patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Mayor: Open Space Money Has More Than One Use

Mayor John Button responds to critics who say the township's open space funds are being misspent.

 

To the Editor:

Spring has descended and it’s great to see so many of you out enjoying our great town and its myriad activities in the warm weather.

As I begin, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention how often I hear misinformation presented as fact, which evokes opinions or actions that, in my view, are misplaced.  The best remedy, of course, is for us to provide the real facts, which we try to do in a variety of ways. Accordingly, I hope you’ll find these comments informative. This update will focus on several issues that have been the basis of recent discussion – our township budget, particularly as it relates to taxes and the use of monies from the Moorestown Open Space, Recreation, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund (FUND).

Certainly during my tenure on town council, taxes have been the No. 1 priority expressed by our residents. After many weeks of intensive analysis by our township staff and council to minimize the tax impact of our budget, we introduced and approved our 2011 budget of $22.9 million (still less than our 2008 budget of $23.1 million) on first reading and the public hearing was set for our 6/27/11 official action meeting. Again, we avoided using unsustainable revenue sources, such as deferred school taxes, to balance our budget, and focused on a disciplined spending approach which, together with renegotiated labor agreements, helped us keep the annual impact of the proposed budget to the homeowner of an average assessed residence of $533,800 at $26.69.  Our biggest hurdles were pension and healthcare costs, a refinanced tax appeal and a short-term debt service increase that occurred as we continue to experience a decline in ratables.  We have driven operational costs down over the past couple of years and we continue looking for ways to manage better and more creatively, taking advantage of new technology and shared or outsourced solutions.  Of course, we remain conscious of the importance of investing in our assets, as well, to preserve their value and prevent higher costs in the future. We are looking very hard at the revenue side of our budget to see how we can improve our ratables, for we recognize this is essential in the long-term. You will hear more from us on these topics as we begin our planning early for next year.

Open Space, and Council’s commitment to it, has been a topic of recent conversation, and even controversy, which is unfortunate given that all of us on Council are staunch supporters of open space preservation.  There has been discussion recently suggesting Council should spend money from the FUND only on open-space acquisitions or maintenance of land purchased solely with money from the FUND. What’s missing from that argument is the impact it will have on future taxes. The proper name of the FUND is the Moorestown Open Space, Recreation, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund, which clearly implies a variety of permitted uses. Restricting the use of the FUND solely for open space acquisition or for maintenance and development only applicable to land purchased with FUND money would result in the inability to use the FUND for many of its other necessary and intended purposes. As an example, maintenance of our newly acquired 1 High Street property and other property that wasn’t purchased with Fund money would be prohibited, as would using the FUND money to seek Green Acres matches on acquisitions. The result is that we would have to pay those costs from our general fund, which is generated through taxation. It is simply not consistent with creating a sustainable foundation for managing our township tax burden, which, again, is our No. 1 priority.  

Please note, that, in fact, no action council has taken is threatening to open space acquisition.  As an example,  although not classified as open space, per se, but subject to funding from the FUND, the Browning Hess family has recently accepted the county’s offer to purchase the development rights to their farm (roughly 40 acres) on the west end of town, thus assuring it will stay a farm in perpetuity.  The township has been working with the county and the Browning Hess family on this for many months, with the full knowledge that the township obligation would be for 20% of the cost, and we’re thrilled that it appears to be headed to closure before year-end.  The fund currently has nearly $2 million, with over $1 million additionally owed it by the state.  According to our budget filing, the fund is projected to grow to over $6 million by 2028.

There are different guidelines on the recommended amount of Open Space (developed or developable) in a community and Moorestown substantially exceeds all that I have seen. In 2007, our Township residents approved a referendum, by a greater than 2 to 1 majority, specifically extending the life of this  FUND for a number of specific uses, including (but not limited to) “acquisition of land for recreation and conservation purposes; development of land for recreation and conservation purposes; maintenance of land for recreation and conservation purposes; and payment of debt service on indebtedness issued or incurred by a municipality for any of the purposes set forth…..”. The wording on our local referendum was the same as that on both the state statute and the county referendum. Some of our residents have indicated that the use of funds for anything other than open space land acquisition was not what they voted for back when the FUND was created and when that use was given an extended life in 2007. While I do not sit in judgment, all authorized uses were clearly delineated in the original referendum. Because this tax is already being levied, use of these funds does not impose any increase, at all, on our taxpayers. And, of course, the fund balance grows by the amount that payment into the fund exceeds expenses drawn from the FUND. In fact, it is important to note that this council is using, and past councils have used, some of our FUND for general field maintenance for properties not acquired solely with assistance from the FUND and the balance has continued to grow. It should also be noted that the authorized uses apply to land purchased with, or without, FUND money.  

