Councilman Michael Nochimson, Council-elect Alex Roman and Councilman Kevin Ryan have no intentions of cutting services–not senior services or the senior bus, not recreation services, not any of the township services. These are rumors made up and spread by those that oppose or “fear” their election and aren’t promising what Nochimson and Roman are promising voters–that is, respectful representation of all taxpayers with FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. Nochimson, Roman and Ryan simply want to change the way the town is run. They want to stop the voting gridlock the starts in the Town Manager’s office. They want a more respectful and open government. They want to spend every tax dollar more wisely and efficiently and directly impact all verona residents in a positive manner. They have no intentions of cutting any services, but intend to improve services with fiscal efficiency.
Since 2008, while the rest of the country was tightening it’s belt and looking for ways to save money, spend wisely and stretch every dollar, our township did no such thing and continued to spend money and raise taxes as if the recession never happened, Meanwhile many residents in this town remain in financial binds, struggling to make ends meet. It’s time for a council that is empathetic towards all residents, whether we are in a recession or not. We have to stop operating as if everyone in town is the top 1% income bracket. We can’t ignore that people are reluctantly moving out of town or downsizing because they can’t afford Verona the way they used to be able to for years and years.
Why is the opposition spreading these false claims? What do they fear if Nochimson and Roman win and end this gridlock? Could it be that the gravy train may end? That the “friends and family” hiring practices will end. That in the future, our town manager’s income and benefits might no longer be equal to or exceed that of the governor of NJ? That we will end the practice of re-hiring pension-earning retired town employees to do the same job as highly paid consultants? Are they afraid automation may be more efficient and free up tax dollars for additional services? Are they afraid that a better working relationship with the Board of Education could end up saving taxpayer money overall while still providing a highly-rated, excellent school system for children?
I ask you? Has any Verona council member-past, present or elect- ever talked about or suggested cutting any of Verona’s services? Or has any service ever been cut? I don’t think so. Our educational system, our senior services, our recreation services and every service in between, makes Verona attractive to buyers and residents and every council member (sitting or elect) knows that. So don’t believe the rumors. They are not true. Speak directly to Nochimson, Roman and Ryan and find out the truth. They do not want to cut services. But they will promise to offer them with fiscal efficiency and responsibility, spending every tax dollar wisely.
Please think carefully and vote for the people who will help our town the most.
Sincerely,
Nora Brenneis
Verona, NJ
“Since 2008, while the rest of the country was tightening it’s belt and looking for ways to save money, spend wisely and stretch every dollar, our township did no such thing” Except for coming in at a ZERO increase to the Municipal Tax Levy for 3 of those years plus a ZERO percent increase this year. Get a clue.
Alex Roman is running on cutting $800,000 for the Budget. If you think you can cut even half of that with out drastically altering the level of service, your nuts. Fixed Service costs and Personnel account for the vast majority. Cuts to service will happen. Facts are facts.
This issue of “cuts to service” appears to me to be one of semantics. Service cuts may not be directly proposed in campaign literature, but they will be the end result of budget reductions in many cases.
Case in point: Alex Roman’s 2014 budget proposal, which had included the suggestion to not hire a library director. On MyVeronaNJ’s Facebook page this week, Mr. Roman suggested that the Town could consider reducing the library’s operating budget by up to 20% and “allow the library board to make decisions accordingly”. He also suggested that the library director – the person who runs the library – is a non-essential position.
Now, anyone who has been in the library recently would surely agree this is not a place that could sustain a 20% operating budget reduction. That sort of action will reduce services – fewer books purchased, fewer programs run. And those who would suffer would be those who use the library most – children, seniors, and our most financially challenged citizens.
Jess,
I did propose not filling a vacant position at the Library in 2014. The town had no business whatsoever raising our taxes 6% and needed to make choices. Of course, the town’s real plan was to pack two years of budget increases into one year so that we could have a flat levy during this election year as Town Hall again wades into local politics.
You asked me on Facebook “Is that legal? And is that something the town council has any input on?” I responded that the town council has limited direct control over the operations of the library but is not obligated to fund it over the state minimum. So if we preferred not to fill that position or to delay filling it and could not come to an agreement with the library board over that, a budget reduction would be an option.
I also did not refer to a Library Director as non-essential, but rather as being a “non-public safety position.”
I know it’s a great campaign jab to say “Alex Roman proposes cutting library to spite seniors and children” but let’s look at reality here. Go back to the 2013 election debates. One question that was asked of all of the candidates was “If the town had an additional million dollars, how would you spend it?” My answer was that the library was due for capital improvement and I would use those funds to improve the building. I was the only candidate that brought up that service of the township. So if you or Mr. Sapienza want to try to spin me as having some issue with the library, go ahead, but you will be wrong.
I have said this over and over. I support quality government services. I expect the streets to be paved, the trash to be picked up, timely emergency service response, comprehensive recreation programs, and all of the other municipal services we depend on. However, the town is administratively inefficient and operates at a high cost. I expect the town to manage expense better than it has, and that will require making intelligent and sometimes difficult choices as to how we allocate resources. I also expect the Town Council to debate this to the line-item level and we do not currently get that from them. I look forward to the opportunity to do so if I am seated on the Council.
Alex Roman.
Alex Roman,
“The town had no business whatsoever raising our taxes 6%”
But how do you explain the fact that prior to that 6% increase, at the height of the recession, Verona kept the municipal levy flat for 3 STRAIGHT years! Again, flat levy for 3 STRAIGHT years. The 6% increase was making up for the period of a flat levy. It was not setting up for a flat rate this year.
That averages out to less than 2% levy increase per year during that time.
The tax levy may have been the same for three continuous budget years but that still doesn’t bring into consideration what the tax impact was. The fiscal years in question are 2011, 2012, and 2013. In all three years, the levy was $14,865,208. However, keep in mind that in 2011, that $14,865,208 represented a levy increase from the 2010 levy of $14,059,373. So the levy increases year-over-year look like this:
2010-2011: +5.73%
2011-2012: 0%
2012-2013: 0%
2013-2014: Proposed +6.52%, final at +5.69%.
Three years of the same levy, two years with no levy increase. I know you will cry “semantics!” but it’s the truth. In 2011 there was an increase in the levy over the prior year. In 2012 and 2013 there was not. In 2014 there was.
Now let’s look at the municipal tax rate, taking into account the combined effect of the change in total assessed value with levy increases:
2010: 0.642 (reval year)
2011: 0.694 (+8.14%)
2012: 0.720 (+3.73%)
2013: 0.740 (+2.81%)
2014: 0.785 (+6.05%)
The impact of the tax rate on any given property will vary due to the ongoing “rolling reassessment” which may affect the assessed value of a property on one street differently than that of another part of town. However, the tax rate continues to climb. If anyone is feeling the pinch on their tax bill, this is why.
I should also remind you that 2008-2014 the levy is up 28.7% (versus +9.75% CPI change) which is a measure of the long-term impact of the fiscal policies and voting record of those who have been on the council for that time along with the financial performance of the town manager.