BOROUGH GOVERNMENT
HOME PAGE
BOROUGH PHONE DIRECTORY
COMMISSIONERS
CARL GROON, MAYOR
JOYCE GOULD
DON CABRERA
SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
MINUTES OF MEETINGS
BOROUGH CODE NEW!
MUNICIPAL CLERK
BOROUGH TREASURER / CFO
PURCHASING AGENT
TAX ASSESSOR
TAX COLLECTOR
  TAX MAPS - PDF File NEW!
BOROUGH SOLICITOR
MUNICIPAL COURT
ZONING OFFICIAL
Land Use Regulations
Zoning Permit Applications
CONSTRUCTION OFFICE NEW!
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Fire Prevention
LAND USE OFFICE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOURISM COMMISSION
BOARD OF EDUCATION
 
BOROUGH DEPARTMENTS
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER
CMC Animal Shelter
BEACH PATROL
Lifeguard Association
EMERG. MEDICAL / RESCUE
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Volunteer Fire Company
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
POLICE DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
Recreation Facilities Rental Information
Crest Pier Day Camp Information
Pool Schedule & Fees
Tennis Court Information
Festival and Craft Show Information
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRASH & RECYCLING
 
COMMUNITY FEATURES
Getting Married in Wildwood Crest
2011 BOROUGH SUMMER ACTIVITIES
NEW RESIDENTS' INFORMATION
Flood Protection/Insurance Information
TOURISM & VACATION INFORMATION
STREET MAPS of Wildwood Crest
  LOCAL TIDE TABLES
LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
WILDWOOD CONVENTION CENTER
CHURCHES
PUBLIC LIBRARY
CREST MEMORIAL SCHOOL
CREST HISTORICAL SOCIETY
  LOCAL LINKS 
 

 

 

 

   

VISIT THE WEBSITE OF THE

www.cresthistory.org

 
   

Attention Crest Residents!
Have an idea, listing, feature or comment on the web site?
CLICK HERE

 

 

Minutes of Special Commissioners Meeting   -   January 29, 2008

Note:  Complete Meeting Appears on Tape #3-08 and 4-08  on File in the Borough Clerk’s Office January 29, 2008
Wildwood Crest, NJ

Prior to the opening of the special meeting, Mr. Groon led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

 

The meeting of the Board of Commissioners, Borough of Wildwood Crest, Cape May County , New Jersey , was held in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room at 9:00 a.m.   On roll call the following answered to their names:

Gould - Cabrera – Groon – Yes

 

Mr. Groon read the following statement:  In compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act, Chapter 231, P.L. 1975, the notice requirements have been satisfied as to the time, place and date of holding said special meeting by posting notice on the bulletin board in the Borough Hall and by mailing same to the Gazette-Leader and The Press on January 25, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.

 

Mr. Groon next announced the one-way in and the one-way out method of ingress and egress in case of emergency.

 

The Clerk indicated that the discussion at this meeting would be limited as a work session for discussion of the 2008 Municipal Budget, including capital items for inclusion therein. He added that each of the Commissioners was provided with a capital budget proposal by the CFO, and additional discussion items would be the status of the 2008 Municipal Budget.

 

Mrs. Gould inquired of the CFO as to where the Borough stands financially regarding the budget. Mr. Groon interjected that the capital budget is capped at 4% from 2007. The CFO stated that the levy cap is 4%. He added, however, that his statements to be made at this meeting would be based on information presently in his possession since guidelines to have been issued by the State by January 15th were still not available and probably would not be available until February 1st. In response to Mr. Groon’s comment regarding the CAP, the CFO indicated that the capital improvement fund, as he understood it, would be an exclusion to the 4% levy CAP; that is, it will be in addition to the 4% levy CAP, with some restriction. He explained that you take the levy, add 4%, and subtract from that number the 2007 capital improvement fund, and then add to that the 2008 capital improvement fund. The 2008 capital improvement fund can be as high as the governing body wants it to be, because it is not being governed by the 4% CAP. The difficulty in making it as high as they might wish would be with regard to what the ultimate tax levy will be. As the capital improvement fund is increased, it must be balanced on the revenue side. If the capital improvement fund is increased, revenues must be increased.

