| Author | Message | ||
     andream Citizen Username: Andream Post Number: 87 Registered: 9-2002 |
Fellow taxpayers, There has been a grass roots effort by a group of South Orange and Maplewood taxpayers seeking to have a study commission formed that will look at the advisability of sharing services between South Orange and Maplewood or the consolidation of the two towns. In order to have a study commission question on the ballot of the November 2006 election, we need 800 signatures of Maplewood registered voters and 600 signatures of South Orange registered voters by the end of August. Those of you who are interested in supporting the effort for a study commission should go to the web site of the South Orange Maplewood Concerned Taxpayers (SOMACT) where you can download a petition, sign it and mail it in. (www.SOMastudy.org) We need original signatures. Any additional signatures of friends and neighbors will help us meet our goal. You can also email your friends and neighbors urging them to sign and send in petitions. Time is very limited, requiring immediate action. The petition does not take a position on the sharing of services or consolidation, but merely seeks the establishment of a study commission. If we get the required number of signatures, the voters will decide in the November 2006 election whether the joint study commission will be formed. As one of the most tax stressed communities in New Jersey, I strongly support this effort to obtain a study of possible tax savings. Andrea Marino | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8004 Registered: 5-2001 |
Andrea: Could you please give us a summary of areas in which Maplewood and South Orange are already sharing services and other forms of operation and the plans which have already been made and are currently being studied by the BOT and TC without the pressure of a special commission so we can see what progress is already being made in this area and then give us a brief summary of additional areas in which it would be feasible for the two towns to share services not already covered? This could give us some idea of what a commission of the sort you advocate could accomplish if it were to be created. As a taxpayer, I would also be interested in knowing what such a commission would be expected to cost the taxpayers of our two towns (staffing, administrative support, space, materials and equipment, financial support from each town, consultant services, staff time of town/village employees taken up by this project, etc.) and what the maximum net gain of such a study (if any) would be reasonably expected to come from such an undertaking. This information would help us to determine whether such a commission could be expected to accomplish anything worthwhile. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 5402 Registered: 9-2001  |
"In order to have a study commission question on the ballot of the November 2006 election, we need 800 signatures of Maplewood registered voters and 600 signatures of South Orange registered voters by the end of August." Dear Andream, I believe Joan has asked some very valid questions for you to answer before we go off on getting yet another petition. Officials from Maplewood and South Orange, including officials from several other towns have been meeting for some time now on a fairly regular basis. IMHO, we need more action and less study commissions. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1229 Registered: 6-2001 |
Just thinking out loud here in Maplewood. While some economies of scale might be achievable with the re-consolidation of the two towns; I gotta wonder which of the two towns' residents would realize the savings. Would the typical tax bill in South Orange go down? Would the typical tax bill in Maplewood go up? Would both scenarios occur? Of course, a consolidation of the two towns would benefit Maplewood to the extent that South Orange would no longer be able to remove properties from the School District's tax rolls. But I'm not sure that is enough of a benefit. I think that the answers to the above queries and concern are available now, and should be addressed by SOMACT before this petition drive goes any further. But, as I wrote, that just one man thinking out loud in Maplewood. TomR P.s.. I make no comment on the concept of sharing services at this point in time. I'm still ruminating about the possible impact on the residents of the two towns. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 5405 Registered: 9-2001 |
...thanks TomR. That's good food for thought. IMHO, if there is going to be savings, it needs to be of benefit to both communities, or what's the point? | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2931 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ask as many questions as you want, pontificate all you want, just sign the petition folks. Joan, a lot of your questions are answered right in the link supplied by andream above. Here's an excerpt: "What is the purpose of the petition? To include a consolidation study commission question on the November 2006 ballot. What is the purpose of the study commission? To determine the advisability of sharing certain municipal services or consolidating towns. Can the study commission merge South Orange and Maplewood? No. A recommendation for consolidation by the study commission would have to be approved by a majority of the voters in both South Orange and Maplewood in the November 2007 election. What are the possible benefits of shared services or consolidation? · Reduced municipal operating costs and tax savings. · Greater ability to participate in activities across town borders. · Enhanced or expanded services. · Greater purchasing power through improved economies of scale. What will the study cost? · Governor Corzine favors using millions of dollars from the recent sales tax increase to encourage towns to consider consolidation of services. · The state is required to prepare an objective study of the financial impact of a consolidation at it’s own expense. · The study's cost to each town is expected to be nominal. " [emphasis supplied] | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1231 Registered: 6-2001 |
