Roselle’s Folly (7): Debt Perspective

Last April the Borough of Roselle refinanced $8.5 million in debt for which they had to provide an Official Statement on the state of their finances.

Excerpts highlight the absurdity (and possible illegality) of Roselle adding on another $59 million in debt…

with a principally residential tax base…


that collects about $59 million in taxes annually…


and already has a library and a community center…


as well as over $30 million in Statutory Net Debt…..


this should push them over the edge:



3 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Lindy Foreman on September 23, 2016 at 10:38 am

    I’m a Roselle taxpayer for 30 years now – but I don’t understand this post. Please tell me what this all means. Thank you.


    • To Lindy Forman:

      Bottom line – Roselle will probably declare bankruptcy in a couple of years on account of this for several reasons:

      1) Roselle taxpayers cannot afford to repay $59 million when that is what they are paying now annually for ALL taxes – municipal, school, and county

      2) A community center and new library is not going to attract more of a tax base (see Linden where their new library led to less material and shorter hours)

      3) Living next to a construction site for 5 years (see how long UCIA takes to build that Justice Complex) is going to drive out as many residents as the massive tax increases.

      So what will happen? My guess:

      a) Netta, Mast Construction, DeCotiis, etc. make a lot of money off this project allowing them to….
      b) keep donating more to Holley, Green, and UC freeholders; plus
      c) UCIA gets to hire more politicians and pay for past bad borrowing (ie solar panels); while
      d) Roselle defaults and Union County taxpayers pick up bond payments;
      e) for a project that will have cost overruns and may not even get finished considering UCIA involvement.


  2. Posted by bpaterson on September 23, 2016 at 11:48 am

    and thus the county will cosign the loan thru the UCIA to avoid piercing the 3.5% statutory limit. The question is that if the Union county improvement authority actually holds the debt and the servicing of the debt is Roselle’s does roselle incur that debt amount. The question is what is roselle actually calling the repayment service of the debt. If it is hiding the servicing calling it “rental costs” than there is the avoidance and the UCIA owns the assets of the school and rec bldg. complex, not Roselle.

    JB1-thanks for the research into roselles debt levels. Instead of normal integrity, accountability and resposiblity, here in union county it is the game of however you can get around the legalities of rules and regulations. Sure, everything is perfectly legal here in soprano county.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: