Letter: Holmdel Mayor’s Bridge to Nowhere
...An Open Letter to Our Neighbors. Written by William and Elissa Cahill, residents of Holmdel Township for more than 45 years. Bill Cahill is also the president of Friends of Holmdel Open Space.
Holmdel Mayor Patrick Impreveduto recently announced that the Township faced a budget crisis – a $2.5 million deficit. Assuring us that the municipal budget has already been “cut-to-the-bone,” Mr. Impreveduto suggested that the Township needed to find new temporary sources of revenue that would “bridge” the budget shortfall for four years until new ratable revenues could begin to be realized. The “bridge” he proposed is to sell off parcel-by-parcel, year-after-year, Township owned historic pastoral farmland and other precious open space in already densely populated Northern Holmdel.
Unfortunately, Mr. Impreveduto’s bridge leads us nowhere. Mr. Impreveduto does not have a plan that will in four years generate even a fraction of the $2.5 million dollars in additional annual revenue required to end the land sales or avoid inevitable tax increases. We should expect that he will continue to sell off Holmdel’s last remaining large contiguous farms and other open space well into the future. Once the land is gone, huge tax increases will follow anyway. That is, unless we are prepared to say no. Unless we believe that we are better than this – that we are smarter than this.
The so called budget “crisis” is not a crisis at all – certainly at least not a new one. Holmdel has had this structural budget deficit for years. But you would not know that by listening to the boasts of our political leaders. Over the last several years, the Township Committee has told us that they delivered a “balanced budget.” Not so. They did not. We were deceived – or at least not told the whole story.
Rather than address it head on. Rather than having an adult conversation with us the people that will pay the bill. The Township Committee hid its deficit through a series of accounting gimmicks. By using the six month float time between when school taxes are first collected and when the Township is required to pay the Board of Education, the Township Committee has quietly borrowed more that $25 million from the School Tax Fund – the maximum permitted by state law. Last year alone they borrowed nearly $3.5 million from the School Tax Fund maxing out the amount that could be taken.
Wisely, Committeemen Hinds and Fink both voted no, arguing that we were leaving no cushion for future emergencies and that we would be facing the same deficit next year (meaning this year). Mr. Hind’s wise counsel was ignored by his three Republican colleagues and the measure was quietly adopted. Mayor Impreveduto and Deputy Mayor DiMaso knew right then and there, 12 months ago, that we were going to face at least a $2.5 million dollar deficit in 2012 with no way to fill it, but they said nothing.
The Township Committee also raided the Swim Club surplus leaving nothing for repair and maintenance. They raided the sewer trust fund leaving no emergency fund. They quietly persuaded our police officers to take comp time rather than be paid for overtime. Chief Mioduszewski reported that his officers have so much comp time accrued that they will never be able to use it all – except that we the taxpayers will pay that out when each officer retires.
They also persuaded our police last year to defer (not forego) their raises until this year. The result, even with fewer officers this year than last, the police budget didn’t go down a dime because thirty-six officers are receiving a doubled raise this year. And, the Department of Public Works budget? Its budget is proposed to be higher for 2012 than it was in 2011. So much for being “cut-to-the-bone.”
The reason for all this; ensuring their re-electability was more important than ensuring a sustainable budget. Personal interest trumped the public interest. Loyalty to party won out over responsibility to the people. Politics clouded rational thought.
Don’t be fooled again. Don’t believe that in three or four years vast tax revenues from a redeveloped Lucent property will suddenly begin to rain down upon us like manna from heaven. That is Mayor Impreveduto’s great hope, but it is an irrational hope because there is no plan to make that a reality. Our political leaders fiddled for nearly a decade while Lucent tax dollars burned. While wild-eyed unrealistic plans came and went. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Lucent site will be generating any additional tax revenue anytime soon. We certainly should not be betting the “farm” on it.
Don’t be fooled when presented with false choices. Don’t allow anyone to drive a wedge between the conservation community and seniors and others on fixed or limited incomes who cannot afford a large property increase. Don’t accept that we have only two choices: A $400 tax increase or sell open space. There is a third sustainable choice: Cut spending.
