As We See It: Beachcomber, March, 2006

Brigantine Taxpayers Association

The topic is our municipal 2006 budget. This is our money, so please read on. The B.T.A. has gone over the budget, as it has done every year since its beginning.

We again making recommendations. They are on specific budget items, and also, as in the past, we are advocating a fresh, outside of Council's usual in-the- box budget approach, seeking and implementing timely, innovative, sensible, cost-effective ways to better manage our town with less of our money. Council should get beyond, (and we should insist that it does) the handy habit of reaching deeper into taxpayers' pockets when it wants to spend more, and model its efforts on the competitive private sector which doesn't have such an easy way out of paying for extravagant spending.

As we reviewed the budget, we looked for "instant" ways to get more revenue
in this budget, items where cuts in spending can and should be made, including those in future contracts with municipal unions, and tested practices such as sharing, consolidation and privatization which should be considered and implemented. Technology enables us to do this. Also, our population changes offer new challenges and opportunities for better, less costly management of local government.

Please keep in mind that, even before property tax increases due to revaluation take effect, this budget increases by almost $1.8 million the amount to be raised by taxes for support of our municipal budget. That means an increase in our municipal -purpose tax of at least 20% since 2004. None of this includes any County and School tax increases. Now, here's our list.

1. As of 12/31/05, our surplus was $2.825,000..$1.160,000. of it has been put in this budget, leaving almost $1.7 million. That high amount isn't necessary. More should be put in the budget, reducing the tax increase.

2. The reserve for uncollected taxes is almost $210,000. more than last year. The increased ratable base is a factor here. But, since we're been steadily increasing our estimated % of tax collections without problems the % could be slightly increased, thus further reducing the amount to be raised by taxes.

3. Police and fire salary increases for 2006 total $616,000. That's too high, and it's due to union contracts agreed to by the City. And why should unused sick time be paid at the time of terminal leave?

4. Public Works salaries total almost $2.2 million for 2006. Why so high? Privatization should be considered for Public Works projects. Public Works could bid for them as well as private companies. This has been looked at in the past but nothing has changed.

5. Why should taxpayers pay a $5000. annual subsidy for events for which door tickets cost $55. The Cultural Arts group should be self-supporting.

6. We were told costs for the Construction Office would decrease due to a change in policy. Salaries have increased $59,000.

7. T-1 consolidation for telephone lines saves money. for municipalities.. Why hasn't this been implemented here?

8. Group insurance costs have increased $13,000. from $1,585,000. to $1,598,000. How much do our employees contribute? As much as in private industry?

9. Longevity and overtime costs consume almost $750,000. annually based on 2005's figures. Instead of working to end this peculiar public- sector practice, our City voted to expand it. How foolish and costly!

10. Atlantic County government wants a central dispatch system, an excellent idea. This works well due to technological capabilities and saves taxpayers money. Let's get on board and support it.

11. Salaries for the parks and playgrounds dept. total $235,000.

This sounds too high to us. There's more. We're open to responsible new ideas about spending by government and other government activities. Join us. Come to our meetings. Share your opinions with us. Support us. This is our government. You need to know everything about it. We give you our opinions and findings. This gives you choice. It's up to you to sort our opinions on what our government is doing and and decide who is right.

Comparison of Anti - Nepotism (A/N) Ordinances BTA versus City

The purpose of this memorandum is to illustrate the similarities and differences of the A/N ordinance that the Brigantine Taxpayers Association (BTA) proposed to council in January, 2006 versus the A/N ordinance that City Council adopted in 2001 and revised on 2004.

City of Brigantine Ordinance -
Purpose: To establish a policy for the employment of immediate relatives in order to assure the reality and appearance of fairness in the best interest of the city.

BTA Proposed Ordinance ?
Purpose: Whereas, taxpayers are entitled to know and trust that municipal decisions are made on the basis of merit, in the public interest, and without preferential treatment and public/private conflicts of interest due to family relationships, the City of Brigantine has determined that the goal and practice of good government is promoted by a policy of anti-nepotism.

City of Brigantine Ordinance ?
Policy: It's the City's policy that immediate relatives will not be employed in regular full time or regular part time positions where an employee is in a position of authority to supervise, discipline, or evaluate a relative and where there is a conflict between the City's position and his/her own.

BTA Proposed Ordinance ?
Policy: The City of Brigantine shall not hire any member of the immediate family of these employees: the members of the governing body and all those persons in year-round, non-hourly positions as set forth in the City Salary Ordinance.

The definition of "immediate family" is more inclusive in the BTA Proposed Ordinance than that in the City's Ordinance.

The outstanding difference between the two positions is in the policy restrictions. The BTA proposal specifically mentions the governing body and all the non-union administrators and positions in the Salary Ordinance. The City specifically omits such language.

We believe that this is a critical difference. In essence, the major weakness in the City's ordinance is with its hiring policy; namely, it allows relatives of city employees to be hired as long as they are not in a position to supervise, discipline, or evaluate their relatives.

After reading this comparison, feel free to arrive at your own conclusions.
Regards,
Sam Chatis VP of BTA

Revaluation Meeting

There was a very large turnout of irate taxpayers at the school auditorium on March 15. Many people expressed their dissatisfactions with Tyler Technologies.

Revaluation

Letter to Editor - Beachcomber

What happens next with our revaluation?

