Independent: Backpack Crew packs food to help families

There's a good article in this week's Independent about some great people trying to make a difference by feeding hungry kids in Monmouth County. The Backpack Crew 

From the Independent:

By KAYLA J. MARSHStaff Writer

RED BANK — For many families in Monmouth County, the free/subsidized lunch children receive during school is sometimes their main and only meal of the day, according to local officials.

What happens though when they are not in school or are just feeling hungry because they do not have full meals at home?

One local nonprofit is working to answer these questions.

“It is hard to believe that lunch is the best meal of the day for these kids,” said Suzanne Dice, founder of The Backpack Crew. “You never think that it is your own community, that it could be your neighbors.”

The idea for The Backpack Crew came a year after superstorm Sandy when Dice was listening to a local teacher talk about her school and how there were families still struggling to get by.

“My husband and I always wanted to start a program and we talked about it, but it was always just something [to do] down the road,” Dice said.

“This woman was basically asking for prayers for her school and the families who were still trying to get back on their feet from Sandy, and when I heard this story, I was so moved and just felt like we needed to do something.”

Cindy Squassoni, a member of The Backpack Crew team, said she feels after the storm all that was discussed were problems residents were having with insurance companies or other issues.

“I don’t think anyone really heard about the long-term impact that [the storm] had on these families, these people who lost their jobs because of it, who were never homeless before that suddenly were and who could provide for their family beforehand but couldn’t anymore,” said Squassoni. “It was new for them and I think this teacher brought all of that to the conversation.”

Based out of The United Methodist Church of Red Bank at 247 Broad St., The Backpack Crew was founded in October 2013 and is dedicated to delivering weekend groceries to families in need and raising awareness about childhood hunger.

Here is how it works. Families are assigned their own backpack, which is delivered to the school each Friday filled with groceries such as macaroni and cheese, canned vegetables, oatmeal packets, granola bars, peanut butter and fruit cups. In the backpack is two days’ worth of breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. The backpack is then returned to the school on Monday to be refilled.

“We have limited space in those backpacks but we make the most out of it and jam as much as we can into those bags,” Dice said.

After starting out with one school, The Backpack Crew has expanded to feed families in five different schools throughout Red Bank, Middletown and Highlands.

“When we were designing this program with the first school nurse, our main number one goal was to keep it private for the families,” Dice said. “We wanted families to feel comfortable in accepting the help. I don’t know any of the families or their names. We know how many adults and children are assigned to each bag since every bag has a number, so we know how many to pack for, but we drop off the bags to the nurse and that is where it ends for us.”...

Continue reading.

Democrats seek bipartisanship in Middletown

Out this week in the Independent is an overview of the candidates running for Middletown Township Committee. Below is an excerpt featuring the comments of Middletown Democrats Patrick Short and George Mardinly.

"... Democratic challenger Short agrees that the issues vary across neighborhoods in Middletown. He said he is running to help bring another voice to the committee to help raise new questions about those issues. 

Patrick Short

“Middletown has been ruled by one party for a very, very long time,” Short said. “ … I’m more concerned that there’s only one party affiliation than which party it is.”

In 2006, Short was elected to the committee as the sole Democrat, where he sought to raise questions that he said often went unasked.

He said the “larger picture” is bringing different perspectives to the committee through party diversity.

According to Short, some pressing issues facing Middletown that demand immediate attention include the Bayshore recovery, reducing traffic in Lincroft and finishing the incomplete bridge on Bay Avenue.

Mardinly echoed his running mate’s point of view, emphasizing what he said was the need to break the single-party dominance of the Township Committee.

George Mardinly

“Any good government is based on the diversity of opinion,” he said.

One of the universal concerns across all of Middletown’s neighborhoods remains the balance between investment in infrastructure and controlling taxes, according to Mardinly.

“If any of these things are going to be attended to in addition to all of the ongoing expenditures, it all comes from tax money,” he said.

In order to ensure the township’s taxes remain stable, Mardinly said it is important to prioritize spending and make decisions based on facts and data.

“You have to look at the numbers and the priorities, and then go from there,” he said. “The goal here is to work together, see what the economics are, and then see what can be addressed and what needs to be addressed in a sensible way.”

Read the full article from the Independent.

American Properties Sues Middletown To Overturn Taylor Lane Denial

Interesting article in this week's Independent concerning the proposed Taylor Lane housing development that was turned down by the Middletown Planning Boarda few months ago.  The developer American Properties, is suing Middletown in Superior Court to overturn the ruling by the Planning Board.

After reading the article, a portion of which is printed below, I don't see how legally, Middletown has much of a leg to stand on and will surely lose in court.  Middletown's zoning process seems to be hap-hazard at times without a lot of thought placed into it.  The deficiency in the process then leads to court cases like this one which Middletown has a history of losing.

MIDDLETOWN — Iselin-based developer American Properties has sued the township of Middletown and the township Planning Board over the unanimous denial of the company’s plan to build 245 town homes on a 31-acre site. 

Citing “arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable” regulations and rulings by both bodies, American Properties is asking a state Superior Court judge to overturn the denial of its application and strike down a local ordinance cited in the decision.

The developer is also seeking a ruling on whether Taylor Lane is a public or private roadway, which could require the township to forcibly acquire any private ownership rights to the road that bisects the development site. 

Attorneys for the township and the Planning Board said no court hearings had taken place as of May 5. 

Ronald Shimanowitz, the attorney for the American Properties application and the appeal, did not return a call seeking comment. 

In the appeal, filed on Feb. 28, the developer states that the proposed development of 196 market-rate town homes and 49 affordable housing units fully complies with the township’s zoning for the vacant site. 

The Planning Board’s unanimous resolution of denial, which came after 11 lengthy Planning Board hearings spanning all of 2013, stated that Taylor Lane is a “collector road” according to local and state regulations. 

As a result, the board said the proposed development must be set back 50 feet from Taylor Lane, a two-lane road that runs south from Route 35 past a residential community. 

“The applicant’s plan is too crowded, too tight to a busy road,” read the resolution of denial. “Locating homes within 25 feet of a busy collector road is just not good planning. “
Professionals for American Properties testified that Taylor Lane is actually a local road that would require a setback of only 10 feet. The application called for a 25-foot setback. 

In the suit, American Properties officials say the Planning Board did not decide that Taylor Lane was a collector road until the 11th and final hearing for the application, and did not mention the need for a variance prior to that night.

The board’s determination was also partly based on a Middletown road ordinance that is “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and ambiguous” and needs to be voided, the complaint alleges. 

The ordinance, cited in the board’s denial, lays out specific criteria for a collector road, including the number of vehicles it carries, the number of lots it provides access to and whether it is “utilized by traffic other than residential in nature.” 

However, the board also recognized that the road ordinance “is not crystal clear,” referring at points to the township master plan, which does not designate Taylor Lane as either a local or collector road.

 Continue reading

Letter: Commission’s dissolution has erosive effect

The following letter appears today online at the Independent:

On the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Civil Rights Act, the American people can celebrate the progress that has been made in seeing the equality of all citizens. Although there is much more work needed, the foundation has been laid for generations to come.

In 1968, in response to the Civil Rights Act, Middletown Township set the precedent by being the first township to form a Human Rights Commission. Over the years, this all-volunteer body has contributed to various successes in the fields of public access, employee relations and the equal treatment of everyone.

In recent years, the Middletown Township Committee has neglected to appoint members to this commission and has discouraged the existing members from participating, leading to member resignations. Essentially, the governing body has decided that there is no need for a Human Rights Commission in Middletown and that they themselves can address any concerns a resident may have.


The Township Committee unanimously introduced and adopted an ordinance to abolish the Middletown Human Rights Commission. This shameful act of disregard of public participation in local government is appalling. The very premise of volunteerism, which our township thrives on, is being eroded by this dissolution. One can only speculate as to what will be the next thing that the Township Committee will remove to distance them from the residents.

Don Watson
New Monmouth

Brewer v. Middletown: Township Will Comply and Release Benefits Records

According to this weeks Independent, Middletown has decided to comply with Judge Lawson's ruling in the case of Brewer v. Middletown and release the names of all those who receive health benefits from the township.

Interestingly enough, Middletown's attorney Brian Nelson is somehow blaming Middletown Democrats and former Township Committee Candidate Linda Baum for the township's need to release names of those covered under its self-insured medical plan.  Also Lee Brewer, the man that filed the suit to release the names of those cover will be seeking to recover his legal expenses from the township that are associated from the case. Brian Nelson seems the think that the Township doesn't need to comply with the request however.

Here is what the Independent has to say:

Middletown Township will comply with a court order and release the names of current and former employees who received medical benefits through the township dating back to 2008, according to Township Attorney Brian Nelson.

Nelson confirmed on Monday that Middletown will not appeal an order from state Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson mandating that the names be provided to township resident Lee Brewer, who requested a comprehensive list of township benefits records in July.

According to court records, Brewer’s request was part of a quest to seek out “potential fraud” in the township’s health care enrollment system.


While the township provided Brewer with much of the information he requested, the names of the enrollees were redacted. Township officials said divulging that information could allow specific claims information for employees to be made public, which would violate the privacy laws mandated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Because Middletown is self-insured, the township is a “covered entity” under HIPAA and subject to significant fines and penalties for any violations, Nelson said.

“We have given out — I can’t even count how many — dozens of documents over a period of years in relation to the township’s health benefits plan,” he said on Jan. 23. “The names have been redacted to protect those individuals and their private health information.”

Nelson said other township residents, specifically former Democratic Township Committee candidate Linda Baum, have requested and been provided with a significant amount of benefits records in recent years, only with the enrollee names redacted.

Releasing the names now could allow members of the public to piece those records together and determine claims information for specific employees, he said.

Walter Luers, the attorney who filed the suit on behalf of Brewer, said the township is simply trying to justify blocking the records, and that there is no danger of claims data being made public.

“It’s just something that they are throwing out there,” Luers said on Jan. 24. “If Middletown has released claims data that they shouldn’t have released, they should be making some sort of effort to correct it, to get it back somehow. But they’re not.”

He said the township had verbally argued about the claims data in court, but didn’t reference it in any official briefings.

“It’s like me saying the sky is purple,” Luers added. “Just saying it doesn’t make it true.” In his decision, Lawson wrote that Middletown “failed to identify any concrete example of a past disclosure which could, in conjunction with the present request, bring about such a harm.”

The township had also argued against a state “common law” right of access precedent, which found that certain insurance records must be publicly accessible.

Middletown argued that the federal “privacy rule” under HIPAA and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) trumps state law. Lawson, however, ruled that the township failed to identify just which HIPAA and ERISA regulations prevented the release of the employee names.

While disagreeing with Lawson’s decision, Nelson said the township would now comply with Brewer’s records request. Because the township is only releasing the names under a court order, it should be protected from any potential litigation that arises as a result of the disclosure, he added.

“The township believes that — given that there is a judge’s order — it will be protected from any type of [legal] claims,” he said.

The records would have to be released within 20 days of Lawson’s final order, but Nelson said they would likely be provided sooner.

On Jan. 24, Luers said Brewer may also seek to recoup his legal expenses from the township, to the tune of approximately $5,000.

Nelson said Brewer would not be entitled to such a reimbursement because the records in question are not protected under the state’s Open Public Records Act.

“We will fight that, and we will win that,” he said.

Middletown’s health insurance program has been a subject of scrutiny for years, as Democrats have accused the all-Republican Township Committee of intentionally obscuring the identities of its beneficiaries.

