HAMMONTON BLOG

Admin · Status: Offline

Hammonton Democrats support new Fire Ordinance... well most of it.

Date: 06:57 AM Feb 23, 2008

This is an excellent ordinance to help our firemen. All the firemen are doing is charging insurance companies for their services, not individuals.

Why would the Democrats say that buying proper fire equipment with money from insurance companies is "credit card spending?" Let's hope this ordinance passes for our fine men in the fire department.

We don't need the Democrats complaining every week. Hammonton is a wonderful town and it is getting better every day. We need more positive people like our firemen and their excellent idea.

Admin · Status: Offline

You must have misread the post. The Democrats are in support of this ordinance with one change.
I never said this ordinance was like credit card spending, I said bonding for new equipment is like credit card spending. This ordinance is a step in the right direction to stop our rising debt and so it is a good thing.
The Mayor has put this ordinance on the agenda and we agree with him. We will work with him to pass this ordinance. We just don't think Hammonton residents should receive these charges because they would be charged twice for the same service.

Date: 09:17 AM Feb 23, 2008

What is wrong with the fireman's ordinance? Only insurance companies are charged, not individuals. How do you expect to the fireman to obtain the new truck that has been mandated by a State law passed by the Democrats anyway?

This money will make payments on the truck. Of course it has to be financed. Why make the taxpayers pay up front and raise their taxes? Use the insurance money to make the payments so that the taxpayers don't have to pay!

The reason for this truck is because the State says the old truck can't be put into service anymore. What do you want the firemen to do? Go to fires with water pistols?

Why does every issue have to be attacked on this blog and with weekly letters from Sammy Mento? How many vendettas do you have?

Admin · Status: Offline

The more your insurance company has to pay when you have an accident, the more your insurance rates go up.

Admin · Status: Offline

We are not complaining, we generally support this ordinance. It is just the type of action we have been calling for. Why are you so afraid of having an open discussion on this subject? We have an idea of how we think this ordinance can be made better and you feel we are complaining. We only want to excercise our freedom to discuss this in an open forum to get the input and best ideas from the rest of the people who will be affected by this ordinance.

Date: 10:06 AM Feb 23, 2008

Admin wrote:
The more your insurance company has to pay when you have an accident, the more your insurance rates go up.

this is an excellent idea that will help public safety and save money at the same time
why would the democrats complain it\'s all good

Date: 10:13 AM Feb 23, 2008

a tax is a tax is a tax. the fire department has run fine before charging us for calls. why do they need to charge us now?

hammonton first has come out against this plan. let's hope everyone else does to. its good to know that hammonton first wants to keep our taxes down and won't vote for another secret tax.

we'll see what the republicans do, if they do anything at all.

Hey Mayor! Show these guys what HF does with taxes! Run 'em out of town hall like you did with their budget two years ago!

Date: 01:05 PM Feb 23, 2008

IT'S ALL GOOD!

Date: 03:41 PM Feb 23, 2008

RE: Hammonton Democrats support new Fire Ordinance... well most of it.

Date: 05:15 PM Feb 23, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

This is really an interesting idea. I saw the firemen on the Chat with the Mayor last week. This will help keep residents safe and no tax increase.

So let me get this straight. For two years Hammonton First screws the fire department by cutting their budgets and refusing to buy much needed supplies. Then they set up an ordinance to make taxpayers pay for a service they already bought in their taxes. This in turn is to make a few hundred people pay for everyone else's fair share for the Fire Department.

To make it "all good," they mayor goes down to the Fire Department and forces the Chief and his assistants to pander to him for 30 minutes.

It's not all good you bastard. As a taxpayer I already own the fire equipment. Why should I pay twice for it? The JIF already covers damaged equipment, why should I pay for it after the JIF does, and after I pay taxes to pay the JIF?

This is a horrible ordinance, and no Councilperson in their right mind should vote for our residents to be taxed twice.

BY the way trust funder, while it may not hurt you to pay expensive premiums, the rest of us middle class folk don't want our insurance rates jacked up because Hammonton First would rather spent 10 grand on downtown then on the fire department.

