City unveils deluxe new green oasis
20-acre Manahassett Park boosts city's recreational space
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Long Branch officially opened the $4 million plus 20-acre Manahassett Creek Park last week.
PHOTOS BY SUE LALANAS The newly opened Manahassett Creek Park in Long Branch includes a playground, athletic fields, putting green and a fitness trail. State Green Acres funds helped finance the 20-acre park, which cost more than $4 million to construct.
City officials attended the Aug. 19 ribboncutting ceremony held at the park, located on Long Branch Avenue north of Atlantic Avenue.
Jacob Jones, director of the Office of Community and Economic Development, said in an interview last week that the park includes two soccer fields, two softball fields, two tennis courts, two basketball courts, a full baseball field and a football field.
Also included are a fitness trail, a putting green and a concession stand with restrooms.
Jones explained the uses for some of the fields.
"Pop Warner will use the football field and Little League will use the baseball field," he said.
Jones said that while organized sports will probably have first dibs on the fields, pick-up games are allowed on all of the fields as long as there isn't a conflict.
He also said that a main point of emphasis is keeping the parks clean.
"You can't take gum, candy or soda onto the turf, because they will ruin the turf," Jones said. "That's important."
The city started planning the park in 2002 and broke ground in 2008.
Precise Construction was awarded the $3.9 million contract in May 2008 after coming in as the lowest bidder.
Plans for the park were designed by D.W. Smith Associates.
"We started this in 2002, so it's been seven years working on this park," Jones said last week.
Jones broke down some of the financing for the project.
"It cost over $4 million for the whole thing," he said. "Most came from grants from Green Acres or grants from the Department of Community Affairs.
"We also received a large private donation," he added. "Piecing the monies was quite difficult."
Jones acknowledged that the size of the park and all the features the park includes made the project more difficult to bring to fruition.
"We have 20 acres of active recreational functions," he said. "It's been a major, major undertaking."
The park was not easy for a variety of reasons, many involving the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
"We overcame a parcel of land that was under DEP control because of contaminants in the soil," he said. "Another part of the park was under DEP because of illegal dumping by the state."
In January and February 2008, the site, which is located in a flood zone, was raised some 3 feet to eliminate the impact of storm drainage.
Jones said that some of the fields are built with turf, which includes a drainage system underneath the grass-like turf.
"It could rain all day and the field won't be soaked," he said.
The park includes two sets of equipment for toddlers to play on, which are equipped with shock-resistant padding on the ground to cushion a fall.
Jones explained some of the other changes as well.
"We had the roadway repaved," he said. "We fixed some of the curbs and electricity."
Councilman Brian Unger thinks that the park is going to help the city move forward with recreational sports.
"I'm very proud of this park that we've worked on for so long; it's a great addition to the city's park system," Unger said in an email. "It's really going to help our sports and recreation programs."
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
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Specter of eminent domain looms over Beachfront So.
Specter of eminent domain looms over Beachfront So.
Mayor assures residents condemnation is 'off the table'
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Tensions spilled over at a meeting of Long Branch officials and residents of the Beachfront South (BFS) redevelopment zone last week as city officials attempted to break an impasse and move plans for the zone forward.
Planner Pratap Talwar delivered a threehour presentation on the vision for the Beachfront South redevelopment on Aug. 19, stressing that there are several options on the table including residents being able to remain in their homes.
Present were Mayor Adam Schneider, council members Mary Jane Celli and Brian Unger, Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr. and Assistant Planning Director Carl Turner, as well as about 35 BFS residents and property owners who had been notified of the meeting by certified mail.
The Beachfront South zone extends from Bath to Morris avenues, between Ocean Boulevard and Ocean Avenue.
A major point of contention between the city and residents is the specter of eminent domain, a tactic used by the city to condemn properties in previous redevelopment zones.
Many residents, shouting over each other, called for the city to adopt a measure that would ban the use of eminent domain in the zone.
"The eminent domain issue is off the table," Schneider said. "We're not going to use it.
"At the end of this process there will not be eminent domain," he added. "Even if this process falls apart."
Schneider defended his word to the crowd, who were vocally skeptical of Schneider's word.
"I've been tape-recorded, how much clearer can I be?" he asked. "You can all call me a liar; it's been done before."
Talwar chimed in that eminent domain is off the table in the area.
"This process is proof that the city wants to find a way out of eminent domain in Beachfront South," he said.
Residents remained skeptical though, as Unger asked them with a show of hands to indicate how many of them wanted an ordinance banning eminent domain. Virtually every hand in the room shot up.
Talwar explained to the residents just what the redevelopment zone they are located in means.
He said that residents would be allowed to redevelop their properties as long as they maintain the same use and structures on the same footprints. Officials also stated that variances of any kind are not allowed in redevelopment zones.
One problem that the 36 privately owned properties present is that many lots in the zone are long and narrow, making them difficult to develop under a cohesive plan.
"This was the problem that the redevelopment plan was trying to answer," Talwar said.
Talwar went into the history of the neighborhood, citing zoning differences in 1985 and 1990, where certain properties [70- 80 percent] were considered non-compliant.
He explained there are general overarching goals that encompass the entire oceanfront, the existing conditions on the ground are different in all parts of the beachfront and therefore plans for the revitalization for different districts are different.
"The goal of the redevelopment plan in Beachfront South is to show a zoning technique that would protect existing buildings that continue to change and would permit the maximization of development value respectful of properties that did want to change, respectful of environmental concerns of the state and respectful of the public goals of the redevelopment," he said.
