Saturday Morning Cartoons: Help! (In Honor for the Creation of Medicare)

Yesterday marked the 45th anniversary of when LBJ created a single payer health care system for millions of older Americans, called Medicare, so I thought that I would honor that great achievement with a cartoon this morning.

Jof the cat pricks his finger and must go to the hospital. doctors try to perform ridiculous tests on him but he manages to escape. I think Jof was worried that he didn't have insurance.

President Obama's Weekly Address 7/31/10: Moving Forward on the Economy vs. Moving Backward

Following the signing of historic Wall Street Reform legislation, the President lays out his plans to strengthen the middle class, give tax breaks to small businesses that create jobs here, invest in homegrown, clean energy, and cut taxes for working families. The President also contrasts that plan with the agenda outlined by the Republican House Leader that would return America to the policies that created this economic crisis, drastically increase the deficit, and make permanent massive tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans.

Pallone On Squawk Box To Discuss "Oil Spill Bill"

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) appeared on Sqauwk Box to discuss and provide insight into the CLEAR Act... aka, the "oil spill bill" that has hit the floor of the House of Representative.

Two very interesting, different and striking stances are taken between Pallone and Cassidy when it comes to this bill and who should be held accountable and responsible for future oil spills and their clean up.

I think Congressman Pallone nailed it.

It's Your Town Newsletter Volumn 2, Issue 15, 7/19/10

The "It's Your Town" newsletter which covers the Middletown Township Committee meeting for July 19, 2010 is now available.

This newsletter is a good one.

The Committee meeting was heavily attended, mainly people came to address the budget and the 13% increase to the municipal tax rate. According to the newsletter,the mayor now wants to know what the public wants to cut and he asked everyone that came up to address the committee that question.

The newsletter points out that a few members of the public expressed the need to televise the meetings, only to be denied by acting mayor Gerry Scharfenberger, who said that the cost would be too high.

It seems quite obvious to me that the business of the Township is not to be shown to the public so easily. It would make for better if as many people as possible could view their government at work as it happens, not after the fact.

For those interested, there will be 2 more Township Committee meetings (August 2nd and August 16th) before the budget is adopted which will be on August 16th. I urge everyone to make at least one of these meeting and voice their opinions on the budget. It will be 8 months into the year when this budget is finally voted on and next years budget should be in the development stage.

Gerry "The Tax Man" Scharfenberger; Middletown's Tax Rate Up 41.9% Since Scharfenberger Elected In 2005

It is quite obvious that Gerry Scharfenberger has earned the title of "TAX MAN", the numbers don't lie.

Since Gerry Scharfenberger was first elected to the Middletown Township Committee in November of 2004, the municipal tax rate has skyrocketed upwards.

If the currently proposed Middletown Township budget for 2010 (this year), which contains a 13% tax increase, passes the muster of the Local Finance Board and is adopted as is, Middletown's municipal tax rate will have risen a stunning 41.9% since 2005, the year that our wonderful, appointed mayor, Gerry Scharfenberger was first sworn into office.

The chart below tells the tale:

(Click on chart to enlarge)

It seems that things were going "pretty good" before Scharfenberger came onto the Committee.

The numbers represented on the chart are real numbers that came from township documents, they are verifiable and can be found with little effort if Googled.

Looking at the chart it is very plain to see that every year the amount of revenue generated by property taxes continues to rise and suggests that the Township Committee clearly has no plan to generate revenue by any other means other than through local property taxes.

It is too bad that our appointed Zoning and Planning Boards continue to allow the rezoning of commercial properties to residential.

Relying on the homeowners to balance the Township budget is only going to drive those living on the edge of affordability out of town. It seems that the average Middletown homeowner will need to make more than the $108K per year, as stated in Money Magazine, to continue to afford to live in this "Top 100 Places To Live" town.

The sooner residents realize that these types of out of control tax rate increases are unaffordable and unsustainable, and are the result of lack of leadership by RINO Gerry Scharfenberger and his current GOP majority which includes Pam Brightbill, Tony Fiore and Steve Massell, the sooner they will see the Township budget begin to stabilize, spending reduced and tax rates decline.

NJPP Monday Minute 7/26/10: What do BEIP, estate taxes and a candy company have in common?

The Mars family.

Mars North America's sales in 2008 were $30 billion and Jacqueline Mars is the richest person in New Jersey, according to Forbes.com. Her net worth is estimated at $11 billion. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Mars family has poured millions into lobbying on taxes as well as other issues.

In June, the New Jersey Economic Development Authority approved a Business Employment Incentive Program (BEIP) grant of nearly $500,000 to a subsidiary of Mars North America - the major candy company. This was a reward for bringing 36 jobs paying an average of $80,000 per job from Nevada to New Jersey. These new jobs would be located in Mount Olive, New Jersey, just north of Bedminster where Jacqueline Mars, co-owner of the company, lives.

The Mars family also wants to be rewarded for their wealth by having the federal estate tax eliminated. Jacqueline Mars and her brothers, Forrest Jr. and John, have been part of an effort by super-rich families to gut the federal estate tax for at least eight of the last 12 years, according to United for a Fair Economy (UFE) and Public Citizen's 2006 report on these families, Spending Millions to Save Billions. Other like-minded individuals include the families who own Wal-Mart, Nordstrom's and Gallo Wines.

The fight over the shape of the federal estate tax has been raging for years. And if you are very wealthy, this is a good year to die because heirs get every cent of the family wealth instead of sharing it with the government. By dying this year, George Steinbrenner's heirs will inherit an additional $450 million (assuming 2009 rules).

In 2001, President Bush championed a 10 year phase-out of the tax that culminated in the elimination of the federal estate tax in 2010, then the return of the tax to pre-2001 levels in 2011.

Only the wealthy pay this tax. Under the Bush estate tax phase-out, in 2009, the first $7 million for a couple ($3.5 million for an individual) is exempt from the tax. An individual with between $3 million and $7 million in assets is wealthy - not middle class. That's just common sense, but those who want to kill the tax cloud the debate with claims that it hurts the middle class, family farms and small businesses.

According to United Fair Economy, only two in a thousand people paid the estate tax in 2009. Lee Farris of UFE further explained in a point-counterpoint with the conservative Heritage Foundation that, "in 2009, two children of a wealthy couple could each inherit more, tax free, than the average American earns in two lifetimes. But unlike the lucky heirs who won the genetic lottery, these Main Street workers will be paying taxes on all of their earnings." Also, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, found that under 2009 rules, only 110 small businesses and farms in the whole country would have to pay the estate tax. And almost all would have enough cash assets to pay the tax.

What is the connection with the states? Prior to the 2001 federal estate tax cut, every state levied an estate tax tied to the federal estate tax. In addition, some states levy a separate state inheritance tax. The state-level taxes that were tied to the federal tax code are called "pick-up taxes" because these allow the states to pick up part of the tax revenue that would have been paid to the feds through an estate tax credit. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains that these state estate taxes did not increase total estate tax liability because estates received this dollar-for-dollar credit that reduced federal taxes owed by the amount paid to the state.

In 2006, Jacqueline's brothers who live in McLean, Virginia, spent $180,000 lobbying the Virginia legislature to eliminate the state's estate tax, according to a September 27, 2007 article in The Roanoke Times. They were successful and each brother saved an estimated $1.6 billion in estate taxes they would have paid to Virginia upon their death.

