patching...
Update: Share Your Photos, News Tips and More! Follow Us on Facebook! »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Tax Increase, School Budget Shot Down by Voters

Lawrence Township voters rejected the municipal tax referendum by a 2-1 margin. The discussion of how to amend 2012 municipal budget will begin tonight (Wednesday, April 18) at the next council meeting.

 

Updated: 2:45 a.m. March 18.

By a 2-1 margin, Lawrence Township voters on Tuesday (April 17) rejected the 9-cent municipal tax rate increase that the township administration and council had sought in order to balance the 2012 municipal budget.

With absentee ballots not yet included, a total of 2,501 no votes were cast in the municipal tax referendum, compared to 1,282 yes votes. Those 3,783 votes amount to 19.4 percent of the township’s 19,450 registered voters.

Also on Tuesday, township voters rejected the Lawrence Township public school district’s 2012-2013 budget by a vote of 1,982 to 1,770 – a margin of just 212, again with absentee ballots not yet included.

Elected to full three-year terms on the township school board were Jo Ann Groeger, Kevin Van Hise, and Thomas Patrick. An unexpired term with two years remaining was won by Joshua Wilson. Michael Horan ran uncontested for an unexpired term with one year remaining.

In a strange twist, however, Wilson earlier this month notified the school district and local media outlets via email that he wished to withdraw from the election due to “an unforeseen personal obligation.” But because he did not withdraw from the race by the March 5 deadline set by the state, his name remained on Tuesday’s ballot.

Now having beaten out two other candidates for the two-year unexpired term, Wilson must decide whether to actually serve on the board or submit a formal resignation letter.

Municipal Referendum Defeated

“Residents of Lawrence Township are concerned over taxation; not just taxes from Lawrence Township municipal government but all levels of government. I think there’s justified frustration about the economy, justified frustration about the job market and justified frustration over the poor timing of all of these difficult trends culminating at one time,” Lawrence Township Manager Richard Krawczun said after the votes were tallied Tuesday night.

“My reaction is to continue what our plan has always been, whether the referendum passed or failed, and that plan is to continue working on the budget to find economic efficiencies, to reevaluate programs, to devise not just a short-term plan but a long-term fiscal plan that will provide stability to the Lawrence Township municipal budget,” he said.

Krawczun said the process of discussing how to amend the 2012 budget will begin at the next township council meeting, which will be held tonight (Wednesday, April 18) at the municipal building beginning at 6:30 p.m. (The meeting agenda and Krawczun’s pre-meeting memo can be found on the township’s website.)

Tuesday’s referendum was held because the 9-cent increase sought by the township exceeded the state’s 2 percent tax levy cap and voter approval was needed to balance the 2012 budget that way.

The $43.35 million spending plan formally introduced by council on March 20 already includes a 5-cent increase that will raise the municipal tax rate from $0.84 per $100 of assessed property value to $0.89, meaning the owner of a home assessed (for tax purposes) at the township average of $160,828 will pay about $1,431 in municipal taxes for 2012, or about $80 more than in 2011.

The additional 9 cents, had it been approved by voters, would have raised the municipal tax rate to $0.98, increasing the 2012 municipal tax bill for the average home owner by another $144.75.

What Happens Next

With that extra 9-cent hike rejected by voters, Krawczun and the council must now find a way to cut about $2,275,000 from the budget.

One option previously discussed would require the township to eliminate all recreation programs and fire 36 municipal workers, including essential personnel like eight police officers and all ambulance staff. At the time of that discussion, council members resoundingly rejected the plan because of the devastating effect it would have on township services.

The other option that Krawczun and council members have considered – and which they have said was likely should the 9-cent referendum be rejected – would see the township cut the cost of residential trash collection and disposal from the municipal budget, and instead institute a new mandatory trash “user fee” that would be assessed against all residential property owners in town. Such a fee has been estimated at costing about $336 per year

Krawczun said he planned to inquire today with the state Division of Local Government Services about the “statutory requirements that dictate the amendment process for the budget.”

“I think it’s important to recognize that this is not something that should be rushed to decision. This is something that needs to be thorough and it needs to be done in a way that we are careful so that the results are what’s intended and not unplanned. We don’t want to do this haphazard,” he said. “We will have the opportunity to lay out a plan that will comply with statute and a timely and organized adoption of the budget so we can fiscally manage the balance of 2012.”

Krawczun said that while his recommendation will likely be to “move forward” with the trash user fee, all options will be presented to council and the final decision what to cut from the budget will rest with the township’s governing body.

Mayor Jim Kownacki Tuesday evening said that he was disappointed with the referendum outcome and felt that that 9-cent tax increase was the best way to preserve township service.  

School Budget Defeated

School district officials were equally unhappy Tuesday evening.

“I’m disappointed. We worked really hard to stay within the [2 percent] cap and not cut any programs, not cut any staff,” district Superintendent Crystal Lovell said.

“We’re disappointed but we understand the voters’ sentiments,” school board President Laura Waters said. “I think we were collateral damage [from the municipal tax referendum].”

Waters said the school district’s Finance Committee will sit down on Thursday to take another look at the defeated school budget – which included a 3-cent school tax rate increase – to see where possible cuts can be made.

