Solutions

New Sections

While the solutions below have merit we now realize that besides holding down spending the number one way to keep taxes in check is to stop over development. Over development leads to more children in the class room. The school budget consumes about 65% of our property taxes. Each child costs at least $12,000 to educate a year. The Property taxes on the average house is about $7000 a year. Thus a home with just one child in it does not pay enough in taxes to pay for that child's education. Therefore every new have adds to everyone's taxes. The only way to stop it is to stop over development.

At an August 2005 Township meeting TUF acknowledged that it was wrong about the animal shelter - After the shelter went out for bid four times and no contractor agreed to build it for the the bid limit, TUF came out in favor of the spending on the shelter. Again TUF was never against renovating the shelter, we were just concerned that it was over priced. Apparently, we were wrong.

On Oct 23, 2003 the order of the solutions changed. Pay to Play was added as #1 and all others moved down one.

TUF has repeatedly come under fire for pointing out problems without solutions. In some cases we thought that our solutions were implicit. For instant when we say we don't need to build a skateboard park we believe that we are implying a solution. In other areas however the criticism is valid. To rectify this we present this list of solutions. We do not intend for them to be complete solutions. Clearly a complete discussion of each will require compromise between competing interests. Rather we offer these as a starting point for discussion.

To use this page click on the link labeling each solution. This will bring you to more details for that solution.

1) Pay To Play - is the all too common practice in which campaign contributions are exchanged for lucrative government contracts. TUF is %100 in favor of Anti-Pay-to-Play legislation. It could save the Township millions. It is a way to get special interest money out of campaign financing. On Oct. 28th, however, Franklin Twp. is considering an Anti-Pay-to-Play ordinance which has a major loophole.

Nov 18, 2008 Update - As I (Phil Kramer) have gotten more into politics in the 5 years since I originally wrote this page I've discovered the reality of campaign financing that all reformers have had to face. Because of the first amendment, in the war of campaign financing between the law makers and the financiers it's easier to invent countermeasures to laws then it is to write the laws themselves. As a result the more extensive the law, the more extensive are the measures that are used to get around the laws thus the harder it is to track the money. George Will of ABC News has suggested "No limits, No cash, full disclosure." Right now I'm not sure he's right, but I'm not sure he's wrong.more details

2) The Library – TUF is in favor of the Library expansion and renovation. We believe however that there are opportunities for cost savings.

1) Reduce spending on the lavish entryway.

2) Councilman and Mayoral candidate Levine has suggested that the library commission visit neighboring popular libraries to find out what about them makes them popular.

3) The redesign for the prior two suggestions should be by someone that does not have a vested interest in increasing the cost of the construction.

4) We believe that as a very rough estimate there is the potential for reducing spending by 1 million dollars.

5) Decrease the operating costs for the library by using a portion of the computer area as an internet cafe. more details

3) The Animal Shelter – Again let's start with the fact that TUF is unequivocally in favor of renovation and expansion of the Township of Franklin Animal Shelter.

1) The proposed shelter will cost between $180 and $330/sq ft depending on how one calculates it. Shelters in Minnesota, Virginia and Iowa cost between $58 and $140 /sq ft.   We suggest contacting these organizations as well as the ASPCA to find out how they are doing it for that price.

2) Offset costs by allowing local veterinarians to advertise with signs in the shelter.

Note: At the October 14th 2003 Township Council meeting TUF came under fire for its suggestion #1, stating that it was unfair to compare construction at a site not in New Jersey. What was not pointed out was the line in bold. (I added the bolding after the meeting.) What we are suggesting is that if you are going to build a shelter you need to look at other shelters. If they are being built for substantially less then the planners need to ask "why". We did not suggest that the shelter budget be cut to the cost per sq ft of the other sites. more details

4) The Skateboard park – Don't build it. It doesn't serve enough of the community and there are commercial alternatives. In Chip Hoever's words "To pour a slab of concrete on open space using $25,000 of open space dollars to build a skate park for a few residents is ridiculous. Then, to add another $150,000 of tax dollars is even more ridiculous." (Please note we are not saying it is illegal to use open space money for pouring a concrete slab we are merely saying that that was not most peoples intention when they voted for open space funds.)more details

5) Wants and Needs – The Township has no choice but to pay for its needs but why not have a limited discretionary fund for projects that the council considers wants? more details

6) Impact Fees - Charge developers a fee equal to the burden placed on the Township due to the construction. more details

7) Abolish the Property Tax System - TUF supports abolishing property taxes and use an income based system instead. more details

8) Zoning - Change zoning to require larger lots. This will stretch the open space dollars farther and reduce urban sprawl without taking money from the landowners. more details

9) The Veteran's Memorial - Instead of building a second stone veterans memorial in Franklin for $200,000, spend $25,000 for a video memorial that records the recollections of every living Franklin WWII veteran. more details

Check back for more solutions such as limiting school administrator raises the same way raises of employees in the private sector are now limited and changing the pension system for NEW Township hires (NOT existing employees) to align with the private sector.

