|
|
Post by admin on Jun 3, 2008 3:59:51 GMT -5
I will post more on the council meeting later. Here is an APP article about last night. www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080603/NEWS01/806030369/1285/LOCAL09FREEHOLD — Property taxes could rise nearly 6 cents for every $100 of assessed property value under the budget introduced by the Borough Council Monday. The council introduced a 2008 budget worth $13,972,997.86, an increase of almost $800,000 compared to what was allocated in the 2007 budget, Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina said. According to Bellina, the increase comes primarily from three sources: employee pensions, employee health insurance costs and police salaries and wages. Gasoline costs have also risen in the past two years, he said. Also impacting the budget is an expected decrease in state aid of about $181,000, Bellina said. "It's tough. We tried to cut every penny, every cost," Council President Michael DiBenedetto said. Councilman George Schnurr stressed that no employees would be laid off in the proposed budget. Two vacant positions in the Streets and Roads Department will not be filled, however, Bellina said. A public hearing on the budget is scheduled for July 2. If approved, the budget would raise the tax rate 5.9 cents per $100 of assessed property value, Bellina said. For the owner of a property assessed at the town average, $259,000, the yearly increase translates to roughly $153 more in property taxes. The tax levy for 2008 would be $7,750,354.65, Bellina said. That number is approximately $628,000 higher than the 2007 levy. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 3, 2008 5:27:54 GMT -5
Let's put this into perspective of a prior post (from this thread freeholdvoice.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=mayorandtowncouncil&action=display&thread=3110)Here is the substance of that thread with the new info: Year 2000 Budget $8,571,648 Local Rate 1.02 local amount raised $4,879,204
Year 2001 Budget $9,007,693 Local Rate 1.028 local amount raised $4,824,368 Year 2002 Budget $9,544,500 Local Rate 1.046 local amount raised $5,064,538 Year 2003 Budget $10,063,165 Local Rate 1.083 local amount raised $5.2 million
Year 2004 Budget $11.08 million Local Rate 1.13 local amount raised $5.5 million Year 2005 Budget $11.6 million Local Rate 59.8 (Re-evaluation year) local amount raised $6.5million Year 2006 Budget $12.5million Local Rate 62.97 local amount raised $6.8 million Year 2007 Budget $13.2 million Local Rate 65.8 local amount raised $7.1 million Year 2008 Budget $13.97 million Local Rate 71.7 local amount raised $7.75 million |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 3, 2008 9:41:17 GMT -5
Year 2000 Budget $8,571,648 Local Rate 1.02 local amount raised $4,879,204 Reasons for Increase: The budget increases reflect improvements for law enforcement, roads and recreation, said Joseph Bellina, borough administrator.
The borough is implementing a road improvement program on several streets, including Lincoln Place, Hance Boulevard and Braun Place.
Police will have a new mobile data information device installed in their cars to reduce the lapse time of filling out crime reports, Bellina said.
Liberty Park is in for a major facelift as well. The parking lot will be resurfaced, the grounds will be regraded and the playground equipment needs to be repaired, Bellina said.
The Shade Tree Commission will also receive more money this year to plant and restore trees for a sidewalk improvement program Source: APP, March 23, 2000.
Year 2001 Budget $9,007,693 Local Rate 1.028 local amount raised $4,824,368 Reasons for Increase: The 2 cent hike is partially the result of a reduction in state aid, as well as a reflection on the rising costs of providing services for the borough's increasing population, said Borough Chief Financial Officer Nancy Foreman.
In addition, pay for the borough's 73 employees has been budgeted at $4,139,451, about a 4 percent increase from last year. Source: APP, June 6, 2001. Year 2002 Budget $9,544,500 Local Rate 1.046 local amount raised $5,064,538 Reasons for Increase: Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina said insurance expenses have increased 33 percent.
Bellina said an auditor's review of the budget was completed just before the meeting and that other details would be available later this week.
"We took an enormous hit on insurance, as all towns did in the wake of 9/11," said Councilman Kevin Coyne. "That the tax rate is only going up 1.8 cents is an achievement." Source: APP, March 19, 2002. Year 2003 Budget $10,063,165 Local Rate 1.083 local amount raised $5.2 million Reasons for Increase: Originally the spending plan called for a 3.6-cent spike in the municipal tax rate, but the Borough Council had to budget an additional $10,000 for gasoline and heating costs and $38,000 for the hiring of two new police officers, Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina said.
He said the council wants to have more money in hand to gas borough vehicles and heat borough buildings if the early winter months are as harsh as this past winter.
