Earlier in the week, Monday as a matter of fact,
the Middletown Township Committee held a special budget hearing to adopt the
2012 FY budget. I've been waiting to comment on it until the below video was
available.
The proposed $63.5 million will be supported
by a tax levy of $47.6 million, which is about a 1.9% increase over last year.
In dollars and sense, the increase in the tax levy from last year
is $919,079.
Everyone was very happy with themselves and
touted how there where not going to be any further job loses after laying off
27 employees over the past two years and about how new collective bargaining
agreements with township unions have saved $400k in health care costs since
last year, which is all well and good. However, this budget is so lean that I
doubt that the town will make it through the end of the year without an
emergency appropriation, like the town has had to use in previous years.
By keeping this budget lean and under the 2%
mandated cap, I think the Township is gearing up for a larger increase next
year.
Middletown has established a "Cap
Bank," whereas any percentage under the 2% cap saved can be rolled over
into the next year's budget. If used, it will allow for a larger tax increase
next year when combined with the savings from the FY2011 cap.
This budget is far from being an honest budget,
but that is to be expected when it is more important to toe tow the line for your
favorite governor, than it is to level with the residents of the township.
It's easier to appropriate emergency dollars later to keep the Township
afloat than it is educate, then ask residents to approve a budget that may be a
few dollars over the cap. If you can tout an average tax increase of only $43
per household per year with a straight face, than you can certainly do it by
touting a $45, $47 or $50 average increase.
Granted, no one (including myself) wants to pay
more taxes than necessary. But if you give me a choice of no leaf or brush
pick-up, no garbage pick-up, the laying off of police officers or other services,
I and I'm sure others, would gladly pay a few dollars more to keep those things
regardless of whether or not they fit under any artificial cap. Just be
honest.
Now enjoy the video.
30 comments:
Will that be the big toe that the line will be tied to?
Yes, that would be.
And as you know it is a very big toe.
Let me get this straight... You want a LARGER tax increase?
Bwuh?
And you've got the "Cap Bank" wrong. The Cap Bank is based on the appropriations cap and not the levy cap.
In other words, if the town needed to increase appropriations for any reason, like an emergency storm, even if the funds were coming from FEMA the town couldn't increase appropriations beyond the appropriations cap.
The bank just means that at some point the town can utilize that to increase appropriations beyond the 2.5% allowed by law. The 2% levy cap remains in place - no cap bank there allowed.
But again - you want a larger increase in taxes?
Is that Linda Baum's idea as well?
Legion,
Lets get this straight, the opinions expressed here (my posts) are mine and solely mine. I speak for myself and not for anyone else.
I want honest budgeting and honest accountablity. If that means I have to pay a few dollars more that's fine if my services do not deminish.
But if you are going to play games with the budget, like what has been done in the past by low balling figures to make yourself look good, only to run out of money by October,then rely on emergency appropriates that get rolled into the following year's budget to get you through the rest of the year, then that is unacceptable.
As for what Linda thinks, why don't you come forward and ask her yourself instead of hiding behind an alias, looking to start trouble?
So what extra services are being provided that we need a tax increase every year? It is increasing faster than the rate of inflation, so something else has to be happening
Anon 10:00pm
That's my point, there are no extra services being provide.
Services have been curtailed or eliminate over the past few years. Tax increases have been going towards salaries and benefits, not on the things that effect the overall quality of life in Middletown.
Hypocrite anyone? You complain about salaries and wages in the township budget causing tax increases yet post pro-union propaganda all over your site. Which is it Mikey?
Anon 7:15
I have never complained that union wages and benefits are the reason why taxes have continued to increase in Middletown. I believe in collective bargaining and the right to a fare wage.
I have been critical of mismanagement and the wasting of tax dollars by the Township Committee.
Once again I'm a little confused as to what you are saying Mike.
At 10:12 you say: "Tax increases have been going towards salaries and benefits..." and yet, at 8:31, you say: "I have never complained that union wages and benefits are the reason why taxes have continued to increase in Middletown..."
Aren't those contradictory statements? Isn't your call for increased taxes a contrast to what you were saying during the election last Fall?
The facts are that costs are rising - in most cases beyond the 2% levy cap - for fuel, for materials, for health care... Salary increases have not kept pace with inflation and the increased health care contributions. The town appears to have cut staff as much as possible.