Pay to Play - When the full version of Pay to Play is in force the campaign contributions from people from any one institution would be limited to a total of $400. The proposed ordinance, however would allow money to be funneled through the County party, thus maintaining the pay-to-play system.

For instance at the time this is being written (Oct 24, 2003) on the State Election Law Enforcement Commission web site it appears that Mr. Grippo's campaign is spending less than $3000! No one on that ticket has filed a report, as required by law, if their campaign is receiving contributions or spending for the campaign. Mr. Grippo's team, however, has mailed at least five flyers township wide. That's on top of the expensive television ads they are running. So - you may ask, "If Mr. Gippo's campaign claims they have spent less than $3000, how could they have sent out all those flyers?" Assuming everything has been done correctly (and TUF has absolutely no reason to believe any rules have been broken) the answer seems to be the county Democrats are footing the bill. Again this is entirely legal and TUF is in no way implying that the Grippo campaign is doing anything not allowed by current laws.

Let's be fair. Much of the Republican literature is paid for by county Republicans. And while the Republicans have reported spending on the State Election Law Enforcement Commission web site we can't trace all the money.

This is the problem with the loop hole. TUF would like to know how much the Grippo team is spending and what the source of the funding is.

It is important that Franklin Taxpayers speak up on this issue, because it's our tax dollars used in the game of pay-to-play. Call the Franklin Township Council and ask them to close the County Party Loophole. Without closing the loophole, Franklin will be passing a sham reform, and Pay-to-Play will continue.

The result of this pervasive practice is that taxpayers pay more for services. This happens in three ways. First, when instead of open and fair competition for public contracts, a select few large contributors are rewarded and the price goes up. Second, government contracts become even more expensive because government contractors charge more to recoup the campaign contributions they have made. Third, at every level of government, the pay-to-play practice provides incentives for politicians to issue more government contracts and engage in wasteful spending because it is a way for them to increase campaign funding.

In August, Councilman Brian Levine proposed the full ordinance. The town attorney asked for some time to research it. So the town postponed it to September. Once the September meeting came again the attorney asked for more time to research. Councilman Levine urged that the ordinance move forward, so they put it on the agenda and told the attorney he could have another week to do research. At this time, Common Cause began a grassroots drive encouraging taxpayers to call town leaders because it seemed the democrats were trying to block it.

Finally Democrats agreed, but with a watered down version with the county out of the ordinance. Councilman Levine tried to stop the loophole, but the Democrats control the Council. He's going to try again on Tuesday to put the county provision back in. I think the only way we can be successful and get the votes is if there is public outcry.

TUF asks "Why do the Democrats want to stop campaign finance reform?" What do they have to lose?

In short, passing the ordinance with the loophole will allow the local leaders to claim to be supporters of reform while leaving room for the Pay to Play game.

To learn more contact Common Cause NJ
  Heather Taylor
  450 Main Street
  Metuchen, NJ 08840,
  Tel- (732) 548-9798
  Fax- (732) 548-9298
  email- nj@commoncause.org


Note: TUF is 100% behind Anti-Pay-To-Play legislation. We make no comment pro or con about other Common Cause issues.

           Return to top

The Library – As stated elsewhere TUF is not against renovating and even expanding the library. We simply believe $8 million plus is excessive. The entire senior center was $1.5 Million. The hiring of a New York City museum architect that is paid a percentage of the total cost of the project does not encourage cost savings. It also encourages a design more like a museum then a library. Just look at the artist's rendering.

Our solutions

                      Return to top

The Animal Shelter – Again let's start with the fact that TUF is unequivocally in favor of renovation and expansion of the Township of Franklin Animal Shelter. At the September 9th meeting Chip Hoever, who was at that time still speaking for TUF, stated exactly that. Carol Provoznac President of "Second Change for Animals" said it best (I'm paraphrasing) that of all the subjects discussed at the September 9th council meeting the animal shelter was the only one that meant the difference between life and death.

We do however, as with the library, wonder about the price tag of $600,000. The new construction calls for 1815 sq ft. That's $330/sq ft (if all the money was going for new construction). Certainly some is to be spent on renovating the existing 1519 sq ft. But even if all 3334 sq ft were new construction that would be $180/ sq ft. The average cost for construction of a commercial building in New Jersey is about $85/sq.

