The DCA police staffing report had nothing to do with shared services.

I went to the past council meeting and I thought it went very well. I personally felt the council meeting ran smooth and they covered a lot of issues. Not all agreed, but it was done in a civil matter and no attacks, big improvement from what was going on with our prior council meetings and council. Hopefully we continue to make progress and move forward on important issues that is effecting our town. I am glad that council members Reid, Tooker, Gordon and Corbally opposed this bill. As I resident of PPB I do not want the State of NJ telling us what to do on issues that are going on in our town that is going to effect us. What do they know about our town? Why follow anyone that does not have their own house in order. I wasn't under the impression by opposing this bill we still could not co-op with share services if we wanted to. It should be our decisions as a town and if it works for us. We should not be penalized if we do not want to. I think the real issue and point is, we should not be forced in to it, if only one town is going to benefit from it all and all the others is going to feel the pinch. I know it is early in the game, maybe I am speaking to soon, it appears this new council seem sincere in wanting what is right for our town and I hope it stays that way. It was good to hear and see positive instead of the political discourse that went on between the prior council.

excuse the errors, I was under the impression, that we could still be allowed to co-op or shard services even if we oppose this bill, if that is our choice as a town.

rudy, It depends how much money or savings? I would have to see exact figures that can be backed up with facts and real proof. Personally if it is not that much, I would rather keep my town the way it is. There is usually reasons why you chose the town you did. Some like larger towns and schools and others like smaller towns and schools, why should someone be forced in to another town that they chose not to live there in the first place. I agree with the philosophy that larger towns doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be better or less expensive.

OK, if not Point Boro, how about "sharing services" with Bay Head and/or Mantoloking? Oh that's right -- Bay Head Mayor Wiliam Curtis and Council President John DeFilippis could not be reached for comment.

Ms. DiStephan: Did you contact any elected officials from Mantoloking to inquire about their desire to "share services" with PPB?

After all, a "Consolidated PPB & Mantoloking School District" already exists. Became effective July 1, 2009 (imposed on us by the State under then almighty Gov. Jon Corzine), but Barrella and company didn't oppose that. Why not?

Point Pleasant Beach already enjoys the "shared services" of our First Aid Squad with Bay Head and Mantoloking -- and they have done so for how many decades, Beach_N8iv? Do you oppose that "sharing" too? And since you're sounding off as "anti-Boro"; Lest I point out that both the PPB First Aid Squad and Fire Departments currently enjoy a "mutual aid" (aka "shared services") relationship with Point Boro? That arrangement seems to work out very well; increasing productivity and efficiency with regard to addressing health/safety/welfare issues for the residents of BOTH towns. Wouldn't you agree, Beach_N8iv?

Imagine the potential consequences if those mutual aid relationships didn't exist? A heart attack, stroke, or structure fire occurs in your home, and your elected officials insist that "sharing services" is a "frontal assault on "Home Rule". Sounds like very frightening and illogical thinking!

I wouldn't say that I'm anti-Boro, I'm anti-waste. Are we not able to learn from our past mistakes? Should we just rush right into yet another bad idea? What's wrong with just looking at ALL our options before making decisions?

Kristin Hennessy:

Pretty simple why Mayor Curtis couldn't be reached for comment. He doesn't want to be reached for comment. No town that is well run and thinks in the best interests of their residents will ever engage in a shared services arrangement with the Beach. Why have a bit part in cheap, burlesque-like, political theatre that is really nothing more than a poorly choreographed carnival act and, in the process, cost your residents more money, not less?

Along the same lines, why do selfish and shallow political antagonists always find it necessary to leech themselves on the reputations of committed volunteer organizations? Why do you find it necessary to mention volunteer service when it really has nothing to do with governmental shared services. Trying to somehow purify your rather impure intentions? The fact of the matter is that the First Aid Squad continues to thrive because they keep politics and shameless politicians from influencing their genuine pursuits. Keep the political parasites out of the researching, planning and execution phases and maybe meaningful governmental shared services will have a chance. Let them orchestrate it and you come up with financial debacles like municipal court shared services arrangements between the Boro and the Beach. How's that working out for the Beach residents?

And by the way, since you've got an opinion on just about everything, including the Mantoloking School District situation, wehy don't you express it to the Governor? You were on his transition team for education, weren't you? If it is so wrong and inequitable, why don't you pick up the telephone for the benefits of all of our residents and have your buddy in Trenton move to change it?

It's people like you and the inaccurate discourse you create that are illogic and frightening.

Beach_N8iv,
First, exactly how would you define "waste"?
Next, you didn't answer my question about the positive benefits of mutual aid (aka shared services) between the Point Pleasant Beach First Aid Squad and Fire Department(s) and the Point Boro First Aid Squad and Fire Department. Specifically, I asked if you agree that those relationships are working out very well and providing a valuable benefit to ALL residents of BOTH towns.