Unlike Virginia, New Jersey and 21 other states continue to tax inheritances. Many of these states, including New Jersey, made the financially sensible move to decouple from the 2001 tax cut changes and continue their pick-up tax, rather than cutting essential services for residents.

In the fall, Congress will continue to debate what shape the estate tax will take after this year where no federal estate tax exists. It is the least well off in New Jersey and around the country who need help - not the wealthiest corporations and individuals.

Saturday Morning Cartoons: Heatwave - Too Hot To Handle

It's a hot one out there today, is this heatwave a cause of global warming or something else?

Comment of the Week

The following comment was left on the post "Scharfenberger Videos Are Just Another Example Of His Ignorance Of Facts.", and I nominate it as comment of the week.

Speaking of ignorance,the current shenanigans with the budget and the resulting estimated tax bills is just another example of this man's arrogance and ignorance.

Speaking of estimated tax bills,what a charade.Wonder if a bill without any breakdowns is legal.Hardly think all the figures are unavailable,only the unresolved municipal portion, Never n the decades that this resident has lived here,can I recall such ridiculous antics.I want to know what I am paying for and to whom.That's the way of the world when a bill is rendered.

Waiting for the SPIN to start because this man is facing the voters in November.Remember the nonsense surrounding the revaluation in the recent past and the illegal tactics.IS THIS MORE OF THE SAME ??

Whatever happened to his "plan" for the budget ? His egotistical arrogance bars him from admitting he has no aptitude for finance.This town was without a CFO while this bunch of republicans bumbled their way along unsuccessfully in the most difficult times since the Great Depression

In good times he got away with this. It's not good times now and his incompetence sticks out like "a sore thumb".

The repeated WILLINGNESS of Scharfenberger and this majority to insult the intelligence of the residents of this township is reason enough TO GET RID OF HIM IN NOVEMBER !!

He is not qualified to serve the public !!

They have been "sticking it to the taxpayers" for years and IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE !!

NOTE; Oh and by the way, if anyone is interested a third part to Scharfenberger's interview has been posted. you can watch it >>>here

President Obama's Weekly Address 7/24/10: Moving Forward on the Economy vs. Moving Backward

Following the signing of historic Wall Street Reform legislation, the President lays out his plans to strengthen the middle class, give tax breaks to small businesses that create jobs here, invest in homegrown, clean energy, and cut taxes for working families. The President also contrasts that plan with the agenda outlined by the Republican House Leader that would return America to the policies that created this economic crisis, drastically increase the deficit, and make permanent massive tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans.


Learn more about Economy

Renaming Of New Highlands Bridge "Captain Joseph Azzolina Memorial Bridge" Passes Senate Committee

In tribute to one of the leading voices of the Bayshore, Joseph Azzolina, the NJ Senate Transportation Committee approved yesterday the renaming of the new Highlands bridge the "Captain Joseph Azzolina Memorial Bridge".

Azzolina who passed away on April 15th of this year was a life long resident of the Northern Monmouth Bayshore area and a leader of the community who served in both the NJ State Senate and Assembly from 1965 until 2006.

Mr. Azzolina was a true patriot, he served in the United States Naval Reserve from 1944-1986, Captain (Retired).[1] As a reservist, he returned to active duty in 1983 for a tour of seven months – four of them off the coast of Lebanon – aboard the battleship USS New Jersey. He received three Meritorious Service Medals and two Navy Secretary Commendation Medals in addition to other combat awards and honors. As an Asemblyman, Azzolina led the effort to acquire the retired ship and have it docked in New Jersey waters where it has been transformed to a floating museum.

In an email sent to family and friends, John Azzolina issued the following statement:

" Our family is proud to announce that a Bill renaming Highlands Bridge passes senate committee Today will be named after our father Joe Azzolina. The Senate will vote in the fall to finalize. We are so proud of his accomplishments in life and will never be forgotten!!!!!!!!!!!
The Azzolina Family"

To read more about the renaming of the bridge in honor of Joseph Azzolina you can check out the article on the Bayshore Courier News website.

Byrnes: MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE SLOW TO RESPOND TO FINANCIAL DOWNTURN

Before the beginning of last night's Middletown Township Committee meeting the following statement from Committeeman Sean Byrnes' was passed out to members of the press and other attendees of the meeting which addressed his feelings and thoughts about this years budget and the process that produced it:

The Middletown Township Committee will hold a hearing tonight on the proposed municipal budget for 2010. The proposed budget calls for almost a 14% increase in the municipal portion of the tax levy in Middletown. Despite the fact that the current financial downturn started in 2008, the Township Committee has taken no dramatic steps to offset a tide of revenue reductions and expense escalations that will now produce a spike in the tax levy imposed upon Middletown residents. Tonight’s meeting will be the first public meeting dedicated to the 2010 budget, even though Middletown is now 7 months into its 2010 budget year. This budget will not be approved until mid-August, since there is a waiver application to the Local Finance Board on the Township’s tax levy cap that must be approved before the budget can be approved.

To appreciate the degree to which Middletown has ignored this crisis, it is worth studying what happened in 2009 and what Middletown’s elected officials knew in 2009:

1. In 2009, Middletown deferred pension contributions to avoid a $1.5M expense. This temporary gimmick, that the acting CFO (and former CFO of Middletown for many years) called a “fiscally foolish decision”, meant that Middletown started 2010 with a budget base that did not include that expense. In other words, we temporarily avoided an inevitable expense. Moreover, the contribution in 2010 is approximately $1.9M. Bottom line, $1.9M shortfall in pension contributions to start 2010.
2. Middletown had to borrow $800,000 in December 2009 from its 2010 budget to pay 2009 expenses. Thus, to start 2010, we knew we were $800,000 in the hole.
3. On the agenda for tonight’s budget hearing is a resolution to bond to pay tax appeal settlements in excess of $2.0M. The Township Committee knew as of mid-2009 that this obligation would be coming due.
4. The 2009 Deferral of pension contributions must be paid back (with interest) over 5 years starting in 2012.
5. The appropriation for health care expenses in 2008 resulted in a $500,000 emergency appropriation. In 2009, this account was almost $1,000,000 short (that's why you had to borrow the $800,000 from 2010). So unless there was a decrease in health care expenses (which we know there never is), Middletown needed to come up with $1,000,000 in 2010 to offset this shortfall.
6. Middletown had 3 emergency appropriations in 2010; it’s neighboring towns had none.
7. In 2009, Middletown used $400,000 in revenue from an old tax appeal appropriation that was never used, but this was a one-time event, not to be repeated, meaning that we needed to come up with new revenues of $400,000 in 2010 to offset this loss.
8. Middletown knew that there were outstanding collective bargaining agreements that would result in increases for prior years that would generate several hundred thousand dollars in additional cost.
9. Middletown also knew that police officers had slowed their ticket writing costing the Township several hundred thousand dollars in revenues.
10. By February 2010, Middletown knew that snow plowing costs might well exceed what was appropriated.

Despite these unprecedented events, the Township failed to act. In mid-December 2009, Committeeman Byrnes warned in a press release that we were facing a $5.0M shortfall and that we needed revised spending plan. The tax levy increase in the proposed 2010 budget is $5.0M. We still have not had a public meeting to discuss the budget.