"It is about making a great public waterfront and organizing cohesive developments for neighborhoods west of it," he said.
One of the challenges the city is faced with in the zone is the many narrow, adjoining lots with multiple owners. Talwar suggested a solution might be for the owners of the properties to sell the connecting properties to a single buyer.
The reason, he said, is that the long, narrow parcels are difficult to develop.
"The facts say that if long, narrow lots are put together, you can build more than if they remain on their own," Talwar said. "It is whatever makes sense for the property owners that wish to come together and develop."
"Basically, we are no longer going to assemble them to our power," Woolley said. "We put the pieces together, we can get a lot more value out of the pieces."
Talwar went on to say that the rules for redevelopment are designed to protect the homeowner in the area by not allowing variances for commercial use and to set restrictions on height and distance of buildings.
"They can be seen as restrictions, they also can be seen as value enhancers," he said. "I can tell you as a planner, the need is for some sort of rethinking of regulations."
Schneider agreed at the meeting that the redevelopment zone might help the property owners.
"I suspect in the end that is exactly what you're going to want," he said. "Things like tax abatements and other sorts of financing are only going to be done in a redevelopment zone."
"I'm afraid there is going to be 24 months of planning while these people have to pay their taxes," he said.
Schneider concluded at the end of the meeting that the city and residents are not that far off.
"You're probably a couple months away from getting this done," he said. "I think you're fairly close to coming up with a zoning plan."
For now, residents will choose whether or not to take Schneider at his word because he said he has no plans to take eminent domain off the table by way of an ordinance.
"The reason I don't want to drop it is I don't want to change the redevelopment designation now," he said. "I think it opens up to a lot of other problems."
Schneider did say that he would pass an ordinance eliminating eminent domain in the neighborhood once the planning process is complete.
Schneider also explained the reason why the city is planning to rezone the neighborhood in order to develop the land further.
"Right now the biggest problem is that the zoning we put in almost requires the use of eminent domain because it requires properties assemblage, which is very difficult to do," he said.
What the city hopes is to develop the land
that residents are willing to sell, while accommodating the residents who wish to remain in their homes.
"If there was no eminent domain, it might be possible not to develop everything, but to develop some things," Talwar said.
"Property owners can make their own decisions now," Talwar said earlier.
"The plan doesn't say anywhere that all the buildings have to be torn down to make a big building."
When asked about potential developers, Woolley said there are currently no talks with developers about the zone, and that officials are not sure how the adjoining properties would be combined.
Some residents however said that the redevelopment zone designation is hindering them in the pursuit to sell their homes.
"When a buyer comes along, you say the mayor says it's off the table, a buyer is not going to buy into that," BFS resident Diana Multare said.
While not all the residents were pleased with the city, some were pleased with at least the opportunity to listen to the presentation.
"I think the plan here tonight helps us immensely," one resident said.
Another concern for Schneider is the use of variances becoming an issue in the area if the redevelopment tag is lifted.
"If we were to drop it now without changing the zone, there are commercial properties in there that would have a very legitimate argument that we could expand now and have a credible argument," he said. "I don't think that's good for the neighborhood, I don't think it's good for the city."
As part of the discussion on eminent domain and the redevelopment zone, the presentation listed other concerns of the stakeholders such as open space, buffer zones and tax incentives.
Among the graphs presented was a look at each stakeholder's current goals for their land, which included some who wanted to remain the same, some who wanted to redevelop, and some who wanted to sell their property.
The two-block neighborhood currently contains 324 housing units, with 300 of those units located in two apartment towers situated on just a third of the land.
Talwar presented three hypothetical situations for development, which range from adding 188 to 355 units.
The three scenarios take into account some residents keeping their homes while combining a varying number of lots of residents who may sell.
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
Mayor assures residents condemnation is 'off the table'
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Tensions spilled over at a meeting of Long Branch officials and residents of the Beachfront South (BFS) redevelopment zone last week as city officials attempted to break an impasse and move plans for the zone forward.
Planner Pratap Talwar delivered a threehour presentation on the vision for the Beachfront South redevelopment on Aug. 19, stressing that there are several options on the table including residents being able to remain in their homes.
Present were Mayor Adam Schneider, council members Mary Jane Celli and Brian Unger, Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr. and Assistant Planning Director Carl Turner, as well as about 35 BFS residents and property owners who had been notified of the meeting by certified mail.
The Beachfront South zone extends from Bath to Morris avenues, between Ocean Boulevard and Ocean Avenue.
A major point of contention between the city and residents is the specter of eminent domain, a tactic used by the city to condemn properties in previous redevelopment zones.
Many residents, shouting over each other, called for the city to adopt a measure that would ban the use of eminent domain in the zone.
"The eminent domain issue is off the table," Schneider said. "We're not going to use it.
"At the end of this process there will not be eminent domain," he added. "Even if this process falls apart."
Schneider defended his word to the crowd, who were vocally skeptical of Schneider's word.
"I've been tape-recorded, how much clearer can I be?" he asked. "You can all call me a liar; it's been done before."
Talwar chimed in that eminent domain is off the table in the area.
"This process is proof that the city wants to find a way out of eminent domain in Beachfront South," he said.
Residents remained skeptical though, as Unger asked them with a show of hands to indicate how many of them wanted an ordinance banning eminent domain. Virtually every hand in the room shot up.
Talwar explained to the residents just what the redevelopment zone they are located in means.
He said that residents would be allowed to redevelop their properties as long as they maintain the same use and structures on the same footprints. Officials also stated that variances of any kind are not allowed in redevelopment zones.
