SPEND LESS.
It doesnt matter what your needs are. In ever home, when there is less money coming in for whatever reason the family has to sit down and figure out how to spend less and trim their budget. When it is NOT your own income you sit down and figure out how much more to squeeze out of the public.
If you do not have as much money coming in you cannot afford as much stuff - it doesnt matter how necessary you think that stuff is. If you dont have as much money as you used to you have to CUT. That's why they call it a budget and not a stick-up.

This is a concern about being fair. The tax rate, and total assessed value doesn't matter as long as the all properties are assessed fairly and in the same manner. Unfairness arises when assessed values of properties are determined differently. If my neighbor's place is "really" worth twice mine then his assessed value and real estate tax should be twice mine, no matter what that assessed value is. But these varying methods cause concern that assessed values are being determined differently thus with the potential of allocating the tax burden unfairly.

Was the City's "compliance plan" also used for shoobie owned properties? I'll bet, as in many other aspects of things here, the locals got the "compliance plan" benefits with the shoobies being, as usual, expected to keep pumping in lots of money, perhaps in this case, more than would otherwise be fair.

The real story is a 8.315 percent tax increase not a 1 percent tax increase!

From a "shoobies" point of view, Ocean City property taxes are are reasonable. My real home is also in NJ and my tax rate is twice as high as OC.

This would explain the lack of response by my fellow NJ year round residents.

I just wish, as a southend homeowner and tax payer, that my tax money was used fairly and that I actually got the same services as those taxpayers in the north end.
But that does not happen. Our drainage problems are not addressed and our roads are not addressed and of course, we do not get beach replenishment even when there are no beaches left and our properties are at grave risk. The money goes to making sure the north end old local families and boardwalk merchants are happy and prosperous. That is the top priority in Ocean City.

Am having a hard time understanding the same people complaining that their local property taxes are too high while also complaining about a lack of services. And, those who say cut costs - which costs? And based on what?

Article would be much more helpful if one of the many numbers included was exactly what new tax rate is. Going up 2.96 isn't all that helpful in figuring out it's impact unless we have the resulting new tax rate.

I agree with what Wyatt is saying. The most important thing is that all properties of similar kind and age are assessed fairly. If your property is assessed at 500,000 and the identical property next door is assessed at 300,000 that is where the problem starts. Although no one wants their taxes to go up it is happening everywhere and will continue to happen if we want to see needed improvements. In a resort area like Ocean City you have to improve things or tourists will find a “nicer” place to go.
Joseph Landicini, Broker 1301 West A-1 OCNJ 609.525.9901 Ext 14

wyatt, you're way out of line. the reassessment covers all the houses in a particular area, not one house here, one house there. so your angst against permanent residents having an advantage over "shoobies" is completely false. i moved here to take advantage of the opportunities that ocean city provides, you have that same option.

If OC did what is called a hybrid reassessment then sample sections were directly assessed and the results generalized to the balance of the town. If OC did a full assessment then every house was individually reviewed. Regardless of which, you can negotiate the assessment when complete and then appeal the result of that and go to tax court is stil not satisfied. I don't know where OC is in the process.

I think for once in my life I would like to see a govt body cut the tax rate and their spending. We as citizens have to.

I too am shooby, have been for over 30 years, and I feel that the property taxes are too high based upon the very limited services I receive from the City. I also was clobbered by the storm and the value of my home has dropped way below its assessment. I agree that as we have all had cuts in our incomes and have made adjustments to decrease spending, the City government should also make adjustments to lower their spending. Question...I thought that New Jersey property taxes had a 1 or 2 % annual limit on increases? If so, how can the City get an 8+% increase?

Top 10 cities where people cannot find work! #7 Ocean City NJ. http://bit.ly/YfLDFm. Another nail in the coffin for our 'little piece of heaven'.

The city has been mismanaged forever. It is run for the old local families who hit it big with tourism and it has never been run by looking at the big picture and long term. Everything is short term - get the money in the pockets of the boardwalk merchants during the summer. Second homeowners are ignored or worse by the city council and administrations - all of them. Decisions are made based on those with clout - the old local families, the developers and realtors. They have thrown away the opportunity to have a year round community because of greed. They knocked down the older single homes, put up condos (boxes that fit in as many renters as possible.)
What jobs would be available here except in government or during the summer for the tourists? The city councils with the likes of Hartzell, Ping (out for themselves) and the administration's guys, make decisions based on the moment, how they will profit somehow themselves (even if it is by just getting votes in the next election) The administration makes decisions on how anthing will benefit the boardwalk as the top priority. And this has been going on forever. Ocean City is a dying town - and short sighted thinking and greed killed it.