Although the 13% increase is bad enough, the situation is actually worse. The proposed 2010 budget includes over $1,000,000 in one-time revenue that will disappear in 2011. We also have no mechanism in place to estimate the increasing burden that retirees place on our health care costs. Indeed, Committeeman Byrnes suspects that the big jumps in the last few years are due in part to retiree health care expenses. We have also reduced our surplus to almost nothing over the last few years. We are living on borrowed time. Governor Christie's tool kit will help, but it is not a magic bullet. More important, we must have a plan for how to use the tools.

The majority of the Township Committee has yet to come to grips with the financial reality facing New Jersey municipalities. The cuts that must be made will be severe and will change the nature of the services delivered by all municipalities. They will eliminate many discretionary programs and focus our efforts on the core governmental services that must be provided to citizens. Until we accept that fact, taxes will continue to rise beyond what our citizens can afford.

M’TOWNERS STILL STEAMING OVER BUDGET

I wasn't able to attend last night's Middletown Township Committee meeting due to a death in the family. I knew that it was going to be contentious and a spectacle to observe, and according to an article posted on the RedBankGreen.com by Dustin Racioppi it seems to have been just that, below is a small snippet of what he wrote:

"...A pending review of the 2010 spending plan at the state level pushed back the adoption date to mid-August. Mayor Gerard Scharfenberger said the Local Finance Board, which reviews municipal budgets for compliance with state laws and regulations, is backlogged, and Middletown is set to have its done by August 11.

Meantime, the township committee held a public hearing on the $65 million proposal, which would increase average tax bills by $211 annually.

As usual of late, the governing body took a beating from the public.

“Everything we buy goes up, but everything coming in goes down,” resident Angela Bennik said. “At the end of the day, when our tax bill comes in, it’s up.”

Bennik later said she’s disappointed with how the town has been run, without a budget in place for most of the year and, in tough economic times, an increase to boot.

“The town should be run like a family,” she said. “I go out to get groceries. If I can’t afford it, tough, you can’t eat. You can’t spend what you don’t have.”

There’s also a sense of frustration that the municipal portion of tax bills skyrocketed over last year, up 13 percent.

“I have wants and I have needs. I can’t have all my wants,” Sandra Craig Barry said. “You are asking us to sign off on a 13-percent increase. We just can’t do it anymore.”

“Not really,” Scharfenberger interjected. “It’s going to be cut down from there.”

Scharfenberger says pending measures, like spreading out retirement pension and benefits payouts, will drastically alter the spending plan when it comes back for adoption next month..."

It seems like they had themselves one hell'va, rip roaring , good time last night! But after reading Racioppi's column I am left with a few questions for our acting mayor Gerry Scharfenberger.

First of all, Scharfenberger is quoted as saying that the tax increase will not be 13% or above because it will be cut down from there... really, by who? Is Scharfenberger and the rest of his GOP majority buddies waiting for the Local Finance Board to make cuts to the proposed increase for them, therefore skirting their own responsibilities over the budget? It would seem that way.

If that is not the case and Gerry and his friends are trying to spread out pension payments and other cost to limit the 13% tax increase then why wasn't this plan presented last night with the corresponding savings to the tax rate? They have had nearly a full month since the budget was first introduce to the public on June 23rd, why wasn't anything new presented last night?

Lastly, according to Scharfenberger, the online suggestion box at the Township's website is not bearing the fruit that they had hoped it would, so it seems the majority that controls the Township Committee, is out of ideas of their own on how cut costs.

A quote from the article has our mayor stating,

“I would prefer people say what they could do without, we have to hear that. We can’t just surmise it, and then there’s a lot of people on the other side.”

This quote is a classic example of a "cop out" if I ever saw or heard one. As our mayor, Gerry Scharfenberger needs to have a backbone and lead... or step down. Make the tough choices you were elected to make and stop looking to others in order to make yourself and others look good. It is a sign of weakness and unbecoming of an elected official.

You can read Dustin Racioppi's full article >>>Here

NJPP Monday Minute 7/19/10: Public Employees: Are they overpaid?

State and local government budgets are under severe strain. Rather than blame the world-wide recession, which has caused tax revenues to fall and the demand for public services to increase, politicians want to blame public employees who, they claim, are over-compensated.

Gov. Christie has proposed his 33 bill "Tool Kit" as a solution to reducing costs for towns, schools and higher education. The 2.0 percent property tax cap is the centerpiece of his package, which he claims will bring property taxes in New Jersey under control. The Tool Kit includes policy changes in the areas of "civil service, collective bargaining, employee pensions and benefits, red tape and unfunded mandates, election reform, executive superintendent authority and shared services." All of these changes are likely to substantially change public employment in New Jersey.

But are public employees really overpaid?

In May of this year, Rutgers University held a seminar at which this question was the central issue. Professors Jeffrey Keefe from the School of Management and Labor Relations and William Rodgers from the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development presented some facts about public-private employment in New Jersey. Among their findings:

• A basic comparison of wages indicates that private sector employees are on average paid more than public sector employees.
• These comparisons vary markedly when education is considered. Workers with only a high school education are compensated better in the public sector than in the private sector because most public sector jobs are not paid at minimum wage and include health insurance and pension benefits.

The table below compares annual earnings at various education levels. People with bachelors' degrees, those with professional degrees and those with master's degrees all earn significantly more when employed by the private sector rather than the public sector. Clearly the differential between the private sector and the public sector is not due solely to wages.

Comparing Public-Private Annual Earnings

Compensation by Education Private Public

Average Wages $69,979 $56,694

Average Total Compensation $104,409 $89,917

Wages by Education

Less than high school $27,719 $41,000
High school $44,760 $44,050
Some college $53,901 $47,567
Associates $56,181 $50,916
Bachelors $89,041 $56,641
Professional degree $175,141 $79,330
Masters $107,328 $69,171
Doctorate $108,528 $109,482

• Public employees are more educated. Forty-four percent of private sector workers have at least a college degree compared to 57 percent in the public sector.
• Wages of less educated men in the private sector have eroded over time. Some of the possible reasons for this are the erosion of the state's manufacturing base; the decline in private sector unions; and an increase in the supply of less educated and less skilled men.

These trends are mirrored in a report released in May 2010 by John Schmitt at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He found that state and local employees appear to earn more than private sector employees and he attributes that to the fact that state and local employees are older and substantially more educated than private sector workers. Another interesting bit of data he cites is that 60 percent of state and local government employees are women compared to 46 percent of employees in the private sector.

Professor Keefe has done further analysis of the public-private compensation issue since the Rutgers seminar in May. Many of New Jersey's financial problems stem from inadequate information. If it had been known that the state would lose $24 billion in revenue from the sales and income tax cuts under Gov. Whitman, would we still have done it? If it had been known how high the cost to the state of providing pensions to every public employee who earned $1,900 a year would we still have permitted it?

The Senate is considering bills included in Governor Christie's Tool Kit starting today and the Assembly plans to review the reforms during the summer. That's as it should be - open and public and transparent. But let's also be transparent about the affect this legislation will have on local governments, too. For a change let's do things right. Let's figure out what the true future costs and the benefits of such changes will be to the services provided in New Jersey.

