For the week of May 19
Outsource borough
services to township
To the editor:
In 2005 and 2006 your total property tax bill could have been 20-percent less if Mayor Patten met with Mayor Mironov of East Windsor in 2004 to discuss and agree upon outsourcing Hightstown’s municipal services to East Windsor and had the support of Councilpersons Quattrone and Schneider. It would be a merging of all services except for the mayor and council.
Councilman Schneider does not believe this is true and asked me to show him the math. There is a tremendous duplication of all services by Hightstown and East Windsor. Hightstown has 5,300 citizen and East Windsor has 25,000 citizens. We don’t need two police departments.
Public works the people who maintain the municipal roads, parks, and plant and tree waste removal services would not be reduced since it is labor intensive. These people are also our daytime firefighters. Debt service also would be a nonduplicated cost. And there are miscellaneous costs for lawyers, accountants and others who are state-mandated. All other costs for personnel and supplies are duplicated by East Windsor.
The actual added cost for East Windsor to provide a total outsourced service would comprise $500,000 for four officers and their expenses, $300,000 for public works personnel and equipment support, $301,000 for borough debt service and $100,000 for miscellaneous costs. So, the added expenses for East Windsor providing outsourced services would be $1.2 million.
Borough revenue in 2005, excluding property taxes, was $2,395, 219. In 2005 East Windsor’s municipal taxes to be raised was $5,445,024. If East Windsor were providing outsourced services, that amount would be increased to 6,645,024 ($5,445,024 plus $1,200,000). But this amount would be reduced by borough revenue of $2,395, 219 for a total amount of $4,249,805 to be raised by taxes from both communities based on equalized values.
The tax rate for East Windsor in 2005 was 40 cents per $100 of assessed property value and for Hightstown was $1.12. An expenditure of $21,756 increases Hightstown’s tax rate by 1 cent. For East Windsor an expenditure of $136,126 increases their tax rate by 1 cent.
The present equalized valuations for Hightstown and East Windsor result in Hightstown paying 13.62 percent of the cost and East Windsor paying 86.38 percent. So East Windsor would be responsible for $4,703,412 of the amount to be raised by taxes or a new tax rate of 35 cents per $100. Hightstown would be responsible for $578,823 of the amount to be raised by taxes for a new tax rate of 28 cents. That is an 84-cent reduction in the borough tax rate or a 17-percent reduction in your total tax bill.
For 2006, the new township cost would be $5,853,401 plus $1,200,000 of added costs less Hightstown revenues, excluding taxes of $2,229,683, and the balance is $4,805,718 to be raised by both communities. The tax rate for East Windsor would be 31 cents and Hightstown’s rate would be 30 cents. For Hightstown this would be a savings of $1.10 per $100 or a 20-percent reduction in the total tax bill, with the cost of garbage collection and recycling adding 14 cents. East Windsor would see its tax rate reduced from 43 cents to 31 cents.
It is more than obvious that outsourcing municipal services to East Windsor would benefit both communities in reduced taxes and efficiency in government.
Eugene E. Sarafin
Hightstown
Support fundraiser
for Troop 5700
To the editor:
This summer 18 boys and six leaders from Troop 5700 will be traveling to the Florida Keys to attend Sea Base, a Boy Scout High Adventure program for Scouts 14 years old and older.
The boys have been divided into crews of six, and under the guidance of a captain will be spending one week learning to sail a 40-foot sailboat. While learning to sail, the boys also will have the opportunity to snorkel and fish, as well as learn to clean and cook what they catch. Along with the sailing experience, the boys will be acquiring life skills, such as leadership and teambuilding. Like many Scout activities, this trip offers boys experiences beyond what school and the average family can offer. As you can imagine, in addition to a great learning experience, it is fun!
The trip to Sea Base has been in the planning stages for more than a year, and as part of the planning, the troop has had fundraisers to help offset the costs associated with traveling to and from Florida. Their next fundraiser will be May 24. TGI Fridays of East Windsor has generously offered to donate 20 percent of the proceeds from guests who come in to dine in support of the troop on this date between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. The boys and their families would be grateful for community support. Simply tell your server that you have come to dinner to help support Troop 5700. Please consider taking a night off from cooking and dine at Fridays that Wednesday evening.
Thank you for your support. See you on May 24!
Nancy Baumann
Troop committee member
East Windsor
Twin Rivers meetings
should be televised
To the editor:
An announcement in the May issue of Twin Rivers Today states Twin Rivers will have its own public access channel on Comcast providing up-to-date information on happenings in Twin Rivers. This letter is being written to ask the Board of Directors why Twin Rivers is not going to broadcast its open board meetings on Comcast as many other communities serviced by Comcast do.