Let's Not Forget, There Are School Board Elections On Tuesday Also

As most of you know by now, Tuesday is Election Day and along with voting for who you'd like to be the next Governor of NJ or who will represent Middletown on its Township Committee, we will also be voting for 3 people to serve on the Middletown Board of Education(BOE). It's important that voters educate themselves about the ten individuals who are seeking seats on the BOE this year. Of the 10 people running this year 3 are incumbents and it's questionable in my mind as to whether or not they should be reelected.

Back on October 23rd, I attended the "Meet the BOE Candidates" night sponsored by the Harmony School PTO. I've been meaning to post about it since but was waiting to until after the second candidate night that I had heard was coming up but didn't know the date. As it turns out the second candidates night was held over in Lincroft last week and I missed it, oh well.

That being said, its been nearly two weeks since I attended that candidates night at Harmony School so a lot isn't fresh in my mind as to what was discussed, however, Middletown Patch posted a column on the night a couple of days later. The one flaw that I have with the article though is that it dwelt on a very small portion of the meeting, which was whether or not the school board should have given Middletown Superintendent of Schools, Dr. William George, merit pay. The night's event touched on much more than just Dr. George's pay, people were interested in a number of different issues ranging from redistricting and class size to properly preparing our kids for the future and turf fields. Nevertheless, I recommend you read it and the comments that follow the article to see what people where saying afterwards about the night and the candidates.

Another good source on this year's BOE election is this weeks article in the Independent, "Board of Education candidates focus on taxes, curriculum" . The Independent sent a couple of questions to the candidates via email and posted the responses from 9 of the 10 candidates ( Bob Banta being the only candidate not to respond).

Finally, another source for information (opinion) on the Middletown Board of Education and this week's election is the Middletown Reader Forum on NJ.com. Read the posts dated from October 20th through today. The comments are impassioned and enlightening in both  positive and negative aspects of the BOE and those seeking election this year.

Before anyone asks, if you are wondering who will be the 3 people I'll be voting for the BOE this year, I'll tell you right now, I'm not telling.

I'm not telling, not because I'm worried who will know who I'm voting for and support and therefore endorse. I'm not telling simply because I'm not sure yet who I'll be voting for. There are pros and cons with each candidate that I still need to weigh.

However, I can tell you who I will not be voting for and why. I will not be voting for Chris Aveta or John Bennet.

Aveta is more worried about cutting costs in order to  establish some "street cred:" with district taxpayer for a future run for Township Committee, than he is with the welfare of the districts school kids. John Bennet is  barely out of high school,  lives home with his parents and has never paid 1 nickel in property taxes in his life. Hell, he probably spends more time playing his XBox or PS4 than he does working or going to school himself. How can you possibly have a "kid" like Bennet making important decisions that involve the future of our children.

Also, Aveta and Bennet have each failed to properly support Superintendent George and his personal decisions. Aveta and Bennet were 2 of the group of 5,  that voted against Dr. George's recommendation to hire school principal, Eric Paulson permanently at Harmony School. It took an overwhelming. outpouring of public support from members of the Harmony School community, teachers and colleagues to make them change their mind and re-vote in Paulson's favor.

So remember, Tuesday you'll also be voting for members to represent the community on the Middletown Board of Education. Take the time to learn about the candidates and the issues (as you should with all candidates seeking office) before pulling the leaver on Tuesday. For the kids sake, Middletown's  children deserve an informed decision.

Election signage reflects candidates’ focus

The following letter written by Lincroft resident Melanie Elmiger appears this week in the Independent and for the record, I could't agree more!

It’s that time of year again, when masses of election signs sprout up on our roadsides with just names and a tagline to state the candidates’ objective. As a Middletown resident, I was struck by the contrast between the signs for Township Committee and how they are meant to speak to me as a voter.

The enormous signs for Republicans Gerald Scharfenberger and Kevin Settembrino tower over the others with the bold headline, “The Christie Team.” This says to me that these candidates are riding Christie’s coattails to Trenton and that they intend to work for the governor rather than for Middletown residents. In fact, Scharfenberger already has a lucrative state job as the director of the Office for Planning Advocacy. The signs reveal these two Republicans are political candidates who seek their own interests and are not citizen candidates who will work for Middletown’s interests.

In contrast, there are the modest signs of Democrats Linda Baum and Pat Olsen, which simply state, “A Better Middletown.” This conveys to me that they want more for us, and their sights are set on improving things in Middletown. Their focus is here, and they won’t be using their committee seat as a springboard for a job in state government.

It is time to replace the all-Republican Township Committee with balance and diversity by electing two Democrats who will bring new ideas to the floor and present public debate rather than participate in rubber-stamp voting.

The lofty signs of Scharfenberger/ Settembrino are meant to cast a shadow on the new light and transparency that the Baum/Olsen team will bring to our town. I will vote for these women because Middletown matters to me and to them. I don’t want my representatives to be on Christie’s team — I want them on Middletown’s team.

Melanie Elmiger
Lincroft

Reader applauds Middletown library director

The following letter of support and appreciation for Middletown Library Director Susan O'Neal, appears in this week's edition of the Independent. Unfortunately however, it seems to have come a little too late to have any effect on her bosses. It appears that Susan O'Neal is no longer in charge over at the library; she will be missed greatly. I thank her for her service as well: 

I want to applaud Susan O’Neal for the wonderful job she has done making the Middletown Township Public Library the great institution it is today.

As a frequent user of the library, its books and programs, Susan should know that she is appreciated beyond words. You have not gone unnoticed. People from neighboring towns and as far away as Brick have used our library and celebrate it. I’m very proud of my library. Thank you, Susan.

Felicia Cappadona
Middletown

If Truth Be Told, Brookdale Looked The Other Way In Birdsall Conflict of Interest

While acting as chairman of Brookdale Community College's board of trustees for more than 20 years,  Howard Birdsall, was a major shareholder and former CEO of Birdsall Services Group (BSG), which would have seemed to be in violation of the college's strick "conflict-of-interest" policy.  In an article published last week in the Independent titled "County, towns caught up in Birdsall probe", officials at Brookdale stated no:

“At no time during his tenure as a member of the board did Brookdale conduct business with Birdsall Services Group,” the statement read. “The bylaws of the board of trustees clearly state that ‘no board member or employee shall have a direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in a contract with the college,’ and this conflict-of-interest policy is strictly enforced.”

