Council Approves $1.5 Million from Open Space Fund for Fields
Moorestown council voted 3-2 in favor of dipping into the Open Space Trust Fund to pay for improvements to Wesley Bishop, while a potential lawsuit looms in the background.
CLARIFICATION: Township attorney Thomas Coleman, noting he is "also a taxpayer of this township," told council he would handle the litigation related to the Open Space case pro bono.
This information was accidentally omitted from an earlier version of this story. Patch apologizes for the oversight.
__________________________
After all this time, it ended more or less how you expected it to end.
Following months (and months) of debate and indecision, township council voted 3-2 Monday night to use $1.5 million from the Open Space, Recreation, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund for improvements to Wesley Bishop North.
The vote followed more than an hour of public comment—mostly in opposition to the use of the Trust Fund—and discussion among members of council, including a brief presentation from attorney Jeffrey Baron, who announced he planned to take action against the township in Superior Court to resolve the issue.
Baron, representing members of STEM (Save the Environment of Moorestown) and various other municipal groups and individuals, who he did not name, told council it was “unlawful” for the township to use the Trust Fund for improvements at Wesley Bishop because the field wasn’t acquired with money from the fund. Baron, of the Baron & Brennan law firm in Voorhees, submitted a letter to the township in May threatening a lawsuit over the use of the Trust Fund.
Reading from the interpretive statement included on the 2007 ballot, in which voters again approved the levying of the Open Space tax, Baron said the use of the Trust Fund is for “‘the acquisition of recreation and conservation, including the development and maintenance of such acquired lands.’
“You can only use this money for lands you acquired with Open Space funds. I’m sorry to tell you that, but that’s the only reasonable interpretation of that ordinance … You’re stuck with that. So respectfully, you can’t use these funds for what you’d like to use them.”
Baron said he would file a “prerogative writ” in Superior Court today, asking for an interpretation of the law and the allowed uses of the Trust Fund. He also warned council he would file an injunction to keep the township from spending money from the fund until a decision is rendered by a judge.
“I would like to think you would have the respect for law that you would not do anything with these properties until a judge told us what can be done on these properties,” said Baron.
However, Mayor John Button and councilmen Greg Gallo and Mike Testa chose not to heed Baron’s warning and voted in favor of dipping into the Trust Fund—which presently has a balance of nearly $2 million—to fund improvements at Wesley Bishop North, including the installation of an artificial turf field, and improvements to the parking lot and drainage.
Gallo worried council would set a dangerous precedent if it held off a decision based on the threat of a lawsuit.
“We’re now into a realm where anyone who wants to prevent one of the allowed uses is going to throw this or future councils into paralysis (with the threat of a lawsuit),” he said. “We’re opening up anything to be challenged.”
Button and Testa also reiterated their belief—based on township attorney Thomas Coleman’s guidance—that the Wesley Bishop North project was a legal and worthwhile use of the Trust Fund.
Councilwoman Stacey Jordan, who has been the voice of dissension on the issue alongside Councilman Chris Chiacchio, asked township manager Scott Carew for his 2 cents.
Carew explained, while he believed the project should be done, he preferred bonding the project, rather than dipping into the Trust Fund. While it was a topic of discussion early on, council was never able to come to a consensus on bonding.
Carew said he was also concerned about the potential for a lawsuit—and an injunction that could hold up the necessary appropriations—as well as the effect the project would have on the Trust Fund.
“Tom’s (financial officer Tom Merchel) projections show it wouldn’t totally deplete the fund, but it certainly affects it negatively,” said Carew.
According to Merchel’s projections, the balance of the fund would remain roughly in the $500,000-600,000 range for the next decade, if the township used it to pay for the Wesley Bishop North and South projects. His projections don’t include matching contributions from the state after 2012, nor do they include revenue from sports club contributions replenishing the fund.
Council tabled a decision on using the fund to pay for $405,000 in improvements to the South field, based on concerns over the adverse effect the project would have on teams that use the field.
In light of the vocal public opposition to the use of the Trust Fund and the lawsuit cloud hanging over the township, Jordan questioned the timing and necessity of the action.
