| Author | Message | ||
     Kathy Leventhal Citizen Username: Kml Post Number: 46 Registered: 9-2001 |
On Election Day, November 8th, there will be a question asked of Maplewood voters pertaining to the establishment of a Municipal Open Space and Recreation Trust Fund. The question will be on the ballot to give our voters the choice of deciding whether or not you want funding set aside to be used specifically for open space in Maplewood. According to NJ Statute, the question of whether or not to start a fund for the purposes of acquiring, developing or maintaining land for recreation, conservation, or for open space is voted upon by town residents. Money raised by the Trust Fund would be used only for the purposes of the Trust Fund. The rate of the special tax would be one cent ($.01) per $100 of assessed property value. For example, the owner of property assessed at the average Maplewood assessment of about $250,000 would contribute $25 each year to the fund. In total, the fund would generate about $210,000 each year. The use of Open Space Trust Funds is a common mechanism used to dedicate money to the purposes mentioned above. In addition to Essex County, the following towns are among those with Open Space Trust Funds: South Orange, West Orange, Livingston, Bloomfield, and Madison. South Orange used these funds, for example to build a tot playground. Most likely uses in Maplewood would be for field maintenance and rehabilitation. Many people know that the condition of our recreation fields is not at the level we want them. Yet, in the ordinary course of budget development, there is not enough money to refurbish our fields as needed. It all comes down to what you as voters want to do. The Township Committee can continue to allocate some of your regular tax payments to open space improvement. Or, you as voters can in effect guarantee the improvements in the future by voting for the Trust Fund. It’s up to you to consider an added tax compared to increasing the quality of our open space. As we planned, you will soon be able to receive this information on the town website http://twp.maplewood.nj.us/ in the News-Record and through other ways we are working on to get this important communication out. Thank you. Kathy Leventhal Maplewood Township Committee | ||
| algebra2 Supporter Username: Algebra2 Post Number: 3873 Registered: 5-2001  |
Thanks Kathy Levanthal. I'm a little unclear still about the referendum. I'll start here: "the fund would generate about $210,000 each year." So this new tax will not be a one-time deal? | ||
| Kathy Leventhal Citizen Username: Kml Post Number: 47 Registered: 9-2001 |
Algebra, The tax would be annual - thereby, assuring improvement of our recreation and open spaces over time. As an example, the costs of improving and maintaining our fields at a high quality is an expense the regular budget is not able to cover each year. Hope this helps. Kathy | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 261 Registered: 1-2004 |
"...a fund for the purposes of acquiring, developing or maintaining land for recreation, conservation, or for open space" So which is it, acquiring, developing or maintaining? And are we talking rec, conservation or open space? Specifics are needed. The bushes that were planted in Memorial Park are all half dead and/or choked with weeds. The money spent has been wasted. There was no follow through. Would $210000 guarantee that there would be follow up and regular maintenance for new projects or would it be more of just the "spend" mentality? There's gotta be a laid out plan for this money before I ever even consider voting "yes" to higher taxes. Oh, and thanks for posting this info Kathy. I look forward to your (or any other TC member) responses. | ||
| algebra2 Supporter Username: Algebra2 Post Number: 3874 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathy, I don't understand why this separate tax needs to be levied when upkeep and mainatinence of our parks and open spaces are already itemized in the township budget. What is the annual budget for the upkeep of our parks? Please answer this question. Why isn't there enough money in the budget to maintain our parks currently? Is this a fund that groups can lobby for - i.e. skate park people want $20,000, dog run people $10,000, soccer field turf $600,000, etc? How does the referendum read? Can you PLEASE post it here? Is this fund for capital expenses only or does it allow the township to cover overtime expenses for example? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 9430 Registered: 5-2001 |
Kathy, I will join in thanking you for your posting. Possibly the wording of the referendum can be posted on the Township website? I think the issue is that things like landscaping and maintaining sports fields often gets short changed in the budget because of the restraints we live with. Having had kids play sports on the fields here and also in other towns, to be honest, our fields are often an embarassment. We Ks, all four of us, are going to vote yes on the referendum. Nobody complains more about taxes and tax assessments than yours truly, but a penny per 1,000 of assessed value isn't going to break the piggybank. | ||
| jet Citizen Username: Jet Post Number: 922 Registered: 7-2001 |