One problem that the 36 privately owned properties present is that many lots in the zone are long and narrow, making them difficult to develop under a cohesive plan.
"This was the problem that the redevelopment plan was trying to answer," Talwar said.
Talwar went into the history of the neighborhood, citing zoning differences in 1985 and 1990, where certain properties [70- 80 percent] were considered non-compliant.
He explained there are general overarching goals that encompass the entire oceanfront, the existing conditions on the ground are different in all parts of the beachfront and therefore plans for the revitalization for different districts are different.
"The goal of the redevelopment plan in Beachfront South is to show a zoning technique that would protect existing buildings that continue to change and would permit the maximization of development value respectful of properties that did want to change, respectful of environmental concerns of the state and respectful of the public goals of the redevelopment," he said.
"It is about making a great public waterfront and organizing cohesive developments for neighborhoods west of it," he said.
One of the challenges the city is faced with in the zone is the many narrow, adjoining lots with multiple owners. Talwar suggested a solution might be for the owners of the properties to sell the connecting properties to a single buyer.
The reason, he said, is that the long, narrow parcels are difficult to develop.
"The facts say that if long, narrow lots are put together, you can build more than if they remain on their own," Talwar said. "It is whatever makes sense for the property owners that wish to come together and develop."
"Basically, we are no longer going to assemble them to our power," Woolley said. "We put the pieces together, we can get a lot more value out of the pieces."
Talwar went on to say that the rules for redevelopment are designed to protect the homeowner in the area by not allowing variances for commercial use and to set restrictions on height and distance of buildings.
"They can be seen as restrictions, they also can be seen as value enhancers," he said. "I can tell you as a planner, the need is for some sort of rethinking of regulations."
Schneider agreed at the meeting that the redevelopment zone might help the property owners.
"I suspect in the end that is exactly what you're going to want," he said. "Things like tax abatements and other sorts of financing are only going to be done in a redevelopment zone."
"I'm afraid there is going to be 24 months of planning while these people have to pay their taxes," he said.
Schneider concluded at the end of the meeting that the city and residents are not that far off.
"You're probably a couple months away from getting this done," he said. "I think you're fairly close to coming up with a zoning plan."
For now, residents will choose whether or not to take Schneider at his word because he said he has no plans to take eminent domain off the table by way of an ordinance.
"The reason I don't want to drop it is I don't want to change the redevelopment designation now," he said. "I think it opens up to a lot of other problems."
Schneider did say that he would pass an ordinance eliminating eminent domain in the neighborhood once the planning process is complete.
Schneider also explained the reason why the city is planning to rezone the neighborhood in order to develop the land further.
"Right now the biggest problem is that the zoning we put in almost requires the use of eminent domain because it requires properties assemblage, which is very difficult to do," he said.
What the city hopes is to develop the land
that residents are willing to sell, while accommodating the residents who wish to remain in their homes.
"If there was no eminent domain, it might be possible not to develop everything, but to develop some things," Talwar said.
"Property owners can make their own decisions now," Talwar said earlier.
"The plan doesn't say anywhere that all the buildings have to be torn down to make a big building."
When asked about potential developers, Woolley said there are currently no talks with developers about the zone, and that officials are not sure how the adjoining properties would be combined.
Some residents however said that the redevelopment zone designation is hindering them in the pursuit to sell their homes.
"When a buyer comes along, you say the mayor says it's off the table, a buyer is not going to buy into that," BFS resident Diana Multare said.
While not all the residents were pleased with the city, some were pleased with at least the opportunity to listen to the presentation.
"I think the plan here tonight helps us immensely," one resident said.
Another concern for Schneider is the use of variances becoming an issue in the area if the redevelopment tag is lifted.
"If we were to drop it now without changing the zone, there are commercial properties in there that would have a very legitimate argument that we could expand now and have a credible argument," he said. "I don't think that's good for the neighborhood, I don't think it's good for the city."
As part of the discussion on eminent domain and the redevelopment zone, the presentation listed other concerns of the stakeholders such as open space, buffer zones and tax incentives.
Among the graphs presented was a look at each stakeholder's current goals for their land, which included some who wanted to remain the same, some who wanted to redevelop, and some who wanted to sell their property.
The two-block neighborhood currently contains 324 housing units, with 300 of those units located in two apartment towers situated on just a third of the land.
Talwar presented three hypothetical situations for development, which range from adding 188 to 355 units.
The three scenarios take into account some residents keeping their homes while combining a varying number of lots of residents who may sell.
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
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
NOPE continues opposition to Navy housing
NOPE continues opposition to Navy housing
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — A Monmouth County group is keeping up the pressure on the U.S. Navy to come to an agreement with a developer and avert the privatization of housing units on Naval Weapons Station Earle.
The group NOPE, Neighbors Opposed to Privatization at Earle, held two open house meetings recently, in Colts Neck on July 20 and in Tinton Falls on Aug. 3.
The meeting at Tinton Falls was attended by members of NOPE as well as local politicians.
Tinton Falls Mayor Michael Skudera and council members Andy Mayer, Gary Baldwin and NancyAnne Fama were in the crowd, along with Congressman Rush Holt (D-12th District) and Sen. Jennifer Beck (R- 12th District).
"The point of the meeting tonight is to basically update the community on what NOPE is doing," NOPE Chairman Bill Holobowski said. "The overriding thesis here is, putting civilians on an active munitions base flies in the face of reason."
