Mayor Santos running out of excuses?

[Jim Mangin]

I just wish this could truly be a productive discussion. If there's money to be found so we can have lower taxes, let's find it. Personally, I doubt that there's anywhere to cut, but would like to be pleasantly surprised.

Does anyone really know how the million dollars a year in debt service works? Did we borrow to pay off old debts when we were uninsured? When is that going to be paid off, if ever? What's the story with that?

68576[/snapback]

Paul,

I'll be happy to answer this, but I don't understand which million dollars in debt service are you talking about?

Jim Mangin

[Jim Mangin]

Jim, those are all legitimate points, which I intend to look into. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Before you read too much into what I write, don't forget the sentence that followed next after what you quoted: "Would it have happened that way? I don’t know . . ." This could be a productive discussion, so let's keep it going. If you can find a way to lower my taxes without sacrificing important services, I'm there.

What I don't understand is if the bond was already floated, why did the town apply to the state regarding how to use the funds?

What I'm now left with is the impression that the mayor and council made a decision to use the funds for another project. You would have preferred tax relief. Isn't that just a policy dispute?

On your procedural point, if you're following usual parliamentary procedure as I recall it (rusty as that may be), the governing body has the right to end debate, no? Was there a vote, or did Al cut off debate unilaterally?

By the way, it's all hearsay unless and until I see official public documents, no less so if I get it from you.

68629[/snapback]

"What I don't understand is if the bond was already floated, why did the town apply to the state regarding how to use the funds?"

Good question. In another post you mentioned that I wasn't against the project these excess (surplus) funds were to be used for. That's also a good point. How do I reconcile these positions?

Once the Mayor and Council finally agreed that the surplus funds existed (following the Jersey Journal article) the Mayor said (incorrectly) that the funds had to be used for another UEZ project. He was wrong of course. I said that we just had to ammend the bond ordinance (again - NJSA40A:2-39). Did he deliberately mislead the people or just didn't know the law? I don't know. Ask him.

The Mayor wanted to use the funds for the next phase of streetscape. This was consistent with the original bond ordinance, so no ammendment was needed. No ammendment - no discussion.

The money for streetscape came from the UEZ. The orignal bond ordinance ($3.1 million) was to get the money faster and all at once to complete the Kearny Ave re-paving project. The proceeds of the bond would pay for the project and the grant would be used to pay for that portion of the bond that went toward the project. I supported this, even though it meant paying more in the form of interest and additional soft costs.

I disagreed with using this surplus for the next phase of streetscape. The money was coming anyway. I didn't see the point in paying interest unnecessarily. The re-paving project made sense. If they send one third each year for three years, without the bond you either have to do the project in pieces, or wait 3 years for entire grant.

Does this make sense? If not, let me know and I'll try to clarify.

"What I'm now left with is the impression that the mayor and council made a decision to use the funds for another project. You would have preferred tax relief. Isn't that just a policy dispute?"

A policy dispute assumes two sides disagreeing on how to use available funds. That wasn't the case. The Mayor ended the public hearing (by making the motion, which the Council voted on). We never discussed this as a policy alternative because the Mayor and Council refused to believe the money existed. That's why it was so wrong to prematurely end the public hearing. Wouldn't you agree?

Think about it - How can I convince them of a better (less costly) use for the money, when I couldn't convince them the money existed? Not even while holding a copy of the annual audit.

Jim Mangin

[Guest Recall Mayor Santos]

Unless you are ESL and still learning, the following applies to you:

Noooo no no. A typo is an error that results from slipping fingers or the like. Two transformed letters is a typo. A letter or two in the wrong place is a typo. Using the wrong word, a homonym with a completely different spelling, that is not a typo. That's you not knowing the difference between "through" and "threw." That is the kind of mistake only early grade students have any reason to make. It's similar to writing "air" when you mean "heir." It's not a typo. It's a lack of understanding of the meanings of the words you write. A high schooler would be labeled "D**bA**" by his/her entire class if he/she made the same mistake.