Middletown's Budget Will Not Be Adopted Tonight As Planned

As part of tonight's Middletown Township Committee meeting, it was planned for the budget that was introduced at the June 23rd introduction meeting to be adopted. Instead of adopting the budget however, it will be on the agenda once again as item for discussion.

The reason behind not adopting the budget tonight after 7 months and relying on yet another temporary budget appropriation to get the township through the month of August is simple. The Township was late in it's application for approval to the State Local Finance Board, to exceed the 4% State mandated cap on it's municipal budget.

The budget that was introduced to the public back on June 23rd called for an increase in the municipal tax rate of over 13% and will need approval from the Local Finance Board before being adopted. The hearing with the local finance board is not scheduled until August 11th.

It is be up to the Local Finance Board to accept or reject Middletown's budget before it can be adopted by the Township. If it is rejected on the basis of being to excessive, then Middletown will need to go back to the drawing board and make further adjustments to it, which could lead to additional layoffs or service cuts in order to lower the propose +13% tax increase.

Scharfenberger Videos Are Just Another Example Of His Ignorance Of Facts.

Have you seen the two videos of Middletown's acting mayor Gerry Scharfenberger being interviewed by another local blogger? The videos were made a number of weeks ago, just before the 4th of July holiday, so if you have not you can seem them, you can do so >>> here and here .

These videos are a classic examples of how Gerry Scharfenberger ignores the truth to promote his own agenda.

Scharfenbeger stated in the first video that the 13% increase in the municipal tax rate stated by Committeeman Sean Byrnes at the budget introduction meeting was not accurate, which is untrue.

In 2009 there was $40,001,112.58 raised by property taxes and this year (2010) there will be $45,549,733.91, the difference being $5,548,621.33. If you divide this difference by the 2009 amount and multiply it by 100 you will get the percentage increase for 2010, which is 13.87%. Byrnes was rounding down to 13%.

Scharfenbeger mentioned about how the lack of state aid was a factor behind the increase in the municipal tax rate. In 2009 Middletown lost, I believe $800K in state aid and Scharfenberger stated that then Gov. Jon Corzine was strangling the municipalities. In 2010 Gov. Christie has shorted Middletown twice that much,$1.6M. Now, Scharfenberger has stated that Gov. Christie is doing what is necessary to set the State on the right course, but he had no plan to deal with the loss of aid. The mayor had to have seen this coming just by the shear climate of the economy and planned appropriately for it.

This brings up a point that I am surprised others haven't talked about much; why should Middletown rely on State aid to begin with? Middletown is larger enough and should be supporting itself, not looking for handouts from the State or Federal Governments. If aid comes down from the State it should be applied to the town's surplus and the following years' budget.

When asked about the adoption of the township budget and why after 6 months into the year a budget had not been adopted yet, our acting mayor stated that each month thus far Middletown has been operating with a temporary budget that has been kept to within 75% of what was expected to spent each month.

If that's the case, why not make a yearly budget to do the same? A budget could have been made in January to include 90% of what was expected to be spent. That would leave 10% to go toward surplus. Why put off the enevitable? Given this statement Gerry expected a 13% increase, therefore he saw it coming.

In the second video, the mayor talks about unfunded mandates like COAH and opting out of the civil service system. Scharfenberger stated that millions have been spent over the years on lawyers fees to to fight lawsuits on COAH, but the reality is, if the Middletown was COAH compliant for all of those years then most of the lawsuits would not have taken place. As a matter of fact, if Middletown was compliant in many other areas of the law, then lawsuits would not have had to be fought. Many times Middletown has enabled the lawsuits to continue only to have the lawyers profit.

In wishing to opt-out of the Civil Service system, Scharfenberger stated that shared service agreements can't be reached with other towns that do not have civil service employees. He says that because of civil service requirements agreements between Middletown and other towns are nearly impossible. Now I might be wrong in presuming this but, if an agreement can be made between two municipalities whether they are civil service or not, that complies with the civil service contracts, it should be acceptable to the non-civil service employees from another towns.

Finally, the mayor claims that he had no idea of what the Governor was going to do, which has to be the furthest thing from the truth. After all, Scharfenberger was on the Governors' Transition Team writing policy for what the new Governor was going to do and he loves to tell everyone that he is in constant contact with him or Lieutenant Gov. Guadagno.

So to be taken by surprise or caught off guard by anything coming from Trenton has to be taken with a grain of salt and chalked up as nothing more than the continued issuance of half-truths an blubbery from him, in order to promote his own self interests.

The Gloom of a 13.9% Municipal Spending Increase for Property Taxpayers

By Virginia Amend - Lincroft Village News


There is no way to put a good face on a 13.9% increase on the $64,979,576 municipal budget.

As one citizen said to Mayor Scharfenberger and the Republican majority of Pamela Brightbill, Anthony Fiore and Steve Massell, “The Republican majority owns this budget.”

That may be only partly true. Governor Christie’s actions at the State level heavily contributed to the 13.9% increase in municipal spending. First, there was the loss of $1,564,911 state aid. The anticipated pain for 2011 is that loss is then built in for future budgets.

In the “unanticipated outcomes” category Governor Christie’s threats to future pension rules, caused 23 Middletown Township employees to choose retirement in 2010 in order to be covered by the existing, more favorable pension benefits.

Another “unanticipated outcome” is the $760,000 needed to pay retiring employees sick leave and vacation day payouts. Ouch!

Not too many people remember when the Republican majority couldn’t find the funds to pay 2009 pension contribution. The temporary CFO Roth negotiated a settlement with the local Finance Board in Trenton whereby Middletown would pay 1/12 of the pension contribution in 2009 and the remaining 11 payments to be paid over the next eleven years @ 4% interest.

The budget introduced on Monday, June 23, -- halfway through the fiscal year – indicated the pension increase in this budget required $1,800,000 to fund the pension increase. Healthcare costs, and two borrowings from prior year’s salary increase. The current freeze on salaries is too little, too late to pay last year’s unpaid medical bills caused. CFO Anthony Trasente to budget another $1 million to cover this year’s health costs.

All the signs were there of an out-of-control fiscal plan in the late 2008 and in full bloom in 2009. The Republican majority should have clamped down on negotiated settlements with the several unions. In this 2010 budget the township committee is faced with an increase of $1,400,000 for the As Everett Dirkson once said, “A million here, a million there pretty soon we’re talking real money.”

The only legitimate cost was the $900,000 for this post winter’s unanticipated heavy snows and and rainstorm costs which amounted to almost a million - $900,000.

But what about the massive amounts of brush and tree limbs still littering Middletown streets? As a retiring Public Works employee, a 40 year employee said, “We used to have all the brush cleaned up by March. But they laid off one public works employee and eliminated all over time. So the public works employees come in at 6:00 AM and leave by 3:30 PM.” He said the situation is made worse as residents add their own tree and shrubbery trimming adding volumes to the existing mess of brush and tree limbs.

The reserve for uncollected taxes is at a perilous low of $500,000.

Mayor Sharfenberger prides himself on being on Governor Christie’s transition team, but it must be embarrassing to them both that Middletown with 22 square miles, and 60,000 residents has the highest municipal tax rate of 13.9%. How does that fit with Christie’s proposed 2 1/2% cap? If the cap is passed by the 2010 legislature how will Middletown face a 2011 budget?