I pay enough in taxes allready , many tell me amonst the highest in the nation. So with that in mind among my first priority is that our parks & open spaces be keep in pristine condition with what we have allready. Also I really don't know of any open space to aquire. The last piece that was "open " was aquired by our Fire Dept. Chief. If somthing like this passes , I can just see the lite bulb go off over the BOE to put forth a "question" of just $.01 per $100.00 for "special" improvements not covered by the 50 something % we allready pay. So I will vote NO. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 9662 Registered: 1-2003  |
If, at the rate of one cent for every assessed dollar of property, you expect to raise $210,000, that means that the total of all assessed property value in the town is $21 million. That can't be right. Could you please clarify that? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 9433 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom, my bad, I should have type .01 (or one mil) cents per $100. | ||
| mrmaplewood Citizen Username: Mrmaplewood Post Number: 250 Registered: 5-2001 |
Good. A seperate kitty to fund park maintenance. What's next? A seperate kitty to fund street lighting. A seperate kitty to fund gasoline for town vehicles. A seperate kitty to fund new hoses for the fire department. A seperate kitty to fund new brooms and shovels for the DPW. Once we have all the required seperate kitties established we can suspend the regular property tax collection. Kathy, don't you think the taxes we already pay should cover proper maintenance? | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 262 Registered: 1-2004 |
If the current budget cannot cover proper maintenance, then maybe we ought to look to places to cut back.. Oh! I can think of a place right off the bat...pave our streets less often! (except the major ones like Valley, Prospect, Ridgewood etc) How many times do the pavers come by and put a fresh coat of whatever the hell that stuff is right over a perfectly good street? It drives me insane. pork pork pork! Not only do I want imperfect roads so that drivers slow down, I don't want anyone to pave my street IF IT DOESN"T NEED IT! We could save a boatload. | ||
| Bill P Citizen Username: Mrincredible Post Number: 713 Registered: 1-2005  |
I don't think this is a question of starting separate funds for each item in the budget. This is one specific area which NJ statute allows towns to set up a fund for, and allows their residents to approve or turn down. And there is such budget pressure that something like park maintenance is going to get short shrift. If your roof was leaking and your front lawn was brown who would you call first? A roofer or a landscaper? The lawn's going to stay brown unless you've got a lot of extra cash sitting around, which our fair town does not. So it seems to me we have a unique opportunity to tell the town that we value the appearance of our common public spaces enough to designate and pay for a specific fund to maintain them. A fund which cannot be tapped for other town needs. | ||
| jet Citizen Username: Jet Post Number: 923 Registered: 7-2001 |
The intent of the NJ Statue is for towns to keep open spaces away from developers . This was one of those McGrevy look what we're doing pieces. I don't believe the intent was to maitain softball fields ! Less face it , it's another $200k to plug some other hole. | ||
| oots Citizen Username: Oots Post Number: 265 Registered: 6-2001 |
Kathy, how much of the current budget is allocated for field maint now? will this amount continue to be in the budget annually in addition to the trust fund? Or will this line item be reduced and spent on other budget items? thank you for your replies. oots | ||
| johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 1391 Registered: 5-2001 |
Do the voters get to decide how the money is spent? Do voters have the right to repeal the referendum if we feel the town is not appropriating the funds in the correct manner? What was the intent of the NJ Statute when it was written? Somehow I don't think lawn maintenance is what the lawmakers had in mind. Does all the money have to be spent each year or can it be accumulated over several years? Who got the referendum on the ballot? Why couldn't the money be used for the proposed Bikeways program? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 9671 Registered: 1-2003 |
No, my bad. I was quoting Kathy, and very inaccurately. I said one cent for every dollar, but she said one cent for every one hundred dollars. So this means if she expects to get $210,000, then the total assessed value in town is $2.1 billion. That sounds about right. | ||
| yabbadabbadoo Citizen Username: Yabbadabbadoo Post Number: 252 Registered: 11-2003  |
Here's the link to the ordinance authorizing the referendum. BTW, it's on the township website. FF | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 9675 Registered: 1-2003 |
Cool, Fred! Thank you! | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6348 Registered: 5-2001 |
Translation: Would you vote yes to increase your taxes by .01 per 100 to create a fund dedicated to spending on open space and recreation at a time when so many of us are already drowning in too high real property taxes with little relief in sight? Even if these funds could be protected in such a way that they wouldn't be diverted to some other purpose, I'm not sure that recreation and open space is the highest priority of most people right now. There has to be a good reason why these budget items keep getting such a small portion of municipal budget. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 475 Registered: 8-2001 |