When was the last time a first aid patient or victim of a tragic fire asked the first responders to pull out their driver's license and present proof of residency, before accepting the necessary treatment or services of the first responders? Imagine how ridiculous that sounds...."No, no, wait, I'll only accept your services if you can prove that you serve only the residents of the Beach (or the Boro) because I don't agree with shared services."

Last, I'm all for looking at ALL options. However, this article is about a few elected officials overreacting and passing a resolution -- essentially digging their heels in saying "NO WAY" and slamming the door shut before considering the positive cost-saving benefits to taxpayers. Comments from Councilman Gordon made me laugh. Did he even read the proposed legislation before offering his comments? He must have missed the part that states that any proposal for shared services can be vetted and debated and still goes to the voters by way of a referendum. The voters clearly WOULD have a choice.

Kristin....the "mutual aid" between towns is so good because the politicians are not involved with it at all. There is no shared expenses due to "mutual aid". The Beach and Boro are completely separate emergency services and have no interest in becoming one.

As for the consolidated school district....yea, a whopping 4 students from a non-operating district. Whooopeee! That has been a huge success that everyone is so happy about........and there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Keep posting....it shows how out of touch you still are.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "if you are debating somebody who will not agree that two plus two equals four, you will never win the debate because facts make no difference". He must have had someone like Ms. Hennessy in mind when he made this comment.

@ Striper Sam, You have a way with words.... Thank You so much.... I could have not said it any better than you and you are right, even though you were much to kind for Kristin, she thinks individuals are not on to her game, many know what trouble her and family have been causing the town for years. They are actually hurting the business in this town. She is turning the residents off and actually against them because of all the misinformed information and the fact she thinks she is the only one who is smart. She has so many issues and many young both new and old residents are getting tired of the Hennessy clan thinking they are still in control of the town because most do not agree with them at all. The residents do not want them politically involved, they did way to much damage that has been going on way to long.

John Wayne: so who's in control of your town now that the Hennessy's are no longer involved. . .and you seem to be kind of bordering on being a demigod with your expression: " The residents do not want them politically involved, they did way to much damage that has been going on way to long." I assumed you went door to door or made telephone calls to all the residents. . .to come up with this statement?

... and before Joe Bilotti bought in(supported) Vince Barrella over that motel/hotel tax, things were a lot nicer in that town?

Mutual aid (aka shared services)? NO, they are two different things. If your neighbor buys a sofa and you help him carry it into his house. That's mutual aid. Your neighbor gets a sofa and you help PAY FOR IT then help him carry it into the house. That's shared services.

Beach_N8iv and A Resident,
The definition of "Shared Services" encompasses a VERY BROAD spectrum.

First, let me preface my comments by stating: "THANK YOU” to both of you for your selfless volunteerism. I applaud ALL our local volunteer first responders. They ALL do an outstanding job and do admirable God's work for the town. In no way – did I suggest that I would want to see the current service delivery model change. That means the current "mutual aid" relationship we have in existence between Pt Beach and Pt Boro should remain "as is" – with NO merging of “shared expenses” or “shared finances”. But, I never implied that to begin with.

However, when you receive taxpayer money to – 1) purchase a fire truck or ambulance, 2) put fuel into those vehicles, 3) buy the necessary equipment to carry out your mission (including turn out gear and other necessary equipment) – once you leave the boundaries of the municipality to provide aid to another town – you have indirectly entered into a "shared service" agreement MINUS the shared expenses. Vice versa when the volunteers from the other town return the same services to us – “quid pro quo". THAT is a VERY GOOD working relationship, and by no means am I criticizing it in any way, shape, or form. The mutual aid arrangement is working like a Swiss watch or a well-oiled machine. It SHOULD continue the way it exists and I NEVER suggested they should become one.

But, please don't deny – that it's a perfect example of a fine-tuned, well-working "shared service" or "inter-local" agreement – no matter how you choose to play with the semantics. “Mutual aid” lies on that spectrum.

As for the "politicians" playing a role in your mission – they absolutely do have a role in the volunteer organizations. While they may not take an active part in the researching, planning and execution phases of your mission – they do have to approve your respective budgets for providing those emergency services each year. As they should – since volunteers provide a valuable service second to none – and the town would not be able to afford the cost of providing paid emergency services without you. Incidentally, it was quite prudent for Governor Christie to veto the recent legislation (proposed by Democrat legislators) that sought to make it even more difficult (or virtually impossible) for volunteers to continue providing those valuable services they currently deliver to our municipalities and our residents statewide. He too, obviously recognizes your selfless contributions to your community.

