| Author |
Message |
    
Bobk
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 3:54 am: |     |
The county tax rate is a major issue that the TC hasn't addresssed, at least in public. Since our values in Maplewood are now nearly four times what they were before does this mean that our share of the county budget will go up four times?
Or is there an equalization ratio built into this systme?
I know that there is some funding formula for the BOE, but will the reval also have the effect of increasing the school tax as well? |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:08 am: | |
Yes, Bobk, there is an equalization ratio built into the county tax system. I have been looking at these two charts trying to ascertain whether or not our taxes are really that out-of-line with everyone elses. They are both for 1999.
Tax Rates for Essex
and
Equalization Ratios for Essex County
The first thing to notice is that the equalization ratio only brings maplewood up to a 'full' valuation of 1.5 billion. Our recent assessment would suggest that it was understated, but it is for 1999, so it also provides ammunition that the equalization ratio for south orange may need adjustment in light of recent market moves. I don't think, given the assessments we have gotten, that it would be very hard to argue that south orange has improved in value 30% over the last 2 years, which would leave us roughly comparable.
The thing i've been trying to figure out is what the tax rates are for various municipalities, taking the equalization ratio into account, at least for 1999.
The methodology i'm using is to take the tax rate (using livingston as an example) of 10.22, multiply it times their assessed value (91million) and divide it into their 'equalized value (over 3 billion) and come up with a tax rate on an 'equalized basis' of 2.61 which compares relatively closely to our new rate of 2.75.
A few other numbers i've crunched this way would be
milburn: 1.87
montclair: 3.41
Glen ridge: 3.8
South Orange: 3.72
Verona: 2.77
Essex Fells: 1.89
Irvington: 4.9
Maplewood: 3.5
I can't figure out all the ramifications of this. Built into these numbers is the rather obvious fact that if the budget for the town increases at a slower RATE than the property values, then our relative tax rates go down...as witnessed by essex fells and milburn. (short hills mall notwithstanding). In a rational market, this pretty much has to mean that the value of the houses in milburn are probably enough higher than the comparable house in maplewood to make the difference in tax rates kinda moot.
One way to read it would be that in 1999, you would have to pay almost double the price for the same house in milburn to have the same taxes...and our new assessment would suggest that the same house in maplewood would cost about 70% of the price of the same house in milburn.
Those numbers roughly make sense to me..though i haven't been house shopping in a long while.
What i'm really trying to understand is whether or not it makes any sense for the politicians to play off of the recent reval in maplewood and make us 'poster people' for demands that the education system be moved to income taxes rather than property taxes. We need the new census numbers to be sure...but as a town, i suspect that rises in income taxes will hit most people in this town a LOT harder than rises in property taxes. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:20 am: | |
I've also been trying to think through the ramifications of relying on property taxes vs. income taxes for education on our lifestyles. One thing that keeps jumping out at me is that you get to CHOOSE your property tax threshold. If you would rather save your money for retirement, you can move to a smaller house. You can't do that with income taxes. |
Jem
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:30 am: | |
Melidere,
You've made your statement about income taxes hitting people harder than property taxes frequently enough now to make me feel fairly sure that you actually prefer that property tax continue to be the mechanism for funding schools. Am I correct? And if so, how do you justify that position? Even if Springfield Ave. revives to the fullest extent possible, we'll never be on a financial par with the communities that have the huge office parks, malls, factories, pharmaceutical companies, and large shopping centers as their engines of funding. You are so frequently a voice for the value of investing sufficient funds in our schools, that I don't see how you can square this with a preference for property tax as the source of school funding. |
Jem
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:32 am: | |
Meli,
I was composing my post to you while you were posting (10:20) but I still would like to hear further justification than that. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:35 am: | |
Melidere:
You've gotta be an internet search wizz!!
Since our old 'equalized' valuation was $1.5billion and our new "real value" is around $2.5billion and the equalization rate brings things up to current value I have to conclude that we are going to get slammed with much larger county tax bills since the $2.5billion number will be the actual number used.
You folks who are getting decreases, don't spend the money yet!! |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:36 am: | |
Jem,
i know you'll find this hard to believe...but i'm not staking a strong position either way, yet. I'm trying to think it through. There are a lot of really smart people who have been on this board and joined this board over the last couple of months and i would love to know their opinion.
Are you sure, Jem, that if we hand our money to the state in the form of income taxes, that it will be EASIER for us to fund our schools? Or will our money all flow into newark via trenton?
