|
OLD BRIDGE TOWNSHIP COUNCIL
AGENDA MEETING
AUGUST 26, 2002
INTRODUCTION OF SFY 2002-2003 BUDGET
A special meeting of the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge was held on August 26, 2002 in the Municipal Complex. The meeting was called to order by President Butler who asked all present to participate in a salute to the flag which was followed by a short prayer.
Deputy Clerk Stella Ward announced that this meeting is being held in conformance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice has been given to the newspaper and notice of the meeting has been posted in public places. The next meeting will be September 3, 2002 at 8:00 p.m.
Roll call at 7:30 p.m. by Deputy Clerk Stella Ward showed the following members present: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler. Councilmen Hoff was absent from the podium.
President Butler: This is a budget meeting and there will be no public portion. We have a couple of amendments to the Mayor's budget and we need to act on those before we vote on the introduction.
MOTION
to increase the Mayor's budget by $75,000.00 because the council has decided not to privatize the kennel operation made by Councilman Hoff, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino,
President Butler.
NAYS: Councilwoman Panos.
MOTION
to increase the Mayor's budget by $18,000.00 for the Tax Assessor's office to cover the salary of a part-time employee from September 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 made by Councilman Baker, seconded by President Butler and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
Prior to the vote the following discussion took place.
Councilman Testino: Why is there a problem with the staffing in the Tax Assessor's office now?
Mayor Cannon: The problem is that we have a very difficult budget year and we recommended eliminating certain positions in order to cut costs. Since the council has indicated; with no public discussion, that they are going to put the money for the kennel back in and I have also been told that there has been consensus reached regarding the position in the arena; I don't think that it makes sense to make eliminate one part-time employee and make him be the poster boy for cutting the budget. It was supposed to be across the board reduction of staff, so that is why I asked that his position be put back in.
Councilman Testino: Who is he?
Councilwoman Panos: Does it matter who it is?
Mayor Cannon: He is an employee of the township.
Councilman Testino: Do we have to go into executive session to get the name?
Ms. Shepler: His name is Jim Trezza.
MOTION
to increase the Mayor's budget by $30,000.00 to cover half a year's salary for the arena manager by Councilman Baker, seconded by Councilman Hoff and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, President Butler.
NAYS: Councilman Calogera, Councilwoman Panos.
MOTION
to increase the Mayor's budget by $408,000 for salary and expenses for six months to hire twelve (12) police officers and to purchase police cars by Councilman Testino, seconded by Councilman Hoff and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
NO VOTE TAKEN
The following discussion took place.
Councilman Testino: This is the number (of police officers) that we adopted in the ordinance to continue to provide responsible service to the residents. I think that providing rotation of police cars prevents us from having the crisis with the floor boards rotting out and the officers are at risk. I would like to know from the police administration what the appropriate number is for the police cars if we are going to stay on the program that we have had for the last several years. Please break this down so that I can amend my motion to reflect the right numbers.
Captain Cerra: It is $258,000 for 12 police officers for half the year and $150,000 for the cars.
Councilman Testino: I would amend my motion with a friendly second to reflect the half year salary and a separate motion for ten police cars.
MOTION
to increase the Mayor's budget by $258,000 for half year salary to hire twelve police officers moved by Councilman Testino, seconded by Councilman Hoff and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, President Butler.
NAYS: Councilmen Calogera, Greene, Councilwoman Panos.
Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place
Councilwoman Panos: What will happen to the rest of the year? That will be $500,000 for the year.
Councilman Testino: I have a resolution in front of you asking for your commitment to continue to fund the twelve officers. I know that it is not binding, but I think that you should send a message to the administration that we are committed to funding enough officers to patrol this township adequately to continue to respond to first aid calls and to continue the officers in the school program and not have to worry about levels of staffing on the night shift. This resolution that I have put out in front of you on the dais would show your commitment and let the administration know that this is not just a one year thing as was recited before. We are committed to finding the money to continue appropriate responsible fiscal management of the police department. That is my resolution and I will move the other resolution after we do the budget to see if we have a commitment to continue beyond one year amongst the council members that are now sitting.