I want to be fair to the Mayor and the administration. While I believe our taxes could and should be lower, and I vigorously object to how our tax payer dollars are often spent, in light of the demands placed on the city, particularly this past year, they did a reasonably good job of holding the tax increase down. But I'd like to see the fat cut before taxes are increased again. I know it’s not easy to do but it’s not easy for some of us to pay those taxes either. As for the beaches on the south end, they've been suffering neglect for over a decade. This mayor and his administration should not be blamed for what their predecessors failed to do.

Having said that, we depend on this Mayor and this administration to make the hard choices that must be made as a result of years of neglect. And we hold it accountable for what it does and does not do. We need to come up with a solution for the south end beaches. Certainly there is an effort being made to deal with our failing infrastructure. But it’s a shame to have to borrow money to do what we should have been doing all along. I think we need to get our priorities straight, hold those responsible to the fire, operate leaner, and do a better job with what we got.

Tax payer dollars are being used to subsidize development here. Both flooding and the condition of our streets are a result of over development. Why is the taxpayer on the hook for this? This CIty should be run for the benefit of its citizens and not just for the benefit of commercial interests.

Well I do not know anybody who likes to pay taxes. On the whole taxes inOcean City are fair. Once reassement is completed fairness will be the norm.As to council and the mayor I believe they are all to the man are all working for the taxpayers best welfare.Eric is involved goes to council meetings my suggestion to everyone who has is a taxpayer get involved and attend council meetings.As to cut out fat one persons fat is another persons quality of lifE issue ie. the south end needs sand Merion Park and other areas need flooding help.roads just about all infrasturture needs work.Where do we start cutting Ping and Hartsell proposed a plan for the fire dept. EMT,s but it didn't get enought support . D you want cuts to the police dept? Life saving station? Life guards?Bordwalk ?Trash and sanatation dept?I could go on and on maybe the schools music pier First Night .What I am saying get involved the quality of life things and importantly mentioned above are all important to most of the people of Ocean City if you think cuts are needed come to the council meetings and get involved .For me I love Ocean City chose to retire here it was not be accident.LIIFE IS GOOD here.

Well now that Frank has put on the record publicly where he stands on compensation, how specific councilmen and the mayor, etc are conducting themselves, we will know when he must recuse himself on matters before the Ethics Commission (if by some ridiculous chance he has not already been asked to leave for previously demonstrating his bias on local issues and members of the community). Will he know when? Here's a cost-saving suggestion - eliminate the ethics board to reduce our exposure to unecessary litigation and its consequences.
All that aside, I agree with Frank's main points. Where should the city cut, based on what, and how?

Oh yes council is working so hard for the taxpayers in Ocean City - what a joke! What I have witnessed on council these past years has been incredible. Making decisions based on who is going to vote for you in the next elecltion instead of what is best for the community is outrageous and wrong. Hartzell makes decisions based on the votes he will get in the next election, not on what is best for the common good. Considering what you have said about an entire group of your neighbors in the past few years, Mr. Worrell, I am not surprised that you wouldn't find that behavior repugnant.

people who know me consider me a hardliner, but i have to agree with frank worrell. if you want to cut spending, where do you begin? can you be specific? what would you like to eliminate or reduce in order for ocean city to decrease it's budget.

Right - Put a sock in it, Frank, and save us all some money.
So, how many of you like that we have a full slate of family-friendly events all year? A first-rate library/fitness/community center? Excellent high school facilities?Playgrounds and parks throughout town? A golf course? Airport? OK with the boardwalk? Well maintained and safe beaches (where we have them)? A music hall on the beach? An orchestra? Excellent police and fire protection? How'd you like not paying (directly) for the ubiquitous dumpsters, those trucks that scooped up the debris on our sidewalks, the city's emergency preparedness and response after Sandy? An efficient public works department and trash pickup? How bout how when you call any department in city govt you get the person you want to talk to either immediately or shortly thereafter (with at least one notable exception - (yeah, you Mike))? You like the fireworks? Website? The boatramps? You get the idea. Keep in mind this is all in a town with a yr round population of 12,000. Are there comparable services and amenities at these prices in another town this size? Granted, much can be improved - infrastructure tops my list. And the aesthetics of the remainder of our built environment is embarrassing in places. As to employee comp - I like that our people make a decent living. And there is no doubt that there is favoritism too often in government decision making. But we have a sweat deal here. I don't mind paying for it.