Also the budget will make room for six months worth of salaries for John T. Reiff and Wendy R. Papp, recently hired as police officers. Both have begun a 20-week training course in the Monmouth County Police Academy in Freehold Township but will be paid during that time. The pair will join the Police Department in December.
Bellina said the council didn't adopt the budget until July 22 because it was waiting to learn how much extraordinary state aid it would receive, Bellina said. The governing body was hoping to receive $300,000 but only got $25,000.
The other reasons for the rate hike, Bellina said, are salary and wage increases, as well as health-insurance premium increases for the borough's 95 employees, which jumped approximately 30 percent over last year. Source: APP, August 7, 2003. Year 2004 Budget $11.08 million Local Rate 1.13 local amount raised $5.5 million Reasons for Increase: Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina said one of the main reasons for the proposed budget increase is the appropriation of about $121,000 for the Length of Service Award Program, or LOSAP, that borough residents approved by referendum in the November 2003 election. LOSAP covers about 105 volunteer firefighters in the borough.
The budget also includes the second full year of the borough's Quality of Life Program, which Bellina said was enhanced by the addition of two police officers last year and one code-enforcement officer this year to help reduce borough problems such as overcrowding, litter and public drunkenness.
Bellina said the hiring of a second code enforcer was based on complaints by residents pushing for quality-of-life improvements.
Starting salary for the police officers is $29,176 and the code enforcer starts at $29,775.
Bellina said the Police Department always receives the most appropriations, with almost $3 million this year.
Bellina said new officers mean buying new equipment, such as police cars. He said other increases include garbage disposal costs, which jumped by $4 per ton in Monmouth County, as well as health-insurance premiums that cost about $1.2 million, an 18 percent increase over last year, for the 95 borough employees. Source: APP, April 1, 2004. Year 2005 Budget $11.6 million Local Rate 59.8 (Re-evaluation year) local amount raised $6.5million Reasons for Increase: Mayor Michael Wilson said the bulk of the tax increase is needed to pay for higher salaries, wages and health insurance premiums for the borough's 95-member workforce. Most employees received a 3 percent raise this year, while the 34 police officers got a 4 percent raise.
The borough expects to pay $95,000 more this year to dispose of garbage collected from residential homes and Main Street shops, even though tipping fees held steady in 2004 and 2005. Last year, trash disposal increased by 700 tons, or 14 percent, from the previous year. Bellina noted that the state is requiring the borough to pick up garbage at apartment complexes.
The borough will pay an additional $75,000 in pension contributions, and $11,500 to cover Length of Service Program (LOSAP) awards for first aid volunteers, and $20,000 more for gasoline. Source: APP, May 22, 2005. Year 2006 Budget $12.5million Local Rate 62.97 local amount raised $6.8 million Reasons for increase: Bellina attributed the increase to costs, including $290,000 more for salaries and wages largely based on contracts with police and municipal employees.
State-mandated pension payments for police would rise from $118,000 to $230,000. Municipal employees' pension payments would increase from about $9,000 to $25,000, Bellina said.
Garbage collection and disposal, health benefits and other insurances also contribute to the increase, he said. About $50,000 in legal fees for tax appeals from last year's revaluation was a new expense in 2006. Source: APP, April 27, 2006. Year 2007 Budget $13.2 million Local Rate 65.8 local amount raised $7.1 million Reasons for Increase: Salaries and wages, in addition to a $150,000 increase to the borough's obligatory police pension contribution, are among the reasons for the tax hike, according to Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina.
Also, police operating expenses are up between $8,000 and $10,000, Bellina said, noting that the cost of ammunition is skyrocketing. Moreover, the borough has to replace a police car that was in an accident a few weeks ago and pay for what insurance did not cover.
Among the capital purchases and projects are a new street sweeper and the resurfacing of Monmouth and Ann streets.
At the water plant, doors and windows need to be replaced; the plant is a humid area, causing things to decay, Bellina said. Also, two wells need to be repaired.
Gasoline costs are up $40,000, one-third from last year. The reserve for uncollected taxes is also up $40,000, and trash collection and disposal increased about $35,000. Source: APP, April 29, 2007. Year 2008 Budget $13.97 million Local Rate 71.7 local amount raised $7.75 million Reasons for Increase: According to Bellina, the increase comes primarily from three sources: employee pensions, employee health insurance costs and police salaries and wages. Gasoline costs have also risen in the past two years, he said. Source: APP, June 3, 2008.
|
|
leelye
Junior Member
Posts: 150
|
Post by leelye on Jun 3, 2008 10:20:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 3, 2008 10:46:24 GMT -5
In 2004, an article above states, "Starting salary for the police officers is $29,176." |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 4, 2008 21:41:49 GMT -5
Year 2007 Budget $13.2 million Local Rate 65.8 local amount raised $7.1 million Reasons for Increase:
...At the water plant, doors and windows need to be replaced; the plant is a humid area, causing things to decay, Bellina said. Also, two wells need to be repaired....
