councilman was
absent from meeting
Lone dissenting
councilman was
absent from meeting
By elaine van develde
Staff Writer
As the end of an exceptionally extended budget adoption process neared, one Tinton Falls official found he still could not support the spending plan.
Councilman Peter Maclearie, who was on vacation and not present at the Aug. 5 Borough Council meeting, forwarded a letter denouncing the budget. He asked that the letter be "read to council prior to its vote on the budget."
Council President Luann Catlin did not read the letter aloud. However, it was provided to The Hub by Maclearie.
Maclearie said in his letter that he wanted to vote by phone. However, Catlin said, "Both Karen Mount-Taylor [the borough clerk] and I tried to reach him on his cell phone today, but we could not get him directly. His voice mail keeps picking up."
Catlin explained that Maclearie’s letter raised some concerns about the budget, "which we will address, one by one, at the next meeting [Aug. 19]."
The correspondence outlined Maclearie’s reservations in sanctioning the 7.9-cent tax increase as well as his intent to dissent by phone. The increase raises the municipal purposes tax rate to 59.9 cents per $100 of assessed property valuation, a 15 percent increase. Still, minus Maclearie’s vote, the amended $16.5 million 2003 budget with a $7.1 million tax levy passed unanimously, 4-0.
While Maclearie’s letter said he was "happy with the overall reduction [in spending], he felt there were "additional steps that could have been taken to reduce taxes and/or protect against increases in the future."
His letter cited, among other things, taxpayers being saddled with the bonding cost for the new $8.8 million town hall. The cost of the hall represents 5.5 cents of the budget’s proposed 7.9-cent per $100 of assessed property valuation tax hike per $100.
"The council acted with the intention of taking advantage of very good rates [4.65 percent] at the time [2002] and leveraging the costs of having the bonds issued with those issued for the municipal complex," Maclearie’s letter read. "Since that date, there has not been any visible progress. Consequently, these delays have resulted in additional significant costs to the taxpayers, both this year and in future years."
For instance, Maclearie said, this year alone, taxpayers will be burdened with bond interest costs for the municipal building in excess of $550,000. That money, he said, was borrowed prematurely because there are still no floor plans for the main portion of the new complex (which cost $6.8 million, or the bulk of the $8.8 million) and no bidding process for construction has taken place yet.
In addition, Maclearie complained about what he deemed an unnecessary burden on taxpayers because of new police car purchases and rising health insurance expenses.
Maclearie wrote that he "would not support the budget as presented because I feel there were additional opportunities/actions not taken that could have reduced or eliminated the proposed tax increase," his letter concluded.
Catlin neither revealed nor commented on Maclearie’s lack of support for the budget at the meeting.
Neither Mayor Ann McNamara nor Borough Administrator Anthony Muscillo was available for comment as of press time. Neither one said anything about Maclearie’s dissent at the meeting.
The original budget, which called for a 12.9 cent tax increase, was introduced in March.