The only “big ticket” reduction would be layoffs of personnel. To date layoffs have been limited to low-salaried secretaries and aides. No voluntary freeze of higher level salaries were made this year.

As someone once said, “One time budget solutions are just a hole in your next years’ budget.”

Currently, salaries cost $25,572,304 each year. Health benefits and insurance add another $9,292,880. A serious reduction in force would reduce both these categories.

Remember, Middletown provides lifetime health benefits to retiring employees. That means double the health benefits for each position in which a person retires. No town can afford that. Freehold Township passed a resolution in December 2009 stating there would be no lifetime health benefits for all new hires. Middletown needs to do the same.

The formula for funding the libraries is dictated by State Law and costs Middletown taxpayers $3,986,437 per year. Only legislative action can modify this formula.

To add final insult to the injury of a 13.9% increase in the municipal tax spending is the proposal of CFO Nick Trasente to accelerate tax sales against homeowners which could generate a one-time solution of $2,750,000. Again, a hole in the 2011 budget.

A one-time transfer of $365,000 from the sewerage authority may indicate they are over charging and that rate could be lowered in the future. Also health benefits for this authority needs to be examined.

Mr. Trasente said there are a number of one-time revenue sources; approximately:

1. $500,000 serial bonds
2. $200,000 from payment of a capital bond
3. $202,000 increase from the revaluation
4. $365,000 sewer authority surplus

Total - $1,267,000

However these funds will not be available for the 2011. It avoids the reality that this approximate $1,267,000 will cause the 2011 budget to increase by this amount unless spending is cut, (and there is the specter of a 2 1/2 % constitutional cap.)

Mayor Sharfenberger at this budge introduction attempted to deflect the deadening reality of a 13.9% increase in the municipal budget and the financial pain being delivered to Middletown’s homeowners, by pointing to the Board of Education budget which consumes 62% of the overall budget, a common percent in many towns. In Middletown there are 17 schools and approximately 10,000 students the percent increase of the Board of Education’s budget was a tight 2.6 per cent increase in school taxes. A quality education for all of Middletown’s children is reflected in that percent.

CFO Nick Trasente, in his report, said this budget maintains all current programs and township events.

The question becomes what programs would you, the taxpayer, eliminate to lower the 13.9% increase.

Public Information Officer Cindy Herrschaft announced the introduced budget would be on the township website the next morning. Several suggestions from the audience asked whether citizens could add their remarks and suggestions.

Committeeman Sean Byrnes acknowledged the hard work under difficult pressures, that CFO Trasente had on compiling this budget. While Byrnes was the lone “no” vote on the passage of this budget, he iterated once more the need for a finance committee composed of members of the township committee and private citizens to advise the committee early in the process. He gave a 10 pt. list of ideas and times that he introduced them to anticipate the budget process earlier.

Two of the casualties of Middletown’s budget disaster is the bonding of $3 million to dredge Shadow Lake.

The other is the diverting of the bond funds to the West Front St. Park, and a further promise to turf the Ranger field instead. It almost seemed like a done deal until Middletown budget introduction painted a black – 13.9% -- picture.

A reasonable question of CFO Trasente – is what has happened to those bonds.

The public budget hearing is scheduled for July 19, 2010 at town hall.

Only 16 or 17 people attended the introduction of the budget. That is sad. Each citizen is impacted by the actions of the township committee. Each homeowner will be financially impacted in 2010. The re-val is anticipated to generate 202,000 – that’s your money. 13.9% increase in spending will come from your pocket.

Inform yourself. Ask questions. Review the budget online. Suggest other cuts to bring down $64,979,576 of municipal spending.

And be prepared for reduced services too!!

Note - Since this article was first published in the Lincroft Village News, the NJ State Legislature passed a 2% property tax cap that has been signed into law by Governor Christie.

Saturday Morning Cartoons:The Smurfs and the Dancing Bear

This is no time to be blue - grab your pop tarts and pull up a chair, it's cartoon time once again.

President Obama's Weekly Address 7/17/10: Filibustering Recovery & Obstructing Progress

The President blasts Republicans in the Senate who are blocking unemployment insurance and small business tax breaks to create jobs -- even as they push for permanent, massive tax cuts for the richest Americans.

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Weekly Address

The White House

July 17, 2010

This week, many of our largest corporations reported robust earnings – a positive sign of growth.

But too many of our small business owners and those who aspire to start their own small businesses continue to struggle, in part because they can’t get the credit they need to start up, grow, and hire. And too many Americans whose livelihoods have fallen prey to the worst recession in our lifetimes – a recession that cost our economy eight million jobs – still wonder how they’ll make ends meet.

That’s why we need to take new, commonsense steps to help small businesses, grow our economy, and create jobs – and we need to take them now.

For months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. But too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress. And that has very real consequences.

Consider what that obstruction means for our small businesses – the growth engines that create two of every three new jobs in this country. A lot of small businesses still have trouble getting the loans and capital they need to keep their doors open and hire new workers. So we proposed steps to get them that help: Eliminating capital gains taxes on investments. Establishing a fund for small lenders to help small businesses. Enhancing successful SBA programs that help them access the capital they need.

But again and again, a partisan minority in the Senate said “no,” and used procedural tactics to block a simple, up-or-down vote.

Think about what these stalling tactics mean for the millions of Americans who’ve lost their jobs since the recession began. Over the past several weeks, more than two million of them have seen their unemployment insurance expire. For many, it was the only way to make ends meet while searching for work – the only way to cover rent, utilities, even food.

Three times, the Senate has tried to temporarily extend that emergency assistance. And three times, a minority of Senators – basically the same crowd who said “no” to small businesses – said “no” to folks looking for work, and blocked a straight up-or-down vote.

Some Republican leaders actually treat this unemployment insurance as if it’s a form of welfare. They say it discourages folks from looking for work. Well, I’ve met a lot of folks looking for work these past few years, and I can tell you, I haven’t met any Americans who would rather have an unemployment check than a meaningful job that lets you provide for your family. And we all have friends, neighbors, or family members who already knows how hard it is to land a job when five workers are competing for every opening.

Now in the past, Presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is – an emergency expenditure. That’s because an economic disaster can devastate families and communities just as surely as a flood or tornado.

Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that. They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money. So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed. They’ve got no problem spending money on tax breaks for folks at the top who don’t need them and didn’t even ask for them; but they object to helping folks laid off in this recession who really do need help. And every day this goes on, another 50,000 Americans lose that badly needed lifeline.

Well, I think these Senators are wrong. We can’t afford to go back to the same misguided policies that led us into this mess. We need to move forward with the policies that are leading us out of this mess.

The fact is, most economists agree that extending unemployment insurance is one of the single most cost-effective ways to help jumpstart the economy. It puts money into the pockets of folks who not only need it most, but who also are most likely to spend it quickly. That boosts local economies. And that means jobs.

Increasing loans to small business. Renewing unemployment insurance. These steps aren’t just the right thing to do for those hardest hit by the recession – they’re the right thing to do for all of us. And I’m calling on Congress once more to take these steps on behalf of America’s workers, and families, and small business owners – the people we were sent here to serve.