 

Mr. Groon stated that the capital improvement budget would remain within the budget, but would be subject to the “ebb and flow” of the budget. The CFO concurred.

 

The CFO stated that at the present time, with the numbers presently in his possession and subject to the capital improvement list being presented to the Commissioners, he had heard from the Engineer that there are some projects that have been requested but not on the list presented by the CFO. He stated that if the Commissioners were to do everything on the capital improvement list, and then some, they would have to increase the capital improvement fund over the present $180,000. He added that currently, with the numbers in his possession, the Borough is a little over $71,000 over the Tax Levy CAP, but under the appropriation CAP by $125,000. Therefore, the Commissioners will either have to cut some appropriations inside the CAP, or increase revenues. He stated that presently the Borough was looking at a tax levy increase of 13%.

 

Mr. Groon inquired if it would be appropriate to try to accomplish coming close to the current $180,000 and adjust the projects accordingly over the next few years. The CFO responded that the capital improvement fund, after an adjustment to the previous year, becomes an exclusion to the levy CAP. Mr. Groon reiterated his inquiry as to staying “relatively stable” by staying in the $180,000 to $200,000 range and attempt to build the projects around those numbers. The CFO responded that it is difficult to speak about going forward because the municipality will have to see what one full cycle in the new levy CAP yields. In other words, in future years there are going to be adjustments to the levy CAP.

 

Mr. Groon stated that he was trying to “get a feel” of what needs to be done since there are certain replacements that are needed every year, and certain projects to be accomplished each year, and then there are the larger projects, and he was trying to incorporate that into a plan or at least an understanding on how to accomplish that. The CFO responded that presently as the law is written, the capital improvement fund, as adjusted, is an exclusion to the 4% levy CAP and all of the debt service increases are an exclusion to the 4% levy CAP. However, if there is a decrease in the debt service in any given year, it would have an adverse effect and that comes off the 4%. He stated that in the first year, somewhere between $175,000 and $200,000 would be a number the Borough can live with in the capital improvement fund. He added that it will not be very difficult to find $71,000 in the levy CAP. Mr. Cabrera asked if the proposed $180,000 is part of the CAP consideration to be looked at. The CFO responded that the $180,000 is an appropriation in the capital improvement fund. Mr. Cabrera inquired if it is subject to the 4%. The CFO responded that it is an exclusion. He added that in order to keep the $180,000, the Borough will have to find $71,000 either through budget cuts or increased revenues to get under the levy CAP. Mr. Cabrera inquired if the first step would be to go through the proposed capital projects for 2008. The CFO responded in the affirmative. Mr. Groon interjected that an alternative would be to come up with the $71,000. The CFO stated that in his opinion the first step would be to go through the capital projects because if the $180,000 turns into $200,000 that only increases the levy CAP differential. If some of the projects that are in budget appropriations are put into a bond ordinance, that could go toward the $71,000 levy overage. However, even in that event, the Borough would still be looking at a 12.5% tax increase.

 

The Engineer inquired as to how the revaluation will impact the tax increase. The Clerk responded that the revaluation will not be completed until the end of 2008 and not on the books until 2009. The CFO stated that the impact of the revaluation on the tax levy CAP will have no impact since the revaluation is a “revenue neutral” exercise. Therefore, the items that are exclusions presently, the revaluation should have no impact.