Township council, meanwhile, will conduct its own review of the school budget, with the power to order the district to reduce the overall budget by a specific amount. The district, in turn, will then have to make cuts equal to that amount or file an appeal with the state’s education commissioner.

“We will work closely with town council to provide a mutually-acceptable number,” Waters said. She said the focus will be – “as always” – on providing students with the best education possible.

Lovell agreed, saying, “We’re going to try to keep the cuts as far away from the kids as possible.”

“We presented a budget that, I think, was frugal and fair,” Waters said “I just hope the council understands that any substantial cuts will impact the kids.”

School Board Elections

This year’s school board election was unusual in that in addition to electing three members to three full three-year terms, voters had to fill a one-year unexpired term previously held by David Donahue and a two-year unexpired term previously held by Ginny Bigley.

Donahue, who was elected in the April 2010 school election, resigned last May to take a new job in California, while Bigley resigned for personal reasons last summer just a couple months after the April 2011 school election.

Jo Ann Groeger and Murali Aiyar were appointed last year by the school board to temporarily replace Donahue and Bigley until Tuesday, when voters could decide for themselves who would serve the remaining years of those two terms.

Meanwhile, the three full board positions up for grabs Tuesday are held until the end of this month by Michael Brindle, Thomas Patrick and Kevin Van Hise.

Brindle and Patrick were elected to their current terms during the April 2009 school election, while Van Hise was appointed last year by the school board to serve the remaining year of the term previously held by Robert Brackett, who resigned in March 2011 due to work commitments that prevented him from attending meetings.

Brindle has been on the board for 21 years and Patrick for six years.

Capturing the most votes Tuesday among the five candidates who competed for the three full terms was Groeger with 2,144 votes. Winning the other two spots were Van Hise with 1,871 votes and Patrick with 1,420 votes.

Brindle and Martin Hopkins came up short with 1,315 and 949 votes, respectively.

Winning the unexpired term with two-years remaining was Joshua Wilson, whose vote total of 925 beat out Delores B. Reid (883 votes) and Aiyar (715 votes).

If Wilson, following up his earlier emailed desire to withdraw from the election, submits a formal resignation letter, the school board will then have to appoint someone to fill the seat until the April 2013 election, when voters will themselves elect someone to serve out the remaining year of the term.  

And Michael Horan, running unopposed for the one-year unexpired term, captured 2,419 votes.

 

Lawrence Township Municipal Tax Referendum

Yes

1,282

No

2,501

(Absentee ballots not included; vote totals unofficial until certified by the county clerk.)

 

Lawrence Township 2012-2013 School Budget

Yes

1,770

No

1,982

(Absentee ballots not included; vote totals unofficial until certified by the county clerk.)

 

Lawrence Township Board of Education

 (Three Full 3-Year Terms)

Jo Ann Groeger

2,144

Kevin Van Hise

1,871

Thomas Patrick

1,420

W. Michael Brindle

1,315

Martin Hopkins

949

(Absentee ballots not included; vote totals unofficial until certified by the county clerk.)

 

Lawrence Township Board of Education

(One unexpired term with 2 years remaining)

Joshua Wilson

925

Delores B. Reid

883

Murali Aiyar

715

(Absentee ballots not included; vote totals unofficial until certified by the county clerk.)

 

Lawrence Township Board of Education

(One unexpired term with 1 year remaining)

Michael Horan

2,419

(Absentee ballots not included; vote totals unofficial until certified by the county clerk.)

 

For School Budget and School Board Background, See:

For Municipal Tax Referendum Background, See:

 

Related Topics: Lawrence Township Board of Education, Lawrence Township Council, Tax Referendum, and Taxes

DSXM

11:12 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Very short-sighted decisions by the majority of Lawrence voters. The property tax increases are deductible on your tax returns, user fees are not. I want Lawrence to be Lawrence, not an extension of Trenton. Oh well, you get what you pay for.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Chief Wahoo

11:19 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

sorry buddy people have finally woke up from their 20 year slumber.. .....The public takers better get used this new change QUICKLY !!

PS you cant lose your house for not paying a garbage bill you cant afford, but you will lose your house for not paying a property tax bill you cant afford

Comment_arrow

TzuMom

11:29 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

I agree - just as sewer fees are not deductible, now trash collection will not be.

Comment_arrow

jmc

10:40 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Not short-sighted at all... If anything, knee-jerk property tax increase as the only solution is short-sighted. Where does it end? The threatened increase in user-fees was a scare tactic to get voters to approve the referendum. I want Lawrence to be what Lawrence was.......

Chief Wahoo

11:21 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

WOW ! thats a smackdown if i have ever saw one....and in liberal Lawrenceville

Bravo for waking up before its too late......

Reply

Andrea Pennington

11:22 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Are we now supposed to rely on the town council to make the school budget work? The council, who could not balance their own budget? This is a disaster. Thank you, town council, for not doing what every other municipality (except Medford), in the state of NJ did- balance their budget under the cap.