Because when storms strike Main Street, we don’t play politics with emergency aid. We don’t desert our fellow Americans when they fall on hard times. We come together. We do what we can to help. We rebuild stronger, and we move forward. That’s what we’re doing today. And I’m absolutely convinced that’s how we’re going to come through this storm to better days ahead.

Thanks.

Bruce Springsteen - crawfisherman?!; Hero woos commission with soulful crooning

I heard about this video the other day while listening to the radio. It's is very moving and worth the watch. This guy Drew Landry is a real person who has been effected by the BP oil spill and deserves to be heard by all.

"There was a public hearing about the Gulf oil spill in Louisiana a while back...and this quiet fisherman, Drew Landry, didn't just speak from his heart, but he performed a song worthy of Bruce's BEST! Really - it's like "The River" Louisianne style."

Middletown ranked in the “Top 100 places to live in United States, but what does it mean?

Money Magazine recently came out with its annual list of the “Top 100 places to live in United States” for 2010; kudos goes to Middletown for once again making the list at #89 and being the fourth town from New Jersey to make the list this year. With this honor, Middletown has now found itself on this prestigious list for the third time in the last five years; previously Middletown made the list in 2006(#50) and 2008(#86).

In determining Middletown’s spot on the list, MONEY Magazine sighted a strong sense of community, its low crime rate, great school system and the abundance of cultural and leisure activities available to residents, which makes Middletown a really wonderful place to raise a family and for that reason, I consider myself truly blessed to call Middletown home.

In a press release announcing Middletown’s third appearance on MONEY’s Top 100 List, Mayor Gerry Scharfenberger is quoted as saying “The designation speaks volumes about our success in maintaining the highest quality of life possible”.

But does it?

What does this ranking really mean? Does it really merit the praise when NJ Monthly Magazine ranked Middletown as only the 134th (down 20 places from its 2008 survey) best place to live in New Jersey and only the 10th best place to live in Monmouth County back in February?

Both magazines used crime rate, school performance and proximity to services as leading indicators for their rankings. MONEY seems to have placed more emphasis on the superficial like “air quality” and leisurely activities, whereas NJ Monthly used more tangible criteria such as population growth, home values, property taxes, land development and unemployment rates to determine its ranking, which I believe leads to a more honest assessment of Middletown. It’s no wonder then, that there was no press release in February praising NJ Monthly for its brutally honest appraisal of Middletown’s standing.

Like good politicians do, Scharfenberger wasted little time attempting to take credit for the news from MONEY Magazine even though he had little to with its findings, unless of course if you consider Middletown’s decline in the survey.

Since Scharfenberger has been in office, Middletown’s ranking in MONEY Magazine “Top 100 Best Places To Live” went from #50 to #86 to #89 -- a 39 point decline. During his first term we saw a 36-point decline.

It seems that Mayor Scharfenberger and the Republican majority are eroding the quality of life in Middletown. If he and his friends were doing a good job we should have been ranked #31 by now. The Township is trending out of the Top 100.

Seeing that the quality of the school system was a leading indicator in the survey and that the mayor’s much publicized battle with the teacher’s union and the Middletown Board of Education over the school budget this past May, may have had an effect on the Township’s place on the list, let me put it another way. Scharfenberger’s municipal 'Best Places' report card shows a grade point average declining over three marking periods with 11 other cities having a lower GPA and 88 with a higher GPA. He has essentially moved Middletown to the bottom half of the last quarter, of the best places to live.

Since Gerry Scharfenberger and his Republican majority have been in office, our municipal taxes are up over 25% and moving upwards, to over 30% if the currently proposed budget is adopted on July 19th.

Here’s a question that should be asked of the people at MONEY Magazine: What does it cost in individual tax dollars to be ranked 89; do the better ranked cities get more bang for the taxpayer buck than lesser ranked cities? It seems that the Middletown residents as a whole were paying less in taxes when we were ranked at 50 than we do now; what happened?

Whatever happened to the dedicated and disciplined pursuit of excellence? I guess it wasn’t part of the survey.

Letter: Middletown's mayor proposes unconstitutional resolution instead of worrying about the budget

Middletown Mayor Gerald Scharfenberger is preoccupied with everything but the 13 percent tax increase, introduced in June, to be voted on July 19.

Instead of working to reduce this tax burden on the homeowners, he is focusing his attention on supporting legislation to prevent unions from contributing to political groups.

Scharfenberger should know that legislation such as this was recently brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled that government may not ban political spending by corporations and other advocacy groups, such as labor unions.

The mayor should use his time to support the taxpayers of Middletown by trying to reduce the tax burden. The increase this year is the result of the many years of mismanagement by the leaders of this town.

Marilyn Tuohy
PORT MONMOUTH

NJPP Monday Minute 7/12/10: The Cap: Is it really a solution to high property taxes?

Today the State Assembly passed the latest version of New Jersey's newest attempt at a property tax limitation: a 2.0 percent hard cap on property tax levy increases that provides just four exemptions for exceeding the limit - health care costs, pension costs, debt and unforeseen crises. The bill represents a compromise worked out between Gov. Christie and Senate President Steve Sweeney.

The Governor had been pushing for a 2.5 percent cap that would be written into the state constitution, which would virtually guarantee the cap would never be changed. The Governor also wanted to allow for only one exemption (for debt service) and wanted a 60 percent voter referendum to override the cap.

The amended legislation lowers the cap to 2.0 percent, but includes the additional exemptions listed above and requires a simple majority to override the cap. It also would be a statutory change, not a constitutional amendment - making it more likely that adjustments can be made if unforeseen problems arise.

This bill has moved like lightning. In typical New Jersey fashion, no fiscal analyses have accompanied the cap discussions. And there has been little acknowledgement that the state currently has a 4 percent cap enacted in April 2007 in a bipartisan vote. The current cap law was enacted for budget years after July 1, 2007 and was due to sunset on June 30, 1012. Written into the law was a requirement that the New Jersey Tax and Fiscal Policy Commission report on its effectiveness in controlling property taxes and make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on or before January 15, 2005.

In the frenzy of activity surrounding the Governor's proposed Cap and Tool Kit, everyone has conveniently forgotten the months of hearings, public testimony, research and analysis that accompanied the 2006 special legislative sessions. There is more interest in rigid limits than in making changes that can result in rational policy changes. The lack of transparent policy analysis is what got New Jersey to where it is today; this cap bill is no different.

Discussions of this bill on the Senate floor last week centered on bringing "predictability and control" to property tax bills. And one part of the cap is predictable. The average tax bill in New Jersey is $7,281 on a house assessed at $290,502. A 2 percent increase in that bill is $145.62, payable at $12.14 in a mortgage over a 12 month period. What remains unknown, however, is what will happen when municipalities privatize garbage collection services; or when schools raise fees for sports or other extracurricular programs; or when municipal court costs go through the roof because of the increased traffic violations given out as revenue raisers.

The cap is the first shoe in the governor's proposal.

Over the next few Monday Minutes, NJPP will analyze Gov. Christie's "tool kit," a bundle of 33 bills he is promoting as the second phase of his property tax strategy. Lawmakers are expected to hold public hearings on that legislation through the summer.

