Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
â–ª
Cranbury School
â–ª
Cranbury Township
â–ª
Cranbury Library
â–ª
Cranbury.org
â–ª
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="jay t."]win, Do you know if the pension is career average or final salary? That may be the first change to consider prior to the full switch. Then close the plan. Though, I do believe a change to a full DC like most companies is the appropriate long term startegy to employ.[/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
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%" class="forumline"> <tr> <th class="thCornerL" width="22%" height="26">Author</th> <th class="thCornerR">Message</th> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Cranbury Conservative</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Mon, Dec 15 2008, 7:21 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">It appears that some in Trenton are against this as well... <br /> <br />Bipartisan Effort Blocks Governor Corzine’s Plan to Underfund Pensions <br /> <br />“It’s a responsibility that we have turned our back on, and the way we have turned our back is shameful,” <br />Governor Jon Corzine <br />discussing pension <br />underfunding in Dec. 2, 2005 <br /> <br /> Republican Senate Leader Tom Kean said this after Democrats blocked a Senate vote on Governor Corzine’s plan to allow towns to defer pension contributions for the next three years: <br /> <br /> “In the past, Governor Corzine decried the underfunding of state pensions and the use of one-shot measures to paper over fiscal problems. This pension gimmick commits both sins, and it’s a bad deal for both workers and taxpayers. That’s why all 17 Republicans stood firm against it in the Senate today, and will in future legislative sessions. <br /> “This measure would almost certainly force citizens in the future to choose between breaking promises made to public employees or accepting huge taxes and cutbacks in important services. Instead of making Trenton more accountable to today’s taxpayers, it would push the expense of pensions off on future generations who had no say in the ill-advised policies our governor is advancing today. It would have made New Jersey less affordable for everyone. “The governor has left no doubt that this pension deferment would be a temporary loan to towns from the pension funds that will have to be paid back in full. The estimated interest rate on the borrowing is 8.25 percent. That’s a far higher rate than what Wall Street would charge on $1.3 billion borrowing. That’s a costly fix for a problem that cries out for a responsible, long-term solution. <br /> “The governor should abandon forever this poll-driven attempt to provide illusory property tax relief. The governor should instead champion true pension reform that will really save money and secure worker retirements. As always, Republicans stand ready to work with him on affordable, common-sense solutions to our state’s economic problems.”</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Mon, Dec 15 2008, 6:38 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">The problem with that is that the employees' won't be able to make payments above their normal contributions, so if a holiday is granted the ee contributions are lost forever. Without that contribution the funds are less and in return the retirement plan is less than is required and what is guaranteed to the employees. There is the assumption that the state and towns can always raise taxes to obtain the funds, employees have no means to raising additional funds to make their contributions.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>nobody</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Mon, Dec 15 2008, 5:56 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">The employess will still have to contribute their portion to the pension. In PERS and PFRS the contributions are 4% for PERS and 8.5% for PFRS of their base salary. The township takes part in a 457 plan as well to allow empoyees the option to contribute any additional savings for the future. <br /> <br />The problem with a "holiday" for the towns is that after it ceases then the town must repay the balance on top of the regular yearly amount. But who knows if that will ever be enforced? <br /> <br />If the Governor is concerned about rebounding the economy why isn't he allowing a "Holiday" for the employees. They still have to pay their full share every two weeks in their deductions from their pay. He also wants to increase the emloyees rate of contribution during this time. If the empoyees have to pay more is it fair that the goverment can skip out fo while? The goverment has no problem from borrowing from the pension fund in a " rob Peter to pay Paul" manner. <br /> <br />The state did this years back to the pension system by giving a complete holiday for the towns. The towns did not pay a dime for years while the employees were mandated to continue their contributions. I dont think the state has repaid the amount owed from that time.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>wcody</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sun, Dec 14 2008, 3:52 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">I don't know the specifics of the pension plan payments. The plan is something that needs to be investigated. I feel that, along with COAH, pensions/benfeits are a critical long term issues that need reform. <br /> <br />Win</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>jay t.</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sun, Dec 14 2008, 3:02 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">win, <br /> <br />Do you know if the pension is career average or final salary? That may be the first change to consider prior to the full switch. Then close the plan. Though, I do believe a change to a full DC like most companies is the appropriate long term startegy to employ.