Bill P., "A fund which cannot be tapped for other town needs" Riiight. Like the pool fund.  Yabbadabbadoo, Thanks for the link. Too bad we can't get any of our elected officials to answer some of the excellent questions on this thread. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 476 Registered: 8-2001 |
Joan, I was posting at the same time. "Even if these funds could be protected in such a way that they wouldn't be diverted to some other purpose, I'm not sure that recreation and open space is the highest priority of most people right now. There has to be a good reason why these budget items keep getting such a small portion of municipal budget." Excellent point. Looks to me like this referendum is a back-door for the township committee to keep the budget steady while they raise taxes through a feel-good "open space" binding referendum. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7484 Registered: 4-1997  |
Referenda let the voters assume the responsibility of governing. Where's the leadership? | ||
| algebra2 Supporter Username: Algebra2 Post Number: 3875 Registered: 5-2001 |
Where's the governance? Exactly. There are 5 people on the Township Committee - Kathy Leventhal posted once and it was vague. I got more info from Yabbadabbadoo. Who's running this show? | ||
| xavier67 Citizen Username: Xavier67 Post Number: 584 Registered: 6-2002 |
That should teach Kathy to ever post here again! | ||
| chrisd Citizen Username: Chrisd Post Number: 126 Registered: 5-2001 |
It's only $210,000 today. What happens when valuations are reassessed once again, a 50% ramp up in the funds streaming annually into this ill-defined kitty? | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4123 Registered: 9-2001  |
"It all comes down to what you as voters want to do. The Township Committee can continue to allocate some of your regular tax payments to open space improvement. Or, you as voters can in effect guarantee the improvements in the future by voting for the Trust Fund." FWIW, I like the idea of the township committee coming to the voters for a change. Starting a fund for the purposes of acquiring, developing or maintaining land for recreation, conservation, or for open space may be the only way to guarantee the town will have it when we need it. I think it's brilliant... good for you Kathy. BTW, can anyone tell us if this program allows the town to use some of this money to acquire land for say parking space in the Village or on the Avenue? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 9434 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think some of you are missing the point. With the budget restraints we work under the TC is under pressure to eliminate "non-essential" services. Maintenance of parks and athletic fields is certainly one of these areas where insuffuicient funds are allocated. The referendum gives citizens and tax payers the opportunity to make a decision on "open space" issues. Some find better maintained parks and sports fields worth a few cents a day, others don't. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6350 Registered: 5-2001 |
The cap on municipal taxes may also be playing a role here. With insurance, energy, labor, and other mandated costs on the rise and with an extremely tight budget, this may be an attempt on the part of the TC to find a way to increase revenue so that the current level of service can be retained. The explanation of the current need/use of the funds which would result from this funding source (if approved) is that the money is needed for on-going maintenance of existing open space and not for the aquisition/development of additional space (which we would then have to find yet additional resources to maintain). Without the cap restriction, wouldn't such expenditures be part of the regular town budget? Can a TC member or other highly informed person comment on where our level of service would be next year if this referendum were to be defeated? | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4124 Registered: 9-2001 |
“Can a TC member or other highly informed person comment on where our level of service would be next year if this referendum were to be defeated?” Joan!!!! Next year, what about this year first? Be serious, or go to the “Need More Jokes” thread...  | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 784 Registered: 2-2002 |
I'm passing out kudos this morning. Kudos to Kathy for posting the proposal well in advance of the election so that "we the people" can discuss it. I would note a thought for the voters that it is just possible that at sometime in the future some land could become available that citizens might not neccesarily care to have developed, (ala "Gaslight Commons" in S.O). -The large fund that this trust could eventually present could make such a purchase possible if it is not too-too nibbled, (gulped) at along the way. Kudos to Art for agreeing with the idea when he as a strong republican supporting the republican candidate in the upcoming election could have strategically taken the tact to oppose the idea of a democrat's tax in a partisan fashion. | ||
| Bill P Citizen Username: Mrincredible Post Number: 716 Registered: 1-2005 |