Wendy, Whether the taxpayers of South Orange and Maplewood, or the taxpayers of the State pay for the costs of the study; there are costs to be borne. I'd rather that SOMACT do a preliminary study to adress the issues I raised above, before going forward with a ballot initiative. I can't help thinking about the "Green Acres Fund" which both of the two towns approved. Some residents of South Orange are quite up in arms in response to the possible impact that the reval will have on the taxes collected for their "Green Acres Fund". It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now may have a substantial impact on the residents' tax bills. Unintended and/or unforseen consequenses. (Although I think the consequences were, and are, quite forseeable.) TomR | ||
| andream Citizen Username: Andream Post Number: 88 Registered: 9-2002 |
Yes, Joan, ajc and TomR, I encourage you to go to the web site, www.SOMastudy.org. TomR, I see no risk that a town would approve an arrangement that actually raised its taxes. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2932 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR, As andream and the website says: "The petition does not take a position on the sharing of services or consolidation, but merely seeks the establishment of a study commission. If we get the required number of signatures, the voters will decide in the November 2006 election whether the joint study commission will be formed." You raise some good points TomR. I see absolutely no harm in a study to address these points. I'm printing out the petition as we speak. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 5410 Registered: 9-2001 |
"...the voters will decide in the November 2006 election whether the joint study commission will be formed." I'm sorry, but studies just plain suck! If we're going to take the time get petitions, and to study it, and then hopefully come to some decisions, the commission will also need the authority to act on it. That’s what state approved commissions should normally have the authority to do. I highly doubt either governing body will allow that to happen. Just bringing the results of yet another study to the powers that be is a big waste of time and money. There are already all kinds of plans from around the nation on consolidation of municipal services. Why do we need to recreate the wheel? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8008 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wendy: I have read your's and Andrea's posts on this thread and the material on the link Andrea provides. I still don't see an answer to either of my basic questions: 1. What would the proposed commission achieve that the present ongoing discussions between the BOT and the TC have not? 2. What would be the cost of such a study? (Expecting that the study would be funded by sales tax dollars is not an answer. Most of us would much rather see any such money spent on reducing our taxes now rather than on more studies) To these questions, I would add two more questions: 3. Approximately how long is it estimated the proposed study by this proposed commission would take if and when such a commission was approved by the electorate? 4. What would be the obligation, if any, of either town to act on recommendations/ detrerminations made by such a commission? If the answer is that such a commission is advisory only, couldn't persons interested in shared services simply make suggestions to their local governing body now (as CBAC members in both towns have been doing for some time)? If the answer is that the commission would have the authority to mandate shared services in certain areas wouldn't this usurp the authority of our elected officials? I for one would like a few more facts (as opposed to rhetoric) before committing to your proposal and I would suggest that others do likewise. TomR: Are you suggesting that we need a study to determine if a study is needed? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2942 Registered: 6-2002 |
We ought to study that. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1232 Registered: 6-2001 |
Andrea, You see no risk that a town would approve an arrangement that would raise its taxes. I see no chance that one of the two towns will not be asked to bear a larger proportionate share of the combined towns' revenue demands than they do now with separate municipal governments. SOMACT is proposing that somebody's money be spent to conduct a study. For this one man, it doesn't matter much whether it’s the tax dollars of the SOM residents, or the money of New Jersey residents. If somebody wants my support, I think that it is incumbent upon them to convince me that further consideration of any given proposal is warranted. That information is lacking on SOMACT's web site (which I reviewed a few days ago, and again this afternoon). If the SOMACT membership believe that the consolidation benefits will outweigh the burden to whichever of the two towns, I think it is incumbent upon them to provide some data supporting such belief; or at the least, to provide information from which one can conclude that their stated mission will bear fruit. At the moment, I'm being asked to ask somebody to write checks so we can inquire whether a nebulous proposal might save somebody some money. A little bit too vague for my tastes. Both the Township and the Village have looked at shared services as a cost saving measure in the past. Its my present understanding that none of those look-sees have, to date, yielded any viable suggestions for such cost savings. A new set of eyes (a Commission) might find savings that our presently elected officials could not achieve, but I require more than "we'd like to take a look" before I sign on to a proposal that is going to cost somebody some dollars. Give me a preliminary projection as to that which the Commission expects to be able to accomplish. If the Commission report varies from that preliminary projection; well that kind of thing happens. I can live with it. But, as I wrote above, at this point, all I'm reading is that "I'm being asked to ask somebody to write checks so we can inquire whether a nebulous proposal might save somebody some money". TomR | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1233 Registered: 6-2001 |
Joan, No! I do suggest that the members of SOMACT have the same information available to them as I do. I can't help but seeing a two towns re-consolidation as being a tax burden shifting exercise rather than a tax reduction exercise. I could be wrong, but as I wrote above, to get my signature, I'm going to need more that "we'd like to take a look". When I asked for fellowship money, I had to tell the purse-string holders where I hoped to go. They wouldn't write checks for "I have this idea". TomR | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4546 Registered: 5-2001  |
Joan, Keep in mind the goal here is simply to have a STUDY. I will try to answer some of your questions: 1. What would the proposed commission achieve that the present ongoing discussions between the BOT and the TC have not? The "ongoing discussions" did agree last October to form a commission to have a study. However, nothing was actually DONE. The objective here is to put the power into the hands of the public. 2. What would be the cost of such a study? (Expecting that the study would be funded by sales tax dollars is not an answer. Most of us would much rather see any such money spent on reducing our taxes now rather than on more studies) Specific dollar amounts should be available soon. Right now, the understanding as given by Corzine's office is that this study would largely be paid for by the state. Personally, I wouldn't expect a Municipal expediture of more than $10-$20,000 - but I am waiting to hear a REAL number To these questions, I would add two more questions: 3. Approximately how long is it estimated the proposed study by this proposed commission would take if and when such a commission was approved by the electorate? The study MUST be completed in 10 months 4. What would be the obligation, if any, of either town to act on recommendations/ detrerminations made by such a commission? If the answer is that such a commission is advisory only, couldn't persons interested in shared services simply make suggestions to their local governing body now (as CBAC members in both towns have been doing for some time)? If the answer is that the commission would have the authority to mandate shared services in certain areas wouldn't this usurp the authority of our elected officials? I suggest you read the actual state Statute online http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/ (starting at 40:43-66.40). Click on Statutes on the left side of the page because alot of the detail is spelled out. I will try to answer more questions as they arise. Please understand, the issue is FIRST to get enough signatures to just put this on the ballot. By the time of the November election, we hope to have much more concrete information to answer your questions, so people can make an informed decision to vote. At that point, all an affirmative vote would do is initiate a STUDY. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4547 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR, I appreciate your skepticism and concern. Right now we are just trying to get enough signatures to put this on the ballot. If, come November, sufficient answers are not provided, you certainly have the right (and obligation) to vote "no". However, if we don't even get this on the ballot, NOTHING will continue to happen. Watch the following video clip when Jeff Dubowy asked the South Orange Trustees for an update on this issue and help me understand what they said.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEuKXSRk4FE | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2934 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bingo MHD. This thread is the first I'm hearing about the study. Although I am mailing my petition in tomorrow, I'll be voting "no" in November if certain questions are not answered to my satisfaction. But that's November. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1234 Registered: 6-2001 |
