Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest taxpaper

Santos we have questions

Recommended Posts

Guest How Ya Doin'!
Thank you for bringing up the program that allows for Kearny Municipal Bonds to be guaranteed by the State of New Jersey. I'd almost forgotten about that. How smart of our Mayor to apply for and be accepted into the plan! Kearny joins other Hudson County communities like Bayonne, Hoboken, etc. in achieving AAA ratings and excellent interest rates because of this program, however even without the state's assistance, Kearny still has an underlying investment grade rating--NOT JUNK BOND RATING.

If you were really an auditor, you would know that in today's market, there are only a handful of very upscale communities that realize top bond ratings without state guarantees. (You must've missed that class at Auditor School)

And I told you before (now listen up): he's staying here even after he becomes a State Senator.

Might "A. Realist" be Mr. Santos' nome da pena?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for bringing up the program that allows for Kearny Municipal Bonds to be guaranteed by the State of New Jersey. I'd almost forgotten about that. How smart of our Mayor to apply for and be accepted into the plan! Kearny joins other Hudson County communities like Bayonne, Hoboken, etc. in achieving AAA ratings and excellent interest rates because of this program, however even without the state's assistance, Kearny still has an underlying investment grade rating--NOT JUNK BOND RATING.

If you were really an auditor, you would know that in today's market, there are only a handful of very upscale communities that realize top bond ratings without state guarantees. (You must've missed that class at Auditor School)

And I told you before (now listen up): he's staying here even after he becomes a State Senator.

The program you're talking about is The Municipal Qualified Bond Act. It was designed by the legislature to help desperate communities (specifically Camden and Newark) by allowing them to pledge their state aid against what they borrow. Creditors did not want to lend to such fiscally-strapped cities. Under this act they are guaranteed their money or the municipality doesn't get its state aid.

As for Kearny's bond rating - our BAA rating is the second worst in Hudson County, only Jersey City has a lower bond rating. Remember, in July 2002 we held a bond sale with documents showing how strong we were financially. In August we found out we were really $6 million in the hole (the deficit would eventually reach $9 million). We had to pull that bond sale which triggered a 6 month credit watch by Moody's and a lowering of our bond rating.

Still, we continue to bond year after year. The Municipal Qualified Bond Act is expensive. The State makes it very costly for financially-unstable communities like Kearny to borrow - but we borrow anyway. How did we evenutally get close that $9 million budget gap? We borrowed our way out of it.

Jim Mangin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest_Guests_*
It just gets easier and easier to get a rise out of you guys! And when you're frustrated your responses just get dumber and dumber!

Read the last few posts responding to mine. Aren't you embarrassed? You should be!

We sure are. How silly....we all know he will never leave the girls including mom. hehehehehehehehhe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest A. Realist
The program you're talking about is The Municipal Qualified Bond Act. It was designed by the legislature to help desperate communities (specifically Camden and Newark) by allowing them to pledge their state aid against what they borrow. Creditors did not want to lend to such fiscally-strapped cities. Under this act they are guaranteed their money or the municipality doesn't get its state aid.

As for Kearny's bond rating - our BAA rating is the second worst in Hudson County, only Jersey City has a lower bond rating. Remember, in July 2002 we held a bond sale with documents showing how strong we were financially. In August we found out we were really $6 million in the hole (the deficit would eventually reach $9 million). We had to pull that bond sale which triggered a 6 month credit watch by Moody's and a lowering of our bond rating.

Still, we continue to bond year after year. The Municipal Qualified Bond Act is expensive. The State makes it very costly for financially-unstable communities like Kearny to borrow - but we borrow anyway. How did we evenutally get close that $9 million budget gap? We borrowed our way out of it.

Jim Mangin

Don't really care why or for whom the Qualified Bond Act was originally enacted, it has become standard operating procedure for a score of cities and towns, enabling them to work toward fiscal stability while still being able to bond for the necessary capital projects and big ticket purchases that would bankrupt a municipality if paid through tax money alone.

"Auditor" (ahem) states Kearny's bond rating as nearly "junk"; a few days later, you state it as BAA--quite an improvement in such a short time. By the way, Moody's BAA is considered medium investment grade. The gap between medium investment grade and junk might as well be the Grand Canyon as far as financial institiutions are concerned. I have every confidence that Kearny's rating is on the upswing. We'll just have to wait and see!

Why the reference to 2002? That's three years ago. When was the last time Kearny defaulted on a bond?

