Monday, November 23, 2009

T.F. residents will vote on open space funding

T.F. residents will vote on open space funding
CFO: $1.7M currently in open space fund
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Tinton Falls residents will have the opportunity to decide whether or not to cut the current level of open space funding in the upcoming election.

After two straight meetings of intense debate over the proposed open space referendum, the Borough Council passed a resolution to place the question on the ballot for the Nov. 3 general election.

The council voted 3-2 on Aug. 18 to have residents vote on whether they want to drop the open space tax rate from 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to 2.25 cents. Councilmen Andy Mayer and Duane Morrill voted against the measure.

For the third straight meeting, the council considered cutting the dedicated tax.

Under the current 3-cent tax, Tinton Falls will collect $901,774 in dedicated open space funding, according to Director of Finance Stephen Pfeffer. If the tax cut is approved by voters, more than $676,000 would be collected during the 2010 tax year.

Pfeffer also said that currently there is approximately $1.7 million in the open space trust fund.

Under the proposed tax cut, the average resident will receive a $25.79 tax cut a year.

Last year a resident with a house assessed at the borough average of $343,760 paid about $103 in taxes for open space.

Debate during the previous two meetings centered on saving land from development and the value of open space as reasons not to cut the tax. Relieving some of the burden on taxpayers and the fact that the open space fund had grown after the recent revaluation were cited as reasons to cut the tax rate.

Mayer has fought the hardest against the potential referendum in recent meetings.

"A reduction in open space will increase development, increase taxes in the long run," he said before voting against the resolution. "A reduction in open space limits our ability to pay cash and do less bonding, which will cost the taxpayers more money in the future. The current open space tax money is a great investment in this town."

For other members of the council, this topic has been a stressful battle.

"This has literally kept me awake at night," Councilman Scott Larkin said. "It's difficult for me because each time I hear someone talk I want to agree with them."

Larkin was the one who originally proposed the 2.25-cent tax when the council was virtually stalled between dropping it to 1.5 cents and leaving it at 3 cents.

"To me it was a pragmatic compromise that took into account benefits of open space as well as a reduction of taxes," Larkin said. "It's not going to reduce taxes significantly. It still does represent a reduction, while maintaining open space."

Councilman Gary Baldwin advocated for dropping the tax to 1.5 cents, but still voted for the 2.25-cent level.

"My vote would have been for a different amount," he said. "I'm satisfied that some effort has been made by some of the council to reduce the burden on the taxpayers."

While some residents scoffed at the amount as not making a dent in their growing tax bills, Baldwin defended it.

"Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars is a lot of money," he said. "It's a significant amount and does help the taxpayers to some degree."

Baldwin went on to say that this wouldn't mean the borough would be giving up on open space altogether.

"There is a lot of money left to buy open space," Baldwin said. "I have trust in the Planning Board to control development and do development the way it should be."

The council members weren't the only ones split on the issue, with residents representing different points of view weighing in on the topic during the public discussion portion of the evening.

One resident went so far as to say that cutting the tax was a political maneuver.

"Who is going to benefit from this?" asked resident and former Councilman Brendan Tobin.

"This is a trick. This is not going to help the borough of Tinton Falls in the long run."

Tobin cited money used from open space to make improvements on the football field and soccer complex as reasons why the borough needs the funds.

Tobin also said that he fears that the borough won't be able to control development and hasn't done so in the past.

"We haven't been able to control it," he said. "I don't think you should do it, it's a cruel trick to the voters."

Jonathon Cohen, chairman of the environmental commission, said he agreed with basically everything Tobin said.

"Let's leave it where it is; there is no need to change it at this point," Cohen said.

Stacey Slowinski, chairwoman of the Historic Preservation Commission, agreed with Mayer that development would cost more in the long run.

"I truly feel that money spent on open space now saves taxpayers in the long run," she said. "I personally think it's shortsighted to cut that funding."

But some residents believed that any money saved in this tough economic climate would benefit the taxpayers.

"There are people in Tinton Falls who we are going to see going into bankruptcy," resident Jerry Spumburg said. "We really have to take a look at every dollar."

One resident said that approving the referendum doesn't mean it's going to be passed by the residents.

"By letting people vote doesn't mean we are going to lower it," Denise Catalano said.

She went on to say that development is not all bad and that the outlet center has been a big success for the borough.

"I'm up for some development, and I think the key is smart decisions about development," she said. "The statement that nobody in the town wants development is not a true statement."

The first vote on the open space tax was scheduled for Aug. 4, but the resolution failed for lack of a motion.

The Aug. 18 council meeting was the last possible meeting when the tax could have been discussed, because the deadline to file a referendum with the state for the November election is Aug. 27.

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

No comments: