| Author |
Message |
    
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8317
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 12:05 pm: |     |
Nohero:
As worded, the primary emphasis of the Commission, if formed, will be to consider the consolidation of Maplewood and South Orange into a single municipality. Therefore, if you do not think this consolidation is a good idea, you should probably vote against the referendum.
There are numerous mechanisms available to approach the question of shared services and none of them require a study commission appointed by the electorate. Even if a commission were to be formed and were to recommend in favor of shared services as opposed to consolidation, I don't believe said recommendation would be binding on anyone nor, from what I have read, would it be appropriate for the electorate to vote on the adoption of a shared services plan even if the commission were to come up with one.
Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of the the legal aspects of this issue. |
gj1
Citizen
Username: Gj1
Post Number: 397
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 12:36 pm: | |
I agree with Joan. My prediction is that someone will imply that votes for the commision are votes for consolidation and will use this to gain increased support for consolidation.
The study is not needed in order to share services. I'll be voting AGAINST. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5809
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 12:40 pm: | |
"Even if a commission were to be formed and were to recommend in favor of shared services as opposed to consolidation, I don't believe said recommendation would be binding on anyone nor, from what I have read, would it be appropriate for the electorate to vote on the adoption of a shared services plan even if the commission were to come up with one."
That's correct, Joan. The governing bodies of the involved towns would all have to act, in that event. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4622
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 3:39 pm: | |
Quote:I want the towns to study how to reduce costs through shared services (whether just between them, or in conjunction with other municipalities), but I think that studying how to actually merge the towns would not help get us there
Why do you come to that conclusion before a study has been done? I fully admit that I am skeptical that a full scale consolidation would be feasible (politically, economically, etc), however, I am very interested in looked at the issue & seeing if that can be proven or disproven factually. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5813
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 4:34 pm: | |
I'm sorry, I thought that this was being sold as a way to look at shared services, and not consolidation. At least, that's how it's described on your http://www.somastudy.org/ website:
Quote:SOMaCT is asking fellow voters to approve a study to determine the advisability of sharing certain municipal services or possibly consolidating both towns.
Now, you're saying that the purpose is to study consolidation, before deciding to go the shared services route.
By the way, if we vote for a consolidation commission, then the law is very clear about what the duties of the commissioners are:
Quote:40:43-66.50. Duties and function; report of findings and recommendations
It shall be the duty and function of the joint municipal consolidation study commission to study the question and feasibility of consolidating the participating municipalities into a single new municipality.
The job of the commission isn't to look at shared services, and "by the way" think about consolidation. The commissioners have the duty to study consolidation. If they decide to not recommend consolidation, then they may suggest something along the lines of shared services. In order to consider the question of consolidation, these are some of the items that have to be looked at by the commissioners:
Quote:a. The name, type, plan or form of government of the proposed new municipality;
b. Details of adjustment of the indebtedness and other obligations of the participating municipalities, and if appropriate, of the school districts therein, in such manner as to preserve a fair and equitable burden of taxation for debt service;
c. The transfer of property and assets of the participating municipalities to the proposed new municipality, and, if appropriate, from their constituent school districts to the proposed new school district;
d. The extent to which participating municipalities may authorize or issue bonds or other obligations or incur contractual duties during the period between the date of the election held pursuant to section 25 of this act and the date of consolidation as provided for in section 29 of this act;
e. Any adjustments or changes in offices, positions, or employment, including the abolition thereof that may be necessitated by the consolidation;
f. The number and manner of election of the members of the governing body of the proposed new municipality, including, if appropriate, the designation of the number of wards into which the proposed consolidated municipality is to be divided, which shall be consistent with the plan or form of government recommended and shall be in accordance with law;
g. Those ordinances, rules and regulations of the participating municipalities which may be adopted by the governing body of the consolidated municipality to temporarily take effect within the consolidated municipality
Full text of the law: http://www.nj.gov/dca/lgs/share/joint/muni_consol_act.shtml
So, that's why I asked my original question. If we want to move as quickly as possible towards shared services, is voting for this commission the way to do it? That's not clear. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8319
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 4:51 pm: | |
MHD:
I can't speak for the person who wrote the original statement you quote in your immediate above post but it seems to me if we want to move towards shared services as opposed to consolidation then voting for a commission to study consolidation would appear to be a virtually guaranteed method of delaying any further attempt at shared services since the Commission would be obligated to look at consolidation first (if not exclusively) and any attempt by other persons/bodies to implement a shared services program would be met with replies of wait and see what the consolidation commission comes up with because if Maplewood and South Orange consolidate that would change the equation either in terms of South Orange/Maplewood shared services or in terms or either Maplewood or South Orange on its own attempting to enter into shared services agreement(s) with other municipalities in our region. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 6222
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 8:33 am: | |
This initiative from the beginning has seemed to be much more about political control than cost control. Noone in support of it has done a good enough job explaining that it is not. |
gj1
Citizen
Username: Gj1
Post Number: 399
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 11:37 am: | |
Bingo! |
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 133
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 6:46 pm: | |
Hank:
I don't recall that you have made a good case for the conclusion that this initiative is about "political control." What's the proof? Without it, how can those in support of the initiative have "done a good enough job explaining that it is not"? It's hard to prove a negative in a vacuum. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8324
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 8:06 pm: | |
Fred (and other proponents of the Consolidation Commission Referendum):
A major problem I have with this initiative is that I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest that there is a real possibility of South Orange and Maplewood residents obtaining any real property tax relief if the two towns were to consolidate. Can you share with the rest of us what it is that leads you to believe such a consolidation would achieve this primary aim of the implementing legislation? Can anyone offer even the roughest of estimates as to where the savings would be seen and approximately how much of a savings we could expect to see in our taxes if the consolidation were to take place? |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1295
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 8, 2006 - 10:21 pm: | |
Joan,
Aren't those the types of questions which would be addressed by the Study Commission?
TomR |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 704
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 12:57 am: | |
Fred,
Why not post the names of the people running to be commisioners?
Might fill the vacuum.
I've yet to talk to a single person in Maplewood who keeps up with town politics who doesn't think this is about Fred Profeta's ego and has no benefit to the town. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8326
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 6:46 am: | |
TomR:
For any ballot question, I would expect to be able to determine the pros and cons of the issue before casting a vote. For this particular issue, I have yet to hear any pros expressed other than a somewhat vague argument that a consolidation commission study will make people more aware of the need for consolidation and/or shared services and will possibly "show the State" that Maplewood and South Orange care enough about trying to reduce municipal expenses through consolidation or shared services to commit our own tax dollars, talent, and other resources (including a significant amount of time) to the conduct of a study.
I don't think it unfair to ask the proponents of this referendum what they expect such a study to accomplish in terms of real tax savings or even greater range and/or effectiveness in provision of municipal services so I and others can make an intelligent decision in November. |
Barbara
Citizen
Username: Blh
Post Number: 682
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 6:54 am: | |
At the risk of getting flamed (which is related to my fear of running for public office), I will tell you that I am thinking of putting my name up for selection as a commissioner. I have begun to collect signatures, but haven’t yet made my final decision. (Kathleen, the mayor didn’t ask me, but does know I’m considering this. Indeed, MOL has been my only source for who is running – so I don’t know who I’d possibly be working with if the commission comes to be – and that is a bit unsettling, but manageable.)
After nearly 10 years of working in the two towns, and with the town leadership, I have a different perspective than most on how these two towns are the same, different, and do/do not complement each other. I have thought about consolidation many times over the years – even coming up with a name in my head (no I won’t share.) But, I didn’t think there would ever be the political will to really have this discussion.
I don’t know, really, if we should merge. I do think that we should share/consolidate more services, but not which ones. I’m aware that the savings related to getting rid of duplication of certain positions will save us some money (I’ve heard 1.5M), but that the tax implications of those savings aren’t great (though carrying extra pensions over the years do add up.) I don’t know what savings can result from the merger of our physical plant and capital expenses – I suspect that they are much greater, but don’t really know.
That is why I think this study commission is important. No matter what I’ve been considering over the years, I’ve never had any facts to sway me one way or another. The ability to collect and to truly analyze the findings will be important.
And that is why I’m considering running. I think that there need to be some commissioners who haven’t truly made up their minds one way or another. We know (or assume) there are people running who are pro-merge (facts or not.) I hope there will be some who are adamantly opposed – to keep the process honest.
I have to tell you that this is a big decision for me. While I’m truly a worker, and very political (small p) in my own way, I’m not a politician and don’t really get Politics (with a capital P.) I see the irony in the fact that the first (and probably only) time I put my (self out on a limb) name on a ballot, its for a position that may not even come to exist – since the question of whether or not to even form a commission is on the ballot as well. (What happens to the people who win as commissioners, if the commission question fails – do they get to preside over nothing – or get to make the rules in their houses for a day???)
In any case, if you feel as I do – that if there is a commission, than it should truly study – then consider putting your name in, or fining someone else that feels as you do. I would encourage us all to keep the conversation in perspective – too many people think the question on the ballot in November is to decide merger or no merger, rather than should we study it or not. Personally, I’d like to see a study, and then let folks make a decision based on the facts – because that question (or questions) would ultimately have to go to the voters as well.
Okay, so I’m out. (Well, not really … I haven’t pushed send on this message, nor have I submitted my petition. Don’t cut through the limb totally, okay?)
Barbara
|
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3798
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 8:39 am: | |
I'll vote for Barbara, without reservation. And I think that Joan would be another good candidate. We could definitely use some more little-p politicians around here!
Now to figure out whether I think there should be a commission. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8331
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 9:21 am: | |
For those of us still undecided about this question, I strongly recommend reading the Maplewood and South Orange Shared Services: Health Recreation and Cultural Affairs An Opportunity to Improve Services and Reduce Costs, April 2006 report by Government Management Advisors, LLC. I'm not aware of this report appearing on line but copies should be available at the Township Clerk's Office (there may be a charge for the report since it is approximately 70 pages in length).
The report offers a statistical comparison of staffing, costs and services for each of the two functional areas in Maplewood and South Orange and offers recommendations for ways in which shared services could result in some improvement in provision of services by Maplewood and South Orange in these areas. I leave it up to the individual reader to determine the viability of these suggestions and the degree to which service improvements and/or cost savings would result from such a service consolidation.
Perhaps once more of us have read this report we can discuss it either here or on a separate thread for that purpose, bearing in mind that health and recreation are only two service groupings provided by both towns and that each represents a relatively small portion of either municipal budget. |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3800
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 10:03 am: | |
Surely it can be put online. Unfortunately, scanning the paper document would result in a really huge file, but if someone has the source, it would be very easy to convert to a web-friendly format and post somewhere ...
Anyone know who is responsible? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 788
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 10:16 am: | |
Excellent idea, Joan. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8336
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 9:48 pm: | |
Here are some figures from the above mentioned study:
2005 municipal budget:
South Orange: $27,701,015
Maplewood: $28,515,643
These figures, if accurate, show that the municipal budgets of South Orange and Maplewood are very close, with Maplewood the larger township having a slightly higher budget.
However consider the comparative population figures cited in the report (date/source of population data not given):
South Orange: 16,964
Maplewood: 23,868
The number of municipal tax paying households is not given in this report but even allowing for the larger number of rental/condo units in South Orange which could equate to a higher proportion of single person households (though this figure may be offset by the number of these rental/condo units which remain PILOTed), it would appear that the average dollar municipal tax burden for each South Orange household is significantly higher than the average dollar municipal tax burden for each Maplewood resident.
Unless there are other factors I am missing here, it would appear that South Orange residents are more likely to see a municipal tax savings from a South Orange/Maplewood consolidation while Maplewood residents are almost certain to see a gain in real property tax and this is even before the costs of consolidation are factored in.
Assuming these figures are accurate, why should a Maplewood taxpayer support the proposal to consolidate Maplewood and South Orange if the aim for Maplewood residents is to reduce the municipal taxes each Maplewood taxpayer presently pays? Can anyone explain to me what offsetting advantages there are?
Before someone comes in and states that we are approving a study commission not a consolidation by voting for the referendum in November, let me add that if the primary purpose of the consolidation commission is to study the advantages of a South Orange/Maplewood consolidation, there really is no reason to vote for the referendum if the outcome of this study is predetermined to be a significantly higher tax bill for Maplewood residents if the consolidation with South Orange takes place. |
Foxhound
Citizen
Username: Foxhound
Post Number: 18
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 10:25 pm: | |
Joan:
Again, BINGO!!! |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 3097
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 11:49 pm: | |
Thank you Joan for your insightful research and analysis. (Is it any wonder why Hank and others are wondering about motives?) |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1296
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 9, 2006 - 11:57 pm: | |
Joan,
Your analysis suffers from a similar, if not the same, error I made when I first looked at the consolidation issue.
If one take the two towns' municipal tax levy and divides that sum by the number of households in the two towns, one will arrive at the conclusion you have, as did I.
However, such an analysis doesn't take into account the value of the housing stock in the two towns, and whether there is a disparity in the real valuations of properties in the towns. (That's real valuations, NOT assessed value).
On the other hand; If you look at the percentages that homeowners in each of the towns pay toward the combined municipal tax levy, and apply those percentages to any revised combined municipal tax levy (whether of modest or substantial decrease) you will see savings for the residents of both towns.
While this second methodology also has flaws, I believe that it produces a more accurate picture of what could happen if consolidation were recommended AND adopted by the towns' residents.
The flaws presented by either methodology would, to me, seem to be exactly the matters upon which the Department of Community Affairs would be reporting to the Commissioners.
As for the costs of a consolidation, that is another matter which the Commission should take up. Such costs might make a consolidation a trip on the road to folly. But might also be an expense easily amortized within a time frame acceptable to the residents of the two towns.
As for your earlier question as to the pros and cons, you have apparently answered your own question.
The possible realizable savings? I dunno. I'm hoping that the Commissioners, if empaneled, will provide that answer.
If somebody pushing for this Study Commission already has the information you seek about the realizable savings, and is keeping it to themselves; I hope there would be hell to pay if they ever run for election or re-election.
TomR |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8337
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 7:20 am: | |
TomR:
I don't buy the real property tax argument. Maplewood and South Orange in part have different tax rates because their most recent revaluations were done at different times and are therefore based on different sets of real property market value considerations. Maplewood's tax rate went down markedly when a reval was done after 20 years because the values of each property in town had increased an average of three fold during that 20 year period. South Orange has yet to do a reval based on current market values or even market values of five - six years ago. Have you figures based on likely adjusted tax rate for current market value in South Orange which you can supply to this discussion? Can you get such figures from whoever convinced you that the real propty valuation comparison was sufficient to offset the proportinate difference in municipal tax dollar per household?
Without a current revaluation of properties in Maplewood and South Orange, it is impossible to determine whether properties in one town would come out in the aggregate as being worth more or less for real property tax assessment purposes than housing stock in the other town. Both towns have properties currently valued at the high end and the low end of the spectrum. Certainly, even in your analysis, the homeowners in Maplewood's higher valued areas (for real property tax purposes) would likely find themselves seeing tax increases at least comparable to those they experienced in the last Maplewood-specific reval just a few years ago, except this time these increases would be driven by marked increase in expense rather than in real property value so that even an increase in equity would not be there to offset the additional tax burden.
The most recent Maplewood reval drove a lot of our long time residents out of town because they could no longer afford to live in their homes. I, for one, don't want to see that happen again, especially if it can be avoided by taking the simple step of NOT consolidating exclusively with South Orange. Remember, the purpose of a consolidation commission study is to find ways of reducing (not adding to our tax burden).
I eagerly await your response or the response of someone else in the know who can contribute the comparative adjusted municipal real property tax rate figures for South Orange and Maplewood to this discussion.
I am still waiting for someone (anyone) to supply concrete evidence to suggest that Maplewood residents can expect to obtain even minimal real property tax relief from a consolidation which is limited to South Orange/Maplewood. |
dytunck
Supporter
Username: Dytunck
Post Number: 291
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 11:28 am: | |
Quote:I am still waiting for someone (anyone) to supply concrete evidence to suggest that Maplewood residents can expect to obtain even minimal real property tax relief from a consolidation which is limited to South Orange/Maplewood.
Me too. Vote yes to study the issue, then we'll finally know one way or the other.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4642
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 11:40 am: | |
From today's Star Ledger:
A push to turn two towns into one
Merger of S. Orange, Maplewood studied
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/essex/index.ssf?/base/news-2/115786265384110.xml&c oll=1 |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8343
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 1:08 pm: | |
Dytunck:
Why should I vote yes for a study when I see no possibility that the study (which will cost each municipality money that could better be spent elsewhere)will have the slightest possibility of demonstrating any real municipal tax savings for the real property tax payers of Maplewood?
As I told you privately about a month ago, I would be more than happy to endorse the consolidation study referendum if (a) the study weren't limited to a consideration of consolidation and/or shared services between South Orange and Maplewood to the exclusion of other municipalities in our region and (b)someone could clearly demonstrate between now and the November election that there is even the slightest possibility of cost savings to Maplewood tax payers if the referendum is approved. The wording of the referendum as it appears on the November ballot precludes the first and nobody has yet come out publicly with any information to support the second.
Can you please give me a good reason to vote for the referendum other than it wouldn't hurt to conduct a study? There are lots of reasons why it would hurt to go ahead with this, many of which have been detailed in the above posts on this thread and on the parallel thread in South Orange specific.
To my other concerns, I would add the new concern that any such study be conducted correctly. I sincerely hope that the recently released report on Shared Services: Health Recreation and Cultural Affairs is not an indication of the quality of work we can expect from a consolidation commission study. If you haven't read this document yet, I suggest you do so and then come back and report on whether you think a report of this scope and calibre is worth our investment. |
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 323
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 1:24 pm: | |
"Can you please give me a good reason to vote for the referendum other than it wouldn't hurt to conduct a study?"
Joan, I asked this same question and was told that among the many reasons, the study is being driven by Maplewood in reaction to the many PILOTS that have been granted by the South Orange BOT. I know little about South Orange or PILOTS so I asked for additional information. The explanation I received indicated that some in Maplewood believe the PILOTS are taking away from funding of shared services, including the school system.
What I have not yest asked is whether or not the study/commission would have the authority to have inpact on these PILOTS if they are, indeed, detracting from shared services.
I find the entire petition/study/commission extremely confusing which leads me to not trust it. I am open however to a strong argument in support of the study. |
dytunck
Supporter
Username: Dytunck
Post Number: 292
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 1:52 pm: | |
Joan,
You seem to be smarter than everyone else. You must know the results of the study before the study takes place and you see no (zero) possibility for taxpayers in Maplewood (or Maplewood and South Orange) in realizing any benefits whatsover.
I won't try to give you reasons to vote for the study commission, as your mind has been made up. You're very closed-minded on this matter, imho. For some reason, you are dead against this, as your 48 posts in this thread alone attests.
Can you explain why studying this is a bad idea? |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 3099
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 2:26 pm: | |
Joan can and ably will speak for herself. I would guess that if the study costs not one dime of tax-payers' money she wouldn't think it was a "bad idea" - perhaps a foolish one, but not a bad one. The study to change Maplewood's own form of government didn't cost anything - nor did it seem to accomplish anything either. I think Joan's "48 posts" in this area have been illuminating and I contrast that with the supporters' less than illuminating responses to the issues/concerns brought up by OPEN MINDED people.
Wendy Lauter |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8345
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 3:13 pm: | |
Shestheone:
I would like for someone to explain to me how PILOT agreements now in existence between South Orange and the owners of certain South Orange properties would contribute to a reduction in taxes in Maplewood were the proposed consolidation to become a reality. At least in the short term, I would think the opposite would be the case and I will explain why.
PILOT stands for payment in lieu of taxes. PILOTs are frequently used as a tax incentive (read reduction in tax obligation to the developer) to encourage development. In the case of the PILOTs in South Orange, I seem to recall (someone please correct me if I am wrong here) that the PILOTs were granted to developers with the provision that these developers would be exempt from paying school taxes. In any event, the PILOT agreements reduced the tax burden of these developers for the life of the PILOT agreement and shifted the tax burden to the remaining taxpayers of South Orange. This means that at least in the short term, each real property taxpayer in the municipality granting the PILOT has to pay more in taxes than they otherwise would. If Maplewood and South Orange were to consolidate, it would appear that Maplewood would assume a proportion of this additional tax obligation rather than see a reduction in taxes.
Would anyone with a clearer understanding of the South Orange PILOTs and their impact if any on consolidation please chime in here? It would be helpful to have some facts on which to evaluate this issue.
It would also be helpful if one or more of the attorneys participating in this discussion could advance an opinion as to the degree to which a newly consolidated municipality would be obligated to continue PILOTs granted by either of the two predecessor municipalities.
In addition to PILOTs in South Orange, I believe Maplewood has a PILOT arrangement with NJT and there may be other such obligations existing with either municipality.
It should be noted that PILOTs are not likely to come into play if a decision is reached to share services or form specific regional authorities or the equivalent for the provision of one or more specific municipal service(s). They would only be a factor under consolidation. It should also be noted that while South orange and Maplewood currently share a school system, the way in which that school system is funded could change under consolidation. Most persons I have spoken with on this issue feel that current Maplewood residents would be faced with a larger school tax if the consolidation were to go through but I haven't seen any figures to support this claim or refute it. Does anyone reading this thread feel sufficiently informed to chime in on this issue?
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8346
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 3:23 pm: | |
Dytunck:
I know you well enough to know that you are a very intelligent person who is active in the community and well informed on local issues. I also know that you have been a strong supporter of this initiative from the beginning. I am certain that you have excellent reasons for supporting the referendum and one would assume the consolidation with South Orange were it to become a reality.
I really wish you would share these reasons with the rest of us who are only expressing disagreement with this proposal because we fail to see the advantage of proceeding with a consolidation commission study which is limited to Maplewood/South Orange.
I think my reasons for being opposed to the referendum thus far can be summed up with the simple satement that nobody I have communicated with regarding this issue on-line or off line has been able to come up with one possible advantage to the taxpayers of Maplewood for approving the study commission.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8347
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 3:40 pm: | |
Dytunck:
To summarize for you and others new to this thread, who are unwilling or unable to read my above posts on this thread and on the two parallel threads on this topic, why I am thus far opposed to to the consolidation commission referendum consider the following:
1. I am opposed to voting to approve the expenditure of taxpayer money (both municipal and State) for this purpose unless and until someone can demonstrate even the remotest possibility that we may learn and hopefully achieve something from this study which would ease the tax burden of Maplewood residents.
2. I believe that any initiative for the study of consolidation and or shared services should be broader in scope than South Orange and Maplewood and should be driven at the State level where the resources exist to gather the needed financial, existing services, organizational structure and demographic information on each municipality in the State. This would concentrate the use of skilled staff and avoid the duplication of effort and room for error rife in having each municipality conduct its own study.
3. I have seen data suggesting that Maplewood residents could reasonably expect to see an increase in their real property taxes if a consolidation with South Orange were to take place. No one has yet come forth to show the error in this conclusion. I would welcome such refutation since I truly want to see our municipal taxes reduced.
I look forward to any assistance you or anyone else can provide to show where I am wrong in my conclusions.
Thanks. |
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 134
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 6:47 pm: | |
Joan:
You seem determined to characterize the proposed study as limited to a recommendation that Maplewood and South Orange be merged. You also characterize the potential savings as limited to those which would result from a merger of the towns or a consolidation of services within the two towns. But this is not factual. As I have said previously on this thread, I would recommend that the commission study opportunites for sharing services with other towns in the region, and with the county. Others on the Township Committee share this preference for a broader focus.
I know you have read the enabling statute, and I ask you to remember section 40:43-66.58, which authorizes the commission to recommend "consolidation or REGIONALIZATION of specific functions and services. . . ." The clear import of this section is that recommendations may extend beyond the borders of the two towns. The expectation of many who support this initiative is that other jurisdictions will be brought to the table when the study commences, and the focus will be as broad as it should be to make financial sense. In addition, Trenton is likely to broaden the scope of consolidation efforts in the near future, and link all of this to the provision of greater financial incentives.
The commission is not empowered to recommend merging any towns beyond Maplewood and South Orange. And this specific recommendation would go directly to the voters in 2007. But any recommendation(s) less than this (or in addition to this) would go back to the governing bodies involved. If, for example, the study recommended the merger of the same department within several towns (as they have done in Bergen County), that recommendation would then be pursued by the TC and the BOT in conjunction with the governing bodies of any other jurisdictions involved.
None of this is to suggest that the benefits of merger would be limited to line item financial savings. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8353
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 7:27 pm: | |
Fred:
I am glad that we agree on the need for a broader regionalization study than that specified by the referendum which will be before the voters of Maplewood and South Orange in November. Perhaps it is because I am not an attorney but when I read the wording of the referendum, I interpreted it as meaning exactly what it said "consolidation or shared services with South Orange. Similarly, I took the phrase you cite in your above post to refer to regionalization within the context of those municipalities mentioned in the referendum approved by the electorate. Thus my emphasis in my comments on the advantages or disadvantages of convening a consolidation commission to study consolidation and if that was not possible shared services exclusively with South Orange.
If your aim in all this is to obtain funding for a broader based regionalization study which would explore ways in which each of the municipalities in our region could work together to reduce municipal expenditures and improve services for all concerned, why didn't you seek this approach directly in the first place? Why not work to convene a committee comprised of appropriate level representatives of each municipality in the region wishing to participate to meet regularly to explore ways in which we could all benefit from shared services? Such an approach would require no approval by the electorate, require no lengthly study prior to the initiation of such talks, would reduce the duplication of effort involved in having multiple commissions studying the same information and provide for the gathering of first hand information which might not otherwise be available.
|
James
Citizen
Username: Gymtagart
Post Number: 44
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 8:10 pm: | |
A few weeks ago Joan was accused of pontificating. Now she shows us her insightful research and analysis. I wonder what changed? |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 3102
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 8:16 pm: | |
Don’t forget it’s the smart person who changes her mind. It’s the wacko who alienates many and insults most. http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3135&post=692149#POST6921 49
Go away James - you psycho lurker. You're bothering me and several other posters here. Ta ta to you.
What, if anything, have you added to this thread. Nada, nothing, zilch. Can't you at least learn when to shut the heck up?
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5832
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 8:34 pm: | |
Quote:I know you have read the enabling statute, and I ask you to remember section 40:43-66.58, which authorizes the commission to recommend "consolidation or REGIONALIZATION of specific functions and services. . . ." The clear import of this section is that recommendations may extend beyond the borders of the two towns.
Not that this is the appropriate place to resolve the legal duties of the consolidation study commission, but -
The statutory provision from which that quote was taken reads: "In which case, the commission may, if it deems appropriate, make alternative findings and recommendations to the governing bodies of the participating municipalities, in lieu of political consolidation, concerning the consolidation or regionalization of separate municipal services and functions pursuant to any of the statutes of this State that authorize and permit joint action, consolidation or regionalization of municipal services and functions; provided, however, that in the case of a finding or recommendation concerning the consolidation or regionalization of law enforcement services and functions, the joint action, consolidation, or regionalization shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of the "Interlocal Services Act," P.L.1973, c.208 (C.40:8A-1 et al.) or the "Consolidated Municipal Service Act," P.L.1952, c.72 (C.40:48B-1 et seq.)." Later in that same subsection, it states that the recommendations may include -"A recommended schedule for the staged regionalization or consolidation of the functions and services of the participating municipalities over some specific period of time leading to the reconsideration of the question of political consolidation at a later date." In other words, the word "regionalization" is used with reference to "the participating municipalities".
If we want to study shared services with other municipalities, that's a great idea, and we can do it without a referendum. But, the duties of the commissioners who may be elected as a result of this referendum are very clear, in the law. I can't agree that the statute allows a study of "regionalization" with any community other than one which is part of the consolidation commission. |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 3103
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 8:38 pm: | |
Quote:I can't agree that the statute allows a study of "regionalization" with any community other than one which is part of the consolidation commission.
Neither can I.
Again I ask is it any wonder why Hank and others are wondering about motives?
|
James
Citizen
Username: Gymtagart
Post Number: 45
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 8:38 pm: | |
When was it you changes your mind? Was it after you finally read the petition you blindly urged us to sign, while accusing those opposed to the petition of pontificating? At least Joan explains why she takes the position she does. Can you say the same? |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 3104
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 8:43 pm: | |
James, You are one sick lurker dude. Did your mama ever tell you that? Perhaps she should have and corrected your grammar to boot. Now go away and let mature sane people discuss this issue or I'll have you incarcerated into a virtual psycho ward. You have added absolutely nothing to this world and, should it come to a vote, you, my psycho lurker, would be voted off, pronto.
Back to the point at issue. Sorry for that. We have this weird kid who sees a person as changing their mind as something to gloat over. How glorious, huh?
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3135&post=692149#POST6921 49
|
James
Citizen
Username: Gymtagart
Post Number: 47
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 8:56 pm: | |
Not lurking at all. I'm rather enjoying watching you try to avoid admitting that you hadn't read the petition when you urged others to sign it. Just in case you hadn't noticed, callin me names hasn't bothered me. |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 3105
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 9:06 pm: | |
James my psycho lurker. Go away. I'm not trying to bother you. I'm trying to get you away from a conversation where adults are talking. Enjoy your sicko world all you want. Now let's get back to more important things than James thinking he has one over me. Please, for the sake of our town, go away from here. You are ruining this thread and all others you touch. Should you have any doubt, I'll start a thread and take a vote. Now, scram. And you little sinister lurker, I'm avoiding nothing. I said everything quite clearly. You're the person with a reading comprehension weakness. I won't bother to prove my point to you again. Others know. Yes they do. |
James
Citizen
Username: Gymtagart
Post Number: 48
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 9:56 pm: | |
Just tell us whether you had read the petition before you accused others of pontificating and urged us to sign it. Its really quite simple. |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 3109
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 10:03 pm: | |
Just tell US? The royal we? You're sicker than I thought.
Apologies to all those for this thread drift and since crazy people don't know how to apologize, I figure I'll do it for him.
Joan, Nohero, you were saying? |
James
Citizen
Username: Gymtagart
Post Number: 50
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 10:11 pm: | |
Not the royal US. Just us. The people who read these boards. That was who you were urging to sign the petition you didn't read, wasn't it. |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3817
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 10:36 pm: | |
I think that, with respect to PILOTS, the reason that merging might help Maplewood folks is that then the PILOT payments would be spread over all taxpayers in both (current) towns in terms of relief of the municipal portion of the tax. Right now they only relieve South Orange's municipal portion. Whether or not that is material enough to justify the study is another matter, but theoretically there should be at least some savings to Maplewood taxpayers (and a corresponding debit to South Orange taxpayers) in that regard.
However, I would hope that the real savings, if there are some to be found, would come from eliminating duplication of services. That is the bigger question. I don't know enough about the proposal to know one way or the other and I'm interested in knowing more. However, so far, I haven't even had the time to read every post in this thread (and I know I should), so I will avoid advancing an opinion one way or the other at this point. |
fredprofeta
Citizen
Username: Fredprofeta
Post Number: 135
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 11:58 pm: | |
Joan:
You ask why the proponents of the ballot initiative did not simply "work to convene a committee comprised of appropriate level representatives of each municipality in the region wishing to participate to meet regularly to explore ways in which we could all benefit from shared servies" if my "aim in all this is to obtain funding for a broader based regionalization study. . . ."