I'm just trying to figure out the truth for the town. Personally, my income is down substantially from when i first bought here. I do better under an income tax scenario. But i live in maplewood, and i don't think my case is representative. Ultimately, my property resides in this town, and what is best for the town overall, would be best for me in the long run. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:38 am: | |
Bobk,
isn't our new 'real value' about 2.1 billion? |
Jem
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:53 am: | |
What I do know is that it is currently very difficult to fund our schools at the level at which they need to be funded, considering what teacher salaries ought to be, considering that we have aging buildings in need of maintenance and repair, considering that there are myriad unmet needs and demands. I would say that we're more than tapped out at the local level, wouldn't you? I don't claim to have the answers, but I do expect that they are neither simple nor painless. I intend to become involved in the effort to investigate other means by which to fund our schools. The more of us that do so actively, the better the solution is likely to be. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 11:28 am: | |
Agreed.
And that's exactly what i'm attempting to do, is investigate.
I'm intriqued by lydial's case, where 2000 has just moved from an insurance payment to a tax payment that directly benefits her town and her property values.
That seems to me to be a good thing. If we are smarter, as a town, and can invest our money wisely, we can really benefit. Fringe's latest posting of the rankings shows improvement(in language arts)...rather substantial i think, for one year, in both our scores and relative rankings. We've done that, not the state, and we will benefit if we keep the trend in that direction.
Reliance on property taxes has some serious problems. I believe that the elderly population of a town greatly contributes to our quality of life and that we need to take some steps to protect them.
My worry is that a lot of towns are in a lot worse shape than we are, and that the net effect of sending money to trenton is that it doesn't come back. The fact that the cost is high doesn't mean we're going to convince someone else to pay it.
And if the median household income in maplewood has risen any where near as much as i think it has...rises in income taxes will take a lot more money out of this town than the state is going to put back in.
The trick is to figure out the truth, and then become educated enough to see the ramifications.
I think that the slight-of-hand here is that most of us don't realize how relatively wealthy we are. We all see ourselves as 'benefitting' from a redistibution. Maybe we are the ones that are going to be taken FROM and other municipalities will be the beneficiaries.
What i can't find...and if anyone could it would be an enormous help...is what the total education funding is for the state...and what kind of increase in income taxes it would take to shift the burden from property to income.
That's where the answer lies. |
Mck
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 11:40 am: | |
Once again, Melidere, I find myself in surprising sympathy with your views! Don't change them on that account...the state should pay for ALL its foolish mandates: the world language in the elementary schools, for instance; and a lot more of the special ed. But I am not happy with the prospect of a state income tax being used to fund the schools. I haven't liked anything the state has done vis a vis education, and i don't want them to have total control of the purse strings, and therefore, the schools. A state income tax funding schools ( on top of the funding for the Abbott districts and the 8 billion construction plan) would put every single tax payer in the same miserable boat, no matter what down-scale backwater he chose to live in in order to save a few bucks. But if the income tax isn't going to be the vehicle for funding schools, the state must give the municipalities more freedom to find more money. Local taxes, for instance: why arent' we taxing all those people who drive into town every day to work at NJ Transit and PSE&G? |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 11:47 am: | |
(smiles)
that why they say 'politics makes strange bedfellows.'
Scoot over, you are taking all the covers. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 12:12 pm: | |
What i don't understand, Jem, is WHY a community like ours is having such a hard time investing in its schools. Why are we kicking ourselves when clearly, the outrageous rise in property values is clearly telling us we are doing so much right? This town is 600 MILLION dollars richer than it was two years ago.
Assuming that everyone had 20% equity in their property and that the budget is 60 million, that is an annualized return on our money of 141%. Why wouldn't we take some of that money and put it back into the goose that is laying the golden egg?
With that kind of roe, why are we putting a dime into tech stocks? |
Jem
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 2:09 pm: | |
That's a hard one. A few national trends that have developed over the years might be culprits: A general attitude that taxes are the way that government tortures the citizenry, rather than the means by which we buy the communal services that we want and need. A sense that private in all realms is better, thus that public schools aren't worth the effort.
We live in a "throw-away" culture. We've always had so much space that we've had the luxury of turning our backs on the old, letting it fall into disrepair and moving on to the next, shiny, new place or thing. We've built buildings and left them to rot, cities and left them to die, railroads and left them to rust, and we've got schools that are crumbling and struggling all over the country, yet we as a nation are more willing to build new prisons than we are to fund our schools at more than the most basic of levels. (and there's a fairly obvious connection between those two!)