Councilman Calogera: In this council year we are going for a half year so that the total figure for an annual budget would be over $600,000?
Councilwoman Panos: I come out to $666,000.00 - $150,000 for the year for the cars, and $258,000 - that is $666,000.
Councilman Calogera: That is about 2 1/4 cents in that tax levy.
Councilman Testino: This is a matter of priority.
Councilman Greene: I want to explain my position. I overwhelmingly support the police department and all the police officers. I have a concern with the budgetary aspect of what this resolution does. In light of the fact that the residents just received a fifteen cent ($.15) increase due to the Board of Education budget; the budget that we are considering tonight presents us with an additional twelve cent ($.12) increase. I really feel that the addition of police officers should be done within the overall negotiations of the budget. There has been talk in the last few days that there is a possibility that we may be entitled to some relief from the state. I cannot act based upon merely a request to the state for additional funds. I have made a commitment and have talked to some council members with regard to this issue that I felt that I could identify ways in which to add police officers, not twelve all of a sudden like this which is going to affect the tax rate, but to do it within the budget negotiations whether we identify surplus or whether we cut another area of the budget. I feel that I can definitely find resources to hire police officers, and I think that is how this should be done.
In the last couple of weeks people have referred to Councilman Mannino who had recommended that the police hires be phased in over a period of time. That was a wonderful suggestion; I don't know why this did not happen. That is what we should do. Based on the budgetary constraints we have now, why don't we add four in this year, four next year and four after that getting the twelve police officers in three years rather than at one shot. That is my position. I overwhelmingly support the police department and police hires. I feel that I would rather do it in another way other than this way by taking twelve police officers and jamming it down the Mayor's throat. I feel that this resolution went a little too far and it is political in nature and I think it is unfortunate, and I cannot support it.
Councilwoman Panos: To appropriate this money for one-half year is fiscally irresponsible. How much does it cost to run the waterfront park? Let's have fiscal responsibility from the police department. Most of the overtime is for lieutenants, etc. I would like to see numbers broken down before we start burdening the taxpayers with additional taxes. The officers in the school is grant money. I want more responsibility from the police department before I can vote on this.
Councilman Calogera: I am the only one up here who has spent time in law enforcement. I would love to have more police officers. I think the officers we have now do an excellent job at the patrol level and on the street level. We have extra expenses in administration which we need to look at. Responsibility has to be balanced out between your immediate needs and how drastic they are versus the burden that we put on people who live in this town. I just received a $620 tax increase which has nothing to do with this or the next Board of Education one. Our taxes have been stable. We are getting to the point where we are pricing our younger people out of town. The older ones have a problem with the taxes. We need sanity; we need to be responsible in the way we hire. I agree with Mr. Greene. I would rather see the officers phased in - that is the responsible way of doing it. We need to be cognizant of how the taxpayers are getting hit over the head with these taxes. I am voting for the taxpayer when I do vote.
Councilman Testino: I am voting for the taxpayer too, and I am being responsible and I do it in a manner such as not to leave the township shorthanded. I agree with Kevin that the police has done a great job, I but don't know how long that is going to hold out with these numbers. I pray that we never have to find out. I have sat on this council for six years, and every year I slice the Mayor's budget, and I intend to do that again before final adoption. Every time we do that, the school board picks up every penny we have ever saved, and the taxes go up. We still get blamed for raising taxes, and you all know it. We have been holding taxes; in fact, we have significantly cut taxes during my tenure on the council, and unfortunately, and whether or not you want to admit it, we have lost state funding and we have sliced year after year to the point where without the state funding we are not going to be able to make cuts without cutting service.