NOPE is campaigning to have the Navy stop planning to privatize the Laurelwood housing units at Earle. The housing consists of 300 units, each featuring from one to four bedrooms.
One of NOPE's main issues is that privatizing the housing units would burden the schools in both Colts Neck and Tinton Falls, which are involved in a legal tussle aimed at keeping the additional students who would live in the privatized housing from attending their schools.
The housing units are currently designated for Navy personnel, and a handful of students who live in the housing attend Tinton Falls schools under an agreement between the borough and the Navy.
Tinton Falls officials have repeatedly stated that the school district will not accept the additional students when the housing becomes privatized in 2010.
NOPE has taken the position that neither school district should have to be burdened with the influx of additional students.
"There is obviously a school issue that is dividing the two towns," Holobowski said. "The formation of NOPE is instrumental in that we've taken the side that we're not going to take a side on the school issue.
"We are going to take the side that regardless of who takes these kids, we are talking about 300 families that you're introducing into Monmouth County," he added.
Holobowski went on to say that neither town is well equipped to take on the additional students.
"Districts at or above capacity are going to have to build schools to educate these additional kids without any offsetting tax revenue," he said.
NOPE plans to take a wait-and-see approach to the school issue while the group campaigns against the privatization plan.
"So while the legal issue plays out in the courts, we are going to continue to argue that this whole plan stinks," Holobowski said. "No one should live there and no one should have to be saddled with the cost to educate these additional tenants."
The contract Tinton Falls signed with the Navy dates back to the late 1980s, and in it the borough agreed to educate the Navy dependents living at Earle. The Tinton Falls School District is claiming that the agreement was only for Navy children and that the children of private citizens who would live at the privatized housing will have to go to Colts Neck schools.
NOPE representatives said at the meeting that if the Navy does not comply with the April 30, 2010, date to privatize the housing units, then the Navy's contract with the developer states that the developer would receive a buyout and the Navy would retain rights to the housing units.
NOPE is arguing that the Navy should present a buyout agreement to the developer, Seattle-based Teri Fischer, and retain control of the units or decide to do something else with the land.
"We argued that this financial burden is going to burden us. We put the educational cost alone at over $300 million," Holobowski said. "We've argued for a year and a half now that the Navy should exercise [its] right and just void the contract.
"Do the right thing for the surrounding communities, do the right thing with the mission, and just sit down and reach an amicable agreement with the developer," he added.
The politicians also weighed in on the efforts of NOPE and the situation with the Navy.
"I appreciate the efforts that this group has made," Holt said. "I must applaud you for being able to maintain this effort."
Holt went on to say that the matter has been complicated by the lawsuits filed and that he doesn't expect a resolution anytime soon.
Holt said that state and county officials, who are also named in the lawsuits, couldn't say or do much.
"The county superintendent and the state superintendent feel that their hands are tied because of the pending lawsuit," he said. "They feel constrained on what they say or do.
"That means we need to continue to push the Navy before they act," he added.
Beck also weighed in on the issues, citing security as a big concern.
"This is an issue that involves the security of Monmouth County," she said. "This is not a political issue."
While she praised the work that NOPE is doing, she also said that state politicians are also working with the Navy to find some sort of resolution.
"We have been working shoulder to shoulder to make the Navy know we get it," she said. "It's constant vigilance on the part of all of us."
NOPE has planned a rally and demonstration for the fall, and the group is working on obtaining a location for both events.
NOPE can be reached online at
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — A Monmouth County group is keeping up the pressure on the U.S. Navy to come to an agreement with a developer and avert the privatization of housing units on Naval Weapons Station Earle.
The group NOPE, Neighbors Opposed to Privatization at Earle, held two open house meetings recently, in Colts Neck on July 20 and in Tinton Falls on Aug. 3.
The meeting at Tinton Falls was attended by members of NOPE as well as local politicians.
Tinton Falls Mayor Michael Skudera and council members Andy Mayer, Gary Baldwin and NancyAnne Fama were in the crowd, along with Congressman Rush Holt (D-12th District) and Sen. Jennifer Beck (R- 12th District).
"The point of the meeting tonight is to basically update the community on what NOPE is doing," NOPE Chairman Bill Holobowski said. "The overriding thesis here is, putting civilians on an active munitions base flies in the face of reason."
NOPE is campaigning to have the Navy stop planning to privatize the Laurelwood housing units at Earle. The housing consists of 300 units, each featuring from one to four bedrooms.
One of NOPE's main issues is that privatizing the housing units would burden the schools in both Colts Neck and Tinton Falls, which are involved in a legal tussle aimed at keeping the additional students who would live in the privatized housing from attending their schools.
The housing units are currently designated for Navy personnel, and a handful of students who live in the housing attend Tinton Falls schools under an agreement between the borough and the Navy.
Tinton Falls officials have repeatedly stated that the school district will not accept the additional students when the housing becomes privatized in 2010.
NOPE has taken the position that neither school district should have to be burdened with the influx of additional students.
"There is obviously a school issue that is dividing the two towns," Holobowski said. "The formation of NOPE is instrumental in that we've taken the side that we're not going to take a side on the school issue.
"We are going to take the side that regardless of who takes these kids, we are talking about 300 families that you're introducing into Monmouth County," he added.
Holobowski went on to say that neither town is well equipped to take on the additional students.
"Districts at or above capacity are going to have to build schools to educate these additional kids without any offsetting tax revenue," he said.
NOPE plans to take a wait-and-see approach to the school issue while the group campaigns against the privatization plan.