“I’m just still puzzled why we’re doing this now,” she said.
Chiacchio, not for the first time, suggested an alternative: a new referendum to clarify the use of the fund. The recommendation was put to a vote, with Jordan backing the measure as well. But Gallo abstained and Testa and Button voted “no,” so the motion died.
Several members of the audience spoke up in opposition to the use of Trust Fund, including Democratic council candidate and Moorestown Save Open Space co-founder Mark Hines, who said, “I’m trying to avoid emotional language, but I feel this is a power grab … There are three people on council who have lost touch with what the people want.”
Republican candidates for council Phil Garwood, Victoria Napolitano and Pete Palko issued a statement of their own following the meeting, decrying Button, Gallo and Testa for “their disregard for the voters and taxpayers of Moorestown … We feel this spending is unacceptable and out of step with the will of the voters of Moorestown.”
In the end, council—perhaps not surprisingly to those who've followed the Open Space-fields rigmarole—split 3-2 in favor of using the fund, with Button, Gallo and Testa voting "yes," and Chiacchio and Jordan supplying the "no" votes.
What do you think of council's decision? Vote in our poll and tell us in the comments.
Dee
6:55 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I was glad to see both the Democrats and Republicans running locally this year had the courage to speak at the mic last night against this move. This is horrible.
Terry
1:13 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
It certainly is horrible. It is amazing that supposed fiscal conservatives would raid the OS fund for turf. They know that the purchase of the Hess Farm is in the works and they would be willing to bond for that? Why, when we could revieve matching funds for that money. Instead they are willing to spend over 1.5M on a depreciating asset with a use live of at most 15 years.
Ed Nice
1:39 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Terry they didn't raid anything for turf ..... how many times do we need to say this? The Clubs are paying for there own turf. They raised $650,000 before sponsorship! There's nothing horrible going on here!
Townie
6:59 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
As I posted yesterday and apparently Jordan asked...why now?
I'm sure Ed and the others are going to post "we've waited long enough"....and I agree the length of this discussion is unreasonable.....but we are where we are, so why the apparent rush to judgement? They didn't approve in May because of a threat, and now with an attorney standing in front of them, warning them he's going to file, they yell "damn the torpedoes" and vote yes?
There's a story behind this. They obviously want this done, and appear to have made a last ditch effort to push it through in the face of reason? I don't know any of them well enough to guess what their passions for this project are...but this one doesn't pass the smell test.
Rob...nice detail and flow.
Robin
9:04 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Awful move by town council, this is going to wind up costing the tax-payers over time as usual. The law suit will cost money & there will probably be over run costs, plus we have other issues in town we needed that money for that actually have to do with open space. Sad state of affairs this town is in, I can tell you that!
Ace
9:16 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
This is so exasperating. You just can't trust politicians with a pot of money. In spite of the clear intention of the residents, they will connive, twist, turn and do whatever they can to get their hands on that money for purposes clearly not in line with what the voters intended: keep open space out of the hands of developers.
Ace
9:19 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
It's no wonder that the Republican party fired these tone-deaf council members.
Ed Nice
9:39 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ok Robin, I guess if you were there last night you didn't understand what happened or why it happened. 1st off there is no cost to the town to defend this because Tom Colman was nice enough to tell everyone that he would defend this issue pro bono. 2nd if you listened to the lawyer that spoke in favor of the kids project he told you what would be the out come if we lost which was nothing! We wouldn't be allowed to use the trust if the law suit was won by STEM but there wouldn't be any damages paid out. So Robin the sky isn't falling and it's not costing us a dime. BGT said they had to move forward because they can not allow the threat of a law suit run our town. If they do that then every time a issue that comes to council could be blocked by that threat. Can't run a town that way. This project has been in the works for well over 3 years and it is time to move forward with it. I told you all it would come to this and the only people to blame were the OS advocates that blocked this from being bonded. If bonded there would have been plenty of money in the bank to acquire any project OS was looking to obtain. BUT NO they had to be greedy and now look where they are. I'm not happy about where we are either. If for some long shot STEM wins the law suit the money to fix Sweds Barn will not be allowed, or to fix the Strawbridge Lake, or fix the Perkins House because none of these properties were purchased with OS funds. And our budget will also have to be scrapped!
jp morgan III
10:17 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed, with all due respect, your comments seem awfully in depth and contrived for a guy that can't keep his head up during a council meeting. Come clean, who is feeding you the info?
