By: centraljersey.com
We are responding to the recent "Guest Opinion" of David Sandahl regarding the consolidation of our municipalities.
The author correctly identifies that there has been a national recession and that state finances and debt have New Jersey near bankruptcy. He then suggests that "home rule" and the existence of our three communities aggravate the problems these nationwide and state fiscal policies have created. The author notes that state finances and aid show no sign of improving and our communities face "fiscal challenges." He admits that tax rates are not set locally. He then concludes that consolidation "is the preferred way to reduce taxes." Preferred by whom?
He acknowledges that our municipalities are well run, but the elected officials are not standing up for local property taxpayers.
With all due respect, the author may not be up to date with our singular and collective efforts to promote budgetary efficiencies and shared services. These efforts have and will continue to effectuate downward pressure on property taxes despite counter-veiling pressures beyond our control – higher unemployment, record foreclosures, reduced local property values and related tax revenues, and declining state aid.
The author fails to acknowledge state mandates uniformly straight jacket our municipalities regarding budget priorities. Each year we face unfunded pension liabilities, increasing health insurance costs and other mandates that – if left to our discretion – we would not incur in the best interests of our taxpayers.
We are proud of our history of shared services – the school district, senior services, police dispatch, EMT services, partial police and the informal sharing of public works. Roughly 60 percent of every tax bill supports a shared service in the form of a regional school district. We either share services or contract with non-government third parties for up to another 20 percent of every tax bill.
Consolidation has inherent pitfalls: increasing property taxes to at least one involved municipality, no state assistance to negate that increase, the unknown effects on each municipality’s tax burden for the school district (and no funds available to figure it out), the allocation of each municipality’s long-term debt and balanced representation in the new governing body, just to name a few. Consolidation without exhaustive research while academically appealing would be a disservice to all.
The author never suggests a public discussion concerning consolidation – a discussion we welcome. He narrowly recommends a public discussion on a "consistent format for budget reporting." We have indicated our support for such a process. To date nothing has happened because the expense of the effort is significant and the DCA funding for such an effort no longer exists. Again, we welcome a public discussion concerning consolidation.
With many outside forces impacting our budget considerations, the best way for us to represent all Hopewell Valley taxpayers is to promote more shared services, encourage a discussion regarding consolidation (and of other less mainstream options) while proceeding cautiously with costly exercises that have little connection to our very real and immediate challenges.
As part of this ongoing dialogue, we welcome all residents to participate at council/committee meetings, volunteer for municipal services, including elective office, and be constructive influences for the future of Hopewell Valley.
Mayor Paul Anzano, Hopewell Borough Mayor Anthony Persichilli, Pennington Borough Mayor James Burd, Hopewell Township

