Politics & Government

Point Borough Democrats Say New Budget Brings Solvency for This Year and Next

GOP says tax increase and insufficient savings were good reasons for them to vote no

The Point Borough Democrats say Republican council members should have voted for the new municipal budget which Democrats describe as financially responsible for this year and the next.

A split Point Borough Council, with the three Republicans voting no and four Democrats voting yes.

Republicans are responding that they voted no for plenty of good reasons, including that it calls for a tax increase.

Find out what's happening in Point Pleasantwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Democrats say the increase is small and was necessary to cover expenses and draft a responsible budget that paves the way towards financial solvency.

The budget raises the municipal tax rate from .364 per $100 assessed valuation by .018 cents per $100 to .382 per $100, according to Councilman Robert Sabosik, a member of the council's finance committee.

Find out what's happening in Point Pleasantwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

That will mean an increase of about $70 per year on the average assessed home of about $383,000 to support a municipal tax levy of about $12.4 million, said Councilman Chris Leitner, chairman of the council's finance committee, after the brief meeting on July 25.

The recent statement from the Democrats notes that Democratic Council Members Leitner, Jack McHugh, and Chris Goss voted for the Budget and Republican Council Members Toni DePaola, Mitch Remig, and Robert Sabosik voted against it. The tie-breaking vote was cast by Mayor Bill Schroeder, voting for the budget.

“This is a responsible budget that rebuilds our surplus, maintains vital services such as police protection, and keeps taxes under control,” said Schroeder in the statement.

“We inherited a $350K deficit, an increase of around a million dollars in debt service, and we had no surplus to work with, thanks to last year's reckless budget," said Leitner who voted against last year's budget. "This year’s budget puts us back on a path to solvency by utilizing common sense measures to keep taxes low now and into the future.”

“This budget is just the first step to getting Point Pleasant back on track, but we are just getting started,” said McHugh. “Plans are in place to create more costs savings to taxpayers through energy efficiency improvements, garbage collection solutions, adding solar panels onto public buildings, and advertising revenues.”

The statement notes that the three Republicans voted against the budget, but provided no reasons for their opposition during the July 25 meeting.

The Republicans gave reasons in interviews after the meeting, including that they didn't want to vote for a tax increase and not enough was done to save money.

Sabosik was asked, "Why didn't you give your reasons for voting no during the meeting?"

He said, "It's up to the mayor to lead and he didn't ask."

Leitner said, "There have been plenty of times in the past that the Republican members had a question or a criticism and they said that during the meeting, whether the mayor asked or not. For Bob Sabosik to say he couldn't do his job, because the mayor didn't ask him to, is incredulous."

In a prepared statement from Democrats, Schroeder stated, “Our team identified hundreds of thousands in cost savings for the taxpayers in Point Pleasant while maintaining our services. It’s unfortunate that Council Members Toni DePaola, Mitch Remig, and Bob Sabosik voted against this cost cutting budget.”

Goss said, “This budget both provides for our town today and builds the foundation for continued fiscal solvency in the future.”

The prepared response from the Republicans is as follows:

"There is absolutely no evidence that the Democratic majority offered costs savings to taxpayers through this budget."

Leitner said the budget, compared to last year's, includes charges of $50,000 less from professionals, such as lawyers, engineers and auditors and about $100,000 less in payroll costs, partially due to retirements and four furlough days taken by most employees. Those savings and others total to about $400,000 less for overall operations, he said.

The Republican statement continues: "Instead, they (Democrats) chose to balance this budget by increasing municipal taxes, using surplus monies, and using school tax deferral monies which, when presented by the Republic Majority in last year's budget cycle, Council members Jack McHugh and Chris Leitner vehemently opposed."

Regarding the school deferred taxes,

Leitner said he and the other Democrats voted against using school-deferred taxes last year because it was part of an irresponsible budget that had a zero increase for political reasons "and put us in a hole for this year."

The difference this year, he said, is that it was borrowed to plug a deficit of about $350,000 from last year.

The Republican rebuttal continues: "Contrary to the popular belief of the Democrats, we did not need borough employees to take 33 unpaid furlough days, 3 Police Department demotions, and 3 Police Department layoffs.

"It was Council member DePaola who pointed out that 33 furlough days would negatively impact employees' health benefit costs and pension obligations and, therefore, 33 furlough days was not realistic," the rebuttal states. "Ultimately, the borough employees voluntarily agreed to four furlough days to help balance this budget.

"As for the police department, no furloughs or demotions were necessary. As Council member Remig pointed out early in the budget process, to layoff officers or demote superior officers would negatively impact public safety and the management of the police department."