If that statement is to be believed than how does Brookdale officials explain their connection with BSG and its role as energy procurement consultant for the County College Electric and Natural Gas Consortium?

As per BSG's website:

In our role as energy procurement consultant for the County College Electric and Natural Gas Consortium, we initially acquired historical data using an Electronic Data Interchange ("EDI") system, secured, and assembled the most recent 12-month historical usage data from the current supplier(s). BSG prepared comprehensive bid documents that were submitted electronically and by hard copy to all licensed third party suppliers in New Jersey. Upon receipt of competitive bids from third party suppliers, BSG performed a bid analysis and determined that it was in the best interest of to the County College Energy Consortium to enter a utility contract with the lowest bidding New Jersey BPU-licensed Third Party Supplier (TPS). The County College Electric Consortium included Mercer, Middlesex, Union, Burlington, and Bergen County Colleges. The County College Natural Gas Consortium includes Bergen, Brookdale, Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Mercer, Morris, Ocean, Raritan, and Sussex County Colleges.

BSG remains the energy procurement consultant for the County College Natural Gas Energy Consortium.

It's pretty obvious from the screenshot above that BSG had a relationship with Brookdale, how else do you explain their use of a picture of the college's Larrison Hall on their website? It is also obvious that as a member of the County College Consortium, Brookdale looked the other way, in clear violation of its so-called "strick" conflict-of-interest policy and allowed Howard Birdsall to remain, not only as a member of Brookdale's board of trustees, but as its chairman.

Why would Brookdale lie about this? Maybe they figured that after Birdsall resigned his position on the board in the wake of the scandal that encompassed former college president Peter Burnham, they thought that no one would find out about this and they wouldn't have to answer any additional questions.

Who knows really? But the bottom line is that it is always better to be up front and straight about a situation rather than try and hide it. If you attempt to hide it, then flags get raised and before you know mountains are made out of mole hills and smoke begins to rise and where's there smoke, there's usually fire.

Independent Article On $1.2M Increase In School Budget Gives Potential Insight Into This Year's Municipal Budget

Last week's Independent had an article about the Middletown Board of Education's budget introduction for the upcoming 2013-2014 school year," Decline in property values drives M’twn school tax hike; $78M loss in property valuations contributes to $1.2M tax levy increase", this article may give us some insight into what this year's municipal budget may have in store for us. I recommend reading the article, it went into great detail explaining how the budget for the upcoming school year was put together and what were the priorities. You can then take a look at the Budget Presentation that the school administrators put together for its introduction that took place back on February 27th.

On Wednesday night this week (March 20th), the Middletown Board of Education will hold a public hearing on the budget, after which a vote will take place for its adoption.  

 Here's a snippet from the Independent article:

MIDDLETOWN — Declining property values throughout Middletown contributed significantly to the tax levy increase in this year’s district Board of Education budget.

Proposed at the Feb. 28 board meeting, the $147,856,250 budget represents a tax levy increase of $1,250,042 over last year, which would account for a $68.90 annual hike for residents with a home valued at the township average of $375,500.

That increase is offset, however, by a decrease in the district’s annual debt service payments caused by recent refinancing. The total taxpayer increase would stand at $53.24 per year, or $4.44 per month.

According to board professionals, much of the increase is due to the loss of $78 million in township tax assessment valuations throughout the past year....

The only issue that I have with this article and the budget presentation is it states that the tax levy will increase by $1.2M  due to the loss of $78M in property values caused by Hurricane Sandy. However, it does not give us the exact percentage of the increase, only saying that it keeps this years tax levy below the state mandated 2% cap. Based on my calculations that's correct, I figure the increase to be ~ 1.5%, which is fine. I just wish that the people putting this stuff together treated their intended audience as grown-ups and not children, you'll see what I mean when you examine the presentation.

The presentation goes to great length to explain how well the administrators have done over the past 3 years staying within the parameters of the mandated cap, using that argument to justify this years increase. I find this type of justification nauseating. I'd feel better about it if the school administration just stated the facts and not try to tippy-toe around the truth of the situation, which is, thanks to the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy throughout the township, property values are down and the school district can't make any further cuts to  the upcoming budget without severely effecting the education of our kids.

Knowing that the loss of  township property values is now at $78 million (as per the school budget) and the costs to clean up after Hurricane Sandy is in the millions of dollars, some of but not all of which, will be reimbursed at some point by the federal government and knowing that this years municipal budget should still be in the neighborhood of $65 million as in previous years, supported by a tax levy of nearly $45 million, I don't see how this year's budgeted tax increase will be below the state mandated 2% cap on property taxes.

Last year's tax cap increase was 1.97% and seeing how nothing significant has changed, we can use that as the baseline for this year's increased. Add to it an increase in the cost to health-care and other benefits along with all the clean-up costs associated with Hurricane Sandy and the $78 million hit taken from lost property values, I'd say that Middletown is looking at a budget increase of nearly 5% or more on top of our baseline, making this years increase in the neighborhood of 7% or potentially greater.

If this year's increase to the tax levy is going to be greater that 2% we should know within the next month or so. Middletown will need to ask its residents to approve the budget increase on Primary Day, June 4th.





  

2-4-13 Middletown Township Committee Meeting: Library Facts

Prior to Monday night's monthly workshop meeting of the Middletown Township Committee, the township released a statement addressing what it called the "misinformation being spread about the issues of the Library System in MiddletownTownship". 