Kristin, mutual aid only works when it is truly mutual. When one side takes adavantage of the other...that is not mutual aid. If our First Aid was handling 50% of the Boro's calls and the Boro was only handling 10% of our calls, rest assured there would be some changes as that is not mutual.

Shared services is a different situation. That is an up front agreed upon service.

Similar? Yes. Same thing? Nope

Good to see some real discussion on here for a change.

Mike,
Thank you for your thoughts and for leaving comments under your real name. I'm glad we can somewhat agree with regard to the similarities between "mutual aid" and "shared services".

Unless I'm missing something -- It seems that the current mutual aid relationship between the Beach and the Boro volunteers is a pretty fair and balanced, symbiotic one. Thus -- it's working out very well, as it has for so many years/decades. I don't see either side "taking advantage" of one another -- though the Beach does probably have a disproportionate number of calls during the summer months, and I truly appreciate the Boro volunteers coming to our aid during our time of greatest need. Likewise, our Beach volunteers respond willingly when the Boro needs the help -- so most everyone is receiving the necessary attention and care they need. I'm certain the residents of both towns are very grateful and satisfied for the most part. Beach volunteers also service Bay Head and Mantoloking -- another positive example.

Since the volunteers continue to demonstrate that THEY can make it work -- I'll remain optimistic that a similar "shared service" model COULD work for our paid municipal employees in various governmental departments -- if everyone would just keep an open mind and be reasonable and sensitive to the needs of the taxpayers. However, hard and steadfast rightous indignation on "Home Rule" often becomes the stumbling block to achieving meaningful progress and reform.

Kristin, mutual aid in Pt Beach, Pt Boro, Bay Head, Mantoloking are working well....though the First Aid coverage of Bay Head and Mantoloking is not actually mutual aid.

Of course, there are also many examples, other than our little slice of heaven, where this is not the case.

We live in a small town. Our town provides many services. Look around the County...we get most services and pay a lower tax rate than many many other towns in this County. Of course other towns look at us favorably for "sharing"...they want our success. Can we have it better? Probably. Could it be worse? Easily.

Life is good here.....enjoy it.

@Sick of itall, Many towns are F'd up, not only in the Beach. Many towns are in the same position in NJ. To many politics going on and a lot of the local politicians have not been to smart or bright with the decisions that they made for their town for so many reasons. I am not saying it is all of them, but it is a lot of them. It is not just the current local politicians that caused these problems, it has been going on in previous administrations for quite some time and that is the problem. It all has to be corrected.

Aw, did you get a ticket?

Spooner, Obviously you were not at the council meeting. $200,000 was hypothetically used, we do not know what the figure is or if it would be a saving at all to us. I moved to Point Beach, if I wanted to move some where else I would have. The smaller town is the ones who always is going to get the short end of the stick. We have to do what is right for our town and I do not want the state to tell us or force us on what they think we should do. The State is screwed up themselves, why would we take any advice from them and like some one on here said, it is our money. I look at it as if you do not do this regardless even if it is right for our town we are taking the money away. Every town should have the right to control their own town, every town has different needs. Why let us or give us an option to vote if they are threatening to us that they are only going to take the little aid that our town gets away if we don't . Bay Head and Mantoloking does right for their town and they do not want to have anything to do with us because we do not.

Mayor Barrella, Thanks for the break down and explanation, we are so lucky to have you. You are the only one who actually understands. How to read all these state bills they want to push through. You read between the lines and explain in details what the state actually trying to do to our town. I am sorry most do not understand and pass along false or misinformed information that circulates around the town and it is not even close to accurate.

@Vince Barrella: Mayor the 'patch' is quoting you on that $200,000 figure. . .you suggested it: "Mayor Vincent Barrella said that if Senate bill, S-2, and its companion Assembly bill, A-1171, become law, they could ultimately mean Point Beach loses as much as $200,000..." Now your retracting what you said?

According to the reading of the bill the Commission will make the determination of how much savings would be incurred by consolidation. . .so how do you come up with your statement that:" The "state aid" figures quoted in the article are misleading." when those figures have yet to be determined if a majority of the voters turn down the Commission proposal. . .Then you say that there's no state aid coming in . . .so how can they reduce it when there's nothing to begin with[-$200,000 from $0...is still zero]

