Councilman Campion Suggests Cautious, Planned Approach to Future Spending

At the April 27, 2015, Council meeting, discussion centered around whether or not to raise taxes in order to form a special fund for Capital expenses. No specific items were named as being needed; the tax was suggested as a way to raise money to offset future purchases.

Councilman Chris Campion expressed his concerns about the Capital budget and formation of a fund without any information as to what would be funded. His concern was that when money is allocated for a certain project, how can the citizens make sure it stays for that purpose instead of being spent by a future Council for special interest projects?

Councilman Tom O’Brien who chairs the Finance Committee agreed this was a valid point but said ultimately expenses will come up. There is no assurance that money set aside for a specific purpose will be used for that purpose.

This being the case, Councilman Campion suggests that the Council not raise taxes in 2015, but take a careful, planned approach in determining future needs and expenditures.

Watch the exchange here:

Rent Review Board Kept Rents Unnecessarily High

One recent campaign flyer by the Democrats (we assume the candidates are Democrats, because while none of their literature states their party affiliation, they did file to run on the Democratic side of the ballot) states the effectiveness of the old rent review board. The flyer, which was distributed to apartment dwellers, claims that if elected, the Democrats will revive the rent review board.

How effective was the old rent review board? What purposed did it serve? And if it was important, why did no one complain when it was disbanded?

Most likely no one complained, tenants anyway, because the rent review board’s “Gentleman’s Agreement” was not universally liked by the tenants. A review of old meeting records show it was primarily an agreement between Democratic former Mayor Adams and the landlords, designed to keep rents at a level that would prevent the landlords from filing a tax appeal.

The “Gentleman’s Agreement” was rent control. While in and of itself, rent control can be useful, in this instance it was to hold the rents to a higher level, not reduce them for the benefit of the tenants. In 1984, the first year that current Democratic candidate Art Herner sat on Council, the rent review board and it’s Gentleman’s Agreement was an oft-discussed topic and not a happy one for tenants.

At the May 14, 1984 SLH Borough Council meeting, the meeting’s minutes contain a council discussion entitled “Gentleman’s Agreement.” In the discussion, then-Mayor Frank Adams states that “he and Councilman Tully had met several times with the landlords … and an agreement has been reached.” No tenants appear to have been included in the discussions. The one year agreement was to run from July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1984 and provided for “a rent increase of four and one-half percent for those tenants who supply their own heat, and five and one-half percent for those tenants who have heat supplied.”

The 1984 agreement was put to a vote by then-Councilman Sante Perri and freshman Councilman Art Herner; the Council voted that the agreement be authorized to be signed.

At the next regularly scheduled council meeting on May 29, 1984, Homestead Gardens Apartments tenant Kay LaMorte spoke during the voice of the public, noting that her opposition to a lack of tenant input into the agreement dated back to 1980. Councilman Tully “pointed out that the tenant representatives have refused to sign the agreement for many years and the previous agreements have been between the landlords and the Borough.” Mayor Adams explained that the rent increase prevents the landlords and tenants from being subjected to “tax passthroughs or capital improvements cost passthroughs” – additional charges sometimes added to residents’ tax bills to cover additional unbudgeted costs.

The discussion continued when Councilman Cornelius Kelly – for whom the Community Center is named – “voiced his total objection to the agreement” which he considered to be “null and void” as no new members of the 3-member rent review board had been appointed since the previous Council representatives completed their terms in 1983. Kelly said that he “wanted no increase in the rents as the majority of tenants were faced with only a 3% increase in their benefits income.”

A tenant from Heights Manor, a Mr. Sedlak, asked the Council if the Borough ever asked the landlords if an increase was justified each year. At that point, the public comments period was closed.

At the June 11, 1984 meeting, a resolution was adopted appointing 3 new members to the Rent Review Board: Shenadoah Arms tenant Arnold Worme, Royal Court-owner representative Marshall Weinerman, and as Council representative, Mayor Frank Adams.

At the June 25, 1984 meeting, tenant representative Worme reported on the results of a newly-formed Tenants Association. He said that the Association had agreed to the 4 ½ % and 5 ½ % rent increases “although they do not go along with the Gentleman’s Agreement.” They also asked for a deletion of capital improvement passthroughs and tax passthroughs.

The agreement was eventually signed, but signed only by landlords and the Borough; the tenant representatives or members of the Tenants Association seem never to have been asked to sign, only agree. The 4 ½ % and 5 ½ % rent increases continued annually until 1987, always negotiated by the Mayor and the landlords with little to no tenant input.

By 1987, the Tenants Association began to push back. It had come to light that a clause in the Gentleman’s Agreement provided that, if an apartment became vacant, it was not then subject to the terms of the agreement and became “free market,” meaning the owner could rent it for whatever he wished. This had led to an inequity at the Colony Club (now Ocean Aire), in which new tenants were paying less rent than long-time tenants.

