AGENDA TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING September 8, 2008

[library]

Just to add one more comment. I have no issue with the 1% for the library. However, they have a 700-800K surplus I understand. If that is the case it should be returned to the town. A surplus is an over budgeting it is not a gift. If in the next year they need additional funds for book purchases, etc... then I have no issue with the TC giving them additional one off funding. However, to simply keep money in a coffer because they can is not the right thing to do.

[Guest]

Sources for the Facts cited are:
QSAC
http://www.state.nj.us/education/genfo/qsac/.
Please see your school board representatives for futher explanation.

Tax information:
Cranbury Township
Cranbury Public Library

Establishing a public library:
NJ state law
http://www.njstatelib.org/LDB/Library_Law/lwes0001.php#392


Town survey: Zogby Poll 2006

[Guest]

Public Library funding is unique. In 1884, legislation was passed in New Jersey that authorized the establishment of public libraries. Libraries are supported from municipal funds by a minimum one-third of a mil property tax on every dollar of assessed real property valuation, N.J.S.A. 40: 54-8. The rationale: an assured minimum base of tax support not influenced by politics.

Yes, a new law does provide for unusual situations like Avalon New Jersey and other communities that are not able to even plan to spend all the money given to them by law. They are able to transfer funds to the town. The new law also stipulates that the State Librarian must approve any transfer of library funds. In our situation, I do not think she would approve this transfer as Cranbury Public Libray may need to find a new home.

[library]

The links provided do not state any law on the public access to a joint library. If you post that the law states there is a requirement, then you should state the application of the law. Don't say talk to a School Board Member. They aren't the one posting the law. So again, what is the exact application? Or as I stated I am correct and they are looking for the convenient way to explain things to make their case.

To the other poster...

In terms of the state librarian, you are making assumptions that we need a stand alone library, that someone else will see that need and that the person won't agree to let us return our own tax payer money to our town. That is a lot of assumptions to make without even exploring the possibility.

Therefore, there is reason to return and ask for a return of the funds. What you said is essentially an excuse for not protecting the tax payers and for the library to continue to build the coffers. Why would teh library who is run by tax payers not want to reduce their own tax obligations, knowing full well that any stand alone library will require additional town funding anyway. I did not see the Library raising their hand to spend their 700-800K in savings to buy PNC.

The library has already asked the town for money to buy PNC. Why then would you not give money back to the town with the idea of getting it back at some point? Or is it a one way street on the library's part because that is how it sounds to those of us sitting on the outside. They ask for hand outs, but we can't ask them to return money not being used.

[Guest]

Fact: Cranbury School Library and Cranbury Public Library are officially a shared used facility with a verbal agreement. It is not a joint school-public library. There is a legal difference. The public library is in the present location at the invitation of the school.
Fact: The School Board does manage the school and enforces state mandates such as QSAC regulations.
Fact: The Cranbury Public Library never asked the town for money to buy the PNC.
Fact: The Cranbury Public Library is your library. All residents are welcome. The director would be happy to help all residents understand how our library is funded.
Fact: Funding for libraries is the law, not a handout.

[library]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

Not sure why you're arguing because we both said the same thing. The school board and town built the library so both could exist together. I just said that the library (meaning physical structure) was built with a dual purpose in mind. There was never an intent that the actual structure was a short term solution or that it was a temporary thing until a stand alone was built. The intent was that the library would be one physical place housing both a school and public library. The problem is that people are saying it is at the invitation of the school 40 years later and conviently at a time when people are trying to push for something that is not needed.

[Guest]

[Guest]

I keep hearing that Cranbury has money. I'm not sure what does that mean. I look at our 2008 budget and see a 23 million outstanding debt. Am I missing something? Do we have money stashed away? OR is it just how much we can leverage? Is that what people are talking about?

[Guest]

[Guest]

I think it is irresponsible for both the New-Library citizen and also the proponents of New-Library TC members to even consider raising Cranbury taxes to build another project during a NJ recession.

I hope someone brings this up at today’s TC meeting YET AGAIN.
I've attached an article from Star-Ledge about just how bad the NJ economy is and how the Warehouse sector is being hit hard.

Here's info about recent stats on the NJ Economy that some at the meeting may have passed up in our Cranbury Library:

[James]

It all comes down to basic economics and asset protection. It is not whether one wants a library, ball field, the west property preserved 100% or anything else. It is whether such objectives can be achieved without causing harm. A library as a stand alone would be great, but there is no cash on hand to achieve that goal. Preserving the West property is nice, but in doing so severly restricts our school's ability to deal with increasing student populations.

The town right now is fighting COAH. There is a cost associated with that fight and the dollars are yet to be determined. In addition, we have substantial debt outstanding that needs to be retired. That has to be priority number one.

We then have to face an issue with what happens if our COAH obligations are not reduced and we end up needing to fund school expansion and building of COAH units. We honestly need to start thinking about this possibility. The worst that could happen is that we are prepared for a worst case sitaution, at best our obligations change and we find ourselves in a stronger financial position as a town.

At this juncture, any additional borrowing has three major negative consequences for the town. Focusing on the town as an entity for the moment.

1) It affects our bond rating (Borrowing costs)
2) It affects our ability to issue bonds in the future to cover costs such as COAH or school expansion.
3) It lessens the amount of available money to us in the event that we really have a need issue arise.

