Page 6 of the governor’s recent 2009 budget summary had the following:
“The budget will also include a reduction in the level of aid to municipalities. The budget will provide over $1.8 billion in aid to municipalities, a decrease of approximately $190 million, which represents less than 10% of the amount provided in the current year.
A portion of the reduction in municipal aid will be targeted to those municipalities with
populations of less than 10,000. This group of towns will be given priority standing in
the awarding of the $32 million in grants from a state fund that encourages consolidation
and shared services.”
Similar state monies to cover the cost of surveys for these smaller municipalities were made available in the current 2008 state budget to see what, if any, municipal services or departments could be consolidated with surrounding towns.
My guess is that not to many municipalities sought any of these funds, that very few surveys were done and that consolidation of any kind is something that will be given lip service to rather than being acted on in any meaningful way.
Residents of any town facing any proposed municipal tax increase should rightfully expect that their elected local officials requested and used the state's 2008 survey funds last year, that the surveys have been done and as a result of these findings that all operating expenses that could be saved have been saved before any new taxes be considered for a municipal 2008 budget this year. Copies of all municipal surveys should be made available to their residents so that a more complete understanding can be had by all.
“The budget will also include a reduction in the level of aid to municipalities. The budget will provide over $1.8 billion in aid to municipalities, a decrease of approximately $190 million, which represents less than 10% of the amount provided in the current year.
A portion of the reduction in municipal aid will be targeted to those municipalities with
populations of less than 10,000. This group of towns will be given priority standing in
the awarding of the $32 million in grants from a state fund that encourages consolidation
and shared services.”
Similar state monies to cover the cost of surveys for these smaller municipalities were made available in the current 2008 state budget to see what, if any, municipal services or departments could be consolidated with surrounding towns.
My guess is that not to many municipalities sought any of these funds, that very few surveys were done and that consolidation of any kind is something that will be given lip service to rather than being acted on in any meaningful way.
Residents of any town facing any proposed municipal tax increase should rightfully expect that their elected local officials requested and used the state's 2008 survey funds last year, that the surveys have been done and as a result of these findings that all operating expenses that could be saved have been saved before any new taxes be considered for a municipal 2008 budget this year. Copies of all municipal surveys should be made available to their residents so that a more complete understanding can be had by all.
If these residents find that nothing in the way of surveys have been done in this past year, then it is clear that the question of "Why Not?" be asked of these local officials as they bemoan these latest state cuts in local aid. The state has been withdrawing aid from municipalities in recent years in a variety of ways, including the areas of pension funding for municipal employees and extraordinary aid.
With much of the local costs being based on contractual obligations, it is long past the time that shared services be done. To not have this information as to what areas within which this could be achieved, garnered from already completed surveys, at hand at this time is inexcusable, especially when the state had money sitting there to pay for it this past year. The residents see, on a daily basis, that the costs of living in NJ are going up and they expect their local officials to have noticed this too and respond accordingly.
As to our State Senator Joe Kyrillos' legislative efforts to force the mergers of smaller municipalities by some type of state committee, I can see that, whether it is through their planning and zoning boards or "areas in need of redevelopment" efforts, it would also not be an unexpected development that there might be an upturn in the efforts of some towns that find themselves close to that 10,000 population marker to increase the size of the residential population to meet that figure by the next census (2010). To do so could probably insure that these towns would not to be subject to any future independent state commission’s recommendation of a forced merger with another municipality.
No comments:
Post a Comment