Those taxpayers stunned with their tentative assessments of true market value of their properties have taken the 1st step and met with Tyler Technologies/ CL T in an "informal review." Now, we wait to hear from the company to see if changes in the assessments will be made. According to our City administration, it cant do anything legally to reconsider its co l Tact with Tyler until the company's revaluation process is complete.

A contract is a legal binding document. It assigns responsibilities to the signers. There is the expectation that these responsibilities will be done competently and credibly to the satisfaction of all parties, one of which, the City of Brigantine in this case, includes taxpayers. In something as important as the valuing of one's real estate, confidence in the soundness of the process is paramount. Based on Tyler Technologies's job performance in Brigantine, that confidence is lacking.

In addition to the initial errors, the lack of necessary information at the early reviews, since corrected, I see a lack of consistency and a formula in making the assessments. Some properties, used as comparable sales examples, are assessed at less than their recent purchase prices. Some are assessed at more than the purchase prices. There are other examples of problematic assessments that lead to the following questions for the company (all of which I have written to a company manager): How does the company determine an assessment? How does the company define "comparable"? How many comparable properties are used for each assessed property? I was shown three. How much of an area around the assessed property is included for comparable properties? Are they averaged to determine an assessment? I've been told and have read different calendar periods for this revaluation, 2004 and 2005 up to Oct. 1, or three years including 2003. Which is it?

As is obvious also from these questions, communication among the company, the City and the property owners has been less than adequate.

While not exactly linked to job performance, we are dealing with the fact that there is now a slowdown in our real-estate market. The peak has passed. This means being taxed on assessments exceeding true market value.

I think the contract and payment schedule should be reconsidered by City Council with the possibility of re-doing the revaluation and moving the effective date to 2007. Some Council members have said the County is pressuring Brigantine to complete its revaluation. Shouldn't getting credible assessments override the County's pressure?

Other municipalities such as North Wildwood, Egg Harbor City and Strathmere, have had problems with this same company. If City Council was unaware of these problems before, it needs to become aware now and report back to the taxpayers with a proposal to correct an unsatisfactory and unacceptable situation.

The next City Council meeting is at 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 15 in the North School Auditorium. Taxpayers, come and continue the discussion about this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Anne H. Phillips

OUCH - revaluation

Brigantine Times
By Tom Morgan

I guess by now everybody has received their new Notice of Property Value that was recently mailed to them by Tyler Technologies CLT.

From what I have been told, if you new tax assessment goes up 400%, your taxes stay the same. Anything over 400% and your taxes are going to go up.

It :teems that the new unofficial average home value here in Brigantine is any-where from $450,000 to $600,000, depending on where you live,

.......Results of the unofficial poll also reveal that new property values in different neighborhoods are also inconsistent as homes in the same areas have large differences in newly assessed value.

Tyler CLT is being paid $600,000 by the City of Brigantine to collect all relevant data from the 9,000

properties in Brigantine and assign, to each property individually, the true market value of that property. This is done by doing a comparative market analysis on all homes sold over the last three years in Brigantine. Right now there are over 700 homes up for sale in Brigantine.......

Many people expressed anger because homes in their neighborhoods were selling
in the $300,000 to $ 350,000 range and their homes were assessed for hundred of thousand dollars more.

...... The biggest concern that residents have is that their taxes will drastically rise.

......Brigantine is not the only municipality that Tyler CLT is doing a re-evaluation for. Tyler CLT did the re-evaluation for Veninor, and they also did the re-evaluation for Upper Township, Middle Township, Dennisville, North Wildwood and Egg Harbor City to name a few.

...... Many residents in North Wildwood have challenged their new assessments. North Wildwood has close to 7,000 properties that were re-evaluated by Tyler CLT. North Wildwood City officials estimate that their town's value has increased from $866 mil-lion dollars to close to $ 3 billion dollars after appeals. According to reports the City of North Wildwood has writ-ten to Tyler CLT demanding to know how they came up with the city's new property values, and have threatened to withhold future payments until they explain their figures and formulas, and answer some questions by the city's finance commit-tee. A group known as the Wildwood Taxpayers association has had over 300 people attend meetings concerning the re-evaluation results.

Central Dispatch Plan

Letter to freeholder Joseph Silipena
Dear Mr. Silipena:

We were very pleased to read the article in The Press of 2/10/06,:"another look at a central dispatch plan". We remember when you spoke about such a plan at one of our general Association meetings several years ago. The BTA supported a central dispatch plan then and still does.

It's surprising that Atlantic County, which prides itself on keeping up with technology and constructive change, is one of only two counties in New Jersey without such a system.

Let's get aboard and do what make sense and saves money. The arguments against it are an expression of unawareness of the capabilities of communication technology and, politically, an expensive, excessive adherence to "home rule".

Please give the enclosed copy to Mr. Rick Mulvihill. Thank you.
Please keep us informed about developments.

Sincerely,Board of Directors

Eminent Domain

On behalf of the Brigantine Taxpayers Association, Anne Phillips presented an Eminent Domain proposal to City Council at its meeting in November. In response to her request, Council passed Resolution 2005 ? 155 on December 7, 2005. In essence, the key clause in the resolution is as follows ....

"WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brigantine does not believe that condemnation should be used for taking private property for other then public use."

On behalf of the BTA Board Members and its membership, we applaud Mayor Guenther and City Council Members for passage of this resolution.