Reply

Naomi Mat

11:23 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Short-sighted? Really? Yeah, you would have saved a few bucks this year. But next year town council would come at you again for another tax increase. This wasn't a one-time 14 percent bump. I am disappointed that the school budget got voted down. Tom Eldridge and the board bust their hump to keep costs at a reasonable level. The school administration gets it that they can't keep squeezing and squeezing the township for more money every year.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Chief Wahoo

11:26 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

the sunwill come up in the morning and the message will be understood by all

Comment_arrow

Patrick

11:35 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Wahoo, if you live in Brick, why do you spend so much time on the site. you clearly don't understand what I am asking here...

Comment_arrow

Chief Wahoo

11:44 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

lets just say i spent many days in Lawrenceville......but mostly i will post anywhere that thinks they can continue the theft of property taxes to be pay for the croynism and back room deals of the past 20 years.......ITS OVER !

DSXM

11:25 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

I can afford my property taxes because I live below my means. Lawrence taxes are still much lower than other towns in NJ.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Let's Dance

12:08 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

you just don't get it- we decided to buy homes here because it WAS affordable compared to some other towns close by. We don't want to pay as much as other towns. We want and know it's possible to remain an affordable town for families to live. Keeping this town affordable will only help sell homes and attract residents to move here which will help the local economy. WAKE UP!!!!

Comment_arrow

armyvet

1:51 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Oh great lawrence taxes are lower than other towns. We should vote "yes" to the budget so we can get even more ripped off why not other towns are doing it.

Lorraine

11:35 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

It would be nice if town council would let some residents of Lawrence sit down and go over the budget to see just where and how the money is spent and then help with suggestions on how to balance the budget. We do it at home and we could probably help the township. Oh and there will soon be a bill introduced to the state legislature that would forbid towns from charging service fees like for garbage etc and that the fees are nothing more than a tax and the state wants to put a stop to that and I hope they do. There are probably a lot of minor cuts that can be made that will add up to a lot. I think they need to make Rider University pay more in taxes and the Lawrenceville school with all those private houses that don't pay property taxes but they send their kids to our schools and if they don't pay property taxes on the house then they should pay tuition for their kids to use our public schools. The planning board should let Mrs. G's expand like they want to and that would be a tax rateable added in since we lost the taxes the hospital would have brought in if we had let it be built in our township instead of hopewell. There are a lot more suggestions I'm sure from other people that could keep our taxes down.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Tom

12:27 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

So is this your brilliant idea? I don't want to pay the tax so I'll push it on to someone else, preferably someone who doesn't have a vote like the parent of a student at Rider University.

Comment_arrow

Tom

5:22 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Private colleges are exempt from NJ property taxes under state law 54:4-3.6. See: http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/54-taxation/4-3.6.html

So this would require a change to the state law.

Comment_arrow

Tom

5:32 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

There are more than 2,000 resident students at Rider that could register to vote in your school district. They might swing the vote if they found out that their tuition was going to go up because you wanted to pass a budget that taxed Rider.

Comment_arrow

armyvet

10:52 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

I was unaware they are exempt by state law . The issue is coming up with a idea how to fix the mess. If there were minimal waste in our budget I would have no problem voting for the increase to keep services and so no one gets layed off. but believe me when i say i know alot of people in lawrence and am on multiple commitees and I hear about the ridiculous waste in spending from friends who work for the township and I have seen it first hand. If they raised Riders tuition 17% because of bad decisions you would be angry and i would not blame you.

Comment_arrow

Patrick

11:01 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

The township isn't after the schools to pay taxes, he is after the residents at Lawrenceville School who live in houses on campus that are considered tax exempt. They are not temporary homes like dorms nor for students. They are homes that just happen to be on campus, and receive the full benefits of living in the township tax free. There is a document detailing this on the township web site.

Let's Dance

11:55 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012

They deserve to be smacked, kicked and thrown out! Now their arrogance and greed has cost the school budget to suffer. Just another reason to elect an entire new slate asap. A 2 to 1 vote against them shows just how detached and ignorant they truly are from knowing what the MAJORITY of residents want and will support. You want to make threats and bully people that pay you to serve them into voting for an absurd tax increase, well look out because 2,501 residents came out swinging today! Oh and that garbage fee you think will happen, well forgettttttabbbbboutit! Your Council meetings will be much more crowded with residents breathing down your neck until that idea is defeated too or the proposed legislation will take care of that. Oh wait, my phone is ringing, it’s Sweeney with a message for Puliti...how do you like me NOW?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Richard

10:02 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

I agree with you 100% ! It's about time citizens of Lawrence wake up and, pay attention to who is burning your hard earned money. None of these politicians should be voted back in. This is where we gain our power. Also, there is not enough voter turn out, during election, we should encourage everybody we know to vote out all these losers. They need to balance the budget just like the rest of us are doing at home. If you don't have the money you don't keep spending. The furloughs worked for the state, I suggest that and, no raises for the next few years. They better not take away the little $200 tax discount for veterans or seniors. Politicians always balance their budget on the backs of the poor. Well, it better not happen here in Lawrence, we will protest loudly. As far as the school budget not passing I say....Yeah! You would not believe how much waste goes on in our Lawrence school system. Folks are fooled into thinking that raising school taxes goes toward better education....News Flash to you all "NO IT DOESN'T". THE KIDS NEVER SEE A DIME TOWARD EDUCATION..... Wake up people, these is a property reassessment coming, why would we just keep handing over our money to the township when our taxes will be so sky high next year, watch for all the for sale signs appear in your neighborhood.

