| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Zorn
Citizen
Username: Andrewzorn
Post Number: 178
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 11:32 am: |     |
Please come join the League of Women Voters of South Orange and Maplewood at their Forum for the Maplewood Township Committee Candidates tomorrow night. There will be answers from the Candidates to prepared questions and to questions from the Audience.
Place: DeHart Community Center
Time: Wednesday, November 2nd
7:30 PM to 9:00 PM |
Andrew Zorn
Citizen
Username: Andrewzorn
Post Number: 179
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 12:56 pm: | |
Come on over the the DeHart Center tonight to see and hear the Township Committee Candidates at the League of Women Voters Forum.
After the prepared questions are discussed, there will be plenty of time for questions from the audience. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4365
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 1:02 pm: | |
...any coffee and cookies?  |
Andrew Zorn
Citizen
Username: Andrewzorn
Post Number: 180
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 2:30 pm: | |
Doling out politics straight, no frills. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4366
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 10:45 pm: | |
It was a light turn out tonight, I believe in large part because of a mistake at the News Record. Regardless, the candidates were informative, and well prepared.
There were good questions, and it was well worth the time. A big thank you to the candidates and the LWV... |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14137
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 11:17 pm: | |
A mistake by the News-Record?
Geez, that's pretty rare. Oh well, even they're entitled to a mistake every so often.
As long as they can keep it down to three in every paragraph, I think we'll be fine. |
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 2395
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 11:53 pm: | |
Andrew, I missed the LWV Debate - when will it be televised on CCN ? |
letters
Citizen
Username: Letters016
Post Number: 462
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:00 am: | |
Am I hearing correctly? I talked with someone who went to last night’s debate and they said there was no TV coverage or reporters. How can this be? I was unable to attend last night and I was looking forward to coverage on ch35. I am also still waiting for the showing of the first debate that was filmed.
Also, while we are at it, how come the debate was changed from town hall, which has cameras already there, to DeHart Park?
Why am I getting an uneasy feeling that somebody is trying to NOT show the debates? From what I gathered from people who were lucky enough to make the debates, there were some questions brought up about our debt service and the ability for the town to pay for it without raising taxes significantly.
Fred, Vic, Bart: anyone care to elaborate on this? Is there any validity here? If not, can someone dispel this and explain how we can afford all of the accumulating debt the town is incurring without raising taxes?
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6579
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 4:28 pm: | |
Does anyone have any dates/times for when any of the candidate forums will be shown on Channel 35? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 10556
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 9:16 pm: | |
I don't believe I've seen a single lawn sign for Bart.
|
letters
Citizen
Username: Letters016
Post Number: 463
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:10 pm: | |
Tom,
What's your point? I know who I am voting for from the top down and I don't have any lawn signs. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 10564
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:23 pm: | |
My point is that I wonder if Bart has stepped down his efforts in his campaign. |
letters
Citizen
Username: Letters016
Post Number: 464
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:36 pm: | |
Tom,
Well Bart made the two debates (which one was taped and never shown and the other was not taped, I've heard) so I do not think he has dropped out of the race. |
Bart Albini
Citizen
Username: Bartalbini
Post Number: 15
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:41 pm: | |
Letters:
As I have said in the past, I have never objected with Mr. Delca and Mr. Profetta on the goals they have for the town.
However, I don't agree with their methods. The answer to the question you posed is an example of that and my response to you is as follows:
- If you go to “Sheet 27” in the 2005 Municipal Budget, the Total current debt Service is $1,972,500.00. This is to pay off the current outstanding Bond Debt of $14,654,092.50 found on page 81 of the 2005 Municipal Budget.
- Next, if you look at sheets 40b –through- 40d(1) of the 2005 Municipal Budget, you will find 12 current projects (including the Springfield Avenue improvements for $1,250,000.00). For the Six year projections of these improvements, two more projects were added. The total costs for these projects is estimated at $9,653,280.00 of which we will have to borrow $8,724,115.00. With current interest rates, the total debt for this money will be about $11,575,676.38.