Okay, the water plant was used as a reason for increases in last year's budget... But then we got water rate hikes and a new bond for the same reasons? Someone help me understand... Keep the above in mind when explaining to me, as well as the NT article that stated water was a money maker for the boro. (http://newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2004/0310/Front_page/015.html) p.s. here was the water discussion previously. freeholdvoice.proboards46.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=anythingfreeholdborough&thread=2940&page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 11, 2008 5:12:33 GMT -5
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2008/0611/front_page/019.htmlPension payments drive local spending increase BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer FREEHOLD - The Borough Council has introduced a $14 million budget to fund the operation of the municipality in 2008. A public hearing and vote on the adoption of the spending plan has been scheduled for July 2 at 5:30 p.m. in Borough Hall. Officials expect to raise $7.7 million through a local property tax levy to support the budget, according to Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina. According to figures provided by Bellina, Freehold Borough's municipal tax rate will rise 5.9 cents, from 65.9 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to 71.8 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. If the budget is adopted by the council as proposed, the owner of a home that is assessed at the borough average of $259,000 will pay $1,859 in municipal taxes in 2008, up from $1,706 in 2007. Municipal taxes are one part of a property owner's tax bill, which also includes Freehold Borough School District taxes, Freehold Regional High School District taxes and Monmouth County taxes, among other assessments. The 2007 municipal budget totaled $13.3 million and the local property tax levy was $7.1 million. Unlike a school budget, residents do not vote on their town's municipal spending plan. According to Bellina, significant increases can be seen this year in what the borough is obligated to pay toward police pensions and public employee pensions. In a budget message, borough officials said the police pension line item is increasing by an "astronomical" $243,000 in 2008 (from $378,983 in 2007 to $621,776 in 2008), and the public employee pension line item is increasing by $46,000 in 2008 (from $51,706 in 2007 to $97,709 in 2008). The police pension costs will continue to rise in the foreseeable future, according to the budget message. Combined with a $180,000 cut in state aid, Bellina said these three items (police pensions, public employee pensions and the state aid cut) account for 4.4 cents of the total 5.9-cent increase. The borough will receive a total of $1.6 million in state aid this year. Bellina said gasoline costs will be $30,000 higher in 2008 than in 2007, and said other utility costs are also increasing. He said health benefits are up $110,000 from 2007. Public safety expenses account for a significant portion of the budget, with police salaries and wages amounting to $3.5 million and other police expenses totaling $162,600. Police dispatch salaries and wages amount to $304,000 and other police dispatch expenses total $2,400. Also under public safety are fire salaries and wages of $111,385 and other fire expenses of $102,500. The borough will pay a total of $132,000 into the Length of Service Awards Program that is provided to qualified members of the Freehold Fire Department and the Freehold First Aid and Emergency Squad. The budget provides for road improvements to Center Street, including handicap ramps at intersections, and drainage and sewer work where necessary. The budget also includes engineering costs for improvements to Conover and Ward streets that are scheduled to take place in 2009. The Center Street road improvements will be funded in part by a $197,000 Community Development Block Grant. The borough will pay the remaining $303,000 of the $500,000 cost of the road improvement project. "There are no employee layoffs this year, but things are so tight that we cannot replace two people who retired in the streets and roads department. We are hoping that we don't have to face the dilemma of laying off people. As each person retires, we will evaluate the need to replace that person," Bellina said.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 11, 2008 5:13:52 GMT -5
Does anyone know why we went from 73 employees in 2001 to 95 employees in 2003?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 11, 2008 6:25:06 GMT -5
Does anyone know why we went from 73 employees in 2001 to 95 employees in 2003? I don't know the answer to your question, but the article did appear to say that we will see cut backs by way of attrition. We constantly see the rise in costs is almost always attributed to the employees. This is happening everywhere. I have said it before and will say it again. I blame the unions. Their shortsighted and selfish ways are coming home to roost. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 11, 2008 6:55:08 GMT -5
It's a 30% increase in employees in a short time.
Now part of the blame in budget increases goes to pension contributions...
|
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Jun 11, 2008 12:14:09 GMT -5
Brian dude:
Sure blame the unions for advocating for fair wages and decent working conditions.
You know who deserves more money -- the administrators and management!!
You know who deserves more money the filthy rich CEOS!!
You know who deserves more money the filthy rich corporations like Exxon/Mobil!!