 

The CFO stated that items that are not listed on the capital improvement list include reconstruction of the 400 block of East Miami Avenue and the outfall extensions. The Engineer indicated that he was more concerned about the outfall extensions. He indicated that the outfalls must be dug out on a daily basis and that is why the Commissioners receive calls from residents on Seaview Avenue complaining of flooding during rain storms. Mr. Cabrera stated that his concern is that the outfalls need to be extended, but the storm water cannot reach the outfall lines because between the street and the outfall lines there are some problems. The Engineer interjected that the right thing to do would be to replace the storm sewer on the 400 east block of Miami Avenue . He added that the pipe is intact but the joints are “shot.” He indicated that it would be possible to repair the joints, but stated “that is a band-aid” and it would be money that would only buy a little bit of time, perhaps two years. Mrs. Gould inquired as to where the replacement would commence. Mr. Cabrera responded that it would run from the bulkhead to Seaview Avenue . The Engineer interjected that it would commence “just east of the bulkhead.” The Engineer added that his biggest concern for the Borough’s infrastructure is Seaview Avenue and continuing the reconstruction of that street.

 

Mr. Groon stated that taken in total, there are things that are done on a yearly basis, and then there are the major projects. He asked if it would not be advisable, not knowing where things are going in the future, to identify the annual projects, assign a certain amount of value for each year for the major projects, and make a plan for the next several years. The CFO responded that approximately 65% of the current $180,000 is the major projects. Mr. Groon explained that, since Seaview Avenue is a high priority, he would suggest doing phase two of Seaview Avenue in 2008 and the following year do the next phase. He added that he would suggest identifying seven or eight major projects and doing them on a rotating basis.

 

Mr. Groon also suggested attempting to obtain grants for some of the projects, such as the outfall line extensions.

 

The CFO stated that if the Commissioners wanted to have a self-imposed CAP of $200,000 because of the implications of the tax levy, they could start cutting funds from operations which would accomplish two things: staying further under the budget CAP, and every dollar cut from operations could then be put into the capital budget. The same amount of money would be raised by taxation, and the extra funds in the capital improvement fund would give the Borough the ability to authorize debt for another $2.1 or $2.2 million. That would accelerate the process on the major projects. Mr. Cabrera inquired if the additional $100,000 could be found in miscellaneous revenues. The CFO responded that the miscellaneous revenues are dropping. He added that the new levy CAP will restrict the Borough from generating surplus. He went on to state that the Borough generated surplus in tax revenue collection in 2007 of over $400,000. There were three reasons for that: the county tax board rounds rates up to give extra cash flow to the municipalities; the new construction in the Borough; and the reserve for uncollected taxes is calculated as a conservative rate. He indicated that the Borough will no longer be allowed to calculate the reserve for uncollected taxes at anything other than the maximum. It was his opinion that that is “bad management” but the state is forcing local government to practice “bad management.”

 

Mr. Cabrera suggested reviewing the proposed capital improvement budget and discuss it in detail. The Clerk interjected his suggestion that it should be about priorities. He added that the list in 2008 and going forward, as well as all of the operating expense budgets and salary and wage line items, must be “closely scrutinized.”

 

Mr. Groon said that Seaview Avenue represents an ongoing problem and there are several other projects “behind it that are of similar scope”; it was his opinion that the Borough proceed with that project and try to cut elsewhere. Mrs. Gould concurred.

 

Mr. Groon asked Mr. Cabrera about his request for two dump trucks. Mr. Cabrera responded that the Fleet Maintenance Supervisor had indicated that the present dump trucks are heavily utilized and are in need of replacement. Mrs. Gould stated that the Fleet Maintenance Supervisor’s opinion is trustworthy, and she suggested keeping the dump trucks in the budget.

 

With regard to gutter replacement, phase 2, Mr. Cabrera indicated that the Borough has commenced phase 1 of that project, and this would be the continuation for gutters that are not scheduled for replacement in the street reconstruction projects. Mr. Groon inquired if this would be one of the “every year” projects. Mr. Cabrera responded in the affirmative. The CFO stated that the appropriation was $50,000 in 2007, and he had appropriated $75,000 in 2008 because that was what he had been provided. Mr. Cabrera stated that $25,000 of that would be used for concrete work on the bikepath. The Engineer interjected that he would estimate that with the $50,000 for gutter replacement, the Borough would be able to do approximately 80% of what was done in 2007. The Clerk stated that both projects must be done because of liability issues, since the Borough is on notice of the need and the work has been commenced. Mrs. Gould stated that she would agree with the projects.

