Borough Council this evening approved a joint commission for the merger study. The five members representing Merchantville on the commission with Cherry Hill are as follows: Burt German, John Morrissey, Patrick Brennan, William Walker and Edward Bohn. The alternate is Richard James.
Merchantville Connecting for the Future is bringing in 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
104 comments:
A clarification to the blog post. What happened this evening is that Council approved a resolution to make an application to the DCA to create a joint commission. The commission is created by the DCA, not Council. As was said in the Council Meeting, the resolution is not an application.
Merchantville Connecting for the Future however has already submitted the application with Cherry Hill to the DCA to create the commission. Contrary to the rumors that have been spread our application has not been turned away.
As mentioned in the post, we are holding a Public Information Meeting on Wednesday, October 6 · 7:00pm - 9:00pm, at First Presbyterian Church of Merchantville, Corner of Maple & Centre Streets.
From the start our Group has been calling for a Study so we can understand if merging makes sense for Merchantville. Gina Genovese says we will find out it will make sense. Come find out why she believes this, and have a chance to ask questions.
Once we have an unbiased Study then we can all decide for ourselves.
Visit our Facebook group at Merchantville Study for Consolidation
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=135090249834880
I'm happy with the mayor's choice of committee members. I know first hand that these gentleman are all dead set against any consolidation and will find a way to stop this nonsense.
[Lavardera: Merchantville Connecting for the Future however has already submitted the application with Cherry Hill to the DCA to create the commission.]
The merger group continues to work around its own town. That is so typical of the NGO and, apparently, of the mergers themselves, including La Vardera and his buddy neighbor on their newly paved street, Councilman Perno.
Notice their title, "Merchantville Connecting for the Future". Now reread the rest of lavardera's announcement, "...has already submitted the application with Cherry Hill to the DCA..."
Merchantville is just a name to them, not a hometown. They see us as their orange for squeezing out juice, leaving us with pulp and rind.
And when Genovese finishes raping our town with her complaints, she will go on the another little town with that same painted smile on her face.
Do you expect straight, honest information on October 6?
Can someone relate how the Council vote went? I did not attend the meeting, so don't even know which Council members were there.
Who voted to approve a joint commission for the merger study?
The cabal has outmanuevered the petitioners. Every one of these appointees is biased against consolidation. Most of them have their pictures up on the wall in borough hall and one of them has a park named after them. They're there to protect their legacy. Well played. In five years we will be Pennsauken- as planned.
ktbfw,
Please get help, you have veered off in to Crazytown territory with your over the top violent metaphors.
I am posting anonymously because I am afraid of you.
Far from being "just a name" I think that Merchantville is a resilient community culture.
I don't think Merchantville is just a boro council, a tax assessor's office and a police car. I think those things could merge into any other town tomorrow and Merchantville would still exist.
According to NJSA 40A:65-25, the DCA creates the Study Commission upon an application from either the "governing bodies of two or more contiguous municipalities" or a "representative committee of registered voters."
Neither the boro council nor the petitioners can "pack the committee" since neither creates the committee.
Do you expect straight, honest information on October 6?
I expect information at least as good as that I get from the Boro Council and I will ask questions and investigate for myself just as I do with council.
And you are over the top. This is new for you ktbfw. You've lost your humor. You didn't have this much venom for the town when they attacked you personally for "destroying" the town with your high grass. What's happened? Are you alright?
There is no comparison between Kt's high grass and an elected council persons back door back handedness.
Alice,
Council's interest should be for the betterment of the Borough and its citizens. This meeting is nothing more than propoganda. Of all people I would think you would be smart enough to see this. (No disrespect meant)
Anon 9/28/10 6:40 PM - There is no backhandedness as a significant proportion of the community wants the study done and the merger considered. Improper behavior on the part of elected officials would be to do nothng or be adverse in the face of such advocacy by the public.
JAMR,
I agree on what should be.
I am smart enough to see that not everyone lives up to the ideal.
[This is new for you ktbfw. You've lost your humor.]
I have lodged a lot of complaints about this town, more than all other residents combined, perhaps. But I like to think I have been working at improving things. And I have dug in my heels against those trying to abolish its governance.
Don't these people have any idea of what they would destroy?
Our entire history has involved acts of subdivision, not amalgamization. The founders of Delaware Township (Cherry Hill) were folks in a couple of tiny hamlets, the Ellis family, the Coles family, far smaller than Merchantville today, who wanted to control their own communities apart from the larger governing bodies.
Every political unit today was created as a subdivision of something larger. USA from Great Britain; New Jersey from New York; Camden County from Gloucester; Merchantville from ... we have talked about our history.
For a minority group who has not spent a minute trying to fix our town and school problems --there are NO merge activists on the school improvement committee working to solve educational problems; there are NO merge activists on the Planning Board helping to solve zoning/development issues-- those activists are spending months (mostly in C.H.) trying to destroy our self governance.
It is not a humorous situation.
Monday night Councilman Perno voted AGAINST council's consolidation commission. The appointees have been leaders of this town for the past fifty years. He has lived here four. Long term mayors of both political parties, community leaders, respected citizens --he voted against all. Perno voted against his own county party leader. Perno voted against the former mayor with almost two decades of seniority who brought in all of the redevelopment we know today. Councilman Perno did not even bother to show up at the council meeting. He only came after being telephoned that there was not a quorum to pass his resolution for a merger study if he refused to come in. So our councilman put on his shoes and came late to cast a yes vote for the resolution and a no vote for the commission to make sure the merger will be studied thoroughly.
Remember when Alice was promoting the merits of a diverse commission of peers to look at the professional study? Perno voted NO. But he is promoting his lobbyist's speech on October 6. Sort of follows his concept of not approving the paving/lighting of the drug-strewn alley behind Wellwood Manor but quietly rebuilding his own street with the money with a speed hump to protect his young kids.
Do you see a joke in that, Alice?
The proposed committee is not diverse or representative of the community. It is representative of a past Merchantville minus the women. They are all old white men. Has anyone noticed that Merchantville's demographics have changed? Calling this group representative is a joke to the rest of us.
ktbfw,
I was concerned about your increasingly violent imagery. It is out of character for you. You were able to deal with CCM, 606 W Maple and your grass issues with much more humor. That is why I asked about it.
If it was a mere aberration, not to be repeated, that's great and I won't mention it again.
As for self-interest by our elected leaders, and everyone else--nothing new here. You can't have gone through TCE, the changes in boro employees, and the conflicts over 606 W Maple without having the scales fall from your eyes. Don't pick up new ones along the way.
ktbfw - Do you see the current high school situation as a joke? Do you see the less accomplished and less happy high school experience of Merchantville children as a joke? Do you see the loss of economic diversity in the community as a joke? Do you see the continuing deterioration of the built environment (private homes) as a joke? Do you see high taxes as a joke? Do you see long-term financial instability of the local government as a joke? Do you see eventual meger with a community other than CH as a joke?
These are serious issues, not jokes. Merging with Cherry Hill is a golden opportunity to resolve them.
[The resolution wasn't to create a committee to study the Study Commission]
What did you speak?
I guess I don't understand, as you say. I thought C.H. had filed a resolution-based application and Merchantville had filed a petition-based application to create a Study Commission -- and that both were returned (rejected) with instructions that both towns had to file the same type of application, either both petition-based or both resolution-based.
And I figured that each community was to offer up study-commission candidates for the State to select from if it did not include all.
Your turn, Alice, explain it to me again ... in your littlest words, please.
And Cruiser, you having spent the last five years gluing together the "signs of progress" of our local leaders as I chopped them apart (continuing Alice's bent for violence), don't you now contrarily suggest they made no progress. It would mean you were on my side all the time. You couldn't bear that. Neither could I.
Remember when Alice was promoting the merits of a diverse commission of peers to look at the professional study?
I am in favor of a Study Commission as in NJSA 40A:65 if there is going to be any further discussion of merger. I don't think you can reasonably discuss the effects of merger without a study.
I never promoted the creation of a "commission of peers" to study the Study Commission. Your post seems to suggest that you don't know what a Study Commission is.
I don't care who files the application with DCA.
DCA is required to hold public meetings in Merchantville and CH and jointly on the creation of the Study Commission. So I am not concerned about either the petitioners or the boro council or CH being able to "pack the commission."
I don't know why Council President Perno voted against the resolution to approve the committee. Perhaps he agreed with Councilman Brickley that a representative of boro gov't should be on it. Perhaps he wanted other people on it. Did he say?
I'm sorry ktbfw, I deleted my previous post after reading more about the two votes. I am glad to see you tone down the violent metaphors. "Continue good progress" as they say in education. No backsliding!
Under NJSA 40A:65, an application for a Study Commission can be filed with DCA. The application can be filed by either "the governing bodies
from two or more contiguous municipalities" under NJSA 40A:65-25(b)(1)(b) or by "a representative committee of registered voters" under 40A:65-25(b)(2).
MCFF has already filed an application under (b)(2) along with CH.
The Boro Council also voted to file an application. This would be a different application.
Only one Study Commission can be active at any one time (NJSA 40A:65-25(g).
As I understand it, from lavardera at 9/27/2010 11:30PM (above), there is a pending application with DCA. I will go to the info session and find out more, I hope.
Alice, thank you for Clarifying.
KT, Alice understands correctly where we are. I'm sorry, I thought my language was plain, or I'm sorry that you don't believe anything I say..!
The application for a joint study committee that MCFF submitted in cooperation with Cherry Hill was not rejected as has been rumored.
We plan to personally invite council to the information meeting and we will reach out to them to discuss the necessity of attempting to form another application for the same purpose. They may have been under the same misconception and may agree that it is not needed. In any case we are gratified to see them act in support of a Study.
ktbfw - I did not "contrarily suggest [local leaders] made no progress." To clarify, I think local leaders did make progress except on the high school issue. Local leaders have mightily strived to do the right things to prevent the negative matters in my 9/29 11:51 AM posting. Nonetheless these negative matters continue to advance, slower that they otherwise would have. Their continuing advance is why the opportunity to merge with Cherry Hill is a golden opportunity and should be persued.
I just wanted to thank the petitioners for their persistance and hard work. Many of us didn't get a chance to sign the petition, but we've been routing for you!
In 2008, officials in Chester Township and Chester Borough initiated an effort to explore the potential benefits of consolidating into a single municipality.
Chester is a borough in Morris County with a population near 1,700. Chester Township is about four and a half times larger with 7,300 residents.
Following a public hearing in February 2009 before a joint meeting of the Township and Borough councils, the governing bodies of the Township and Borough received approval from the State of New Jersey Department of Community Affairs' Local Finance Board to create a Joint Consolidation Study Commission and establish a process for a consolidation study.
The consolidation plan was developed by a six-member Commission of Township and Borough representatives, with assistance from the Center for Governmental Research, a nonprofit management consulting organization with expertise in government management and municipal consolidation processes.
The following documents were generated for background information:
Township 2009 budget
Borough 2009 budget
Township 2008 budget status report
Borough 2008 budget status report
Township asset list
Borough asset list
Township annual debt statement
Borough annual debt statement
Joint agreement on fire protection
Joint agreement on first aid/ambulance
Joint agreement on public library
Joint agreement on LOSAP
Joint agreement on senior transportation
Township zoning map
Borough zoning map
Water service area map
Sewer service area map
Township police contract
Borough police contract
Township Legal Update
Borough Legal Update
The State's Department of Community Affairs produced a report concerning the financial aspects of a consolidation in October, 2009. The overall study and implementation strategy was scheduled to be completed by May, 2010.
CGR is a nonprofit organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
http://www.chestertownship.org/consolidation-study.html
lavardera: ...discuss the necessity of attempting to form another application for the same purpose.
What does this mean?
ktbfw - Thanks for posting the Chester URL. It is voluminous but very interesting.
Always of interest in these matters are the costs of studies and the receipt of grants to fund them. As I understand the Chester deal, they received a $73,000 grant from the state and the cost of the study is $42,000.
I just found out about this blog and I've lived here for five years. Merging with Cherry Hill is a great idea. My friends in Cherry Hill pay much less in property taxes and they have better schools and reliable trash pick up. I don't understand why anyone would oppose this. Maybe the study will shed some light otherwise. Everyone I talk to in town is for the merger. I heard that the mayor and council will never allow it though.
[Lavardera said: I'm sorry, I thought my language was plain, or I'm sorry that you don't believe anything I say..!]