Spooner

CMPTRA (Consolidated Municipal Property Tax Relief Aid) is state aid. It is money that Trenton sends to municipalities from its tax revenues collected from taxpayers throughout the State. In 2011 we received zero in the form of CMPTRA. In other words, in 2011 none of the tens of millions of Sales and Income tax collected by Trenton from Point Beach came back to us. The money we received in 2011 was in the form of Energy Receipts Tax. This is a bundle of taxes that towns used to levy and collect directly which Trenton decided years ago it would collect and remit to us. Think of it this way, they decided they would cash our checks, but over the years they keep skimming more and more off the top and sending us and other towns less as they use OUR revenue sources to balance Trenton's budget. What we received back in 2011 was not state aid, but OUR revenue net of Trenton's collection fee. Trenton, however, insists on including this amount under the category of "state aid." The League of Municipalities recognizes that It is not state aid, but Trenton claims it is. There is no state aid (CMPTRA) coming in, just OUR Energy Receipts Tax which Trenton calls state aid. As long as they maintain that OUR Energy Receipts Tax is "state aid," it is further at risk under the terms of these bills. There is no inconsistency in my statement.

Vince Barrella: I guess it all comes down to that infamous quote of Bill Clinton: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement". . .Walt Disney couldn't have said it better with "Donald Duck" or Warner's "Bugs Buddy". . .

Yep. . .standard response from a politician. . .double talk from Trenton to The League of Municipalities. . . But you and your Council don't mention the first half of the bill dealing with employment reductions, and the way the bill lays out how that will be accomplished. . .something I think your supporters oppose. In a way this article is misleading; because it doesn't mention that either, with the exception of linking to the bill. . .You see that's the real political problem. . .and talking about "home rule" and state aid euphemisms are smoke screens?

In response to Spooner's comments posted at 11:31 AM today (see below)

(1) As you, Spooner, are a resident of Point Boro I can understand that legislation MANDATING that the Beach enter into consolidation of services agreements with the Boro would be attractive to you.

(2) The resolution takes no position on suspension of Civil Service and tenure protections, the "employment reductions" you refer to. Once again, the opposition is to the MANDATORY and PUNITIVE nature of the bills.

(3) You (Spooner) and I are just going to have to disagree on what constitutes "state aid." You share the administration's view that giving us back what we used to collect as OUR OWN revenue (i.e., Energy Tax Receipts) is state aid, together with the League, I respectfully disagree. CMPTRA is true state aid, and last year we didn't get any.

(4) As long as Trenton considers OUR Energy Tax Receipts "state aid," more of OUR OWN revenue is put at risk by these bills as the State would be in a position to give us less of OUR OWN revenue back, because the bills do not define what constitutes "state aid."

b. (1) Other laws, permitting a variety of shared services, including interlocal services agreements, joint meetings, and consolidated and regional services, exist but have not been very effective in promoting the broad use of shared services as a technique to reduce local expenses funded by property taxpayers.

(2) Experience with the old laws and experience with the "Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act," sections 1 through 35 of P.L.2007, c.63 (C.40A:65-1 et seq.), has made it clear that shared services, joint meetings, and consolidation cannot be effective and viable options when the local units are tied to Civil Service rules and tenure provisions limiting their economic feasibility.

(3) The goal of improving the provision of local and regional services through a shared services agreement, joint meeting contract, or consolidation, is the primary goal of the State of New Jersey and Civil Service protections and tenure protections must be secondary to, and complementary with, that goal.

c. It is appropriate for the Legislature to enact a new shared services statute that supersedes existing Civil Service and tenure provisions so that it can be used to effectuate agreements between local units for any service or circumstance intended to reduce property taxes through the reduction of local expenses...

Mayor Barrella: Let's not make this personal(me). . .As I posted above. . .the point of the Senate bill is to provide property tax relief to all property owners. . . along with addressing Civil Service and tenure. . .

Spooner.

Believe me it is not personal. However, I was responding to your comments and you are a Boro resident are you not?

As far as those provisions of the bill addressing tenure and civil service protections, the resolution passed by the Beach does not indicate opposition or support for them.

You would have to ask the sponsors of the bills their purpose in advancing this legislation. There are many ways to control property taxes that are far more efficient than MANDATING that towns enter into shared services agreements, and then cutting state aid if they don't.

Cutting the money a town gets from the state does not necessarily serve the purpose of cutting property taxes. In fact, it could easily have the opposite effect of less services and higher property taxes. In its entirety, these proposed bills represent bad legislation, regardless of the motives of the sponsors.

Mayor Barrella,

You stated:
"There are many ways to control property taxes that are far more efficient than MANDATING that towns enter into shared services agreements, and then cutting state aid if they don't.

Would you kindly please elaborate on this statement and explain in very precise terms and much greater detail:

1) what ideas do you have (please provide a very specific plan);
and
2) what you mean when you say "many ways to control property taxes that are far more efficient ." (again...please be very specific.)

Thanks very much.

Kristin

I want to thank you for your questions. The following from the Resolution which reflects the revenue and expense assessments of the bills should address your second point.