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>wcody</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sun, Dec 14 2008, 2:54 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">The pension deferral proposal is concerning. It seems more like a gimmick rather than sound fiscal responsibility. It is not truly saving money, it is only deferring payment into the pension system. The responsibility for fully funding the pension still exists. Corzine’s argument is that this will save taxpayers money in the short term. This is true, but it put an even bigger burden on future years. <br /> <br />I have been in the retirement and pension industry for over 20 years and from what I can tell, this proposal violates one of the sound financial principles, dollar cost averaging. Employees in 401(k) and similar plans will put in the deposits to their plans every pay period buying what securities / funds they have selected. Rather than trying to “time” the market, these periodic payments will buy more shares when the market is low and less shares when the market is high. I am not sure of the investment mix of the pension funds, but I am assuming there is a good percentage of an equity investment. While no one knows if we are at the bottom of market now, by not making contributions, we miss an opportunity to get in at a lower cost which would generate more appreciation when the market comes back. Also at this time, funds are being depleted to pay out pensions and a larger percentage of the balance is necessary since the fund value has decreased. So by not buying at a possible low, and losing a larger percentage of assets in withdrawals, we may not get the appreciation in a normal market cycle. This may mean we may need to pay even more than currently anticipated to make up for the deferred payments. This is potentially extremely dangerous. One of the major issues with the US auto industry, now looking for a bailout, is their pension obligations. If New Jersey runs into trouble with pension obligations, who will bail us out? Of course, if the market continues to go down over the next few years, Corzine could be deemed a financial genius. But, I do not think it is the government’s responsibility to time the market. <br /> <br />What is really needed at this time is pension reform to make the system more fundamentally sound to protect the retirement of employees while not costing too much in taxes for the residents. A potential option that should be investigated is converted to some sort of defined contribution plan, similar to a 401(k) (they are called 457’s in governments). Many corporations converted to these types of plans. Rather than guaranteeing a payout and the state managing a pension fund, some type of employee investment program could be set up which would include government contributions, employee contributions with a match. The money would then belong to the employee and they could take it out at retirement. The state would not need to worry about the market uncertainty of managing a pension fund. While it would not be good to take anything away from current employees pension promises, they could be given the option to the new program. There is a lot of work to do to see if this type of program would work including ensuring does provide an adequate retirement for employees but it is an option that could be beneficial to New Jersey’s employees and taxpayers. <br /> <br />Win Cody</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sun, Dec 14 2008, 2:10 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Guest: Did anyone say the employees are not doing it because they don't want to. Instead of defending the employees regulalrly look at the posts. The issue is the TA saying they don't need to respond. The management should be telling the employees to respond. The ee's are paid money. So if they are not showing up because a boss says no, then the boss should be made to make them respond. Regardless they are being paid a lot of money for no work at the present time. The TC has no daily management of the ee's so they are not discouraging them from responding. <br /> <br />JD: The holiday issue is that the contributions are made as a % of salary and then calcs are made. It's not dependent on investment performance. If that were the case, we'd see a major hold being argued. The other issue is that a lotof the money is in fact invested in guaranteed income funds ala money markets or CDs. Usually the bank will issue a set number of funds to the pension trustee that provide guaranteed income. Then there are investments in bonds as well as investments in stock.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sat, Dec 13 2008, 5:35 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Its not the employees. They are not refusing to answer calls. They are not being allowed to go. It is the choice of the TA and the township commitee to not allow them to respond.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Jersey Dad</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sat, Dec 13 2008, 3:51 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">I don't know what the pension funds are invested in, but given the market conditions, aren't we missing an opportunity by taking a "holiday" instead of investing when market prices are low?</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Jersey Dad</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sat, Dec 13 2008, 3:05 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">I don't know what the pension funds are invested in, but given the market conditions, aren't we missing an opportunity by taking a "holiday" instead of investing when market prices are low?</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Guest</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sat, Dec 13 2008, 10:03 am EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Our Town Administrator fails to see the negatives here, only the positive tax implications for today. Yet the CFO's in the article who are finance people clearly see it. It should not be the TA decision or input making the decision, but the finance people on staff. We have a CFO, they should be offering comment. Our Town Administrator apparently sees no issue with the paid employees not showing up on fire calls. <span style="font-weight: bold">IF</span> they are paid $20/hr (just over 40K annually) then 5% of their pay is for doing nothing. Which our TA seems to think is fine. I am becoming concerned now not just about the TC, but our staff as well.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Jay T.</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Dec 12 2008, 4:56 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">While I agree in exploring all avenues, this is one area that is bad business. A large part of my work involves pension consulting on a non-U.S. basis and working with companies during the M&A process. There are many companies and countries with under funded pension plans and this represents a signifigant liability. I would find it financially irresponsible if we took the pension dollars today and spent them elsewhere in order to say our taxes did not increase. <br /> <br />It is much more prudent to review the professional services contracts, supplier contracts, over time, and other expenses before we resort to reducing pension contributions.