Admin · Status: Offline

That is why the Democrats have proposed the change in the ordinance that residents of Hammonton do not have to pay. This eliminates the double taxation.
The JIF does not pay for equipment that has to be replaced because it has gone through its useful life. When it's time to replace an aging piece of equipment, the current government just turns to bonding, thereby increasing our debt. This plan looks ahead and sets money aside to purchase this type of equipment without incurring debt and therefore saving the Hammonton taxpayers money in their tax bills.

Date: 05:28 PM Feb 23, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is really an interesting idea. I saw the firemen on the Chat with the Mayor last week. This will help keep residents safe and no tax increase.
So let me get this straight. For two years Hammonton First screws the fire department by cutting their budgets and refusing to buy much needed supplies. Then they set up an ordinance to make taxpayers pay for a service they already bought in their taxes. This in turn is to make a few hundred people pay for everyone else's fair share for the Fire Department.

To make it "all good," they mayor goes down to the Fire Department and forces the Chief and his assistants to pander to him for 30 minutes.

It's not all good you bastard. As a taxpayer I already own the fire equipment. Why should I pay twice for it? The JIF already covers damaged equipment, why should I pay for it after the JIF does, and after I pay taxes to pay the JIF?

This is a horrible ordinance, and no Councilperson in their right mind should vote for our residents to be taxed twice.

BY the way trust funder, while it may not hurt you to pay expensive premiums, the rest of us middle class folk don't want our insurance rates jacked up because Hammonton First would rather spent 10 grand on downtown then on the fire department.

you should go down to the firehouse and talk to the real men. When you leave you can say thank you that people like this exist in this town.

I checked it out the firemen wanted this ordinace. Good job firemen. we support you.

Date: 07:11 PM Feb 23, 2008

Smells Fishy to me.....

Admin · Status: Offline

RE: Hammonton Democrats support new Fire Ordinance... well most of it.

Date: 09:13 PM Feb 23, 2008

Anonymous wrote:
you should go down to the firehouse and talk to the real men. When you leave you can say thank you that people like this exist in this town.
I checked it out the firemen wanted this ordinace. Good job firemen. we support you.

Did you support them when your party(HF) cut their funding by 30% over the last two years?

Seems you are only supporting them when they can charge middle class homeowners for responding to emergencies.

Date: 04:57 PM Feb 24, 2008

Admin wrote:
As we stated in earlier statements, the right way to fund these type of purchases is to set aside money each year from the regular tax revenue for future purchases. We keep from having to pay interest from bonding and actually earn interest until we use the money. But since the current government has proven to be unwilling to do this, the proposed ordinance seems to be a fair compromise.
However, the Democrats are proposing that Hammonton residents be exempt from any of these charges since we are already taxed for these services. Having to pay these charges would in essence be double taxing us for the same thing.
As for the equipment, watch the Chat with the Mayor which airs this weekend at 10am, 3pm, and 7pm and you will see that one of our trucks is an older model that is not within safety codes any longer and needs to be replaced. This ordinance will not help us with this purchase because their is no money set aside yet, so it looks like we will be incurring more debt for this truck.

Gee, Jim, if you felt that strongly about putting money away for future capital purchases why wasn't that done when the Democrats had mayors and council people? If it had been, the fire dept would have that money. Instead, the last time a Democrat was on council he voted in 2005 to take the debt to the highest level in the town's history. Now it looks like the firemen have a way to handle payments on future capital equipment without charging the taxpayers. It certainly looks like a good idea.

Admin · Status: Offline

I agree that this is a good idea, that is why we are supporting it. We just want to make sure everyone has looked at all of the implications of this ordinance. Why are we so afraid of a good and honest and open discussion. I have heard from a lot of people that they don't want to pay twice for services they already pay for. It doesn't matter whether it is from their insurance companies or their own pocket, in the end it is still a second charge. That is why we proposed the change we did. The intent of the ordinance stays the same, we still set aside a lot of money for future capital expenses, and the town keeps from incurring more debt. We all still win. Let's all support this ordinance, but exclude the people who have already paid their taxes for these services and charge only those who would be receiving those services for free.
As far as past Democrats, we can all learn from the past and at some point we all have to wake up. We have come to the realization now that we can't continue down the same path and must stop using our credit cards to fund everything we do. We are heading down the same path as the State, let's stop before we get into that much trouble.