Leitner said that originally borough officials believed it might be necessary to impose 33 furlough days and several police layoffs before borough auditor Thomas Fallon combed through the budget and found $1.2 million that could be used to offset the negative budget impact.

Fallon could not be reached on Thursday.

At the council meeting where the possible police layoffs were discussed,

The Republican statement says, "Also, it was Council member Sabosik's specific questioning of the auditor that uncovered the surplus monies which were eventually used in a responsible manner to get this budget under control to the benefit of borough employees and taxpayers."

After the July 25 meeting, Sabosik said emphatically and repeatedly, "I worked for hours on the budget. I found $1.4 million in the budget that we could use. I'm a numbers guy. That's why I was elected."

However, in the prepared statement issued this week, Sabosik acknowledges it was the auditor who found the money, prompted by Sabosik's "specific questioning."

Leitner said both versions are inaccurate. He insisted it was Fallon who "uncovered" the $1.2 million, discussed it with Leitner in a meeting of just the two of them, then Leitner brought the information to Sabosik and the finance committee.

"We debated how much of it we should use in finance committee," Leitner said.

The Republican statement continues: "At the beginning of the budget process, the Democrats continually preached economic disaster, blaming last year's council for this year's 'grim financial straits.' "

Borough Administrator David Maffei has said that in the 10 years he has worked as administrator, this was the toughest budget he ever had to manage partially because of the combination of sloppy bookkeeping done last year, the draining of last year's surplus and the state-mandated 2 percent spending cap this year.

"We drained the surplus down to zero last year" and a deficit was created for this year, Leitner said, referring to last year when Republicans held a majority on council. This year, a rare year in borough history, the Democrats hold a narrow majority.

"The depth of the budget problems were explained by the borough administrator, Frenia, Fallon and Michelle Swisher, our new chief financial officer," Leitner said. "Our professionals told us how dire it was."

The Republican statement continued: "However, last year's council provided a number of cost-saving programs to get the budget under control for years to come. First, there was the consolidation of Municipal Court functions with Point Pleasant Beach, saving the borough tens of thousands of dollars in this year's budget."

Democrats have insisted the shared services agreement, still in place now, was planned in a rushed manner that has not worked sufficiently for both towns.

Point Beach Police Chief Kevin O'Hara has said the arrangement, which moved the Point Beach court operation to the borough court on Bridge Avenue, is proving excessively costly for the Beach, which has to send detectives to municipal court to handle Beach cases. That is necessary because the Beach's special police officers have no jurisdictional power in the borough.

Leitner said on Wednesday night that Beach and Borough officials have been meeting to revise the plan so that the Beach again opens it court in its Borough Hall on New Jersey Avenue, while the two boroughs still share court personnel. He said that will eliminate the heavy manpower cost to the Beach, but still save money for both towns.

The Republican statement continues, "Finally, last year's Council had a plan in place to consolidate the Construction Inspection Department with Point Pleasant Beach to increase efficiency in the department and stop the hemorrhage of monies out of that department. However, the Democrats put a stop to that plan and offered no alternatives."

Leitner said, "Toni is chair of the committee tasked with getting construction fees in line. Despite repeated asking from us, we got nothing from her. So we asked Mike Gardner to do it."

Gardner, the borough construction official who also does the job for the Beach, is working on that, Leitner said.

The Republican statement says: "The Republican minority has a simple place to start, which we have advocated from the beginning of the year... adjust the fee schedule in the Construction Department to a higher level to begin to stop the hemorrhage.

"We believe that this could have allowed the council to give our taxpayers another year of a zero municipal tax increase. In these tough economic times, we believe that the taxpayers deserve nothing less."

Leitner said higher construction fees would not have been enough to offset the tax increase.

"We note that last year's budget contained a zero municipal tax increase for borough taxpayers, and Council members McHugh and Leitner voted against it. So it comes as no surprise that they have voted to increase municipal taxes this year.

"The Democrats claim to have put a number of plans in place to move the borough to more secure financial footing. Yet they can point to NO plan that was implemented this year that would impact the current budget.

"While it may be true that all of Council are looking into a number of cost-savings measures, like garbage collection solutions and the use of solar panels, NONE of these measures were implemented in this budget cycle and NONE of these measures were used to balance this budget.

"Instead, the Democratic majority raised taxes and put the burden of this budget back on the taxpayers.

.

However, Schroeder said the borough did not furlough police because state law prohibits it.

Despite the split vote for the budget, the council to add about $258,000 to the budget to help plug a deficit.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here