- This now gives us a total debt of $27,229,768.88 with a debt service of $2,744,271.76.
- If ground breaking starts this fall (as stated by Mayor Profetta) for the new police station, which is estimated at costing $17,000,000.00 (News-Record article) and nothing else changes, this will produce $21,774,283.06 of additional debt with an added $1,451,618.87 of debt service.
- The municipality will now have $48,004,051.94 of debt and a debt service of $4,195,890.63.
Now let us look at the Board of Education, even though we have minimal voice here, it is our property tax dollars (still coming out of the same pocket).
- In a memorandum from Karla Milanette, Business Administrator, to the members of the Board of Education and Peter Horoschak, Superintendent, dated November 15, 2004; she refers to the current debt service for the BOE of $3,102,600.00 (Page 4) and requesting a bond authorization of $10,000,000.00. This authorization would add $500,000.00 to the annual debt service.
- In going to the NJ State Educational website, it was found that the state prepared an excel spreadsheet of “Regional School Debt Computations 2005”. In here it was found that the BOE has a bond debt of $25,173,071.00 of which Maplewood’s share is $14,583,092.54.
- If we take the current BOE debt and add the new bond (Maplewood’s share only), we now have $20,383,092.54 and a debt service of $3,602,600.00.
- So the total debt is now $68,387,144.48 and a total debt service of $7,798,490.63 coming out of our property taxes.
- Also, in the same memo (Page 6) was a three year projection based on the existence or non-existence of S-1701. If S-1701 is still around, the educational budget in the 2007/2008 period will be around $86,547,412.00; and if it is not the BOE budget will be $96,607,247.00. This is an increase of our current BOE budget from $4,984,014.00 to $15,043,849.00.
- If we don’t take out bonds for this money, but just apply tax increases; then our property taxes will have to be increased by $1,597.81 to $2,855.29 per property tax payer per year.
- If we borrow the money, our total indebtness will be between $73,721,158.48 and $84,205,993.48 with a debt service between $8,148,490.63 and $8,573,490.63. Our taxes would then have to be raised by $1,018.56 to $1,071.69 per property tax payer per year. This debt would take about 30 years to pay off.
Now, if the Police and Fire Departments have no more increases, educational costs stay fixed, the cost of living does not increase, all other potential expenses are frozen, and there are no more projects for the next 30 years; then these numbers will stay consistent with little deviation.
Bart Albini
|
letters
Citizen
Username: Letters016
Post Number: 466
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 11:19 pm: | |
Bart,
Thank you for responding to my question. I was not able to make either debate but heard that this was brought up. I have posed this question to the Fred/Vic campaign and was told that the increase in taxes would not be as high as you suggest.
However, in looking at your numbers, and since you got them right out of the township’s budget I will assume that they are accurate, they seem to point towards what I assumed would be true and that is our taxes would be going up at least $1000/year to pay for all of this.
And this does not take into account everybody’s stated goal of looking to provide a youth center. Nor does it include the bond that is being floated for our open spaces. I am also concerned about what will happen in Trenton when we have a new Governor. I have heard both sides (for Governor) say they will cut taxes, but have not heard either person say how they would reduce spending; meaning if spending is not reduced, than whatever taxes are decreased, other taxes or fees most assuredly will be increased to make up the deficit.
As a homeowner, I know that I cannot do everything I want to do at the same time. Things have to be spaced out so I have the money to pay for them lest I be forced to sell my house because I cannot afford to pay for the improvements/repairs I have completed.
Committing this much debt upon ourselves is very frightening. Since I do not think anyone has the ability to foresee expenditures, I would like to see a little more wiggle room in our future borrowing power.
Since this is a very real and serious issue, I would like to hear from Fred/Vic as to what their thoughts are on this.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4370
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 4, 2005 - 1:18 am: | |
"Committing this much debt upon ourselves is very frightening."