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Cranbury Conservative</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Fri, Dec 12 2008, 3:56 pm EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: Re: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">This one just kind of slipped by without any comments. <br /> <br />I found Ms. Smeltzer's comments concering for taxpayers here in Cranbury.... <br /> <br /><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">"Ms. Smeltzer said she thinks that the move could be positive if the economy recovers and the fund’s investments rebound, mitigating the shortfall created by reducing payments. <br /> <br />”I assume the governor expects the economy to recover by then,” she said. “I think local people would be happy to have a little bit less of an impact on their tax bill. It may make a difference, or it may not.”</span></span> <br /> <br />This seems like a really bad idea since we would only be putting off paying today with the hope of paying less in the future. <br /> <br />To me that is bad fiscal policy. Instead we should be looking to make other cuts in the Townships budget which will not cause us to potentially pay more down the road much like putting pension plan payments off will potentially cost the taxpayers of Cranbury dearly in the future. <br /> <br />I am all for lower taxes however I do not think this is the way to go about it. <br /> <br />I wonder what the TC thinks about the issue?</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row2"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>Cranbury Press</b></span></td> <td class="row2" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Sat, Dec 6 2008, 9:43 am EST<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'`</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">CRANBURY: Mixed reviews on pension plan 'holiday'` <br />Friday, December 5, 2008 9:25 AM EST <br />By Sean Ruppert, Staff Writer <br /> <br /> Local officials in area towns have differing opinions on Gov. Jon Corzine’s proposed plan to temporarily reduce the amount of money that municipalities are required to contribute to the state’s pension funds for the next three years. <br /> <br /> South Brunswick Chief Financial Officer Joe Monzo and Jamesburg CFO Denise Jawidzik said they would not recommend that their townships take part in the program because it could result in larger payments in the long run. Monroe Mayor Richard Pucci said it is a good idea and would help local governments keep budgets under control in the down economy, and Cranbury Township Administrator Christine Smeltzer said that it could provide some relief. <br /> <br /> The pension fund is currently worth about $57.8 billion, or less than half the $118 billion in benefits it is due to pay out over time, according to a report in the Star-Ledger. <br /> <br /> The plan to defer payments was first proposed by the governor at the state League of Municipalities convention in Atlantic City on Nov. 20 as a means of providing some budgetary relief to local governments as the economy struggles through recession. <br /> <br /> It calls for local governments to only pay 50 percent of their required contributions to the Public Employee Retirement System and Police and Fire Retirement System on the next scheduled payment date in April 2009. Local governments would be required to pay 60 percent of their obligation in 2010, 80 percent of their obligation in 2011 and 100 percent of their obligation in 2012. The payments in 2012 and thereafter would then be larger than the original amounts to compensate for the previously lowered level of deposits into the fund, according to a release from Gov. Corzine’s office. <br /> The move would save property taxpayers $540 million in 2009, according to the release. <br /> <br /> South Brunswick is set to contribute about $2.6 million to the PERS and PFRS combined in 2009. It would contribute about $1.3 million under the governor’s plan. Cranbury is set to contribute $330,151 to the two funds, and would contribute $165,076 under the governor’s plan. Jamesburg is set to contribute $329,528, and would contribute $164,764 under the governor’s plan. Monroe is set to contribute $1.96 million to the two funds, and $980,382 under the governor’s plan. <br /> <br /> Treasury Department spokesman Tom Vincz said the administration and Legislature are forming the specifics of the plan, and that it could include a provision allowing towns that did not want to participate in the deferral to make full payments during the period. Half of the payment would be applied to the fund, while the other half of the payment would be placed in a separate investment account. The money would be moved from the separate account into the pension fund when the deferral period ends in 2012. <br /> <br /> Mr. Monzo said he did not believe that the governor’s plan would be good for South Brunswick, or the state, in the long run. <br /> <br /> ”Fiscally, I don’t think it is a good idea,” he said. “I understand why he is doing it, because it is one of the few things he can do to alleviate property tax burdens in these conditions. It comes with a price tag though, and we’ll be paying more come 2012. Basically it is just differing costs with an interest rate tacked on.” <br /> <br /> Mr. Monzo compared the idea to a plan put in place during former Gov. Christine Whitman’s administration when a township’s required contributions to the funds were reduced under the assumption that the funds were being undervalued as the stock market was rising. The state pension funds have since experienced a shortfall and over the last four years former Gov. Richard Codey and Gov. Corzine have increased the contributions of municipalities to make up the difference. <br /> <br /> Ms. Jawidzik was even more critical of the idea. <br /> <br /> ”It’s laughable,” she said. “We are still paying for the last ‘holiday’ on our pension bills. To do it again will hurt us again. We will end up paying more in the long run.” <br /> <br /> Mayor Pucci did not share the same assessment. He said the measure was necessary for aiding municipalities in the short term. <br /> <br /> ”Given the economy, and the fact that we have been in a recession for the past year, any help in the form of reductions or aid is a positive move,” he said. “In the end, what (Gov. Corzine) is doing is spreading out the payments. This is the most difficult time I have seen in my over 20 years as mayor. Any little bit helps.” <br /> <br /> Ms. Smeltzer said she thinks that the move could be positive if the economy recovers and the fund’s investments rebound, mitigating the shortfall created by reducing payments. <br /> <br /> ”I assume the governor expects the economy to recover by then,” she said. “I think local people would be happy to have a little bit less of an impact on their tax bill. It may make a difference, or it may not.” <br /> <br /><a href="http://www.packetonline.com/articles/2008/12/06/cranbury_press/news/doc4937f29e97e91016499513.txt" target="_blank">http://www.packetonline.com/articles/2008/12/06/cranbury_press/news/doc4937f29e97e91016499513.txt</a></span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> </table>
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in