I cannot speak for the motives of all the proponents, but your suggested approach would not efficiently deal with the possibility of merging Maplewood and South Orange. Only the study commission could deal with the possibility of total merger and/or regionalization. The direction chosen allows for all possibilities. The direction chosen also provides the most leverage with the State. Among other things, it demonstrates that the citizens of Maplewood and South Orange are very serious. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 801
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 7:42 am: | |
Thank you, Nohero, for your points about regionalization. It has been ambiguously presented at best. But it appears it is either not possible for the commission to consider, or it would be superfluous to do so. Earlier, it was said other towns could not be included because they would have to have signatures in support of a referendum also, that towns had to do this jointly or not at all. Given that, I just couldn't see what had changed now, how were they going to get around this requirement? It appears they can't. I have to honestly say the main potential (and chimerical) advantage I can see from the standpoint of a South Orange voter is that possible merger with Maplewood may be the only way to purge SO of the incompetence and petty corruption that is ransoming its welfare as we speak. While this is no small consideration, it is a sign of the desperation the town is wallowing in at the moment.
With the State condoning municipal budgets spent before they are adopted or publicized, not requiring any kind of half-way sane municipal budget process or GAAP, it would seem SO is not the only small-time operation in NJ in trouble. So it seems the same effect or desperation might drive many to approve the consolidation studies as an analgesic to more basic problems that need to be addressed but aren't.
This State spends so much time on pointless endeavors, it seems terribly vulnerable to real problems, whether it is terrorist attacks via the Port of Elizabeth or economic or environmental calamity. It is so paralyzed by colloquial ditherings abundantly evident in SO, but probably not limited to it, it takes your breath away. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8355
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 12:17 pm: | |
SOrising:
I cerainly appreciate where you and others from South Orange are coming from in looking to the consolidation study referendum as a means of resolving problems you feel you have with the current administration of government at the municipal level in your town. Unfortunately, these are problems better addressed internally by the South Orange electorate than through a consolidation commission process which is neither intended nor equipped to address the types of problems you are focusing on.
Perhaps you would find more support for the consolidation commission referendum in Maplewood if you could point to some positive reasons why Maplewood taxpayers would benefit from the consolidation of South Orange and Maplewood. I at least need to see some incentive to Maplewood before voting for this proposal.
Nohero:
Thanks for confirming that my interpretation of the legislation, at least in your expert opinion, was correct and regionalization with municipalities other than South Orange would be outside the scope of the consolidation commission study based on the wording of the referendum which will appear on our ballot in November.
Fred:
There you have the major difference in our positions. I have yet to see any advantage to Maplewood taxpayers to support consolidation of South Orange and Maplewood. Therefore the shared services committee approach, including all concerned municipalities in the region makes more sense to me than approving the consolidation coomission referendum.
If the referendum fails in November, do you see a committee of the type i described as being an alternative possibility? |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 706
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 1:37 pm: | |
The "study" commission was and continues to be sold to voters as a necessity for "getting answers" to questions about whether sharing services would produce TAX RELIEF. Quite a hook, eh? But in truth, any analysis of that sort would NOT be done by the study commission. It would be done by an independently hired accountant. You don't need the study commission to do that analysis for the town.
The "study" commission is about setting up a template for consolidating South Orange and Maplewood politically. Stopping political manipulation of the "study" commission is not so simple as voting onto the study commission 2 people against consolidation plus 2 people for consolidation plus one who claims not to have an opinion. That is, in reality, a recipe for a purely political process --- plainly not anything that qualifies as an objective, unbiased study.
Seems to me sincere people have 3 choices:
If you want objective answers to your questions about TAX RELIEF from shared services and you want that done efficiently, vote against the referendum and demand the town hire an accountant to do the work.
If you want a commission to objectively study POLITICALLY consolidating Maplewood and South Orange, vote for the referendum but only vote for people with a proven background in objective analysis and without longtime political ties to Fred Profeta (or the people who lost the last election in South Orange).
If you believe (as I do) that politics belongs out in the open in the political arena, and not hidden behind the false cover of "objective" studies and "polls" and "stakeholder committees" and all the rest of those shams and scams, vote against the referendum and then force the issue of consolidation out into the open in the next local elections. Make the candidates say where they stand on the issue and all its particulars: Do they want a town the size of West Orange? Partisan or non-partisan elections? When do they want another reval? What is it about these PILOTS? Do they want Fred to extend his anti-liberal political machine across the two towns? Everything belongs on the table in a self-governing democracy. Let the voters decide with all the truly relevant information in hand, not some pretense of an elite study group.
It really irks me that the people organizing the petition deliberately waited until after the Maplewood primary to start their hail-mary push so as to avoid having a genuine public dialogue and even referendum on these important issues. Having forsaken candor right at the top of the discussion, I see no reason to trust they're on the level or being upfront about anything. The process needs to be firmly taken out of their hands.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8361
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 8:32 pm: | |
Sac:
As I understand it, PILOTs were used in South Orange as tax incentives, meaning that certain SO properties were exempt from paying some of their real property taxes for the life of the PILOT agreement. The remaining taxpayers in SO would thus have to pick up the portion of the taxes not being paid by the holders of these PILOTs. Thus were Maplewood to consolidate with South Orange, Maplewood taxpayers would assume the additional burden of paying our share of the taxes not being paid by the PILOTs.