Admittedly animal shelters require more expensive construction. They have redundant ventilation to prevent the spreading of disease and the concrete used has to be bacterial resistant. Yet a 4400 sq ft shelter costing $615,000 in Virginia was built at $140/sq ft. A 7000 sq ft shelter in Minnesota was built for $735,000 or $105/sq ft. Finally, a 3300 sq ft shelter in Iowa will cost $190,000 at $58/sq ft. Clearly there must be something different about this latter shelter's construction but it's likely that there is something that could be learned from it.

Our Solution

Shelter planners need to contact these other shelters to find out how we can reduce costs. The ASPCA site is another resource. Let’s make sure every cent we spend on these needy animals is spent in the very best way so that they get all the help they deserve. There is a shelter that receives no tax dollars, it's run on donations, adoption fees, etc. We are not suggesting that the Franklin Animal Shelter be run the same way but there seems to be much we can learn. Offset costs by allowing local veterinarians to advertise for a fee with signs on the walls.

Return to top

The Skateboard Park – Spending $150,000, which is an entire years budget for park maintenance is wrong. We have already devoted considerable space to this project.

Don't build it. To pour a slab of concrete on open space using $25,000 of open space dollars to build a skate park for a few residents is ridiculous. Then, to add another $150,000 of tax dollars is even more ridiculous.

Return to top

Wants and Needs – We have spoken before about needs and wants. What we are saying is that when one is faced with a set income, you first pay for the needs and if there is money left over then you can pay for some wants.

Our solution

The council or the voters by referendum should decide the maximum amount that should be spent on wants (discretionary spending). When a proposal is put before the council the council can then decide if it’s a want or a need. If it's a need then it undergoes the standard funding process. If it's a want then a different protocol is followed. Various protocols are possible but what they have in common is that all the "wants" proposals would compete for the limited amount of money. The choice could be made by the voters, a committee or by the council after a truly bipartisan committee gives its advice. Other scenarios are possible. Note we said a maximum amount would be available. Depending on the importance of the proposals all or none of the money could be awarded. In hard times it may be none.

Return to top

Impact Fees - Items 1 & 2 are from a Washington web site.

1. What are impact fees? - Impact fees are charges assessed against newly-developing property that attempt to recover the cost incurred by a local government in providing the public facilities required to serve the new development.

2. Who pays impact fees? - The developer of a proposed development pays the impact fee, although the developer will, as a practical matter, pass the costs of these fees onto the purchases of the developed property. The local government examines the proposed development, determines what facilities will be required to sustain the desired level of service, and charges the developer a fee to cover a portion of the cost of the needed system improvements.

The Township already does this to some extent. Often it will ask the developer to improve roads in the area of construction to handle increased traffic. At the October 14th, 2003 Township meeting Manager Daly out lined how the Township required a developer to improve the water system for their project so that it could handle future projects. Clearly however more is required. If not why would democrat Councilwoman Shirley Eberle call for it repeatedly. May 27th, page 03-324, Aug 5th and Oct 14th (Minutes not available). Several residents have express this opinion in Township meetings. Both parties on the Township Council are calling for impact fees but the law must be changed at the state level. Thus the Township Council should pass this resolution in support of A-594 and S-556. Learn more about impact fees.

        Return to top

Abolish the Property Tax - TUF's supports controlling spending to control taxes. Changing or adjusting the taxing systems merely shuffles who pays. Freezing assessments is one way to prevent fluctuations but still locks one into a current situation ignoring ones ability to pay.

The property tax system was created hundreds of years ago. At that time those who owned land had great wealth and thus the ability to pay. The land itself often was the source of the wealth. In modern times property values change rapidly and often do not reflect ones liquid assets. This is especially true during recessions or at any time when a homeowner is not working (being laid off or retiring).

While changing to an income tax system will not change the total tax at least it will reshuffle who pays in a fair way. Other advantages are:

1. An income tax based system, while not perfect, taxes much more fairly. It is self-adjusting to ones ability to pay. If you lose your job or retire and your income decreases so does your tax.
2. It does not discourage home improvement. With a property tax, improving your home can lead to higher taxes.
3. It is cheaper to administrate. The State already has the information need to determine the tax and the mechanism to collect it. The office of the assessor can be abolished.