It is our commitment, as Council, to act responsibly by doing what we perceive to be in the best interests of our residents and taxpayers. Consequently, utilizing the FUND is an essential tool for us to consider when projects fall within its authorized uses, particularly during this difficult economic time. Investing in maintenance and upgrades of some of our athletic fields meets these criteria, whereas many projects do not.  Installing artificial turf, as recommended to us by experts analyzing the situation based on the amount of use our fields get and the need to rest the natural grass fields, has been done by towns throughout New Jerse, funded similarly. The funding mechanism we choose does not lessen our need to manage the costs of our projects down wherever possible, without compromising the quality of the results. Hopefully, the manner in which we’ve stabilized taxes over the past couple of years is an indicator of our continuing commitment to excellence in that regard.

We have worked hard to create a sustainable foundation for our budget that will allow us to better manage and control our taxes over time. Keeping Moorestown a special place, with all that it encompasses, in a very difficult economy, will remain our priority.  Please remember, we’re all in this together and, while we’re entitled to different opinions, continuing to respect each other and to keep on pulling together for the betterment of our township is what will keep us great! Thank you for the continued privilege of serving this great township. See you on Main Street!

Mayor John Button

Related Topics: Mayor John Button and Open Space

Ginger Hayes

8:51 am on Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Thank you Mr. Button. I sure hope folks read this in its entirety and absorb the information completely. Lets hope the conversation will then turn back to solutions.

Reply

Superfly

10:00 am on Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Open space means open space.

Make the "users" of the artificial turf pay for it. It sounds like there is plenty "amount of use" so why is this a problem?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Ginger Hayes

10:13 am on Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Users? So by your logic, anyone without kids in the district shouldnt have to pay for the schools?

Comment_arrow

KJL

10:34 am on Tuesday, June 21, 2011

By "Users", I assume you are talking about the parents of the kids that use the fields....the same parents who pay taxes into the Open Space Fund...for properties that their kids CANNOT use actively, such as those for passive recreation or farmland preservation....now you want them to pay more for what they CAN use? Seems like they are paying twice...and aren't you at all worried that this kind of "pay to play" could potentially prohibit some children from playing sports due to household economic issues?

Someone once said "it takes a village to raise a child"....doesn't that apply here? Aren't we all obligated to provide for the community's children?

For those opposed to the use of Open Space Funds for the purposes proposed by Council who have raised children in Moorestown, do you really think that the taxes you paid during the years your children were growing up in this community were sufficient to cover their educational and recreational costs or do you think maybe some others in the community, without children or with grown children helped subsidize your child's expenses? I for one look forward to the day when my taxes are used to pay back this community for the wonderful education and recreatinal opportunities that were provided to my children.

Comment_arrow

hoppy

10:43 pm on Tuesday, June 21, 2011

I thought the users were willing to pay a lot of money something like 800,000 towards the costs. My understanding was that this money was in addition to the taxes they pay to the open space fund so aren't these groups already being overcharged and yet they are ok with it? It's so stupid to suggest that residents should have to pay two and three times for something the town should already be providing. What's next a fee to go to the library or drop off debris at the dump?

eastgate

10:23 am on Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Well. Said Mayor!
Superfly- you are right, "open space" means open space, and Recreation means recreation, Farmland means farmland, etc! All components of the referendum should be supported. I appreciate all members of council but especially those with the courage to stand for what is right, despite misinformation and smears by some (not all ) of the Open space only thugs. Council has a responsibility to the entire town and that is not always an easy task.

Reply

Mr funds

1:58 pm on Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Seems like a good job on the budget. Is that up for final vote soon? What's next with the johnnys pizza hangout? Perhaps they could make a smaller establishment to folate with a chuck cheese style? Arcade games, food, soft drinks? Or is that market too saturated?

Reply

Lynne

9:59 am on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

I have no problem with using open space funds to purchase more fields that could be used for recreation purposes. This would allow rest time for the existing fields. Many of us object to using open space funds to pave lots, install artificial turf, score boards, and lighting. This is not maintaining recreational areas, it is engineering them, and is not, I believe, consistent with the spirit of the open space fund vote by our citizens.

Reply

KJL

10:19 am on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Lynne - In the perfect world, purchasing additional land and buidling a field would be agreat solution. However, the costs of building a new field are 2 or 3 times the cost as that proposed by the KIDS, as determined by the Twp engineer, and that doesn't even take into account the cost of the land purchase. And it is undertermined if adding only one grass field is adequate to provide the field rest you mentioned.

As for lighting, installing lights extends the hours the fields can be used thereby eliminating the need for more fields. Keep in mind that the only lights proposed are at Pryor as the other fields are already lit. If you are opposed to lights as a use of Open Space funds, does that mean that OS funds shold not be used to fix the lights at Fullerton or at maple dawson?

Increasing the size of the parking lot at WB North is a safety issue as just about anyone who has parked there will tell you. We have been in discussions with the Twp Engineer and Manager about alternate surfaces for the lot that are less expensive and not impervious like asphalt.

There is only one scorebaord in the current proposal and it will most likely be part of a corporate donation anyway.

Hopefully this helps clear up some of the misunderstandings about KIDS.