From a resident view any additional debt means that the tax payers have more debt on their hands. The only way to pay this new debt off is to raise taxes.

Raising taxes in my opinion is not something that should be done and we have precedent for flat years. However, assuming the taxes do rise we end up placing burdens on a lot of people in town who in this economy don't have an additional couple of hundred dollars. Between the cost impact of the revaluation and the current tax increases that have been imposed we have many seniors I've talked to that have problems.

At this point, the only sensible thing is for people to put aside their wants and desires and focus on what is best for the town long term. I would even advocate placing the ball field on hold and not spending an additional dime unless babe ruth raises the funds or agrees to cover the costs.

I look at a town like Jackson Twp. They allocated yearly surpluses from an increase in rateables for new schools, preserved land and other facilities. They then used this allocation over time to purchase these items. They did not raise taxes and they did not issue bonds.

As a side point off topic, I do wonder why the TC does not look at ways not only of reducing our taxes, but also our overall resident expenses instead of ways to spend more money.

For example, homeowners in Cranbury pay for private trash collection. My bill is about $85 a quarter. Negotiating a town contract would do a few things.

1) It would reduce the homeowner expense because we have aggregated the town's purchasing power. That $85 maybe becomes $70 a quarter.

2) It allows home owners to write off the cost of trash collection as a tax deduction because it is now built into our property taxes as opposed to a separate household expense. So that $85 comes down to about $60 give or take for the average home saving them about $100 even before any group discount is applied.

[Cranbury Conservative]

In the best interest of our town….

Once again here in Cranbury the agenda of a few is taking our focus off of our fight against the unfair COAH / Affordable Housing obligation we face.

Regarding our library here in Cranbury an important fact to realize is we have less then 4000 residents in Cranbury and the library has a $700,000 budget surplus. Does the Cranbury Police Department or the School run that kind of surplus? The answer is NO.

For 40 year the library and school have had a very successful agreement for a shared library space which has been very beneficial to the taxpayers of Cranbury and the need for a new stand alone library appears to only have become a “MAJOR” issue since the new head of the library has taken over.

From what I have heard some of the major “Issues” for the library currently appear to be space limitations as well as new concerns over some restricted hours by the school. I was also told recently the library and the school now each has their own lawyers which are getting paid with our tax dollars to solve the disputes they are having because of space and hours. In the case of the library I guess that is how they choose to use the surplus of our tax dollars.

In the end who wins? THE LAWYERS WIN!!! Yes that is right the lawyers not the residents of Cranbury. What we need is for everyone involved to step back and do what is best for the town and that is for us all to focus on COAH AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING as Cranbury’s number one issue. Because if we have to build what COAH wants our town to build then Cranbury will cease to exist as we know it today. If we choose to focus on the library’s supporters needs and not the needs of the community as a whole then we will have one of two things that will happen to the library here in Cranbury….

In our first scenario if the COAH / Affordable Housing build out occurs as is then our towns population will soar to somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 residents. The library supporters will then be able to justify their need for a stand alone library. Unfortunately in this scenario since we were so focused on the library’s needs and not the needs of our town in its fight against our unjust Affordable Housing obligation our town will have changed in such a way that it does not look anything like it does today. We will either need to build a new school or send our children to others town’s schools due to the lack of space available in our current school. Further we won’t be able to add on to the school because by that time the TC will have preserved the West Property which will have handcuffed the school from being able to expand. We will also have lost our agreement with Princeton because we will have exceeded the limit of students they have said we can send without their needing to expand. Our taxes will probable be 2 to 3 times what they are today, which will force many of our current residents out of our town.

In the second scenario if the COAH / Affordable Housing build out occurs and the population soars to somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 residents and then we will not need a stand alone library because our town won’t be called Cranbury anymore. Our town will be called Plainsboro. We will then be able to use our new state of the art library that our new town is building right now. We will have consolidated with Plainsboro because the tax burden will have become so high that we will not be able to run our town independently. It will also make the States case easier against us as a town that should consolidate with another community.

Is this what we want to happen to our town? Further we are trying to make a case as a community that our COAH obligation is unfair and would be a terrible burden on the taxpayers of Cranbury. Can the library supporters stop and ask themselves how it makes our town look when we say we can’t afford Affordable Housing yet a town of less then 4000 people can afford a brand new library. Can our town look any worse by doing this?

So please for the good of our community, can the library and the school work these issues out? Can you please put your personal agendas aside for the good of the town? Can the Township Committee do the same? For the greater good of our community we need to resolve our library issues, and make use of the existing agreement as is. We then need to focus back on our #1 priority COAH / Affordable Housing.

http://cranburyconservative.blogspot.com/

[Guest]

The Cranbury Public Library is for all residents. It is such a valuable resource. Libraries create a sense of community, like the school does for families. A library involves the whole town.

The public library may have to separate from the school library. When the present library was built, the town and the school were much smaller than today. Seemingly what has worked so well for so many years is now posing problems for both libraries.

If Public Library has to make plans to move out, they can use the money in their budget to rent a place. Then the Public Library can then do a funding raising campaign so that there is no further tax burden on the residents.

I would hate to lose the public library.