Instead of responding with an attempt at wit, accept your stupid mistake and try to learn from it. You'll have a hard time convincing educated people that your recall fantasies are worth actually acting towards if you can't even get something that simple right.

68897[/snapback]

Miss Crabtree

Educated people don't respond to posts like this by trying to think their smart. Try joining the discussion and give us your educated insight on how to clean up this Tax Mess that this Mayor has put us in instead of correcting papers.Our dreams of a Recall will soon become a reality and you can be sure of one thing we'll get this right.

[Strife767]

<post>

Jim Mangin

69016[/snapback]

Your name is already attached to your posts--the signature is redundant.

[Guest unknown]

Like it or not your stuck with this guy. He has a tight grip on the town. As far as getting someone to run against him your out of luck. He's in with the boy's in Trenton and the county. Your done. Look at all the empty store fronts on Kearny ave. What's left? He's busy building his future at your expense and does nothing for the town. If there is truth to the talk about private invetigators bills I would like to know what that is about. Look, just move out and start new some where else. If you really want change vote for change in Trenton this november that will get attention levels up. Don't complain, Act! All the best.  Former resident.

63557[/snapback]

IF EVERYONE IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT TAXES ;BILLINGS .HOW COME NO ONE GOES TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETINGS AND SPEAK UP .HE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ABOUT ANYTHING .HE GOT WHAT HE WANTED A JOB IN THE COUNTY.

[Guest UNKNOWN]

This is just more cheap politics from Mangin. Jimmy, don't you realize this is why you keep losing elections. You keep saying the mayor doesn't listen, but look in the mirror, man. We're sick of politicians throwing mud. Do something constructive, then we'll listen to you, if you clean up your political reputation.

You know the only place for the mayor to make any significant cuts in outlays is with fire and police salaries, but you either don't have the guts to tell the police and firefighters that you wants their salaries cut. Or you know damn well that they're in line with other units in the area, in which case you're the liar here. You can bet that if the salaries were out of line, you'd know it.

In the end, unless the contracts are unreasonable, Mangin and all the anonymous hacks pushing  a recall can't save us a dime.

68337[/snapback]

I DON;T SEE YOUR NAME?

[Strife767]

Miss Crabtree

Educated people don't respond to posts like this by trying to think their smart.

*sigh* Educated people know the difference between there/their/they're. You just made my point again.

Bottom line is that educated people will have a harder (at least) time taking you seriously if you are not capable of making a written statement devoid of grade-school grammar errors.

[JohnPinho]

...

For example, Kearny has a full-time Tax Collector, full-time Assistant Tax Collector, as well as various clerks and cashiers in the Tax Collector’s office. Their job is to send out tax bills and collect the revenue. Yet we’re paying well over $300,000 a year to United Water to perform this same function for water bills, except that United also reads the water meters. I brought up this as an alternative to the 2004 water rate increase, but it was never investigated or even discussed (probably because the idea originated from John Pinho).

While lay-offs may not be the answer, the real answer is out there. It just needs more debate and discussion to draw it out. And a Mayor and Council willing to listen.

Jim Mangin

67879[/snapback]

Jim,

It's nice that you gave me credit for the idea that the Town of Kearny could save money (a reported $300,000 per year) if it simply did its own water and sewer reading and billing. The Town currently outsources the billing to United Water. I pointed out years ago at a council meeting that United Water wasn't doing the job they were hired to do-- reading the residents water meters on a regular basis. I personally had to call recently to have my meter read. My bill was estimated for years. Kearny residents should check their United Water bill to see if it states that the meter reading is estimated. Check the counter on your meter and you may be entitled to a refund. Call United Water and see who shows up to read your meter.

My question then and now is "Why are we paying $300,000 to a company who is not doing half of the job that they were hired to do?" Why can't we set up a billing program, transfer the data from United Water, and take over the billing. Don't hire any additional personnel. There are plenty of people in the water department now to do the job.