Wendy, If you have no questions now, by all means sign the petition. But if you have any questions regarding the necessity, or propriety, of shelling out the $$$ for this study; wouldn't you rather the questions were answered before you sign on the dotted line. Mayhewdrive, Don't you live in South Orange? TomR | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4549 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR, Yes, I do. However, I am involved in the SOMACT group & thought I could help answer some questions since I am on MOL probably more frequently than Andrea. Just trying to help. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1235 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mayhewdrive, Then I hope you won't mind if I join in the discussion at South Orange Specific. Its good that you bring matters requiring our attention to the notice of the electorate of MOL. I rarely venture to express an opinion at SOS. I'll reassess my reluctance. As long as you're here, how say you to the idea of spending tax dollars on a, thusfar, very nebulous idea? Does it matter to you who's writing the checks? TomR | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4550 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hey Tom, I thought the topic here was MOSTLY Maplewood. Certainly, I am concerned about the COST of the study. In my opinion, if a COST is not given before people vote in November they should not support this. Putting this on the ballot, however, costs NOTHING. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1238 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mayhewdrive, I've posed several questions, none of which have had a response. As I wrote earlier, the Committee members have the same information available as I do. Does the Committee anticipate that the tax bill for South Orange residents will go up or down upon consolidation? Does the Committee anticipate that the tax bill for Maplewood residents will go up or down upon consolidation? Does it make a difference to the Committee whether the taxpayers of MSO, or the taxpayers of the State foot the bill for the study? And you totally blew off Joan's query insofar as what the anticipated cost would be, to wit: Q. "What would be the cost of such a study? (Expecting that the study would be funded by sales tax dollars is not an answer. Most of us would much rather see any such money spent on reducing our taxes now rather than on more studies)" A. "Specific dollar amounts should be available soon. Right now, the understanding as given by Corzine's office is that this study would largely be paid for by the state. Personally, I wouldn't expect a Municipal expediture of more than $10-$20,000 - but I am waiting to hear a REAL number" Was there an answer to the question in your response? I don't see it. You're involved in the SOMACT group. What are the answers to the forgoing queries? If the Committee has no idea of the direction in which they are heading, I think that the Committee should say so. Lastly as you note, this section is MOSTLY Maplewood, whilst the other section to which I made reference is South Orange Specific. I shall continue to ponder whether my opinions, and/or comments, will be welcome in that section. Be well, do good, answer the questions. TomR | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4551 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom, I get the impression that your mind is already made up, but I will indulge you and try to answer your questions. Please note that I am simply a regular taxpayer that is trying to help out an effort that I think MAY be beneficial to our towns. I have no other agenda & am not trying to provide anything other than whatever information I have. Does the Committee anticipate that the tax bill for South Orange residents will go up or down upon consolidation? Personally, I HOPE the tax bill will go down, but until a study is done to see what areas of services could result in savings nobody can say. Does the Committee anticipate that the tax bill for Maplewood residents will go up or down upon consolidation? Personally, I HOPE the tax bill will go down, but until a study is done to see what areas of services could result in savings nobody can say. Does it make a difference to the Committee whether the taxpayers of MSO, or the taxpayers of the State foot the bill for the study? I am not sure I understand the point of the question, but I personally would prefer that the taxpayers of MSO do not foot the bill for the study And you totally blew off Joan's query insofar as what the anticipated cost would be, to wit: Q. "What would be the cost of such a study? (Expecting that the study would be funded by sales tax dollars is not an answer. Most of us would much rather see any such money spent on reducing our taxes now rather than on more studies)" I believe I already stated that I do not know the cost of the study TODAY, but I anticipate having real information soon and certainly by the time a vote would occur in November Please let me know if you have other questions. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1239 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mayhewdrive, My mind is not at all made up at this point. I am concerned about (amongst other things) the timing of this balot initiative. The Committee seeks to have the authorization for the Commission on the ballot this November. If a benevolent God smiles upon us, we'll get a 20% to 25% turnout of registered voters. (I won't comment upon the eligible but unregistered people in the two towns). IF the ballot initiative is sucessful, and IF the Commission recomends a further ballot initiative, it will go for voter approval in November '07. Certainly an election cycle in which we can expect a huge voter turnout. (He wrote sarcasticly). I, for one, find the timing curious. I also find it curious that only one of the four members of the Committee is from Maplewood. Maplewood has a larger population than South Orange. Maplewood has more homeowners than South Orange. South Orange has a higher per capita tax than Maplewood. South Orange has a higher per household tax than Maplewood. Why is Andrea only one of the four members of the Committee? While I do not doubt the integrity, or sincerity, of any of Howard, Jeff, Michael or Andrea; I do have to wonder whence the motivation for the Committee's efforts comes? Each of the four Committee members have the same information as I regarding the apportionment of the tax burden of the two towns. I've looked at the numbers a few times and just can't see an agreeable redistribution of the burden unless one town or the other decides that they want to bite the bullit, and save money in the two towns' total expenditures, if possible. If you, or Andrea, would care to have a cup of coffee and address my concerns, let me know. I'd would welcome an open exchange of information and ideas. I just don't like the prospect of this initiative winding up in the lap of a disinterested electorate, who focus (or don't) only upon the possibility of a nebulous vision of tax relief. I don't like the prospect of funding a study, whether through a local property tax, or a State wide tax, that is not likely to lead us anywhere productive. You've taken it upon yourself to speak for the Committee in this forum. Answer the questions. Here, or over a cup. My mind is open. Convince me. Good night. I'll be back. TomR P.s.. If you, or anybody else, responds by a private message, mkae the subject line "Coffee". | ||
| algebra2 Supporter Username: Algebra2 Post Number: 4192 Registered: 5-2001  |
Is AndreaM the same Andrea who campaign managed the BOE election and is on the re-election committee forr Pettis and Leventhal? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4552 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hi Tom, I sent you a Privateline. | ||
| andream Citizen Username: Andream Post Number: 89 Registered: 9-2002 |
algebra2, This year I managed the campaign for BOE of Wayne Eastman, and was on the re-election committee for Pettis/Leventhal. I am also a member of the Maplewood Pool Advisory Committee and the Board of the Columbia High School Home and School Association, and have volunteered in many capacities over the years for the district schools. As we know, our community's tax burden detracts from the desirability of our towns, which is why I support this grass roots effort. With the current pressure from the state level, I expect that a number of communities will pursue a consolidation study. I have heard that Montclair and West Orange are talking, but I don't know for sure if that is true. TomR, I would love to have a cup of coffee, but we have 800 signatures to get from Maplewood by the end of the month and time is tight. After that, I'm willing! Andrea Marino | ||
| algebra2 Supporter Username: Algebra2 Post Number: 4193 Registered: 5-2001 |
Interesting timing. Just what we need, more referenda where we can raise our own taxes. That way politicians seeking re-election can claim not to raise taxes and take credit for supporting a study. | ||
| shestheone Citizen Username: Shestheone Post Number: 309 Registered: 5-2003 |
Because of the upcoming election? | ||
| Tea Kettle Citizen Username: Teacup Post Number: 17 Registered: 7-2006  |
I would like to get a petition together to form a study comission to study the validity of studies. The goal would be to produce a study regarding the cost / benefits of studies. The commission will be made up in half by stakeholders who believe that studies are invaluable and any cost is offset by the supposed "benefit" of obsure, useless knowledge. The other half would be the types that can be called "bull in china shops" that believe that action first, then consideration, is the best route. The commission will spend 80% of the time fighting over the basic premises and study design. The remaining 20% will be the two factions meeting separately to form their own findings. Once the public gets antsy wondering why the report has yet to surface, the two sides will try their best of combine their separate reports. The final report will conclude that studies, sometimes, but not always, provide us with information. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2944 Registered: 6-2002 |
Seems to me that this idea is going over like a lead balloon, at least as far as MOL posters are concerned. We have a TC and a BOT. Why can't they study the issue and come up with ideas? If citizen input is needed by can't the Governing Bodies or the Mayors appoint a Joint Committee? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8015 Registered: 5-2001 |
Anon: Exactly! MHD and TomR: Your posts raise an additional question. If the proposed commission were to be approved by the electorate and were to recommend consolidation as opposed to increase in shared services, what is the expected cost to the tax payers of both towns in consolidation itself? From what I have read in the past, the cost of such a consolidation could be quite expensive. An additional question: Is the scope of the proposed commission restricted to shared services and or consolidation between Maplewood and South Orange only, or would the Commission also be looking into ways in which we could fiscally benefit by sharing services and/or consolidating with other towns in our region, some of which are already our partners when it comes to sharing certain services? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8018 Registered: 5-2001 |