I think I figured out what lavardera wrote at the top of this thread. Initially, when I read his comment I assumed that the Connecting With Future group took its C.H. petition to C.H. COUNCIL to match what our petitioners had done with Merchantville Council last summer. If Cherry Hill Council resubmitted its application with C.H. petitions, that would match what Merchantville did ... and the DCA could accept both. But C.H. Council did not submit a 2nd application with a petition.
Now I think lavardera must have left out one word from his sentence which changed its meaning to me.
[lavardera:]"Merchantville Connecting for the Future however has already submitted the application with Cherry Hill [petitions] to the DCA to create the commission".
...
Let me emphasize that the Chester merger proposition was begun at the end of 2008 and is still not decided. I do not think we should sit on our hands for the next two years waiting for a merger dream to happen.
Merger activists should get involved in improvement of our school, in an alternative send-receive relationship for high school students, and in cutting costs in delivery of municipal services. I do not know why Merchantville parents are not hammering their fists on Pennsauken desks, both municipal and educational, for improvements. Parent complaints are time-honored for creating improvement in schools. I can tell ya from having sat on both sides of the school administrator's desk, fist pounding works. So do apples.
While it is still raining let me make mention of something the blog master told me a week or so ago.
Some of you know that from time to time I throw in a note of certain events occurring in our broader neighborhood that might be of interest to Merchantvillans ... things like the "Please Touch Museum" opening and various walks for disease-fighting groups and volunteer opportunities.
A couple of weeks ago I posted two notes, one for a Temple U. senior-citizen thing and the other for a part time position directing volunteers to help non-profit organizations, I think.
Well, both comments were dropped shortly after posted.
The blogmaster told me that this blog has a new screening device that catches "spam" and automatically drops those suspected comments.
Be careful in what you say and how you say it. A machine is reading us.
Typical ktfbw subterfuge to avoid the issue.
Merchantville people have done their parts to attempt to improve PHS. The problems PHS faces are extremely challenging and no amount of Merchantville participation will resolve them. I wish Pennsauken the best in struggling with the problems but I would not want to join them.
On a survey of NJ public high schools (http://njmonthly.com/articles/towns_and_schools/highschoolrankings/top-high-schools-2010.html)
Cherry Hill West comes in at 96th out of 322; Pennsauken comes in at 298 of 322. The appeal of a good, complete public education program is important to attracting and retaining good families to the community. A complete educational program makes the community better. If extensive energy came from Merchantville to try to solve PHS's problems it might move the ranking to 290 out of 322. The biggest part of the problem is not in the administration of PHS. ktbfw should stop pretending it is.
The problems PHS faces are extremely challenging and no amount of Merchantville participation will resolve them.
I have an idea, Cruiser, THROW MORE MONEY AT IT.
Maybe if you had sent you kids to public school you would know that parent involvement works wonders, maybe not for the school overall but certainly for the child.
Now I don't have a complaint about private education. I was in it half of my career and I sent my own kids to a private high school. That's a parent's responsibility if the public option is not optimum.
But tweaking the nose of an administrator works, compared to molly coddling which is what you did and, it seems, our board today does with ours.
Hand feed them more money, more privileges, progressively easier working schedule, shorter hours and a thousand excuses about the quality of the kids coming in --those damned renters-- and only downward sliding will be the performance event.
You know this. You have talked about those problems. Why are you throwing your hands up? Is it because you see a pot of gold for the grasping at the end of the petitioners' mystical rainbow?
Merchantville parents need to act like there is no end to the storm and get into common voice.
KT, No, you are incorrect. I've left out no words. I'm only posting here to clarify the rumors. I'll try again. We did not petition in Cherry Hill. We are not aware of any Cherry Hill Petition by others. Our application was not submitted with a Petition from Cherry Hill.
Information has been circulated that was incomplete, not conclusive, and at times simply wrong. Rumors.
The Chester documents ktbfw linked to are informative about three items in particular.
First, the DCA report on merging budgets shows how a blended tax rate is computed using the budgets of both towns and the equalization rate.
Second, the report to the Chester commission showed three levels of consolidation and discussed the financial impact of each. There are good ideas in there for the time, if ever, that Merchantville and Cherry Hill have a Study Commission.
Third, the Commission met monthly and each meeting was open to the public. I remember how well attended our own Master Plan meetings were and how residents were satisfied that the end product reflected the community's ideas because open meetings were frequently held.
I know that Chester Boro and Township are not like Merchantville and Cherry Hill, but the process is similar.
ktbfw - I see the subject is quickly changed from the high school to the elementary school, the debate on the high school having been lost. And to attacks which are more personal rather that focused on the issues.
I will buy what you said from mollycoddling on down. The situation though is that the community is faced with an opportunity, a golden opportunity, to make a substantial gain in its educational programs without all of the angst, agony and uncertain outcome you are presenting as some kind of reasonable alternative.
Add financial stability to the educational program improvements and the opportunity gets even better.
lavardera wrote: We did not petition in Cherry Hill. We are not aware of any Cherry Hill Petition by others. Our application was not submitted with a Petition from Cherry Hill.
Sometimes it seems as if ktbfw is reading a different blog.
Doesn't matter how many blogs I read or none at all. Lavardera has confused me.
Lavardera said: "Merchantville Connecting for the Future however has already submitted the application with Cherry Hill to the DCA to create the study commission. ...our application has not been turned away." 9/27/2010 11:30 PM.
Cherry Hill claims it has not filed an application, just approved a resolution.
Secondly, DCA informed both Cherry Hill and Merchantville that applications must be based on either resolutions or petitions, not one of each.
Noting lavardera's comment above and knowing that C.H. had passed a resolution and Merchantville had received a petition, the thought ran through my head that MCFF must have submitted its own application based on a C.H. petition so that both applications would be the same -- petition based. Lavardera says that is wrong; there is no C.H. petition.
He also said (9/29/2010 5:55 PM): we will reach out to them [Merchantville Council] to discuss the necessity of attempting to form another application for the same purpose.
But on Monday Merchantville Council passed a resolution to conform with C.H.'s resolution and our Council appointed a commission to prepare a resolution-based application. So why does lavardera talk of "necessity to form another application" with MCFF?
And other questions: Can MCFF make application to DCA in the name of Cherry Hill Township? If so, would the two applying bodies be Merchantville Council and MCFF?
It seems strange to me that a group of Merchantville petitioners can apply in the name of another town to merge with that town.