Whether you appreciate the value of open space, or not. Whether you are personally enriched by a walk through the woods or you are not. Whether you have ever taken your child for a walk on your Cross Farm to the reservoir to see eagles flying over head, or not. Whether you are saying “Hell No” to land sales or not sure you even care. Whether Republican, Democrat or Independent. You should be deeply concerned about how your town’s finances are being managed. You should be very, very concerned about the “creative accounting” and the “deals” that are adversely affecting your quality of life and the future of your town. You should be very tired of being played for the fool.
It's time to storm the Bastille. It’s time to say enough! Demand that our elected officials summon up the political courage to bring spending in line with revenues. There is plenty of money already being sent to the town hall. Tell them that you are willing to share in the sacrifice and accept reduced services if necessary. These are austere times. Let’s stop spending money we don’t have. Let’s stop enabling Mayor Impreveduto’s fantasy that “Bell Labs” is coming back – it is not, let’s get over it.
If you are outraged, and you should be, then express it to our town leaders by email at info@holmdeltownship-nj.com, by mail at P.O. Box 410, Holmdel, NJ 07733, by telephone at (732) 946-2820 or attend the Township Committee meeting on February 23rd. If we remain silent, then we will get what we deserve.
Martin B. Brilliant
8:58 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
"Share the sacrifice" could also mean paying a few hundred dollars more in taxes each year. What would you be unable to afford if your taxes went up by that amount? Would you rather pay to fix your car after it drops into a pothole the township road department didn't get around to fill?
Be outraged. Storm the Bastille. Demand courage. Whatever. The Township Committee has already made it clear that they will not cut enough from the budget to close the gap, because they're convinced it can't be done. You can vote them out of office, but you can't make them take a nonexistent third choice.
Robert Way
10:20 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
This is one of the best articulated "Letters" I have read regarding this current issue. It provides more of a "roadmap to the deficit" than I think any other notice or article that has been written of late and really identifies the issue at hand which is spending. I have no idea what can or cannot be cut but I know there have been suggestions of a 10-12% cut across the board which has been met with notions of "drawing blood from a stone". I would have to agree that there are things in the budget that cannot be cut due to contractual agreements and statutory requirements but there are other things that could probably still be addressed. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to see what impact a10-12% cut would actually have on services. Actually quantify what that would look like to the taxpayer so an informed decision could be made by having a third option on the table. I am sure it is a much easier exercise to be posted about than it is to formulate and present to the public but given our current deficit, one that is worth the effort.
Thank you for the obvious time and effort you put into this.
Jeff Gollin
10:39 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
We should review two parts of our local budget (a) "ongoing" day-to-day necessary expenses that must be funded on a sustainable basis and (b) one time "emergency" expenses (due to events like heavy snowfalls or tax-revenue shortfalls due to unexpected economic turndowns).
Our current budget crisis appears to be "temporary" (driven by the economy) and not ongoing. Accordingly, we should not fix a temporary problem with a "permanent" solution (i.e. once township land is sold, it's gone forever).
Instead, we should address our current temporary revenue-crisis with a one-time solution - specifically an emergency tax assessment which would have to be approved on a year by year basis until the economy (& our flow of federal, state and local tax revenue) once again regained normalcy.
This - coupled with a rigid austerity budget would figure to address the problem head-on and get us over the hump.
Bottom line - Selling public land is a "sideways" solution to the problem. A temporary emergency tax assessment is a straight-forward solution that addresses the problem head-on.
Dale
11:30 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Solving this issue will involve difficult choices. To frame the problem, a $2.5mm shortfall is 12.5% of the total general appropriations and 20.9% of the local tax for municipal purposes. This cannot be resolved by simply cutting spending. I agree we need to cut spending more, and understand that will cause pain. I understand that my taxes will rise as a result of this situation, and that will cause pain. But I wish to minimize the impact of this to the full extent possible. I am saddened to sell land, especially as much of it came at firm market pricing and would be sold into an existing soft market. But if that is what is required to ease into our new reality, then that is what must be done. If not, please put good and specific options in response to mine. Detail how you would make up the full $2.5MM for all to see. We need to work together to identify every penny of savings. There will be people against nearly every suggestion, so we also need the TC to listen to suggestions and implement as many of those measures as possible to reduce the impact of the inevitable tax increases. This means have nerves of steel when selling lands, negotiating with township employees, cutting leaf collection services, or any other "item" that is today seen to be a "sacred cow". Unfortunately, in today's economic environment there are no "sacred cows".