I would be much more willing to support a study that had a chance of bringing about some real cash savings such as a proposal to form a single municipality comprised of all of the towns in Suburban Essex County. South Orange and Maplewood are both too small and to heavily invested in residential ratables for shared services or consolidation liminted to our two towns to amount to much in the way of real property tax relief. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2945 Registered: 6-2002 |
I would be much more willing to support a study that had a chance of bringing about some real cash savings such as a proposal to form a single municipality comprised of all of the towns in Suburban Essex County. That is because you are a visionary. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2678 Registered: 3-2003 |
"South Orange and Maplewood are both too small and to heavily invested in residential ratables for shared services or consolidation liminted to our two towns to amount to much in the way of real property tax relief." Joan, you very well may be right. I have, thus far, leaned toward that assumption myself. But as no one has studied the matter independently, how can you know for sure? Besides, 1) both towns may eventually shift to a less residential rateable base (well, one can hope), and 2) a consolidated SO-MA could pave the way for more efficient service consolidation with neighboring towns. "We have a TC and a BOT. Why can't they study the issue and come up with ideas? If citizen input is needed by can't the Governing Bodies or the Mayors appoint a Joint Committee?" Anon, good question. Here's my take... I should preface by saying that I've been a member of the South Orange CBAC for several years. Last year we encouraged our town's trustees to look at the possibility of sharing services with Maplewood. Both SO's trustees and Maplewood's TC did subsequently look into the matter. The SOCBAC was not privvy to their discussions, but from what we've been told, each town saw in shared services at least some areas of potential self-interest. However, no one has since made a decision to act in any comprehensive way, and my impression is that the question of town-wide consolidation was never seriously considered. It may be that there was no point in pressing these issues much further; as Joan suggests, there may be too little potential for savings to bother. But it's also possible that reticence on the part of both towns' public officials is at least partly political, not economic. If you consider that service or town consolidation would result in the contraction of at least some departments, along with some inevitable sturm and drang from the public (which tends to become informed or misinformed about these things only at the last minute), and perhaps losses of political influence, the reluctance of local governments to embark upon such decisions becomes understandable. I doubt our towns are alone in this--which is exactly why Gov. Corzine is pressing for, and funding, these studies for public referenda. By allowing all citizens a chance to step around the intervention of politics and make an informed decision (informed, by the way, by a professional consultant to the commission, which I think is the only cost factor in these studies), the people will be able to decide for themselves whether they prefer the status quo or would rather take a chance on creating service economies of scale. It is, of course, not impossible that the process of electing commissioners and developing the study could become politicized anyway. But at every step, voters are the ones who would decide what transpired: First, in that we all will have a vote as to whether a joint service/consolidation study takes place at all; second, in that we all will vote to determine exactly who will sit on the study commission; and third, because once a commission makes its report we all will have the opportunity to vote to approve any proposal it comes up with--or shoot it down. I am presently considering throwing my hat into the ring to serve as a commissioner. I hope both you, Joan, and you, Anon, will consider doing the same. You've both lived in these towns a long time, you're both skeptical and pragmatic, and if I decide not to run after all it would be nice to know that intelligent and sensible people will be in on the process. Meanwhile: please sign the petition and tell others about it. Get the word out, discuss these matters with everyone you know, and encourage all your friends to decide for themselves what the next step should be, each step of the way. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1241 Registered: 6-2001 |