Whether or not this is all of a sudden, is a matter of opinion. It sounds to me like everyone wants to do the cha-cha and start over again. We were looking at adding and phasing officers in up to the 120 number since I was a junior on this council and sitting behind Mr. Mannino and other colleagues who have since passed on. Now, all of a sudden twelve is too much. If we would have added the officers in a timely and incremental fashion, we would not be looking at a gap to fill. We would not have to be worried about being short handed; we would not have to be worried about where we are going to pull the officers to answer the first aid calls from. I am voting for the taxpayer when I say that I am making a decision based on future planning that will provide these taxpayers with the basic services they need, i.e., public safety. In order to fulfill our obligations under contract, under the grants that we received, I am told that the number that we passed in a resolution last year would be adequate. I am supporting that.
To address the budget negotiations, the only reason that we are here tonight, and the only reason that I am agreeing to introduce the budget tonight is so that we don't miss the state deadline to apply for emergency relief for distressed cities. We happen to qualify for that because of the components in our town that allows us to apply for that. We have to introduce tonight and we have to anticipate whether or not we are going to make the additions because it is my understanding that you cannot add later if you are going to submit to the state and get funding. That is it. Your additions will be over, and they will not let you significantly change the budget later. We may be able to make cuts, but if you have a wish list that you want in the upcoming fiscal year, you have to get it out on the table now and submit it to the state. I think it is totally fiscally responsible to get our share of the state funding which is already set aside. Towns of similar size who have had tax increases in the past have received anywhere from $750,000 upwards to $900,000. Admittedly, people who got $1 million or more were the towns who had floods. I think that we should request $900,000 to cover whatever shortfall, but I don't think that we should be short-sighted in our planning. We should tell the state what we need and ask for their assistance. That is my understanding why the president asked us to move expeditiously without going through the normal routine that this council has developed over the last five years of going through each line item, having workshops and sub-committees, and going through the budget negotiations which I would like to entertain as well.
I am left with a choice - do I make the application with whatever we think we need and what we think is appropriate, or do we skip the deadline and forget about the emergency relief. I am sure that Dennis (Maher) can tell you that under his administration as under mine, when I sat as president, we knew that we were not going to have a tax increase when we looked at the budget preliminarily. We were going to make cuts. This year I don't think there is one person on this council who is going to be able to say that we are going to be able to hold the line. The only question is how much is it going over the line. If you don't want to put in for it, fine. I think it is responsible to put in for it now and ask the state for assistance. Old Bridge is entitled to its share from the state. They put us in this position by making certain cuts and holding back and now we need the exceptional assistance. I am going to support my motion.
Councilwoman Panos: Another part of being fiscal responsible is the hiring process. I understand what the ordinance is - the Mayor gets handed a list and must hire from that list as handed. I have written the business administrator a letter, and each of my colleagues have gotten this letter as well as some department heads. I have a problem forcing someone to hire twelve people when I questioned where these people actually got chosen. Currently I have two police hire lists. One with the name of 55 candidates with no scores or ranking. The other is a list of the 'top 13 candidates' with their score break down and rankings. I have repeatedly asked for the full existing police hire list with the names of very candidate and a break down of their scores for the written, college, physical and oral portions of the test. In a memo dated July 12, Capt. Cerra claims he sent the list of 13 and the other individuals have not completed all aspects of the test, and therefore, he will not release any information. In an effort to end the belief that the police hire list is corrupt and most candidates are on it due to political patronage, I expect the following questions to be answered in writing or at a public council meeting on September 12.
1 - why are there only 13 candidates who completed all aspects of the test? How are these candidates chosen to be the first and only to complete all portions of the test? If only the background checks are not complete for the remainder of the candidates, why are the rest of their scores being withheld?
2 - Why are there individuals on the top 13 list, but not on the original list of 55. I am told that this may have to do with residency requirements. What are the exact residency that would put you on one list, but not on the other?
The people of Old Bridge deserve the best police officers for the job, not the best politically connected. I am waiting for my response, and I will never vote to force the administration to hire police officers that I believe are on the list for personal reasons.