Kay LaMorte of the Tenants Association proposed increases of 3 ½% and 4 ½%. Royal Court owner Marshall Weinerman said the lowest amount the landlords would consider was 4% and 5%. Mayor Adams felt it would be better to negotiate an Agreement to cover two years’ time, in order to avoid an annual argument. The upshot of all this was that, at the May 11, 1987 meeting, Mayor Adams was “pleased to announce” that a two year agree had been struck – giving the tenants their 3 ½% / 4 ½% increase for 1987 but granting the landlords’ request for a 4% / 5% increase in 1988.

This pattern of negotiating continued for years under the guise of benefiting the tenants, but it is difficult to see how enforced rent increases of 4 ½% and 5 ½% benefited anyone except the landlords. Especially when it became known that vacant apartments were renting for less, in the “free market.” In other regions, landlords would come before a rent review board and the board would ask for proof as to why the increases were needed. In Spring Lake Heights, it seems the landlords were just taken at their word in spite of any pleas from the tenants. Returning to a system that benefits the landlords at the expense of the tenants does not seem to be in the best interest of apartment-dwellers in Spring Lake Heights.

Democrat’s Mayoral Candidate Supports Tax Increase

At the May 11, 2015 Spring Lake Heights Borough Council meeting, two proposed budgets were discussed. One, proposed by Councilwoman Sara King, included a zero tax rate increase but with no reduction to municipal services. The other, proposed by Finance Chair Tom O’Brien, included a 1.3 cent tax rate increase per each $100 of assessed value. The zero tax rate budget was put to a vote and was supported by Councilwoman King, along with Councilman Chris Campion and Councilman James Shuler.

When it was time for O’Brien, who is the Democrat’s 2015 candidate for Mayor, to vote, he explained he did not want to support the zero increase budget and said that “You know, now you have me on record as saying I want to raise taxes, so that’s cool.” He voted no along with fellow Democrat Tom Vorbach and Independent Chris Tienken.

Mayor Maccanico broke the tie by voting “yes” in favor of no municipal tax increase for 2015.

To hear the content of the entire May 11 meeting, visit Heightsonline on YouTube or click the link below just to hear Mr. O’Brien cast his vote:

Manasquan Referendum: Taxation without Represention for SLH?

On September 29, Manasquan voters go to the polls and their vote may increase taxes in Spring Lake Heights. The referendum vote decides if the Manasquan School District will go forward with a proposed $24.4 million dollar renovation and expansion of school facilities.

The $24.4 million dollar bond would provide $4.7 million in upgrades to the Manasquan Elementary School, including $500,000 for a new heating, cooling, and ventilation system.

The remaining $19.7 million dollars would be allotted to Manasquan High School and includes the development of a 2,000-seat sports stadium, artificial turf field hockey and lacrosse fields, multi-purpose turf fields for field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, and football, new scoreboards, new high jump, shot put, and pole vault areas, a cross-country track, an all-weather practice track, an additional tennis court, new dugouts, new fencing, and other additions and upgrades.

While the State would pay for approximately $5 million of the total cost of the project, $19 million will be funded by taxpayers, with the largest burden on Manasquan residents. Manasquan High School’s sending district towns – Avon, Brielle, Sea Girt, Spring Lake, Spring Lake Heights, Lake Como, and Belmar – are required to pay 70% of the interest on the debt service for the high school’s portion of the project, or about $5.5 million dollars.

For Spring Lake Heights taxpayers, this would translate into an estimated $242 to $335 dollars per year, per household in additional taxes. Given the large portion of the Spring Lake Heights’ population that are senior citizens or others on a fixed income, this increase could present a sizeable burden.

And the burden may increase even more. The Manasquan Board of Education has now reached out to the sending district Boards of Education to negotiate not just a payment on interest, but a larger payment into the principle amount of the bond issue. If agreed to, this means that taxpayers in the sending district towns will be paying tax on property owned by another municipality.

Spring Lake Heights residents and residents of the other sending district towns are NOT permitted to vote in the September 29 referendum. However, they may attend the SLH Board of Education meeting at the elementary school, Monday, August 24, at 7 PM, to voice any concerns or opinions.

Heightsonline on Facebook

Just a reminder, if you are a Facebook user, please Like and Follow the heightsonline page. We often post as-it-happens news updates, weather advisories, or live coverage of Council meetings. Click here to visit us on Facebook!

April 20 Budget Workshop To Be Held

The Spring Lake Heights Borough Council will hold a budget workshop on Monday, April 20 at 7 PM in the Council Chambers at Borough Hall. The recently proposed budget includes a tax increase of .02 cents per every $100 of taxation. Interested residents may attend; anyone wishing to speak may do so during the Voice of the Public session.