Joe Friday

2:43 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

I voted no out of principle. I fully understand that I will be paying more for the "user fee" then I would have if the referendum passed. However, the town manager and council bullying the residents failed, and failed miserably. It is a breath of fresh air that by a two to one majority, taxpayers saw throught the smoke screen and voted no.

Reply

Landon Donovan

4:59 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Thank you residents! The message is loud and clear no tax increase. The 'yes' votes are wimps or just work for Lawrence Township or perhaps just like to pay more whenever possible. How dare the town council threaten voters many of whom have lost their jobs or have seen significant reduction of hours at work. This council should be ashamed of what they have done. As for the school budget call it collateral damage and don't take it personal. As for you Mr. Township Manager time to sharpen your pencil and by the way leave my garbage alone it's all we really get for the money!

Reply

Stinki Garbaage

6:33 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

We need all 2501 No Votes to show up at town council tonight and tell them: "Not my Garbage"

The hard work starts today. Nice work Voters!!!

Reply

bark34

9:53 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Loving the fact that we stuck it to the man last night...kudos for everyone who voted 'no'. Sorry...not raising my taxes again to cover up your mistakes.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Baby Coughman

5:27 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Anybody remember that commercial where the man in the suit behind the desk exultantly proclaims, "I really stuck it to the man!" ?? His underling then says: "But sir, you ARE the MAN!

Missy Webb

9:57 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

I would like to give the voters who took the time and Voted NO for the Tax increase a BIG Thank YOU.

Reply
Comment_arrow

John Cammarata

10:52 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

You're welcome.....I'm just happy my vote counted.

John Cammarata

10:17 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Next, we need to vote - out town council.... They pushed for the tax increase. Tax and spend Dems have got to go...

Reply

Stephen

10:51 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

I would have voted for the 9-cent tax increase had it simply been for this year to meet the budget. I understand the loss of revenue for taxes to meet the budget. My problem was that it became the basis for future tax increases. We all know that if tax revenues exceed expectations, there is no way that they will decrease taxes.

Reply

TPG

11:27 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

In all seriousness, can someone (preferably not named 'wahoo' or 'Stinki Garbaage') tell me why you people are rushing to congratulate yourselves? As I understand it, your accomplishment amounts to this: a higher cost for garbage removal that will likely be far less efficient and convenient. That's it. Why are you so happy?

Now, the knee-jerk reaction of many of you might be to call me an Lville liberal, and you'd be 100% wrong. But as much as I might admire Christie, he's not gonna pick up our garbage every week. Do you even know what you were voting for, other than 'no'?

So many of you like to talk about the realities of the real world, the corporate world, where layoffs and cost cuts "happen all the time." Well, here's another reality - if you can't afford to live in Lawrenceville anymore, you can move. Happens all the time.

Reply
Comment_arrow

John Cammarata

1:00 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Let's see what happens with garbage collection...I say it was a scare tactic by the Township Mgr. and Council in an effort to get their referendum passed. If increased user fees is the "only solution" according to this council and Mgr., then we need to replace these people with more creative and fiscally conservative minds...

Comment_arrow

Stinki Garbaage

1:20 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

TPG, comment on my name if you like, but with a name like "TPG" you're not exactly specifying who you are either!

I CAN afford to live in Lawrenceville and I still voted NO. Why? Because I earned my money for myself and my family, not for politicians who created this mess, lied to us, and who have voted 5-0 that they would rather reward their employees than listen to their constituents, and even after 3 public meetings of backlash and a 2 to 1 vote against a tax increase they are still considering it

That's why I congratulate myself. For sticking to my principals and voting to keep my money, not turn it over to wasteful spenders.

If you're against these tactics, then you should come tell your council members. Tonight.

Comment_arrow

Richard

5:37 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

You are not getting the message here. This is all about principle. We as taxpayers will not be bullied. By giving in and, allowing this tax increase, the township will not learn it's lesson and, keep spending and, spending. They will assume that we will always cave into them and, keeping allowing them to live their same wasteful ways. This is all about our power as voters telling the folks at the township to stop abusing us ! They act like spoiled children and, it is time for them to grow up .....They could never get away with this behavior in a private business job. They would all be fired because they couldn't balance a check book.

Comment_arrow

Patrick

5:38 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Max, Now would a be good time to suggest cuts you keep talking about... remember, you can't void contracts... how about it?