Okay, fair points all around. I guess I'd like to see: 1. Some enforceable guarantee that the fund would be used only for its intended purpose(s). Maybe they can put a link to the trust's balance sheet on MOL, so we can see how much went in, how much is there and who the checks were written to. If I vote for something like this because I value the state of our open space I want to get what I vote for. (aquaman, you're such a cynic. It's that sushi diet, I'm telling you.) 2. A clear list of those intended purpose(s), without any clause that says something like "including but not limited to..." 3. A statement of the current town spending on those items in the list. We're being asked to vote as a town whether we care enough about certain things to pay extra to fund them. We've got to know what those things are and that the money we're putting in goes where we've said it should. | ||
| Bill P Citizen Username: Mrincredible Post Number: 717 Registered: 1-2005 |
Hm, here's the list, I guess, from the text of the proposed referendum: (a) acquisition of land for recreation and conservation purposes; (b) development of lands acquired for recreation and conservation purposes; (c) maintenance of lands acquired for recreation and conservation purposes; (d) payment of debt service on indebtedness issued or incurred by the Township for any purposes set forth above. A bit open-ended? Oh, and jet, this is not a McGreevey law. Whitman signed N. J.S.A. 40:12-15.1 into law in 1997. Here's a link to the page where there's some information about the underlying state legislation. http://www.state.nj.us/dca/lgs/lfns/98lfns/98htms/mc98-2.htm | ||
| dom Citizen Username: Dom Post Number: 19 Registered: 8-2005 |
the recreation fields look fine to me. Our taxes are already outrageous- I cant believe anyone is even entertaining the thought of shelling out MORE money every year. they are squeezing us dry! | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 225 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wow! Someone thinks the recreation fields look OK? There's a first. They're pretty pathetic for the most part. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4125 Registered: 9-2001 |
"Kudos to Art" Thanks Steel, but the not well understood fact is, Maplewood matters trump Republican matters every time for me... As for those among us un-willing to pony up a few extra dollars to maintain and improve what we have, well, it's probably time for you to just move on. Listen, this town owes no one anything, it's very much the other way around. I’m tired of hearing all the complaining about our taxes. Houses in Maplewood are still bringing top dollar, and it's a big world we all live in. So, don't let the door hit you cry babies on your way out.... | ||
| jet Citizen Username: Jet Post Number: 924 Registered: 7-2001 |
This is a bad trend to start, if the DPW can't maintain the fields to some peoples liking . Then get the kids to go out & can for it & then those of you who care donate your spare time to maintaining the fields to your liking . | ||
| jet Citizen Username: Jet Post Number: 925 Registered: 7-2001 |
Hey Art , the preaching gets a little boring I've lived in this town for 15yrs . I'll sell my house & realestate & businesses when it suits me. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 9683 Registered: 1-2003 |
Art, duty to the community, wow what a concept. We need more of this. Betterment of the community trumping the desire to lower one's own taxes, which betters only the individual. Very admirable. I haven't decided how I feel about this referendum, but I'm saddened to see the homes get spiffier and spiffier at the same time our public property get more decrepit at the same time people complaining about their personal finances. We're voting with our wallets, and our priorities are pretty clear. The property taxes are difficult for me to afford, too. Each time they go up, something else will leave my budget. I do hope that we can figure out how to get them to stop rising so steeply, for everyone's sake. And the worst part about it is how many who have had a stake in the community are forced out. But they are not always the same people with the increasingly spiffier homes and cars etc, and I'm afraid I won't give everyone equal sympathy. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6354 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom: One way we can keep taxes from rising so steeply is to limit the number of additional items we want those taxes to pay for. Dedicated funds whether they are derived from financial assistance received from other government jurisdictions, corporate grants, public service corporations dedicated to a specific function, or money voted on through a referendum such as the one being discussed here are at first glance very attractive. Here is a source of money which we can obtain outside of our regular tax bill which can go to pay for something we could not otherwise afford. Unfortunately, there comes a time when the program begun and maintained from such funds loses its funding and has to be taxed through municipal tax dollars or the purchase made through these funds has to be maintained, added to and/or replaced. Net result: we pay the bill for the dedicated funds and we pay the bill to continue what was started with these funds. We each need to be aware of the full financial commitment that such a referendum could lead to before voting our personal choice in November. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4127 Registered: 9-2001 |
"I'll sell my house & real-estate & businesses when it suits me." Take your time Jet... I’m not looking for anyone to leave, and I’m not looking for an argument either, so cool your “Jets” pal... "I pay enough in taxes already, many tell me amongst the highest in the nation. So I will vote NO." This is your right. However, it this town you have to “Pay to Play”! Good luck and best wishes… |