Those d**n unions sucking everybody dry -- if only they would let the benevolent corporations decide everything would be just lovely!!
The unions are the least of our problems.
Casually for Worker Rights
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jun 11, 2008 14:10:00 GMT -5
Brian dude: Sure blame the unions for advocating for fair wages and decent working conditions. You know who deserves more money -- the administrators and management!! You know who deserves more money the filthy rich CEOS!! You know who deserves more money the filthy rich corporations like Exxon/Mobil!! Those d**n unions sucking everybody dry -- if only they would let the benevolent corporations decide everything would be just lovely!! The unions are the least of our problems. Casually for Worker Rights Exxon paid over 30 billion dollars in taxes last year -- more than the botton 65 million US tax-payers --> combined. That is only corporate taxes, and does not include local property taxes and state taxes. Nor does it include taxes paid by employees or share-holders. |
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Jun 11, 2008 14:43:41 GMT -5
I hope I am not supposed to get all choked up with corporate generosity. Below is an excerpt of a NY Times article on their corporate profits.
By the way, those who can pay more should pay more. I realize that may be a point of dispute -- but what I really don't like is when people attack workers who organize so they can earn a living wage.
I am much more sympathetic to the workers than I am to corporate CEOs and the fatcat lawyers that defend them. They are trying to squeeze every bit of productivity they can out of the worker.
They don't give a d**n about the working man.
NY Times excerpt on Exxon Mobil profits last year --
Casually for the working stiff
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 11, 2008 15:07:33 GMT -5
I hope I am not supposed to get all choked up with corporate generosity. Below is an excerpt of a NY Times article on their corporate profits. By the way, those who can pay more should pay more. I realize that may be a point of dispute -- but what I really don't like is when people attack workers who organize so they can earn a living wage. I am much more sympathetic to the workers than I am to corporate CEOs and the fatcat lawyers that defend them. They are trying to squeeze every bit of productivity they can out of the worker. They don't give a d**n about the working man. NY Times excerpt on Exxon Mobil profits last year -- Casually for the working stiff Respectfully, this has nothing to do with Exxon/Mobil, and is a separate topic altogether. This is about unions and pensions of public employees. I am particularly interested in how we went from 73 employees to 95. I think that is a good place to start. That 30% increase in government includes not only salaries, but benefits and pensions to these employees. That is easily a one million dollar increase in our budget. The taxpayer foots the bill through higher taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by casualreader on Jun 11, 2008 15:37:25 GMT -5
Well now that is a separate issue Novillero.
Do we need the number of workers we have?
But, however many workers we have they should be paid fairly and be able to support themselves now and when they are old and feeble.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 11, 2008 15:39:54 GMT -5
Brian dude: Sure blame the unions for advocating for fair wages and decent working conditions. You know who deserves more money -- the administrators and management!! You know who deserves more money the filthy rich CEOS!! You know who deserves more money the filthy rich corporations like Exxon/Mobil!! Those d**n unions sucking everybody dry -- if only they would let the benevolent corporations decide everything would be just lovely!! The unions are the least of our problems. Casually for Worker Rights Being as union member who has been very involved and active in the past, I can tell you from experience that the unions are a big part of the problem. Be careful on the one, CR, what you mentioned was about private sector, we are talking government unions in this thread. Different ball game. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 2, 2008 23:08:06 GMT -5
Does anyone know why we went from 73 employees in 2001 to 95 employees in 2003? Freehold to hold budget hearing today By Kim Predham • FREEHOLD BUREAU • July 2, 2008 FREEHOLD — A public hearing on the borough's proposed 2008 budget will be held at 5:30 p.m. today. The nearly $14 million budget calls for a tax increase of roughly six cents per $100 of assessed property value. That increase can primarily be attributed to three sources, Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina has said: employee pensions, employee health insurance costs and police salaries and wages. The meeting will be held at borough hall, 51 West Main St. www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080702/NEWS/80702040/-1/&source=nletter-breakingnews |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 3, 2008 14:28:51 GMT -5