Byrnes: 2% Cap Place Ball Squarely in Muncipalities' Court

" The 2% cap is a good thing. It places real restrictions on municipal tax increases by capping additional tax levies year to year at 2%. But make no mistake, this law places the onus for tax relief on municipalities...The time to start planning for this cap is now..." - Middletown Committeeman Sean Byrnes - Middletown Township Committee

This latest blog entry by Middletown's Sean Byrnes takes on the proposed 2% cap on property taxes that is now making it's way through the Legislature and how it will effect municipal budgets, particularly Middletown's. He states that the time to start planning for the 2% cap is now, not next year, while waiting to see how much aid will be coming from the state.

Below is from his Mobilize Middletown blog that was posted late last night:

The 2% cap is a good thing. It places real restrictions on municipal tax increases by capping additional tax levies year to year at 2%. But make no mistake, this law places the onus for tax relief on municipalities. The Governor's "tool chest" promises to make that job easier, but the job of cutting spending rests with the towns. The Governor and Assembly have sent a clear message that most of the hard work of saving tax dollars will take place at the local level. Given that reality, we need to prepare for the difficult work ahead.

To be clear, we operate under a 4% cap now, but there are numerous exceptions that make the existing cap toothless. The new law has just a few exceptions and will leave municipalities with little wiggle room. In any given year, if you have a category of spending (e.g. fuel costs) that increases by more than 2%, you will need need to cut spending elsewhere to offset that increase. Many municipalities, including Middletown, have not had the discipline to operate within a cap. Last year, against my vote, we applied for a waiver of the cap. We voted to defer our pension contributions (which will need to be repaid with interest over a term that starts in 2012), and by year's end, we needed to borrow $800,000 from 2010 to pay 2009 expenses. This type of reckless spending must end.

The time to start planning for this cap is now. One of the biggest problems with the budget process in Middletown has been our failure to start the process until well into the fiscal year. This year has been no different. It is July, and we have not held a single public meeting to discuss our budget or how we should cut spending. Clearly, at this point, any annual savings to be achieved from budget cutting measures will only be 50% effective, since half the funds have been spent by now. The perennial excuse is that we don't know exactly how much money we're getting until the State gives us our revenue numbers several months into the year. The problem with that line of thinking is that it assumes we cannot make cuts until we know how much money we have. Obviously, uncertainly over our final revenue numbers does not stop us from planning layoff, furloughs, reductions in service, etc. We have waited too long, and we cannot afford to make that mistake again.

We should start working on the 2011 budget now. We need to assume that Governor Christie's tool kit will pass. We should assess that tools that will be available to us, and we should start planning on how to use them. There will be difficult, contentious debates when it comes to jobs and benefits. We may need to reconsider our status as a civil service town. Our negotiating stance with Unions will toughen as the specter of mandatory arbitration is removed.

But even with these additional measures made available to us, a thorough, regular process for evaluating our services and the programs we deliver needs to be followed. Currently, we have no mechanisms or structure to ensure efficient execution of budget-cutting ideas and recommendations. No finance or budget committee. Without a more robust governance structure to engage in the work of following through on some of these budget-cutting ideas, we will never see their fruition. Some ideas that have been discussed but not yet implemented include: combining the maintenance functions in the Parks Department and Public Works Department, sharing maintenance functions with the Board of Education, outsourcing leaf and brush pickup, one day per week garbage pickup, and tougher enforcement of recycling laws. There are more suggestions, but no real process for implementing them. So, as we consider how we might use the Governor's tools, let's also put in place the committees and people to help us use the tools to their full measure.

Middletown Considering Cancellation Of Fall Brush Pick-Ups

According to an article not posted on-line as of yet, but which appears in today's printed version of the Asbury Park Press, it seem that Middletown is considering eliminating fall brush pick-up.

According to the article, Ted Maloney Middletown's Director of Public Works, said that all 36 employees of the DPW have been spending their time collecting leaves and brush this year after the horrible winter we had and have not been able to devote much time at all to other duties like paving roads, repairing drain pipes (like the one outside my house, where the road has collapsed) or maintaining various buildings and grounds around town. The elimination of the fall brush pick-up would then allow employees to concentrate on their efforts in those areas once they have finished collecting leaves and brush that remain scattered around the township later this month.

But of course the mayor can't make this decision alone, he has to figure out how best to get residents reactions first - should it be discussed at a future public meeting or pose it as a question in the Townships newsletter Middletown Matters? Here's an idea, how about placing another "Suggestion Box" on the townships website if you don't wish to engage the public directly like so many other issues that effect the town.

Leaf pick-ups this fall, as of right now, will go on as scheduled but the township will be collecting bids shortly from contractors in an attempt to privatize the service (privatizing the leaf and brush pick-ups has been something that Committeeman Sean Byrnes as been advocating for sometime now). But of course, before any contracts are awarded the mayor has to first see if it makes sense to privatize the service or continue to pick-up leaves in-house.

Committeeman Byrnes was mentioned as saying that he believes the savings from privatizing the collections will come from being able to further downsize the township's labor force, which will save the township the cost of salaries, health and pension benefits.

Mayor Scharfenberger counters that privatizing my not be a good idea unless additional employees can be eliminated, which he seems to doubt, because those individuals do more than just pick-up leaves and brush around town and that would just make the cost of privatizing an additional expense to the tax payers.

That may or may not be so, we'll have to wait and see what happens. But one thing is for sure, if Scharfenberger or one of the other members of the majority proposed the idea of privatizing the collection of leaf and brush instead of Sean Byrnes, it would have been touted as a great idea and implemented as soon as possible.

I am curious to hear what Scharfenberger has to say about what the recommendations made by the Governor's Commission on Privatization had to say about privatizing motor vehicle inspections, public parks, tolls and road and whatever else is in their report.

I am sure that it will all be marvelous to him and will show to others what a great governor Christie is turning out to be. Ironic isn't it?

Byrnes: Televise Township Committee Meetings

"...I think televising our meetings is an important step toward engaging our citizens in their Government..." - Middletown Committeeman Sean Byrnes - Middletown Township Committee

Many residents around town have been advocating for the Middletown Township Committee to broadcast their monthly meetings on the townships 2 public access channels, Comcast channel 20 and Verizon channel 26, their numerous request and letters to the editor have gone unheeded thus far.

The excuses of those in the majority on the Township Committee give for not broadcasting these meetings have included cost, lack of equipment and manpower to not wanting to create a circus type atmosphere at meetings, which is just plain silly.

Those in favor of broadcasting meeting say "if you can video concerts in the park or beach parties then broadcast them over the cable channels than you can certainly record township meetings for broadcast", which I happen to agree with and evidently so does Committeeman Sean Byrnes !

The following is another blog post from Sean Byrnes's blog Mobilize Middletown:

On Tuesday night at our Workshop Committee Meeting here in Middletown, I asked the Township Administrator to provide the Committee with an assessment of the costs to televise Township Committee meetings. My preference would be televise them live, but even a taped, televised meeting is better than no televised meetings. I think televising our meetings is an important step toward engaging our citizens in their Government. If we can play tapes of concerts in the park, we surely can play tapes of our elected officials at work. If we are to put our financial house in order, we need a citizenry that pays attention, expresses opinions and has transparent access to all of our budget and spending records. Indeed, our system of government anticipates an informed electorate that cares about how its local government spends its precious tax dollars.

In recent years that type of involvement has been limited to a small segment of our residents. When good times prevailed, many members of our community lost interest in the activities of our elected officials. I do not exclude myself from that criticism. Escalating real estate values and a booming economy lessened the burden of real estate taxes on the average resident. As a result, the actions of our elected officials became less important.