Reply

KJL

1:16 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

I attended the Open Space Advisory Committee meeting last week to try to understand how that group works. I posed a question the Chair, Mr. Shaw about how the properties are selected for OS acquisition and he directed me to a document, entitled “Open Space and Recreation Plan Element”, as prepared by the Planning Board.

I found the answer to my question but I also found a lot of very interesting information such as:
•Page IV-11: “Facility Needs” – This section discusses the high level of usage on the township’s fields, the dire need for maintenance and the need for rest, acknowledging rest is unlikely given the usage.
• Page IV-12: “Guidelines for Adequacy of Open Space” – It appears that the desirable goal for an Open Space Program, according to Green Acres, in Moorestown based upon future population projection is 180 acres. As of 2009, we had 666 acres of Open Space, which is more than three times the desirable amount. It goes on to say that it recommends 3% of municipal land area is set aside of Open Space. Moorestown as of 2009 was at 7%, more than double the desirable amount. There are similar numbers using the National Park Association guidelines.

Reply

KJL

1:16 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

• Page IV-20: “Recommendation for Open Space and Recreation” – This section begins with the statement “The following recommendations are made to fulfill the goals and objectives for Open Space in Moorestown” and goes on to list, among others, the following recommendations:
o Part 3 – “..meet the demand in the future through adequate budgets for capital improvements and maintenance….”
o Part 5 – “Continue the roles of RAC and OSAC in the planning for recreation and Open Space acquisitions in relation to this document”
o Part 6 – “Utilize professional site planning assistance…to create a consensus plan for the development of recreational facilities” – The township did this with Taylor Design and it is basis for the KIDS recommendations.
o Part 10 – “Continue to upgrade and maintain the existing park facilities and to develop a capital projects plan” – Isn’t this what KIDS is all about????

Please read the entire document so that nothing is taken out of context. What I don’t understand is why, if such a document exists to direct eh Open Space Program in Moorestown, are we arguing about doing things that this guidance document tells Council to do??????

Reply

KJL

1:34 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Here is the link to the Open Space and Recreation Plan Element document.

http://www.moorestown.nj.us/pubs/161/3480.pdf

Reply
Comment_arrow

Pete

3:26 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

KJL, the Open Space and Recreation Plan Element is not the document that governs use of OS tax money – it is an OVERALL VIEW of the Open Space and Recreation Plan Elements in Moorestown, just as the title represents. Your reference is diversionary.

Only the local Ordinances are relevant to how the specific funds acquired via the special OS taxation are spent.

Comment_arrow

KJL

3:40 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Pete, how is my posting "diversionary" when all I did is point out the very document that the Open Space Advisory Committee Chairman directed me to in order to find answers to my questions? Did I not ask that people read the document to avoid anything being taken out of context? I did not offer my opinion as to the Council's right to allocate Open Space Funds for KIDS...that is a legal issue for attorneys, not for me or you. I was merely making sure that the Township's "OVERLL VIEW" (your term, not mine) was understood by those who are interested in this topic.

Comment_arrow

Pete

4:00 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Only the local Ordinances are relevant to how the specific funds acquired via the special OS taxation are spent.

Comment_arrow

KJL

4:04 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Hypothetically, if someone other than you or I were to deem the funds eligible to be used for recreational development, would you agree that doing so would be in conformace with the intentions of the OVRALL VIEW? hypothetically speaking...

Comment_arrow

Pete

4:13 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Hypothetically, if I was a politician that promised you “Change”, and that change turned out to be a recession, would you agree that the resession was within the intentions of “Change”?

King Quaker

7:30 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Here, here I think quite a number of folks would say that now we are diving into a double dip recession and that our national debt has tripled in the past two years. We need to find real leadership in 2012
To answer that.
Thanks To council budget, which is up for final vote this mon for not raising taxes.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Pete

8:49 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Council, it seems, has done an excellent job in keeping the budget within reason. Kudos to all the members.

Comment_arrow

KJL

9:16 pm on Wednesday, June 22, 2011

I too commend all five members of Council for their work on the budget. I attended several workshops and was impressed with the discussions and numerous ideas being considered.

Given our shared disdain for increased taxes in this economy, doesn't it seem logical to support a plan to improve the township's assets without raising taxes? The work on the fields can be done without raising taxes....near as I know, it is the only project in front of council that can be done without raising taxes.

Comment_arrow

Pete

3:14 pm on Thursday, June 23, 2011

I agree not to raise taxes.

USE THE $3,725,000 THAT IS ALREADY IN THE 2011 BUDGET http://www.moorestown.nj.us/pubs/142/4230.pdf , pg 40C, for fields improvements? Council can reimburse the OS fund from that line item and there will still be $3.5M left over for artificial turf, scoreboards, bleachers, paved parking lots and all that other important stuff – as I recall, the cost proposal was less than $3M. All this can happen without any impact on taxes, and there will be money left over! Use the leftover money to reduce tax bills next year.

Do you support this logical plan?

Leave a comment

 

The Moorestown Patch
Valentine's Shopping Guide

See the full guide!

Patch Picks