Ed Nice
1:35 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
JP my head was down so council didn't have to hear me grinding my teeth! I guess Barrens with his questions thinks if you have a kid in town you can't vote on the fields. OK Say he is right! So I guess we can't vote on the Library or town hall because some one on the board may sent their kid to the library or maybe they will go to town hall to pay their bill. The BS that was being spread last night made me sick! By the way how does having my head down equal someone feeding me info? What a joke!
Romney Republican
10:18 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ok, hearing Pete Palko and Phil Garwood talk last night got my attention at the packed crowd last night . Thanks
Guys! You spoke well, you weren't like the others mad an obnoxious.
Thanks councilman chiacchios, Garwood and palko and others for stating we need a referendum on this. Is that not a bad idea? We will be there to see you three tonight! Hope all goes well!
Bobby29
10:44 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
This is a terrible decision. An overwhelming amount of people got up to the microphone and did not agree with it and council still passed it. Terrible. They are elected officials and should be listening to the people. They should have put this on the ballot in November as Mr. Hines stated last night. I undertsand the Mayor said this has been on the ballot before but action did not need to be taken that night. They could have sat down and really though it through. Terrible.
Ed Nice
1:30 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Bobby it is easy to say that a lot of people stood up at the microphone and disapproved the action the council wanted to take. Here is the short and skinny, MSOS/STEM are well organized small special interest groups that have the following of a hand full of members that show up to meetings a scream the loudest. That doesn't make them right. They show up with the same 40 to 50 people while the more unorganized sports side shows up with their same 20 to 30 folks. Yeah they could get more to the meeting if someone had the time to organize them better. It's not like sports isn't a huge and important part of this town. Most people aren't willing to take the time to sit through one of these long winded meetings and I'm sure that works for each side. What is a true gauge is the vote that passed 3 times. Now MSOS wants to cry foul. No one argues with how pushed the referendum to be passed but they push for it the way it was written. Because the word "such" is in the referendum doesn't make the money theirs. Apparently after listening to Elizabeth at the Mic it's obvious that she didn't under stand that if the work was bonded and debt services were paid for out of the trust it wouldn't deplete it! It would have been heath and continued to grow with plenty of money there for matching funds!
G. Williams
11:23 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed,
Correction, the Open Space folks, to my knowledge, have never said they were against having Council bond the KIDs project. Their position is clear in that they do not want to deplet the open space reserve for that project. As indicated last night,
council members Jordan and Chiacchio are not supportive of bonding a capital improvement project right now, due, mainly to the current fiscal issues facing Moorestown. Several hundred tax appeals were filed resulting in millions lost in the ratable base. There was a budget gap of roughly half a million dollars that had to made up. Already, departments are cutting corners to maintain services.
If BGT had not approved the 1.5 million resolution for Wesley last night, there would be no suit and injunction filed today against it. Their action may result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars every year currently being spent from the OS trust fund (without complaint) towards field maintinence and so on. Those costs will then come from future budget increases. That seems both selfish and narrowminded.to me. I have never seen a council majority so singularly focused on a project that it divides a town.
As vocal as you are here on the Patch, regarding turf, it puzzles me that you didn't take the opportunity to speak your mind last night like so many others did.
Ed Nice
1:12 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
OS opposed the the use of the trust fund to pay for any of this project period. If the project was bonded and even if debt services were only paid out of the trust, there would still be a ton of money there for any acquisitions they wanted to get the town to make. That being said once debt services go down in 2014 and even more in 2018 the need to even use the trust to pay the debt service most likely wouldn't be needed. If they hadn't cried foul I would think J & C would have felt better about bonding the project because it wouldn't have cost a tax increase.
