Council: 6.5 Percent Increase Too High

Amid questions about line items in the budget, particularly with regard to the police budget, the township council opted Monday to wait for additional information from the administration before they take a final vote on the 2012 municipal budget April 19.

For several council members, the biggest concern is the tax rate.

“I think 6.5 percent is just too high of a number for the residents,” said councilman Howard Norgalis.

The , as introduced, is set at $38,451,229.13, a 4.5 percent increase over the 2011 budget, set at about $36.8 million.

The municipal tax for a Bridgewater resident is set at $1,053 for a home assessed at the township average of $411,662. This is an average increase of $65 over the 2011 municipal taxes, or about 6.5 percent.

In terms of tax levy calculations, according to director of finance Natasha Turchan, without certain state-allowed exceptions, the tax levy rises less than the state-mandated 2 percent cap. But, she said, there are exceptions in the budget, totaling almost $1 million, which are allowed to increase the tax levy higher than 2 percent.

Those exceptions, Turchan said, are for capital improvements, debt service and emergencies in 2011 that include payments concerning Hurricane Irene and the October snowstorm.

“It’s a 6.5 percent increase if you add in those exceptions,” she said.

And, Turchan said, for every $200,000 cut from the budget, the tax increase goes down by 1 percent.

Turchan presented a presentation highlighting the accomplishments from 2011 and goals for 2012. Among the accomplishments from the past year, Turchan said, were the construction of a multi-purpose athletic field at Crim; the building of the ; the use of over-the-counter credit card acceptances for taxes, sewer bills and more; a 99 percent tax collection rate; continued recognition as a ; a partnership with ; and energy efficiency moves at the and .

Turchan said that in going through the budget, the administration has found that surplus is decreasing, while miscellaneous revenues are increasing.

“Surplus decreased from 2011 to 2012 by $616,000, while miscellaneous revenues were up 7.2 percent,” she said.

Revenues increasing in the budget, Turchan said, are rent participation from the ; construction permit revenues; engineering professional reviews and more.

“The surplus is fluctuating because we cannot regenerate as much surplus as usual, the interest on the investments is not there,” she said. “But we need to make sure we don’t go into borrowing and make everything more expensive for the municipality.”

But one of the largest increases going into the 2012 budget, Turchan said, is for required after Hurricane Irene and emergency litigation, among a few other issues.

Turchan said there are four goals the administration is focusing on, namely being vigilant in land use matters, delivering essential services, having the lowest quartile taxes in the county and improving infrastructure.

As to the first goal, Turchan said, the township has brought building and electrical inspections in house, while also having a full time zoning officer now.

“We are handling things more efficiently, faster and we are doing it cost effectively,” she said.

As for services, Turchan said, the township’s two biggest focuses are public safety and public works, with 232 total employees throughout the administration in 2009 and 220 in 2012.

And with regard to improving infrastructure, the township budgeted $2 million in 2011 for projects, and has budgeted $3 million for 2012, to include work on road improvements, drainage, sidewalks and more.

In response to a question about increased personnel in the construction office to allow for inspections to be brought in house, Turchan said the administration is expecting to see $670,000 in revenue from that office alone, which far exceeds the increase in personnel, creating a net gain for the township.

With regard to the police department budget, councilman Filipe Pedroso questioned why the public safety budget has increased to $10 million, after standing at around $9 million in 2011.

Turchan said much of that has to do with contractual obligations.

The police unions, Turchan said, eliminated several items from their contracts in 2010 because of the budget shortfall, including taking furloughs, eliminating the township’s purchase of uniforms and laying off one officer.

But in 2012, Turchan said, those items return to the contract and budget, in addition to the annual step increases in payments for officers.

“In 2010, when we had the budget crunch, we had negotiations and the police gave items back to the township to reduce the budget deficit,” said township administrator James Naples. “Those items are coming back in the budget to be fully funded now.”

Questions also centered on bringing in additional police officers [township ordinance allows for 77, but the department only has 74 currently], as well as how overtime payments are made for police officers in terms of who gets overtime [the department is required to have a certain number of patrol cars out at all times, so if someone is ill, another person gets overtime to cover the shift].

Additional questions were asked about the possibility of budgeting less for utilities, minor changes in the library budget and other concerns about costs.

But for the council members, the main concern remained finding a way to lower the tax rate if possible, and they opted to wait for additional information to be discussed at the April 12 meeting before taking final action on April 19.