 

Mr. Cabrera stated that the Crest Pier Roof needs repair since it is leaking into the basketball court. Mrs. Gould stated that there have been many roofers look at that roof and there has never been a resolution to the problem. The amount budgeted for that work was $25,000.

 

The next item for discussion was the new bathrooms and heating system at the swimming pool. Mr. Cabrera stated that the work had been planned for 2007 but it was not done. He stated that it calls for bathroom tile work, new fixtures, the drainage system repaired or replaced, and replacement of the pool heating unit, as well as resurfacing of the pool. Mr. Groon asked Mr. Cabrera if all of the work can be accomplished for $50,000. Mr. Cabrera responded that the tile work and the drainage can be accomplished, as well as the resurfacing. The only unknown is the pool heating unit. The CFO stated that the appropriation was in the 2007 budget and $45,000 of the appropriation was canceled.

 

Mr. Cabrera stated that the flat-bed truck, the roll-off truck and the renovation of the office at Public Works are all relative to the new recycling mandates from the State of New Jersey . He stated that the Borough could delay these items, but in that event he would urge the Commissioners to start thinking about shared services for recycling. Mrs. Gould stated that the Fleet Maintenance Supervisor advised her that the flat-bed truck was a possibility, but in his opinion the roll-off truck was not necessary. Mr. Cabrera stated that presently the Borough is paying a company to remove the recycling, but if the Borough purchased its own containers, it would be necessary to have a vehicle that would be able to move the containers. The Engineer stated that he was aware that the City of North Wildwood had recently purchased such a vehicle and perhaps the Borough could make arrangements with North Wildwood to share. The CFO stated that there is presently funding in the budget to pay the company to remove the recycling. Mr. Groon stated that he agreed with Mr. Cabrera that a shared services arrangement for the entire island has merit and would be worth exploring. Mr. Groon suggested reviewing the purchase of the vehicles for 2009 and in the meantime exploring a shared services plan. Mr. Cabrera concurred.

 

Mr. Groon stated that the generator at the ambulance corps building is necessary since the existing one is in poor condition.

 

With regard to the replacement of parking meters, Mr. Cabrera stated that there is revenue generating aspect to the meters, and inquired whether they would be replacement of old meters or installation of new locations. The CFO responded that it would be a combination of the two.

 

Mr. Groon stated that the Municipal Court Judge has requested the purchase of video conference equipment for the court under state mandate. The CFO interjected that the $5,500 requested represents the Borough’s share of the project.

 

Mrs. Gould and Mr. Cabrera voiced their opinion that the new telephone system should be removed from the capital budget because of budgetary constraints.

 

With regard to the street-end bollards, Mr. Cabrera indicated that they would be located at the street-ends south of Rambler Road that have benches and access to the beach. He stated that the surrounding properties have parking spaces close to the street-ends and there have been damages done to benches from cars backing into them. He suggested that it would be the Borough’s responsibility to keep persons and property safe from vehicular traffic. There was some discussion about the safety of vehicles attempting to maneuver in and out of the adjacent parking spaces. Mr. Groon stated that each street-end should be reviewed and a recommendation made before proceeding with the project. Mr. Cabrera responded that it was his opinion that some funds should be allocated in the event public safety and engineering deem certain areas as urgent. It was decided to reduce the proposed amount to $25,000.

 

With regard to the proposed fitness park stations, Mrs. Gould indicated that she had requested additional information and had not received anything to date. Mr. Cabrera produced information describing the proposed fitness stations. He added that there are property owners in the vicinity of the park who have expressed a willingness to purchase the fitness stations. The Clerk interjected that the solicitor has recommended against any consideration in that direction because of potential obligations that the Borough would have to those property owners from a standpoint of open space, and the ability of the Borough to sell the property in the future if necessary with private funds having been utilized for the “public venture”. The CFO stated that the property owners would not be purchasing the equipment. Rather, it would work similar to a grant whereby the property owners would “donate” funds to the Borough and the Borough would have the final determination over the utilization of the funds. The property owners would have no further say in the matter. Mr. Groon stated that it was his understanding that the solicitor had been referring to the construction of the park itself and not the equipment. Mr. Cabrera voiced his opinion that the project be removed from the capital budget and try to have private property owners fund the equipment.