Joan, Whatever the one-time costs of consolidation, that would be a matter worthy of consideration if the Committee can get past the 7.5% reduction in municipal and school spending necessary to make this proposal palatable, let alone, acceptable. Another cost of consolidation which should be considered is the town wide reval which would be required. (I would think a reval would be necessary). Maplewood is due for a reval. So ist das leben. Will South Orange be eager for another reval falling so quickly upon the heels of its presently scheduled reval? Could get real interesting. As to the scope of the proposal, I think its pretty clear that consolidation of municipalities is only being proposed as to S.O. and M'wood. But IF the Commissioners ever sit, HEY! they can recommend whatever they deem appropriate. Shared services, always a good thing to explore. I just don't want to tell the Commissioners they have a blank check for the exploration. And I don't care if its MSO residents who have to honor the check or the residents of the State. You earlier asked a simple question; i.e., what's it going to cost? Mayhew doesn't know. That's a fair response. Andrea has chosen not to respond, as have none of the other five Committee members. (Yes the Committee is growing). The Committee members have to have some idea where they are going. Which experts or staff do they envision the Commission will require? Why are they all silent? If the Committee has no idea where its going, why would anybody sign the petition? As I wrote earlier, a proposal doesn't have to result in a report which supports the basis for the proposal. But I would like to hear the basis for the proposal. Where MIGHT the $7+ million in savings appear. The School District is already the domain of the two towns. I have to assume that the $7+ million is going to come from savings on the combined municipal budget. Give me some idea of where savings of such magnitude can be achieved. TomR P.s. Those numbers I've ben throwing about: that 7.5% and the $7+ million are based on projections from the residential 2005 tax levy, and only account for a breakeven for the average Maplewood homeowner, which allows for a $1600.00+ saving for the average South Orange homeowner. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1242 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jcrohn, You urge us to sign a petition for which no explanation is being provided as to the necessity or desirability of a consolidation. There are many things which I do not understand. When I don't understand something, I ask questions. I've asked questions here, and have asked two Committee members on the South Orange Specific forum to address those questions. Think about it. Meanwhile: please don't sign the petition and tell others not to sign it until we get some basic information. Get the word out, discuss these matters with everyone you know, and encourage all your friends to decide for themselves what the next step should be, each step of the way. TomR | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1243 Registered: 6-2001 |
Hey! It just occurred to me. (insert light bulb icon here). There are four people in this thread advocating the adoption of the Commission proposal. Andrea is, i presume, a Maplewood resident. Two of the others are South Orange residents. Wendy, whence come thou? TomR | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 632 Registered: 2-2006 |
I am a SO resident and agree with Joan that the study needs to be broader, to look at several suburban towns in Essex. If economies of scale are an issue, the combined population of SO & Mplwd would still yield a fairly tiny populace of 34,000 or so. Once the basic question of whether there should be a study or not is answered, another is which towns should be included in the study. If SO or Mplwd wanted to look at shared or consolidated services later with W Orange or Montclair, for example, another, separate, additional study for that would probably be more expensive (if still possible at all) than doing them all at once. What if either SO or Mplwd wanted to share/consolidate services but the other didn't? What other options would it have then if W. Orange or Montclair had already started talking to one another or any other town that might make it harder for SO or Mplwd to be considered? When I asked someone on the SOMACT committee these kinds of questions, he only said that SO/MPLWD were a "good fit". If so, why haven't the respective governments already accomplished more shared services then? I have heard that the personnel structure of each town (one has a civil service system the other doesn't, union contracts, etc.) are not particularly a good fit and present major obstacles to progress thus far. So, other than the schools, geography and history, all of which suggest a study would be good, I don't see compelling reasons to limit it to two very small towns that might have a hard time surviving if W. Orange, Montclair and E. Orange combined (they are talking now) and Millburn/Livingston/SH did, especially if it turned out if either SO or Mplwd wanted to go its own way indefinitely. Would it be possible that SO/Mplwd, if they did not act deftly and wisely would need to share/consolidate services with Newark? | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8020 Registered: 5-2001 |
TomR: Wendy lives in Maplewood. JCrohn: I am not totally opposed to the concept of exploring ways in which we can share and/or consolidate services -- in fact I would strongly support such an effort if I thought it were being done in such a way that we could see a real improvement in the efficiency and economy of government at the municipal level. However, I need to see a more carefully thought out and presented prospectus before advocating signing this petition. Here is another idea: Should we consider merging our school district with at least one nearby Abbott district? If we were to do this wouldn't our resulting consolidated school district result in our receiving substantially greater aid to education than we do now? Isn't this where the greatest potential for real property tax savings can be found at the moment? |
