Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing

Post a reply

Username

Subject

Message body

Emoticons

Font colour: Font size:

Close Tags

[quote="Guest"][quote="Guest"][quote="Guest"][quote="Guest"]Winn's current actions on this budget seem more politically motivated and personal than what is in the best interest of the township.  If he fights this tax increase, then, yes, he can run in November on the platform that he is a hardcore "no new taxes" guy.  That’s a great soundbite for a campaigning politician, but according to the four other members of the TC and the administrator, a huge financial landmine for the township by 2016.  Will Winn be out of office by then?  Possibly, and it will be a future TC’s problem, and they will have to dramatically raise taxes and cut services to deal with his decision to deplete the surplus.   So government as usual, one person makes a decision based on politics, not facts, and four thousand people have to deal with the consequences in the future.  I applaud everyone else on the committee who are making apolitical decisions for the benefit of the current and future community.  I am disappointed in Winn if he continues on this personal campaign to deplete our surplus instead of making the tough and unpopular decision of a slight tax increase at this time.[/quote]

But all 5 TC members seem to support drawing down the surplus, not just Win.  The Township's proposed budget is spending almost $500K to accelerate pay down of low interest, and drawing $1.8 million from a surplus reserve that could be completely depleted in 3-4 years even before accounting for upcoming projects like the dam and Liberty Way that could instantly use it all up and still require us to seek new debt.  If the principle goal of the TC majority is to lessen the impact of future tax increase shock, they would be using all of the current proposed tax increase and the $500K from the State to cover as much of the expenses as possible and not draw so much from the surplus or needlessly pay down low interest debt only to need to soon get new debt at a likely higher rate.  It seems to me Win is disagreeing with recklessly wasting the State money on accelerated debt payments at the expense of additional surplus draw down.  Debt and surplus reduction make sense when you are having flush years and don’t see major mandatory projects on the immediate horizon, but neither of those things are true now.  The opposite is true.

I don’t completely agree with either TC position, Win’s or the others.  I don’t agree with Win that we should hold against any tax increase now, knowing we’ll just have to take an even larger hit very soon down the road.  Better to do it gradually, especially with the one-year caps in place.  In three years we could face a necessary increase that exceeds the TC’s legal ability to increase it and they will either have to convince the Township voters to override the cap and suck up a world of year-over-year pain or they will have to drastically cut services suddenly.  But I also strongly disagree with the other TC members that we waste so much surplus drawing down debt right now.[/quote]

A few clarifications to the above based on conversations with members of the TC.

Win does not want to raise taxes rather he wants to use the surplus (state aid is not guaranteed yet) thus worry for today and hope for tomorrow.  Win's view is that our rateable value will increase for the first time in years.  The other 4 feel that the experts in town who are doing the revaluation work and budget work are correct and that rateables will not increase.

The other 4-  2 Dems and 2 Reps don't want to draw down the surplus to this extent using the 1.8 million that Win does.  Instead they want to raise the taxes 2 cents so that we're approximately drawing down 320k less surplus.

The surplus is 4.9 million, but 20% has to remain untouched to keep the bond rating.  All 5 agree on this.  So the total is 2.9 million that can be used now and tomorrow for tax help.  The concern as I understand it is that if they have to use 1.8 million that the surplus remaining is 1.1 million in a few years it is exhausted and even next year we could have a major tax increase.

In terms of the debt payment I am told this is a variable rate much like a credit card.  I understand that was a discussion as a means to prepare for the Dam which is 1 million or more and other immediate long term expenses which will add major debt (even if affordable housing does not go through).  The other discussion is if the state aid comes through to set it aside for capital expenses such as paying for the Dam so as not to add debt which would affect our tax rate, bond and cost us more long term.

I can't see the position of raising taxes as political as it is supported evenly by the parties so I don't think you can see a more impartial view.[/quote]

Whatever you may have been told, the draft budget that was shared with the public includes almost $500K in accelerated debt payment.  Even if they say they are using state aid to cover this, that is just semantics when they are drawing $1.8M from the surplus.  The net result is more surplus would be used to accelerate debt payment.  Doing this does not help prepare us for the dam or other expenses.[/quote]

Options
HTML is ON
BBCode is ON
Smilies are ON

	Disable HTML in this post
	Disable BBCode in this post
	Disable Smilies in this post