In an article printed in the Clearbrook Courier, the Clearbrook Home Owners Association states that "… it is in the community’s interest to have the proceedings (sic of the open board meetings) aired. According to state law requiring open public meetings in planned real estate developments (NJSA 45:22A-46 … NJAC5:20-1 et seq.) it is proscribed that public meetings be held. Clearbrook extends itself to the maximum that Democratic, Republican ideal of representation be met. … This community does all it can to make sure that the residents are informed on the collection and expenditures of funds for the benefit of unit owners. … It is the Clearbrook board’s insistence that information get out in as broad a system as possible…"
Clearbrook meetings are televised live and then repeated several times so that those who cannot attend or watch the live broadcast still have the opportunity to know what is going on in their community. To that extent I think it is incumbent upon our Board of Directors to advise why we cannot do the same thing.
It is my belief that live broadcasting will change the way business is conducted at Twin Rivers’ open board meetings. I believe the Board of Directors will become more proactive and, hopefully, will be obliged to explain how they have arrived at certain decisions. This belief is, in part, fostered by some information given to two of our former board members at a Community Association Institute conference by an extremely prominent and knowledgeable deed-restricted community attorney.
The board members were, I believe, advised that under the Open Meetings Act not only could open board meetings be tape-recorded but could also be video-recorded. However, the lawyer cautioned that in some cases it would be unwise to videotape meetings because the board members might pander (play to) the camera.
Quite frankly, that would be an ideal situation because the board members would have to demonstrate that they have knowledge of the governing documents, some applicable laws and knowledge of some of the current situations facing Twin Rivers including full and complete knowledge of the current lawsuit. Some board members have acknowledged at open meetings that they’ve only been on the board for two or three years and are not fully familiar with all of the details of the lawsuit.
If I am right, then the board members would be obliged to study all the issues and become more knowledgeable about them (because the answers they give will be televised). I can safely predict that business will be conducted in a different, proactive and transparent way and that more people would be more knowledgeable about the affairs of our community.
Al Wally
Twin Rivers
Fluoridation critic
uses scare tactics
To the editor:
I write in rebuttal to the letter (May 12, 2006) from Frances Pane, East Windsor, and her rant against fluoride. The scare tactics and smear campaign used in the letter are ridiculous.
Using insinuation, and no solid facts, the linking of fluoride to kidney disease, hip fractures, diabetes, rickets, bladder cancer, dementia and osteosarcoma is implied. Past attempts to discredit fluoride have included claims that fluoride causes AIDS, and that it is a Communist plot to effect mind control. Of course these stories sound silly to even the most uninformed person and have been dropped from the usual tirade.
Traditionally, antifluoridationists use incomplete references, and this letter is no different. An allusion to the National Research Council’s Board of Toxicologists and their report suggests that the board implicates fluoride as being toxic. When I investigated this claim (at http://darwin.nap.edu/books/03090622761/html/73.html) I found that the report states: "no average toxic environment can be simulated in a laboratory, and there is no way to perform laboratory experiments whose results can be extrapolated in a general way to the composite human environment." The article further reports that while fluoride may be deliberately added to drinking water, it is done so at concentrations deemed by regulatory agencies to be acceptable.
None of the letter’s other references to reports or studies carries any credibility because they are not accurately cited so they cannot be traced. Could this be purposeful obfuscation of the issues through improper citation? That is a typical tactic of a small but organized group of people who write letters to editors and then quote each other as experts in the field.
Fluoride is a mineral that is found in water. It is there as part of the natural content of water in many areas across the United States.
Fluoridation programs, such as Hightstown’s, merely adjust the level of fluoride to provide optimum benefits. The actual optimum level of fluoride is between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million. The level is continually monitored and adjusted for weather conditions in order to safeguard the health of the public.
Fluoridation of public water systems has been in existence since 1945. In all that time there has never been any evidence of fluoride causing systemic illness. Even the American Cancer Society’s chief epidemiologist says there is no link between fluoride and any form of cancer. If we do not believe the American Cancer Society’s cancer expert, then whom can we believe?
In communities where fluoridation was stopped, the incidence of cavities rose dramatically, and fluoride was re-introduced. Fluoridation has been hailed by many reputable agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention among them, as among the greatest public health advances of the 20th Century. These are the facts.
Linda Hecker
East Windsor
Director of dental hygiene
Burlington County College
Native-born citizens
should be top priority
To the editor:
In response to V. Patel’s letter in the May 12, 2006, Herald, I beg to differ.
The letter writer in the April 28, 2006, Herald was correct in writing "illegal aliens." The Internal Revenue Service has returns for resident aliens and nonresident aliens. There are no returns for illegal immigrants.
I believe that this country should take care of its native-born citizens first and foremost. Just as V. Patel takes care of him or herself before donating to charity, our government should do the same. For example, there are individuals and families that gross $50,000 annually. Most of them may not donate more than $500 to charity per year. That’s 1 percent or less than their gross income. It demonstrates that they take care of their family first.
V. Patel wrote about sponsorship. Well, what happens if either the adult male or female illegal alien wants to bring his or her spouse? Add to that their children. After that, they want to sponsor their parents. Then, their brother and sister. If, conservatively speaking, they have two children, it’s possible one illegal alien could request sponsoring seven persons. It could be more if each spouse wants his and her parents to come or if they have more than two children. Imagine the impact of these additional persons on our environment, health care, education, housing, employment and other costs to American taxpayers. Not to mention petitions from nonrelated people wanting to immigrate to this country.