This prepared statement was issued Monday afternoon after regular business hours and contained many inaccuracies, red herrings, and innuendo, that tried to pin the current library funding crisis and the pending closure of the of the three library satellite branches (Bayshore, Lincroft and Navesink) on the mismanagement of Library Director and the members of the former Library Board.

Over 30 library supports jammed the meeting to express their concerns and voiced their opposition to the closings during the Public Comments portion of the meeting. The Committee's  response to these people was to say that they had no control over the Library budget and that the residents should speak to the Library Board. Of course, no one on the Committee would admit or mention that the current library crisis was brought about because the township raped the library of nearly $1 million of reserved and surplus funds over the past few years and expanded the number of people that act as trustees on the library board in order to, essentially gain control over the library's budget. 

Our acting mayor Gerry Scharfenberger and former acting mayor Tony Fiore did a good job of playing dumb during the questioning and pleading of those expressing their support of the library, insisting that the Township Committee has nothing to do with the library and that there is nothing that they could do. The meeting became somewhat contentious at times.

This week's issue of the Independent has a story, "Library closings continue to cause controversy; Residents, Twp. Committee debate future of three library branches" that is a very good companion  to the video below. I suggest that everyone read this article and watch the video to get a full understanding of what transpired. 

As always, you can download a copy of the meeting agenda that contains the discussion items and the proposed resolutions and ordinances that were voted on or presented during the meeting. A box around an item is a link, bringing you further into the document to that resolution or ordinance. At the end of the resolution there will be a link bringing you back to the agenda. Attached to this agenda is also the monthly bill list, so that everyone can see how the Township is spending our tax dollars

Here is the text of the Township's statement concerning the Library:

MIDDLETOWN, NJ - Given the amount of misinformation being spread about the issues of the Library System in Middletown Township, it is important to all residents that the Township address some facts regarding this matter:

1. In New Jersey, Free Public Libraries are funded via the following formula established by State Law.: The total equalized assessed value of all properties in the municipality times .000333333.Thus, library funding increases as values go up and they decrease when values decline as they have been in recent years. For 2013, for example, the Municipal allocation for the Middletown Library is over $3.4 million. This amount has been decreasing in recent years as property values decline.
2. NJ library law gives the Library Board responsibility for the use of funds available for library purposes (Municipal: N.J.S.A. 40:54-12).Middletown Township’s governing body, the Township Committee, has no role or power regarding the way such funds are spent.
3. An issue has been raised to what have been referred to as “chargebacks.” These costs are actually the Library’s allocable share of its obligations. Library employees are covered by the Townships various insurance plans and the states pension system at great benefit to the Library whose cost would be much greater than if it had to obtain and pay for these directly. Therefore the payments associated with these are driven by the number and cost of covered employees of the library. The Library Board is to use funds from its statutory allocation for the Library’s portion of these costs. Since the Library receives its funds via a dedicated tax borne by the taxpayers for the purpose of funding all of their obligations, such costs should not be an added duplicate burden on the municipal budget and the taxpayers.
4. In previous years, the amount paid by the Library to cover these aforementioned costs were substantially lower than the actual costs, so in fact, the Library was paying far less than it should have for many years.
5. In order to explain the process for establishing the Library’s share of costs, a meeting was held between the Library Board’s President and Township Staff. The entire analysis was discussed. A subsequent meeting was held in December with the Library Board’s entire Finance Committee. The Township presented its analysis and some discussion ensued at which time it was agreed by the township to lower the costs by about $50,000.00. These reduced amounts had to do with services provided by the Township to the Library and were not associated with insurance or pension costs.
6. The Township has always absorbed certain additional costs associated with the Library. In fact, in 2002, the Main Library underwent an extensive remodel and expansion project. This cost was in excess of $8.5 million and the Township continues to pay the full costs of the debt service associated with this project which are approximately $650,000.00 per year. Also in 2002, the Township allocated $45,000.00 from municipal funds for work at the Bayshore Library Branch.
7. The Township anticipates including plans in its 2013 Capital Budget for a parking lot expansion at the Main Branch. This cost will also be borne out of the Township’s budget and not the Library’s.

There is no question that a funding mechanism based upon assessed property values was going to be challenging for the near future with home values decreasing. Now with the impacts of Superstorm Sandy, that challenge will last longer and have an even greater impact on both Library and Municipal budgets. The Executive Director and former Library board which gave 6% raises and continued its overstaffing and excessive overtime apparently did not plan for or anticipate the obvious future. Hopefully the new Library Board will take these matters into consideration and address them to continue Middletown’s terrific library system.

Township Officials Say Costs Of Proposed Dredging Project Are Too High

In case anyone thinks that I may have overstated the other day when i posted that "Middletown's Shadow Lake may never be dredged", think again. The Independent has posted an article on this also this week.

 

In the article " Shadow Lake bids rejected again " it states that:

• There is a $2 million gap between the lowest bidder for the project and $4.8 million cost estimate that the township engineer placed on the dredging.  
• Township Administrator Tony Mercantante stated that it would be unlikely the Township Committee would go out to bid the project once again. 
• Dredging only a small portion of the lake would not be worth it and the cost to do so would be questionable. 
• If the dredging project were to proceed the township would have to reapply to the state's Environmental Infrastructure Trust for a much bigger loan which would need to be paid back and that the committee has committed as much money as they are comfortable committing to it (dredging of the lake).
• And, if only the DEP would relent and allow the township to permanently keep the contaminated dredge spoils on the grounds of adjacent Stevenson Park (which they won't), the dredging of Shadow Lake would proceed. 

 So, there you have it.  After spending close to $400,000 of precious tax payer dollars on feasibility studies and engineering fees over the past few years, Shadow Lake seems as though it will never be dredged. Of course the Township Committee will spin it by saying that they will be saving residents over $4 million by not proceeding with the dredging ,when in actually the cost for the engineering work never should have been done in the first place.

The only reason why this failed project proceeded in the first place was to buy the votes of area residents that live along side Shadow Lake. It was as simple as that. What a waste.

