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