The bottom line regarding your bond-a-phobia is that from what I remember of your term as a councilman, you never offered any plausible alternative to bonding, a necessary and legitimate vehicle to provide for the needs of the town. If you had, maybe we would be referring to you as ""Mayor and not "former Councilman" Mangin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Don't really care why or for whom the Qualified Bond Act was originally enacted, it has become standard operating procedure for a score of cities and towns, enabling them to work toward fiscal stability while still being able to bond for the necessary capital projects and big ticket purchases that would bankrupt a municipality if paid through tax money alone.

"Auditor" (ahem) states Kearny's bond rating as nearly "junk"; a few days later, you state it as BAA--quite an improvement in such a short time. By the way, Moody's BAA is considered medium investment grade. The gap between medium investment grade and junk might as well be the Grand Canyon as far as financial institiutions are concerned. I have every confidence that Kearny's rating is on the upswing. We'll just have to wait and see!

Why the reference to 2002? That's three years ago. When was the last time Kearny defaulted on a bond?

The bottom line regarding your bond-a-phobia is that from what I remember of your term as a councilman, you never offered any plausible alternative to bonding, a necessary and legitimate vehicle to provide for the needs of the town. If you had, maybe we would be referring to you as ""Mayor and not "former Councilman" Mangin.

Great spin Councilwoman Sherry (aka A. Realist). The truth is that Kearny = Camden as far as a bond rating, you can spin it anyway you want. Mayor Santos refuses to admit his poor financial management. From what I recall, Councilman Mangin wanted to use surplus that was in dead accounts in lieu of bonding but Mayor Santos insisted on bonding. What does it cost in attorney fees each time you bond? Answer that question. When you're done with that question, can you answer the question on whether Councilwoman Barbara Sherry is A. Realist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't really care why or for whom the Qualified Bond Act was originally enacted, it has become standard operating procedure for a score of cities and towns, enabling them to work toward fiscal stability while still being able to bond for the necessary capital projects and big ticket purchases that would bankrupt a municipality if paid through tax money alone.

"Auditor" (ahem) states Kearny's bond rating as nearly "junk"; a few days later, you state it as BAA--quite an improvement in such a short time. By the way, Moody's BAA is considered medium investment grade. The gap between medium investment grade and junk might as well be the Grand Canyon as far as financial institiutions are concerned. I have every confidence that Kearny's rating is on the upswing. We'll just have to wait and see!

Why the reference to 2002? That's three years ago. When was the last time Kearny defaulted on a bond?

The bottom line regarding your bond-a-phobia is that from what I remember of your term as a councilman, you never offered any plausible alternative to bonding, a necessary and legitimate vehicle to provide for the needs of the town. If you had, maybe we would be referring to you as ""Mayor and not "former Councilman" Mangin.

I never said Kearny's bond rating was "junk bond" status. I said it was BAA and that rating is the second worst in Hudson County. You can't spins facts ole friend.

As for my offering no alternatives to bonding - wrong again. See my post of Dec 12, 2003 regarding my list of about $400,000 in budget cuts as an alternative to the 2003 bond. And in March 2004 the Mayor and I got in a heated discussion over the 2004 Bond Ordinance. I showed him that we were sitting on $1.2 million in surplus funds from our Capital account that we could use instead of bonding. The Mayor said that the $1.2 million didn't exist. I showed the documents to a Jersey Journal reporter and two days later the Mayor admitted he was wrong.

Another fun fact regarding our massive municipal debt - Did you know that every year that Mayor Santos has been in office the Annual Debt Statement we file with the State has been incorrect? In fact, in 2003 and 2004 we had back-to-back mistakes of $10,000,000 each that I uncovered. Do you still think the Mayor has a handle on this Town's finances or our debt?

Jim Mangin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest A. Realist
I never said Kearny's bond rating was "junk bond" status. I said it was BAA and that rating is the second worst in Hudson County. You can't spins facts ole friend.

As for my offering no alternatives to bonding - wrong again. See my post of Dec 12, 2003 regarding my list of about $400,000 in budget cuts as an alternative to the 2003 bond. And in March 2004 the Mayor and I got in a heated discussion over the 2004 Bond Ordinance. I showed him that we were sitting on $1.2 million in surplus funds from our Capital account that we could use instead of bonding. The Mayor said that the $1.2 million didn't exist. I showed the documents to a Jersey Journal reporter and two days later the Mayor admitted he was wrong.

Another fun fact regarding our massive municipal debt - Did you know that every year that Mayor Santos has been in office the Annual Debt Statement we file with the State has been incorrect? In fact, in 2003 and 2004 we had back-to-back mistakes of $10,000,000 each that I uncovered. Do you still think the Mayor has a handle on this Town's finances or our debt?