Four Ponds Appeal Will Reach Superior Court Judge February. 8

For those interested, the Independent is reporting today that the appeal of Four Ponds Developer's Avaya housing project, which was opposed by the Lincroft Village Green Association and the citizens group SONIC and subsequently and unamiously turned down last year by Middletown's Planning Board, will be heard in Superior Court next month on February 8th.

According to the Independent:

"The township Planning Board’s denial of the Four Ponds Center Associates’ application to build 342 units at the former Avaya site in Lincroft last year is still being contested by the developer.

In 2011, Four Ponds proposed building 64 low- or moderate-income housing units at the 68-acre site, alongside 278 market-rate units.

As part of an appeal initiated by the developer after plans were unanimously rejected last June, Four Ponds will have a conference with state Superior Court Judge Paul Kapalko on Feb. 8, according to Planning Board Attorney James Gorman.

Kapalko has signed an order allowing two objectors, represented by attorney Ron Gasiorowski, to intervene in that suit, Gorman said.

The Four Ponds application, which was decided over nine Planning Board hearings spanning nearly a year, concluded with hours of testimony delivered by expert witnesses retained by Gasiorowski on behalf of local opposition.

In its official verdict, published last August, the board cited that testimony as the primary factor behind its denial.

The site on the former Avaya property where Four Ponds proposed building is part of Middletown’s affordable housing plan, which would allow 375 units on the site, including up to 75 affordable units....  "

I'm sure that the ruling by the Superior Court in this case, will have a major impact on the Heritage at Middletown development that would bring 245 multi-family units to the track of land surrounding area of Taylor Lane. Two weeks ago, area residents packed the court house to attend the January 16th meeting of the Planning Board to voice their complaints about this planned development, which is also being reported on in this weeks edition of  the Independent.

I expect that the Superior Court judge that hears the Four Ponds case will ultimately rule in their favor  which will pave the way for the housing development continue as originally planned.

Here We Go Again: Proposed Mid’twn development already under fire

According to the Independent  there is a planned development of 245 multi-family units being proposed by developer American Properties. This development would be located near Taylor Lane in the northwest section of Middletown and to no ones surprise, the residents in the area are fighting it.

Of all the meetings that take place during the month here in Middletown, the Planning Board meeting is the least likely meeting you'll ever see me at. They are long, boring and tedious affairs that just seem to drone on and on. Often if you attend one of theses meetings for a specific case, quite often the case you came to lend your support or opposition to is pushed off until the next or later meeting.  Therefore, not much useful information ever comes out of these meetings unless there is some kind of controversy brewing or about to brew.

This is going to be an interesting story to keep and eye on. As everyone pretty well knows, Middletown is nearly built out and the days of constructing housing developments of 20 or 30 homes in a given area are gone. With the need to provide affordable housing and a lack of open, buildable land, real estate is at a premium in town, big multi-family unit developments are the only feasible alternative that developers have.

Residents can hire attorneys to fight urban sprawl and win, all you need to do is see what the citizens group SONIC and the Lincroft Village Green Association were able to do in their fight against Four Ponds Center Associates and the 340 housing units that had been proposed for the old AVAYA site on Middletown-Lincroft Road. They won the battle this go around when the Planning Board, earlier this year turned down Four Ponds application but the war isn't over, Four Ponds has gone to court to appeal the denial.

There really is no good solution to any of this but before tens of thousands of dollars are spent trying to fight this new development, it would be nice if the builders could get together with residents and the town to work out some type of plan that would be beneficial to all partys involved before all that money and tax dollars are is wasted  attempting to fight the inevitable

4 Ponds Developer To Appeal Avaya Ruling

I haven't had the time the past few weeks to get to some of what's been on my mind locally. It's summer time, the kids has been home and there has been a ton of overtime at work this month that needs to be cover, so time devoted to blogging has been trimmed considerably of late.

One of the things that has been on my mind since reading about it last week was a story published in the The Independent "Attnys.: Four Ponds will appeal Planning Board denial" which pertains to the Avaya redevelopment plans.  Four Ponds has until until mid-September to appeal the Middletown Planning Board's denial of it's application and by the looks of it Four Ponds will.

I haven't talked to anyone recently about this but I would think that members of the Lincroft Village Green Association(LVGA) and SONIC (Save Our Neighborhood’s Integrity and Character) are not very happy. These two community groups have raised and spent nearly $70,000 fighting this redevelopment and I wonder how much they have left to fight it.

The LVGA and SONIC have put up a good and courageous fight but ultimately I wonder if it is not a losing battle, eventually something will be built on those grounds and it may or may not be conducive or acceptable to area or it's residents. 

If at all possible, it might be a good idea if the attorney's for each party involved (LVGA & SONIC, Middletown and Four Ponds) sat themselves down in a locked room somewhere and came up with an acceptable plan that all could live with, thus saving themselves and township tax payers any further pain, aggravation or money.  Just a thought



 

Letter: Televised meetings shouldn’t be complicated

The letter below was written by Mr. Don Watson and appears online and in print in  last weeks edition of the Independent.

I had been waiting to post this letter until I was able to post the video of the May 7, 2012 meeting of the Middletown Township Committee which is located in the previous post, so that readers could relate to the video and what is written in the letter more coherently. 

Until this past February, Mr Watson had been writing the "It's Your Town" e-newsletter, which chronicled the happenings at Middletown Township Committee meetings and was sent to over 500 resident email boxes and posted on this blog.

Now however, instead of writing the newsletter, he has been video taping these meetings and posting them online for residents to watch, seeing how the Township Committee has came up with every excuse in the book over the past few years, not to record them themselves and post the recordings online at the Township's website or broadcast them over the township's municipal public access cable channels.

A recent article discussed that televising the Middletown Township Committee meetings (“Televising meetings becomes partisan issue in Mid’town,” April 26) has come to be a political issue this election year; however, it was the Township Committee members that first politicized this otherwise nonpartisan issue. Making government business available to the public should not be a political issue, but a right citizens have to see their elected representatives debate and decide on issues that directly impact their quality of life.