John Pinho

[Guest Ms. K. DeRay]

Paul,

There's way too much here for me to comment all at once, so I'm gonna have to take this piece-meal.

"Whatever the answer is to that question, let’s step back and imagine that you had been mayor when this happened. Let’s imagine that you had uncovered these funds and convinced the council to treat them as surplus funds. Next thing you know, the state finds out about it and they’re calling to funds in. We taxpayers then have to come up with the money to repay the state then on what should have been a twenty-year grant. What are you going to tell us? We now have to raise additional taxes to repay the state. And why? Because Mayor Mangin didn’t understand the legal limits on the funds."

It's obvious you spoke to the Mayor and he told you what I said and what my plan was. Then he told you why it wouldn't work and you believed him. The problem is you should've asked me. There's a reason courts don't allow heresay evidence.

In municipal accounting "surplus" has a specific definition. I used the term "surplus" to mean excess. We bonded for $3.1 million and the project cost $1.3 million. The $1.8 million is surplus (excess) funds. What I said to do was to ammend the bond ordinance and use the proceeds instead of issuing a new bond. Don't say "Mayor Mangin doesn't understand the legal limits." That's bull. I'm not a lawyer but I can read - NJSA 40A:2-39 if you're interested. Perfectly legal.

". . . you can’t expect me just to take your word for it; especially when it makes sense to me that a state capital grant would have conditions attached to it."

Speaking of the law, did you read the bond ordinance? The UEZ grant was for the cost of the project ($1.3 million) not the total amount of the bond ($3.1 million). As I told the Mayor just before he closed the public hearing on this, it's not a UEZ bond. There's no such thing. Only the Town of Kearny has the authority to borrow money. And the $1.8 million was excess funds for that project. If you asked me for my opinion (instead of asking the Mayor for my opinion) I would have told you that I would've cancelled the unexpended balance and used it for tax relief. How? By returning the money to where it came. The proceeds came from serial bonds. They should then have been returned to an account called "Reserve to Pay Off Debt." Then you use this account to make your debt service payment instead of new tax dollars. And I don't expect you to take my word for it. Call the Division of Local Government Services. While I don't expect you take my word for anything, I do expect you to ask me what my word is, and not someone else.

Now, to try and get back to the point (which was not the use of surplus funds). The only reason you have given for supporting the Mayor was because you said he was a professional. The point was (and still is) it was unprofessional of the Mayor (and Council) to close that public hearing while I was speaking just because they didn't like what I was saying. Now, do you have a comment on my point or do you need more examples? You haven't commented either on the King St / Schuyler Avenue residents. It's getting hard to keep this discussion on point.

Jim Mangin

68621[/snapback]

Paul, Can you comment on the King st and Schulyer residents .

[Guest Paul]

Paul,  Can you comment on the King st and Schulyer residents .

69224[/snapback]

No, because I don't know enough about it.

[Guest Paul]

Paul,

I'll be happy to answer this, but I don't understand which million dollars in debt service are you talking about?

Jim Mangin

69015[/snapback]

In one of Al's articles in the Observer, I think the last one before your letter, a table accompanied the article, showing some major expenditures. I'm referring to the approximately one million dollar expenditure on that table.

[Guest Paul]

"What I don't understand is if the bond was already floated, why did the town apply to the state regarding how to use the funds?"

Good question. In another post you mentioned that I wasn't against the project these excess (surplus) funds were to be used for. That's also a good point. How do I reconcile these positions?

Once the Mayor and Council finally agreed that the surplus funds existed (following the Jersey Journal article) the Mayor said (incorrectly) that the funds had to be used for another UEZ project. He was wrong of course. I said that we just had to ammend the bond ordinance (again - NJSA40A:2-39). Did he deliberately mislead the people or just didn't know the law? I don't know. Ask him.

The Mayor wanted to use the funds for the next phase of streetscape. This was consistent with the original bond ordinance, so no ammendment was needed. No ammendment - no discussion.

The money for streetscape came from the UEZ. The orignal bond ordinance ($3.1 million) was to get the money faster and all at once to complete the Kearny Ave re-paving project. The proceeds of the bond would pay for the project and the grant would be used to pay for that portion of the bond that went toward the project. I supported this, even though it meant paying more in the form of interest and additional soft costs.

I disagreed with using this surplus for the next phase of streetscape. The money was coming anyway. I didn't see the point in paying interest unnecessarily. The re-paving project made sense. If they send one third each year for three years, without the bond you either have to do the project in pieces, or wait 3 years for entire grant.

Does this make sense? If not, let me know and I'll try to clarify.

"What I'm now left with is the impression that the mayor and council made a decision to use the funds for another project. You would have preferred tax relief. Isn't that just a policy dispute?"

A policy dispute assumes two sides disagreeing on how to use available funds. That wasn't the case. The Mayor ended the public hearing (by making the motion, which the Council voted on). We never discussed this as a policy alternative because the Mayor and Council refused to believe the money existed. That's why it was so wrong to prematurely end the public hearing. Wouldn't you agree?

Think about it - How can I convince them of a better (less costly) use for the money, when I couldn't convince them the money existed? Not even while holding a copy of the annual audit.

Jim Mangin

69016[/snapback]

To someone like me who does not deal with these issues, it does make more sense, but I still don't fully understand it. When you say the money was coming anyway, I presume you're referring to the UEZ money. I don't understand this part: "If they send one third each year for three years, without the bond you either have to do the project in pieces, or wait 3 years for entire grant." You could help me understand by laying out all the elements over time (1) as it was actually done, and (2) as you proposed that it be done. By the elements, I mean the UEZ funds, the funds from the bond, the outlays on the capital project(s) over time, and any other elements relevant to an analysis. Then maybe I could compare the two approaches in all their relevant details and understand what this means to me as a taxpayer.

On your procedural point, how long had you been speaking on this subject when debate was cut off? Had it ever been discussed before? I'm going to give you a legal answer to your question. What you've described is perfectly appropriate procedure. Why they did it: you have your version, they have theirs, and they are very different. I'd need more details, such as would be provided by answers to the above questions, to know whether the mayor and council treated you unfairly.

[Guest Guest]

To someone like me who does not deal with these issues, it does make more sense, but I still don't fully understand it. When you say the money was coming anyway, I presume you're referring to the UEZ money. I don't understand this part: "If they send one third each year for three years, without the bond you either have to do the project in pieces, or wait 3 years for entire grant." You could help me understand by laying out all the elements over time (1) as it was actually done, and (2) as you proposed that it be done. By the elements, I mean the UEZ funds, the funds from the bond, the outlays on the capital project(s) over time, and any other elements relevant to an analysis. Then maybe I could compare the two approaches in all their relevant details and understand what this means to me as a taxpayer.

On your procedural point, how long had you been speaking on this subject when debate was cut off? Had it ever been discussed before? I'm going to give you a legal answer to your question. What you've described is perfectly appropriate procedure. Why they did it: you have your version, they have theirs, and they are very different. I'd need more details, such as would be provided by answers to the above questions, to know whether the mayor and council treated you unfairly.

69267[/snapback]

UEZ funds can only be used on a year to year basis. They are allowed to apply to the UEZ state Commission to use the funds to pay off an approved project ( bond). If they are going to use these funds to pay, the Town has to guarantee the bonds.

Keep in mind the UEZ funds are a gift and the state at any time has the right to deny the use of these funds.

Please do not give me the story that the state has not for over 20 years taken away these funds because the truth of the matter is that the state borrows from the UEZ funds all the time, then extends the time you have your designation.