Councilman Hoff: The selection process is not what we are discussing, but rather the need for police.
Councilwoman Panos: Good police.
Councilman Hoff: We are talking about a council that each year has recommended and budgeted for police, and the Mayor in her wisdom has felt that she will do whatever she wants. That is the type of government we are in, and that is the way it happens. I call to your attention that there is talk about our needing police at the beach and three or four can be seen there. I assume that is the training process and they are breaking people in. I don't get into the day-to-day operations of the job. Many homes are being built on Englishtown Road, and those residents deserve police protection. They have children and old people, and they deserve their streets to be patrolled the way their neighbors have had for many years. We have a good police department with a good record. We are probably the least corrupt town as far as the things that towns are besieged with than anyone else around. Why let it go to hell; we should keep it that way. If the motion fails for 12, I will support the next one. I sat on the council with Peter Mannino, and I talked to Richard (Greene) before. Mannino had a good idea with putting four officers in a year until we catch up to be ahead of the people who are retiring. That last two years, and then we had a budget crunch. We stopped hiring. I will support whatever motion will give this town the amount of police safety that the people deserve. There are many ways that we have wasted money over the years, and we will do it again, but let's not do this in the area of public safety.
Mayor Cannon: We all agree that we have an excellent police department, and we commend the officers. I also commend the council for calling this meeting so that we can introduce the budget and be able for the extraordinary aid which we support. As far as the issue with respect to the addition of police and the additions for the salaries for the positions that we recommended be eliminated, this has been an extremely difficult year in trying to put this budget together.
We began with over a 20 cent increase, and managed to get it down to 12 cents, which no one was happy with. We could do this by keeping other expenses flat, not filling vacancies and eliminating the dollars to pay for those vacancies. We kept everyone status quo and in some cases, putting them back a step. As far as the decision to hire police, I indicated that I was hoping to add a couple of positions.
Since 1994 we have added 17 new positions which averages it to about 2 per year. This past year you had put money in for one-half year in the academy. There was no provision for dollars identified on how we were going to support that group this year. I had said that if we were going to do any new positions, especially when these times are tight, you have to identify funds for subsequent years. I am not going to hire only to lay off six months later. By the time the budget was passed this last fiscal year, there would have not been time to get them into the academy. There was no money in the 2003 budget to support them. Next year will be no better. We are going to have over a $1 million pension payment, which we don't have the money for. We all have to look at the whole budget and balance out all the services.
Public safety is a priority, but are you going to cut recreation, the office on aging? I applaud when you all say that you are going to cut the budget when in all the time I have been Mayor, there have been no cuts to the operating budget. You have only looked at surplus and revenues. We are at bare bones now, but to do anything else is not going to help us next year. I hope that we get the maximum amount of state aid, but to predicate that and use that to fill positions or to create programs that are going to be on going; we don't know what the situation is going to be next year and whether we will be able to get that same level of aid. We have to depend on what we are able to do in our community and hope that we get enough aid at least to soften any tax increase. I think this is a tough call, but you are elected to make some tough decisions. We can argue about how many police we need. We have had surveys that have said one thing. We have looked at other towns of comparable size and demographics and they are similar in our numbers. We could always use a few extra, but 12 at this time in unrealistic and financially not possible. Please take these things into consideration as you introduce this budget.
Councilman Baker: The budget for this year is $43,198,493. We are looking at adding $258,000. We are at war! The world has changed forever. We are at war against child molesters and abductors. We are at war against crime. We are at war against corporate greed. We are at war against discrimination. In Old Bridge we are at war against over development - a war against traffic. We are at war against poverty and homelessness. We are also at war against terrorist, not just overseas, but right here in America. The evil-doers who flew those planes into our towers were staying right here in Paterson, New Jersey - too close for comfort. Some of my colleagues have said that spending $1 million in police overtime a year is a better bargain than hiring 12 new officers for $600,000. I don't think so. We are at war! I ask my colleagues to join me. Some of my colleagues have said this evening that we do not need 12 more police officers. I say we need them now more than ever. We are at war! I ask my colleagues to join me. Some of my colleagues have said we can get by with an additional four more police officers. I say now is not the time to compromise our safety. We are at war! I ask my colleagues to join me. Some of my colleagues have said now is not the right time to hire 12 more police officers. I say if not now, when? We are at war! Join me. Some of my colleagues will say that we cannot afford 12 new police officers now. I say that we cannot afford to continue on this path of self-destruction. We are at war! Join me. The world has changed forever. We are at war! Join me. I ask each and every member of this council and my colleagues to join me and support the hiring of 12 new police officers. We are at war! Join me.
Councilman Maher: My vote this evening is for the introduction of the budget so that we can meet the August 30 deadline for applying to the state for the extraordinary aid and in no way reflects my support of the budget whatsoever. It is my commitment to work over the next two to three months to work through the budget review process to find additional cuts before we finally adopt the Mayor's SFY 2003 budget.
President Butler: We are voting on the original motion. This is the introduction to the budget, and the public will have a chance to speak on September 23.
While the vote was being taken the following comments were made.
Councilman Calogera: Going through the fiscal crisis, I was laid off because there was a lack of funds. I believe that one of the worst things to do is to hire police officers that you cannot afford. I do not believe that there is an imminent danger due to a shortage of manpower in this town. I would like to have more police officers; we could use them. The police administration should look into using some of their manpower.
Councilman Baker: You are being redundant!
Councilman Greene: I vote "no" also, but this is not the end of it, and I do support the police officers. I am going to do what I can to increase the numbers.
Councilman Hoff: I think that we have nothing else to do but support any activity that protects the citizens. That is not that big a part of the overall budget we are facing.
Councilwoman Panos: I think the police do an excellent job in this town, and I think the taxpayers deserve the best police officers, not the best political police officers. I will not force the administration to hire directly from a list which I believe is full of political patronage.
Councilman Testino: I strongly support the addition of 12 officers. I vote "yes", and this time and all times I will seek to follow the professional advice delivered to us. I don't see any professional saying that they can run it with less.
Motion
to increase the Mayor's budget by $150,000 to purchase ten police cars per year made by Councilman Testino., seconded by Councilman Hoff and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, President Butler.
NAYS: Councilmen Greene, Councilwoman Panos.
Subsequent to the vote the following discussion took place.
Councilwoman Panos: Did Mr. Redmond just vote on this budget for the 12 police officers?
President Butler: Yes.
Councilwoman Panos: Mr. Ruggierio, Mr. Redmond's son is on the list of 12 police officers. Do you think that is ethical? What is your ruling on that?
Councilman Testino: It is over; no one raised it before.
Attorney Ruggierio: As we sit here tonight, I cannot tell you the answer to that question. It was raised earlier tonight to me before the meeting. I would be more than happy to research this, but I am not in a position to give a definitive ruling at this point. It is my view without substantial research that given the unique nature of Old Bridge's ordinance, i.e., the Mayor may only hire in the rank order on the list that if Mr. Redmond's son came within the 12 people that it presented a serious question of conflict. I am not prepared to rule that it is a conflict without further research.
Councilman Baker: If you knew about this before hand, did you have any thought to bringing this up before the vote?
Attorney Ruggierio: It was my understanding that Mr. Redmond was not going to vote, so I did not really worry about it, but you are right. I should have researched it just as a matter of caution.
Motion
to increase the Mayor's budget by $10,000 to support athletic teams made by Councilman Testino, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place.
Councilman Calogera: Can we find any more money?
Councilman Testino: $10,000 is the number that we have had for four years running.
Councilman Calogera: What has been your experience with our expending that?
Councilman Testino: We usually expend close to that number, and we try to stay within it.