If you can’t make it to the Council meetings, remember that heightsonline provides video coverage of all Council meetings. Coverage is available on our Youtube channel, heightsonline.

Janine Gillis Appointed as Borough Clerk

The Spring Lake Heights Borough Council voted at the Monday, April 13 meeting to appoint Janine Gillis to the post of Borough Clerk. Ms. Gillis is a long-time employee of the Borough and most recently served as the Deputy Clerk.

The clerk’s duties are considered of such importance that it is one of the few municipal jobs that has its description in State law. By law, the clerk acts as secretary of the municipal corporation and custodian of the municipal seal and of all minutes, books, deeds, bonds, contracts, and archival records of the municipal corporation.

The clerk also acts as secretary to the governing body, prepares meeting agendas at the discretion of the governing body, is present at all meetings of the governing body, keeps a journal of the proceedings of every meeting, retains the original copies of all ordinances and resolutions, and records the minutes of every meeting.

Other duties include serving as the chief administrative officer in all elections held in the municipality, serving as chief registrar of voters in the municipality, serving as the administrative officer responsible for the acceptance of applications for licenses and permits and the issuance of licenses and permits, and serving as coordinator and records manager responsible for implementing local archives and records retention programs as mandated pursuant to Title 47 of the Revised Statutes.

The Borough’s previous Clerk, Jay Delaney, who also serves as the Clerk in Pequannock Township, was appointed to fill the Deputy Clerk post. He will also retain his position as Borough Administrator.

Campion, Shuler Victorious in the Heights

Republican candidates Chris Campion and Jim Shuler rode to victory on a landslide in the Spring Lake Heights election for Borough Council. For the first time in anyone’s memory, the pair won all five voting districts.

Campion was the top vote getter with 951, followed closely by Shuler with 938. For the Democrats, Eileen Eilenberger received 616 votes and Cheryl Bartholomew received 607.

The breakdown of votes by district:

District One
Shuler, 191; Campion, 192
Eilenberger, 128; Bartholomew, 132

District Two
Shuler, 228, Campion 220
Eilenberger, 145; Bartholomew, 130

District Three
Shuler, 159; Campion, 173
Eilenberger, 142; Bartholomew, 142

District Four
Shuler, 169; Campion, 182
Eilenberger, 119; Bartholomew, 123

District Five
Shuler, 191; Campion, 184
Eilenberger, 82; Bartholomew, 83

Absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted. The Monmouth County Board of Elections will provide a final number of votes within the next few days.

Election 2014: Refuting the Democrats’ Mailer

Most residents received a mailing from the SLH Democratic candidates for Council on Saturday. The mailer was filled with the usual lies, innuendoes, and misperceptions that residents have come to expect from the Dems in the waning days of the campaign. Heightsonline examines those claims in the light of Council relationships and taking each issue in context.

First, the piece referenced the most recent budgets, claiming that taxes had been raised $473,000 since 2011. What the Dems didn’t explain was this – the budget sheet represents the town spending, not the source of income. Items in the budget show where spending increased; in this case, due to work done through grant programs and the inclusion of the fire department. Prior to the fire district being dissolved, the fire company had a separate budget. When the district was dissolved, the fire company budget was added to the general municipal budget, making the numbers go up.

In 2011, there was no municipal tax increase. In 2012, there was a slight decrease. In 2013, there was no increase.

In 2014, however, there was a slight increase when one of the Democratic Council members took over the role as chair of the Finance Committee.

Secondly, the claim that inflated municipal debt of 171% was due to excessive borrowing. Unfortunately, the Dems conveniently forgot to define 171% of WHAT. It appears to be an arbitrary number. The borough did bond for capital purchases of sorely needed equipment like garbage trucks, a backhoe, and a front-end loader. This equipment saved the Borough during several very hard snowstorms, during and after Hurricane Sandy, and for the increasing number of water main breaks experienced since the hurricane. Residents have been better served with the purchase of better equipment and the Borough is following sound governmental finance practices by bonding for the equipment.

Third, water rates increased over 30%. This is false blanket statement, and anyone with online access to the Coast Star newspaper can look up articles from March 8, 2013 and March 15, 2012, where the issue of a water and sewer rates was reported on. Additionally, videos of these meetings are featured on the heightsonline YouTube channel.

Water and sewer rates in the Borough of Spring Lake Heights were last raised in 1990. By state law, the utility fund must be self-liquidating; it must take in enough funds through water and sewer rates to cover the costs of providing these services. Rates had not increased over time enough for the fund to keep up with the costs. The fund had contained some surplus, but in 2011, then-finance committee chair Councilwoman Cindea appropriated the surplus to offset the general budget, a practice which is not illegal but which put the utility fund in danger.