[Jim Mangin]

Jim,

It's nice that you gave me credit for the idea that the Town of Kearny could save money (a reported $300,000 per year) if it simply did its own water and sewer reading and billing.  The Town currently outsources the billing to United Water.  I pointed out years ago at a council meeting that United Water wasn't doing the job they were hired to do-- reading the residents water meters on a regular basis.  I personally had to call recently to have my meter read.  My bill was estimated for years.  Kearny residents should check their United Water bill to see if it states that the meter reading is estimated.  Check the counter on your meter and you may be entitled to a refund.  Call United Water and see who shows up to read your meter.

My question then and now is "Why are we paying $300,000 to a company who is not doing half of the job that they were hired to do?"  Why can't we set up a billing program, transfer the data from United Water, and take over the billing.  Don't hire any additional personnel.  There are plenty of people in the water department now to do the job.

John Pinho

69218[/snapback]

John,

I brought up your suggestion for saving tax dollars by taking back the Water Dept billing in response to Paul's call for alternatives and suggestions. I used this example because Paul's only stated reason thus far for supporting Mayor Santos is the Mayor's "professionalism."

Your suggestion makes even more sense in 2007 than it did in 2003. A lot of people don't realize that that the Water utility lost money in 2006. What was done about that? Nothing. At the very least an investigation into the feasability of taking back the water billing should be conducted - if the Mayor and Council are serious about reducing taxes. If they are just paying the issue lip service, nothing will happen, again.

To show Paul an example of the Mayor's unprofessionalism, I described the time he cut off the debate on the Pine Sol Bond and refused to listen to tax-saving alternatives. But to be honest, an even better example was when he charged you with "grandstanding" on the Kuhene Chemical issue. Was it grandstanding when Menendez, Corzine, and Lautenberg got involved in the issue?

I asked Paul for his examples of the Mayor's professionalism, but so far none have been offerred.

Jim Mangin

[Jim Mangin]

No, because I don't know enough about it.

69254[/snapback]

Paul,

If you do decide to look into this issue, please don't use the Mayor's office as your sole source of information. There was more deliberate deception on this issue than any other.

Jim Mangin

[Jim Mangin]

In one of Al's articles in the Observer, I think the last one before your letter, a table accompanied the article, showing some major expenditures. I'm referring to the approximately one million dollar expenditure on that table.

69265[/snapback]

Paul,

I remember the article but I don't recall the specific expenditure. I'll have to find it and get back to you.

Jim Mangin

[Jim Mangin]

To someone like me who does not deal with these issues, it does make more sense, but I still don't fully understand it. When you say the money was coming anyway, I presume you're referring to the UEZ money. I don't understand this part: "If they send one third each year for three years, without the bond you either have to do the project in pieces, or wait 3 years for entire grant." You could help me understand by laying out all the elements over time (1) as it was actually done, and (2) as you proposed that it be done. By the elements, I mean the UEZ funds, the funds from the bond, the outlays on the capital project(s) over time, and any other elements relevant to an analysis. Then maybe I could compare the two approaches in all their relevant details and understand what this means to me as a taxpayer.

69267[/snapback]

Paul,

I'll try and clarify.

After Streetscape I was completed the Mayor and Council applied to the UEZ to get all of Kearny Ave re-paved. The UEZ approved the project but they don't disperse the funds all at once. I don't remember if it was dispersed over 3, 4, 5, or even 6 years. Assuming it was 3, that leaves the Council with 2 options - re-pave one-third of Kearny Ave every year for 3 years, or wait 3 years and re-pave the whole thing.

Instead the Council bonded $3.1 million for the project. All of Kearny Ave would be paved at once. The project would be paid by the bond and the portion of the bond used for the project would be re-paid by the UEZ disbursement. The downside was that we would have to pay interest and costs on the bond to get the project completed at once. When the project was completed there was $1.8 million left in proceeds.

If the Mayor and Council agreed that this money actually existed we could have considered my alternative of using this $1.8 million instead of a new bond, saving the interest and soft costs. After finally agreeing that the money did exist the Mayor claimed (incorrectly) that it had to be used for another UEZ project (NJSA40A:2-39) - like Streetscape II.