Does anyone know why we went from 73 employees in 2001 to 95 employees in 2003? Freehold to hold budget hearing today By Kim Predham • FREEHOLD BUREAU • July 2, 2008 FREEHOLD — A public hearing on the borough's proposed 2008 budget will be held at 5:30 p.m. today. The nearly $14 million budget calls for a tax increase of roughly six cents per $100 of assessed property value. That increase can primarily be attributed to three sources, Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina has said: employee pensions, employee health insurance costs and police salaries and wages. The meeting will be held at borough hall, 51 West Main St. www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080702/NEWS/80702040/-1/&source=nletter-breakingnewsI see what is highlighted in red. Can we start blaming the unions yet? |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 3, 2008 14:44:01 GMT -5
www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807030542Freehold mayor, council to get 3% salary raisesBy Kim Predham • FREEHOLD BUREAU • July 3, 2008 FREEHOLD — The Borough Council has provided a nearly 3 percent salary increase for itself in the 2008 municipal budget, a point criticized during the public hearing on the spending plan Wednesday night. "I'm not apologetic about that. I earned that," Councilwoman Sharon Shutzer said after two residents, Robert Taylor of Kiawah Avenue and Ted Miller of Henry Street, raised the issue. The budget adopted by the council Wednesday totals nearly $14 million, up about $800,000. The measure allows for a $1,452 increase in the allocation for the mayor and council's salaries. The appropriation for the mayor and council's salaries totaled $50,048 in 2007; for 2008, that number is $51,500, according to budget documents."I question the need (for an increase) this year," Miller, a council candidate, said after the meeting. "You're not doing this (serving on the council) because you want to get paid. You're doing this for civic pride, civic duty." Shutzer also spoke after the meeting: "I personally feel that this is a job. And I work hard at this job." Shutzer receives about $7,000 annually as a council member, she said. The mayor and council members will receive the same raise that other borough workers will receive, she said. "I don't think that it (the raise) is too much," Shutzer said. Taylor and Miller were the only two members of the public who spoke on the budget. When they finished, the council voted 5-0 to adopt the budget. Councilman Michael DiBenedetto was absent. The budget will be supported by a tax levy of $7.75 million, up about $600,000. The municipal purposes tax rate will increase by 5.9 cents per $100 of assessed property value. That means the owner of a home assessed at the town average, $259,000, will pay about $153 more in municipal taxes annually. Increases in the budget can be blamed on several factors, Borough Administrator Joseph B. Bellina has said, including increases in employee pension contributions, employee health insurance costs and police salaries. The appropriation for police pensions is up approximately $243,000, and gasoline expenses have also risen, according to budget documents. Also, borough officials anticipate about $181,000 less in state aid, Bellina has said. To reduce expenses, two vacant positions in the Streets and Roads Department will not be filled, Bellina said in June. Engineering costs were also reduced, and the zoning and planning boards were merged to save money, according to budget documents. Kim Predham: (732) 308-7752 or kpredham@app.com
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 3, 2008 14:44:57 GMT -5
p.s. $7,000 time 3% = $210... enough to cover the increase in their property taxes.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 3, 2008 14:57:41 GMT -5
p.s. $7,000 time 3% = $210... enough to cover the increase in their property taxes. I would hope the local GOP has more to say than beating on a small pay wage. This is a cheap shot and there are bigger fish to fry in this town. If the small amount of money is the best anyone can question, than it is safe to assume the budget is at its best. All of the governing body salaries combined equal what one worker may cost. Does the combined council put in any more or less than forty hours per week? According to Shutzer on the night of the meeting, it has been figured out that council members make about eighteen cents an hour. I don't know if that is accurate, but it is interesting. Some questions I have and maybe some site participants can answer. When was the last time the council got a raise? How much do other governing bodies make? |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 3, 2008 16:26:25 GMT -5
Colts Neck, the entire governing body does not make as much as Mayor Wilson does. Check out the 2008 budget, page 20 - $8,400. www.colts-neck.nj.us/ |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 3, 2008 16:35:27 GMT -5
Colts Neck, the entire governing body does not make as much as Mayor Wilson does. Check out the 2008 budget, page 20 - $8,400. www.colts-neck.nj.us/Aaahh! Now that is a good step. What about other towns? It is good to look for these answers because last night when Miller brought this up, one of the governing body told him he was wrong. It might have been the Mayor. I think it will be interesting to compare the towns through out our county. Although not municipal, I know that Freeholders make about 35,000 a year. Novillero, do you think this is an issue for a candidate to make noise over? |
|
|
|
Post by concernedperson on Jul 3, 2008 20:15:36 GMT -5
Brian, there is some real value in the medical benefits they receive. Last I knew, they were full benefits for a part-time position, with no co-pay our outlay of money. One Councilman years ago, upon getting elected to the position paying $3g per year, actually dropped his family coverage for which he was paying at his employer, and opted to take the totally free ride as Councilman.