RESOLUTION NO. 438
AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH NETVERSANT TO PROVIDE A PHONE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge wishes to enter into an agreement with NetVersant, with offices located at 230 124th Street, New York, New York 10035, for the maintenance of the telephone system at the municipal complex and various satellite locations; and
WHEREAS, NetVersant was the lowest responsible bidder at an annual cost of $14,904.00 per year for two (2) years; and
WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge has reviewed NetVersant's proposal and checked its references.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, as follows:
- A contract for professional services is authorized to be entered into with NetVersant in the amount of $14,904.00 per year for two (2) years.
- The award of the contract is contingent upon the issuance of a Certification of Availability of Funds #1077 certifying the existence of a sufficient appropriation to fund the said contract.
- The Mayor and Township Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the contract documents necessary to effectuate the award of this contract. The Township Attorney shall review any and all contractual documents prepared in furtherance of this award.
This resolution is conditioned upon the following:
- Formal execution of a contract approved by the Director of Law which is signed by the Mayor and Township Clerk.
- Issuance of a Certificate of Availability of Funds as aforesaid.
- Compliance by the Vendor with signing the mandatory affirmative action language required by law.
D. Compliance by the Vendor with filing of Affirmative Action Form AA302 or AA201, or otherwise complying with Affirmative Action employee information reporting.
No contract shall be considered awarded unless, and until, the above requirements are executed.
Moved by Councilman Calogera, seconded by Councilman Baker and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
Recess at 8:20 p.m.
Reconvene at 9:02 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 439
INTRODUCTION OF SFY 2002-2003 BUDGET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
the budget herein before set forth is hereby adopted and shall constitute an appropriation for the purposes stated of the sums therein set forth as appropriations, and authorization of the amount of:
(a) $23,588,958.00 (Item 2 below) for municipal purposes, and
(b) $0 (Item 3 below) for school purposes in Type I school Districts only (N.J.S.A. 18A:9-2) to be raised by taxation and
(c) $0 (Item 4 below) to be added to the certificate amount to be raised by taxation for local school purposes in Type II School Districts only (N.J.S.A.18A:9-3) and certification to the County Board of Taxation of the following summary of general revenues and appropriations
Summary of Revenues
1. General Revenues
Surplus Anticipated 40003-10 $5,675,000.00
Miscellaneous Revenues Anticipated 40004-10 $13,565,035.00
Receipts from Delinquent Taxes 41419-10 $ 1,525,000.00
2. Amount to be Raised by Taxation for Municipal Purposes (Item 6(a), Sheet 11)
41415-10 $23,588,958.00
3. Amount to be raised by taxation for Schools in Type I School Districts only:
Item 6, Sheet 42 40010-10 $
Item 6(b), Sheet 13 (NJSA 40A:4-14) 41416-10 $
Total amount to be raised by taxation for Schools in Type I School Districts only $
4. To be added to the Certificate for amount to be raised by taxation for schools in Type II School Districts only:
Item 6(b), Sheet 13 (NJSA 40A:4-14) 41416-10
Total Revenues 40000-10 $42,828,993.00
Summary of Appropriations
5. General Appropriations
Within "CAPS"
(a&b) Operations including contingent $29,691,476.00
(e) Deferred charges and statutory expenditures - municipal $1,265,898.00
(f) Judgments 100.00
Excluded from "CAPS"
(a) Operations - total operations excluded from "CAPS" $2,753,566.00
(c) Capital Improvements 150,000.00
(d) Municipal Debt Service 5,311,691.00
(e) Deferred Charges - Municipal 504,000.00
(n) Transferred to Board of Education for Use of Local Schools
(g) Cash Deficit
(k) For Local District School Purposes
(m) Reserve for Uncollected Taxes (include other reserves if any) 3,152,262.00
6. School appropriations - Type I School Districts Only (NJSA 40A:4-13)
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $42,828,993.00
Moved by Councilman Hoff, seconded by President Butler and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, President Butler.
NAYS: Councilwoman Panos.