"So while the legal issue plays out in the courts, we are going to continue to argue that this whole plan stinks," Holobowski said. "No one should live there and no one should have to be saddled with the cost to educate these additional tenants."
The contract Tinton Falls signed with the Navy dates back to the late 1980s, and in it the borough agreed to educate the Navy dependents living at Earle. The Tinton Falls School District is claiming that the agreement was only for Navy children and that the children of private citizens who would live at the privatized housing will have to go to Colts Neck schools.
NOPE representatives said at the meeting that if the Navy does not comply with the April 30, 2010, date to privatize the housing units, then the Navy's contract with the developer states that the developer would receive a buyout and the Navy would retain rights to the housing units.
NOPE is arguing that the Navy should present a buyout agreement to the developer, Seattle-based Teri Fischer, and retain control of the units or decide to do something else with the land.
"We argued that this financial burden is going to burden us. We put the educational cost alone at over $300 million," Holobowski said. "We've argued for a year and a half now that the Navy should exercise [its] right and just void the contract.
"Do the right thing for the surrounding communities, do the right thing with the mission, and just sit down and reach an amicable agreement with the developer," he added.
The politicians also weighed in on the efforts of NOPE and the situation with the Navy.
"I appreciate the efforts that this group has made," Holt said. "I must applaud you for being able to maintain this effort."
Holt went on to say that the matter has been complicated by the lawsuits filed and that he doesn't expect a resolution anytime soon.
Holt said that state and county officials, who are also named in the lawsuits, couldn't say or do much.
"The county superintendent and the state superintendent feel that their hands are tied because of the pending lawsuit," he said. "They feel constrained on what they say or do.
"That means we need to continue to push the Navy before they act," he added.
Beck also weighed in on the issues, citing security as a big concern.
"This is an issue that involves the security of Monmouth County," she said. "This is not a political issue."
While she praised the work that NOPE is doing, she also said that state politicians are also working with the Navy to find some sort of resolution.
"We have been working shoulder to shoulder to make the Navy know we get it," she said. "It's constant vigilance on the part of all of us."
NOPE has planned a rally and demonstration for the fall, and the group is working on obtaining a location for both events.
NOPE can be reached online at
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
Saturday, October 31, 2009
It's official: Seven Presidents Ocean Walk
It's official: Seven Presidents Ocean Walk
BY KENNY WALKER Staff Writer
Much to the delight of residents, the Long Branch City Council approved a resolution to rename the boardwalk pathway along the oceanfront as Seven Presidents Ocean Walk at Long Branch.
The council was praised by residents at the Aug. 11 meeting as they voted to approve the resolution 4-0. Councilman Brian Unger was absent for the vote.
The idea for the renaming was presented at the July 28 meeting by Dennis Sherman, representing the Save Ocean Avenue Committee, who suggested the council make the name change by passing a resolution.
The original resolution would have resulted in changing the name of the boardwalk to Seven Presidents Ocean Walk.
However, some members of the administration requested that Long Branch be included in the name.
At first Sherman was reluctant to see the inclusion.
"We felt that Long Branch in the title would detract from the title," Sherman said at the workshop meeting. "We wanted to keep the ocean walk focus on the seven presidents' history."
Sherman did make some suggestions for other ways to include the city's name to the council and committee.
"You could have City of Long Branch underneath it," Sherman said. "That's kind of a long title."
He also suggested that when posted on the city's website, the words "at Long Branch" could be used.
Councilman Anthony Giordano, who originally questioned the name, seemed happy with that.
"Any literature, any letterhead, any discussion will have it be known as part of Long Branch," he said.
Council Deputy President Michael DeStefano was happy with the resolution and praised the committee for its work.
"It took them a long time to get here," DeStefano said, "and to finally get to this point. And if that's the way they feel, I don't think it's any detraction to exclude that as long as it's in literature and postings."
DeStefano went on to give examples all across the country of landmarks that do not include the name of the city where they are located, including Central Park in New York City and the Riverwalk in San Antonio.
"There are parks and historic monuments in a lot of cities that don't carry the name of the city," he said.
Giordano went on to say that he would like the resolution changed to carry the Long Branch name.
"I like Seven Presidents Ocean Walk, I just think it should say at Long Branch," Giordano said. "I just think the official name should be Seven Presidents Ocean Walk at Long Branch.
"People outside of the community would know where it is," he added.
At the end of the workshop meeting, the council and Sherman agreed to include "at Long Branch" in the signage.
"We are very anxious to get this resolution passed," he said. "I think it would be fine."
During the public participation portion of the council meeting, Sherman and a handful of other residents spoke in favor of the resolution.
"I would like to thank you for moving the resolution forward," he said. "By passing this resolution, we are now able to join all the wonderful parts of the oceanfront together."
Sherman went on to say that this would have a big impact culturally on the area.
"We are going to be able to inject a lot of history, art and the many things that will make the entire oceanfront one," he said, "make it in a way that everyone who comes to the boardwalk will now be able to enjoy and experience the history of Long Branch."
Bill McLaughlin, another member of the Save Ocean Avenue Committee, praised group members for getting the resolution on the docket.
"This small group of us got together to form the Save Ocean Avenue Committee," he said. "We have worked hard to enhance the area."
McLaughlin also praised the city for working with the committee.
"Many improvements were made, thanks to the city, especially Fred Migliaccio and Stan Dzuiba," he said. "If this resolution passes, then we can truly say that government is for the people."
Residents not directly involved with the committee also had some good words to say about the resolution.
"I would like to thank Bill McLaughlin and Mr. Sherman for all they've done," resident Lori Ann Vendetti said. "I hope you continue to beautify the oceanfront."
"I want to compliment all the people who got together for this resolution and the City Council," resident Harold Bobrow said.
Save Ocean Avenue members, in addition to Sherman and McLaughlin, are city residents Mary Jean Lepis, Bob Kenyon and Wally Bruchman. The group can be reached via the website at ttp://www.saveoceanave. com.
No Flash Detected
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
BY KENNY WALKER Staff Writer
Much to the delight of residents, the Long Branch City Council approved a resolution to rename the boardwalk pathway along the oceanfront as Seven Presidents Ocean Walk at Long Branch.
The council was praised by residents at the Aug. 11 meeting as they voted to approve the resolution 4-0. Councilman Brian Unger was absent for the vote.
The idea for the renaming was presented at the July 28 meeting by Dennis Sherman, representing the Save Ocean Avenue Committee, who suggested the council make the name change by passing a resolution.
The original resolution would have resulted in changing the name of the boardwalk to Seven Presidents Ocean Walk.
However, some members of the administration requested that Long Branch be included in the name.
At first Sherman was reluctant to see the inclusion.
"We felt that Long Branch in the title would detract from the title," Sherman said at the workshop meeting. "We wanted to keep the ocean walk focus on the seven presidents' history."
Sherman did make some suggestions for other ways to include the city's name to the council and committee.
"You could have City of Long Branch underneath it," Sherman said. "That's kind of a long title."
He also suggested that when posted on the city's website, the words "at Long Branch" could be used.
Councilman Anthony Giordano, who originally questioned the name, seemed happy with that.
"Any literature, any letterhead, any discussion will have it be known as part of Long Branch," he said.
Council Deputy President Michael DeStefano was happy with the resolution and praised the committee for its work.
"It took them a long time to get here," DeStefano said, "and to finally get to this point. And if that's the way they feel, I don't think it's any detraction to exclude that as long as it's in literature and postings."
DeStefano went on to give examples all across the country of landmarks that do not include the name of the city where they are located, including Central Park in New York City and the Riverwalk in San Antonio.
"There are parks and historic monuments in a lot of cities that don't carry the name of the city," he said.
Giordano went on to say that he would like the resolution changed to carry the Long Branch name.
"I like Seven Presidents Ocean Walk, I just think it should say at Long Branch," Giordano said. "I just think the official name should be Seven Presidents Ocean Walk at Long Branch.
"People outside of the community would know where it is," he added.
At the end of the workshop meeting, the council and Sherman agreed to include "at Long Branch" in the signage.
"We are very anxious to get this resolution passed," he said. "I think it would be fine."
During the public participation portion of the council meeting, Sherman and a handful of other residents spoke in favor of the resolution.
"I would like to thank you for moving the resolution forward," he said. "By passing this resolution, we are now able to join all the wonderful parts of the oceanfront together."
Sherman went on to say that this would have a big impact culturally on the area.
"We are going to be able to inject a lot of history, art and the many things that will make the entire oceanfront one," he said, "make it in a way that everyone who comes to the boardwalk will now be able to enjoy and experience the history of Long Branch."
Bill McLaughlin, another member of the Save Ocean Avenue Committee, praised group members for getting the resolution on the docket.
"This small group of us got together to form the Save Ocean Avenue Committee," he said. "We have worked hard to enhance the area."
McLaughlin also praised the city for working with the committee.
"Many improvements were made, thanks to the city, especially Fred Migliaccio and Stan Dzuiba," he said. "If this resolution passes, then we can truly say that government is for the people."
Residents not directly involved with the committee also had some good words to say about the resolution.
"I would like to thank Bill McLaughlin and Mr. Sherman for all they've done," resident Lori Ann Vendetti said. "I hope you continue to beautify the oceanfront."
"I want to compliment all the people who got together for this resolution and the City Council," resident Harold Bobrow said.
Save Ocean Avenue members, in addition to Sherman and McLaughlin, are city residents Mary Jean Lepis, Bob Kenyon and Wally Bruchman. The group can be reached via the website at ttp://www.saveoceanave. com.
No Flash Detected
Click here to enlarge
No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:
Get
Advertisement for Brock Farms
L.B. approves property reassessment contract
L.B. approves property reassessment contract
CFO: Assessments will go down
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — The City Council approved a contract last week to move forward with the reassessment of properties this fall.
The council voted 4-0 to approve a contract for Realty Appraisal Co. at the Aug. 11 council meeting. Councilman Brian Unger was absent for the vote.
The West New York company will receive $365,000 for services, which will be on the books for the 2010 tax year.
Long Branch Tax Assessor John Butow spoke to the council at the workshop meeting preceding the vote.
"We received two bids," Butow said. "We evaluated the proposals and the company we chose based on the different factors.
"We are here asking the city to approve the contract for Realty Appraisal Company," he added.
The other bid was submitted by Appraisals Systems Inc., Morristown, which made a $488,900 bid to complete the reassessment.
City Attorney James Aaron explained some of the other factors that led to this decision.
"Realty is not only the cheapest," Aaron said, "but it is also the only bid that had any experience with areas of redevelopment, of which we have significant areas.
"So that was another factor," he added. "Other than that, they are very professional."
According to Butow, the reassessment should start very soon.
"I spoke with the state today," he said. "They will fast-track out there to get approval, and then 10 days after that we will get feet on the ground and start the process."
The contract award comes just two weeks after the council approved $375,000 in appropriations for the reassessment.
