Business Plan Introduced, Fee Legislation Delayed at LHC PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Written by Jessica Kitchin   
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Before the floor was open to any of the 50 or so residents who crowded into Monday’s Lake Hopatcong Commission meeting, chairman Arthur Ondish made an announcement.

Sam Hoagland speaks to the commission at Monday's meeting.

“If we do not move forward in a positive direction soon, I am not sure I will choose to dedicate the time and energy to being the chairman of this commission,” he said. “My time and energy has value, and for me to be sinking it into an organization that doesn’t want to go forward but chooses to keep going in circles is foolish…I am getting tired of being sandbagged by people who just don’t understand that change is inevitable in order to survive.”

Ondish’s comments came after he presented his plan to split efforts between a “Plan A” funding solution, which would involve seeking money from the state and other sources, and a “Plan B,” which would involve charging fees to those who use the lake.  “If money comes in from the state or other sources, then that money would offset the money we would need to generate with plan B,” he said. “In the meantime, there is a lake in need of maintenance that cannot afford to wait.”

Originally, Ondish said he planned to seek a vote from the commission during Monday’s meeting on a resolution that would ask state legislators to begin crafting permissive legislation to allow the commission to gain funding through a user fee.  But he said concerns about the vote, as well as the possibility of a change in leadership in Trenton, led him to back off on that request. Still, he argued that the sooner the commission moved forward on such legislation, the more likely it would be that the state would fund weed-harvester maintenance in the current off-season.

Residents spoke out both before and against such a vote, and the overall idea of the legislation. “You guys better get it together,” said Tim Clancy of Lake Hopatcong, who argued that a lack of funding lake maintenance would result in lower home values around the lake. “I’m seeing all my life’s work be destroyed by your inaction. We’re talking about a nominal fee. We’ve got to take charge of this…don’t worry about my $50 or my $100. Worry about my home, because it’s going to be worth nothing when you guys are done.”

Sam Hoagland of Hopatcong echoed that idea, saying he has a huge investment on Lake Hopatcong. “I think time is of the essence,” he said, “and I think a vote should be taken tonight.”

But Ron Sorensen of Lake Hopatcong Marine warned the commission that they should think about the long-term implications of such legislations, which he said would inevitably lead to user fees that never went away. “My son is still going to be paying this in 50 years,” he said. “This thing is not going to go away. Just because the economy is in rough shape now, keep in mind that the decision you make will change things forever.”

Ray Fernandez, president of the Lake Hopatcong Alliance and owner of Bridge Marina, spoke about the missed funding opportunities that should be fully explored before any steps are taken toward user fees. “Those fees are taxes on the citizens,” he said. “The consensus of the Lake Hopatcong Alliance is that user fees should not be considered until all other funding opportunities have been proven exhausted…. We looked at a lot of these programs, and there are opportunities out there.”

Specifically, Fernandez and others brought up I Boat NJ, a state program that funds the promotion, improvement, and enhancement of the marine industry in New Jersey through grants paid for by the 2003 vessel registration fee increase.  Fernandez said that discussions with state senators Steven Oroho and Anthony Bucco led him to believe that state funding was still a strong possibility. “All of those funding opportunities have not yet been exhausted,” he said.
Sen. Steven Oroho fields a question from Cliff Beebe at Monday's meeting.
Ondish argued that “Plan A” will always be in place, which would seek such funding, and said that the commission was currently looking into I Boat NJ grant opportunities.  But, he said, the fruitless efforts to be fully funded through such channels are no longer something to count on. “Without funding, no organization can operate, and without operating budget for the LHC, there will be no maintenance of Lake Hopatcong,” he said. The permissive legislation, he said, would just be a “baby step” in the direction of user fees.

Commissioner Kerry Kirk Pflugh, who represents the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, said she believed the lake could only be fully funded through a combination of both funding sources. “Neither Plan A nor Plan B alone can address the funding issue,” she said. “We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars…and lump sums are periodic in nature.”

Hopatcong mayor Sylvia Petillo urged the commission to do whatever possible to secure funding for the maintenance of the harvesters this winter. “We really can’t keep putting a band aid on the harvesters,” she said. “When this election is over, we’ll still need the money, and we don’t have months to wait.”

Sen. Oroho, who attended the meeting, spoke to the commission and those in attendance, and encouraged the commissioners to wait until November’s meeting—after the gubernatorial election—to vote, which is ultimately what the commission decided to do. And Ondish asked that any commissioners or members of the public present their ideas by then. “For those of you who are not in agreement with my plan, let me see your better, realistic plan,” he said. “Let’s work together to find an answer.”