Our Solution

Abolish the system of property taxes and adopt an income tax system. Yes, Yes, Yes, TUF is aware that the township does not control the system of taxation. Nor does it control the system of assessments. This has not stopped the current administration from trying to change assessments at the county and now the state level or from including it on there campaign literature. At the October 14th Franklin Township meeting during Council remarks Mr. Grippo repeatedly ask for someone to make just one suggestion that would fix the situation other than his attempting to changing the assessment system.

Here is that suggestion - The Council should support their fellow Councilman Chivukula who as an Assemblyman is a co-sponsor of A-540. A-540 is a bill in the Assembly that calls for a New Jersey Constitutional Convention on Taxes. Instead of trying to change a flawed system by freezing assessments Council members should encourage the State Senate to pass the companion bill S-478. This is not a new concept, the NJLM site suggests how Mayors can get involved. TUF suggests that not only Mayors get involved but Mayors encourage a letter writing campaign from citizens.

Let's be 100% clear TUF is for a local income tax ONLY if it is done alone with abolishing property taxes. We realize that it will reduce overall taxes but it will distribute it to those who can pay.

            Return to top

Zoning - The voters twice approved adding a tax for open space. TUF approves of this initiative. In addition to providing parkland TUF believes that one of the goals of the voters was preserve wildlife habitat. Re-zoning for large lots is one way to stretch open space dollars. Farmland or existing large wooded areas could be re-zoned to 2 acres or even 10 acres. This would reduce the number of houses built thus hold down the burden on schools and increase the amount of open space. The only one that would pay increased cost would be the person buying the property. This would be re-cooped when the house is sold. Using this method in conjunction with the current method we can preserve the same amount of habitat for less money or more habitat for the same amount of money. That could be left up to the voters.

January 6, 2006 - We now realize that this idea is over zealous. People especially farmers invest in land and have the expectation that when tell sell it it will be under the same rules that were in effect when they bought it. Some increase in zoning may be appropriate but increasing it to 10 acres is too much. The true solution is to come up with a reasonable master plan and then stick to it. Don't grant variances to developers that walk away with millions and leave us with over crowded schools and long traffic delays.

            Return to top

The Veterans' Memorial - The following was written by Phillip Kramer.

First let me say that my father's WW II experience flying B-24s, B17s and B29s lead to my Air Force career. I spent most of my time behind the yoke of a B52 or sitting on what is commonly called nuclear alert in the Strategic Air command. I fortunately never saw combat and perhaps because of that I hold the deepest respect for those that have put themselves in harms way for the freedoms I hold dear. It is because of all that that I had mixed feelings about the memorial. In fact, within TUF itself there are mixed feelings.

Earlier this year the memorial was slated to cost $400K. I appreciate the thrift of reducing the cost. My concern came down to the likely fate of this monument in the distant future. I visit revolutionary war memorials about twice a year but how often does the average American. Sadly, Memorial Day has become little more than opening season at the beach. How often do people visit WW I memorials. Franklin already has a veterans memorial. How many know that? How many of visited it? A Memorial can easily become an ignored piece of stone.

We however, have a unique but rapidly vanishing opportunity. I proposed that instead of a stone memorial Franklin produce a video memorial. Have a company interview every living Franklin WWII veteran. Companies currently do similar videos for instance of the family matriarch to get her life story so that the family will have it forever.

Once you have the video show a segment of it every year to our children at school. Give copies to the private schools as well. Every year for the week around Memorial Day show it at the library running in a continuous loop. The librarian would be responsible for transferring it to newer medium as technology changes. Spend the money that the veterans have collected to place a plaque on the existing memorial stating the video can be can be viewed at the library. File one at the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress to further ensure that it is preserved. Put some in a time capsule with some artifacts to be dug up every 10 years on Memorial Day, viewed and then reburied.

Better still, spend $3,000 for a digital video camera and a computer editing system and give it to the high school. Let them form a video/journalism club with their first project being the veterans' video memorial. Local papers would fall over themselves to add their expertise. Not only would we involve the community but we might change the life of some of our students. We may have the next Ken Burns or Steven Spielberg living here in Franklin.

Dream with me for a moment. Imagine if the technology was available 227 years ago would you rather have a stone displaying the names of every Franklinite that fought in the revolutionary war or a video of the recollections?

Personally I rather hear reflections of our soldier stories than read their name on a piece of stone.

We owe these people more than a monument with their name on it that is destined to be eventually ignored. No disrespect, but we will all get that when our time here is done. They are heroes, let us hurry while there is still time and preserve their thoughts so that not just their names but a reflection of the men themselves will live on in the hearts and minds of Franklin.

It is winning situation for the students, it is a winning situation for the veterans, and it is a winning situation for Franklin.

            Return to top

© 2003-2010 - Taxpayers United in Franklin