Frank, you really need to stop commenting on the Patch since you are on the prestigious Ethics Commission ( a group of unqualified locals who have no concept of what an Ethics Commission is supposed to do and do they need to be ethical themselves to be on this commission? And who judges their ethics, pray tell?) It is obvious Frank doesn't know his position since he continues to make comments on the Patch - he thinks the Mayor and Council is just honky dory but he feels 2nd homeowners have no right to speak up and give their opinions about anything and he has made it clear that he has decided himself that no members of a certain environmental group pick up trash as he believes they should. Now we know this guy likes to sit in judgement, because he has judged people left and right here on the Patch. Are there any tax dollars going to that fiasco, this Ethics Commission? I sure hope not because it is obviously not just a big waste but a real problem for those bringing cases and those being judged too.

Ocean City is a great place to live. I just mvoed here because it was a good value with cheap taxes (compare what you get to towns like EHT, UT Hamilton Twp etc..) If you don't like it or feel you are paying too much then maybe you should move to a place you leik better. How about loosing all of the negativity and be thankful for what you do have. opinions are like you know what, and most of the stuff here is written by you know what.

If I may leave the sock out for just this reply? It pleases me to no end that Sam agrees with me ! I guess some of us are not allowed to submit to the patch.I am now putting the sock in..

Earlier comment stated that "the city has been mismanaged forever". Well, in my earlier days before I returned as a shoebee, I remember Mayor Tom Waldman who owned an accounting firm. Much better prepared to manage a city that a boardwalk ride amusement park operator. Anybody remeber Mayor Waldman?

Frank - Every word further discredits the Ethics Board: From the substance of what you say to the thinking behind it. To confuse your right to post on The Patch with the wisdom of doing it, especially given what you say, is a good example of how that is so.

I posted this comment above in reply to Frank but I'm posting it again since it will probably be lost ...

I hate to rely on someone else's numbers but I assume they are accurate. We have 59 fulltime police officers and 13 fulltime civilians working in the PD. SIC has 24 fulltime police officers. Are we that lawless here that we need more than twice as many? Yes we need to do something about staffing in the PD. I know what fulltime workers are paid in public works on average. Wanna guess? Total compensation is the other side of the coin. Look what happened when Hartzell and Ping tried to reduce the cost of EMT's. The simple truth of the matter is that intimidation is used to counter eny effort to reduce labor costs, and people buckle.

I don't want to effect the quality of life of anyone else. But my quality of life, as a taxpayer, is effected. And for those of you who attacked me, don't worry. I'm not in a position to do anything about it. And we have to honor the contracts we have. But at the very least we have to reduce staffing thru attrition, and renogotiate those contracts going forward.

There are so many other ways we can reduce expenditures also, and that, instead of raising taxes, is what we shoul be doing. Life is good here if you can afford it.

Eric - So in addition to being exposed to your serial posts, we now are subjected to you repeating earlier posts in the same string? Please tell us this is not the start of a trend!!!! Please let me ignore just once for each comment.

Sam - Thanks for pointing all that out. It seems to have at least temporarily shut down the chronic complainers, scapegoaters, and the rest who cannot do a balance sheet. I went to the beach widening story and see that many of them just took their tired, defeated whining to that comment string. Such is life. I hope that your comment changed others' thinking. I want to add some items to your list of things to consider when deciding if we have a good deal with our taxes: Are people happy about getting the channels dredged, including the lagoons? And what about how the snow plows come down the streets so often that they can actually get annoying? I wonder how many second home owners reading that are thinking they wish it was like that where they live, where their tax rates are double ours or more.

When employee compensation takes up most of the budget, there isn't too much left to go around for other things. Our taxes could and should be much lower while still being able to attract a quality workforce and having a nice quality of life in OC. Unfortunately, our elected officials are addicted to spending and bending over for the public contracts. With the number of ratables and housing units (most of which are not receiving services year round) its a basic math problem. Yes, I agree, we have nice services but I also think that we can have it all a much lower price.

Don't have any affiliation with Frank, or really know his positions on local matters. However , don't see how his sitting on the ethics board should preclude him from speaking out in a public forum. ?????

Not that he has commented. It is what his sometimes derogatory judge mental comments are that are way out of line.

Archie - You are also confusing his right to comment on the Patch with the issue - which is the wisdom of doing it. Especially when the actual comments demonstrate his position on local issues and his judgement of local government officials' conduct. He has a right to both, of course. But putting on the record his position on issues and individuals that could be part of an ethics complaint, pending or in the future, would require him to recuse himself in most of those cases. So why put himself in a position where he will have to recuse himself and do it, should recuse himself and not do it, or even put the city in an the unecessary position of having to defend any of that. And then there is the matter of the careless - to be polite - thinking behind much of what he writes. Seeing that someone who thinks this way is in an position to judge others' behavior should send shivers down the spine of anyone who is in the Ethics Board's jursidiction. I refer you to his comments on recent city-wide clean up story, and just about everything else. I don't like criticizing someone this way in this forum but he has pretty much forced the issue by putting the matter on full display here and his complete refusal to acknowledge that his comments, given his position on the Board, are ill-advised and not good for the town.