Jim Mangin

The operative phrase was "plausible alternative".

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why Kearny actually needed a mayor, a CFO, an auditor and the State of NJ while you were on the council--when you did everything for them! You're just a dynamo, Jimbo.

I have the utmost confidence in the Santos Administration's handling of Kearny's financial situation----and, former Councilman, an overwhelming majority of the voters do, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
The operative phrase was "plausible alternative".

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why Kearny actually needed a mayor, a CFO, an auditor and the State of NJ while you were on the council--when you did everything for them! You're just a dynamo, Jimbo.

I have the utmost confidence in the Santos Administration's handling of Kearny's financial situation----and, former Councilman, an overwhelming majority of the voters do, too.

A. Realist, when are you going to answer the question of whether you are Councilwoman Sherry? Former Councilman Mangin adds a lot to the discussion, although I don't always agree with his viewpoint, your job (Councilwoman Sherry) is to look for items to cut back on in order to save the taxpayers dollars. You instead make fun of a former colleague disguised as A. Realist. If former Councilman Mangin came up with the best idea, Mayor Santos (and you) would oppose it just because he came up with it. You would later support it and say it was your idea all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MangWarp

Dear Jim Maggin,

You accuse others of spinning yet don't back up your statements about Kearny's debt rating compared to other municipalities. I'll make it easy for you. Tell us the rating (from Moody's or S&P) for each of the following (and the date the rating was issued):

Bayonne

Hoboken

West New York

Jersey City

Harrison

North Bergen

Weehawken

Secaucus

Kearny

For the record, I omitted East Newark and Guttenberg since their municipal budgets pale in comparison to any of the above.

You propose budget cuts? There's a fantasy spin. But for the sake of honest debate, tell us what each of your cuts was and how the town auditor & Council responded to each.

$1.2 million capital surplus? Now you're beyond spin, you've reached Manggin-warp. You were told over and over by the auditor and the town's bond attorneys that the 1.2 million amount was for UEZ projects only because the State UEZ had agreed to pay that amount in full. By shifting it to nonUEZ projects, you would have blown 1.2 million plus interest of free debt payments from the State. The auditor and bonding attorneys put their professional reputations on the line. You then questioned the professional reputations of two individuals with a combined 40+ years of municipal experience.

You uncovered debt statement errors? Tell the other half of the story, Jim. That $10 million was debt authorized but not yet actually borrowed for sewer separation work at the time you "uncovered" it. You know, the sewer separation work for the 2nd ward that you voted against? Whoa, I hear another spin coming fast about not voting against the sewer separation...spin....warp...liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A. Realist, when are you going to answer the question of whether you are Councilwoman Sherry?

Asked and answered:

Thanks, Councilwoman Sherry.  A.Realist is Barbara Sherry.  You can deny it all you want but your writing style gives you away.

I have a great deal of respect for Mrs. Sherry and I was a great friend of her late husband. You can insisit all YOU want, but that doesn't make you right. I have given a host of clues, but to date, no one has guessed correctly. (One person did come close, though. Unfortunately, I can't remember who it was!))

JW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
It just gets easier and easier to get a rise out of you guys! And when you're frustrated your responses just get dumber and dumber!

Read the last few posts responding to mine. Aren't you embarrassed? You should be!

Please, enough. Nick Sacco is feeling just fine and content. A. Realist can only be A. Santos. (although I had originally thought the poster was a bit girlee). The manner in which he responds to Mangin tells a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest1212
Please, enough.  Nick Sacco is feeling just fine and content.  A. Realist can only be A. Santos.  (although I had originally thought the poster was a bit girlee). The manner in which he responds to Mangin tells a lot.

I agree its a toss up A. Realist is either Santos or Sherry. I really dont care I wish they would answer posts from residents . Again ego gets in the way. And they play school games with each other. Dont even answer Realist and he will get the hint that we do not care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Jim Maggin,

You accuse others of spinning yet don't back up your statements about Kearny's debt rating compared to other municipalities.  I'll make it easy for you.  Tell us the rating (from Moody's or S&P) for each of the following (and the date the rating was issued):

Bayonne

Hoboken

West New York

Jersey City

Harrison

North Bergen

Weehawken

Secaucus

Kearny

For the record, I omitted East Newark and Guttenberg since their municipal budgets pale in comparison to any of the above.

You propose budget cuts?  There's a fantasy spin.  But for the sake of honest debate, tell us what each of your cuts was and how the town auditor & Council responded to each. 

