A Week Before Referendum Vote, Anger and Angst at Council Meeting

"How is anyone supposed to get ahead in Brick Township?"

That's what Bernard Reilly, a Normandy Drive resident, asked Township Council members Tuesday night at the governing body's last meeting before voters will approve or defeat a ballot measure that could change the role of township government in Brick.

Reilly said as one of the 20 percent of Brick taxpayers whose residence is assessed above $330,000, he'd get the brunt of the tax hike that would come if voters approve $8.6 million in above-cap spending and elect to keep public trash and recycling, 29 police officers and numerous other township services.

"I worked really hard to pay off what mortgage I had, and now my total tax bill that I have to pay is worth more than my mortgage of my house," said Reilly, who estimated he'd pay approximately $1,200 more per year for the municipal portion of his tax bill.

Some residents who addressed the council during a marathon, four-hour-long session threw out hypothetical scenarios – ignoring state regulations on cap spending or eliminating the township's police department entirely – while others expressed confusion on the referendum measure that will be presented to voters Wednesday, April 27.

The vote is the culmination, in Brick, of a law that was negotiated between Gov. Chris Christie and the state Legislature last summer. The law limits municipal tax levy hikes to 2 percent of the previous year's levy. Brick, which lost one-time revenue sources and has seen its costs rise, needs $8.6 million in spending outside that cap to maintain its current services. Under the cap law, voters can decide whether to allow the township to exceed the cap. If voters choose not to allow the township to do so, officials have said they will lay off up to 172 employees, including 29 police officers and enough public works employees to have to stop township-sponsored trash and recycling collection.

For Cathy Ericksen, a Collins Court resident, a 'yes' vote was a no-brainer.

"The important thing to remember is that if the question fails, you will have to pay for your garbage pickup, your recycling pickup and your bulk pickup," Ericksen said. "Once the trucks and the men are gone, it will be too expensive to bring them back."

Ericksen also said she would support hiring additional police officers rather than laying 29 off.

Not everyone agreed.

"However you spin it, I can’t afford it," said Anne Coll, a Greenbriar resident.

Should the referendum pass, the owner of a home at the township's median assessment, $250,700, would see a $312 annual tax increase. The owner of a home assessed at $350,000, which includes 80 percent of Brick property owners, would see a $441 annual increase in the municipal portion of their tax bills.

Township officials have said the tax hike could be less than what it would cost for residents to hire private haulers to collect their trash and recycling. One company, Waste Management, already took out a full-page ad in the Brick Communicator newspaper advertising its services which could be offered to residents if a majority votes against the referendum. No prices were listed.

The ad upset Melanie Briggs, a frequent attendee at council meetings.

"If anybody believes that the referendum is not going to make a difference in garbage collection, open it up and read the full-page ad by Waste Management saying how they can’t wait to get your money," said Briggs. "I felt like the alligator was chomping at my feet."

Council members listened, answered and, sometimes, sparred with residents who came to the microphone armed with statistics and numbers; some from the township website, some from their own calculations. But state law prevented council members from recommending residents vote "yes" or "no" on the referendum.

For Brick residents, of course, the final say will come next Wednesday.