This would be worth looking into.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 3, 2008 21:02:51 GMT -5
Brian, there is some real value in the medical benefits they receive. Last I knew, they were full benefits for a part-time position, with no co-pay our outlay of money. One Councilman years ago, upon getting elected to the position paying $3g per year, actually dropped his family coverage for which he was paying at his employer, and opted to take the totally free ride as Councilman. This would be worth looking into. Benefits! Now your reading my mind. That is an issue, not the little bit of cash they get. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 4, 2008 10:01:59 GMT -5
yes, salary and benefits are worth looking into. Regardless of the amounts. The town council has a fiscal duty to the townspeople. The tax revenue they spend is not their money!
Taxes have progressively gone up. Go back and look at how much the town budget has gone up since the year 2000! At this rate, no one will be able to live here for too long.
Council has pointed the finger everywhere, but here was the chance to at least give an appearance of being fiscally responsible. (What a smart political move that would have been.) If their pay increase is so small, then why bother to give it to themselves? Does Sharon Shootsherself-in-the-foot care if her pay has risen from 18 cents an hour to 18.25 cents an hour? If she did not get this pay raise (and public employee pension raise), would she have resigned or not run for re-election? No. I imagine that she will argue that it is not about the money, right?
Most people in this town live paycheck to paycheck. Many have not seen pay increases in the past few years. Many other people are getting laid of from work, or worry about job stabilitiy. They have seen their home values fall; some are trying to sell their homes as they cannot afford them any longer, many cannot even sell their homes - and if they do, they are selling short. Their food, gas, and every other expense in their life has gone up drastically. They do not save money, because they cannot possibly save. Council said that they could not cut any other expense, yet gave themselves a pay raise. In these financially hard times, this is a smack in the face to the average resident of the borough. That is my personal feeling.
Brian, while I don't go to council meetings, I do volunteer my time elsewhere. Many other people are activated by civic, religious, humanitarian, etc. feelings. If you don't want the job at the poor pay rate, then don't complain. There are many people who volunteer and don't complain. Brian, I know that you volunteer with the town. You have volunteered this website too - this is an important tool for people within the community.
Lastly, Brian, I have seen you personally do a few things in town to benefit the town that no one knows or noticed. Your time and the money you expended are known only to you. Your pay is a sense of self-satisfaction that you have done something for the betterment of others, the town, or something else. Where is your pay? You don't ask for it, do you?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 6, 2008 15:41:24 GMT -5
yes, salary and benefits are worth looking into. Regardless of the amounts. The town council has a fiscal duty to the townspeople. The tax revenue they spend is not their money! Taxes have progressively gone up. Go back and look at how much the town budget has gone up since the year 2000! At this rate, no one will be able to live here for too long. Council has pointed the finger everywhere, but here was the chance to at least give an appearance of being fiscally responsible. (What a smart political move that would have been.) If their pay increase is so small, then why bother to give it to themselves? Does Sharon Shootsherself-in-the-foot care if her pay has risen from 18 cents an hour to 18.25 cents an hour? If she did not get this pay raise (and public employee pension raise), would she have resigned or not run for re-election? No. I imagine that she will argue that it is not about the money, right? Most people in this town live paycheck to paycheck. Many have not seen pay increases in the past few years. Many other people are getting laid of from work, or worry about job stabilitiy. They have seen their home values fall; some are trying to sell their homes as they cannot afford them any longer, many cannot even sell their homes - and if they do, they are selling short. Their food, gas, and every other expense in their life has gone up drastically. They do not save money, because they cannot possibly save. Council said that they could not cut any other expense, yet gave themselves a pay raise. In these financially hard times, this is a smack in the face to the average resident of the borough. That is my personal feeling. Brian, while I don't go to council meetings, I do volunteer my time elsewhere. Many other people are activated by civic, religious, humanitarian, etc. feelings. If you don't want the job at the poor pay rate, then don't complain. There are many people who volunteer and don't complain. Brian, I know that you volunteer with the town. You have volunteered this website too - this is an important tool for people within the community. Lastly, Brian, I have seen you personally do a few things in town to benefit the town that no one knows or noticed. Your time and the money you expended are known only to you. Your pay is a sense of self-satisfaction that you have done something for the betterment of others, the town, or something else. Where is your pay? You don't ask for it, do you? Novillero, You make a lot of good points and I agree with a great deal of what you wrote. You make a good case as to why the council pay raises can be an issue. I think we will both agree that it is the right thing to do to hold public servants accountable. On that same note, I apply that to those who wish to be our elected leaders. Here is why I am not satisfied with the issue and especially the article. I was sitting right next to Miller when he brought the comments up. ( You should have seen the looks on the faces of the governing body when he did speak). I had no prior knowledge that Ted was going to bring this up. I was a bit surprised. I am not impressed with the issue for a couple of reasons. First, I am dissatisfied with what I see coming from the local GOP. They have been too quiet. For this to be the first campaign blurb in the paper in quiet a while, I think it is a dud. As mentioned in a prior post, there are plenty of other really good issues to hammer away with. Yes, this meeting was a budget one. With a fourteen million dollar budget, worrying about fifty thousand dollars, not including the benefits, is peanuts. The issue of salaries would have meant more if Miller was quoted in the paper as saying that he intended on not collecting any compensation if elected. Then there would have been more meaning. That could have been an issue. Instead, he came across in attack mode without offering any solutions related to council salaries. It came across more as an attack without solutions. I hope that is not an indication of future issues the GOP brings up. If the public see a poison pill approach, the GOP will get clobbered. I believe the public in our town deserves to hear solutions, not accusations and attacks. The public deserves to hear what the GOP will do different and better on any given issue. If the GOP fails to get the latter message across, then they are ripping off the voters. We will not get a race worth paying attention to. Allow me to put the pay issues in another perspective. At the county level we watched for years as the Dems tried to break the all GOP hold. Every year it was expected that the attacks would come, and the county would be put under a microscope. The issue of Freehold salaries did come up. As mentioned in another post, they make about thirty five thousand a year. That issue did nothing for the Dems. As far as getting votes were concerned, it fell on deaf ears. We watched as the Dems attacked for many things, but rarely put out good solutions or anything that would make them better. It took other issues to break the GOP hold on Freehold- and just barely. The three issues why Dems finally got elected were 1. The old guard GOP retired ( Larrison, Powers, and Narozanic) which led the GOP to drop the ball. 2. Operation "Big Rig" really did damage as it was many GOP who were involved, including at least one Freeholder. 3. There is a massive backlash against the GOP in this country and the local Dems benefited. Now, why was I disappointed with the article? There was something meaty and good that Miller mentioned. He said he would like to strive for a flat budget next year. That did not make its way to the paper. It should have and it is a good issue because that translates to no tax increase next year. I bet voters would like to hear that! I also bet they would like to hear how that will be done. It can be done, but not as easy as people may think. I am disappointed because I know Miller. After many extensive and long winded conversations with him, I am well aware that he does have many very good ideas. And one or two I am not keen on. My concern is that he needs to get his ideas and solutions out there. His running mate also needs to make a name for himself now, not three weeks before election day. If the above article is what we get to look forward to, then Miller will only lose the election with burned bridges behind him. Good ideas will never cross a burned bridge. Good ideas will then be discarded and forgotten. That would be the biggest sin. If things are to get nasty, then I am well reminded of the old saying of picking battles wisely. The issue of peanut pay raises is not one I would have wasted time on. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jul 7, 2008 9:15:28 GMT -5
www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807030542Freehold mayor, council to get 3% salary raisesBy Kim Predham • FREEHOLD BUREAU • July 3, 2008 FREEHOLD — The Borough Council has provided a nearly 3 percent salary increase for itself in the 2008 municipal budget, a point criticized during the public hearing on the spending plan Wednesday night. "I'm not apologetic about that. I earned that," Councilwoman Sharon Shutzer said after two residents, Robert Taylor of Kiawah Avenue and Ted Miller of Henry Street, raised the issue. The budget adopted by the council Wednesday totals nearly $14 million, up about $800,000. The measure allows for a $1,452 increase in the allocation for the mayor and council's salaries. The appropriation for the mayor and council's salaries totaled $50,048 in 2007; for 2008, that number is $51,500, according to budget documents."I question the need (for an increase) this year," Miller, a council candidate, said after the meeting. "You're not doing this (serving on the council) because you want to get paid. You're doing this for civic pride, civic duty." Shutzer also spoke after the meeting: "I personally feel that this is a job. And I work hard at this job." Shutzer receives about $7,000 annually as a council member, she said. The mayor and council members will receive the same raise that other borough workers will receive, she said. "I don't think that it (the raise) is too much," Shutzer said. Taylor and Miller were the only two members of the public who spoke on the budget. When they finished, the council voted 5-0 to adopt the budget. Councilman Michael DiBenedetto was absent. The budget will be supported by a tax levy of $7.75 million, up about $600,000. The municipal purposes tax rate will increase by 5.9 cents per $100 of assessed property value. That means the owner of a home assessed at the town average, $259,000, will pay about $153 more in municipal taxes annually. Increases in the budget can be blamed on several factors, Borough Administrator Joseph B. Bellina has said, including increases in employee pension contributions, employee health insurance