I don't understand it all. I don't like the 'round Robin's barn tactics of MCFF. I would not even be against this thing if the petitioning group were open, communicative and not involved with that consolidation lobbying organization. I simply do not trust that NGO.
I think Alice's take on the Chester boro/township merger is preferable -- that different levels of merging can be studied and take place in open meetings. The Chester study went on for a year with monthly meetings open to the public with discussion permitted. The study commission was composed of governing leaders of both municipalities. There was no lobby group sneaking around corners up there. Straight forward folks.
I believe k.t.b.f.w. is correct.
Isn’t it true, Mr. Lavardera, that Cherry Hill would have to submit a “petition” application in order for your Connecting for the Future "petition" application to go forward?
Failing in that, wouldn’t your application be rejected in favor of similar “resolution” applications from both Merchantville and Cherry Hill?
Please try explaining what you really mean one more time for us old folks. Thanks.
Note: I am not including k.t.b.f.w. in the old folks category.
NJmonthly.com is the same website that published a list of the Best Places to Live in New Jersey earlier this year.
In that analysis, Merchantville ranked 221 of 566 towns, very close to Cherry Hill’s ranking of 215, and 50 towns better than #271 Moorestown. As you might expect, Haddonfield was ranked high on the list, at #33. But Teterboro ranked even higher, at #20. Consider that Teterboro has only 17 residents ... it has a Board of Education, but no schools. Basically, it’s an airport.
Please consider the methodology used in the Best Towns and Best Schools studies cited by Cruiser. Most of us would really rather live in Haddonfield or Moorestown, or even Pennsauken, than at the Teterboro airport.
There are thousand's of us others in Cherry Hill with this same mindset:
Letter to the Editor Courier Post 10-1-2010
I'm not surprised that many Merchantville residents are in favor of merging with Cherry Hill. It circumvents the state commissioner of education's repeated denial of Merchantville leaving the Pennsauken school district and merging with a highly ranked school district. As better schools produce better property values, merging would likely be a boon to Merchantville homeowners.
However, other than charming architecture and an equally charming population, what does Merchantville bring to the table? Cherry Hill does not need another bedroom community with very few commercial ratables to offset its general service needs. When the Cherry Hill/Merchantville school districts looked at merging several years ago, the physical plant of Merchantville's only and very old school building was found to be severely lacking compared to all other Cherry Hill elementary schools.
No Cherry Hill elementary students eat in their school's basement. The Merchantville school, located in the center of town, is totally blacktopped with no grass and heavy traffic. At the time, there were bus location issues along with parental pickup problems that were already chaotic.
It wouldn't be fair to redistrict nearby Cherry Hill neighborhoods to a building that isn't comparable or needs costly upgrades to bring it up to par. It's been reported that only a handful of students would be added to Cherry Hill secondary schools.
I must question that analysis if Merchantville becomes viewed as a quaint community with great schools. How much do we need to spend on an analysis of this "no win" for Cherry Hill?
CAROL WALVOORD
Cherry Hill
YEAH CAROL!!!
Cherry Hill Connecting for the Future is a group of concerned Cherry Hill citizens that do not want Cherry Hill Council to spend red cent on a merger study.
We want to keep the academic integrity of our schools intact and lobby for our fair share of state educational funding.
We will not allow a merger that will be a "no win" for Cherry Hill regardless of the politics involved.
Count on it!
So, Carol Walvoord doesn’t like elementary students eating in their school’s “basement” -- just another of her quirks.
She also runs a non-profit called “ Cherry Hill Organized for Integration Choice and Equity”.
In 2006-07, Carol was employed as an educational assistant at Carusi Junior High at the rate of $7.76/hr. Yeah, Carol!
What do you think “integration choice and equity” means?
Cherry Hill's council supports the merger as do a vast majority of their residents. 9 out of 10 Merchantville residents also support the merger- Cherry Hill has the lowest tax rate in the county. The study is coming- let's do our homework and vote on the matter next year.
One more time for KTFB and Gail then.
Cherry Hill Council (via resolution) and MCFF (via petition) have already submitted the application to the DCA. It has not been rejected. There is one application -it comes from both parties.
KT:Secondly, DCA informed both Cherry Hill and Merchantville that applications must be based on either resolutions or petitions, not one of each.
That is not true. This is a rumor. You are misinterpreting statements or quotes and drawing incorrect conclusions. Somebody from DCA quoted a statute, somebody else construed that to mean something else.
Gail:Isn’t it true, Mr. Lavardera, that Cherry Hill would have to submit a “petition” application in order for your Connecting for the Future "petition" application to go forward?
No, it is not true. Plainly, CH & MCFF have submitted petition + resolution for our Application and it has not been rejected. You have been fed misinformation to make it sound like this would be rejected. Clearly that has not happened.
Merchantville Council does not need to make an application because it is done. My statement meant that is is not necessary for them to continue to pursue it.
so you googled the woman - big deal!
From: Frank North [mailto:mayor@merchantvillenj.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:08 AM
To: Anthony Perno; Edward Brennan; John Alloway; Joseph Brickley; Mark Brunton; Patti Fields
Cc: Mayor Platt; Denise Brouse; tj.higgins1@verizon.net; SenBeach@njleg.org
Subject: Merger Petition
Mr. John P. Rasimowicz, Division of Local Government Services, Department of Community Affairs, has returned the petitions along with Mrs. Brouse’s August 12th letter.
“The Local Option Municipal Consolidation Act (copy was included) specifies two methods of requesting approval to create a Consolidation Study Commission. The governing bodies of the two communities may apply to the Local Finance Board (by resolution) of a representative committee of registered voters or the two communities may petition the Board (NJSA 40A:65-25.b). The law also specified the number of signatures required. A completed application form must also be filed under either method.”
Based on this correspondence, Cherry Hill will be required to obtain a petition signed by the specified number of voters, or Merchantville’s governing body will need to pass a resolution.
Mrs. Brouse has been instructed to notify a member of the petitioning committee and make the necessary arrangements allowing them to receive copies of the returned petition and related documentation included with Mr. Rasimowicz’s letter of transmittal.
By copy of this e-mail I am requesting Mayor Platt’s office to advise our Borough Clerk, should Cherry Hill wish to pursue obtaining the required signatures on a petition or prefer Merchantville’s governing body to pass a resolution.
