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.