"WHEREAS, as stated in the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee Statement accompanying S-2794 the Bills will have an indeterminate impact on State expenditures, municipal revenues, and local expenditures"

With respect to your first question, it would seem to me that instead of a 10% across the board reduction in the Income tax, the taxpayers of NJ's municipalities would be better served if the money that would be spent on that decrease was returned to each municipality on a proportional basis (i.e., based upon what we send in Income tax to Trenton) in the form of property tax relief (e.g., additional state aid). Another possibility would be for Trenton to return one-half of a percent of the Sales tax revenue collected in a municipality back to that municipality. There are other options, but they involve restructuring and correcting our systemic over reliance on property taxes to deliver local services.

Ms Hennessy: the Mayor in answering your specific two questions in giving us is versions of property tax relief?. . .You'll notice that none of the money he talks about goes back to the property owner. . .but into the town's coffers. . .to be spent by the Council. . .This is not tax relief. . . and the state played the sales tax/property tax game(remember Jon Corzine Mayor). . .now you want to revisit it?

The issue Mayor is personnel costs. The unions don't want to do anything meaning full to reduce those costs. . .hence forcing the legislature to resort to consolidation. The unions are faced with what GM was faced with under reorganization. . .reducing union member costs. . .the public unions are standing their ground. . .the property owners are bearing the burden, with ever rising medical costs being passed on to them to name just one item, while the Governor argues for a 10% income tax cut as you mentioned. . .

Spooner:

You missed the point of my response. To begin with, this legislation could end up costing New Jersey's taxpayers more than it hopes to save.

In each case that I suggested the critical factor is that the money would be returned to the municipality that generated the Income or Sales tax revenue, and thus to the taxpayers of that municipality. I would note that any dollars coming back to a town are dollars that town's property taxpayers do not have to lay out, so despite your claims to the contrary there would be a direct benefit to our taxpayers.

The problem with the old rebate plan was that the funds were disbursed by Trenton without regard to where the money came from. Thus, tax dollars from one town ended up in the hands of taxpayers of another town.

Finally, I am not suggesting additional sales tax, but merely that 1/2 of a percent of the sales tax increase that was supposed to go for property tax relief be returned to the towns that generate it, as opposed to being disbursed by Trenton based upon what serves its needs. Once again, this would provide direct and meaningful property tax relief to all our property taxpayers, both residential and business.

Pardon me, but it seems that your view is that the only way to save New Jersey is to destroy its towns. If that be the case, I respectfully submit to you that your solution is worse than the problem you hope to fix. Once again, we will have to agree to disagree.

@Mayor now your accusing me again: "it seems that your view is that the only way to save New Jersey is to destroy its towns." Might I remind you that you only received 48.4% of the vote last year. . .your opponents got over 50.7%. In the Borough, Councilman Leitner who shares your views, won re-election by only 38 votes, with over 2000 vote cast for Council seats. . .I guess the bulk of the 50.7% and the 2000+ voters in the Boro for Wisniewski & Faugno want to destroy the towns too?

Mayor Barrella,
Thank you for sharing your philosophical ideas, but I guess I need to narrow my question to make it very clear and much more specific:

Are the two ideas that you offered to control property taxes (I would characterize that number as a "few" rather than "many" -- but why play semantics) theoretical ideas?
OR
Are they REAL substantive action plans that you can actually deliver in the immediate future? Specifically, will those plans be in place as you prepare the 2012 budget OR are they hopes, wishes, and dreams?

If they are REAL solutions -- please provide the citations for the specific Senate and Assembly bills that have been sponsored in the Legislature, and the current status of that proposed legislation. We haven't seen the Local Option Tax initiative that you proposed in 2007 get any further along in 4 years. Forgive me for sounding cynical or skeptical about your ideas, but your buddy Lou Greenwald hasn't gotten it done; rather he's played you for a fool.

If they are hopes, wishes, and dreams -- then I would submit to you that you are in the wrong line of work. Perhaps, you might want to consider becoming a lobbyist in Trenton, running for State office, or writing a book about tax revenues, so that you can argue and advocate for what you believe in. Meanwhile -- the PPB taxpayers are drowning, as you continue to dither and advance your hypothetical ideas to them. We need meaningful reform that's based in the the HERE and NOW!

Spooner:

You wrote: "The unions don't want to do anything meaning full to reduce those costs. . .hence forcing the legislature to resort to consolidation."

Consolidation will mean the death of many of New Jersey's towns. Nobody is accusing you of anything, the facts and your statements speak for themselves.

I mistakenly thought that we might engage in a constructive debate. It is obvious you have no desire to do so, so have a good night.

Kristen:

I suppose I should be flattered that you are asking me for my ideas on how to save the State. You asked me for some ideas and I gave you a few. I would suggest, however, that you direct any further questions you may have to our State Senator and our Assemblymen.