Thank you for everyone’s consideration as it relates to this matter.
Frank M. North
Mayor
I can understand why you might still think the Department of Community Affairs has your petitions, lavardera, even though they were returned to Merchantville's Boro Clerk Browse a month ago.
The state began a hiring freeze two years ago and the department is now understaffed. I have been waiting for an inspection approval card for two years after a five-year inspection of a multi-family building. The statute governing inspections requires DCA to issue the card within 30 days.
Perhaps you might want to speed up your group's reapplication by asking Mrs. Browse for a copy of your returned papers. Better label it as "nonconforming" to Statute 40A: 65-25.b that reads, "The governing bodies of the two communities may apply to the Local Finance Board (by resolution) of a representative committee of registered voters or the two communities may petition the Board."
The Department of Environmental Protection is in worse shape than DCA but not because of understaffing. DEP suffers from overstaffing. I asked for clarification on the macimum size gravel that could be used for fill. I wanted to use salvaged bricks for fill. I was sent to four offices, each in charge of something different such as landfills, waste management, recycling, etcetera, and had to submit photographs of a brick TWICE about seven months apart because one office lost the first photo (which I had hand carried to the particular official). It was over a year before I received an answer. Wait, I misspoke. Actually, I received a couple of "no" answers but I persisted until a "yes" came finally.
While waiting for them, I went ahead and constructed the roadbed with salvaged bricks. It looks good. I should send DEP a picture.
ktbfw,
The correspondence you quoted sounds like this to me:
Denise Brouse had the petitions to verify signatures. When she finished verifying the signatures she sent the petitions, along with a cover letter, to the DCA. The DCA subsequently returned them to Ms. Brouse because: (1) she didn't submit anything from Cherry Hill and (2) she didn't include a proper application on the correct form.
Meanwhile, the petitioners submitted a proper application and appended to it the petition and the resolution from Cherry Hill.
The petitioner's application hasn't been rejected. What was rejected was Denise Brouse' incomplete submission.
KT, we discussed the questions raised in the letter mentioned in Mayor North's email with the DCA when we submitted. They have no objection to the form of our application. It's done. The app is in.
Sounds plausible, Putting It Together.
Is there a rationale for DCA accepting an application from a nongovernmental group, in this instance a group of petitioners, with a petition from one district and a resolution from another?
As I read the statute citation --a representative committee of registered voters of the two communities may petition the Board-- the petitioners do not represent both communities, at least according to lavardera who denies a Cherry Hill petition.
Let me read the citation again. The Consolidation Act allows two types of application. (A) Two governing bodies by resolution or (B) a representative group of both municipalities by petition, with a minimum of 10 percent of the previous election count from each municipality.
We now have a resolution from each governing body. As I see it, a joint application from those bodies is needed.
If the petitioners want their application to stick, again as I see it, they would have to come up with a petition of C.H. voters.
Tell me the lapse in my reading.
[lavardera said: Cherry Hill Council (via resolution) and MCFF (via petition) have already submitted the application to the DCA. It has not been rejected.]
Let me suggest the risk that the petitioners run with their petition for a consolidation study. As lavardera commented on 10/01/2010 9:35 PM, "Somebody from DCA quoted a statute, somebody else construed that to mean something else."
The crunch will come when the two governing bodies submit their joint application with appended resolutions and some lawyer challenges the petitioners' application as not conforming to NJSA 40A:65-25.b.
Why would the petitioners' application be challenged when both applications want the same study? Because the governing bodies will want full say in who is appointed to the Study Commission.
That's my speculation. We should ask Alice.
Carol is a community leader in cherry Hill. She was the advocate for the East-West open enrollment.
You won't need to know about this as this merger will never happen.
LaVardera -- thanks for the clarification. I really am trying to reconcile the opposing stories I've heard, one of which was contained in an official Borough letter/e-mail.
I understand that DCA now has an application for a Consolidation Study Commission, submitted with the petition from the Merchantville Connecting for the Future group and the resolution approved by Cherry Hill’s Council on August 9th. With that application in hand, should we expect that DCA will reject the Borough’s recently approved resolution R-10-103 and whatever application may derive from it?
A few more questions:
1) Will the Cherry Hill Council approve a second resolution to create a Consolidation Study Commission? The Borough’s resolution said that Cherry Hill had already done that “on or about September 13, 2010”.
2) Will DCA determine the source of funding for the study commission and will local approval be required?
3) Will DCA select a company to perform the study and will local approval be required?
In a nutshell, what will happen next? And when?
There's an old legal saw: "First in time is first in right."
If both applications are sufficient, then the first one filed should prevail.
But let me suggest that DCA may negotiate with all the parties, or hold public hearings on both applications. If there are differences in the applications, assuming there is more than one application, there will be some sort of compromise. The statute permits amending the application.
Gail: With that application in hand, should we expect that DCA will reject the Borough’s recently approved resolution R-10-103 and whatever application may derive from it?
There is nothing for DCA to reject from Council until they submit an application. They can't submit a joint application by themselves. What will Cherry Hill do - you should ask them.
The next step will be to schedule the public hearings that are required. I will come back to this blog and post dates when they are scheduled. We have to coordinate the times with CH and DCA, and reserve a meeting place again.
I don't have the answers to your questions 2&3. You can ask these questions however at our Public Information Meeting on 6Oct 7-9pm at First Presbyterian Church at Maple and Centre. Or you can ask at the public hearings to follow.
Council's resolution was written to correspond with Cherry Hill's resolution on August 13th. This will suffice. The DCA will prefer working with two resolutions and two sets of elected officials.
The DCA's preferences don't come into it. They have to work with a committee of registered voters if that's who files the application under the law.
And why would it matter to the DCA? Once the Study Commission is seated, the the DCA "deals with" the Commissioners, not the boro gov't and not the petitioners.
Gail,
In Chester it was the Study Commission that filed for a grant and the Study Commission that sent out RFPs and selected the company to do a study for them.
Alice: They have to work with a committee of registered voters if that's who files the application under the law.
"Under the law" there are no C.H. registered voters among the petitioners, at least not the legal number required, if lavarderais correct in there being no C.H. petition.
MCFF only represents Merchantville.
Why did Mr. Perno vota against the council resolution for a consolidation committee? I was told it was because he was not on the committee. Can anyone verify this? Its only important as Mr. Perno is running this coming election.