PAY-TO-PLAY in Brigantine

The subject is pay-to-play, a questionable practice with a bad reputation common in N.J. government. Professional business entities make substantial political contributions to the election campaigns of the local elected officials who are responsible for awarding no-bid professional service contracts. Contributions from professionals awarded these contracts by the same elected officials who receive the contributions raise reasonable concerns among taxpayers about the quality and/or cost of the services received. It is not a practice to inspire trust by them in their government. The following comments were made to City Council at its meeting on Jan. 18, 2006 by the Brigantine Taxpayers Association. It's important to share them with Brigantine taxpayers. We initially presented our concern to you about pay-to-play in 2003. Then, you chose to do nothing. Now, you have another opportunity to increase public confidence and trust in this municipal government and to be more accountable to that public. Problems with pay-to-play have been around for a long time, with a reluctance by politicians to correct them. Now, however, there is greater public awareness of this practice and the harm it does and of the need for changes. No more business as usual. Let's look at what your choices are now in light of laws passed by the state legislature. Under the legislation which became effective Jan. 1, 2006, you have a choice of following a weak pay-to-play law or of setting up a "fair and open process" by which no-bid contracts for professionals will be awarded. Unfortunately, this "fair and open" process might be more accurately described as a fig leaf device. These competitive guidelines that are offered as a substitute for pay-to-play restrictions on campaign contributions by professional business entities are loose and weak, and provide room for mischief. Especially troubling is the following language. "The decision of a public entity as to what constitutes a fair and open process shall be final." What an opportunity to fool the public and make it more cynical!" Instead of doing any of the above, we urge you to choose real pay-to-play reform by doing what over 30 New Jersey municipalities have done. And that is to use the effective tool the legislature recently gave municipalities enabling them to pass a stronger and stricter law controlling these campaign contributions than that which became effective on Jan. 1, 2006. And, instead of using the weak "fair and open " process of this state law, pass an ordinance which will serve the public interest by requiring competitive negotiation for professional services contracts. When you take such action you will inaugurate a true fair and open procedure demonstrating your respect for taxpayers, and a willingness to be fully accountable and to give honest value for our property taxes. We present you with two model ordinances, one for public contracting reform and the second requiring competitive negotiation for professional services contracts, carefully and legally drawn up by the Center for Civic Responsibility of Common Cause. They are worth your consideration and adoption. We look forward to an informative and open public discussion of these proposed ordinances at a future City Council meeting.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

City of Brigantine Salary Ordinance

These ordinances don't govern those municipal employees whose terms and conditions employment are determined by collective bargaining agreements.

Government works best when the people it represents are knowledgeable about it and hold it accountable. Facts about the salaries of public employees are a public record. This public payroll is paid with our property taxes. We present this public information as a service to the taxpayers of Brigantine. Copies of these salary ordinances, passed annually by City Council, are available to the public in City Hall.

We are printing 1 such ordinances here, for the year 2006, a period covering 1 calendar year. The salaries given are base salaries, and don't include payments for longevity, stipends and benefits There are differences among them, concluding changes in positions and salaries, for the year 2006, a period covering 1 calender year. The salaries given are base salaries, and don't include payments for longevity, stipends and benefits. The columns for the minimum and maximum amount for each position are given below.

We urge taxpayers to carefully consider these salaries in terms of the private sector, the rates of increases in both columns and the rates of inflation during the period of time offered. City Council says the maximum figure isn't always or usually what an employee is receiving . This is true, but, this figure shouldn't be ignored as Council appears to be encouraging us to do. Increases, from 2005(not shown)to 2006 in the maximum column for some positions, including a few currently unoccupied, are eye-opening. If these numbers mean nothing, why have increases of 21%, 15%, 35%, 16%, 25%, 58%, 8% etc. for these top salaries? (And, how long does the maximum number remain so?) Work on the 2006 budget is under way. We've offered to work on it with our government. The offer is still open. City Council should think first of cutting costs, not spending more and raising taxes. ----2006 budget has been passed
---------------------------------------------

ORDINANCE NO:29 FOR 2006.

SECTION 3: All salaries and wages as listed in Section 2 shall be paid bi-weekly and shall become effective the first pay of 2006. Persons currently holding positions shall be paid within the specified ranges as listed in Section 2, to be determined by the City Manager who shall consider experience, education and any other
relevant factors

SECTION 4: Seasonal positions shall become effective with the beginning of the summer season. The Beach Patrol Officers must work a minimum of 70 days. Failure to do so will result in a reduction of salary at the Officer's daily rate.

SECTION 5: Each full time employee, employed on or before December 31 7004 shall receive longevity pay, in addition to their regular salary according to the following schedule:

---------------------------
YEARS OF SERVICE LONGEVITY
FIVE...............2%
TEN................4%
FIFTEEN............6%
TWENTY.............8%
TWENTY-FIVE.......10%
----------------------------
.........MINIMUM...... MAXIMUM