Butow said last month that the Monmouth County Board of Taxation ordered the reassessment and that he will be overseeing the entire project.
At the July 28 meeting, Aaron explained exactly why the reassessment is necessary.
"The goal is to reduce the number of tax appeals," he said. "Since the tax appeals are based on the assessed value of the property, by doing this reassessment now, we're joining the League of Municipalities.
"They're attempting to do this to find a more equitable way of taxing the taxpayers in each municipality and to stave off the growing number of appeals, which will also cut down on the legal costs," he added.
Butow said the reassessment would reflect the market as of Oct. 1.
"This will result in the equitable distribution of the tax burden," he said.
Aaron explained that the gap between assessed value and market value is wide now, thus making the reassessment a necessary step.
"These are all key to dramatic changes in the ratio of sales and tax assessment," Aaron said. "The wider the ratios get between the assessed value and the market value, then you need these types of measures to bring everything back together again."
While the assessment will take place this year, the cost will be paid out over the next five budgets.
"You're allowed to write this off in five succeeding budgets," Chief Financial Officer Ron Mehlhorn Sr. said. "Put one-fifth in each budget and raise it, instead of doing a bond ordinance."
Realty Appraisal Co. also carried out the previous Long Branch reassessment, which took place in 2007. The reassessment was not well received by some, with many residents in Elberon upset with the results.
The city administration, however, sees a different outcome this time.
"I'm sure overall, everything will go down," Mehlhorn said.
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
CFO: Assessments will go down
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
LONG BRANCH — The City Council approved a contract last week to move forward with the reassessment of properties this fall.
The council voted 4-0 to approve a contract for Realty Appraisal Co. at the Aug. 11 council meeting. Councilman Brian Unger was absent for the vote.
The West New York company will receive $365,000 for services, which will be on the books for the 2010 tax year.
Long Branch Tax Assessor John Butow spoke to the council at the workshop meeting preceding the vote.
"We received two bids," Butow said. "We evaluated the proposals and the company we chose based on the different factors.
"We are here asking the city to approve the contract for Realty Appraisal Company," he added.
The other bid was submitted by Appraisals Systems Inc., Morristown, which made a $488,900 bid to complete the reassessment.
City Attorney James Aaron explained some of the other factors that led to this decision.
"Realty is not only the cheapest," Aaron said, "but it is also the only bid that had any experience with areas of redevelopment, of which we have significant areas.
"So that was another factor," he added. "Other than that, they are very professional."
According to Butow, the reassessment should start very soon.
"I spoke with the state today," he said. "They will fast-track out there to get approval, and then 10 days after that we will get feet on the ground and start the process."
The contract award comes just two weeks after the council approved $375,000 in appropriations for the reassessment.
Butow said last month that the Monmouth County Board of Taxation ordered the reassessment and that he will be overseeing the entire project.
At the July 28 meeting, Aaron explained exactly why the reassessment is necessary.
"The goal is to reduce the number of tax appeals," he said. "Since the tax appeals are based on the assessed value of the property, by doing this reassessment now, we're joining the League of Municipalities.
"They're attempting to do this to find a more equitable way of taxing the taxpayers in each municipality and to stave off the growing number of appeals, which will also cut down on the legal costs," he added.
Butow said the reassessment would reflect the market as of Oct. 1.
"This will result in the equitable distribution of the tax burden," he said.
Aaron explained that the gap between assessed value and market value is wide now, thus making the reassessment a necessary step.
"These are all key to dramatic changes in the ratio of sales and tax assessment," Aaron said. "The wider the ratios get between the assessed value and the market value, then you need these types of measures to bring everything back together again."
While the assessment will take place this year, the cost will be paid out over the next five budgets.
"You're allowed to write this off in five succeeding budgets," Chief Financial Officer Ron Mehlhorn Sr. said. "Put one-fifth in each budget and raise it, instead of doing a bond ordinance."
Realty Appraisal Co. also carried out the previous Long Branch reassessment, which took place in 2007. The reassessment was not well received by some, with many residents in Elberon upset with the results.
The city administration, however, sees a different outcome this time.
"I'm sure overall, everything will go down," Mehlhorn said.
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
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
T.F council split on budget approval
T.F. council split on budget approval
Skudera: Budget issues were inherited
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The Borough Council approved the 2009 budget last week after several sessions of contentious debate.
During its Aug. 4 meeting, the council approved an amended budget with a 3-2 vote.
The vote was the same as the roll call when an amendment to the budget was introduced at the July 21 meeting, with council members Scott Larkin, NancyAnne Fama and Gary Baldwin voting to approve the budget, and Andrew Mayer and Duane Morrill voting against it.
The amended budget raised the tax rate by 2.7 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, while the budget originally called for a flat tax rate. The tax rate went from 35.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to 38 cents.
The total spending plan is $21.6 million with a tax levy of $11.4 million. The approved amendment resulted in an $805,823 increase in the tax levy. The increase will cost the owner of a house valued at the borough average of $343,760 an extra $92 annually in municipal taxes.
The amendment was in keeping with advice from Chief Financial Officer Stephen Pfeffer, who had urged the council to raise the tax rate to the maximum allowed by the state, which caps increases at 4 percent year to year.
"I can't support a budget that has an increase with this amendment without looking at what more we can do," Mayer said.
Baldwin, who pushed hard for approval of the amended budget, explained that the tax increase is necessary for the borough.
"Most of the budget is pretty non-discretionary at this point," he said. "We are not up to the 4 percent level; almost every other borough is. You ought to be moving it up a little bit every year because if not, you're going to be behind every year."