Comment_arrow

Somefacts

8:02 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

They cannot find that kind of money. Now there may be some revenue that is under anticipated but that is how you regenerate the surplus that is applied this year. You have to be conservative with revenue because you are in big trouble if your projections fall short. The only way to cut the budget is through layoffs. The police cost the most money so you have to get rid of a good number of them. 21/2 million is a lot to cut. On another note, stinki is speaking of inflated raises. I think you will find that this isn't true. For example, the police contact was signed in 2010. The contact is 0 raise in 2010, 2.9% in 2011 and 2.9% in 2012. This was done prior to the 2% cap law. Now with that said, in 2010, the police started paying 1.5% of their salary for healthcare. In 2011, the state increased officers pension contribution another 1.5% of their salary. Last fall, instead of putting that money into the pension system, the governor refunded the amount to the township. Therefore, over 3 years, the police got a 5.8% raise however, the town received 3% of that money back. Therefore, the net raise for police has been less than 1 percent a year since 2010. Therefore, stinki, you really need to credit the givebacks to see the whole picture. Just giving some facts.

Sarah Simon

1:13 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

I think Council is just as bad as Mr Township Mgr. Council did not get off to a good start and the Township Mgr. is going to drown them. He is in so deep he will never get out.

Reply

TPG

1:28 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Garbaage - I totally agree with everything you said - except for the last part, which makes zero sense. You didn't vote to keep your money. You voted to spend more of your money.

Reply
Comment_arrow

grill master

5:37 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

No, voted to keep his money that he worked for and not use it to line the pockets of the extortionists over on Rt. 206! Some people just don't get it!!

Comment_arrow

Patrick

5:38 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

That's is Max who wrote the op ed and did the web site. He did not pay more. He lives in a 700k home. So this was a big win for him.

concerned mom

11:47 am on Thursday, April 19, 2012

I just want to "thank" those who voted no on the budget. I hope you have seen the budget line by line and know exactly where we can cut over $2 million without impacting the quality of our town significantly. If you are aware of where we can cut that money without putting our neighbors (cops and fireman) out of jobs and our kids and seniors on the streets with no rec program I am open to hear it. You all seem very proud of yourselves for sticking it to these "politicians". All I am seeing is that my kids education is not valued by you and now I have to pay for my own garbage collection which is going to cost me even more than the tax increase. Why don't you "wake up"? The economy sucks and you are going to pay for it one way or another. Stop letting the governor brain wash you. He is just taking money from the towns and schools and then blaming the towns for raising taxes. Can't you see that?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Tom

3:28 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

I agree with you concerned mom. My property taxes are significantly more than what you are paying in Lawrenceville (close to 40% more) but I am willing to pay it because high quality schools improve property values and a good education is worth every penny to my children. My school district is one of the best in the country and because of the excellent education my daughter received she won a scholarship that is worth nearly eight years of property taxes.

And you are right about the governor. The same thing is happening in NY. The governor reduces taxes by reducing aid to schools and then pats himself on the back for doing such a wonderful job of cutting taxes. All he is doing is moving more of the tax on to the middle class.

Comment_arrow

DSXM

4:45 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Thank you concerned mom. You actually get it.

Comment_arrow

Angelo Longo

10:31 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

Trenton has one of the highest tax rates in the state, so higher tax rates do not equate to a better town!!!

Crocked

5:37 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/04/hamilton_council_police_chief.html

How a real council and real police chief handle things. A bunch of clowns in this town.

Reply

T B

12:12 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Couldn't make it to township meeting tonight, can someone fill me in on what happened?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Let's Dance

3:09 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Read the front page story in the Trenton Times today at http://www.nj.com/times/pdf/thursday.pdf and listen to the audio that will be up on the Patch on Friday.

Stinki Garbaage

5:39 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

The fight is still now over. After a 2 to 1 vote and 100% unanimous anger from the residents last night, the council is STILL debating whether to move forward with the extortion. Mayor Kownacki said last night after all the residents gave them a piece of their mind that he hears us, but he still thinks the user fee is the best option. That's who's leading you. That's your mayor!

Call Mayor Kownacki today and ask him what he's waiting for. Tell him to take the garbage nonsense off the table today!

844-7000 Ask for Mayor Kownacki. Tell him to take this off the table today. The vote was 2 to 1. Yesterday at council was 100% unanimous from the resdients. Don't take my garbage away.

My Kownacki, what are you waiting for?

ThisGarbageStinks.com - Tell your friends to flood the township until this nonsense is over. We're 75% of the way there.

ThisGarbageStinks.com - until it's off the table.

Keep fighting!

Reply

Nancy

11:43 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

Why do commercial properties with their overflowing dumpsters get a free ride on the garbage user fee? Anyone know, not just conjecture?

Reply
Comment_arrow

T B

11:52 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

Not sure why but I know for a fact that Lawrenceville Gardens Apartments doesn't pay for garbage. How is this possible?

Stinki Garbaage

5:39 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Concerned Mom, have you lokoed at the municipal budget line by line?

Did you see they want to pay out $1,300,000 in additional salary and compensation to this "reduced" staff?

the quality of our town is already impacted by excessive spending that government has already tried to Extort from the residents and the people are fed up. did you go to council meeting last night?

Even after a 2 to 1 vote against the increase and a 100% backlash at council meeting last night, they still refuse to take the garbage proposal off the table.

Until that proposal is off the table it is 100% clear that the council is in favor of taking our garbage away to pay $1,300,000 in salaries and benefits to this suppsoedly reduced labor force

Concerned mom, can't you see that?