costs and police salaries. The appropriation for police pensions is up approximately $243,000, and gasoline expenses have also risen, according to budget documents. Also, borough officials anticipate about $181,000 less in state aid, Bellina has said. To reduce expenses, two vacant positions in the Streets and Roads Department will not be filled, Bellina said in June. Engineering costs were also reduced, and the zoning and planning boards were merged to save money, according to budget documents. Kim Predham: (732) 308-7752 or kpredham@app.com I guess I will play a bit of the contrarian here. A Council person making 7K a year, with benefits and getting a 3% raise probably would not make me light the torch and grab the pitch-fork. If the person is doing his or her job, finding solutions, being innovative, and showing strong leadership to help the Borough through tough times -- then that rate is a bargain by any calculation. If, on the other hand, a person is contributing little -- then the Borough residents are not getting the value of the bargain. The value of the bargain is determined by the election process. In reality, elected officials in towns like this ought to get paid a real wage -- such that they can focus their full time on town affairs. In addition, a real wage might attract stronger candidates to the position. (Put an add in the paper for an executive and offer him or her 7K. See what you get. Put the same add in the paper and offer 70 or 80k. Your resumes should improve.) In addition, people would be fighting harder and smarter for the positions. Am I advocating that the Borough pay its elected officials a fortune -- no. I am merely making a point. One gets what one pays for. Worse than that, these small paying jobs lead to people holding multiple paid government positions, each paying a little, but each causing a diversion from the task -- and sometimes divided loyalty. If Government service were limited to one paid position, without being able to double or triple dip -- that synergy alone might allow for better payment, better candidates, and a better system. In the end, the real issue is not what people like Council Woman Shutzer gets paid. The issue is, what is her performance value? Are the citizens getting the benefit of the bargain? They keep electing her and others -- so one could conclude yes. Of course, I have no way to judge her service to the Borough except by asking what she has done, and trying to observe whether the Borough has improved under her service. I have my opinions on that -- but those and 5 bucks will get you coffee at Starbucks. My guess is, the people of Freehold are not going to throw anyone out of office for getting a $210 raise. The best way to change leadership -- or elect leaders period -- is to demonstrate that the entire $7,210 + benefits is a bad value for voters -- relative to what they receive in return. The words of Reagan seem to echo here. "Are you better off ...." BTW -- Thank God for people like the Bob Taylor who, since I was knee high to a grass-hopper, made it his business to be at Council meetings to see how the people's business is conducted, and to ask questions. The town would be a lot stronger if those council meetings were packed with people just as dedicated and concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 15, 2008 20:53:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jul 16, 2008 10:27:25 GMT -5
According to Shutzer on the night of the meeting, it has been figured out that council members make about eighteen cents an hour. I don't know if that is accurate, but it is interesting. I find this quote interesting - Ms. Schutzer says she makes eighteen cents an hour as a council person. I don't know if Ms. Schutzer said this in the meeting. I didn't see it in the papers. Let's see what $.18 an hour really means: well, first let's correct her salary. Ms. Shutzer is quoted in the paper as saying she makes about "$7,000" - she is wrong: "Salaries for the five council members will go from $8,063 in 2007 to $8,347 in 2008, the administrator said." newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2008/0709/front_page/003.html(1) Let's first assume that Brian's quote of .18 an hour is a true and accurate quote. (2) Ms. Shutzer made $8,063 as a council person in 2007. (3) $.18/hour. So she must work the following amount of hours (salary divided by hourly rate equals the number of hours worked): $8,063 divided by $.18/hour = 44,794.44 hours a year!!! (4) There are 24 hours in a day for 365.26 days (giving her the benefit of the real amount of time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun), which equals 8,766.24 hours. (5) So Ms. Shutzer works more hours as a council person than there are hours in a year. In fact, not only doesn't she go to her regular job or sleep, but her work year is equal to 5.1 earth years. She either does this work in an alternate universe, on a different planet, or she has a time machine. (6) How much does Ms. Schutzer really earn? Let's assume that she spends a full 20 hours a week completely and totally devoted to being a council member. 20 hours per week times 50 weeks (we'll assume that she vacations for two weeks every year and she is away for that vacation - and we will assume that on weeks with holidays, she makes up that time at some other point in the week) ---- let's go back 20 hours per week times 50 weeks = 1000 hours a year she spends as a council member. Assuming those facts as true, in 2007, she made 8.06 per hour (not including benefits, if any). It is not a great pay rate, but it is more than minimum wage. (7) Assuming Ms. Schutzer said she makes 18 cents per hour, she is clearly exaggerating her hourly pay. She really makes almost 45 times more than what she says she makes. Or in the alternative, she works .02% of the time which she says she really works. CONCLUSION: Brian's must've misheard Ms. Schutzer. She - a school teacher - cannot possibly go around telling people she makes 18 cents an hour. |
|