True! Lets look at another interesting circumstance. In recent years we've had an influx of young New York liberals flood our formally conservative Republican community...
They immediately get involved in politics, our school system, and we hear all their hype about education. Sure, nothing is more important then our kids education, right? Right! Meanwhile our taxes keep going up, our debt service keeps going up, and year after year we keep spending more on education, and our town gets deeper and deeper in debt.
So, in a few years their kids are off to college and these libs are off to greener pastures, and the rest of us old timers loyal to our town are left holding the bag with a debt service of maybe $10,000,000 or more...
You think this scenario is a bunch of bull? Check it out, look around, and ask some questions...As we keep borrowing more money, our total debt will be well over $80,000,000. Our taxes will go up over a $1,000 a year, and without any other expenses added in, it will take more than 30 more years to pay off.
Does anyone really think these libs are going to stick it out to help pay off this debt? I don’t! Look around, second or third generation families in town are far a few between...
|
letters
Citizen
Username: Letters016
Post Number: 467
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 4, 2005 - 6:26 am: | |
AJC,
Not only will they not be here any more, but neither will you or I because we cannot afford to live here.
This is another fear I have. If enough people bail out because they find a cheaper place to live, what does that do to property values? And if they fall, how can the people moving in (because it is becoming cheaper and more affordable) pay off this debt. Their slice of the pie versus the value of their house will be even greater than ours. It does not bode well in my mind.
Do the police need a new station? Yes. Do we need all of the improvements on Springfield Ave? Yes. Did we need to buy SA? I am not sure. Can we afford to do it all at one time? Well I am waiting for Fred/Vic to explain their vision of how we can afford this.
As I said earlier, I posed this question to them and the answer I got was "We won't need to raise your taxes by $1000/year". I guess I should have asked if that meant it would be $999.99/year or $2000/year. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 10570
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 4, 2005 - 7:23 am: | |
Art, I don't think we New York liberals are driving up school spending. Is that what you're saying? We spend less per student than other districts with similar demographics. School costs are rising sharply everywhere, and that trend is no different in SOM.
I do believe that people leave after they get their "money's worth" i.e. after their kids graduate. That is skimming the cream off. But when people do that, new families come in with young children.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14143
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 4, 2005 - 7:52 am: | |
Dearest Arturo,
I am glad that you find such value in the numbers that Mr. Albini posted here. That's a good thing.
I just wish that you and your Republican friends would show the same level of interest and concern and questioning of Doug Forrester when it comes to his cockamamie 30 in 3 plan.
And if you think that Bart's numbers are scary (and are correct) , just imagine how much scarier the situation might be if we have to add in mandated cuts in the budget - something that would surely lead to dramatic service cuts or more bonding.
The psssssssssssssssst sound you're hearing is the value of your property deflating.
I do hope that you're beginning to connect the dots. It's an incredibly serious issue. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 9659
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 4, 2005 - 7:53 am: | |
School spending went up because the number of students in our schools increased. Some of this was "NY liberals" moving here, but most was the ethnic changes that took place in Hilton from 1990 to 2000.
I think there is a real issue for empty nesters who are who are thinking about retirement as well as retirees because of the tax burden here. Many are cashing in and moving to communities with lowere taxes after they decide they no longer need the five bedroom house with $15K to $25K in taxes.
|
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 327
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 4, 2005 - 10:06 am: | |
Ajc,
Just to set the record straight, some of us libs came here from the Midwest! |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 837
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 4, 2005 - 11:01 am: | |
And some of us were born in Jersey. |
Earlster
Supporter
Username: Earlster
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 4, 2005 - 4:46 pm: | |
Or even came from Germany, because we couldn't afford the taxes there anymore. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4375
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 4, 2005 - 8:56 pm: | |
I agree... "It's an incredibly serious issue...."