One major component of the commission’s long-term plan was first brought to the table at Monday’s meeting: the long-awaited business plan, prepared by a committee headed by commissioner and Jefferson mayor Russell Felter.

Specifically, the plan presents three alternate employment strategies: one with two full-time employees, one with three, and one with five.  Each of the alternatives also plans for a seasonal workforce, which means each features a total of ten employees.  The plans would cost $446,000, $542,000, or $650,000, respectively.  The objective would be to have staff on hand to run the harvesters during the summer and complete maintenance efforts, shared services with the communities, and other lake-related job responsibilities during the fall, winter, and spring months—much in the way it had been in the past. (Read the full story about the weed harvesting operation here.)

Justin McCarthy presents $40 in donations to the commission.“I think there’s a good argument that the state of New Jersey should be paying,” commissioner Richard Zoschak said during the business plan review, pointing out the millions of dollars that the lake generates in revenue. “Whatever plan we go to, we should present our budget to the state, and we should follow through and present it every year.”

T
he business plan is going to be posted on the commission’s website, lakehopatcong.org, and available for review in the commission office.  The commissioners plan to revisit it at the November meeting and open the floor to public comment about the proposals then.

In other news, two separate donations to the Lake Hopatcong Commission were presented during Monday’s meeting.  Justin McCarthy, son of commissioner Daniel McCarthy, presented about $40 that he had collected from fellow students at the Durban Avenue Elementary School in Hopatcong, and George and Tyler Cicero of the Lake Hoaptcong Times donated $185, raised by the Lake Hopatcong Motor Sports Club. “These guys,” Ondish said, “are really fighting for the lake.”

 

To read the Star-Ledger story on the meeting, click here.

Comments
Add New Search
Carol  - Thanks   |2009-10-20 21:47:14
Thanks again for keeping us up to date on the happenings. It is great to have coverage that is so important to the health of our lake.
Steve Gebeloff  - Official New Jersey Taxpayer, LHA Direct   |2009-11-03 21:04:41
I think everyone should take the time to read the Business Plan. I want to thank Jefferson Mayor Russell Felter and his committee for preparing the report. They are all volunteers.
Although we have been told repeatedly that the $68,000.00 the Lake Hopatcong Commission received this summer for weed harvesting was a gift from Governor Corzine, it turns out that the money was just redirected from previously awarded grant money.(page 4) I suspect this money will have to be repaid at some point in the future.
The Business Plan shows a detailed accounting of all the boat launches on Lake Hopatcong for 2007 and 2008. The Business Plan does not support Mayor Ondish\'s claim that there are 10,000 taxable boat launches annually.
Mayor Ondish insists his numbers are correct, and if they are, why is there no plan or money budgeted to prevent invasive organisms, such as Water Chestnut or Zebra Mussels being introduced to our Lake by these 10,000 claimed transient boat launches?
The Business plan does not identify any source of Commission funding possible from pending permissive legislation besides a boat user tax. The Plan states that \"special legislation\" (page 10) would be required to establish any Town or County tax contribution to storm water projects let alone provide money for weed harvesting.I guess imposing one more crippling tax on the boaters of Lake Hopatcong requires only ordinary legislation. This is \"Plan B\". Storm water management is clearly the responsibility of County and local Government.
Although the Business Plan points out that the ammount of manpower required to upgrade, service and maintain the increasing number of storm water management projects around the Lake will require more LHC employees with pensions and the purchase of more equipment, such as a vacuum truck, (page 10) the cost of which is \"TBD\" or \"to be determined\", the only thing that has been determined is who will pay for it. \"Y.O.U.\"
The Business Plan states as more of these water management projects are completed and the maximum
phosphorus levels are met, less grant money will be available to the Lake Commission (page 7) when at the same time more manpower will be necessary and the need
for weed harvesting will not be reduced in the forseeable future.
It is not clear if the Business Plan uses fiscal year 2007 or 2009 figures to establish the baseline for weed harvesting costs. If fy 2009 is used the figures are not representative because the Commission had no employees for half the year. If fiscal year 2007 figures are used the total cost of weed harvesting, according to figures supplied to the Lake Hopatcong Alliance by the Commission, is understated by $86,000.00. Total weed harvesting costs for fy 2007 should be $526,328.00 and not $439,893.78 (page 14)
More important than the discrepancy in costs is the fact that although the Business Plan states that due to many factors the Lake Hopatcong Commission budget will greatly increase over time resulting in higher boat user taxes, the Business plan does not address the fact that high boat user taxes will decrease the number of boats to share the tax and does not project the LHC budget out into future years.
Stop the madness. Attend the next Lake Hopatcong Commission meeting and voice your opinion.
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Subject:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
 
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

 
< Prev   Next >