As for those possible lost funds now that there is a law suit you can blame Mark Hines and the MSOS/STEM for that one. As it was said last night you can't allow the threat of a law suit to run your town. There are always two sides of a court and while Barrens was trying to bate Tom Colman into a debate and sounded all sure of himself that doesn't make him correct. We will now see who was right. I welcome the law suit. It is obvious that not everyone in this town looks at the trust the way MSOS does. We all voted 3 times already. Now they are backed into a corner and have to sue the town and for what? There are no plots of land left that can effect our town like the Hunt did. As for standing up George there really wasn't any reason to do so. We knew where it was going and nothing I say would ever change the minds of the open spacers. Yeah they are for the KIDS project but not with their so called money! WHAT A JOKE!
Joe
11:33 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
s
Joe
11:36 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Kudos to the members with the courage to stand up to such strong resistance. There are are many in the town in favor of updating the fields. Even though they have not come to the meetings.
G. Williams
11:44 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
On a different note, I appreciate the Mayor's suspension of his three minute rule applied to the public during open comments. In the interest of fairness and transparency, it was the correct thing to do. However, in fairness to the Council, the audience and other speakers, the microphone should not be used as a pulpit for long-winded, off topic comments such as occured last night. Fortunately, only once. We wouldn't want the limit to be reapplied.
G. Williams
2:56 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed,
In the minds of most of the MSOS folks, the OS fund is for the primary purpose of aquision, but with the acceptance of maintinence and repair for parcels that fit with the open space and preservation theme. To my knowledge, they have never disputed field maintinence costs. Therefore, it unfair to fault the MSOS for BGT's decision last night to raid the OS fund of 1.5 million dollars which could result in the loss or depletion of the current maintinence costs being paid from the fund.
If the superior court agrees with MSOS on the designated use of the fund, is it still their fault, or is it the fault of BGT who triggered the suit, ignoring the consequences of their actions? It was BGT who challenged MSOS, not the other way around.
I am very surprised that our solicitor missed in the original ordinance, the clearly stated point, that limits the funds to acquision, for recreation and conservation, including the development or maintinence of " such acquired lands". Such acquired lands are those parcels that were purchased with OS funds, which excludes any of our sports fields. It appears the worms may be exiting the can. You can hardly blame MSOS for that debacle.
L&L Kitchen Cabinet
3:35 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
G. Williams - If that statement is accurate than the fund could not be used for any of the work at Strawbridge Lake because SL was not purchased with OS funds. Is that correct? If that is correct than why did the Rep candidates state in their recent letter that using OS money for fields procludes the township from using it for work at SL? I guess everyone is a little confused about the legality of the fund.
Ed Nice
4:28 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
George ok I'm tired of your BS here. Your just running your campaign here and trying your best to make your party look good. Here is the facts ..... if it is illegal than it is illegal........ who is MSOS to dictate what the money can and can't be spent on. Oh we don't mind Strawbridge Lake, and yeah maybe Perkins but sports nope. They are all approved uses, period!They can't have it all there way it's not their money! This could only have come to a head if MSOS/STEM with their selfish ways sued the town. Well they say they are going to and I am assuming they are moving forward. And if they loss how stupid are going to look for breaking the councils balls for standing up to the special interest group. Yes with this law suit MSOS and STEM can really screw things up for this town. Once again no one held a gun to their head to do this. All they need to do was say bond it and if you need to pay with the trust fund here and there the debt service that would be fine with them. No they went the selfish hard way. They win, we lose as a town...... their fault no one else's.
There's Been a Leak
3:27 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
my source tells me that palko referred to the stem lawsuit as "frivolous" last night and got a nasty email today from the folks
accent
3:50 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Same source that told you one of the Republicans was dropping out? Or maybe its the source that said Broder was on the Button ticket? Or the source who said Panzarella was running as an independent? Maybe the source who said Pete Miller was running this year? Can't wait to hear the next rumor, TBAL!