 

With regard to the reconstruction of the 100 west block of Jefferson Avenue , Mr. Cabrera stated that it was his opinion that it is not a priority at this time and that it be removed from the capital budget. The Engineer stated that from an engineering standpoint, there are other areas that are in far worse condition.

 

Mr. Cabrera then indicated that he wished to discuss New Jersey Avenue , the outfall lines, and the tie-ins to the outfall lines, since it was his opinion that those were more pressing projects. The Clerk interjected that the southern end of New Jersey Avenue in the vicinity of the pool was in need of repair. The Engineer stated that the work done by the County of Cape May is in need of repair. He is aware that the Borough has resurfaced that area in the 1990s. He indicated that there is an average settlement of six inches, meaning it could be as much as a foot in some places. He stated that the concerns are that the depressions are becoming a hazard for driving. Mr. Groon inquired if he was referring to the area from Louisville to St. Louis . The Engineer responded that that is the worse section, and perhaps a little south of Louisville . Mr. Groon inquired if it is similar in scope to the Seaview Avenue project. The Engineer responded that that is the case if the utilities are replaced, but if only the road surface were to be reconstructed, it would be substantially cheaper. Mr. Cabrera inquired as to what the Borough usually receives for municipal aid. The Clerk responded that the Borough just received $140,000 for Seaview Avenue . The Engineer responded that it would be his recommendation to continue with the Seaview Avenue project for funding since “continuing projects received priority for funding.” He added that the concrete on New Jersey Avenue looks to be in good condition, so there would be a large savings if the curbs, gutters and driveway aprons do not have to be replaced. Mr. Cabrera stated his opinion that the outfall lines and storm sewer drainage must be “priority number one.” The Clerk inquired if the Engineer would concur with that assessment. The Engineer responded that New Jersey Avenue is not a priority to him because there is no experience of infrastructure problems with the utility lines. Mr. Cabrera interjected that with regard to Seaview Avenue , Phase 2, at the time the project is bid out, should include the “direct ties to the outfall lines.” The Clerk indicated that the Borough is in receipt of numbers from the Engineer with respect to that. He added that the CFO will need that information in order to change the numbers for the projects on the capital improvement budget. He added that for phase two he would like to design up to Atlanta Avenue in order that as part of phase two or phase three, the outfall at Atlanta Avenue can be interconnected to Seaview Avenue which would significantly help the drainage on Seaview Avenue .

 

Mr. Groon stated that he sees six projects: three phases of Seaview Avenue , one phase of New Jersey Avenue , one phase going to the bulkhead with storm sewer lines, and the last phase going from the bulkhead to the water. He added that they will all probably be approximately the same cost. He indicated that all of the projects cannot be done in one year and they will have to be prioritized over several years.

 

The Clerk asked the Engineer his opinion of the 400 east block of Miami Avenue and the outfall lines. The Engineer responded that the outfall extensions can be accommodated with the public works department digging them out “every single day.” However, he added, “the longer you wait, the more they will have to be extended and the more expensive they will be.”

 

Mr. Groon stated that one of the things to be recognized is the issue of consistency in how the Borough approaches capital improvements. He indicated that the Borough should keep it fairly consistent. The CFO stated that the Borough has “set the tone” to the extent that in August 2006 the Borough sold bonds and issued permanent debt that resulted in no short term financing as of that date. Since that sale, the Borough has sold $6 million in bonds. At an upcoming meeting, the Commissioners will be authorizing the renewal of Bond Anticipation Notes that were initially sold in 2007 in the amount of $2.4 million. The Borough recently sold $5.2 million. In less than two years, the Borough now has $7.5 million in debt in an eighteen month period. He indicated that he did not know if the Borough can sustain that kind of increase in debt, stating, “at some point in time you will have to start paying.”