Social Security now pays benefits to people who have not paid into the system, people who were not born in this country. I have always wondered why foreign-born naturalized citizens do not take care of their elderly parents who they sponsored to come to this country. That, to me, has always been not only a monetary abuse but a moral abuse as well.
Years ago, when I traveled abroad, Americans were seen as the "ugly Americans" supposedly because we expected citizens of other countries to speak English. Now in our own country we are viewed as "ugly Americans" because we want to speak and be understood in English! I fear that we Americans are going to foot the bill for millions of illegal aliens to learn English in the way that we are subsidizing education and medical benefits now.
Finally, granting earned citizenship, in other words amnesty, will have the same result as the amnesty given to V. Patel’s parents in 1986, increased illegal entrants.
Jean Barby
Hightstown
Meeting statement
was misinterpreted
To the editor:
I was shocked at how my public hearing statement was portrayed in last week’s Herald.
Your beat reporter wrote the following near the end of his story: "Former board member Stu Dolgon of East Windsor … went after voters for being apathetic. He said those who opposed the budget lack credibility." The problem is I never said the latter. I resent the fact that those who did not attend this meeting now believe I said it. Did your reporter ask for a copy of the three-minute written statement I read from? No! Did he come to me in the 15 minutes I stayed after the meeting? No! Did he ask the board secretary for a copy of my statement or ask to listen to the meeting tape? No and no!
My statement was directed at the East Windsor and Hightstown councils as a plea to keep the budget as is, not cut it.
Here are some of what I actually said, taken from my statement and paraphrased for brevity: (1) All of us here, and the over 99 percent of voters in this district that could not attend tonight are to blame for making this meeting necessary; (2) The difference between last year’s main reason for budget defeat (education issues) and this year’s tighter defeat (taxes); (3) The politicians don’t provide adequate and legally required state aid, pleading poverty, yet find funds in the form of rebates, just in time for the election season; (4) School board members, likely the only elected officials in the state receiving no compensation for doing a thankless and overwhelming job, spend countless hours meeting and discussing educational programs and the costs associated with them. Nobody shows up at these public meetings, yet the public complains their taxes are too high; (5) The superintendent outlined how the district’s elementary schools showed huge improvement in test scores and the vision for future improvement districtwide. The lack of adequate funding this year prevented an even bigger improvement and budget cuts for next year threaten next year’s chance for improvement; and (6) I have no child in the district. I’m here to show that someone with seven years of budgetary knowledge is asking you to realize what can happen if the budget is cut. I truly believe this district is at a crossroads. It can return to the stagnant ways of the past, or move forward. It’s up to you. The children do not vote but they are your most important constituents. Please do right by them.
Nowhere in my full statement could the reporter have interpreted a belief the voters lacked credibility. In fact, a good reporter would not have used the word "said" in the sentence ("He said those who opposed the budget lack credibility.") because that denotes specificity. My hope with this letter is that the Herald realizes its reporters need to do their homework, especially since we’ve had a merry-go-round of beat reporters over the past five years. They never stay long enough to understand what goes on at board meetings.
Stu Dolgon
East Windsor
Thanks for sharing
concerns about taxes
To the editor:
I was privileged to take part in a very productive panel discussion at Hightstown High School on May 15, and I would like to thank the many residents who came out to discuss with my legislative colleagues and me their concerns about education funding and property taxes.
The East Windsor Regional School District is an excellent model for the future of education statewide. With one superintendent, the very effective Ronald Bolandi, overseeing the operations of five schools, students test scores are improving, and judging from the response at our panel discussion, parents are very happy with the results.
There were a number of issues that were raised on the 15th that expanded my point of view, including the opinions of school board members that if school budgets are under a certain cap, there should be no public referenda for their approval. In most cases, I tend to favor the option of giving citizens the right to vote on as much as possible, but some excellent points were raised, and I will be considering that further.
I was pleased to learn that so many audience members agreed that New Jersey’s educational system needs to be completely overhauled, both to protect education, and to bring some much-needed relief to property taxpayers.
I look forward to continued dialogue with the residents of Hightstown and East Windsor, and I hope all residents of the 12th District will feel free to contact me with their input on this very important topic. I am optimistic that reform will take place soon, and I pledge to represent the interests of students, parents and taxpayers to the best of my ability.
Mike Panter
Assemblyman
12th Legislative District
Offer of sign
should be accepted
To the editor:
During the Borough Council meeting of May 1, the Hightstown improvement group known as GHEWIP offered a sign to our town: "Historic Hightstown established 1721."
The elegant new sign would come at no cost to the borough and would serve as a centerpiece of the upgraded downtown. It is proposed for the same railroad embankment area that functions as an occasional community bulletin board for often-ragtag banners.
Action to accept the GHEWIP proposal should have been a no-brainer. After an hour of discussion, however, Borough Council tabled the matter. Go figure.
Frank Rivera
Hightstown