...so what's the answer folks? Do we try and tighten our belts, or keep going full steam ahead? |
kap
Citizen
Username: Kap
Post Number: 238
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 4, 2005 - 11:01 pm: | |
Bart, Your "analysis" of the township's current and future debt service requirements is flawed at best and could be viewed as dishonest at its worst. However, knowing that you do not have a background in finance (and having met and talked to you, I do not believe that you are a dishonest person) I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you made an honest mistake.
Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to go through the capital budget with you line by line but I will mention a couple of the bigger errors that you've made in your analysis:
-A good deal of your analysis is based on sheets 40b-40d of the budget. Apparently you didn’t look at sheet 40 which clearly states at the top
Quote:This section is included with the Annual Budget pursuant to N.J.A.C. 5:30-4. It does not in itself confer any authorization to raise or expend funds. Rather it is a document used as part of the local unit's planning and management program.
In other words, think of the expenditures (and the associated debt) listed beyond 2005 in this year’s budget as discretionary; a wish list, if you will. If you go back and look at past budgets and compare them with subsequent years you will see that there are always variations in the projects and amounts listed in outlying years.
-Approximately $3.8MM of the new bond issue refinanced existing debt at lower rates than it was accruing. The new issue went off at a rate of 4.05%; lower than the recently announced state COLA cap.
-Of the estimated $17MM cost of the police station, $1MM is covered by a grant from that state and ~$800K is attributable to the “green” design features of the building which will pay for themselves in energy and other savings in approximately 10 years (if my memory serves me).
-There will indeed be an incremental cost to taxpayers due to the financing of the new police HQ. However the increase will be nothing like the amount that your analysis implies. The actual increase attributable to the police HQ and the other newly financed capital improvements will be in the range of 1.5% (~$150 for the average taxpayer) next year. That incremental increase will decrease throughout the life of the bond. I do not intend to downplay any increase in the taxes that we all pay but the PHQ has to be replaced and waiting to do it is not going make it any cheaper. In addition the current township committee has improved our reserve position to the point that we may be able to offset most, if not all, of that increase by drawing on that reserve without negatively impacting our financial condition.
Finally, if you don’t believe me, take a look at what Moodys had to say about our debt service capacity in the context of rating the new bond issue. Keep in mind that analysis was done looking at our audited financial statements as well as this year’s budget.
Quote:MANAGEABLE AND AFFORDABLE DEBT BURDEN
Moody's expects the township's debt position to remain manageable despite possible future borrowing plans (architectural designs and costs for the police headquarters are yet to be finalized) and given average amortization and above average overall debt burden. The township's direct debt level is low at 1.4% and increases to an affordable 3.7% on an overall basis. Debt service accounts for 7% of expenditures and is expected to increase by $500,000 in the coming year due to the current offering. The amortization rate is average with 66.2% retired within 10 years.
Your analysis of the School district budget is equally flawed, as best as I can tell, but I’ll leave it to someone else to critique that portion of your post. If you or anyone else would like to discuss this further, I’m in the book. But please wait until after the weekend as I have a very busy next couple of days.
Ken Pettis |
letters
Citizen
Username: Letters016
Post Number: 468
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 7:26 am: | |
Ken,
It’s great to hear from you. I was hoping that Fred/Vic would respond, but at least SOMEBODY on the TC did.
I also have no extensive background in finance (except real life), so I am a little confused by the two posts.
You cite a phrase form the budget that says “It does not in itself confer any authorization to raise or expend funds” but Bart seems to be citing actual amounts that have been offered to complete the proposed projects. So, to me, the two seem to be conflicting statements.
Now here is where I really get confused. Bart shows figures that seem to show an increasing debt (bonds) to pay for the PHQ, SA improvements and increases in costs for the BOE not covered under current taxes. Together, they seem to show an increasing number that approaches $50M.
However you state that the increase in taxes per household will be only $150/year, which by the way, is in line with what Vic told me. I am having a hard time understanding how the payback will be so little given the amount of debt (which probably coincides with my lack of financial background).