The ethics board should be done away with and Frank Worrell and his "judgements" and comments are one really good reason. I sure would not bother bringing a case and would be very concerned if this guy were making decisions about me. What qualifies one to be on the ethics board anyway? Clear thinker? Intelligent? Fair minded? And who decides who has these qualifications? Who is so wise making the decision about who qualifies?

Archie - Your comment is only slightly responsive. You first say he has the right to post on the Patch. I agree, in my comment, that he as that right, but that I think that making the comments that he makes is ill-advised and harmful to the town. You do not respond to either of those points. You shift to the very narrow new position that you don't think the comments force him to properly recuse himself if complaints come up involving issues or people about whom he has publicly given his position and his attitude toward them - where he stands, what he thinks of their performance, etc. He has done this on the very open public record and in writing. For me, this is the essence of the basis for recusal.
That aside, it creates a (public) perception of incompetance (particularly the reasoning in many of posts) and bias, and that eats away at the public's confidence in the integrity of the Ethics Board and the fairness of its judgments. I remember that you were a strong advocate for keeping the Board . The mission should not stop there. The focus now should be on making effective.

If it is city council making decisions about who is intelligent, reasonable, fair, etc to qualify for the ethics board then that is laughable. Is Keith Hartzell making those decisions? Do away with the Ethics Commission as those judging the qualifications of its members are unqualified to do so- clearly

Archie - Not surprised that you now do not want to get into a debate. That is a predictable response to you starting the debate and then losing it.
Then you shift the topic to the legitimacy of posting here anonymously. Will you withdrawal from that debate if your are losing it? Do you want to have that debate with every anoymous poster here? everywhere? with the entire world's on-line news editorial boards?
And, you actually do engage in debate when you conradict my assertion that Frank invited this public discussion of his qualiications to judge the lives of fellow citizens by openly and repeatedly publy and in writing demonstrating his bias on several topics and people that could come before the Ethics Board.
Look, I don't know if I can convince you of the inappropriate of his posts - one reason is that you suddenly moved away from that discussion. The other is that your positions are rapidly moving targets. How about focusing your energy from the time when you supported keeping the Board to now making sure it is effective?

One way to do it, Eric, is to speak up about members of the Ethics Board willfully behaving publicly in a way that hurts the public's faith in it, potentially compromises its decisions, and puts the city in a position to lose decisions on appeal and then face potentially enormous civil court awards. Are you aware of any behavior like that?

And, your 2:50 comment again demonstrates that you are for some reason impervious to the distinction between someone's right to speech and the appropriateness of making it. There is no assertion that the guy does not have the right to post here. On the Board or not. Ask yourself this - if you believe that there are legitmate bases for recusal, then what are they? Every standard for recusal includes having gone on the record with an opinion or predisposition toward something critical in an issue or about a person to be judged. I really don't know why I even bother continuing to make this really obvious, well-established, and applicable point.

Eric - I refer you back to the last sentence of my previous post.
To your new point above - you should not expect good outcomes from our Ethics Board. The candidate identification and selection process, training, guidance, etc. is ridiculously inadequate and there is no apparent concern about changing any of that. This comment string supports that conclusion. In this context, we taxpayers are sitting ducks.

I have read some of Worrell's posts concerning the group, Friends of the Wetlands. Obviously, he was a bike path advocate but he made presumptions about FOTW members without having the facts or even acknowledging the facts - accussatory presumptions - made in writing on the Patch. He has made comments about certain 2nd homeowners and he has written letters to the newspaper disparaging people with whom he apparently disagrees. Does he have a right to do this? Sure. Should this person then be sitting on the Ethics Commission? And he is just one of the members that I know about. I did have a personal experience with 2 other Ethics Board members and it was clear that 1. They were totally unable to comprehend what was presented to them. 2. They were biased and made that clear and had no problem allowing their bias to color their decisions. 3. They had no concept of what the word "Ethics" means as they dimissed lying by a politician (under discussion) as a problem, stating, "Don't all politicians lie?" And, "Wouldn't you lie if you could?" The Ethics Commission is a big problem and a law suit waiting to happen for the city and if there is one thing OC has enough of - its law suits!

Hey docked , you wanted me to expand my argument , well here goes. I think not posting under your real name is pretty lame , though I would defend your right to privacy. It's akin to my position on Frank Worrells' posts, even if I don't agree with them, he has a right to make them . He can then be judged in the court of public opinion. Simple enough to comprehend I would think ?

Boy - Archie did you ever miss the point. The point being yes - he has every right to comment BUT since he is on the Ethics Commission, his comments can and should be held up to scurtiny in any case that he is involved in. And then his comments could be used by someone who is unhappy with the results of the Ethics Commission's findings to dispute the findings. Since the Ethic Commission is a city authorized entity, the city could be held accountable. Don't know why you aren't getting this - its pretty simple. As an individual, he can say and do whatever but since he is on the Commission, his comments can and will be used against the city. I mean I am not Dock in OC but I have read these posts and I sure get it and cannot imagine why anyone missed it - duh

Sid, nothing precludes anyone from suing. I totally get the point that someone may use his rhetoric at some later date against him . Just as they could use a pattern of t ofbehavior against you. However, and I'll refrain from insulting you , as you did me. His rights of free speech on this forum remain, irrespective of his affiliation with the ethics board. Personally , I'd rather know the positions of an appointee.

Archie - Yes, anyone can sue for anything. But some suits have merit and some do not. Would you rather the city face a lawsuit with merit or without? It is hard to believe how the wrongness of Frank's posts is elusive to you. And that you STILL do not understand that his right to post is not in dispute. AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eric - Have a nice night at work. I hope that you are fortunate to not have people posting on a popular website claims that you make more than 100K per year if you make much less than that, or that your salary is partly responsible for their financial woes, that you are lazy and undeserving of your pay, etc. In this hypothetical website the posters may have names like Screachy Splean, Fluffer, Smellinmore, Smedric Louder....

Well I guess I shouldn't be on the ethics commission either because i am also unworthy. There shouldn't be an ethics commission because these people are not up to it any more than i am I see by these posts that you supported the commission so I guess it is a matter of pride for you that you will stick with this regardless of evidence against the wisdom of it. So you couldn't be on it either I guess since you are not open to changing your mind in the face of evidence I think anyone on an Ethics Commission should be held to a high level of conduct. I guess that is where we differ.

Archie - I appears then that you agree that Frank's posts are inappropriate. Good to see someone acknowledge that their postion has been effectively rebutted. Would be better if you manage to explicitly say it, rather than exiting with a passive-aggresive shot (as I do here).

Hey docked, enough with the tongue in cheek smugness please . I never said anything regarding inappropriate posts. This may be the case , but I didn't say it . If you feel they are inappropriate , that's ok.

Lets move on . I did support the ethics board at one point in time. My experiences with the board on a matter involving the previous solicitor was a joke , and due diligence was sorely lacking. My expectations were minimal , and they came up far short of them.

So, as to the Ethics Board , we probably agree that it hasn't been worth it, as long as politics is involved in the process. I hoped for much better.

Archie - Wow. Utter surrender without admission. The noble thing would be to say - you know, after we hashed it out, I gotta say that Frank should not make these comments on The Patch given his role on the Ethics Board. You gots the nobility for that? Come on, you can do it. Just this once. Cummon. Is easy. Do it. Ain't no thing..............

Thought as much. Typical too proud terripen. Still stuck in the Len Bias glory days...the ignomy that followed is illusion. Suck it up Arch. Say it - "My initial impression that there is no harm in the guy saying whatever the first amendment allows him to say on the Patch, upon more careful consideration, was incorrect". Say it. Say it. By the ghost of Sam Kinisen - SAAAAY ITTTTTT!

Huhhh?

Eric, OCPD's staff definitely should be seriously reduced. For one straight year, and yes I have all of my written copies and notes, literally witnessed officers sitting around on the job in the parking lot behind the Strand Theatre. I would call every single morning, ask for the Sgt. on Duty, explain that his officers have been sitting out here, different days different times, anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours and 45 minutes. They would meet up in the morning and sit in the parking lot just shutting the breeze. Now that the parking lot has been re-structured, I'm more than sure they are just sitting someplace else. I sent letters to the Mayor, copy to all city council, called city council, and absolutely NOTHING was ever done about it. Two cops would show up first thing in the morning after signing in and sit in their cars in the parking lot, shooting the breeze, drinking their coffee, etc. I was even lied to by a Sgt. He got caught up in his own lie and couldn't get out. Yet, the former Mayor, and all city council were aware that this problem existed every single day. Nothing, I repeat, was ever done about it. So, there's your police force, going on duty and meeting up with their buddies. One officer, I went up behind his car and screamed his car number out really loud, never even knew I was there (less than 4 feet away). I guess he was sound asleep. Called the Sgt. on duty. One was seen throwing trash out of his car onto private property. Nothing done.