| Author |
Message |
    
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2413
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:58 pm: | 
|
According to the SO-M School District website (http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/finance/0607budgethome.htm),
the estimated schools portion of this year's tax increase in Maplewood will be $289 if the Separate Proposal is approved, $265 if it is not. These figures are for an average property tax assessed value of $266,500.
The corresponding South Orange tax increase is estimated to be $519 if the Separate Proposal is approved, $490 if it is not. Average tax assessed value in SO is said to be $218,900.
The schools-tax rate for Mwd is estimated at $2.30/$2.31 per $100 assessed aalue (without sep prop/with sep prop). The rate for SO is estimated at $3.47/$3.48 per $100 assessed value.
The schools-tax rate increase over last year is $0.10 per $100 in Maplewood. In South Orange, the increase is $0.22 per $100.
See:
http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/finance/2006-07TaxImpactWithSepProposalAsOf03-14-2006 .pdf
and
http://www.somsd.k12.nj.us/finance/2006-07TaxImpactWithOutSepProposalAsOf03-14-2 006.pdf |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3545
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Quote:The corresponding South Orange tax increase is estimated to be $519
No problem...that's only like 6 Tony Smith sculptures, right? |
michael brant
Citizen
Username: Mbrant
Post Number: 152
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 3:22 pm: |
|
MHD not to worry maybe the BOT can get grant money for the school tax increase. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 643
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Or better yet, they could take some bond money that was already approved for another use... |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14709
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 7:32 pm: |
|
I will have the official latte conversion rate available within the next week. I know that Dunkin Donuts added some new flavors so I want to check it out first. |
Lucy
Supporter
Username: Lucy
Post Number: 3156
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
sbenois  |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1521
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Were the separate proposals approved by the BOSE last night? |
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2417
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:10 am: |
|
Last night (3/15) was a "workshop" session. My understanding is that the BOE formally presents its budget to the BOSE on March 29, and that the BOSE approves the annual tax levy on April 3. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10967
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 4:09 am: |
|
Remember all those tax dollars you are saving from the PILOTS from the Shoprite and Beifus sites will more than offset the increase in taxes. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2619
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 10:17 am: |
|
Um, the PILOTs for Beifus and Shoprite haven't kicked in, from what I understand. Now Gaslight Commons, that's been a real financial boon for us! |
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2418
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 10:52 am: |
|
Now Bob, that was just mean. 
Honestly, though, I'm starting to wonder whether SO shouldn't PILOT every commercial property in sight. If it weren't for the disincentive to municipal fiscal conservatism that comes with shifting revenues from the school district to the township, I'd say taking vast portions of SO property off the tax rolls for school tax purposes (thus shifting more responsibility for paying for the school budget to Maplewood) would be good for SO.
Until, of course, Maplewood did the same thing... |
srg227
Citizen
Username: Srg227
Post Number: 36
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
any particular reason why the schools tax per $100 of assessed value is about 50% higher in SO than in MA? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2622
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
JC, however I believe the county (or state) has to approve all the PILOTs. Otherwise, I'm sure our esteeemed BoT would find a way to actually increase our taxes while providing PILOTs and still eliminate school taxes for everyone. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1523
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Jennifer - It's the disincentive to municpal conservatism that I know you and I have discussed in the past that is particularly bothersome. Some of our concerns appear to be coming true this year in the municipal budget where it appears that the Village was basing a lot of its municpal spending on the anticipated revenues from the pilots. As you know, the advantage to the municpal budget part of the equation is that the Village receives approximately twice as much in municapal taxes under a pilot than it would have otherwise received. Of course, this assumes that the project would have been built without the pilot, which is the case for a pilot.
With all the criticism of the new budget cap law, we're still looking at an overall increase of 6.2% in the school budget, or a 6.89% for SO property owners. If the special questions are approved, it means an overall increase of 7.31% for SO taxpayers. How much more could we possibly sustain if there hadn't been the new caps?
If the special questions are approved, I'm looking at a $956 increase in my school taxes. I realize that I'm at the upper end of taxes in SO, but after the revaluation, there are going to be a lot of other taxpayers in this position. Jan. 1, 2008 can't get here soon enough for me. |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3230
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:50 pm: |
|
srg - I believe that it is because South Orange hasn't had their reval yet and Maplewood did have one a few years ago, so there is an adjustment to compensate for the associated discrepancy. (i.e. to better adjust to a comparable rate per dollar of market value, at least on average for each community) Unless both communities get on the same reval schedule, there will always need to be some adjustment in this manner I think. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page