It seems to me the only person who can tell you why Mr. Perno voted the way he did is Mr. Perno. Why don't you call/e-mail him and ask?
Using this blog to ask your question suggests that he's done something wrong. Perno had a right to vote No if he didn't agree with the Mayor's selection. That's why they had a vote.
@Under the Law
Don't get caught up in ktbfw's interpretation of the statute. ktbfw interprets the statute as requiring the municipalities to both use the same method. But another interpretation of the statute is also reasonable--that each municipality can use either method. What counts right now is DCA's interpretation.
A committee of registered voters OR the council of a municipality can join in a petition and "mix and match" is allowable, according to what lavardera reports on his contact with DCA.
The DCA has accepted an application for a Study Commmission on Merchantville and Cherry Hiil in which Merchantville is represented by the petitioners and CH is represented by its council.
Under the law, a petition of 10% of the the registered voters is treated the same as an elected council. The purpose of the 2007 was to open access to consolidation to the public. The state legislature found that municipal gov'ts for the most part would not pursue consolidation because they wanted to retain power. It was thought that by opening up the process directly to the people, more communities would pursue the process. This is in the legislative record of the time.
Under this law, councils are not the only body that can represent a municipality.
Alice is correct.
what will happen to octoberfest that benefits the fire company when we consolidate? as one will not exist.
Too bad the people of South Jersey can't use that same concept to secede from New Jersey.
I do think we need to hear what DCA has to say. That's who should be at the info session on Wed. No more interpretations by Alice or Lavardera or ktbfw. I too have heard conflicting reports from the consolidation group and the borough regarding what DCA has said.
who's knucklehead idea was it to have this consolidation conversation during the phillies playoff game?
will there be tv's there?
Game starts at 5. Phils could have it wrapped up by 7.
Go Phils!
Halladay had just walked Jay Bruce in the 5th when I left for the meeting. Nothing happened after that.
Great game.
Meeting not so great (but it was important that it happened).
Go Phils!
yeah, lets gets the update cruiser. i had my shoes on and i was ready to walk over and i wasn't going to leave the house until the reds got a hit.....so i missed the meeting. What went down?
Hey, what's the difference between roy halladay and the reds team?....halladay had a hit. haha.
Interesting side story from the meeting. The Fire Marshall showed up while we were setting up chairs. Apparently "somebody" had contacted the Fire Department and suggested there would be a big meeting at the church and the room was too small!
When he arrived he informed us the room would be limited to 49 people. When he was shown the room had a second exit the issue was moot and all went off as planned. Goodness! Who would do such a thing, the day before a meeting, when its too late to reschedule?
how was the meeting? can someone give a synopsis?
I will post a synopsis later today.
I have no interpretation of this. Whatever the DCA says goes unless a court says otherwise.
I spoke with the CTC people last night and their take was that everybody who wants a seat at the table should (will) get one with the DCA. So if the boro has its resolution and the petitioners have their signatures and CH has its resolution then the DCA will work something out.
lavardera said... Interesting side story from the meeting...
How silly. The space could easily fit more than 49. In any case the meeting would have gone on as scheduled regardless of exits or fire commissioners, I counted approximately 46 in the seats with a few standing in back (not counting presenters)
As promised I am returning with a synopsis. I'll recount her major points just briefly. I realize some will want to dispute facts which is fine, but I'm simply trying to recount the presentation.
Gina's talk centered on the background of the consolidation question, how the issue is a statewide concern, and not unique to Merchantville & Cherry Hill, and how the discussion of consolidating townships runs back to the 1800s.
New Jersey's has the highest personal property tax burden in the country due to its composition of 566 individual townships and the administrative overhead that it creates. It was noted that empirical data shows that the cost efficiency relationship for a town maximizes at approximately 50,000 residents, tapers slowly as towns grow larger to cities, and drops greatly as towns become smaller. In NJ only 29 towns are 50,000 or larger, there are 60 between 25,000 and 50,000, and 327 towns are under 10,000 people, which is well over half the towns in the state. So the vast majority of towns in the state are way below the optimum size for efficient delivery of services. Following the pattern of most states in the US NJ would have 100--125 towns, all closer to the optimum size. Gina referenced several examples of towns in NJ which maintained discreet identities while actually being part of a larger local government. Woodbridge township which is composed of 10 smaller towns, and Neptune township which includes Ocean Grove, NJ. Andrew Bruck from CTC then explained the sequence of the consolidation process from beginning to end, and reinforced the understanding that what is on the table now is only doing a study of a merger. This was followed by a question and answer session, which was more public statements than questions, but if that is what people needed to do so be it!
lavardera: cost efficiency relationship for a town maximizes at approximately 50,000 residents
Cherry Hill's population was 70,800 in 2008 and is climbing every year. Adding another 4,000 residents plus additional 100-year-old territory would push C.H. into a status of half again more people to service than the petitioners think is an ideal size.
C.H. is already faced with the need to cut its budget for cost reasons. Merging with Merchantville would help C.H. half way with its costs overun this past year.
What would merging mean for quality of services? A decline for Merchantville and Cherry Hill because the merged unit is too large?
Merchantvillans need to consider more than cost of municipal services. They need to consider quality of services.
Are you suggesting that merchantville's services are superior to cherry hill? i'd say thats a bit of stretch. and i'm sure i'll get hit with the "well, i have an officer that drives by my house every hour, i won't get that in cherry hill".....who cares?
The speakers also said that while 30,000-50,000 is the most efficient, the drop off above that number is slight.
They talked about efficiency models and said the inefficiency of having many small towns is much greater.
Anonymous said: Cherry Hill's population was 70,800 in 2008 and is climbing every year. Adding another 4,000 residents plus additional 100-year-old territory would push C.H. into a status of half again more people to service than the petitioners think is an ideal size.
This is a good question, and it was a question that was raised at the meeting. As I said the curve is much flatter on the higher side of the optimum than on the smaller side. So a comparison of a town of 25,000 people and a down of 75,000 people, both equal distant from the peak efficiency, the larger town would still be far more efficient than the smaller town. Its not until you get into the size of cities of millions of people that the inefficiency of bureaucracy will catch up with the simple effect of scale.
In short, Cherry Hill + Merchantville is far more efficient than Merchantville alone, and perhaps negligibly less efficient than Cherry Hill apart from Merchantville.