But those times are gone for the foreseeable future, and we now must manage our public resources during a time of financial crisis. This means mobilizing our citizens to participate in the governing process and to volunteer to perform services that may have been previously paid for with tax dollars. As an example, we budget a significant amount of money every year toward the maintenance of parks and fields. We should explore organizing the local neighborhoods adjacent to our parks to participate in regular cleanups, grass-cutting and upkeep of these assets. I believe that Middletown residents would welcome the opportunity to come together as a community to take care of their "jointly-owned" assets and save tax dollars at the same time. To set ourselves on this path, we need to connect to our residents. Televising our meetings would allow citizens to observe their government at work and to weigh in on decisions that impact them or that involve matters where they may have expertise.

Corruption and mismanagement arise when Government is conducted in the shadows. Two years ago we took an important step toward opening up our government when Committeeman Short and I introduced a resolution to place all township meeting agendas, resolutions and ordinances on our website in advance of meetings. This resolution was passed unanimously by the Township Meeting. (It was also an excellent example of bipartisanship). This allowed residents to see what was being voted on at meetings. Prior to this, residents who attended meetings would frequently have little idea what was being discussed, because they had never seen, and had no meaningful access to, the documents being voted upon. Bringing our meetings to television would further open a door to local government that until recently remained shut to all but a chosen few.

Letter: Middletown budget raises taxes again

The following letter written by a Mr. Warren Houck, appeared in the printed version of the Asbury Park Press last week but for some strange and unknown reason it failed to make the online addition, which has forced me to painstakingly reproduce it here for all to read an comment on:

After the school budget was defeated in Middletown, the budget went to the Township Committee, which ordered more than $2 million in additional cuts.

Now the Township Committee has proposed its budget. Guess how much that budget went up? A little over $2 million. Basically the Township Committee gobbled up the cuts it forced upon the Middletown schools.

The Township is proposing a 13% increase in the tax rate. This increase is on top of a 6% increase last year and a 7% increase the year before. This comes to a three-year average of around 9% per year - all during a time of little or no inflation.

By the way, besides the township rate, the open-space tax has stealthily been increased by more 100%. How? When the entire town was reassessed and the average property value more than doubled, other tax rates were adjusted lower to reflect the reassessment, but the open-space tax stayed at the same rate.

The tax before the reassessment was 0.02 cents per 100 dollars of property value. The tax is still 0.02 cents, but this is after reassessment and after doubling of the typical property value, which causes the typical homeowner now to pay twice the amount towards open-space.

While an open-space tax may be desirable, no one voted to double it. Adjusting this tax back to the level before the town reassessment would save Middletown taxpayers more than $1 million per year.

It is interesting that Mayor Gerard Scharfenberger complains that the Middletown teachers would not agree to a pay freeze, yet the township is not even close to being able to freeze its own budget.

Understandably, the terrible recession we have been through is putting towns in this state into a bind, but the Middletown Township Committee's members do not seem capable of making the same tough decisions that they dictated to the Board of Education.

Also, with three straight years of huge tax hikes, the committee seems to be in denial about adopting a budget that reflects the current reality.

Warren Houck

Middletown

Byrnes: Budget Irony in Middletown

"...As elected officials, we need to be willing to make difficult, painful decisions to reduce spending..." - Committeeman Sean Brynes - Middletown Township Committee

Middletown Committeeman Sean Byrnes has just posted the follow column on his Mobilize Middletown blog that addresses the current fiscal mess that the Township finds itself in due to the lack of proper planning and the Republican majority's refusal to address seriously his ideas and concerns about how save the taxpayers of Middletown from a nearly 13% tax increase this year and in years to come:


The Middletown Township Committee recently voted to introduce a proposed budget for 2010 that raises the municipal portion of the tax levy by 13%. In other words, the operation of the Township requires the taxpayers to contribute 13% more than they did last year. During a period of belt-tightening and financial hardship for most taxpayers, an increase of this magnitude cannot be justified. You will hear excuses about loss of State funds, retirements and other factors that made this a difficult year -- and much of that is true -- but our Township Government has failed to take the decisive action demanded by these difficult times. We are in an economic downturn of historic magnitude, and we need to take action that meets the challenge of these times. Just take a look around at other municipal budgets and see if you can find a town increasing the municipal budget by 13%. These neighboring communities operate in the same budget environment we do, but have been far more proactive in preparing for and dealing with this financial crisis.

The irony in all this is that while the Mayor touts the Governor's actions to cut spending and serves on his transition team, he refuses to take comparable strong action here in Middletown. Instead, we vacillate and miss opportunities for savings. Rather than imposing layoffs and furloughs early in 2010 when we knew we were in financial difficulty, he waited until almost halfway through the year. When I recommended letting pre-qualified engineering firms bid for the road construction projects that we undertake each year, he voted no, choosing instead to award in January all of the Township's engineering work to one engineering firm, thereby removing any chance of securing savings through a competitive bid process. When I recommended negotiating a fixed monthly legal fee from our attorneys, he voted no, again missing an opportunity to negotiate savings. The Mayor refuses to consider merging the Sewerage Authority into the Township Government to eliminate hundreds of thousands of dollars in overhead. We need to immediately merge all property maintenance functions in the Township into one Department. We need to move swiftly to outsource a significant portion of the leaf and brush pickup. The salaries and benefits necessary to support this operation represent a significant portion of our municipal budget. Moreover, we pay heavy maintenance costs for the equipment used by these employees in the leaf and brush pickup. We should also consider moving to a one day per week garbage pickup. While this may be unpopular with some residents, with a renewed emphasis on recycling of all types of paper, the volume of waste can be cut in half, and the savings to taxpayers would be tremendous.

But change cannot begin until there is an acknowledgment that we must radically change the way services are delivered in Middletown. The Governor has boldly altered the debate, and we need to seize this rare opportunity to restructure how local government is run. We must first identify the core services that residents need and expect and ensure these services are delivered as efficiently as possible. Everything else that falls outside the category of core services should be evaluated for reduction or elimination. For core services, we must analyze, with the assistance of professionals, which services can be outsourced. In my brief tenure on the Township Committee, I have observed that the burden of salaries and benefits in support of the delivery of services is crushing. In our decision-making, we frequently fail to measure the lifetime costs of employees. In addition to a person's salary, we provide generous benefits that are unavailable to all but a small portion of private sector employees. After retirement, we continue to provide these benefits with little or no contribution from employees. As health care costs have escalated, taxpayers have picked up the tab. Until now, little has been done to contain these costs.

As elected officials, we need to be willing to make difficult, painful decisions to reduce spending. We will always provide police, fire and ambulance services. We will always maintain roads, respond to emergencies and pick up the garbage. But we need to examine parks and recreation programs, the swim club, the arts center, drug counseling, Middletown Day, and other non-essential services to determine whether we can provide those services through partnerships, outsourcing or other less-expensive means. We need to consolidate the sprawling, inefficient buildings that house are employees and programs. These decisions will not be popular, but the alternative is steady tax increases that make living here less attractive. We need to be prepared to lose elections in the interest of putting Middletown on a course that ensures its financial well-bring for the foreseeable future.