What are your objections to this proposed budget again?
Anon 10:00PM,
The kinds of services that are costing the taxpayer are linked to authorities or organizations like the cultural arts center, which is a not-for-profit organization that is supposed to be independent of taxpayer funding. Yet, the MAC has received $200,000 to $300,000 a year in taxpayer dollars, since it opened in 2007, to cover operating costs like heat, electric, air conditioning, etc.
Then there were taxpayer dollars spent on the purchase of contanimated land and the subsequent environmental contamination clean-up after the MAC was constructed and opened to the public. So, the MAC is an example of an extra 'cultural service' that our taxes support.
The MAC was proposed and constructed as a non-profit 'cultural service' that would not need tax dollars to operate. The project from conception to the present has been mismanaged by a string of elected and appointed officials.
What about letting people pay for their own garbage pick up? I live in New Monmouth. I pay Midco to pick it up. I also used to live in Hazlet and Rahway and paid to pick it up. That'll save some cashish.
Legion,
No they are not contradictory statements.
Wages and benefits are fixed costs, you know every year what they are going to be so you can plan your budget around them.
Oh wait,that's right, Middletown self-insures so they have no idea year to year what their costs will be!
Much of the tax increases over the years have been due to lack of planning and short sightedness. Pat Short and Sean Byrnes pointed out many of these issues when they were on the TC and were ignored.
There is no long term planning, tax appeals are still a problem, cronies are given bonuses and others are given Township contracts,it goes on and on...
And I am not necessarily calling for more taxes, I am saying give voters a choice. If the TC needs to propose a budget that is slightly over the cap in order to save jobs or services than ask the voters to approve the budget before its adoption.
This wouldn't happen however because the Republicans are afriad to do it, they don't want to have to explain themselves to the voters or campaign to see the budget approved. Instead they will steal money from the library and rely on the sewerage authority to hand over surplus funds gathered from over charged customers to balance the budget.
Anon 6:37,
having people pay fro their own garbage pick-up will not necessarily save tax payers money.
It is true that those with higher assessed home values pay more to have their garbage pick-up than others doesn't mean that those with lower assessment will find cheaper pick-up rates if garbage pick-up was privatized.
To be honest, I live in the garbage district and a portion of my taxes go towards trash pick-up but I have no idea what portion of my tax dollars go towards trash pick-up so I don't know the cost of this service.
I don't know if I am over paying or not, but I like having garbage pick-up included in my taxes. It's one less bill I have to worry about.
As for the hypocritical comments of this site, didn't I read a few weeks ago how Linda Baum does not work for the state? If she doesn't as Mike claims, why is she in the state pension system since 02?
NJ Public Employees, 2010
Name LINDA S BAUM
County NA
Location COMPENSATION RATING & INS BUR
Pension fund Public Employees Retirement System
Pension group
Veteran status
Pension enrollment
year 2002
Base salary, 2010* $95,546
Number of jobs* 1
Total salary, 2010* $95,546
Anon 4:45
Her job is not funded by tax payers it is funded by the insurance industry. That is what was said on this blog.
Why is it that our township attorney is enrolled in the state pension system?
Our township attorney is enrolled under Tinton Falls. So the insurance industry now funds state pensions? If Linda is not a state employee funded by taxpayer dollars, why is she in the state pension system?
Anon 10:57,
For the same reason that Brian Nelson is.
Interesting but I checked Data Universe and don't see Brian Nelson in the state system. I do see Linda Baum in the state pension system.
So what's your point, are you saying that people can the state pension system should not be able to run for public office?
What is the issue about whether Linda Baum is a public employee? If she is, it just proves she had dedicated herself to public service and not the quick bucks like our realtor types.
Are we to think someone like a local realtor, whose bread and butter comes from taking a slice from the sale of our homes is somehow a "nobler" choice for public office?
And why do those who profess hatred for public employees, work so tirelessly to join their ranks in government? Is it to just make some political contacts while all the while bashing that which they seek to become a part of?
No Mike, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is remember the stink you and the goons made about Dr. Scharfenberger when you found out he worked for the state? For the record, i have no problem with Baum working for the state. How many letters to the editor did your crew write complaining about it? You also complained he didn't disclose it. So why isn't Baum?