I would like to know how this all works. Maybe we can meet at SJG if you have time (I know that when I see you there it is usually a quick stop for you). As you know we did not get off on the right foot when you were campaigning but since then your ACTIONS have spoken louder than your WORDS (as I have told you) so I respect your information/knowledge here.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6590
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 12:53 pm: | |
Letters:
Let me try to help you. This year's budget contained a number of proposed capital projects (the key word here is proposed). These are things the Township Engineer and the TC agree should be done but some are given higher priority than others and it is unlikely that all or even most will be worked on in any one fiscal year.
The cost of any one of these capital projects in any one fiscal year is offset by at least two major factors:
1. The project may not be completed in a single fiscal year. Therefore, the overall cost of the project is divided over the number of years it takes to complete the project.
2. Some or all of the cost of the project may be covered by matching funds, grants, and other revenue sources, significantly reducing the direct cost to municipal tax payers; and/or some of the cost may have been appropriated in a prior year's budget and set aside for this purpose.
3. Of the 16 or so projects in the capital budget, only 3 or 4 may actually be acted upon in a given year.
The impact to the municipal tax payer is relatively low in any given year because the funds for these projects aren't raised primarily by tax levy funds (what you and I pay in municipal taxes) but by municipal bonds. This means that the town borrows the money (think of the mortgage most of us have on our house or the car payments most of us make on the vehicle we drive). Because the amount of money needed for a police station for example is so great, this money is likely to be borrowed over the long term so that each year's cost equals a relatively small percentage of the overall loan + interest.
Hope this helps. |
letters
Citizen
Username: Letters016
Post Number: 470
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 7, 2005 - 7:35 am: | |
Joan,
I know that all of these are not going to see the light of day this year. That is not my problem. Using your analogy, they are only going to do two or three next year. Therefore, one can assume that all of them will be started in the next 4-6 years. Also, one can assume that they will be completed and paid for within the next 4-10 years. So the money they appropriated will be spent and will become part of our debt (taxes).
I also am aware that some of this money will be coming in the form of grants and whatever. But the longer we wait to start some of these the more expensive they will become to complete. So the budgeted money is only a guideline because both of the above will change the actual final cost to the township.
There also seems to be no plan for new businesses on SA. I remember when KFC wanted to move in and was blocked for several reasons, one of them being we didn’t need another fast food place on SA. So how did Papa John’s get in? KFC would not have hurt BK to any great extent because their menus are different, but PJ’s directly affects existing pizza parlors in the area. It just didn’t make sense to me. And I really do not want to get started on the problems that PJ’s has caused (parking, loitering, garbage).
This is why I asked for Fred/Vic/Bart’s input on this. I believe this has the potential to be a problem in the future for existing and potential homeowners. As Vic said during the first debate, “cutting taxes is not going to happen”. I believe him because that sounds like a realistic approach. To think otherwise is not practical. So the question I have is how are we going to be able to afford all of this and everything else that is surely to come down the road (education, other projects, unforeseen expenses)?
But I am not saying we can’t afford to do this or it doesn’t need to be done. I just wanted some answers from the powers that be.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6597
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 7, 2005 - 4:43 pm: | |
I don't think anyone has the answer to the vital question you are raising. If anyone did, we wouldn't continue to face this problem. |
Paul Haley
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 9:08 pm: | |
Well, my family and I moved here from the city 6 months ago and I consider myself to be a "closeted Republican"!
Wow, libs worried about high taxes, go figure!?
Now, now just joshing... |
Jonathan Teixeira
Citizen
Username: Jhntxr
Post Number: 89
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 9:34 pm: | |
Be careful Paul, coming out on this board could be downright dangerous to your health.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4396
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 3:44 am: | |
Welcome Paul, and good luck. Trust me, even a "Closeted Republican" is difficult, and as Jon said, it can be downright dangerous in this town... |
Paul Haley
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 12:53 pm: | |
don't worry guys, i survived 6 years of liberal politics in Brooklyn before coming here, I think I will be ok. I'll let you know if a mob with pitchforks shows up at my doorstep.... |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page