Over the last few years, many residents from across Middletown have appeared before the committee to request that its meetings be televised on the township-controlled cable access channels. Yet each time a request was made, the committee came up with a different reason why the township could not — or rather, would not — provide this service to its residents: it was too expensive, they would need to hire a videographer or people would use it to grandstand.

As residents kept asking for televised meetings, I began producing an e-newsletter consisting of an objective, play-by-play review of the discussions during Township Committee meetings as a way to inform residents. It was more detailed than the minutes produced by the township and was well received by the over 500 or so residents that signed up to receive it monthly. When it became clear that the committee members would not move to televise their meetings, I decided to shift my effort from the newsletter to video recording. I received overwhelming support in the form of donations from all parts of town to purchase video recording equipment and, in February, I began video recording committee meetings and posting the full, unedited segments on Internet Archive. The videos have enough hits, showing that there is public interest in our local government at work.

I offer a DVD of each meeting to the committee to be replayed on public access channels, but the committee came up with more excuses: first, they questioned the completeness of the video and, now, they state if they accept my video, they would need to accept any video produced by any resident. They are making this more complicated than it is. Sunshine laws were enacted to ensure transparency in government. Making video recordings of meetings available on public access cable takes that intent one step further to truly open meetings to all residents, not just those who have the means to make it to meetings in person. Despite the committee’s attempts to turn this into a political issue, partisanship has no place here. I make the meeting videos available to whoever wants to see them. For now, that will have to be on the web until further notice.

As stated in the letter, you can watch Mr. Watson give a copy of his video recordings to the Township Committee at the 61 minute mark of the May 7, 2012 recording previously posted. It is taken courteously from him with no intention whatsoever of  being watched, posted online or broadcasted by the Township Committee for others to watch, which is a shame.

 I can't make it to Township Committee meetings as often as I would like so I find these recordings very informative and enlightening. I think others would also if given broader access to them.

Gabrielan: Library Board About The Public, Not Politics

This letter to the editor appears online today at the Independent, it was written by former Middletown Library Board of Trustee President Randal Gabrielain. The letter contains a few harsh words critical of the Township Committee and the circumstances that lead to his resignation from the library board earlier this year.

I left the Middletown Public Library board of trustees after 25 years’ service following a campaign of vilification by the mayor. Some wonder why, especially in view of the denial of wrongdoing.

One hopes the new board realizes that library trusteeship is about the public, not themselves, requires advocacy for the library, not the governing body, and is about service, not politics. I wish them well, not merely for their sake, but for the well-being of the library so beloved by the people of Middletown.

I expressed my thoughts in these remarks at an honors ceremony at the April 18 meeting of the board of trustees:

Since many have commented on why I am not on the board, often in craven anonymity, I add my word on the accusations about conduct: They are preposterous. With respect to the cited statute, it is ambiguous. With reference to its interpretation, it is ridiculous.

Anyone who really knows anything realizes I am no longer on the board as a consequence of political retaliation for opposing the township’s takeover of library funds.

Why did I leave? When an all-powerful governing body, one in office for a generation or more, which operates as if might makes right, is out to get you and will stoop to tactics as low as spreading innuendo with one’s employer, let alone what other dirty stunts they could employ, discretion may be the better part of valor. The Township Committee was not satisfied with getting the money, they had to eliminate an independent voice on what is ostensibly an independent library board.

At one point, my first thought was that voting against giving away the library’s money, which was not municipal appropriations by the way, was my finest hour in over a quarter-century’s service. But then I realized my finest hour was Oct. 23, 2004, when I was the first to speak in this room at the dedication of the new Middletown Library.

My legacy is this library, a legacy shared with key colleagues and supporters who planned and built it, and foremost among them is the director, Susan O’Neal. So, we forgive our tormentors, not for their benefit, but for our own so we can move on.

I will close with a paraphrase of Benjamin Franklin, who, on leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787, was asked what type of government was being given the people. He told them, “You got a republic — if you can keep it.”

To my successor trustees, you got a great library — if you can keep it.


Randall Gabrielan
Middletown

Middletown School Budget Approved

Both the Independent and Middletown Patch have articles posted online  about the new budget for the Middletown school system.

On February 29th, a special meeting of the Middletown Board of Education(BOE) took place to introduce and propose the 2012-2013 Tentative School Budget.

According to both articles the school budget will increase by .98%, which would equate to roughly $2.6 million or about $46 a year on median homes assessed at $376,800.

In keeping this years tax rate increase so low, the BOE has the $851,000 increase in state aid to thank. Otherwise the tax increase would have been larger or more services or teaching positions may have need to be eliminated in order to stay below the state mandated 2% budget cap.

Instead, according to both the Independent and Middletown Patch, the BOE is using the increase in state aid to offset class size with additional teachers and another student services supervisor and provide for numerous curricular enhancements, including academic labs for high school students, which seems on the surface to be good things. But of course, like anything else, the devil is in the details and people should read through the budget before forming opinions, which at this point I have not done as of yet, but intend to do so.

In the mean time, on the surface this budget seems pretty good, but how it will effect the school system and the Township moving forward in the use of deferred taxes (which no one wants to address) will be interesting.

Many (not all) municipalities in NJ defer school taxes to help offset their own tax rate increases and at some point must return those taxes back to the school system. Some municipalities return the money to the local school systems promptly while others such as Middletown do not. Middletown currently owes its BOE over $60M in deferred taxes, the ramifications of which could be felt if the BOE needs to exceed the State's 2% cap mandate in the future.

Dec 19th Hearing on the Ordinance Adding Two Additional Trustees to the Library Board: M'town Patch & Independent articles contain inaccuracies

By guest blogger Linda Baum

If you are a regular to Mike’s blog, by now you are well informed about the Library’s $500,000 transfer to the Township this year and the Town Committee’s plan to increase the number of Library trustees from 7 to 9 in 2012.