 

The Engineer stated that the Commissioners must determine what is best for the Borough in terms of debt, but indicated that there are grants available. He added that the USDA has changed its requirements. The CFO interjected that the Borough recently hired a grants coordinator.

 

The CFO went on to state that he is not comfortable with “real long term debt” but sometimes it is necessary. With regard to the beach outfall extensions, he indicated that he was aware of municipalities in northern New Jersey that have “beach utilities” which would cover outfall lines, and that kind of debt can be incorporated into a user fee as other towns have done.

 

Mr. Groon asked, in the event Seaview Avenue is extended to three or four phases, how many of the ocean outfalls would require repair or replacement from Seaview to the bulkhead that would fall within those phases. The Engineer responded that there would be four of the outfalls that would fall within those phases. Mr. Groon inquired what the extra cost would be to incorporate those four storm sewer lines to the bulkhead into the Seaview Avenue phases. The Engineer responded that if those lines were included up to Fern Road , the additional cost would be approximately $600,000. Mr. Groon inquired if there was any “economy of scale” by doing all of them at one time. The Engineer responded that there is always economy of scale, since there would be savings on engineering fees and other costs.

 

Mr. Groon stated his opinion that “either we incorporate the outfall on the street side with each phase of Seaview or it will have to wait four or five years.” Mr. Cabrera stated that the drainage is a problem and must be taken care of. Mr. Groon added that, unfortunately, that would add another $1 million to each phase. The Engineer concurred, adding that would be the case if two were completed per phase of Seaview Avenue . Mr. Cabrera asked for clarification of Mr. Groon’s suggestion, asking if he was suggesting that as each of the next three phases of Seaview Avenue are done, to include the outfall lines in those projects. The Engineer stated that the work has progressed past the Heather Road outfall and it would have to be done separately. Mr. Cabrera asked the Engineer if the majority of the problems are at the southern end of town. The Engineer responded that that was only because the Borough has done so many emergency repairs already in the other sections and those are “buying the Borough some time.”

 

Mr. Cabrera stated that it was his opinion that the outfall lines and phase two of Seaview Avenue should be done, and as the Seaview Avenue phases progress, the outfall line work should be “tied in.” Mr. Groon stated that it would bring each of the phases from a $2 million project to a $4 million project.

 

The Engineer brought to the attention of the Commissioners that in the next phase of Seaview Avenue , there had been discussions with regard to adding bike lanes which would not add anything to the cost of the project if it was done at the same time as the reconstruction. He also reminded the Commissioners that there had been discussion of a streetscape theme. He stated that should the Commissioners wish to do that, it would have to be done as part of the reconstruction in order to avoid paying “twice as much.”

 

Mrs. Gould interjected that “islands are nice and they look wonderful, but they are not a necessary thing at all in Wildwood Crest.”

 

The CFO asked the Commissioners what their final determination was with regard to the storm sewers. The Clerk responded that it was his understanding that they were going to increase the capital improvement fund proportionately. Mr. Groon interjected that that would not help in the overall budget scheme. Mr. Cabrera stated that it should be done as a priority and adjust the budget later. The CFO stated that it would add $600,000. He added that “the cost will be the cost and it is a matter of the method of financing.” Mr. Groon stated that he would feel more comfortable if there was a different funding mechanism. He went on to state that an extra $3 million makes him uncomfortable because he was concerned about that the impact on the taxpayers in three or five years when it is financed. He indicated that he would not mind adding it on, but that the repayment would have to change.

 

The Clerk pointed out that with the cuts already agreed to, the capital improvement fund would still remain at approximately $180,000 if the cost of the stormwater sewer work came in at around $750,000. The CFO concurred. Mr. Groon responded that he thought the idea was to lower it. The Clerk stated that the Engineer has stressed that the “number one priority is Seaview Avenue .” He went on to state that “right behind that is the outfall extensions.” The Engineer stated that there are two issues with the outfalls: extending them into the water, and replacing the deteriorated section under the roadway. Mr. Cabrera and Mr. Groon both stated that the road has to be done. The Engineer concurred, stating “you can always dig out the outfall lines” on the beach. Mr. Groon stated that if the Borough is going to take on that kind of debt, he would like to look at alternatives to financing.