Mayor ....$10,000.00....$15,000.00
Deputy Mayor....$9,000.00....$14,000.00
Member of Council...$9,000.00....$13,000.00
City Clerk....$52,000.00....$65,000.00
Deputy City Clerk ....$30,000.00.....$52,000.00
Administrative Assistant....$30,000.00....$55,000.00
City Manager....$85,000.00.... $115,000.00
Deputy City Manager....$10,000.00.... $16,000.00
City Solicitor....$18,000.00....$24,000.00
Judge of the Municipal Court....$20,000.00....$26,000.00
Municipal Court Administrator....$52,000.00....$65,000.00
Municipal Prosecutor / Asst City Solicitor...$18,000.00...$24,000.00
Director of Public Safety....$52,000.00 ....$70,000.00
Zoning Officer....$8,000.00....$15,000.00
Asst. Zoning Officer.... $3,500.00 ....$8,500.00
Mercantile Officer....$16,000.00....$27,000.00
Chief of Police....$80,000.00....$115,000.00
Fire Chief....$80,000.00....$115,000.00
Emergency Management Coordinator....$3,500.00....$9,500.00
Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator...$1,500.00...$3,500.00
School Crossing Guard....$8.50....$11.50
Class I Special Police Officer, 1st year....$9.60....$10.00
Class I Special Police Officer, 2nd year....$10.00....$11.00
Class I Special Police Officer, 3rd year....$11.00....$12.00
Part-time Dispatcher....$11.00 ....$13.00
Superintendent of Public Works ....$70,000.00 ....$85,000.00
Supervisor/Water and Utilities....$60,000.00....$72,000.00
Supervisor/Streets,Public Buildings,grounds...$60,000.00...$72,000.00
Water and Sewer License Stipend....$5,000.00....$6,000.00
Clean Communities Coordinator.... $1,000.00....$2,000.00
Recycling Coordinator ....$1,000.00....$1,200.00
Chief Financial Officer....$52,000.00....$65,000.00
Comptroller....$1,500.00....$4,500.00
Tax and Utility Collector....$52,000.00....$65,000.00
Deputy Tax and Utility Collector....$30,000.00....$45,000.00
Tax Assessor....$52,000.00....$65,000.00
Deputy Tax Assessor....$30,000.00....$52,000.00
Field Representative, Tax Assessor....$30,000.00....$45,000.00
Part-Time Field Representative, Tax Assessor....$11.00....$18.00
Purchasing/Inventory Control Officer....$12,000.00....$18,000.00
Personnel Director....$52,000.00....$65,000.00
Construction Official....$52,000.00....$65,000.00
City Engineer....$4,000.00....$6,000.00
Utility Engineer.... $4,000.00.... $6,000.00
Planning Board Secretary....$7,500.00....$9,500.00
Tourism Commission Secretary....$4,000.00....$8,000.00
Planning Board Solicitor....$5,000.00....$8,000.00
Recreation Director....$52,000.00....$65,000.00
Asst Recreation Director.... $50,000.00 ....$60,000.00
Recreation Supervisor....$40,000.00....$52,000.00
C.E.R. Secretary....$11.00....$15.00
Civic Center / ADA Coordinator...$10,000.00...$16,500.00
Animal Control Officer....$9,000.00....$15,000.00
Rental Registration Inspector ....$11.00 ....$12.00
Rental Registration Re-Inspection....$6.00....$7.00
Permit Inspector Supervisor....$11.00....$13.50
Permit Inspector....$7.00....$8.50
Director Beach Fee Office....$12.50....$15.50
Supervisor Beach Fee Office....$10.50....$15.00
Beach Permit Inspector, 1st year....$8.00....$8.00
Beach Permit Inspector, 2nd & 3rd year....$9.00....$9.00
Beach Permit Inspector, 4th year and up...$10.00...$10.00
Beach Patrol, Chief....$18,000.00....$24,000.00
Beach Patrol, Asst. Chief....$15,500.00....$18,000.00
Beach Patrol, Captain....$13,500.00....15,000.00
Beach Patrol, Senior Lieutenant...$11,000.00...$13,500.00
Beach Patrol, Lieutenant/Medic....$11,500.00....$13,000.00
Beach Patrol, Lieutenant....$11,000.00....$13,000.00
Seasonal Laborers....$5.50....$12.00
Recreation Aides....$5.50....$12.00
Temporary Clerical....$10.00....$15.00

A Beach Walker's Opinion

I just received my sample ballot. Don't miss the 500 word statements by the 10 candidates for governor. Edward Forchion is running on the "Legalize Marijuana" ticket. You cannot help admire his sincerity but when he advocates a "reefer revolution" and he ends his statement with " Take a Tote Then Vote" you feel the humor. Others might excite laughter or disbelieve or anger. The Libertarian wants to limit government. He supports the right o carry a gun, the use of marijuana for medical purposes, He also stands against Eminent Domain. With limiting the governments ability to collect taxes and with everybody caring an gun, smoking pot and using the courts to protect their homes from being taken from them, where is the money coming from to protect the average citizen? There are two Socialist Party candidates. The regular Socialist Party, the party of Eugene Victor Debs who in the presidential election of 1920 got almost one million votes has faded into supporting Lesbian and Gay marriages and calling for a national lottery. Oh how the idealist have fallen. The other Socialist candidate is bad enough to annoy you to anger. She wants to revive the old WPA, abolish the death penalty, establish a workers farmers government. I could not help wondering if she would support Constitutional liberties and rights. Enough, I will advise you to read the others, they are baffling and interesting

On Tuesday the 8th we will be voting on two State Questions. The first is to establish an office of Lieutenant Governor. Another do nothing office, but too wait for the governor to die or to have a gay affair and resign. A waste of the tax payers money. I am voting NO and hope you do the same. The second question has merit. Pollution is making us sick. With this proposition in place diesel soot emissions can be reduced. I have often wondered how our city of Brigantine could send out to our beaches diesel bulldozer that spread carcinogenic harmful diesel soot all over our beaches in the height of the summer season. Well, I am voting yes on Public question #2.