Prior to the roll call vote the following discussion took place.
Councilman Baker: Is that less than the original budget?
Mr. Shah: No, that is about what was the Mayor's proposed budget. I think there may be confusion with the package that was given to you on Friday. This included a whole year of additional officers. If you recall my e-mail which based on my discussion with the Council President on Wednesday after the committee meetings, we adjusted the budget and he asked that I distribute a package to include the adjusted budget. This is an increase from the Mayor's proposed budget, but a decrease from what you had received.
President Butler: We have to send them our portion of what we have to raise?
Mr. Shah: This budget will include the amount to be raised by taxation for municipal purpose only. You did certify the school budget, but we do not certify other agencies' budget for taxes.
President Butler: What is the number we are voting on?
Mr. Shah: $42,828,993.
Councilman Maher: How much extraordinary aid are we applying for?
Mr. Shah: It is my recommendation that council request the amount of $4,504,119 which is the amount of the total tax levy increase. I don't think the state will give us the entire 14 cent increase. The tax rate increase is 14 cents. I don't think that we will get the entire 14 cents tax relief from the state, but I think it is prudent for us to request the maximum amount that we should be requesting. The review of our financials and the state's own fund ability will dictate the amount they are going to give us. That is my recommendation; council may select another number.
Councilman Maher: I support asking for the maximum amount.
Councilman Calogera: Once this is submitted, we work our budget whatever way we please? I am looking for the limitations that we may have to work with.
Mr. Shah: You have received a notice from the Local Finance Board. "After extraordinary aid grants have been announced, no successful applicant shall be permitted to make material increase or decrease to budget revenues or appropriations." This is the language in the Local Finance Board notice for FY 2002 Municipal Aid Program.
Councilman Calogera: How locked in are we with this budget?
Mr. Shah: I don't want to discourage making amendments to this budget, but I think that the state will review . . . You can apply for an approval of changes with the director of Local Government Services. If you reduce the taxes, he (the director) is not going to deny you, but if there is an increase in expenses, that could be a real problem. Their intent is to reduce the tax levy.
Councilman Calogera: Whatever monies we receive from the state is not the total amount we are requesting (4.7), then we would have to rework the budget to compensate for the difference, correct?
Mr. Shah: If you decide to reduce the tax levy, I don't think the Director will look at that as negative and not approve it. They are saying that any changes to the budget will require the approval of the Director. We will have to identify and send changes to the Director. They may ask for reasons, and we will provide the explanations.
Councilman Baker: Please give me the five additional amounts added to the budget tonight.
Mr. Shah: This is from the Mayor's proposed budget. You added $75,000 for animal control; $18,000 for a part-time position in the Tax Assessor's office; $258,000 for one-half year salary for twelve police officers (that is in salary and wages); $150,000 for eight police cars; and $10,000 for the aid programs and $30,000 for the arena deficits.
Councilman Baker: That is ten police cars.
Mr. Shah: I believe this is eight cars. I believe that we are $19,000 to $20,000 per car; it might be ten cars, but we always budget $150,000.
Councilwoman Panos: If this budget goes before the State, and then it is ruled that there is a conflict of interest in voting on a portion of this budget, could the State reject this?
Mr. Shah: That is a difficult question for me to answer, and I don't know if this is a legal issue. It may be a legal issue because the voting on the budget is separate from the voting on increasing the budget although they do ultimately result in the final budget that the council introduces. I will defer to the legal department on how they see it, but ultimately the call will be made by the Division. I would hope that they would not jeopardize our aid application. I think that we will view that under certain circumstances and they will say that they will adjust the budget numbers if they agree to do that, and they will continue to accept our request for aid application. That will adjust our total tax increase from 14 cents to 13 cents. That is still a significant tax increase, and we should still be entitled to receive State aid. That is my opinion, and I cannot speak for the Division.
Councilwoman Panos: If it reduces it to 13 cents, and we asked for 14 cents . . . .