How do you see this as a means of reducing Maplewood taxepayers real property taxes under consolidation? |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3826
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 9:23 pm: | |
What I understood, and I'm sure that I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, was that the payments in lieu of taxes went into municipal coffers and, as a result, were used to reduce the municipal portion of the property tax in South Orange for those residents who were not exempt. There was nothing to provide relief to Maplewood since it wasn't the school portion being reduced ... only the municipal piece. (I.e. the payments went to the municipality ... there was no payment in lieu of taxes to the school district, even though the properties became exempt from the school tax as well as the municipal tax.) Since there are two municipalities involved in our school district, having one of those municipalities with many more PILOTs than the other resulted in some apparent unfairness. This wouldn't be an issue if both towns had a similar amount of their tax base PILOTed. If the two towns were consolidated, presumably the reduction would then apply to the combined municipal tax portion across the entire community. But, as I noted, this is not really a reduction ... just a redistribution (a bit like the effect of a reval, actually), so not a good justification for the commission in and of itself. And, I'm not sure how much reduction it really is, if any, since the PILOT payments essentially replace tax payments by those properties. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 9:59 pm: | |
Joan,
When I wrote of the percentages that M'wood and SO residents pay of the combined residential local tax levy, I was not referring to the two towns' differing tax rates. Rather if one looks at the combined tax levy, about $95, million, M'wood pays about 57% of the levy and SO pays about 43%.
Whatever savings could be realized through consolidation, applying the above percentages to the reduced combined levy would result in savings to the average household in each of the towns.
I concede that the above methodology is simplistic, but until somebody can come up with a method for equalization of the tax rates based upon reasonably accurate (if estimated) assessed values, it provides a place to start. As I wrote above, it would seem that this equalization method is one of the matters which the Department of Community Affairs would be providing.
The numbers I've been looking at come from the Star Ledger's web site:http://www.nj.com/news/propertytaxes/
Concrete evidence? I don't have it. I don't imagine anybody does. But if the figures being tossed about regarding the expense to the Township's homeowners for the Study Commission are anywhere near accurate, the cost for the average homeowner will be less than $4.00. If the realizable savings are minimal, or even non-existent, isn't a $4.00, investment worthwhile to find out? The Study Commission costs would be a one time charge. Any savings would be recurring.
Your objection to the limited scope of the Study Commission is reasonable, but I believe our Mayor has addressed that point. I would only add that whatever the authorization for the Commission, once empaneled, the Commissioners will decide what is an appropriate matter for their consideration. (Remember those wacky smart dead guys who got together in 1787 to tweak the Articles of Confederation).
Trenton might balk at a request for funds to explore matters outside the language of the Municipal Consolidation Act, but if the Commissioners want to take a look, I don't see a reason why they can't.
Personally, I wish somebody had made a effort to make an inquiry of a broader scale. But nobody did. (That includes me).
The two towns' governments also haven't made any significant progress on shared services and resulting cost reductions.
The Committee members took the initiative to get the ball rolling with such resources as were available. The authorizing statutes require some degree of cooperation between municipalities. The Committee members found that willingness to cooperate in our two towns.
Here we are.
We can take a look at whether there might be a positive outcome to the Study, or we can continue to wait. Different people will have differing opinions on which is the better course of action. We'll all find out which is the prevailing viewpoint the evening of November 7.
In my opinion, not having all the answers to all the questions, is not a good enough reason to dismiss the Study Commission idea.
You write that you have data suggesting that Maplewood residents could reasonably expect to see an increase in their real property taxes if a consolidation with South Orange were to take place. I would be eager to review the data. Please post it here or send it to me via a private message.
When I first looked at the data from the Star Ledger site, I did view it wearing the blinders that my initial reaction made me wear. Someone pointed out a different way to look at the data. The Commissioners may have a different way of utilizing the data. I'd like to hear the alternatives.
With regard to the SO PILOTs, I might be wrong, but I thought that the PILOTs resulted in a net decrease to SO residents in the municipal and County portions of their local tax levy. It is also my understanding that the PILOTs did not provide for contributions to the School District, thus having the effect of increasing the School District levy to all residents of the School District. I might be recalling this incorrectly, so if somebody knows better than I, please don’t hesitate to jump in.
As an aside, to which PILOT agreements is Maplewood a party?
Thanks for thinking, and writing, about the issues presented by the referendum. Whether or not someone agrees with your position, they can not call it an unreasoned position.
TomR |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 10:05 pm: | |
Sorry about that.
TomR |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 471
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 11:10 pm: | |
Sac is right about PILOTs. Under state law, such projects pay reduced property taxes for a period of years as an incentive to development. In a combined school district like ours, if one town implements a PILOT project, the property in question pays little or no school tax for several years (the formula and options are complex). Hence, all other property tax payers, in both towns, must make up the difference.
The actual percentage impact is very small, since only a handful of development properties are subject to PILOTs, while all the thousands of other properties continue to pay their full share. Still, in a combined school district, a PILOT project allows one town to unilaterally shift a small amount of tax burden to the other town.
South Orange has implemented PILOT developments; Maplewood has not.
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 803
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 12:20 am: | |
Joan, you misread my last post. Presently, I am agnostic about whether there should be a study commission, still trying to make up my mind, not an advocate for it. It appears to me that it will probably happen and that little new information will be gained from it. On the other hand, given the herd movement to form these commissions, SO and Maplewood could be hurt if they stand still. What I regret is that so much time, energy and money will be spent on it rather than on more fundamental problems gripping the State. |
|