Reply
Comment_arrow

concerned mom

6:41 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Stinki Garbage,
You are playing with numbers. Do you know how many people are getting this 1.3 million? Is it cops and fireman? groundskeepers? EMTs? People that save our lives every day? If there are 1300 of them that is a $1000 raise each, and insurance goes up every year. Many of them also have contracts that we are bound to so they were promised a certain increase. Do you really think that our township workers are "rich" people who sit on their asses and collect our tax money? Someone mentioned that if this were a business, the mayor would be fired. No, he would be able to use as much money as he wanted to take himself out to fine dining and write if off as a "business expense", fly to Vegas to impress a client on "business", and receive bonuses every year. There are few perks to being a public employee. The health insurance is all they have. I know you are all angry b/c you don't want to pay, but don't take it out on people's salaries. That is just wrong.

Comment_arrow

Patrick

7:17 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

remember when you said it wouldn't be hard to cut 2.2 million? well, much of that money you quote is contracted. So you are either just naive and don't understand how public workers are paid, or just angry that public service workers in Lawrence can afford a 2009 Ford, and a week at the shore.
So what is it Max? and what do you want to cut that is not under contract.

Comment_arrow

Patrick

7:21 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Max, the more you ignore the reality the dumber you will look... Over that five years you love to quote, the average worker has had a $640 a year raise.... They have also given back overtime, health and pensions... so they take home less.

So today the average Lawrence public employee takes home LESS money then they did five years ago. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

Nancy

2:15 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

We allow everyone, or almost everyone to vote--the local obstructionists, along with the far right wing nuts. Hey, wake up, folks, no one feels obligated to vote from a reasoned perspective anymore. All of you who elected Mr. Christie, you got him, so live with him, or make your vote count next time.

Reply

Chief Wahoo

5:21 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

the whiney losers are out tonight !!......i could almost understand, if you lost by a few votes, but by 2 to 1 .......sorry , no one is listening to you spend spend spend fiscal liberals any more

Reply
Comment_arrow

Patrick

7:12 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Wahoo, do you understand this debate or are you just moaning yourself about your personal agenda... You don't add anything to this as an outsider, you don't understand the characters, the plot, or the theme. You heard a good beat that you can tap along with... time to jog on as the English say.

Stinki Garbaage

7:23 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Concerned Mom, respectfully, I am not playing with numbers. Look for yourself on the budget. Respectfully, you claim there are 1300 "of them" but this town has 188 employees, not 1,300. I don't begrudge any of them, but I also do not believe anything the town couincil says regarding the situation. The employees are stuck in the middle. Are you going to ignore the problem staring you in the face?

Did you read the article: Overpaid Municipal Workers: The Evidence Mounts, Wall Street Journal April 11? Just google it.

I welcome your comments after you read it.

Thanks.

Reply

Stinki's army

7:53 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Playing with numbers is hilarious. How about reality. The numbers don't lie. Pay increases all around and 1 of 500 towns to ask to raise the cap. 40% increase in property taxes in the last 8 years. Dont lecture anybody if we get it.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Patrick

8:18 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

But, you don't. If you want cuts... so be it. Police will be fired. But don't pretend that the graph on that website of his tells you anything except he doesn't understand the budget or contracts.

I'm mad as well at council... But not for these baseless attacks on working people. Its the same attack you hear in PA, in Wisc. and from the state house.... sorry, but the guy pulling a 20 hour shift plowing the roads after a snow storm is not a THUG. That police officer, hardly a thug... and that teacher we also voted down... they are teaching our future... hardly a thug.

but they are easy. we pay them. and its nice to be able to fire someone. isn't it.

Comment_arrow

Somefacts

9:22 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

When it's all said and done, major layoffs will have to happen. Lawrence was never bloated with positions. When the cuts happen, the level of service will drop tremendously. It will be like Trenton. If you call for a cop, one will come but you might have to wait an hour or so like Trenton. Lawrence residents have always expected great service. If cuts are made, public works, ambulance and police services will change. Just remember not complain about it later.

Comment_arrow

grill master

8:25 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

Someone else had mentioned this, and it probably would not happen but the union contracts need to be re-negotiated. In the current economic climate they shouldn't be getting any raises. Many on here are whining about people losing their jobs, they don't have to lose them, they can just take a pay cut.
I'm sure they could save a million by cutting some salaries or just not giving pay increases.

T B

7:57 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Where can I find the township's salaries on their website?

Reply

Stinki Garbaage

8:27 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

TB, the Township has salaries by department, not by individual.

If you go to APP.com and selct "Data Universe" you can enter any NJ public employee to find their salary.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Somefacts

8:42 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

You had to look at the first 2012 budget recommendation http://lawrencetwp.com/documents/manager/Documentsfor2012Budget/2012%20Budget%20Recommendation.pdf If you go to page 18 (page 26 of the PDF file) there is a table of organization. For example, the manager is 167000 for his manager duties (.5)then he gets another 20,500 (.5) for being in charge of finance for a total of 187500. There are two deputy tax assessor positions so you divide the amount 150000 by 2 or an average of 75000 per position. Hope this helps.