There's Been a Leak
4:36 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
only as good my sources sorry to say but what are you sayin ain't so, what palko said or the nasty rumor
Talk of the town
12:03 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I'm confused, are you stating that one of the GOP candidates is dropping out and someone else like p.miller is now running? What is it? Accent or leaks want to elaborate? What's the update ?
Romney Republican
3:58 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Where's the hulkster to take care of all these rumors ?
G. Williams
7:01 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
RR,
Do you really believe that "Leaks" deserves a response? Read Accent's comments.
Ed Nice
4:45 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Can we say Campaigning or what!!! "As indicated last night,
council members Jordan and Chiacchio are not supportive of bonding a capital improvement project right now, due, mainly to the current fiscal issues facing Moorestown."
George I know there was a budget gap and will be one next year too according to Merchel. The revaluation will lower home values and taxes are a burden so why do you and they keep talking about raising taxes right now for a new town hall or does your comment only apply to a fields project that is 50% paid for by extra taxes on the users and using 50% of a tax they already paid? I know you said it was the open space folks money but that isn't true. It's all our money.
Observer
5:19 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Economic times are tough. Can anyone explain why council is paying over 20K for Christmas decorations?
Ed Nice
4:55 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Just encase anyone one is confused about the open space trust from refer to my previous article on the post! http://moorestown.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-the-truth-about-open-space
HomeBrew
5:56 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Sincere thanks to STEM and allies, to the majority of the OS Committee, and to Council members Jordan and Chiacchio for standing up against this enormity.
Now the township is bogged down in a lawsuit to stop the OS fund raid, and the suit may not be resolved before the November election. Meanwhile, the meter's running. Might be worth reconsidering Mr. Chiacchio's suggestion for a ballot question. It would be fair, easy, cheaper than a lawsuit, and would settle the issue once and for all.
Ed Nice
6:20 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
HB catch up it costs us nothing. We lose then the money shouldn't be used for anything else. We win, once again nothing lost since Tom Colman was nice enough to handle this pro bono!
L&L Kitchen Cabinet
11:27 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I don't always agree with every OS acquisition, so should utilization of the fund go to a referendum every time? If you set the precedence than it has to be carried across the board. It can't be a convenient solution this time because a loud minority says it should.
JJ Jet
5:57 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Letting the voters decide woulda made sense... TOO MUCH sense for the good old Mayor... His way or no way, that's the Button legacy!!!
HomeBrew
6:04 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Does anyone know if the injunction was filed today to stop the raid on OS fund?
G. Williams
6:58 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
L&L,
If a suit is filed on behalf of MSOS, and the judge finds the use of the funds are restricted to lands purchased with OS funds, I'm not sure how that would play out.
Would a referendum and changing the existing ordinance occur? Can't answer that.
If the judge decides against MSOS then Strawbridge would be eligible, but there is only about 500K left in the fund since the resolution to use 1.5 million of the fund was approved last night for Wesley, and that wouild also be eligible.
Ed Nice
7:29 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
And L&L what George is conveniently leaving out is, if the judge rules in favor of the town which would make Strawbridge lake doable, that it would be bonded and paid for with the trust fund which the remaining $500000 can easily handle. Plus money will be repaid to the trust as it comes in from the donations. That number is $650000 over mostly 10 years. Also he doesn't let you know that the fund is replenished every year. George just campaigning again and not giving the full story, just what works for him and his Rep party.
L&L Kitchen Cabinet
11:37 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
GW - You are insulting everyone's intelligence by trying to make us believe that IF the full $1.5M is used for the fields than only 500K would be left in the account. We all know that our taxes go into that fund every year. By the time Strawbridge Lake would even be ready for the work, the fund would have more money. If you are going to post on here at least have enough respect for the town to post accurate information. Finally, I am extremely disappointed that your campaign has decided to take a position of publically attacking current Council members. Take the high road and run a campaign focusing on the positives your candidates bring to the table, not "blasting" those who are currently in those seats, regardless of whether you agree or not.