Furthermore, Assemblyman Greenwald is not "my buddy." He is the Assembly Majority leader and we just happen to share the same view that New Jersey is drowning in property taxes because it is overly dependent on this most regressive form of taxation. That we share a minority view on how to fix the problem is not a secret. I would remind you,however, that Secaucus fought for 13 years before it was finally successful in getting the State to adopt legislation allowing a local hotel/motel tax. We, and other towns, have been the beneficiary of Secaucus' fight. Its representatives were met with much of the same skepticism that you exhibit.

I understand that property taxes are a burden, and for the past four years I have worked within the system that exists, while also trying to change that system. Respectfully, I know of no rule that says you can't do both, and for the past four years I have done so.

I had hoped that we could engage in a constructive debate, sadly as is the case with Spooner you have no desire to do so, so as with Spooner, I wish you a good night.

@Mayor while your attempting to vilifly my character because we don't agree on where the property tax relief should be funnelled as you put it: "Consolidation will mean the death of many of New Jersey's towns."

I might draw to your attention to an old book written in 1933, the height of the Great Depression discussing this very issue. The writer stated that in New York there were about 500,000 units of government in 62 counties, 60 cities, 532 towns, 525 villages, 9600 school districts, 2365 water, lighting, sewer, sidewalk districts. . .a grand total of 13,544 separate, independent, governmental units. . .

...he said:...there is no need for so many overlapping units of government...the excessive cost of local government can most effectively be reduced by simplifying the local governmental organization and structure...by logical analysis rather than by accident or tradition...

He ended the chapter: "We cannot call ourseves either wise or patriotic if we seek to escape the reponsibility of remolding government to make it more servicable to all the people and more responsive to modern needs"

The writer's name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. . ."Looking Forward"

The old misdirection play. You neglect to mention that nobody from Trenton forced the Beach and the Boro to enter into the municipal court shared services agreement in 2010. As usual, you spout the usual partisan rhetoric but I agree with your position that nobody needs to have Trenton making poor decisions, especially when our elected representatives have already shown that they are already capable of doing that all by themselves. Might as well keep all of our blunders local. This way we all feel better getting shafted by people we know. You're 0 for 1 for the taxpayers in the Beach when it comes to the shared services experiment. We can't afford 0 for 2.

Sam

What are you talking about when you refer to "partisan rhetoric" and "misdirection?"

Rhetoric=effective use of language + partisan =partial to a specific party or person.

You effectively use language that is partial to you and your people and not so much to those that aren't, in this case your comments regarding Roseman and Lurie.

Misdirection = distraction.

Most of our problems are self created with common sense solutions. The easiest one is to not make ill-advised, self-serving political decisions in the first place but when that doesn't work corrections have to be made. They only become complicated because very small-minded politicians savor the mayhem and find the need to protect their cohorts at all costs, usually with us picking up the tab. Trenton isn't small town friendly by any stretch, but they are not the root of all evil. Some council decisions are. Many small towns do just fine without resorting to finger pointing at distant scapegoats. Try it. You might like it. I know we would. It's a little more meaningful than chest-puffing blogging which, at the end of the day, adds up to nothing.

If there are any other words you don't understand, consider a dictionary. I'm sure they have one or two at you school you teach at, or, you can head over to Antrim. The eighth graders just had a recent spelling bee and they can probably help you out.

As a resident and taxpayer, I appreciate Councilmen Mayer and Lurie’s willingness to at least keep an open mind about ways to CONTROL SPENDING and INCREASE EFFICIENCY within our local government. As for the rest of them – If they oppose “shared service opportunities that make sense for PPB”, then I’d really like to hear what their brilliant "PLAN B" is to provide the much needed tax relief for PPB taxpayers. Unfortunately, the sad reality is – I don’t think they have a realistic plan – just a lot of “pie in the sky” hopeless pipe dreams and failed promises. But they sure are very good at the double talk!
Mayor Barrella -- I'll give you credit for posting on Patch using your REAL name. At least you have the courage to stand behind your ideas and your words, even if I disagree with them.
As usual -- the Patch comments have devolved into personal attacks and character assassinations by cowards who refuse to sign their real names to back up their words. They're obviously afraid of anyone questioning their own self-motivated intentions. So typical of those who can't provide constructive suggestions or solutions in the dialogue.
It's very easy to sling mud when you're hiding behind an alias. The irony is that I know who most of them are. But, I'll abide by the Patch rules and refrain from making accusations. C'mon folks -- stand up and be counted for your opinions. Disclose your true identity and put your money where your mouth is!

Kristen....hello...back to real world....