$1.2 million capital surplus?  Now you're beyond spin, you've reached Manggin-warp.  You were told over and over by the auditor and the town's bond attorneys that the 1.2 million amount was for UEZ projects only because the State UEZ had agreed to pay that amount in full.  By shifting it to nonUEZ projects, you would have blown 1.2 million plus interest of free debt payments from the State.  The auditor and bonding attorneys put their professional reputations on the line. You then questioned the professional reputations of two individuals with a combined 40+ years of municipal experience.     

You uncovered debt statement errors?  Tell the other half of the story, Jim.  That $10 million was debt authorized but not yet actually borrowed for sewer separation work at the time you "uncovered" it.  You know, the sewer separation work for the 2nd ward that you voted against?  Whoa, I hear another spin coming fast about not voting against the sewer separation...spin....warp...liar.

When have I ever not backed up what I wrote with verifiable sources? The question is, will you believe your own eyes or are those eyes suffering from "Santosian blindness"?

In this response I'll just address your question on the bond rating. First let me correct my two errors. Kearny's bond rating is Baa3, not Baa. Big difference. Second, Kearny actually has the worst bond rating in Hudson County, not second worst. Kearny is tied with Jersey City for the worst.

The bond ratings ranking according to Moody's (2003) is this:

Hoboken Aa2

Secaucus Aa3

North Bergen A2

West New York Baa2

East Newark Baa2

Guttenberg Baa2

Bayonne Baa2

Jersey City Baa3

Kearny Baa3

Harrison not rated

Union City not rated

Weehawken not rated

Still don't believe me? E-mail me at jimmangin@aol.com and I'll be happy to send you the article.

But, for some reason I just get the feeling you won't.

Jim Mangin

ps - I'll answer the rest of your "post" in another reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest A. Realist
Dear Jim Maggin,

You accuse others of spinning yet don't back up your statements about Kearny's debt rating compared to other municipalities.  I'll make it easy for you.  Tell us the rating (from Moody's or S&P) for each of the following (and the date the rating was issued):

Bayonne

Hoboken

West New York

Jersey City

Harrison

North Bergen

Weehawken

Secaucus

Kearny

For the record, I omitted East Newark and Guttenberg since their municipal budgets pale in comparison to any of the above.

You propose budget cuts?  There's a fantasy spin.  But for the sake of honest debate, tell us what each of your cuts was and how the town auditor & Council responded to each. 

$1.2 million capital surplus?  Now you're beyond spin, you've reached Manggin-warp.  You were told over and over by the auditor and the town's bond attorneys that the 1.2 million amount was for UEZ projects only because the State UEZ had agreed to pay that amount in full.  By shifting it to nonUEZ projects, you would have blown 1.2 million plus interest of free debt payments from the State.  The auditor and bonding attorneys put their professional reputations on the line. You then questioned the professional reputations of two individuals with a combined 40+ years of municipal experience.     

You uncovered debt statement errors?  Tell the other half of the story, Jim.  That $10 million was debt authorized but not yet actually borrowed for sewer separation work at the time you "uncovered" it.  You know, the sewer separation work for the 2nd ward that you voted against?  Whoa, I hear another spin coming fast about not voting against the sewer separation...spin....warp...liar.

We're waiting, Jimbo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curious

How could anybody ignore A. Realist? His/Her responses are 9 times out of 10 the most articulate, sensible, literate, and humorous in this wasteland. I don't really care who he/she really is, and you can all burn out what few brain cells you've got left trying to figure it out. I'm convinced it's NOT Santos, Sherry, Cifelli, or any of the other names floating around out there. I just enjoy the cat and mouse game. So, A. Realist, keep on posting, cause somebody out here does care!

I agree its a toss up A. Realist is either Santos or Sherry. I really dont care I wish they would answer posts from residents . Again ego gets in the way.  And they play school games  with each other. Dont even answer Realist and he will get the hint that we do not care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest A. Realist
Dont even answer Realist and he will get the hint that we do not care.

How long have you been posting here? Hasn't it sunk in yet? I DON'T CARE IF YOU IGNORE ME OR NOT! Makes absolutely no difference to me.

But admit it--you can't resist reading my posts and responding. It's like an addiction, right? I'll bet you rush home, turn on the computer, look for my tag in the topics and eagerly seek out my pearls of wisdom for the day!!

It's okay, don't be ashamed. Lots of people do it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest 1
I agree its a toss up A. Realist is either Santos or Sherry. I really dont care I wish they would answer posts from residents . Again ego gets in the way.  And they play school games  with each other. Dont even answer Realist and he will get the hint that we do not care.