My point is that we could have waited for all the UEZ disbursements to accumulate before proceeding with Streetscape II. We then could have used the $1.8 million for more immediate capital projects or for tax relief. Neither option was ever considered.

Again, my point in all of this is to show why it was wrong to end the debate prematurely before considering tax saving alternatives. What you as a taxpayer needs to decide is this - Was it worth the extra taxes you paid to get that phase of Streetscape done more quickly? I don't believe it was. What you as a supporter of the Mayor has to decide is this - Was it "professional" to cut short the debate before considering a viable tax-saving solution?

Jim Mangin

[Jim Mangin]

On your procedural point, how long had you been speaking on this subject when debate was cut off? Had it ever been discussed before? I'm going to give you a legal answer to your question. What you've described is perfectly appropriate procedure. Why they did it: you have your version, they have theirs, and they are very different. I'd need more details, such as would be provided by answers to the above questions, to know whether the mayor and council treated you unfairly.

69267[/snapback]

Paul,

I've given you plenty of information on this topic. I don't need a legal opinion on whether it was right or wrong. I'm interested in your opinion.

You have stated several times in this thread that if shown the details you might change your mind on the Mayor. What is your opinion? Are you still gathering information? If so, that's fine. In the meantime, can you name even one circumstance that lead you to the notion that he is "professional?"

Jim Mangin

[Guest Paul]

Paul,

I've given you plenty of information on this topic. I don't need a legal opinion on whether it was right or wrong. I'm interested in your opinion.

You have stated several times in this thread that if shown the details you might change your mind on the Mayor. What is your opinion? Are you still gathering information? If so, that's fine. In the meantime, can you name even one circumstance that lead you to the notion that he is "professional?"

Jim Mangin

69366[/snapback]

My opinion is that when a potential constituent asks you a question, it is because that constituent considers the question important.

My opinion, based on your silence to my question, is that debate was properly ended after an adequate period for hearing.

My opinion of Mayor Santos' professionalism is based on the changes I saw him bring to the tone of council meetings, as well as his unfailingly professional demeanor and approach to issues.

My opinion is that it's not unreasonable, prima facie, to finish a capital project now instead of over a three-year period.

My opinion, based on your 11:39 a.m. post, is that the mayor and council made a reasonable decision how to use the funds from the $3.1 million bond.

My opinion is that a tax increase in itself is not sufficient reason for the charges leveled against the current mayor and council.

My opinion is that there is a lack of evidence so far that your proposals would save us taxpayers any money in the long run.

Maybe there's something to the United Water argument. Let's explore that.

[Guest Aldo Rae]

The people have a choice in November, They should start with the council, they are just as gulity as the Mayor. Also remember the forty theives in trenton. We get the government we elect and that is the the long and the short of it. Remove all incumbents from office. That's it kids.....................

[Guest unknown]

No Barbara Cifelli Sherry Who else walks around Town and shops.

68169[/snapback]

BARBARA CIFELLI SHERRY DID MORE FOR THIS TOWN THEN YOU COULD DREAM OF DOING BUTTHEAD!!!!!!

[Jim Mangin]

My opinion is that when a potential constituent asks you a question, it is because that constituent considers the question important.

My opinion, based on your silence to my question, is that debate was properly ended after an adequate period for hearing.

My opinion of Mayor Santos' professionalism is based on the changes I saw him bring to the tone of council meetings, as well as his unfailingly professional demeanor and approach to issues.

My opinion is that it's not unreasonable, prima facie, to finish a capital project now instead of over a three-year period.

My opinion, based on your 11:39 a.m. post, is that the mayor and council made a reasonable decision how to use the funds from the $3.1 million bond.

My opinion is that a tax increase in itself is not sufficient reason for the charges leveled against the current mayor and council.

My opinion is that there is a lack of evidence so far that your proposals would save us taxpayers any money in the long run.

Maybe there's something to the United Water argument. Let's explore that.