Let me make the point that this blog is the personal opinion of the bloger and does not represent the opinion of anyone or organization but the bloger. Get out to vote Tuesday.
Beach Walker

Greenhead Politics Speaker

Are you ready for an eye opener? Saturday, November 22, 10am at the North School, Patrick Costello, son of former Director of Public Works in Brigantine, John Costello. has a revealing story of political intrigue and the waste of taxpayer money.

John McCormick, former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives told us that "all politics is local." We know that an informed citizen is a huge cog in the democratic wheel, so get out of those waders and get to the North School Saturday at 10am to hear the Costello story.

PAY-TO-PLAY BANS....Don't let local efforts die

Last spring, Ocean City passed a pay-to-play ban that was not only the strictest in Cape May County ? it ranked among the strictest in the state.

To its credit, City Council dutifully scrutinized its ordinance for potential loopholes and closed them. One councilmember suggested allowing small, $100 contributions from professionals seeking no-bid con-tracts; the majority said no.

Like 51 other towns and counties in New Jersey, Ocean City wisely responded to the growing public disgust for the practice known as "pay to play" ? that is, professionals and other government contractors who make donations and then receive hefty government contracts from the same people they helped put in office. It's a practice ripe for unethical behavior, one that breeds public cynicism and inflates the cost of local government.

In some towns, like Berkeley Township in Ocean County, the payto-play ban came as the result of a petition drive.

Talk about democracy in action. But all this grassroots effort to bring greater integrity to the system will be invalidated next January, when a new, much weaker, state pay-to-play ban becomes effective. It will be invalidated, that is, unless the state Senate passes a bill that would permit municipalities and counties to enact pay-to-play bans that are stricter than the state law. The Assembly passed the bill, but it is stalled in the Senate.

That's outrageous. This is a nobrainer of a bill that should have been passed before the summer recess. And it should be at the top of the agenda when the Senate reconvenes.

New Jersey Common Cause, which has pushed for pay-toplay reform and provided model ordinances for communities, divides local ordinances into those that are as strong as the Common Cause model and those that are weaker.

According to Common Cause, the flaw of the weaker ordinances often is that they do not apply to contributions on the county level ? such as, for example, bans
passed by Cape May, Barnegat and Stafford Township. Others, like Vineland's, exempt con-tracts that are bid.

Still, all of the 52 municipal and county ordinances, according to Common Cause, are stronger than the loosely worded and loophole-ridden state law.

The state Senate must restore the power of local governments which are closest to the
citizenry to react to the public's desire for more ethical government. There can be no excuse for failing to pass this bill in the fall.

Pay-to-play bans
This shows southern New Jersey governments that have adopted payto-play bans.

Laws that meet the Common Cause model:

Manchester Township Ocean County
Berkeley Township Ocean County
Ocean City Cape May County

Weaker measures:

Cape May Cape May County
Lower Township Cape May County
Vineland Cumberland County
Cumberland County
Stafford Township Ocean County
Long Beach Township Ocean County
Dover Township/

Toms River Ocean County
Barnegat Township Ocean County
Little Egg Harbor Township Ocean County

EMINENT DOMAIN

NATIONAL NEWS
Top court favors eminent domain

Friday, June 24, 2005
By JOHN BRENNAN
STAFF WRITER

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a ruling watched closely in New Jersey, on Thursday upheld a Connecticut city's right to seize homes and other properties solely for economic development. The 5-4 decision is likely to make it easier for dozens of North Jersey towns to use eminent domain condemnations in similar ways, supporters and opponents of the decision agreed.
"Most government agencies already have been proceeding on the assumption that economic development is a valid justification [for invoking eminent domain],"

Supporters and opponents both agreed on one thing: The ruling does not preclude the state Legislature in Trenton from passing a law restricting the use of eminent domain.
"If a state wants to set the bar higher for eminent domain use, it still can," said Dianne Brake, president of the Trenton-based Regional Planning Partnership. "The process has to be transparent, for instance, to help avoid having graft come into play."

Beachcomber News - August 26, 2005

Dear Editor,

Whom does government represent? Whose taxes pay the costs of government? To whom is government accountable? To whom does government have a responsibility to report on its activities? The answer, obviously, except to some, is the people.

A part of "the people" in Brigantine is the Brigantine Taxpayers Association, a responsible, active group exercising its rights and responsibilities as citizens. We hold public meetings during the year in order to have open, informative and orderly discussions about our municipal government and public school system. We share facts and opinions and we all learn.

For our next such public meeting on Saturday, September 17, 10 AM in the Brigantine Library, we invited the Public Works Superintendent to be our speaker: He accepted, and in our confirmation letter to thim, we said this: "We are pleased that you are coming to discuss the functions, administration and achievements of Public Works. We believe such a discussion between those receiving your department's services and those providing them will be mutually ,beneficial. It offers an opportunity to ask and answer questions, provide factual, information, present problems and seek solutions, and, in general, promote cooperation and effective municipal government."

This past Monday, August 8, we were told by the City Manager that the Superintendent would not appear at this meeting nor at any others we will hold. Nor would any other City employee be allowed to appear. We do not "abuse" our speakers, and, yet, the City Manager feels it's his job to "protect" City employees from a public discussion about their jobs. Do City employees need to be "protected" from responsible people with questions and recommendations? Such an attitude is demeaning to these employees who feel comfortable appearing before the public they serve, even when, imagine, there are differences of opinion! That's democracy, Mr. City Manager. And, personal hostility should not guide public policy.

What happened is regrettable and a lost opportunity, an example of an unhealthy. Civic life here in Brigantine.