DSXM

9:11 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Thankfully, Patrick gets this too...it is worth whatever it takes to keep Lawrence as Lawrence, not Trenton North...Plus I'd rather be paying taxes for people to work and serve the community, not be paying taxes towards unemployment.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Tom

9:24 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

There are people who would rather cause people to lose their jobs than pay a couple of hundred dollars a year in taxes. There is a word for people like that.

Comment_arrow

grill master

8:30 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

So according to your logic, I better just keep working my tail off so that the people serving my community get a higher wage. It becomes very frustrating and difficult to get ahead financially when any increase you make, if any at all, gets taken away due to an increase in taxes.

Comment_arrow

Tom

2:52 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012

If by paying a couple of hundred dollars a year more in taxes I can keep my neighbors employed, then yes, I will work my tail off to help my neighbors if that's what it takes. It's called being part of a community and caring about someone other than myself. You might want to try it. It makes you feel pretty good at the end of the day.

T B

9:18 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Thank you! My husband works for Lawrence Township and we were trying to look up info.

Reply
Comment_arrow

concerned mom

8:51 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

grill master, yes, it is hard to get ahead isn't it? Now picture being a public worker who is also getting the same tax raises as you are, being asked to pay more toward insurance, and everyone thinks you don't ever deserve a raise to cover it. And year after year you are asked to take pay freezes, and you do it, and everyone still hates you and thinks you deserve less. WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT! Stop blaming the public employees salaries for your financial woes. Trust me, they are suffering too!

Comment_arrow

T B

9:22 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

Concerned Mom we are def taking a hit. We have had pay freezes, step raise freeze and have to pay more for health. Everyone wants to point fingers escpecially when they have NO clue what they are talking about!

Comment_arrow

grill master

1:23 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012

No one is "blaming" the public employees. The council and manager, yes, they are being blamed for their poor planning and lack of foresight.

Yes we are all in the same boat, but what is your solution to get out this boat? Is it for us to pay more taxes? Yes, my family is paying more for health insurance this year too. But we bite the bullet and pay it, not go whine about not getting an increase in salary to cover it. So I really don't understand your point.

And as far as "thinking that everyone hates you and think you deserve less"...most likely you don't work in corporate America if you think that is not the case everywhere else.

Snake put

9:37 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

There are plenty of places to cut without layoffs. The police chief has 28 years and has been able to retire for 3 years, the deputy chief can retire in June. Get rid of those two and there is a $400,000 savings to start with. The police captain retired in March which is another $150,000 in savings. That is $550,000 in savings. No need for lay offs just don't renew these two contracts. The overall efficiency of the police department would improve with new blood which might generate more revenue. There are some real talented officers waiting to move up in ranks that could really put LPD on the map and raise moral and revenue. Get rid ofmthendead weight at the top and let's get some good guys in there to save money and generate revenue.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Somefacts

10:08 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Captains salary is already out of the budget. Lawrence is civil service, even the chief's position. They can be demoted but you cannot get rid of them by not renewing them. In civil service, you cannot force someone to retire. Just the facts.

Nancy

9:44 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

how to I get these comments out of my email address

Reply

Naomi Mat

10:04 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

I saw some construction on Carter Road today. I saw two guys working, pushing some dirt around with rakes, a gaggle of guys hanging out in the shade, and a Lawrence Township cop car idling with the windows up (air probably on) and said cop yacking away on his cell phone. {Sarcasm/} My tax dollars hard at work. {/Sarcasm}

Reply
Comment_arrow

T B

10:10 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Carter Road is County not Lawrence Public Works

Comment_arrow

Somefacts

10:20 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

The cop was probably on a side job. The company pays the town for the price of the cop and the car. The town actually makes a few bucks on this. It is not costing you anything. Just the facts.

Naomi Mat

10:24 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012

Hey TB, I'm trying to learn and I really want to know. I just checked the map and the corner of Carter Road and Van Kirk (where I saw this incident) is in the boundary of Lawrence Township. And there was a Lawrence Township Policeman there. It looks Lawrence to me. But I seriously do want to know what you are trying to tell me. I can only make better decisions when I am better informed of the world around me.

Reply
Comment_arrow

T B

9:10 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

My husband works for Public Works and they DO NOT do that road. Its a county road therefore the County takes care of that.

Alex

8:34 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

Good thing the tax increase was voted down and if a trash collection fee is imposed we should be able to choose who the township awards trash collection contracts to.
Current company is very inconsistent usually in my area the start collection early am but now the come at random times sometimes it seems that they are not picking up trash at all

Reply

T B

9:15 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

Just a thought but if we get rid of people at Public Works who is gonna clean the roads in the snow and ice and work 12+ hours not any of you. Our parks are cleaner then Ewing, Trenton, Hamilton and Hopewell. Cutting ANY of these jobs will hurt Lawrence Township NOT make it better. People want cuts but forget these are the people who work hard to make Lawrence look good and care for LAWRENCE Township roads!!!!!!