Would you agree that part of the problem here specifically is that we as a community have a really hard time seeing what's working in our schools when the loudest and most insistent voices are those pointing out what's wrong? I get really peeved at the fact that problems that are absolutely national in scope - the achievement gap in particular, parents who are uninvolved, kids who don't read for pleasure - are treated by the local critics as if they only occur here and are uniquely the fault of the South Orange/Maplewood schools.
There's a pervasive sense that when good things happen here - academic gains, national merit awards, outstanding accomplishments in a wide variety of fields by students, - that's just a blip, but when bad things happen - a fight, a resignation, an overcrowded class, test score averages that don't shoot up 100 points in one year - that's because the schools are bad. Too many people seem to feel justified in opting out rather than investing the time, effort, and support for the sort of budget that the district needs in order to provide the excellent education, educators, and environment (i.e., schools in tip-top physical condition) that we all want for our kids. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 3:31 pm: | |
Medlidere:
The $2.5billion number was off the top of my head. You are probably correct at $2.1billion.
I ain't goin' to argue with a research whizz such as yourself.
The schools are another problem. This is a rapidly changing community with many families moving here from school districts even more challenged than our own. We have to learn how to bring these students up to a proficient level.
I am gooing to be charged with being draconian and hard hearted, but, if I was "School Czar" children who do not score proficient would repeat the grade until they score proficient. Children moving into the district would be tested and if they don't score proficient they would go back to the grade they are capable of handling.
If a student doesn't score proficient in two tries they would be put in a full time, full year remedial program.
We are not doing the children a favor by moving them through the system if they don't have the skills to cope. Hey, I know, I repeated a yearin grade school. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 5:36 pm: | |
Bobk - I completely agree with you. Why doesn't the BOE implement this? It is common sense. If people are complaining that children moving here from other districts with major problems why do we automatically put them in the same grade as their age? They are bound to fail and more importantly their self-esteem will suffer and they may give up altogether. There should be a test for all new students in the district to decide what level they are on and build on that. |
Jem
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 6:43 pm: | |
All that remediation is a great idea! Are you guys willing to bear the cost of that bit of common sense, which would not be small?
Melidere, while you've expressed your fear that the state would be redistributing money to more needy districts, think about this: We in Maplewood and South Orange are already bearing the cost of that problem, aren't we? If those more needy districts had greater resources to deal with their own problems, perhaps we would not be left to pick up the pieces of those horrendous educational deficits. That's exactly what we're doing when residents of the nearby towns with abysmal school districts flee with their children to here in search of better schools. Isn't the moral of the story that we're gonna pay one way or the other?
Oh, by the way - there already are placement tests for all new students at the high school level, no matter where they come from. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 7:18 pm: | |
The moral of the story is that school districts like Newark and Irvington DO get a lot of money from Trenton that they can't account for (like $21 million dollars in Newarks's case) AND Maplewood/SO end of paying for those children anyway by educating them here. If we could somehow prove we are educating these children perhaps we would be entitled to some of the funding. No witchhunt for kids here, just some help from the state. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 8:28 am: | |
Jem,
If you are making the case that paying MORE money in income taxes in order to support the weaker school systems is the right thing to do in the long run, for both the state and the town, then that is a reasonable argument and you be a good democrat.
But i suspect that a lot of people are screaming for state funding of education under the impression that they will SAVE money, and that is the thing i'm questioning.
I'm also questioning (respectfully) Bobk''s assertion that we have a 'rapidly' changing school district with families moving in from districts even more challenged than our own. The rise in prices belies this premise.
It's all speculation until we get the census. I just know what i see around me, and it's people spending serious bucks for their homes and on their homes. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 9:33 am: | |
Can someone answer a few basic questions for me? I have no experience with this, so please help!
If we were to move to an income tax-based funding of the schools, would it be a state tax, or a local tax? If it's a state tax, wouldn't the state have a significant interest in how the school is run, including class size, districts, busing, etc.? Would the teachers and administrators become state employees or if funded by a local tax, city employees? If state-funded, wouldn't all public schools start to look the look, and that quality teachers depends on luck of the draw, rather than local BOE and administrators hiring top-notch, rather local teachers?
