City approves budget, prepares for future

City approves budget, prepares for future
Mehlhorn: Future budgets likely to call for layoffs
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer

LONG BRANCH — With four new City Council members in place, Finance Director Ronald Mehlhorn Sr. doesn’t see their job being any easier than the old council’s.

Mehlhorn said that the administration spent the last two months preparing budget projections for 2011 and 2012, and that layoffs would likely be included in the budget.

“The projections for 2011 and 2012 based on current budget guidelines and proposed guidelines are devastating,” Mehlhorn said during the June 29 special council meeting. “At present next year is a bad year, and we will definitely have layoffs.”

At the special meeting June 29 the standing council voted 5-0 to approve the 2010 municipal budget, prior to the July 1 municipal reorganization. The $48.7 million budget includes a $33 million tax levy.

Because of amendments to the budget, the tax levy rose from $31.5 million in the budget introduced April 27 to $33 million, and the total budget rose from $48.5 million to $48.7 million.

Mehlhorn said at a previous council meeting that future budgets would be difficult because there is very little flexibility.

“The administration is working toward 2011, and it is an impossibility to cut operating expenses because [those options] are just nonexistent,” he said at the June 22 council meeting. “A large part of the budget is fixed…; the only really thing you can touch is salaries and fringe benefits.”

Mehlhorn said that because of a recent citywide reassessment, residents could be confused by the $1.85 per $100 of assessed valuation tax rate.

“This is a very difficult year to explain taxes because of the reassessment,” he said. “To oversimplify what is going on: This would create instead of a 2-cent tax increase, it would be a 5-cent tax increase based on the old values back in 2009.

“The average [taxpayer’s bill] is going up about $159 from school, county and the local [taxes]. We’d like it to be zero but it just can’t be,” he said.

Long Branch resident Vincent LePore questioned whether it made sense to raise taxes during the difficult economic climate.

“We added a 4.75 percent increase in the total municipal levy,” he said. “Do you believe that was financially and fiscally responsible to the taxpayers of this city?

“It is still, knowing next year is going to be difficult, adding 4.75 percent, and that is a very questionable maneuver,” he added. “I request a vote no on this budget.”

With government officials advocating for going from a 4-percent cap on increases in the tax levy to either a 2.5 percent hard cap or a 2.9 percent soft cap, Mehlhorn said the administration is preparing for all scenarios.

“The past eight weeks we’ve projected out the 2011 and 2012 budgets based on various scenarios, including a 2.5 percent flat increase and a 2.9-percent soft cap,” he said.

Some of the major increases in the 2010 budget include $1.9 million in pension costs, $707,000 in salaries, and $426,000 in debt service.

Budget cuts include $252,000 less in landfill costs, over $200,000 in expenses in the division of solid waste and recycling, and $129,000 in utilities.

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

After the council adopted the 2010 budget, the only other item on the agenda during the special meeting was an ordinance approving a $109,000 bond issue with a $6,000 down payment for road improvements.

Mehlhorn said that the city has received $496,000 in grant money from the state to do roadwork and the bond money mostly will be used to pay the engineers.

“We had a $496,000 grant that just covers the work,” he said. “We need money for engineering and a little bit in case it runs over.

“The reason for that bond is to pay professional services,” he added. “We have $496,000 in grant money and we are matching that with $100,000 for the engineer.”

Long Branch Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr. explained what the grant money is used for.

“We get about $250,000 a year through the state Transportation Trust Fund to do primary streets in the city,” he said. “We did Broadway with it; Third Avenue just got done last year as a part of it.

“What we are trying to do is use two years together so we can get a bigger bang for our buck,” he added. “We have to pay for the engineering; that is our share of this deal.”

This year Bath Avenue is scheduled for roadwork.

Woolley also said that the city may not end up paying that much money for the engineer.

“It is not necessarily what we are paying for the engineer. I got an estimate from a couple of engineers who are in our pool who will give us prices to do this work,” he said. “We will go with the most reasonably priced firm who is going to give us a quality job, not only by design but through construction and inspection.”

Woolley said that while the city regularly receives the grant money, it isn’t certain the funding will continue.

“Each year we put in for it we get about $250,000, although I don’t know if we could expect it in 2011 and 2012,” he said. “With the Department of Transportation Trust Fund money the only eligible streets are what they consider primary arteries.”

In addition to Broadway and Third Avenue, Brighton and Rockwell avenues have also been paved with grant money.

A resident criticized the city for focusing only on certain sections, such as Elberon, West End and North Long Branch, but Woolley said the city maintains all sections.

“There are about 120 streets, and we try to do five or six a year if the money permits,” he said. “We try and do certain streets in all sections.”

Contact Kenny Walter at

kwalter@gmnews.com.





Click here to enlarge



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

Get

Click for www.tomsford.com