Date: 09:44 PM Feb 24, 2008

No new taxes just keep charging for services! A tax increase in disguise. We pay high insurance costs for every kind of insurance we need. Then when we file a claim the insurance company doesn't want to pay. They are only there to make money not pay your claim. Why doesn't the state or Homeland Security give us some money towards our fire departments especially since they are first responders. I feel sorry for our fireman because they have to struggle to volunteer their time for a good cause. If they are able to bill the insurance company how much of that money will go to the fire departments and how much will go to the town since the town owns the equipment.

Admin · Status: Offline

The way the ordinance is written, the money is to go to a trust fund for Capital expenses for the Fire Dept. The Town would not be able to use this money and the Fire Dept operating budget would not be affected. The Town would still have to provide the operating budget annually for the Department.

Date: 09:28 AM Feb 25, 2008

Admin wrote:
The way the ordinance is written, the money is to go to a trust fund for Capital expenses for the Fire Dept. The Town would not be able to use this money and the Fire Dept operating budget would not be affected. The Town would still have to provide the operating budget annually for the Department.

I fthe dept. raises 30,000, they'll just cut the budget 30,000.

Admin · Status: Offline

That's why we have to make sure the Ordinance is written properly and the Trust Fund is untouchable. I feel confident that the Fire Dept has done their homework, but it never hurts to have more people take a look at it to insure this money is only used for capital expenditures.

Date: 09:44 AM Feb 25, 2008

Anonymous wrote:
Admin wrote:
The way the ordinance is written, the money is to go to a trust fund for Capital expenses for the Fire Dept. The Town would not be able to use this money and the Fire Dept operating budget would not be affected. The Town would still have to provide the operating budget annually for the Department.

I fthe dept. raises 30,000, they'll just cut the budget 30,000.

you can tell they are cutting the fire department budget more becuase HF'ers keep touting what a great program this is so taxes don't go up.

Date: 07:06 AM Feb 29, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Admin wrote:
The way the ordinance is written, the money is to go to a trust fund for Capital expenses for the Fire Dept. The Town would not be able to use this money and the Fire Dept operating budget would not be affected. The Town would still have to provide the operating budget annually for the Department.

I fthe dept. raises 30,000, they'll just cut the budget 30,000.

you can tell they are cutting the fire department budget more becuase HF'ers keep touting what a great program this is so taxes don't go up.

So let me get this straight if Town Council cuts the Fire Department budget year after year then the Fire Departments main source of revenue could eventually be charging insurance companies for accidents. So their budget would be dependent on the hope that there are more accidents. They'd have to go back to Town Council in the future for increases like they have in the past but were denied. There should be some guarantee that the Fire Departments have enought to sustain both fire halls. If not we'll lose one of them.

Admin · Status: Offline

The idea behind this ordinance does not affect the regular operating budget that the Town gives the Fire Dept. each year. The Town will still have to live up to this responsibility. This ordinance is designed to make future purchases of trucks and equipment without having to incur debt to do it. That is why we , the Hammonton Democrats, want to make sure the ordinance is airtight and that Council can not touch the money in this Trust fund. We hope that every legal T is crossed an I is dotted so that council can not consider this as a source of revenue.

Date: 02:55 AM Mar 1, 2008

Admin wrote:

The idea behind this ordinance does not affect the regular operating budget that the Town gives the Fire Dept. each year. The Town will still have to live up to this responsibility. This ordinance is designed to make future purchases of trucks and equipment without having to incur debt to do it. That is why we , the Hammonton Democrats, want to make sure the ordinance is airtight and that Council can not touch the money in this Trust fund. We hope that every legal T is crossed an I is dotted so that council can not consider this as a source of revenue.

That sounds very reasonable. These monies should be used strictly for the fire department and equipment and not funneled into some politicians pet project.

Date: 04:00 PM Mar 4, 2008

so when there is a fire or accident they can send out ever piece of equipment and charge us for it if it is a "slow" month. If you ever been at a scene there are trucks sometimes just there doing nothing and we will have to pay for that????