Tony Orsini
9:29 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Cut spending AND costs. Historically, this has been done in the past. It has been done, it can be done. It is not up to the public to come up with solutions, we do not have the information nor the power to affect the changes. TC members campaigned on the promise of fiscal responsibility, now they need to deliver. Up to this point, over the past 7 years, all the easy roads have been taken. Selling land that people have worked hard to preserve IS a sacred cow except for people who worship at the altar of the almighty dollar. It is an absolute disgrace and abrogation of responsibility.
Robert Way
2:30 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Mary, this very question was brought up at the last TC meeting and from my recollection the TC and Administrator explained how the particular parcels "in play" do not fall under the guidelines for Green Acres Regulations. While the majority of the Cross Farms parcels do, there is still a somewhat significant portion that does not. The "Historical" part of your question I have not heard or read anyone else comment on.
Tony Orsini
9:32 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Mr. Cahill's letter is summational. If you read nothing else about opposition to the sale of the lands, you need to read it.
Ken Hayes
11:06 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Thank you Bill for your honesty and straight forward approach in clarifying this mess. Hope we all wake up to some of the realities our town is facing....
tinker16
1:19 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Isn't it funny how Larry Fink wants cuts when he was the one who pursued and approved and spent millions of dollars on open space and now it's coming back to bite him and the residents of Holmdel.
Tony Orsini
8:24 am on Friday, February 24, 2012
Get a clue, Tinker. Your retro thinking is the kind of ignorance that brought down communities folks moved here to get away from. If you've been paying attention (apparently not), Mr. Way and Mr. Wood have pointed out that our problems are due to and imbalance between ratables and residential development, the latter far outpacing the former. And what does open space prevent? Over development. Open space haas SAVED us millions, and the people aprroved a referndum putting monies aside for aquisition and were awarded grants to do so. The town picked up properties that anyone would jump at for that price. Also, we picked up the Bachstadt tract FREE paying only legal costs.
Tinker16
3:26 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
Mr. Orsini, have you forgotten a specific piece of land called the F&F nursery located on Crawfords Corner Road and Roberts Road. Yes that land that was purchased for approximately 8 MILLION DOLLARS. Yes that same land that the nursery is allowed to farm on for TEN years tax free. This same land that most tax payers are not aware of. And yes open space is great, if it can be afforded but in this time and economy it can not. So if your so worried about Plum Lane site being developed then why don't you and all of your cronies who signed the so called petition all chip in and buy it. And if your compassionate about that piece of land, why does it look the way it does. Most of the people in the area use it for their dog to go to the bathroom. So how precious is that land that you talk of? So instead of fighting with the majority, why not get on board and find reasonable solutions.
Mary T. Redfield
1:32 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
I have a general question and wondered (not wandered as in the previous comment - sorry) if one of you (perhaps in the law) knows the answer: Can a town which has Green Acres designated property and I believe has received funding from the state for that property, sell the land off? I thought that this was in violation of the law?? Also, Ms Harding specifically donated the farm land (Bayonet Farms) to Holmdel for the sole purpose of protecting farmland. Is sale of this land be legal? Finally, I heard that Cross Farm has historical significance (not sure). I know that Holmes-Hendrickson Farm about a mile away from Cross Farms was designated Historical , I believe, due to battles which may have been fought during the Revolutionary War. Can historically designated property be sold off? I'm not an expert so I am hoping that one of you could answer. Thank you.
Tony Orsini
11:45 am on Sunday, February 26, 2012
TINKER (or is it STINKER) BTW F&F Nurseries was brought to the table by a Republican minority member of the TC. The price was partially paid for by farmland preservation and Green Acre funding. The cost was further discounted by allowing Flemmer to continue to farm. If you think I have not made constructive suggestions then perhaps you are reading comprehension challenged or simply (and very much so) a rank and file supporter of your arrogant boys on the TC. You also apparently are not a resident of this area of you would feel differently about the properties you mention. If ALL the people of Holmdel purchased open space you are close to, why should my neighbors and I pay for the property (typical R I got mine the heck with you), besides the town just needs to keep it not buy it. Your banal comments are worth about as much as what you claim the property is good for.