At the March 8, 2012 Council meeting, Borough auditor Robert Allison reported that if rates were not raise, “We have to go and basically raise taxes to bring $300,000 from the current fund into utility.”

And that solution would only work for that current year. In order to keep enough money in the utility fund, the Borough would either need to raise the rates or raise taxes every year.

The solution was to introduce a rate structure that charged for water and sewer based on actual usage. In the past, the rates were spread inequitably across the population of the Borough so that everyone paid the same amount, regardless of how much or how little water they used. Under the new rate structure, those residents who practice water conservation were rewarded with little to no increase. The heaviest users, as is fair, received up to a 30% rate increase, based on their increased useage. Additionally, senior citizens and handicapped residents are now allowed to request a $25.00 discount from their bill. The heaviest users were no longer subsidized by those who conserve water.

Interestingly, Democratic Councilman Thomas Vorbach was the Chairperson of the Utilities Committee and oversaw the structuring of the new rate schedule. Reportedly, he attended all the meetings where the new rates were discussed and was in agreement with them, but when the issue was put to a vote, voted no because he was unhappy that the salaries of public workers involved with utilities were included in the budget. Why he didn’t raise this issue during discussions is anyone’s guess.

Councilwoman Cindea likewise voted no, claiming that she supported an annual increase in water and sewer rates.

Councilman Jim Shuler voted no, as he felt the rate increase would negatively impact seniors.

The rate increase was approved by a Council majority and now the Utilities Budget is once again self-liquidating, without a tax increase which was the only other alternative to bring the utilities budget into legal compliance.

Fourth and lastly, the accusation of “one-time” employee buy-outs totaling over $120,000. When SLH dissolved their local court and entered a shared service agreement with Wall, the SLH court employees were laid off. Councilwoman Cindea stonewalled the reassignment of a long-term employee with a contract obligation. To instead dissolve that employee’s contract would have resulted in legal action; the Borough chose to settle with the employee which was the less-costly option. The shared court services save the Borough approximately $70,000 per year, off-setting the cost of settlement.

The Democrats once again erode the public trust through lies and innuendoes. Several years back, a former Democratic councilman wrote a letter to the editor stating that the SLH Democrats were “morally bankrupt.” That statement is still true today. Sending out glossy mailers full of sleazy lies is contemptuous of the public; the candidates appear to believe that the citizens can be so easily led by inaccurate statements.

Candidate Eilenberger attends most Council meetings and had plenty of opportunity to comment on all situations while they were happening, but never got up during the Voice of the Public to speak about these issues. And has Candidate Bartholomew ever even attended a Council meeting? Heightsonline has never seen her there in the 4 years we have been reporting.

But Candidate Campion attends the meetings, and Incumbent Candidate Shuler is rarely missing from the dais. They are both energetic, enthusiastic, and dedicated towards working to keep Spring Lake Heights a strong, vibrant community and an excellent place to live.

Democratic Candidates Begin Mud Slinging

The tone of the election was muddied today with the mailing of the Spring Lake Heights Democrats’ litany of lies.

A quick review of historical documentation shows that the Democrats themselves have been fiscally irresponsible, the very thing they accuse their opponents of.

For example, Democratic candidate Eileen Eilenberger served on Council in 2004 as a mid-term replacement. She unsuccessfully ran that year with Steven Watters. Heightsonline visits the archives so that Ms. Eilenberger may again run on her record. During 2004:

Eilenberger voted “yes” to a 3% across-the-board salary increase for all Borough employees.*

Eilenberger voted to give $31,000 to engineering firm Schoor DePalma to remediate the Known Contaminated Site at the Spring Lake Heights Borough Yard. The CEO of the Democratically-connected Schoor DePalma was indicted in 2006 and the firm ultimately closed down. The site still needs to be remediated.**

Eilenberger voted to give $520,000 to the Southern Monmouth Regional Sewage Authority (SMRSA) for sewerage pipe repairs. At the time of this vote, the Spring Lake Heights SMRSA rep was a member of the SLH Democratic Committee who was receiving full medical benefits for his Council appointment to SMRSA. (The subsequent Republican appointee to SMRSA refused the benefits).***

Before going to the polls on Tuesday, voters need to carefully consider the facts. It is no coincidence that the Democrats annually send out a page of wild accusations and misinformation, leaving the public with little or no time for fact checking. The taxpayer would do well to check their last several years of tax bills – unless they built a big new house, their municipal taxes had zero increases and even a slight decrease over the last 3 years. What costs were passed onto homeowners? None.

* April 26, 2004 SLH Council Meeting Minutes
**Feb. 23, 2004 SLH Council Meeting Minutes
*** August 26, 2004 Coast Star News