Betty Boneder
7:12 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I think a ballot question is stupid. Seriously, we elected people to make decisions. Good/bad/indifferent....make a decision and drive on. If we have to "check with the voters" everytime we need to make a decision, why do we have a Town Council? Plus, we already voted on Open Space.
Ed Nice
7:42 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Thank you Betty someone that gets it!!! LOL
Peter Beter
7:17 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Good debate today, everyone.....Time to go to the GOP Town Hall meeting!!!!
Roger
7:26 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I am only thankful that there was the good sense not to bond this expense, and that's really what it is, an expense, not an investment. The plastic field will inevitably be "too dangerous" to play on within 10 years so what is that expense, $100K per year for one field. Then when it is too unsafe to play on we will have the additional expense to replace it. With inflation etc... we're probably looking at another $100K per year FOR ONE FIELD.
In any case, given the prevailing thought that the open space tax was not for normal recurring expenses, and given the inability of politicians to keep there hands off anyunspoken for funds, perhaps we should explore ways of repealing the tax.
Would any of the candidates commit to putting forth an effort to repeal the Open Space Tax? If the project were bonded, with the funds to be paid from the Open Space tax, it would be very difficult to repeal the tax without defaulting.
In any case should the current decision prevail, consider the funds gone, a lesson learned, and REPEAL THE TAX.
Ed Nice
7:40 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ahhh Rodger that is incorrect. Each year money is put into the fund from the tax levy. They only spent 1.5 of 2 million with another roughly $500,000 going back into the trust come next year. There is also the repayment of matching funds that we can still receive but are not counting on. The clubs have raised large sums of money that will be put into the trust to repay for the work to be done ( like the cost of the Turf) By the time this is all done the cost of this project is going to be a small blip and never should have gotten this volatile!
Roger
8:08 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
If the clubs have raised "large sums of money" then perhaps the Open Space funds will not be needed? What is the commitment to repay the Open Space funds? When someone lends money, which based on what you are saying is the case,(Open Space fronting the money for the sports clubs) a note is usually signed witnessing that obligation. Are the sports clubs and their supporters willing to sign such notes, with personal guaranty's?
In any case, the issue here is trust and creating a "slush" fund for the politicians. Based on what I have seen and heard, those supporting this decision are in the minority, and not by a small percentage.
We need to eliminate the slush fund; we need to eliminate the source of the cash that creates the funds that are all too tempting for the politicians and special interests.
Herbert
11:41 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
What does this mean?
I don't think Moorestown, New Jersey can afford Mr. Button for another term in office. Don't vote for Mr. Button in November.
We simply can not keep up with Mr. Button's incompetence, it is that simple.
Mr. Button has wasted millions on the town hall project. He now has the prominent role in raiding our trusted Open Space Fund.
Don't re-elect Mr. Button for Mayor., Moorestown can't afford Mr. Button for another term, it is that simple.
G. Williams
11:41 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed,
Stop with the attitude. If you can not communicate without attacking the character or distorting the comments of others, then you don't belong here. You do not have to agree with my comments or opinions, but it shows poor manners on your part to add contrived motive or intent to them.
If I conveniently (as you say), left out that Strawbridge could be afforded through bonding, then didn't you conveniently leave out last night's second resolution which would spend another 450 K from the OS fund for Wesley North. Remember, it was tabled, not defeated, thus, it's still in play. Let's see where that goes.
I am not campaigning for anyone on this blog, and nothing I have said here would indicate otherwise, so stop saying it. When I do, I won't be coy about it.
Ed Nice
11:57 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
No you just like to act as if you could do better under these tough conditions George. You don't think calling BGT selfish and narrow minded isn't trying to make your MRMC candidates shine in a better light. By saying your not campaigning is just saying everyone on this site is ignorant. We all see through it George. Since you brought it up George Tom put the projections up on the wall for all to see, which had all possible solutions to the trust and showed it would not be depleted for ever even with South being done. We can go around and around with this George. If your going to state the facts then state them all. South has not gone away but it also in ink right now either. I also don't think it is going to get done right now!