The council faced heat during the public hearing for the amendment, with residents pleading with the council to reconsider raising taxes and to instead cut services, including funding for the library and the recreation department.
Baldwin disagreed. He said the recreation department could be partially self-sustaining but would still need funding from the borough.
"There is a certain amount of tax money that needs to go to things like recreation," he said. "Recreation should not be fully funded by those kids or parents of those kids."
Mayer argued that the council should examine further which programs' funding could be cut back.
"Some programs are more self-sustaining than others," he said. "What's the threshold we are willing to pay from the borough's perspective?"
Baldwin said that cuts could be made, but it would affect the quality of life in the borough.
"I think we as taxpayers have to understand, even the library, you can go in and cut the library and save half a million," he said. "Is that the right thing for us to do for the citizens of this borough?
"We can lop off a couple of cops, get rid of some public employees; I can find a lot of money to save," he added. "But it doesn't make sense in the big scheme of things."
Not all residents supported making drastic cuts.
"We are all laborers in this town, and I don't want to see services cut for the kids' rec program," said Leo Lomangino, "and I don't want to see cops that may be my neighbor fired or someone who works for public works.
"Because if they get fired, they lose their houses, so it is all connected," he added.
Morrill agreed, saying, "That quality of life costs money, it doesn't come free."
Lomangino said that arguing among members of the council should not continue.
"I beg of this governing body not to politicize this budget," he said. "Really, let's lock down and get together. There are some great ideas right here, but let's not politicize it."
Tinton Falls Mayor Michael Skudera, who took office in July, distanced himself from the current budget.
"This budget is a budget we inherited," he said. "I took office little more than a month ago, worked with the administration to make cuts."
Skudera cited the late date in the year as the reason the council needed to adopt the budget.
"The problem is we are in August," he said. "Alot of the good ideas we had we can apply them to next year, but we are in August.
"If we don't secure the funds, we could start out 2010 in a $1.5 million hole," he added. "That's a lot to make up in one year. Bottom line is, we have looked at cuts and we have made cuts, but we're in August."
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
Skudera: Budget issues were inherited
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
TINTON FALLS — The Borough Council approved the 2009 budget last week after several sessions of contentious debate.
During its Aug. 4 meeting, the council approved an amended budget with a 3-2 vote.
The vote was the same as the roll call when an amendment to the budget was introduced at the July 21 meeting, with council members Scott Larkin, NancyAnne Fama and Gary Baldwin voting to approve the budget, and Andrew Mayer and Duane Morrill voting against it.
The amended budget raised the tax rate by 2.7 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, while the budget originally called for a flat tax rate. The tax rate went from 35.3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to 38 cents.
The total spending plan is $21.6 million with a tax levy of $11.4 million. The approved amendment resulted in an $805,823 increase in the tax levy. The increase will cost the owner of a house valued at the borough average of $343,760 an extra $92 annually in municipal taxes.
The amendment was in keeping with advice from Chief Financial Officer Stephen Pfeffer, who had urged the council to raise the tax rate to the maximum allowed by the state, which caps increases at 4 percent year to year.
"I can't support a budget that has an increase with this amendment without looking at what more we can do," Mayer said.
Baldwin, who pushed hard for approval of the amended budget, explained that the tax increase is necessary for the borough.
"Most of the budget is pretty non-discretionary at this point," he said. "We are not up to the 4 percent level; almost every other borough is. You ought to be moving it up a little bit every year because if not, you're going to be behind every year."
The council faced heat during the public hearing for the amendment, with residents pleading with the council to reconsider raising taxes and to instead cut services, including funding for the library and the recreation department.
Baldwin disagreed. He said the recreation department could be partially self-sustaining but would still need funding from the borough.
"There is a certain amount of tax money that needs to go to things like recreation," he said. "Recreation should not be fully funded by those kids or parents of those kids."
Mayer argued that the council should examine further which programs' funding could be cut back.
"Some programs are more self-sustaining than others," he said. "What's the threshold we are willing to pay from the borough's perspective?"
Baldwin said that cuts could be made, but it would affect the quality of life in the borough.
"I think we as taxpayers have to understand, even the library, you can go in and cut the library and save half a million," he said. "Is that the right thing for us to do for the citizens of this borough?
"We can lop off a couple of cops, get rid of some public employees; I can find a lot of money to save," he added. "But it doesn't make sense in the big scheme of things."
Not all residents supported making drastic cuts.
"We are all laborers in this town, and I don't want to see services cut for the kids' rec program," said Leo Lomangino, "and I don't want to see cops that may be my neighbor fired or someone who works for public works.
"Because if they get fired, they lose their houses, so it is all connected," he added.
Morrill agreed, saying, "That quality of life costs money, it doesn't come free."
Lomangino said that arguing among members of the council should not continue.
"I beg of this governing body not to politicize this budget," he said. "Really, let's lock down and get together. There are some great ideas right here, but let's not politicize it."
Tinton Falls Mayor Michael Skudera, who took office in July, distanced himself from the current budget.
"This budget is a budget we inherited," he said. "I took office little more than a month ago, worked with the administration to make cuts."
Skudera cited the late date in the year as the reason the council needed to adopt the budget.
"The problem is we are in August," he said. "Alot of the good ideas we had we can apply them to next year, but we are in August.
"If we don't secure the funds, we could start out 2010 in a $1.5 million hole," he added. "That's a lot to make up in one year. Bottom line is, we have looked at cuts and we have made cuts, but we're in August."
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)