And simply this is why the merge makes sense for Cherry Hill. Its very little effort for them to extend services at the current quality they offer to the small area that comprises Merchantville. In return they likely could gain the majority of the Merchantville tax revenue that is higher per household, and yet unable to provide equal services here.
From our stand point - same taxes, better services. From their stand point - more revenue, very little extra effort.
Some services in Merchantville ARE superior to Cherry Hill's (unlimited recycle pickup, for example - Merchantville will take however many containers of recycyle you have, while Cherry Hill will only take ONE - The RecycleBank containers they use). Some services in Merchantville are no doubt inferior to Cherry Hill's. A study should deliniate all that for us.
We NEED the study to be done so we all work from a set of facts, rather than from suppositions. No doubt after the study comes out we'll argue over their relative importance, but at least we have facts on which to base our arguments.
Sounds loike merging with Pennsauken would work better from an efficiency perspective...or are there other issues than efficiency? isn't that what this is all about?
laverdera, do you have any idea of the cost to get the merchantville kids up to speed? this is a loss for cherry hill.
this is a deal breaker
Speaking of assumptions, "Courage To Connect" makes many with its data. The first is that a small town is less efficient than a larger one.
Months ago we talked about Springfield Township located 12 miles from here in Burlington County with its smaller population yet higher-rated school and half the taxes.
"Courage To Connect" advocates merging all small towns into fewer, larger units. CTC would advocate merging Springfield with its neighbor Mt. Holly for cost efficiencies. What CTC's data do not show is that Springfield's municipal costs are lower than Mt. Holly's. Anybody can guess the consequence for Springfield -- an immediate decline in school performance with substantially higher taxes, and no local control over either. Gina's data show the opposite on average.
The concept of consolidation of smaller municipalities being the answer for the most densely populated state in the nation is non sequitur. There are thousands of smaller towns than Merchantville in our state and across our continent who are more successful and more efficient.
Courage To Connect would be well advised to concentrate on ways to cut costs directly in expensive areas, say, in Camden County itself. Camden County ranks 11th in the nation amongst highest-costs counties, following closely behind 9 New York counties. Why is that? Why does Camden County spend more per capita than hundreds and hundreds of other counties in the United States? Certainly not because of too-small population centers.
Camden County is much more expensive than neighboring Burlington County. If Courage To Connect's purpose is to improve efficiencies, why isn't that NGO dedicated to cutting costs directly? If CTC were to get Camden County to cut its budget by, what?, a quarter or a third, Merchantville would not need to consider hooking up with Cherry Hill for financial relief, thereby losing its local sovereignty.
I suggest that the petitioners should ask Courage To Connect to help them lobby for Merchantville to cut its municipal costs and our county to cut its costs. That would be courageous.
Anon 10/8 12:50 PM - merging with Pennsauken would not be the same and would not be as good a deal for Merchantville. I will again repeat the three principal reasons I am for a merger:
1. The children of Merchantville will get to have a truly better public high school experience than is now available to them.
2. The inclusion of Merchantville in the Cherry Hill School System will cause the economic diversity of Merchantville to improve. More affluent people will choose to live here than now choose to do so. This will benefit the community through increased restoration and maintenance of property, increased involvement in community affairs, support of downtown businesses, prices paid for homes, etc.
3. A solution to the financial woes which now have the community cutting services (so far primarily in the school), increasing taxes and soon on the verge of seriouusly thinking about a merger with anyone, the problem will be so bad.
If we don't take this golden opportunity to merge with Cherry Hill, when we later have to merge with Pennsauken we will be saying "we should have merged with Cherry Hill when we had the chance."
Anon 10/08 12:54 - There is no additional cost for the supposed "Merchantville kids who are not up to speed." The kids of Merchantville are much like the kids of west Cherry Hill. The Cherry Hill School System is well equipped to handle the needs of such kids and has been doing so for a long time.
ktbfw - Glad to see you back on the blog.
I won't say that your thoughts do not have merit. To meke the conclusions you make you would really need to look at extensive details of the services Camden County pays for versus what the New York counties pay for. There has long been a rallying cry in New Jersey that the state imposes unfunded mandates on local governments, including the counties; New York may do it differently. For example, who operates community colleges in NY versus NJ? Where do the costs appear. It does not surprise me that on a per capita basis in NJ alone that Camden has high costs. Logically this is because the other high cost counties have much denser populations and thus per capita they are less. All of North Jersey is so densely populated that the per capita numbers have to be low.
But at the same time the basic premise of Courage to Connect's argument that there are too many small towns in NJ and the effect of them wastes money also has considerable merit. It is very logical. Merchantville is an example but the best example in Camden County has to be the towns along the Black Horse Pike from Audubon to Blackwood. No matter how efficient you could make all of these towns, if they were all combined, the costs of providing services would be less.
Taxpayers in the township will receive a nice surprise this next tax quarter, as the members of council accepted the introduction of the 2011 fiscal year budget that includes a tax reduction for the average assessed taxpayer in Cherry Hill.
Read more: http://cherryhill.elauwitmedia.com/2010/09/22/surprise-cut-for-taxpayers/#ixzz11oJSfnDm
http://www.cherryhillsun.com
[Anon: Taxpayers in [C.H.] township will receive a nice surprise this next tax quarter]
Headlines can be misleading and this is one of them. Thirteen dollars reduction off a proposed budget target which is still out of balance by $3 million dollars is not "a nice surprise".
But that tidbit is incidental. Why hasn't our council STARTED its 2011 budget? That would be a nice surprise, regardless of the tax projection. Waiting until a year is one quarter over to start the budget preparation takes away any possible savings in that first quarter. It should be no surprise that such delay is stupid.
Ever since President Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, "consolidation" has been a political buzzword for the large banks forced to buy up the regional banks and some of each other via the workings of TARP
Coming are forced consolidations of insurance providers and insurance payers to comply with the new health care system laws.
Well, South Jersey's two big health care providers, Cooper Health and Kennedy Health, are shouting for consolidation WHICH WE MERCHANTVILLE RESIDENTS MAY NOT LIKE SO MUCH.
Issue #7 of SNJ Business People has the front page headline, "Health System CEOs Say Consolidation in Region 'Makes Sense'..."