G. Williams
9:58 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Ed,
In my opinion, BGT are being selfish and singularly focused because they have devoted so much of their public service time towards one item, field improvements. On four separate occasions it was defeated by vote. At what point do you bend a little? When does one realize that the resulting contention isn't healthy for the town? There must be a better way than confrontation to facilitate progress. A few of us attempted to reach a compromise last year, but it takes cooperation to do that, and Council didn't respond.
I fully understand the desire of a few of the sports organizations to have upgraded facilities. But, maybe it is time for them to change course by pursuing a staggered approach. While I applaud their efforts in fund raising and sponsorships in order to defray the cost, weren't they asked to pursue that a year and a half ago? And, would that have benefitted them more so today? Perhaps.
Unfortunately, the project got off to a bad start from the beginning. To me, it was too quickly sold, but not vetted. Assumptions were made that if the cost of 2.8 mil. helped only three fields, what would be the cost of tending to all of the other fields? What was phase two and three? Inclusiveness is paramont when spending public dollars, not salesmanship. And, Ed, none of my comments above are intended to further the campaign of anyone else. BGT are adults, and quite able to defend their own actions, or change direction.
Ed Nice
10:10 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
You wonder how this town can use OS money for turf fields? Must be illegal right?
http://www.franklintwpnj.org/legal_ads/2012/120508-Legal%20Ads.pdf
Observer
10:42 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
http://www.nj.com/messenger-gazette/index.ssf/2012/05/franklin_township_targets_4_million_for_turf_playing_fields_at_middlebush_park.html
Their Open Space fund generates $4 million per year. They can afford it and still meet the requirements of their other Open Space endeavors. Can Moorestown?
Ed Nice
11:07 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Yes say Tom M., and that is what we pay him to do is advise us. But no the minority of the council has been able to keep the majority from bonding it and making it very easy to pay for. The numbers were right there up on the wall for all to see!
Yah Mo B There
2:29 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Note that their levy is 5 cents per $100 of assessed value vs. moorestowns at 1 cent per $100 of assessed value
Tom Lynch
3:44 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I thought the issue was that using the money was illegal not whether our tax rate is high enough. If it is legal, why not raise the rate then?
Yah Mo B There
9:01 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
legal/illegal is the issue. However, the comment was in regards to what Franklin twp generates. I was just pointing out that they pay substantially more per $100 to clarify how they are generating more funds. Our fund and theirs aren't apples to apples finance wise. But legality is the real issue.
Ed Nice
10:31 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
How is our fund and their fund different so they can build turf fields with OS money and we can't?
Yah Mo B There
10:46 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I may be misunderstood. I think it's perfectly legal to use the OS money. The statement was that Franklin was able to "afford" it due to the large revenues. Yes they have larger revenues, but due to a tax increase, so it's not as if larger funding was the reason they OK'd the use of the funds. So it's not different from a legality standpoint, but some may twist the fact that there is more money into it being OK to use. As you point out thats irrelevant and I was simply acknowledging they pay 4x's what we do to generate that funding.
Tom Lynch
10:58 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
According to the lawsuit, it is not legal so how can Franklin Town do it?
Talk of the town
10:31 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Stop trashing jb people, let's be civil. What is going on here? Are all 9 candidates that are listed presently still going to be here in the fall? Are these just rumors or are some candidates switching are stepping aside? Who's replacing them if so? Isnt this a bizarre campaign? Anyone have any updates, or are these rumors just bluff ?
Snack mom
11:12 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Talk is cheap like people who don't bring snacks when they are assigned as the snack mom and the kids all go hungry after a t ball game.
Richard Booth
12:17 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
I have a question regarding the OS monies and is it true that we still owe money on the Winners Farm and Flying Feather lands that we purchased with Open Space revenues. Also is council going to just turn around and bond out this money because they do not need the approval from the taxpayers because it was given once. So instead of paying this off with money we already have are they are going to put us into more debt by bonding the balance of the money owed, so they can put this money towrds the turf projects.. I hope someone can give me a truthful answer to this question and no beating around the bush about it.