 

Mr. Cabrera asked if they were referring to all of Seaview Avenue outfalls, or only the ones that tie into the drainage system. The Engineer responded that he would suggest that on phase two to go back and do Heather Road and Fern Road , even if they are bid as alternates. Then in phase three, do Atlanta and Miami and in phase four the last two at Hollywood and Washington . The Clerk stated that for purposes of financing for the CFO, would it be approximately $800,000. The Engineer responded in the affirmative.

 

The Clerk asked the Commissioners if that was the direction the Engineer should proceed. The Engineer reiterated that it would be his recommendation to get Seaview Avenue out to bid as soon as possible because the contractors don’t have work and the Borough will get better prices. Mr. Cabrera suggested bidding out of all of the work. The Engineer responded that they could be bid as alternates, but he would not recommend it. The Clerk interjected that if it if somewhat unrealistic to do all six, putting all of them in as an alternate would be of no benefit to the Borough. Mr. Cabrera responded that the southern end is a bigger problem and that work will not be done for several years in the phasing of the work.

 

The Engineer added that the only other matter he wanted to bring to the attention of the Commissioners was the replacement of control valves for the pump station. He added that they have had an emergency repair during the off-season, and if it happens during the summer it would be a major problem. The Clerk stated that that would seem to be a significant problem. The CFO interjected that that project is already in the budget.

 

It was decided that the Commissioners would go back to their individual budgets and see what other expenses can be cut or reduced. The Clerk stated that he would caution the Commissioners that whatever they would intend to reduce or take out in 2008, if it is a priority and will have to be put in the 2009 budget, they would be in the same position at that time as they are no presently in. Therefore, he stated that they should cut or reduce only those things that are not absolutely necessary or required. Mr. Groon stressed that the Commissioners must be careful because when the O/Es are reduced, they will not be able to recover those funds.

 

Mr. Cabrera asked at what point the Borough should be talking about shared services. The Clerk responded that “that door can always be opened”; that perhaps lists can be developed for potential consideration.

 

Mr. Cabrera then asked if there was anything under miscellaneous revenues that could be done to increase those revenues. Mr. Groon responded that that is something that will have to be discussed and would be difficult to implement for the 2008 budget year, but it was his opinion that it must be done.

 

The Clerk summarized the meeting by stating that the Commissioners will go back to their individual budgets and scrutinize the O/E to see what can be reduced. The CFO stated that if the budget is going to be introduced on February 20, 2008 , the Commissioners have only two weeks to make a final decision, and he would like to have the final numbers no later than February 15, 2008 . Mr. Groon stated that it was his opinion that they should take the time needed because it will “set the seeds” for the next several years. The CFO stated that the Commissioners, collectively, must determine “where they want to be” and that they “have to have a destination” before they can make a final decision regarding the budget numbers. He suggested setting ratios between the operating expenses of the three departments, and then cut according to that ratio.

 

The CFO stated that the tax levy is now up 11.75% after the cuts made at this meeting, an increase of approximately $0.04.

 

Mr. Groon inquired as to the new pension increase. The CFO responded that it is $183,982, adding that that is a combination of PERS and PFRS. He indicated that in 2009, PFRS will be 100% funded, resulting in their portion being removed. Presently that is outside the CAP but once it is fully funded, it will come inside the CAP in 2009. In 2010, the PERS will be fully funded and it will move inside the CAP.

 

The CFO stressed that unless recurring items of revenue are addressed, or there is a cut in appropriations, it will be a matter of time before surplus is exhausted.

 

There being no further matters for discussion, Mr. Cabrera motioned, seconded by Mrs. Gould, that the meeting be adjourned.

Vote:           Gould-Cabrera-Groon-Yes

 

Dated:         February 20, 2008

Kevin M. Yecco, Clerk/Administrator

TOP OF PAGE

MINUTES OF MEETINGS INDEX