Thank you. Only Santos would have an ego or the info to respond as he does. Also, no intelligent life is that loyal! Please. It's over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest
Thank you.  Only Santos would have an ego or the info to respond as he does. Also, no intelligent life is that loyal! Please. It's over.

I agree also regarding the info and the ego problem. Boycott this idiot Realist and lets stop this childish games he or she plays with others. This idiot Realist defends Sherry and Santos to no end and tries to belittle Mangin. Mr. Mangin is the only one responding with accurate facts. Same thing happened at Town Meetings the Mayor would attack Mangin.Lets get back to our problems concerns etc. BOYCOTT REALIST by not answering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest A. Realist
I agree also regarding the info and the ego problem. Boycott this idiot Realist and lets stop this childish games he or she plays with others.  This idiot Realist defends Sherry and Santos to no end and tries to belittle Mangin. Mr. Mangin is the only one responding with accurate facts. Same thing happened at Town Meetings the Mayor would attack Mangin.Lets get back to our problems concerns etc. BOYCOTT REALIST by not answering.

Oh, you might not answer, but you and I both know...you'll be reading!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MangWarp2

Jim,

There you go again, telling half-truths. You're wrong on Hoboken (there is no underlying rating, the rating you gave is through the State Qualified Municipal program, like Kearny's) and Bayonne (it's underlying rating is the same as Kearny's, Baa3). All the detail is posted below, straight from Moody's. The most untruthful part of your posting is the part on municipalities without ratings. They don't have underlying ratings because they opt not to get one. Why not? Because it would be below investment grade (junk status) if a rating were issued by Moody's. Moody's gives them a face-saving way out. Those towns then go through the State Qualified Muncipal program or have to buy expensive insurance on their bonds. That's Hoboken (their threat of junk status was news a few years ago). That's Union City. That's West New York. That's Harrison. Kearny has never had to buy insurance on its bonds. So to say we're the worst is beyond spin or warp, it's a lie. We're equal with Bayonne and Jersey City and ahead of the unrated municipalilties.

Kearny's rating while not great is decent. For the record, the definition of Baa is: Baa Issuers or issues rated Baa represent average creditworthiness relative to other US municipal or tax- exempt issuers or issues.

Jim, since you're the part-time Chief Financial Officer of East Newark, tell us when East Newark will seek an update on their rating. It's almost 7 years. Or will they opt for insurance of the Qualified Municipal program?

From Moody's:

MOODY'S ASSIGNS A2 RATING TO THE NORTH BERGEN (NJ) $9.7 MILLION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004 A (26 February 2004)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa3 RATING TO TOWN OF SECAUCUS'S (NJ) $10 MILLION GENERAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS (16 May 2002)

MOODY’S ASSIGNS UNDERLYING Baa2 RATING TO BOROUGH OF EAST NEWARK (7 Oct 1998)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS AN INITIAL RATING Baa2 RATING TO THE TOWN GUTTENBERG NJ'S $2.23 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF 2003 (7 Feb 2003)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa3 ENHANCED RATING AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING TO THE TOWN OF KEARNY'S (NJ) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (14 Jan 2003)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 ENHANCED RATING AND STABLE OUTLOOK AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING TO CITY OF BAYONNE'S $55.3 MILLION SCHOOL BONDS (2 Dec 2004); MOODY'S DOWNGRADES CITY OF BAYONNE UNDERLYING RATING TO Baa3 (16 Jul 2004)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS A1 ENHANCED RATING WITH A STABLE OUTLOOK AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING WITH A STABLE OUTLOOK TO $29.875 MILLION JERSEY CITY'S (NJ) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2005A (17 May 2005)

UNRATED AS TO UNDERLYING CREDIT:

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 RATING TO HOBOKEN'S $5.5 MILLION SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS REFLECTING SECURITY PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF NJ'S MUNICIPAL QUALIFIED BOND ACT (31 May 2001) (NO UNDERLYING RATING ISSUED)

WEST NEW YORK (TOWN OF) NJ GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2003 GENERAL OBLIGATION NO OUTLOOK, 15 NOV 2003 INSURED

MOODY’S ASSIGNS Aaa RATING TO INSURED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF CITY OF UNION CITY (3 Oct 1997)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 RATING TO WEEHAWKEN'S $6 MILLION INSURED BOND SALE (8 May 2001)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest A. Realist
Jim,

There you go again, telling half-truths.  You're wrong on Hoboken (there is no underlying rating, the rating you gave is through the State Qualified Municipal program, like Kearny's) and Bayonne (it's underlying rating is the same as Kearny's, Baa3).  All the detail is posted below, straight from Moody's.  The most untruthful part of your posting is the part on municipalities without ratings.  They don't have underlying ratings because they opt not to get one.  Why not?  Because it would be below investment grade (junk status) if a rating were issued by Moody's.  Moody's gives them a face-saving way out. Those towns then go through the State Qualified Muncipal program or have to buy expensive insurance on their bonds.  That's Hoboken (their threat of junk status was news a few years ago).  That's Union City.  That's West New York.  That's Harrison.  Kearny has never had to buy insurance on its bonds.  So to say we're the worst is beyond spin or warp, it's a lie.  We're equal with Bayonne and Jersey City and ahead of the unrated municipalilties.

