to save money without going over the cap are limited to furloughs and layoffs, he said.
"From the furlough standpoint, that's not going to generate anywhere close to that number [to offset raising taxes]," Pfeffer said.
Pfeffer also said there are two other options that would enable the borough to raise the levy over the 4 percent cap.
"The first option is a cap levy waiver with the local finance board," he said. "The second option is by referendum, and referendum requires a 60 percent approval in the voter turnout."
The likelihood of getting such a referendum is small, however, and the borough may have to rely on an unpredictable finance board.
"Last year the state granted a lot of waivers," he said. "This year, I think because it's an election year, they've tightened up the amount of waivers they've granted. Next year, who knows?
"If you can make a case for the health and public safety of the residents, then they are hard-pressed to deny a waiver."
As for the schedule for the budget, Pfeffer is looking for input from the council before the next meeting.
The next steps would be to amend the budget on July 21 and to adopt the budget on Aug. 4.
However, that is reliant on the state being able to review the amendment, which complicates the process.
"I just found out today that our budget reviewer is going on vacation the next two weeks," Pfeffer said. "So, I did send him everything, hoping that he would have a chance to look at it and ask any questions.
"I'm not sure how backed up he is or whether or not he's going to have a chance to look at it before he goes." Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Finance director: Revenue decline may force tax hike
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The borough's finance director again advised the Borough Council last week not to adopt the proposed budget but to consider raising taxes to offset revenue losses.
At the July 7 council meeting, Tinton Falls Director of Finance Stephen Pfeffer spoke to the council for the second time about the poor revenue outlook the borough is facing for the remainder of 2009 and beyond.
This time the council, which reorganized on July 1, opted, by a unanimous vote, to carry the budget to the July 21 meeting and to take a look at whether or not to amend it.
On May 5 the Borough Council introduced a $21.8 million spending plan that calls for a $10.6 million tax levy, but the decline in revenues throughout 2009 may put Tinton Falls in a difficult situation for future budgets, Pfeffer previously advised.
Pfeffer suggested at the June 16 meeting that the budget should increase to the maximum cap tax levy of a 4 percent annual increase, and repeated the recommendation at the council meeting last week.
"Basically it's the same recommendation that I made on June 16 along with the borough auditor about going to the maximum cap levy under the law," Pfeffer said.
Pfeffer said at the meeting that he expected to see a decline of $1.1 million in the borough's surplus.
However, last week Pfeffer said the situation might be a little worse than the original projections.
"If revenue stays no worse than flat, we can have a cap levy issue of $1.5 [million] to $2 million in the 2010 budget," he said.
One issue in the budget that remains uncertain, he said, is the possibility that the state will increase the cost of health benefits.
"The newspapers are reporting that the state health benefits may see an increase of upward of 20 percent. There is a provision in the law for a cap waiver when the state health benefits exceed 4 percent, so that will have some impact on my numbers," Pfeffer said. "At this point, we don't know where that's going."
As currently constituted, the tax rate is 35.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, which is the same as last year's budget. Pfeffer suggested raising that.
"The increase, going [up] 2.8 cents, is approximately $850,000," he said, adding, "which is approximately $98 on the average home."
One point Pfeffer wanted to get across is that overall taxes for Tinton Fall residents are down.
In April, Tinton Falls residents voted to pass the school budgets for both the Tinton Falls School District and the Monmouth Regional School District, which, according to Pfeffer, resulted in a school tax reduction of $206 a year for residents.
Under Pfeffer's proposal, municipal taxes would go up by about $98 per household.
"Going to the max allowed by the law, the average homeowner in Tinton Falls will receive a decrease of $108," he said. "Originally, they would have received a decrease of $206."
For Councilman Andy Mayer, cutting expenses is a better option than raising taxes.
According to Pfeffer, that is something that has been looked at but would not make a big change in the budget.
"We've gone through the budget on three different cycles with the departments, and they have made cuts every time," he said.
"But the bottom line for most of the departments [is that] their share of the budget is very small," he added. "We are talking only about things they have direct control over. They don't control salaries, they don't control health benefits, and they don't control the pensions.
"So, really, they have limited amount of control over the budget themselves."
Pfeffer said the departments might cut as much as they can and that they pretty much know how the rest of the year is going to play out.
"I feel that for the most part, we've taken care of them, and now we've gone through six months, so we have a pretty good idea of what we're going to spend for the rest of the year," he said.
Pfeffer said, basically, that no matter how much the budget is trimmed, declining revenues due to the recession are going to offset the borough's cuts.
"It's not anything that's going to offset where we stand right now," he said. "It's all revenue-driven."
At the June 16 meeting, Pfeffer said the majority of the revenues come in the summer months and that he did not have the numbers for June.
While the hope was for a strong June, the reality was that revenues did not improve.
"The revenue picture did not get any brighter in June," he told the council.
One item where Pfeffer hoped revenues would be up was from the hotel tax, but they are headed in the wrong direction, he said.
"Actually, the hotel tax was off more then I was hoping for," he said. "That's actually going backward."
Pfeffer has hoped that revenues would improve in the coming months, but realistically it does not look feasible, he said.
"The cap is really revenue-dependent, and if the revenues pick up for the last six months, then everything can change dramatically going into next year," he said. "But as we stand right now, nothing is indicating that's going to happen."
With the state-mandated cap on the tax levy, the options to save money without going over the cap are limited to furloughs and layoffs, he said.
"From the furlough standpoint, that's not going to generate anywhere close to that number [to offset raising taxes]," Pfeffer said.
Pfeffer also said there are two other options that would enable the borough to raise the levy over the 4 percent cap.
"The first option is a cap levy waiver with the local finance board," he said. "The second option is by referendum, and referendum requires a 60 percent approval in the voter turnout."
The likelihood of getting such a referendum is small, however, and the borough may have to rely on an unpredictable finance board.
"Last year the state granted a lot of waivers," he said. "This year, I think because it's an election year, they've tightened up the amount of waivers they've granted. Next year, who knows?
"If you can make a case for the health and public safety of the residents, then they are hard-pressed to deny a waiver."
As for the schedule for the budget, Pfeffer is looking for input from the council before the next meeting.
The next steps would be to amend the budget on July 21 and to adopt the budget on Aug. 4.
However, that is reliant on the state being able to review the amendment, which complicates the process.
"I just found out today that our budget reviewer is going on vacation the next two weeks," Pfeffer said. "So, I did send him everything, hoping that he would have a chance to look at it and ask any questions.
"I'm not sure how backed up he is or whether or not he's going to have a chance to look at it before he goes." Contact Kenny Walter at
kwalter@gmnews.com.
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)