Reply

Alex

10:04 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

Private contractors if contracts are awarded to private companies for snow removal it would save the township money. As for public works employees they not only do snow removal there is plenty of other things that they can do. Lets be honest here public works employees dont clean our roads every day and it doesnt snow every day during the winter. This past winter is an example, How many snow storms did we have? Awarding private companies contracts will ensure a job done in a timely a proper way. Private companies are about keeping customers happy and if they want to get contracts awarded they are going to do anything possible to do the best job they can.

Reply
Comment_arrow

T B

10:15 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

You are right they don't clean the roads everyday but they cut grass and keep the parks clean. Do you want our parks to look like Moody, I think not! Also by cutting all thoes jobs people will lose their homes, we def would, and I don't see how that is gonna help Lawrence Township when most of the employees live in Lawrence. My husband has been with the township 10 plus years and without his income we would have a home. My husband works very hard and so does his co-workers. Everybody is willing to cut the laboreres, the same people who work their asses off, and forget they have families too!!! How would like to lose your home because your job got cut?

T B

10:20 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

Their are other ways to save money but cutting jobs will increase unemployment and people unable to pay their mortgage or taxes in Lawrence if they cut these jobs!!! Who is that helping??? I 100% support the township workers and all they do to keep the township BEAUTIFUL!!!! The laborers don't get paid that much and they clean ALL the parks, including the bathrooms, and the roads. They get letters telling them what a GREAT job they do. Now that everyone is worried about money no one cares about any of them...DISGRACEFUL!!!!!

Reply

T B

10:40 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

Sorry if I come off to strong to people but my husband losing his job means we have nothing and I will fight to the end for NO layoffs!!! My husband is my only means of income with my health so NOTHING anyone says here will change my mind.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Chief Wahoo

10:55 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

what about the people in private sector, who lost their jobs and still are required to pay the property taxes to pay your husbands salary at the threat of losing their house if they do not or can not

Comment_arrow

Patrick

12:04 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012

Wahoo, what about them? Last month 11,000 private sector jobs where lost, the only thing offsetting that and keeping the unemployment rate in the great NJ recovery is the addition of over 3000 public sector jobs.

You have to look at this thing organically... as in you can't separate the parts to complete the sum. The public sector basically kept Lawrence from becoming Trenton. Many who live here, work for the state... This is a public sector community. I know Brick is tied to the military, and the beach, so I think you need a tad more context in your posts.

T B

11:09 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

My heart goes out to anyone who has lost their jobs...but why make more people lose their jobs?! Thats not a solution thats a problem.

Reply
Comment_arrow

T B

11:10 am on Friday, April 20, 2012

So even more people can collect unemployment and more people lose their homes...doesn't make sense to me!!!!

Let's Dance

12:35 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012

Thank God the majority of residents in Lawrenceville are not clueless like a few of the people here. Please don’t just be concerned, get informed and if you’re relying upon one paycheck to pay for two or more, go out and get a job like the rest of us. If you choose not to work, then don’t complain about loss of income if your public employee spouse doesn’t get a raise the town can't afford or loses a job that the town should never have filled. We (those who want cuts) are NOT against the municipal workers, but this town is not a charity…it’s funded with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, like the school district this election, they are merely the collateral damage of irresponsible spending and poor long-term planning by our elected council. Hey, and why would the Twp Manager want cuts, a 4 day work week or lower raises when he and his wife take home well over $200,000 a year in taxpayer funds? Talk about a conflict of interest if I ever saw one. I guess he's smart enough to know a great gig when he sees it for his own family, who cares about the Lawrenceville families that have to foot the bill.

Reply
Comment_arrow

T B

1:05 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012

For your information I would get a job but my health is poor and I'm unable to work. So before you make judgements you "Let's Dance" should know all the facts!!!! And I'm not complaining he didn't get a raise I'm perfectly ok with that so AGAIN BACK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!! You do not know all the details but wish to bash people...GROW UP!!!

T B

1:09 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012

Also I'm not complaining I'm saying the Public Works Dept has already taken cuts and still continue so thats why they shouldn't be laid off.

Reply

concerned mom

1:13 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012

I agree TB. I chose to stay home to raise my children, at least until they are in school because the cost of day care is more than half my salary (as a teacher by the way). I also don't believe you are "in the majority". Unfortunately not a lot of people voted. I personally do not know a single person who feels the way that you do. Those of us with little children would like them to be well educated and safe and we will pay for it. I am done here though. I have voiced my opinion. If you folks ruin the town by laying off our workers or cutting our rec dept (which is mostly the senior center by the way and I haven't heard anyone volunteer to cut that), I'll just move. Sadly, that is what a lot of people who don't want to get involved with your political fight are doing anyway. I hate to see where this town will be in 10 yrs if you have your way.

Reply
Comment_arrow

grill master

1:57 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012

Yes, I have small children in the school system too, which is why I voted YES to the school budget!!! I boggles my mind that there are actually people stupid enough that did not grasp the concept of the school budget and municipal budget being two separate items!!

Stinki Garbaage

1:30 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012

10 years from now:

A council that can govern (and Lead)
Same Great town
Same awesome residents
Same exorbitant taxes (NOT)
What if taxes actually went down?

Oh No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply

Leave a comment