Marlboro’s municipal budget approved

The Marlboro Township Council gave its approval to a $33.7 million municipal budget for 2010 during the Aug. 24 meeting. The township’s fiscal year began July 1.

The 2010 budget is up $1.2 million from Marlboro’s 2009 budget of $32.5 million. One significant item driving the budget was a $1.3 million increase in employee pension payments that must be paid, officials said.

To support the $33.7 million budget, property owners in Marlboro will pay a total of $20.6 million in property taxes. The remainder of the budget is funded by other revenue sources.

In 2009, Marlboro property owners paid a total of $18.7 million in property taxes.

The municipal tax rate for 2010 will be 29.7 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. That means the owner of a home assessed at $250,000 will pay $743 in municipal taxes in 2010. The owner of a home assessed at $400,000 will pay $1,188 in municipal taxes in 2010.

The owner of a home assessed at $500,000 will pay $1,485 in municipal taxes in 2010. The owner of a home assessed at $650,000 will pay $1,931 in municipal taxes in 2010.

Municipal taxes make up about 15 percent of a property owner’s total tax bill. The remaining 85 percent of the property taxes paid goes to the Marlboro K-8 School District, the Freehold Regional High School District, Monmouth County and a local fire district.

During the public hearing on the budget, some residents asked why officials in neighboring Manalapan were able to come up with a 2010 budget that will collect the same amount ($18.8 million) in municipal property taxes in 2010 as in 2009.

Mayor Jonathan Hornik said he was unfamiliar with Manalapan’s budget and noted that it is difficult to compare two municipalities.

For comparison’s sake, Manalapan’s municipal tax rate for 2010 is 33.2 cents per $100 of assessed valuation.

The owner of a Manalapan home assessed at $250,000 will pay $830 in municipal taxes in 2010 ($87 more than the same assessment in Marlboro); the owner of a Manalapan home assessed at $400,000 will pay $1,328 in municipal taxes in 2010 ($140 more than the same assessment in Marlboro); the owner of a Manalapan home assessed at $500,000 will pay $1,660 in municipal taxes in 2010 ($175 more than the same assessment in Marlboro); and the owner of a Manalapan home assessed at $650,000 will pay $2,158 in municipal taxes in 2010 ($227 more than the same assessment in Marlboro).

Municipal property taxes pay for all operations in town hall, including the police department, township administration, the planning and zoning offices, parks and recreation, public works and municipal professionals such as attorneys, engineers and planners.

Hornik said that if Marlboro’s state aid had not been reduced and if pension reforms were in place, taxes would likely not be increasing since municipal spending in other areas is actually down from 2009.

Resident Dick Previte acknowledged these are difficult financial times for everyone and he requested that the council members not vote on the budget so that they could make more cuts. Previte said he did not know the budget well enough to suggest areas where additional cuts could be made.

Council members welcomed the public to attend budget preparation sessions next year at an earlier point in the process so that they can be involved in the budget’s development.

After listening to the residents’ comments, Councilwoman Carol Mazzola said the council members do study the budget in depth, but she suggested that an efficiency expert be called in to review and determine if there is any extra fat that can be cut from the spending plan.

Council President Frank LaRocca acknowledged Mazzola’s suggestion as a good one.

The budget was unanimously approved by all five council members — LaRocca, Mazzola, Councilwoman Randi Marder, Councilman Scott Metzger and Councilman Jeff Cantor.

A short while after the vote on the budget occurred, Mazzola requested that she be allowed to change her vote.

LaRocca consulted with the township attorney to see if that was permissible. In order to vote again on the budget, a council member who had initially voted in the affirmative could make a motion to open the topic again for voting.

That motion would then require a second and a majority vote to reopen the matter. No one, not even Mazzola, made a motion to open the topic up to another vote, leaving the vote on the budget’s adoption unanimous.