Where exactly is anyone of the Council stating they oppose “shared service opportunities that make sense for PPB”? They oppose another state mandate that may take away state aid.

Stick with the actual story...don't make up more.

Sam

To the extent you are saying that I am arguing effectively for a position that the majority of our residents hold, I want to thank you.

As far as my arguments being a distraction, I would ask in what sense is arguing for a position that a majority of our residents believe is in the best interest of the Beach a "distraction?"

Finally, in 2010, Councilman Lurie, Councilwoman Tooker, and I were able to stop the consolidation of our building department with the Boro's. It appears that you agree that was a good thing. You seem, however, to not like the Court shared services agreement that was negotiated by the Councilmen Hennessy, Dyer, Cervino and Rizzo with then Boro Council President Susan Rogers. The idea of sharing our court administrator and her staff with the Boro was a good one, and remains a good one. The major problem -- was that our council members did not check with the police department regarding the impact of the agreement on the police department. We are working to correct that problem by seeking to move Court sessions back to the Beach so that our specials can be used to provide security and our officers can do other work while waiting to be called for a trial.

Pete F., I purchased in Point Beach for a reason, if I wanted to move to Point Pleasant or Brick I would have. It is a big deal to many. To me it is not about power, it is about I bought in the town that I wanted to. I want to keep Point Pleasant Beach School exactly like they are. It is a small district and the reason why individuals wanted to move there. Point Pleasant Schools are 4 times the size of ours, they have busing and we do not. We are a K-8 and High School, Point pleasant as a middle school, it is a lot different then ours. Do not get me wrong I am not say our school is perfect, every school has issues, but it is small and is a lot easier to control and change if there issues do come up. I know Point Beach has been rated an exceptional school and they were in top 75 schools in the state. Where does Point Boro fall? I would not know because I am not familiar or from that town. Even thought we are close in miles from each other we are very different and I am sure there is plenty of residents from Point Boro that does not want to merge with us either, some would rather go to a larger school, because their might be more choice, not sure... but would think being it is a larger school. To become one town. that is what it would be, if there is no distinction between towns who becomes what town? So why move to Rumson, if it becomes Monmouth Beach, people move to the town that they choose. Every one has that choice and why should the state tell them what town to become.

Mrs. Motto,
Here is the link (below) to SchoolDigger.com (The Web's Easiest and Most Useful K-12 Search and Comparison Tool for Parents).

http://www.schooldigger.com/go/NJ/search.aspx?searchtype=1&zip=08742&within=5

There's quite a bit of useful information there for you to evaluate and compare each and every school in New Jersey -- in the United States -- for that matter. I've made it easy for you and attached the link to all schools within 5 miles of 08742 and their ratings. Ratings are compiled based upon test scores, rankings, district boundaries, student/teacher ratios, ethnic makeup, and scores of other useful metrics and information provided by the National and State Departments of Education.

Just to quickly sum up for you:

Point Pleasant Beach HS = 3 star rating
Point Pleasant Boro HS = 2 star rating
Memorial Middle School (Pt Boro) = 4 star rating
Ocean Road Elementary (Boro) = 4 star rating
Nellie Bennett Elementary (Boro) = 4 star rating
G. Harold Antrim Elementary (Beach) = 3 star rating

Hope this preliminary information helps. You can do a more extensive search for yourself. All Wall Township Schools are ranked as well; I know you have a particular interest in them too.

Kristen, Thank You for the information, I will have to check it all out. Where you are wrong, I have no interest at all in the Wall Public School System. I worked there for ten years. I had an inside view and was not impressed at all and the reason I moved out of Wall Township School District. To many reasons to list and the reason I came to Point Pleasant Beach. I was not impressed with their K-5, so I can't imagine what their middle and High school is like. I am so glad I did, the Beach system paid off. I can't imagine my child getting the same education in Wall as she did in the Beach. I moved here when my child was in 5th grade. My child was smart enough to realize even at that level that the curriculum level was more advanced in the Beach than Wall, According to my child there was no comparison. So I made the right choice for my family and I saved a heck of a lot in Taxes. My Taxes were three times the amount I am paying here. I know my child had a heck of a lot more opportunity in the Beach School System than would ever have had in Wall, so the move was worth wild and my child will be well prepared for college. Just to let you know we have a few other children enrolled in the Beach School System from Wall, some moved here and others are a paid tuition student, something I was not willing to do. I refuse to pay Wall's high Taxes and pay for tuition on top of that like some do, it is all about choice and what is good for your family.

Kristen, What are you trying to tell me? Are you in favor of consolidating the Point Beach school system with other school systems, such as Point Boro or Brick?

