Council opts not to bond for road improvements

Council opts not to bond for road improvements
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer

TINTON FALLS — After a lengthy discussion and public opposition, the Borough Council decided against bonding almost $2 million to improve roads throughout the borough.

Of the five council members, only Scott Larkin and Gary Baldwin supported the measure that required four yes votes for approval at the April 6 meeting.

Baldwin, who attended the meeting via telephone, said the roadwork is one of the more important things that the borough could be doing this year.

“We are setting ourselves up for a liability that I don’t think the taxpayer wants,” he said. “It makes sense to me that there are things in this budget that hurt us less than stopping the improvement of our roads.

“As long as we keep that debt level, we are fine, and we are doing something that we have to do.”

The bond would have been for slightly over $1.8 million, with more than $300,000 of the $2.1 million project to be funded by other sources.

The 17 roads that were scheduled to have work done are Hochockson Road, Riveredge Road, Heritage Drive, Mulberry Lane, Laurel Court, Meadow Drive, Stratford Avenue, Devon Court, Catebury Lane, Winchester Drive, Rutgers Drive, Water Street, Old Farm Road, Old Mill Road, Marland Lane, Colonial Drive and Squankum Road.

Much of the debate centered on whether the road program should be placed in the budget on a yearly basis or should be funded by the bonding, which is what the ordinance suggested.

Larkin suggested that bonding makes the most sense for the borough.

“Overwhelmingly, the answer to me has been [to] go out and bond it because it is the best you’re able to do,” he said.

He suggested that the borough bond the funds, which would cost more than $200,000 a year over the 10-year life of the bond, and then look at reducing the budget.

“We are hearing two options here in putting money in the budget or bond,” he said. “I disagree that the two matters are mutually exclusive.

“We still have the ability to take that money from someplace else.”

Some residents, however, disagreed that bonding was the best way to go.

“I do feel that a lot of the roads in this town need a lot of help,” resident Charles Lomangino said. “We are credit-carding our roads.

“Find a way to put it in our budget as a road program,” he added. “If we have to suck it up, we have to suck it up.

“We should man up and say, ‘Your taxes are being increased.’ Don’t bond it, because that only makes it worse.”

Councilman Andrew Mayer agreed that bonding was risky.

“I don’t like the idea of borrowing money,” he said. “We are going to have to have a road program in our budget.”

Brian Nelson, borough director of law, suggested that the borough actually would save money by bonding.

“When you do more at one time, it is an economy of scale,” he said. “You may save 10 percent for paving three, four miles of road, where your interest may be 4 percent.

“If you do $200,000 a year, you are not going to get the same price per unit.”

Borough Engineer David Marks, of T&M Associates, said that a wide-scale project would attract competitive bids.

“A $2 million road program is a very large program; you will get some of the largest contractors in New Jersey to bid on this program and get very aggressive with pricing,” he said.

“It would be my thought that the road program should be done every year.”

Mayor Michael Skudera defended the use of bonding to fund road improvements.

“If you want to support it by a lesser amount, that’s fine, but you do have to get roads fixed,” Skudera said.

“These roads are in very, very bad shape,” he added. “These roads require a lot of attention and a lot of maintenance.”

Critics of using bonding to fund the road program include former Mayor Peter Maclearie, who projected that 10 years of bonding would cost around $20 million.

“You are looking to put $20 million in debt to the borough over the next 10 years. I think it belongs in the budget and you should make it a real road program,” he said.

Former Councilman Paul Ford was also critical of bonding for the roadwork.

“The real concern is it really is not a program,” he added. “You really can’t bond money every year to fund a program.”

One resident of Riveredge Road complained that the roads seem to be always taking a back seat to other issues.

“I get the sense that there is always going to be something that takes precedence over this,” Ron Battista said.

Another resident suggested that the borough’s open space tax be redirected to a road program.

“I am not in favor of the bonding, I am not in favor of raising taxes,” Gary Schecher said. “Maybe we just do away with the Open Space Trust Fund right now and put it toward the roads.





Click here to enlarge



No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:

Get

Advertisement for AllAmericanChevy.com



1-800-FLOWERS.COM