Kearny's rating while not great is decent.  For the record, the definition of Baa is:  Baa Issuers or issues rated Baa represent average creditworthiness relative to other US municipal or tax- exempt issuers or issues.

Jim, since you're the part-time Chief Financial Officer of East Newark, tell us when East Newark will seek an update on their rating.  It's almost 7 years.  Or will they opt for insurance of the Qualified Municipal program?

From Moody's:

MOODY'S ASSIGNS A2 RATING TO THE NORTH BERGEN (NJ) $9.7 MILLION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004 A (26 February 2004)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa3 RATING TO TOWN OF SECAUCUS'S (NJ) $10 MILLION GENERAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS (16 May 2002)

MOODY’S ASSIGNS UNDERLYING Baa2 RATING TO BOROUGH OF EAST NEWARK (7 Oct 1998)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS AN INITIAL RATING Baa2 RATING TO THE TOWN GUTTENBERG NJ'S $2.23 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF 2003 (7 Feb 2003)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa3 ENHANCED RATING AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING TO THE TOWN OF KEARNY'S (NJ) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (14 Jan 2003)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 ENHANCED RATING AND STABLE OUTLOOK AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING TO CITY OF BAYONNE'S $55.3 MILLION SCHOOL BONDS (2 Dec 2004); MOODY'S DOWNGRADES CITY OF BAYONNE UNDERLYING RATING TO Baa3 (16 Jul 2004)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS A1 ENHANCED RATING WITH A STABLE OUTLOOK AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING WITH A STABLE OUTLOOK TO $29.875 MILLION JERSEY CITY'S (NJ) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2005A (17 May 2005)

UNRATED AS TO UNDERLYING CREDIT:

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 RATING TO HOBOKEN'S $5.5 MILLION SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS REFLECTING SECURITY PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF NJ'S MUNICIPAL QUALIFIED BOND ACT (31 May 2001) (NO UNDERLYING RATING ISSUED)

WEST NEW YORK (TOWN OF) NJ GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2003 GENERAL OBLIGATION  NO OUTLOOK, 15 NOV 2003  INSURED

MOODY’S ASSIGNS Aaa RATING TO INSURED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF CITY OF UNION CITY (3 Oct 1997)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 RATING TO WEEHAWKEN'S $6 MILLION INSURED BOND SALE (8 May 2001)

Oh, there is a God!!! And she's very smart!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest A. Realist
. A. Realist can only be A. Santos.  (although I had originally thought the poster was a bit girlee).

Mighty cocky for someone who is dead wrong!!

"A bit girlee"? Gee, can't a guy get in touch with his feminine side without causing remarks like that? Say it again, and I'll hunt you down and hit you with my purse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim,

There you go again, telling half-truths.  You're wrong on Hoboken (there is no underlying rating, the rating you gave is through the State Qualified Municipal program, like Kearny's) and Bayonne (it's underlying rating is the same as Kearny's, Baa3).  All the detail is posted below, straight from Moody's.  The most untruthful part of your posting is the part on municipalities without ratings.  They don't have underlying ratings because they opt not to get one.  Why not?  Because it would be below investment grade (junk status) if a rating were issued by Moody's.  Moody's gives them a face-saving way out. Those towns then go through the State Qualified Muncipal program or have to buy expensive insurance on their bonds.  That's Hoboken (their threat of junk status was news a few years ago).  That's Union City.  That's West New York.  That's Harrison.  Kearny has never had to buy insurance on its bonds.  So to say we're the worst is beyond spin or warp, it's a lie.  We're equal with Bayonne and Jersey City and ahead of the unrated municipalilties.

Kearny's rating while not great is decent.  For the record, the definition of Baa is:  Baa Issuers or issues rated Baa represent average creditworthiness relative to other US municipal or tax- exempt issuers or issues.

Jim, since you're the part-time Chief Financial Officer of East Newark, tell us when East Newark will seek an update on their rating.  It's almost 7 years.  Or will they opt for insurance of the Qualified Municipal program?