As a result of Anthony Perno's [Cooper's Ferry Development Association] procurement of funding to rehabilitate/expand Cooper Hospital, its health system Chief Executive Officer John Sheridan says he wants regulatory agencies to "take steps to insure that health care services that can be provided in New Jersey are provided in New Jersey" in order to improve the local economy and lower health care costs to employers and employees alike.
Let me play papa bird for a minute and regurgitate Sheridan's wish so I can spit it directly into your mouth.
If you do not go to Cooper Hospital, but instead fly out to the Mayo Clinic or drive to New York's Sloan-Kettering Institute or cross the Delaware River to seek medical services at Penn Medical, Sheridan wants regulations requiring your insurer and Medicare to penalize you for not going to Cooper or Kennedy.
Cooper Health CEO John Sheridan and Kennedy Health CEO Martin Beiber call that "CONSOLIDATION". They are cheering about it. And our friend Anthony Perno set it up to happen with our tax dollars, taking his share off the top of course.
I understand. The word consolidation is used in both cases, and that is a bad consolidation. Therefore anything described as consolidation must be bad.
Finally a anti-consolidation argument I can understand.
You won me over.
The word consolidation is used in both cases ... Therefore anything described as consolidation must be bad.
Reading through your sarcasm, you discovered what I have been critical of ... the petitioners using the political organization, Courage To Connect NJ, to achieve their otherwise meritorious objective of studying the option of merging towns for a better educational opportunity.
CTC is not a disinterested pathfinder. Publicly admiring that NGO and parading it through town will reduce the merge option to pure liberal vs conservative politics.
Perhaps the petitioners believe they can win on the politics.
This whole consolidation thing bores me,I heard that the School Board is going to enter into a study for Send/Receive with Haddon Heights, is this True?
Cruiser,
You know nothing about the kids on the west side of cherry hill. look at the school stats. the comparison between elementary schools and middle schools is startling. you have no idea of the costs to get the merchantville kids up to speed.
It may not even be fair to these kids to try.
you have no idea of the costs to get the merchantville kids up to speed.
Where does the expression "Talking through your hat" come from?
From wherever, it sure seems to apply to Anonymous who keeps repeating himself in a way that gives me the impression that HE has no idea of instructional costs.
We have been chatting about economies of scale in consolidation of municipalities. Well, Cruiser has. There are the same in education.
In private special education, if a school has state approval for, say, 125 students and on board there are 100, everyone begins a push for the last permissible 25 students because their added cost is close to zero while each added tuition is a hundred percent.
Cherry Hill will have no problem absorbing our students, K thru 12. And if the school personnel spread our kids around, the new learning environment itself will become a great boost to our kids' performance. It will be $4+ million bucks in the district bank account.
Anonymous, we do have a good idea of the costs to get the Merchantville kids up to speed. Close to zero! They will bank on it!
ktbfw,
Are you a school board member? feel free to read the board notes for cherry hill to determine cost. your comments in broad strokes do not represent reality in the educational environment we live in.
you have no idea of these costs. it takes a proficient student 5+ years to get up to speed in Cherry Hill. What will it take and what additional resources would be needed for all these non proficient student.
We cannot absorb these students and we will not absorb these students.
Cherry Hill is considering closing schools and have had to slightly raise class sizes.
the school issue is a dealbreaker. stay in pennsauken. they get more state aid to bring your kids up to speed. cherry hill lost $15M in state aid last year.
this merger will never happen. much has happened in the last month for cherry hill to gain an awareness that this is a losing situation for us.
Anon: We cannot absorb these students and we will not absorb these students.
Cherry Hill is considering closing schools and have had to slightly raise class sizes.
Why do you think C.H. is considering closing schools? It is not because the roofs are leaking.
it takes a proficient student 5+ years to get up to speed in Cherry Hill.
Well, if it takes that long, perhaps Merchantville should consider another school option.
One hears the projection "5+ years" relating to improving academic proficiency. Let me suggest to parents and other taxpayers that such goals do not come from good, dedicated teachers in classrooms but rather out of the state departments of education ... and possibly out of central office personnel of large school districts.
What does an appointed/hired school administrator say to a governor or school board about improving student test performance when he knows his hands are mostly tied with tenure laws, union restrictions, and public resistance to changes of any dimension? He says as a sea captain, "It'll take some time to complete our turnaround. We will implement a five year plan."
Five year plans are great for doing a lot and showing nothing. A third of the kids leave the system and nobody --nobody-- remembers the goals set at the beginning.
NJ DOE has had five year educational improvement plans ever since Robinson vs. Cahill in 1975. The State of Delaware now uses 12 year plans to improve student performance up to state standards. Hell, 100 percent of the students are out in that time.
No, Honey, if they are saying your kid needs five years to catch up, they are not planning to do anything different with the child. Find a new school that promises one year ... two if he can't read. Or hire an excellent tutor for 3 months.
Never forget the Peter Principle: Work expands to the time allotted.
I believe that is Parkinson's Law, not the Peter Principle. Other than that, I agree.
[Anon: feel free to read the board notes for cherry hill to determine cost.]
I did not read the board "notes" as you term the minutes but I did read the news article on the five million approved for improving performance of students below state standards.
My guess is that the funding is for restoring support-service positions previously cut. It certainly is not going towards in-classroom help for individual students.
Curriculum personnel, guidance staff -- come on, the kids need time on task learning 3 times 12 and finding the main idea of a paragraph. The Board is throwing money onto the table to restore lost positions because they found it somewhere to throw. Those pros will resume doing what they were doing while the marginal students were failing.
[Anon: your comments in broad strokes do not represent reality in the educational environment we live in.]
You are certainly right about my comments not representing the reality you live in. I am talking about improving student performance in basic skills. You are talking about throwing money around. Big difference! Well, won't be a big difference to the kids needing the hands on.
$5M - what article are you referring to? cherry hill did not get $5?. We have lost closer to $15 in state funding in the last year.
If you are such a master at improving student performance, why don't you try applying it to your own school.
God knows it needs it.
Anon 10/13 7:43AM - I think you are saying M-ville lost $15 million of funding. This can not be correct. M-ville's funding from state ad federal souces was never near $15 milliom. $15 million is far in excess of the all costs of running the school for a year.
Better check your numbers.
anon 7:43 is pretending to be an outraged Cherry Hill resident that blogs on the Merchantville blog all day. I'm getting tired of this non-sense.
Post a Comment