We ask City Council to review this City policy and decide if such a negative attitude is one it wishes to support and present to the people.

Sincerely,
Ray Schillinger, BTA President

Purchase of St. Philip's school Site

On July 20th, City Council, after emerging from a closed session not listed on the meeting's agenda, by voice resolution and without public discussion, authorized the signing by the City of the agreement to purchase for $2.6 million the St. Philip's School site and structure from St. Thomas Catholic Church. While keeping taxpayers in the dark, negotiations for this purchase took place during the past 3 years between representation from the City and the church. This is an amazing story considering the facts, and prompts the question, "What are our 7 Council members thinking?"

1.Let's look at the facts, first at the legal language of the two deeds. The Mayor said the church is "giving up ownership of the site that could be used for religious purposes forever." ("The Beachcomber News" 8/19/05) That's correct. However, he forgot to mention something important. Here it is. The deed is valid "provided however, that the premises are to be used solely for educational and/or religious purposes. If, at any time, the said premises ever cease to be used for such educational and/or religious purposes then title to the said premises shall revert to the City of Brigantine." Note that the word "shall" is used. Evidently, the church can't sell the property to anyone, including the City. If the church surrenders the property, as it is now proposing to do, that means it's not using it for the allowed purposes and the City takes it back, for nothing. Now, according to the newspapers the church wants to continue using the building for church activities without having any financial obligations as the owner of the site. How can the church lose? There will be no more expenses for the property, there will be money for renovating and enlarging the church, and there will be continued use of the former school. Council calls this a win-win situation. Now, there's a "spin" on a bad and apparently illegal deal for Brigantine taxpayers, with tax revenues being spent unnecessarily in violation of the deed restriction. Has the church considered a rental-fee arrangement for the use of the former school after the property reverts free to the City?

Aside from the primary and crucial legal issue, let's look at other ones.

2. "City officials called the purchase a win-win situation since not only will recreation programs have room to expand, but the deal also would help preserve the longstanding church." ("The Press of Atlantic City" - 7/21/05) The future location and condition of St. Thomas Church is not the business of government and the expenditure of tax revenues is not to be based in any respect on the status of any church or in the interest of any church, without exception. Again, it appears the Council needs some legal advice.

3. Council talks of housing recreation programs, art shows, plays and cultural events in the former school building. Has it forgotten the far-superior facilities we already have at our elementary and middle schools, facilities about which it has boasted since their construction? Use them, and more effectively, if the community wants more. Council says it wants another building for particular uses as a youth center and for our older population. But, our public school facilities now serve both these groups. And, the numbers are dropping for both these segments of our population.

4. Council has said it has no idea what costs would be involved in using this former school. We'd need to hire a consultant. Another building means more maintenance costs, more operating expenses, more salaries. How could Council consider such a purchase without knowing something about costs in addtion to the purchase price? The private sector wouldn't be so careless about costs.
5. While reading the minutes of a meeting in 1959 of Brigantine's governing body, we noted that 1 of the 3 Commissioners abstained from voting to approve the purchase from the City of this property by the church. Why? He stated that he was a member of St. Thomas Church Parish and therefore wouldn't vote on a matter affecting the church. How different that is from Council's vote on 7/20/05! No one abstained even though the same conflict as in 1959 exists for several members of Council. They should explain why they didn't abstain at the next Council meeting.

By the way, we can't read the letter of 3/16/59 from St. Thomas offering $9,000 for this property, the offer on which the above Commissioners voted, because it is missing from the City's archives.

Council has been less than open and forthright in its dealings on this property. As such, it gives the impression of having something to hide. Does it? Certainly, something is not right here. Thorough scrutiny is in order. Our comments are intended to throw light on a deal which appears questionable. We will continue to keep Brigantine taxpayers informed.
Instead of increasing the burden on taxpayers, Council should be considering ways to reduce municipal expenditures and our taxes.

As We See It: Beachcomber April 8, 2005

From the Brigantine Taxpayers Association

This column will address several issues of interest to taxpayers - the school budget and capital expenditures, the marina and the municipal-purpose tax.

The Board of School Estimate, composed of three Council members and two School Board members, recently voted for a school budget with a 5 1/2 cents tax increase. There's an increase of $762,000 over the last budget in the amount to be raised by property taxes. As we said in our letter, we believe that it's reasonable to expect that a declining school population results in a reduced cost to taxpayers for the support of our public school district.

Another issue concerning public education in Brigantine is an application by the Board to seek partial State funding for 29 school projects totaling $7,000,000. Evidently, this is now on hold because of the acting Governor's freeze on these funds. We believe there should be a public meeting to discuss these issues. What's necessary and affordable? Who pays?

Recently, the BTA board voted to oppose the purchase. of three lots of bayside land from a private developer,and development of it, for over $3 million by the City of Brigantine for a public marina comprised of 32 rental boat slips, a parking lot, a possible fishing pier, a pump-out facility, and a building housing restrooms, etc. There would not be a retail store or repair facilities. The City has applied to Green Acres and the County for grants to fund this project. We oppose it regardless of the outcome of these applications. With or without such funds we believe it would be a cost to taxpayers in terms of operational and maintenance expenses which would exceed any revenue and thus become a taxpayer-funded liability. It would be another public business in competition with existing privately-owned marina businesses in Brigantine, and a piece of currently-taxed property removed from the tax roles. These private businesses appear to have adequate facilities to meet the demand for their services. It's not government's function to compete with them, or to assume that, perhaps, they'll all be gone someday. Keep in mind that Green Acres stipulates that the use of its money will restrict the use of that property in perpetuity, and that renters of these slips will be chosen at random from throughout the state, not just from among Brigantine residents.

