State delays vote on Long Branch budget

State delays vote on Long Branch budget
Residents critical of bonding, spending
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer

LONG BRANCH — For the second straight year, the City Council was unable to vote to adopt the municipal budget when scheduled.

The vote was originally scheduled for the June 8 meeting, but because the state has yet to approve the proposed budget, the council was not able to vote on it.

The proposed $48.5 million budget, up 1.45 percent from last year, includes a $31.5 million tax levy, an increase of $995,120.

Because of the re-evaluation the city recentlywent through, the tax rate will be $1.85 per $100 of assessed valuation.

The council voted 4-1 to introduce the budget at the April 27 meeting.

Although the council did not vote on the adoption of the budget, they did hold a public hearing, where they were roundly criticized for the budget.

Resident Bill McLaughlin criticized the spending practices of the administration.

“You are taxing us with this budget, you are spending, because that is what we do. You tax, you spend and you bond,” he said. “I’ve been here 16 years, and you’ve never once listened to the public and lowered the budget even one-tenth of a penny.

“This is not serving the public. I just hope that the new council learns that you serve the public.”

McLaughlin was also critical of the Long Branch Parking Authority.

“I’d like to talk about the parking authority. They have a [$3,100] budget this year,” he said. “How much did they bring in? Zero.

“We couldn’t even get one meter down there,” he added. “It seems like the city doesn’t want to make any money for the taxpayers.

“You could probably make $500,000 a year.”

McLaughlin criticized the city’s decision to bond, but Mehlhorn said that it is illegal to bond for operational costs.

“You are not allowed to bond for operations; when you bond, you bond for largeticket items,” he said.

Resident Vincent LePore also criticized the city’s bonding for $45 million.

“The constant rollover leaves future taxpayers in this city with a burden that’s going to slam them in the face,” he said.

Harold “Pudgy” Cooper asked the administrationwhen they thought the city would ultimately go bankrupt.

“Could you give a time frame when you think that Long Branch might become bankrupt?” he asked.

Mehlhorn tried to placate Cooper, saying the situation isn’t that dire.

“I don’t think the situation is that severe,” he said. “You equate it not to credit-card spending but more to like a mortgage. We mortgage a lot of things.”

Mehlhorn said the only way the city would go bankrupt is if the people of Long Branch go bankrupt first.

“We don’t exist as a separate entity, we are the people of Long Branch,” he said. “If the people go bankrupt, then we go bankrupt, but not before that.”

Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider praised the city’s financial standing.

“This city is not going bankrupt,” he said. “We are not even remotely close to it.

“It isn’t even a concept on the table; we are not monumentally in debt,” he added. “We are well under the amount of money we would be allowed to borrow, and our credit rating is top-notch.”

Not all of the public comments were negative, with resident Diana Multare praising Mehlhorn’s willingness to answer questions.

“Most people find looking at a budget a challenging experience, and I called up Mr. Mehlhorn earlier today and he graciously gave me the time and answered most of my questions,” she said.

Multare did question the city’s decision to pay for renovations for the municipal court.

“This building is rented by the city and the city pays $120,000 annually, and my impression is that has been paid to the landlord for a number of years,” she said. “The building had to undergo significant renovations, and the renovations cost at least $150,000 and the city paid for the renovations.

“I was surprised at the fact the city paid this money to renovate it,” she said. “Apparently, [the renovation] was a requirement from a judge in Freehold — the building needed significant repairs, and it has been neglected for a number of years.

“Why is it that the city didn’t say to the landlord, ‘Look, fix it; otherwise, we’ll go somewhere else’?”

Schneider responded.

“The problem was it wasn’t a plumbing repair or fixing the lighting, these were requirements specifically to the municipal court as designated by the administrative office of the court,” he said. “We had very few options. The court has been in that building for the last 25 years, and there is no other facility.

“We were either looking at an expansion here, where we don’t have adequate parking, or leaving it there,” he said. “It simply made the most sense from a security point of view, and from an economic point of view.”

Schneider said he doesn’t feel constructing a new building would be productive.

“If we had other options, that would be great, which would mean acquiring land and building a building,” he said. “Frankly, I’m not thrilled about making repairs, but I’m less anxious to build, because I don’t think cities do that well bidding.”

Multare also asked whether or not moving City Hall was being considered, and Schneider rejected the idea, saying, “I have no intention of moving.”

Some of the major increases in the budget include $1.9 million in pension costs, $707,000 in salaries, and $426,000 in debt service.

Some of the cuts include $252,000 less in landfill costs, more than $200,000 was cut in expenses in the division of solid waste and recycling, and $129,000 was cut in utilities.

Mehlhorn said the city received a $1.1 million reduction in state aid, bringing the total aid to just over $4 million.

The next council meeting is scheduled for June 22.

Contact Kenny Walter at

kwalter@gmnews.com.