Anon 7:31,
First off the only goon around here is you. Secondly you are comparing apples to oranges.
Scharfenberger lied to everyone about his state job. He lied to several papers when asked about his occupation and he lied to residents from the dais when questioned about it and did not disclose his appointment to his new position until after the election when once again confronted about.
Here's a quote from the Independent: http://ind.gmnews.com/news/2010-11-11/Front_Page/Middletown_mayor_State_job_no_secret.html
"...In an interview for the Oct. 21 issue (http://ind.gmnews.com/news/2010-10-21/Front_Page/Four_vie_for_two_seats_on_Midtwn_Twp_Committee.html) of the Independent, Scharfenberger only said that he was currently a professor at Monmouth University...."
And it just wasn't the "goons" from Middletown that were upset about it. The APP ran an editorial condemning Scharfy's actions and Bob Ingle chimed in as well.
Scharfy's appointment also ran counter to the Governor's own policy at the time. if you remember the Christie had stated the he wouldn't appoint anyone to a position if they were a sitting elected official, which Scharfy was and still is.
Linda Baum has nothing to hide, she announced her employer long ago. As you know she works for NJCRIB http://www.njcrib.com/default.asp
You can read the press release that included her bio here http://middletowndemocrat.org/
Anon 7:31 AM
Dr. Scharfenberger's first untruth was saying he was employed as a professor at Monmouth University -- he was an associate professor, which is two steps removed from being a full professor.
Scharfenberger's second lie was that he had accepted a new job at the state while he was running for re-election and on more than one ocassion failed to mention it when he was asked. His excuse for not informing the public about his new $95,000 a year job with the state was he didn't want to influence the voting public. He thought the new job would unfairly influence the public to vote for him -- he positioned it as an unfair advantage on his part. He tought that that telling the public about the new state job would create an uneven playing field to his advantage.
The primary issue here is purposely not revealing his new state employer when he was repeadly asked about his employment. He knowingly lied to those that he wanted to vote for him -- not telling the truth was more important than telling the truth.
And yet, he was overwhelmingly re-elected.
Does that tell you anything about how unimportant that "issue" was?
With things leveling off, you guys have nothing to gripe about, do you?
Sorry your smuggness, but the issue never became a campaign issue because Sharfy lied about his employment and it did not come to light until a few days after the election.
If it had been know about sooner, i am sure that the outcome would have been much different.
Yes Mike is right. The issue made the news after the election and at that time, the same chronic liar who defends the TC on this blog said that Middletown voters should have known enough to search through the state website for Gerry's new position- which, by the way, had a complete name change from prior administrations.
If this is Legion's definition of telling the truth, Ms. Baum should be proud if the same bottom feeders attack her credibility. I wonder if this is also the way they operate outside of politics and in their chosen professions?
If it was a non-issue before, why is it an issue now?
How did he lie, he is an (associate) professor at Monmouth Univ. You didn't ask if he had another job. If you work multiple jobs is it lying to say only one???
I guess its only acceptable to critisize state job holders when it works in your favor.
"Tax and spend" is the mission statement of the democratic party! Nothing new here mike - Nice Try.
Yes, 11:28PM, it is lying- it's called lying by omission.
Lack of full disclosure is an ethical violation for politicians and, in fact, for all professionals. For example, if a house was for sale and had hidden termite damage, and that was not disclosed, but the seller's realtor later said (after the home sold) "Sorry, you didn't ask if there was hidden termite damage" I would know what type of person I am dealing with- a dishonest one.
Given that, when I hear those in the Middletown political arena use that type of justification for their actions, I assume they operate the same way in their other "careers". It is highly unlikely a person who will lie (by omission or otherwise) in their political life would not also do so in their "breadwinning" jobs.
All told, maybe they are actually doing the public a favor by revealing the type of people they are. At least we know to not only avoid voting for them, but to also avoid doing business with them at all.
Mike,
According to the preliminary tax bill for 2012, for Middletown,the tax rate for garbage collection in the garbage district is .074 per hundred.It was .065 in 2011.( info on your tax bill).
Also the garbage contract was due for negotiation in either April or May of 2012 and we should see the result of that action when the final tax bill arrives in July.
Post a Comment