At a recent City Council meeting on the marina, one Council person said that the "quality of life" in Brigantine should be the determining factor in Council's decision, not the cost. Government does have a function in that "quality" in terms of safety for citizens, and in seeing that it uses as few tax dollars as possible in providing that safety, leaving citizens with more money in their own pockets to determine their own quality of life. Sometimes elected government officials lose sight of their proper function and forget whose money it is and whom they' serve. And speaking of our money in our pockets, our new municipal-purpose tax rate is going up 13 cents in this year's budget despite continuing increasing tax revenues from increasing ratables, and a declining municipal population of primary homeowners. By the time you read this, Council will have passed the budget.

Letter to the editor: Beachcomber

From the Brigantine Taxpayers Association

Dear Editor:.
This is our letter sent to the members of the Brigantine Board of Education and to Dr. Robert Previti, school superintendent. We have not yet received a written reply but look forward to receiving one shortly. We have raised important public issues in this letter and believe a reply.. is appropriate and desirable for an informed discussion of these issues concerning public education.

March 9, 2005
The purpose of this letter is two-fold. It's to express our concerns with the cost of public education to Brigantine's taxpayers and with the 2004 test results for Brigantine's public schools as recently printed in "The Press."

We believe that it's reasonable to expect that a declining school population results in a reduced cost to taxpayers for the support of our public school district.

Regarding the Board's contract with the Brigantine Education Association which is due to expire on 6/30/05, we believe it's also reasonable to expect that the Board of Education will do its utmost to contain/reduce personnel costs. Our median administrative salaries are the highest in all of Atlqntic County! Teachers' raises on average have been exceeding the state's CPI by over 2%. What will you do to reduce health-care costs, other benefits and raises which exceed those in the private sector and which burden taxpayers?

In general, the 2004 test scores for Atlantic County public schools which appeared in "The Press" last month aren't a reason for satisfaction and complacency. While Brigantine's percentages of failure on the Assessment of Skills and Knowledge for the third and fourth grades, except for fourth grade language arts students, and on the eighth grade Proficiency Assessment are less than the state averages, the percentages of failure in eighth grade language arts and math, in third grade language arts, and in fourth grade language arts and math are surely too high. Are you disappointed with these results, and, if so, what are you doing to reduce the number of pupils who are failing and bring them up to the satisfactory, or above, level of achievement?

We look forward to receiving your responses to our comments and questions.

Sincerely, -
The Brigantine Taxpayers Association Ray Schillinger, President

Health insurance costs, salaries boost proposed Brigantine tax rate

A.C.Press
By Michael Pritchard
staff Writer, (609) 272-7258

BRIGANTINE ? City tax-payers are facing a nearly 13 cent increase in the local-purpose tax rate even as ratables and real-estate values continue to grow.

City Council has introduced a $21,093,267 spending plan, an increase of more that $2.3 million over last year. Officials pointed to steep increases in health-insurance costs and salaries as principal causes for the increase.

The increase comes after the city managed to hold taxes flat last year. The city's municipal-purposes tax rate would rise to about $1.11 per $100 of assessed evaluation, up from about 98 cents per $100 last year. A property owner with a house assessed at $200,000 would pay $2,220 in taxes.

"The economic realities of the rising cost of operating a full service local government are reflected in (this) budget," Mayor Phil Guenther said in an address to the council. "Although I am not pleased with any additional burden for taxpayers, I know that this bud-get was developed to support essential spending and keep the level of services that residents need and expect intact."

The proposed budget would increase the amount to be raised by taxes to $13,093,351, up from $11,370,112 last year. That increase reflects an about $800,000 increase in salaries for municipal employees. Other major increases include $400,000 for employee health insurance. and about $250,000 for municipal debt service, which would rise to about $2,453,000.

Those increases have offset a rise of about $20 million in the city's ratables. The budget also allocates most of the city's surplus funds to offset taxes. The plan would use about $2.265 million in surplus funds; leaving only about $186,000. Last year the city used about $1.8 million in surplus funds, leaving $641,000.

The tax increase comes just as the city prepares for a major revaluation, which will cost an added $500,000 in this year's budget. That revaluation also should have a significant impact on taxpayers in 2006. Officials estimate that the actual assessed value of the city is $2.5 billion, more than double the current assessments.

In any reassessment, taxes generally rise for one third of property owners, stay steady for a third and fall for a third.

Ordinances

During the November 2004 General Meeting, the membership authorized board members" to develop "Anti-Nepotism" and "Reform in Public Contracting" (a k a Pay-to-Play) ordinances.

Anti-Nepotism: Its intention is to eliminate preferential treatment of relatives of government personnel. This ordinance was prompted by the fact –

That taxpayers are entitled to know and trust that municipal decisions are made on the basis of merit, in the public interest, and without preferential treatment and public/private conflicts of interest due to family relationships, and

That the governing body of the City of Brigantine needs to recognize that the goal and practice of good government is promoted by a policy of anti-nepotism.

This need for change is reflected by the groundswell of taxpayers in surrounding communities that have risen to demand honesty and accountability in their town governments by passing this type of ordinance. These communities include: the Borough of Bergenfield, Hamilton Township (Mercer County), and the Borough of Lavallette (Ocean County).