From Moody's:

MOODY'S ASSIGNS A2 RATING TO THE NORTH BERGEN (NJ) $9.7 MILLION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004 A (26 February 2004)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa3 RATING TO TOWN OF SECAUCUS'S (NJ) $10 MILLION GENERAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS (16 May 2002)

MOODY’S ASSIGNS UNDERLYING Baa2 RATING TO BOROUGH OF EAST NEWARK (7 Oct 1998)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS AN INITIAL RATING Baa2 RATING TO THE TOWN GUTTENBERG NJ'S $2.23 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF 2003 (7 Feb 2003)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa3 ENHANCED RATING AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING TO THE TOWN OF KEARNY'S (NJ) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (14 Jan 2003)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 ENHANCED RATING AND STABLE OUTLOOK AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING TO CITY OF BAYONNE'S $55.3 MILLION SCHOOL BONDS (2 Dec 2004); MOODY'S DOWNGRADES CITY OF BAYONNE UNDERLYING RATING TO Baa3 (16 Jul 2004)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS A1 ENHANCED RATING WITH A STABLE OUTLOOK AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING WITH A STABLE OUTLOOK TO $29.875 MILLION JERSEY CITY'S (NJ) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2005A (17 May 2005)

UNRATED AS TO UNDERLYING CREDIT:

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 RATING TO HOBOKEN'S $5.5 MILLION SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS REFLECTING SECURITY PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF NJ'S MUNICIPAL QUALIFIED BOND ACT (31 May 2001) (NO UNDERLYING RATING ISSUED)

WEST NEW YORK (TOWN OF) NJ GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2003 GENERAL OBLIGATION  NO OUTLOOK, 15 NOV 2003  INSURED

MOODY’S ASSIGNS Aaa RATING TO INSURED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF CITY OF UNION CITY (3 Oct 1997)

MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 RATING TO WEEHAWKEN'S $6 MILLION INSURED BOND SALE (8 May 2001)

I quoted a newspaper article verbatim and I'm accused of half-truths? C'mon, even you have to admit, that doesn't make sense.

Speaking of trying to make sense, from your post we learn this:

- Hoboken's rating is supported by its state aid.

- Bayonne's rating was downgraded to the same as Kearny's in 2004 (I said the article I was citing was from 2003).

- A bond rating of Baa is not bad. (But you have to admit - Baa2 is better than Baa3, and Baa is better than Baa2)

- We learned that no other municipality in Hudson County has a bond rating lower than Kearny.

- IN YOUR OPINION, the municipalities without a rating ( Harrison, Union City and Weehawken) must have ratings below Kearny, because they bought insurance for their bonds.

Bond insurance has nothing to do with a municipality's financial status. Insurance is a tool used to achieve a more attractive rate and save money. But, you probably don't believe that because I said it, right?

"Municipalites have also been able to reduce their interest costs by having their bonds insured. Municipal bond insurance is a 'voluntary cost of issuance,' which assures payment in case of default. . . Even municipalities with an Aaa rating may find it attractive to purchase bond insurance."

Municipal Financial Administration in New Jersey. Robert Benecke pg IV-16.

Still don't believe me? Santosian blindness is curable.

Again, if you'd like - e-mail me at jimmangin@aol.com and I'll be happy to send you a copy of the analysis the Jersey Journal did on municipal bond ratings in 2003.

And since Michaelangelo Conte thought enough of what he wrote to put his name to it, I'm sorry but I'll believe him over you. If you'd prefer, you can take up this argument with him - mconte@jjournal.com

Jim Mangin

ps - as for East Newark - the recent bond ordinance for the combined sewer overflow project is being financed by the Envinronmental Infrastrcuture Trust Fund. There's no need to bond, and so, no need to seek a new bond rating.

Keep the questions coming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You propose budget cuts?  There's a fantasy spin.  But for the sake of honest debate, tell us what each of your cuts was and how the town auditor & Council responded to each. 

$1.2 million capital surplus?  Now you're beyond spin, you've reached Manggin-warp.  You were told over and over by the auditor and the town's bond attorneys that the 1.2 million amount was for UEZ projects only because the State UEZ had agreed to pay that amount in full.  By shifting it to nonUEZ projects, you would have blown 1.2 million plus interest of free debt payments from the State.  The auditor and bonding attorneys put their professional reputations on the line. You then questioned the professional reputations of two individuals with a combined 40+ years of municipal experience.     