Kristen, Apparently it changes based on testing. Point Pleasant Beach was a four star rating from 2003 through 2009. Unfortunately in 2010 it went down in testing. Maybe the 2010 students were not great test takers. Testing is only a part of a school, I am not saying it is not important, I am saying that is not the only reason why a school would be considered great. Personally for myself and family I like a smaller school, I can't speak for other families. What might work for me might not work for another family and the reason there is different towns you can move to and attend different schools. I would not want our district to turn in to a 400+ school into a 1600+ school if we consolidated or a 4,000+ school if we consolidated with Point Boro and Brick. Kristen every one is going to rate your school a little different depending what they are rating. Nj Monthly magazine rates NJ School every 2 years. The Point Beach School System has been rated in the Top 75 schools for quite some time repeatedly. I have never seen, Point Pleasant, Brick or Wall in the top 75. I think we were 38 last time around and prior to that we were 58 out of 75 and prior to that 59 out of 75. I find that pretty impressive, not only were we the only public school from Ocean County, only two other schools on the list from Monmouth County was Rumson/Fair Haven and Homdel. Many schools from Union County, Westfield, Clark, Berkley Heights, and other higher end money areas that we are amongst them is great.

Mrs. Motto,
Nowhere did I imply that I favored "consolidation" of our PPB schools with Point Boro or Brick. I'm sorry if that was your inference. I simply provided you with some statistical data regarding school ratings.

I do recall a few years ago -- Bay Head parents being in a complete uproar over the mere suggestion of sending some of their students to the Beach (if I'm not mistaken, I believe the consideration was for them to send their 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students to Antrim, and that notion went over like a "lead balloon".) Dr. Ravally could certainly provide you more details on what that specific proposal was -- as he was/is Superintendent of both districts.

With regard to test scores -- I agree that they are only ONE objective measure of student performance and one way the public evaluates the success of a school district. Surely there are other factors that parents would want to consider when trying to make an informed choice. Whether one agrees (or not) with using test scores as an evaluation tool for measuring student and district success is currently a subject of great debate within the educational community, and the jury is still out on that. The reality is though -- it's the direction we seem to be moving in, and it's the way the public and some parents evaluate performance standards.

I'm glad to hear that you are clearly very satisfied with the education that your child is receiving in PPB. High expectations usually leads to high outcomes.

Kristin, My bad, the reason I came to that conclusion was, you had the need to send me a link on the Point Pleasant schools and surrounding 5 mile distant from the Beach Schools. Why would you think I was even interested? What point were you trying to make. Because I responded to Peter F on my opinion of Point Beach schools. I was pretty close on the amount of kids Point Pleasant has, almost 4 times the amount of students than the Beach. If you take in consideration the amount of tuition students we have. Maybe that is why we are down on stars, New students that come from other schools have to get adjusted. It might take them an extra year or two to catch up to speed. New students have told my child, how hard the Beach schools are compared to where they came from, including Catholic schools. How did you come to the conclusion I would even be remotely interested in the Wall School System? You are way off base with that conclusion. I moved from that system for many reasons so I do not know why you would even think I would be remotely interested. I am very familiar with the Wall district and I would not recommend that system to anyone in my opinion at least not to anyone that I like. It is pretty scary that they received three stars, I am starting to wonder who is rating them and were they are getting their information from on how do they actually come to the conclusion of who and why the stars are earned in the first place.

Kristin, After looking at the amount of students Point Boro and Brick districts have, I definitely would not want to consolidate. I know it is cheaper to educate 889 students versus $3,596 students. I did not check out Brick, but I am sure their district is even larger than Point Boro. Why would we? Anyone who thinks we should, surely would not be from the Beach. It is just like home, What do you think would cost more, having 4 kids, or having 1 Kid? Last time I checked we were getting approximately $500,000 in tuition students, that is a lot of money that helps reduce the cost that is pass on to the tax paying residents. I do remember a few years back, Dr. Ravally asking their 6th, 7th and 8th grade to consolidate with our schools being their students come to our school anyway at the H.S, level and Dr. Ravally is their Superintendent too. I think we share a music teacher too. It is a moot point because all Dr. Ravally could do is ask, He can't
Force them in to our town. They have their own reasoning and it really is not our business. Maybe they do not want to break up their k thru 8th neighborhood school? Maybe they do not want to for the same reason the Beach residents do not want to consolidate with Point Boro or Brick. They realize and are smart enough to know it will cost them more money. Either way, we can not force them.

Kristin, Lastly, I can understand this is how parents would measure and compare schools but that does not mean anything. Like I said there is more than testing to a school. I can almost bet you if some would leave our district or prefer to go to any one of these other 3 or 4 star rated schools they will be running back to ours for sure. At least that is my opinion.

@Peter, I absolutely agree that the smaller town will always come out on the short end of consolidation.