Pay-to-Play: Its intention is to inhibit professional businesses from making political contributions to local government officials who are ultimately responsible for awarding service contracts.

Key components of this policy are:

1. A professional business, which makes political contributions within two (2) calendar years prior to the date of the contract (in the form of money or any other thing of value) to municipal candidates, and municipal and county political parties, shall be ineligible to receive a service contract from the City of Brigantine.
2. Contributions are not permitted within two (2) calendar years prior to the date of the contract.
3. Prior to awarding any contract, the City will receive a sworn statement from the professional business, made under penalty of perjury, that the bidder has not made a contribution in violation of this ordinance. The business also has a continuing duty to report any violation of this ordinance that may occur during the negotiation or duration of a contract. Failure of a professional business to reveal a violation will cause that business to be disqualified from edligibility for four (4) years.

The need for honest and cost efficient government has prompted Brigantine citizens to join forces, along with twenty-five (25) other New Jersey communities, in drafting a P-top ordinance. The time has come to place limitations on excessive budgets by implementing creative cost measures. BTA has proposed such ordinances in the past to City Council, but Council has stated hat it prefers to wait for the implementation of state law. We believe that the City should act on its own.

Brigantine Golf Course

A note about the Golf Course

The city purchased the course about two years ago, intent on keeping it open as open space and away from residential developers, and hired a private golf course management company to run it.

The Golf Course

Budget for 2004: $1,532,000.00

Cash rec'd in 2004: $1,796,386.03

Budget for 2005: $1,735,000.00

Source: City Budget for 2005

City Employees: Salaries & Longevity

Ordinance #36 of 2004 outlined the salaries for certain city employees who are not part of any particular collective bargaining agreement, or union. The salaries were determined to be competitive with positions that are part of collective bargaining agreements, and each is listed as having a specified "range" of pay based on factors like seniority, educational background, and longevity in a certain position. City Manager Jim Barber said that the ranges of pay were set forth. as guidelines for the next several years, and that no city employees are currently receiving the top salaries in' their respective positions.

"That salary ordinance is passed every year, and it's the city manager's discretion as to who gets what amount," said brigantine Taxpayers Association President Anne Phillips during the meeting's public portion. "Certainly this leads people to believe that certain employees are going to be receiving that top-of-the-range figure this year. It's misleading."

Also during the public comment portion of Ordinance #36,Phillips said that she is opposed to the practice of employees receiving longevity pay, which essentially is a bonus paid to those who have remained employed by the city for a certain amount of time. She said that this is an archaic practice that does little more than waste taxpayers' money, and last year cost the city nearly $400,000. The city stopped giving longevity pay to all non-union employees hired after 1994, then brought it back.

Barber, however, asserted that longevity pay serves as an incentive to keep quality employees in place for a longer period of time.

"I believe strongly in longevity," said Barber. "It rewards good, loyal people."

Ordinance #38 passed during the meeting, which increased the cost of use of the city's ambulance from $350 to $450.

Water and Sewer Increases

by the Brigantine Taxpayer Association

More for Government, Less for Taxpayers.
Taxpayers of Brigantine, by now you have received your water and sewer bills. Are you surprised by the increases? Unless you were at the February 2nd, 2005 City Council meeting (there were about 11 people in the audience), or read the brief mention about it in "The Beachcomber," you wouldn't have know that your municipal government was about to dip into your pocket again for more of your money. It's called a fee increase, another name for higher taxes, this time for our water and sewer services. According to the City Council, this is being done at the recommendation of the City auditor, an appointee and. not someone we elect. Those whom we elect, the members of Council, had no comment, no discussion, no figures to justify these increases, and no statements of their support on this recommendation. This is not being forthright with taxpayers.

This ordinance was introduced in the dead of winter, and was voted on within two weeks of its introduction, on February 16th, again in the dead of winter.

Do you see problems here with accountability to taxpayers? We do. Please read on.

First, let's look at some history. In 1993 our annual water bill increased 40% from $100 in 1992 to $140. In 2003, just two years ago, the fee increased 14% to $160 annually. Now, in 2005, the annual water bill again increases, this time by 25% to $200. With these increases, including the one proposed in this ordinance, the annual cost of water to taxpayers has doubled, from $100 to $200. The annual sewer bill increased from $240 in 1992 to $260 in 1993, to $280 in 1994, to $320 in 2003, to $345 in 2005, and to $350 in 2006. Because of different billing dates for water bills, this ordinance includes 2 sewer payments in 2005, $160 already paid, and $185, with 2 payments each of $175 in 2006. Thus, with these increases we go from $240 to $350 for annual sewer payments, an average annual increase of 3.5%.

Did City Council do the math on this ordinance?

Second, new construction continues unabated in Brigantine. Many new second homes, with a lower use of services, are replacing primary homes. These second homeowners pay the standard annual water and sewer charges regardless of this circumstance. This is reflected in a decrease of flow to the ACUA, which provides and bills us for our sewer service, from 2003 to 2004. This bill has increased by $143,000 from 2004 to 2005, and this figure needs to be analyzed based on the number of living units in Brigantine, the cost to the ACUA, and our costs. Also, within brigantine limited amount of land, these houses are being built on existing lots without the necessity and cost of new municipal infrastructure.

Third, with the new, non-labor-intensive computerized system within the Public Works Department for reading our water meters, there should be a decrease in departmental expenditures:

Burdening taxpayers as a substitute for cost-effective management is not accountable government.