You uncovered debt statement errors?  Tell the other half of the story, Jim.  That $10 million was debt authorized but not yet actually borrowed for sewer separation work at the time you "uncovered" it.  You know, the sewer separation work for the 2nd ward that you voted against?  Whoa, I hear another spin coming fast about not voting against the sewer separation...spin....warp...liar.

I promised a response to the rest of your tirade. Here y'go . . .

For the sake of honest debate (your words), I told you what my budget cuts were. Here's the link to my post of Dec. 12, 2003 at 8:36 p.m. (I hope it works) As for the Town Council's response, they were opposed. But you knew this already, didn't you? As for the Town Auditor, he wasn't at the meeting when the budget cuts were discussed. You'd have to ask him for his response.

For the umpteenth time (pay attention A. Realist, Al Santos, Barbara Sherry, et al) - the $1.2 million can be used for non-UEZ projects simply be ammending the bond ordinance. Even the Town Auditor admitted this. The Zone Assistance Fund pays for our UEZ projects, not bond ordinances. We bond because we get the money faster - that's all. If we had used the $1.2 million in capital surplus instead of a new bond we would've saved $240,000 in administrative costs AND we would still be eligible for "$1.2 million plus interest of free debt payments from the State." How? Just by applying to the ZAF, like we did for every other UEZ project.

I questioned the Auditor and Bond Counsel because they said it was OK to bond for station wear in the Fire Dept - and didn't know that station wear consists of shirts and pants. Do you take a bank loan for your clothes? Of course not. Why not? Because it's ridiculous to pay for something for 20 years that only last 1-2 years. For the rates they charge those two deserved the punk slaps they got.

On the Debt Statement errors - Yes, the $10 million mistake was the debt authorized for sewer seaparation work, but not actually borrowed. But that's what the Annual Debt Statement is supposed to show! At the Aug 2004 meeting Mayor Santos announced that our Debt Statement was filed on Aug 10, 2004, showing that our total debt was $1 million lower than the previous year. The next day I sent a memo showing that it was actually $10 million higher. A corrected Debt Statement was then quietly filed on Aug. 26. The next time you're in Town Hall, ask to see the two copies. Or e-mail me and I'll send you a copy of my memo. Let me know if you want to hear about the $10 million error in 2003.

There, did I miss anything? You'll let me know, won't you?

Jim Mangin

ps - as always, if anyone would like a copy of the documents I've cited just e-mail at jimmangin@aol.com.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Self Righteous
I promised a response to the rest of your tirade. Here y'go . . .

For the sake of honest debate (your words), I told you what my budget cuts were.  Here's the link to my post of Dec. 12, 2003 at 8:36 p.m. (I hope it works) As for the Town Council's response, they were opposed. But you knew this already, didn't you? As for the Town Auditor, he wasn't at the meeting when the budget cuts were discussed. You'd have to ask him for his response.

For the umpteenth time (pay attention A. Realist, Al Santos, Barbara Sherry, et al) - the $1.2 million can be used for non-UEZ projects simply be ammending the bond ordinance. Even the Town Auditor admitted this. The Zone Assistance Fund pays for our UEZ projects, not bond ordinances. We bond because we get the money faster - that's all. If we had used the $1.2 million in capital surplus instead of a new bond we would've saved $240,000 in administrative costs AND we would still be eligible for "$1.2 million plus interest of free debt payments from the State." How? Just by applying to the ZAF, like we did for every other UEZ project.

I questioned the Auditor and Bond Counsel because they said it was OK to bond for station wear in the Fire Dept - and didn't know that station wear consists of shirts and pants. Do you take a bank loan for your clothes? Of course not. Why not? Because it's ridiculous to pay for something for 20 years that only last 1-2 years. For the rates they charge those two deserved the punk slaps they got.

On the Debt Statement errors - Yes, the $10 million mistake was the debt authorized for sewer seaparation work, but not actually borrowed. But that's what the Annual Debt Statement is supposed to show! At the Aug 2004 meeting Mayor Santos announced that our Debt Statement was filed on Aug 10, 2004, showing that our total debt was $1 million lower than the previous year. The next day I sent a memo showing that it was actually $10 million higher. A corrected Debt Statement was then quietly filed on Aug. 26. The next time you're in Town Hall, ask to see the two copies. Or e-mail me and I'll send you a copy of my memo. Let me know if you want to hear about the $10 million error in 2003.

There, did I miss anything? You'll let me know, won't you?

Jim Mangin

ps - as always, if anyone would like a copy of the documents I've cited just e-mail at jimmangin@aol.com.

Jim Mangin............"A Legend In His Own Mind"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...