A public hearing on the Ordinance increasing Board membership was held at the Town Committee meeting on Monday, December 19th. Several reporters were present at the hearing. Mike Davis’s article in the Independent and Sue Morgan’s in the Middletown Patch were posted within a day or two. While they get points for timeliness, they lose some for accuracy.

Sue Morgan misstates the amount of the Library’s annual budget as $700K – it is $3.7M – but that is a minor error compared to the second to last sentence of her article. She wrote:

“Under an agreement hammered out by both the board and the committee, the township is now carrying the debt service on the library’s parking lot which recently underwent extensive repairs, the mayor added.”

The statement is inaccurate in two ways. As far as I know, there was no major work done to the lot recently, and the Library did not proceed with its lot expansion. Further, per the agreement this year between the Library and the Township, the Library has only two options for covering the cost of its capital improvements – they can pay cash or they can make the debt service payments on bonds (or notes) issued by the Township.

I don’t recall Mayor Fiore making the statement as it reads in the Patch article, and I think it can be attributed to an intentionally misleading comment he made, as quoted in the Independent, about encompassing “some of [the Library’s] capital projects into [the Township’s] capital program, including their parking lot and solar projects.” That made it sound like the Township is paying, but there is no cost to the Township for either the lot expansion or the solar project, which is a power purchase arrangement that involves no capital outlay.

Both the Independent and Patch articles included comments made by both Melanie Elmiger and myself. Melanie presented her comments very well at the hearing and I think they were captured fairly accurately in the articles. However, I think some of what I said was misrepresented in the Independent.

I would like to set the record straight, so here is a recap of my comments at the hearing along with excerpts from the Independent where I feel Mike Davis missed the mark.

Mayor Fiore has been framing the increase in Library Board membership as just an increase in public participation, with no other motive. So if more participation is a good thing for the Library Board, I questioned why that isn’t also true for the Sewerage Authority (TOMSA) Board and for the Town Committee itself, both with just 5 members each controlling budgets of $9 million and $60 million, respectively. In contrast, the Library Board currently has 7 members, soon to be 9, overseeing a budget of $3.7 million.

My point was that the Town Committee’s stance about the need for more public participation on the Library Board runs counter to their stance about the participation levels on other boards & committees. (Keep in mind the Town Committee has resisted the formation of a finance committee that would increase public participation and oversight of its own activities.)

Mayor Fiore replied that TOMSA has 7 board members, and I was quick to correct him that it is a 5-member board with 2 alternates, where only 5 vote at any time. Fiore again insisted, incorrectly, that there are 7 members.

Besides the inconsistencies in board size, there are also inconsistencies in oversight. I compared the Township’s scrutiny of the Library’s budget and operations to its hands-off approach to TOMSA and said that a consistent policy was needed. Fiore said that they do oversee TOMSA and that the money TOMSA gave to the Township – $730K over the last two years – is proof of that. Ridiculous. As I see it, that handout could just as easily be interpreted as a concession to avoid scrutiny. Regardless, it certainly can’t be construed as proof of oversight.

(An aside: If the Town Committee is really overseeing TOMSA and is so gung ho about public participation, how is it the TOMSA Board was able to avoid the public’s eye recently by ignoring a legal mandate to publish notice of their budget hearing? And shouldn’t oversight of TOMSA’s budget entail elimination of unwarranted expenses, such as medical and pension benefits for Board members? The Township has sanctioned these costs!)

Mike Davis’s article contains some partial quotes, inaccuracies, and re-ordering of comments that, combined, miss the point I was trying to make. He describes my comments as follows:

“Public participation is a good thing. You see [that] nine members are needed to oversee a $3.8 million budget,” she said, also citing the seven members who make up the Township of Middletown Sewerage Authority.”

The Township Committee was not exempt, she said.

“Right now you have five people on the Township Committee controlling a $60 million budget. It seems to me you need a consistent policy here. If you’re going to watch one closely, watch them all closely,” Baum said.

I think that anyone reading that would have trouble following my logic. Also, he makes it sound like I’m arguing in favor of the two additional appointees to the Library Board, which I wasn’t. I’m against it given the current political environment, but I admit I may not have stated that outright. I didn’t organize my comments as well as Melanie did, so I can understand if there was confusion.

The Independent's Election 2011 Middletown Profile : Independent runs for Mid’twn Township Committee seat

For those that are unaware there is a Middletown Republican turned Independent who is running for a seat on the Middletown Township Committee this year, his name is Richard Morrill.

After last night's Meet the Candidates forum sponsored by the Oak Hill Association, which turned raucous at times over some of Morrill's responses, it was a clear case of room-packing and planting adversaries against a former Middletown GOP insider.

Below is his Q&A that appears in this week's Election 2011 Candidate profile published in this weeks edition of the Independent.

Q. What do you believe is the main issue facing Middletown? If elected to the Township Committee what specific steps would you take to tackle this issue?

MORRILL: Taxes. I would like to look to re-engineer how the township operates by analyzing all departments one at a time. I would bring a fresh pair of eyes and ears with experience in re-engineering departments.

Q. What are your qualifications to serve on the Middletown Township Committee?

MORRILL: I feel I am qualified to serve on the Middletown Township Committee due to my success in re-engineering numerous departments at Barclays Bank, saving in excess of $10 million per year. I also managed multiple construction projects in multiple buildings and multiple states, including one valued at $27 million. All came in on time and under budget. I managed an average of 150 people at a time.

Q. Are there any issues facing Middletown that you specifically want to address?

MORRILL: The other issues that I want to specifically address are the spending in Middletown, the supervision of employees, the pricing for professional services and the appointments of individuals to committees and boards in Middletown so that all residents are represented. I would like to encourage new businesses to come to Middletown by assisting and courting them to create jobs in the township.