I'm not challenging you guys, but I'm trying to understand this issue better. Thanks! |
Teach66
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 9:59 am: | |
This probably belongs on the "education" board but I'm going to take a crack at it anyway. How about making sure the kids are actually going to the classes. Went to dinner with a substitute teacher that works in the high school. She informed me that after "the rape" all teachers were told that they HAD to report cuts. She told me that the teachers (especially subs and part timers) usually don't report them because it could jeopardize the students graduation!!! Well, she said that there was a "3 cuts and you don't graduate" rule and once they started reporting the cuts - all the kids showed up for class. Of course there were some that it was their third time, or more (and of course the rule was waived!). But just by ENFORCING a rule, the kids actually responded. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 10:06 am: | |
Njjoseph: one model of funding from state income tax is the block grants that states receive from the feds. The feds determine how much money (in different areas like health, education, etc) your state gets based on various census data, etc, but the state determines how it is actually spent within some extremely broad guidelines. In this scenario, the towns would be the recipients of the block grants from the State.
Bacata |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 10:49 am: | |
Bacata, so that leads me to think that the state determines how the education dollars are spent. Would this be true if NJ adopts this? |
Jem
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 11:44 am: | |
I only have experience with schools in two states, NY and NJ. There was a time, not so long ago, that state and federal aid to local school districts was a substantial part of every local school's budget, at least in these two states. That aid has been dropping over the past couple of decades as tax-cutting fervor has risen. That aid did not make teachers and administrators state or federal employees, nor, heaven knows, have the schools ever been uniform.
In NY state, there are state-mandated standards, particularly at the junior high and high school level, tested by the Regents exams, which at one time were well regarded. Over the years they've become easier to pass for a child in a reasonably good district than any exam that could be compiled by any teacher who tests what he or she actually covers in class. I'm not an admirer of the NY Board of Regents, in fact, I'm delighted to have escaped their mostly useless standards. I haven't lived here long enough to know the history of state mandates in NJ.
Unfunded mandates, state or federal, are a travesty, and I would prefer that any that exist disappear or be appropriately funded. Block grants, with some strings for accountability attached, could possibly work. What I'm trying to say here is that aid to schools from both the state and the federal government is not some new, wild concept. It is in the interest of all of us that all districts be able to afford to educate their children properly, and the state should help to fund this, else we get the sort of "educational refugee" situation that exists right now, which we certainly can't afford.
NJJoseph, I can't imagine how a locality the size of ours could levy an income tax, can you? That would be a sure path to a ghost town. We've been talking here about investigating different ways to fund education, so you can't make any assumptions about the shape of things to come, but you can certainly become involved and help to shape them. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 11:54 am: | |
Jem, thanks for your detailed response!
I don't think we could survive a local income tax. I'm just trying to figure out the pros and cons of going to an income-tax based system for funding the schools. So many on this board think we should move in that direction, but until I understand it well enough, I can't make an informed choice. Of course, we're still a ways from even voting on this change, but it doesn't hurt to learn more. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 12:51 pm: | |
I don't know if we can have an 'income' tax directly, but i did read somewhere that there are municipalities who 'cap' the property taxes based on income requirements. Hence, seniors on fixed incomes would pay up the requisite percentage of income and would be subsidized by a higher mil rate for the rest of the town.
Indirectly, that is an income tax, since your taxes are higher if your income is higher. |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Saturday, March 3, 2001 - 1:46 pm: | |
Just came across these quotes from TC meetings regarding the reevaluation. Found them to be interesting.
"We had no idea that the burden was going to be so great, that the magnitude was going to be so large for individuals" - Celia King
"There are not many options available to us" - Celia King"
"We are a community in crisis right now. Whatever we do, we have to do it across the board for people to continue to trust us." _ Celia King
"What exists (now) is a complete lack of confidence in the process" - Burt Liebman
"Where there is smoke, there is fire." _ Burt Liebman."
"I understand how serious it is when we ask you to make a tremendous dent in your monthly budget" - Ellen Davenport
In the end, (or is it ?) Celia King proposed the motion to adopt Certified's numbers and Ellen Davenport seconded her motion.
Then, every member of the Township Committee voted in favor of the motion. |
Mem
| | Posted on Thursday, March 8, 2001 - 1:12 pm: | |
Back to quotes:
"Reval, reval, reval!!!"
Jan Brady |
Nohero
| | Posted on Thursday, March 8, 2001 - 1:46 pm: | |
"What is aught, but as 'tis valued?" (Troilus and Cressida, Act 2, Scene 2) (Where Troilus and Hector discuss whether Hector would sell his house in Troy for the assessed value.) |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page