I very much agree with some of the budget cuts, made by the council. After years of losing money, plus with so many other pre-schools, there is no reason for the town to operate one.
Senior citizen programs are definitely needed, but the money should be for the activities themselves, not high management costs. Being a senior myself, I know not all want the same activities or require the same support services. A well-organized group of seniors are the ones who are most qualified to make such decisions.
Many activities fit in the category of a hobby, which the town should never have subsidized. Anyone who wants to learn pottery, play an instrument and such can seek these out on their own, as they and more are available in our area.
The actual name of this department is "Community and Recreation," therefore it should not be catering to any one group of people, such as those only interested in sports. It seems the focus of too many is just that, with the ongoing demand for more fields, especially another very costly turf field, which is in no way needed! We have more than enough fields; what is needed is better scheduling of games, so all are being used, not only a few.
We continue to provide very little active or passive recreation for our residents as a whole, while many other places are adding more, such as playgrounds, parks, outdoor facilities for concerts and movies. There is no reason we cannot do likewise with redevelopment money and ongoing grant applications. It is one thing to cut unnecessary costs, but quite another to demand tremendous cuts that will effectively destroy this department. More than enough has been cut. I suggest Mr. Casey make no further cuts, but rather wait until we have a department director hired so this person can make suggestions as to how to best run and manage programs and activities for all. Mr. Hensley said cutting another $100,000 is the bold leadership we want. His demand is outrageous and would destroy an entire department. No, that is not what we want!
Such drastic cuts usually result in a tax cut of $10 or $20 per household a year which divided by four quarters comes to the cost of a few "coffees-to-go!" I weekly see shoppers spend a lot more on nothing but "junk foods," a real waste of their money!
Remember, you are also talking about local people's jobs. They have families to feed and bills to pay, so do you want more local residents out of work, unable to pay their taxes? How will this help the town tax base? It will only make matters worse and you know this is true.
Making sensible cuts is one thing, using a "wrecking ball" is very different and very destructive! Think, before you make unwise decisions.
Eleanor Monahan
West Milford