69388[/snapback]

Paul,

As I read this post all I could think of was the redundancy of "Four legs good, two legs bad."

But seriously, you gave your opinion on a policy discussion after considering alternatives. I applaud you for that. That is much more than the Mayor and Council did on this issue, which has been my point all along. Now in my opinion, you are more professional than the Mayor.

The funny thing is I don't disagree with your opinion on the captial project. I agree. It wasn't unreasonable. I never said it was. I just think there were tax saving alternatives that should have been considered. Maybe the Mayor and Council would've reached the same conclusion you did. We'll never know now, will we?

As for the Mayor's professionalism, I've asked for a specific example. Or are just basing your opinion on his demeanor alone?

As for a "lack of evidence" of tax savings for my proposal, what is lacking? Simple math will tell you that if you bond when you don't have to (and we didn't have to) you incur costs (see NJSA:40A 2-20 for a reference).

Finally, as for exploring the United Water contract - I sincerely hope you do. With that one brief sentence you've already dedicated more effort than the Mayor and Council has on the issue. Issues like this should be looked into. It's just a shame the Mayor doesn't share your view.

Again Paul, my point in all of this is not to debate policy with you (although I really do enjoy it). My point has been to show that debate is the fuel for government action. You've clearly proven my point on this, and I honestly feel you believe that debate is necessary in a democracy. There has been no debate on issues by the Kearny Town Council. No fuel. No action. This is why I feel a recall is good for Kearny. But, I have no intentions of running against the Mayor at this time. Someday - maybe. But not now.

If a recall movement gets going you'll see more debate and I believe you'll see more action. You and I may not always agree on whether it is the right action, but if it is arrived at after considering all the alternatives - so be it. I've always said - government works. Everyone has to do their part to get everyone talking about issues.

Jim Mangin

[Guest Paul]

Paul,

As I read this post all I could think of was the redundancy of "Four legs good, two legs bad."

But seriously, you gave your opinion on a policy discussion after considering alternatives. I applaud you for that. That is much more than the Mayor and Council did on this issue, which has been my point all along. Now in my opinion, you are more professional than the Mayor.

The funny thing is I don't disagree with your opinion on the captial project. I agree. It wasn't unreasonable. I never said it was. I just think there were tax saving alternatives that should have been considered. Maybe the Mayor and Council would've reached the same conclusion you did. We'll never know now, will we?

As for the Mayor's professionalism, I've asked for a specific example. Or are just basing your opinion on his demeanor alone?

As for a "lack of evidence" of tax savings for my proposal, what is lacking? Simple math will tell you that if you bond when you don't have to (and we didn't have to) you incur costs (see NJSA:40A 2-20 for a reference).

Finally, as for exploring the United Water contract - I sincerely hope you do. With that one brief sentence you've already dedicated more effort than the Mayor and Council has on the issue. Issues like this should be looked into. It's just a shame the Mayor doesn't share your view.

Again Paul, my point in all of this is not to debate policy with you (although I really do enjoy it). My point has been to show that debate is the fuel for government action. You've clearly proven my point on this, and I honestly feel you believe that debate is necessary in a democracy. There has been no debate on issues by the Kearny Town Council. No fuel. No action. This is why I feel a recall is good for Kearny. But, I have no intentions of running against the Mayor at this time. Someday - maybe. But not now.

If a recall movement gets going you'll see more debate and I believe you'll see more action. You and I may not always agree on whether it is the right action, but if it is arrived at after considering all the alternatives - so be it. I've always said - government works. Everyone has to do their part to get everyone talking about issues.

Jim Mangin

69473[/snapback]

Jim, with all due respect, I haven't proven your point about anything. The impetus behind this discussion was supposed to be lower taxes for Kearny's citizens, if that could be achieved - regardless whether it took the form of unified suggestions to the mayor and council, or a political campaign of some kind. My personal suspicion was that the mayor and council have done all they can, within reason, to keep our taxes as low as possible. So far those suspicions have only been confirmed. I'm still waiting for a concrete idea how our taxes could be lower. So far, none have been presented. You can't even come up with a single idea that will actually save us taxes, unless there's merit in John Pinho's idea regarding United Water. All that tells me is how tight a job the mayor and council have done.