Mr. Shah: We have a 12 cent tax increase in the proposed budget given to council by the administration. All these additions have increased that levy from 12 cents to 14 cents. The amount that was increased, $258,000, would affect one penny. We are still at a 13 cent tax increase. That is still a tax increase that should be viewed as our aid application request should be valid regardless of what happens to the issue on additions to the police. This is only my opinion.
Councilman Maher: Mr. Shah, do you have any information with respect to some of the towns that are on calendar year budgets and what type of aid they have received?
Mr. Shah: Sayreville received $250,000; Highland Park received about $700,000. Most other towns received smaller amounts. They have limited dollars - about $15 million for the fiscal year. All the fiscal year towns are going to be lining up for the aid. Woodbridge recently introduced their budget which had a 12 cent tax increase, and they, as well as Piscataway, has applied for State aid. Those are the three large Middlesex County communities who are applying for State aid. I don't have the data on who received how much.
Councilman Testino: Knowing that the past grants have only been $700,000 to $900,000 for towns our size, you continue to recommend that we apply for the full amount?
Mr. Shah: Yes, and I will give you my reason privately. The prudent approach is for us to apply for the full amount, and let the Division decide on the maximum they can afford to give us.
Councilman Testino: There is no rating system on putting in these applications? How do they score these applications?
Mr. Shah: They score the applications based on the impact on the community and based on the town's financial position. One of the things that the finance officer had asked the Division was why do you punish the towns which well manage their finances? We have seen that some towns have received significant amount year after year. They review the application data, and I think that our application shows that we have been holding the tax rate down, and we seriously have a tax increase this year. They look at the financial position and the impact on the community.
Councilman Testino: You are ready to go with the application?
Mr. Shah: The application is ready; in fact, we have made some modifications to this, and I will distribute that. I distributed the application a week ago which contained all the information for the application.
Councilman Testino: We are going to meet the deadline?
Mr. Shah: The deadline is August 30, and by adopting the budget tonight, yes.
Councilman Redmond: The other towns that received aid - do you have any information as to what they asked for? Highland Park received $750,000. You don't know how much they asked for?
Mr. Shah: I don't know. As far as I know the applications were not made public. If you recall in 1993 we asked for and received $900,000. We had asked for $3.7 million. The difference between that and this year is that subsequent to that the State has ruled that we cannot include when introducing the budget this requested amount in the budget. We had done that last time when we completed the application. We had incorporated the aid request, but subsequently, we had to adjust the budget. That is the difference.
RESOLUTION NO. 440
AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY MUNICIPAL AID FOR SFY 2003
BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, New Jersey that:
WHEREAS, the Township of Old Bridge wishes to apply for aid from the Extraordinary Municipal Aid Program for SFY 2003 to minimize any increase in the property tax rate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Township Council of the Township of Old Bridge, County of Middlesex, State of New Jersey that the Township Council hereby authorizes the submission of an application for aid to the SFY 2003 Extraordinary Municipal Aid Program. The Mayor, Council President, Chief Financial Officer, Municipal Accountant and the Township Clerk are hereby authorized to sign all application documents.
Moved by Councilman Testino, seconded by Councilman Hoff and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
Comments.
Mayor Cannon: On September 11, we are having a memorial ceremony at the beach front for those who perished on 9/11. The council has received invitations, but anyone from the public is invited to attend. The time is from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
President Butler: What is the date for the hearing on the budget?
Deputy Clerk Ward: Twenty-eight days after introduction is September 23.
Mr. Shah: I suggest that you have the budget public hearing on October 14; advertise it on October 4. That give us more time to work on it.
MOTION
to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. made by Councilman Baker, seconded by Councilman Hoff and so ordered on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Baker, Calogera, Greene, Hoff, Maher, Redmond, Testino, Councilwoman Panos, President Butler.
NAYS: None.
Reginald Butler, President
Rose-Marie Saracino, Township Clerk
pg
Distributed: |