For your part, you've not provided a shred of data to show that police and fire salaries are excessive, you haven't answered the mayor's charges about your own vote to accept a contract that would have cost us an additional $500,000, and you've just admitted that there was nothing wrong with the decision the mayor and council made about the bond issue you raised. So in the end, it's a lot of finger-pointing, but we taxpayers aren't saved a penny. On the basis of the evidence, it's Santos $500,000, Mangin $0. Sorry, Jim, but Al has presented a concrete example where a decision he made was $500,000 better for us taxpayers than the deicision you would have made, and you have not denied it. He has connected the dots, i.e., given straight answers all the way from the question to the conclusion, which is part of what I mean by professionalism. You haven't.

I gotta tell you, Jim, you've dodged all the issues that matter to me, and I suspect to most people in town. You can't blast the mayor, and then just ignore all the charges leveled back at you, especially if you're thinking about running again. Those who live by the sword also die by the sword.

We're interested in our taxes; that is what started this series of discussions. It's really very disappointing to watch you fire off a series of cheap shots, when what we're really interested in is good government with the lowest taxes possible. I truly believe you have a contribution to make, but this is not it.

[Guest Guest]

BARBARA CIFELLI SHERRY DID MORE FOR THIS TOWN THEN YOU COULD DREAM OF DOING BUTTHEAD!!!!!!

69461[/snapback]

Oh my God what a diffensive answer. Who questioned what she did or what she hasn't done.

Lighten up!

[Guest Guest]

Paul,

I'll try and clarify.

After Streetscape I was completed the Mayor and Council applied to the UEZ to get all of Kearny Ave re-paved. The UEZ approved the project but they don't disperse the funds all at once. I don't remember if it was dispersed over 3, 4, 5, or even 6 years. Assuming it was 3, that leaves the Council with 2 options - re-pave one-third of Kearny Ave every year for 3 years, or wait 3 years and re-pave the whole thing.

Instead the Council bonded $3.1 million for the project. All of Kearny Ave would be paved at once. The project would be paid by the bond and the portion of the bond used for the project would be re-paid by the UEZ disbursement. The downside was that we would have to pay interest and costs on the bond to get the project completed at once. When the project was completed there was $1.8 million left in proceeds.

If the Mayor and Council agreed that this money actually existed we could have considered my alternative of using this $1.8 million instead of a new bond, saving the interest and soft costs. After finally agreeing that the money did exist the Mayor claimed (incorrectly) that it had to be used for another UEZ project (NJSA40A:2-39) - like Streetscape II.

My point is that we could have waited for all the UEZ disbursements to accumulate before proceeding with Streetscape II. We then could have used the $1.8 million for more immediate capital projects or for tax relief. Neither option was ever considered.

Again, my point in all of this is to show why it was wrong to end the debate prematurely before considering tax saving alternatives. What you as a taxpayer needs to decide is this - Was it worth the extra taxes you paid to get that phase of Streetscape done more quickly? I don't believe it was. What you as a supporter of the Mayor has to decide is this - Was it "professional" to cut short the debate before considering a viable tax-saving solution?

Jim Mangin

69365[/snapback]

/quote]

Jim After all this time you still do not understand UEZ funds. You can not UEZ funds for immediate capitol projects or for tax relief.

What is with you??? Stop telling people something that is not true!

You can not stock pile funds from the UEZ the state will take them away. You can only use UEZ funds after the commission has approved them. Not all capital improvements can use UEZ funds.

If you use the money from a project you have to close out that project and reapply at a latter time. The council cannot transfer the money from project to project.

What is your problem Jim? You sound like the King of 3 minute sound bites.