| Author |
Message |
    
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 263
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 8:18 pm: | 
|
I decided to create a new thread from a dialogue on the "Almost $500,000 tax increase / BOT lied" discussion.
Residents should get involved to protect the spending of their tax money. Instead of waiting until next May's election (which is no guarantee of change after the 2005 results), post other outlets to find ways to get our town on the right track again.
One option:
Office of the Inspector General http://www.nj.gov/oig/
In late 2004, Governor Codey created the position of Inspector General to Identify Waste, Mismanagement, Fraud in Government Spending. http://www.nj.gov/cgi-bin/governor/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=2246
Office of the Inspector General
Hotline Number: 866-633-6585
E-mail: Inspectorgeneral@oig.state.nj.us |
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 265
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 8:41 pm: |
|
I am surprised nobody commented on this thread.
With everyone complaining about tax $ going to the Tau and other wasteful spending initiatives, this should have been a hot topic.
Am I missing something?
|
Lewisinsov
Citizen
Username: Lewisinsov
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 8:59 pm: |
|
I'm a newcomer to S.O. and was wondering if someone could explain to me why South Orange and Maplewood haven't merged yet. Looking through the budget it seems that taxes for both towns could be reduced dramatically following a merger by removing unnecessary duplication of facilities and services.
Any thoughts? |
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 266
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 9:49 pm: |
|
Politics Politics Politics.
It makes sense considering the BOE and some public services are shared.
|
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 23119
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 10:50 pm: |
|
In my opinion, more concentration should focus on the slap-dashery of South Orange's current "redevelopment" and less on the fallacy that the two towns will ever reach agreement on shared services.
To red-alert: I plan to write a letter to the OIG asking for their determination of this town's creative (and downright backdoor) financial repute. It's not going to be pretty.
I urge others who are unhappy with the leadership of this township-village to do the same. |
Lewisinsov
Citizen
Username: Lewisinsov
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 10:07 am: |
|
The question is not whether the two towns will ever agree on shared services. The question is whether we need to have two towns at all (with two governments, two attorneys, two CFOs, etc.) for a relatively small combined population. Would it be possible to orchestrate a merger via a referendum even without the town leadership's imprimatur? |
Lewisinsov
Citizen
Username: Lewisinsov
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 10:13 am: |
|
Perhaps call the new merged town "South Mountain"... |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3277
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 11:43 am: |
|
There have been numerous threads about this in the past. The short answer has been that the savings would no be as dramatic as people think. Add that to the "hometown pride" that people feel for their own towns, and it is highly unlikely to happen.
The two towns were once one. The reason for the split has never (IMNSHO) been explained well. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 379
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 1, 2006 - 10:59 pm: |
|
Interesting thought, Lewisinsov, about merger via the ballot box. If possible, it might be a way residents could keep their taxes down more effectively than anything else.
The greatest expense is personnel. If the towns had only one administrator and attorney, that would save a lot right there, when total compensation (with benefits) is included. If fire and police departments were merged, that would save a bundle also. I've heard that's the hardest aspect of merged services to pull off. Maybe it could be put on the ballot as a referendum, since it seems so unlikely that the BOT will act on it any time soon. |
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 267
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 8:31 am: |
|
Thank you bets. I urge everyone who is fed up with our local government waste to alert the OIG.
It seems this will be the only way to create change and get the town back on track. |
Lewisinsov
Citizen
Username: Lewisinsov
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 10:51 am: |
|
SOrising - The Municipal Consolidation Act allows for the registered voters of both municipalities to petition the municipalities to get the ball rolling, although there is a high threshold (i.e. 10% of the total votes cast in the municipality at the last preceding general election at which members of the General Assembly were elected).
See 40:43-66.40 - 40:43-66.41 of the Act ( http://www.nj.gov/dca/lgs/interloc/joint/muni_consol_act.shtml ).
Knowledge is power. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 384
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 12:00 pm: |
|
That's great, Lewisinsov. Could people voting on it in the next muni elections suffice as petitioning the BOT? Do you know, roughly, what 10% of the total votes cast....(etc.) would be?
Will check out your reference.
Thanks. |
red_alert
Citizen
Username: Red_alert
Post Number: 280
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 12:47 pm: |
|
As per the "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!" thread.
|
Old and Gray
Citizen
Username: Pastmyprime
Post Number: 386
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 8:48 am: |
|
Towns just don't up and merge...Consolidation is fairly new to government, and most towns only share services.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4253
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 2:47 pm: |
|
As a reminder, the next "Neighborhood Meeting" is this Wednesday at 7:30pm at the Baird Center.
Residents from the following streets are invited:
Zone 5 – Berkeley Av, Charlton Av, Clark Pl, Clark St, Comstock Pl, Connett Pl, Grove Rd, Grove Ter, Halsey Pl, Harrison Ct, Henderson Dr, Hillside Pl, Hillside Ter, Irving Av, Irving Ter, Keasby Rd, Mead St, Meadowbrook Ln, Meadowbrook Pl, Meeker St, Montrose Av (west of Grove Rd), Mountainhouse Rd, Page Ter, Ralston Av, Randolph Pl, Raymond Av, Raymond Ct, Scotland Rd, Taylor Pl, Thacher Ln, Turrell Av, Village Green Ct, Vose Av, Woodland Crest, Woodland Pl.
Zone 6 - Audley St, Briar Ct, Church St, Conway Ct, Cumberland Rd, Edgewood Ter, Harding Dr South, Hemlock Ter, Kingsland Ct, Kingsland Ter, Lenox Av, Lenox Pl, Lenox Ter, Mews Ln, Ridgewood Rd (south of S.Orange Av), Rynda Rd, S.Orange Av (from the RR tracks west to Harding Dr), Third St (west of RR tracks), Thornden St, Trenchard Pl, Walton Av, Wesley Ct, West End Rd, Western Dr North, Western Dr South, Winthrop Ter.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2832
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 2:54 pm: |
|
As I announced at an earlier BOT meeting, I will not be able to attend the meeting this Wednesday night (I actually told the committee that set up the dates I would unable to attend when this date was first selected).
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4255
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Mark,
Nice job on proactively communcicating that. (no sarcasm) |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2834
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
Last night was the shared services presentation at CHS. There were very few residents at the meeting. It was televised, so it should be aired sometime this week.
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 614
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
|
I agree it was disappointing that there was light turnout for such an important topic.
I strongly agree with those who stated that we should be moving forward on a consolidation study.
Mark, do you think some version of the Health/Recreation study could be posted on the Web as well as the minutes of the Shared Services Committee? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2835
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:00 am: |
|
Howard: I will check to find out. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 429
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 4:21 pm: |
|
It wasn't clear from the Village website that it was open to the public, as opposed to being a meeting of the BOT in closed session.
Merging the towns should appear as a referendum in the next election. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3398
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
SOr... a referendum? Based on what? What shall we use as a basis for deciding whether to merge? I would guess 95-99% of the town has no idea what effects merging would have on both taxes and services. Without disseminating infomration about the beenfits and risks, the BoT would be doing another "cart before the horse" job of not informing the public properly about an important issue on the ballot.
Besides, we talk about this here in South Orange, but do you think people from Maplewood would be interested? |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 615
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Rasto, that is why we should have a study on the consolidation of the Towns. So far our VP has rejected that idea. I heard at least four of our Trustees last evening stating that they would favor a study.
Mark/Arthur/Eric/Allan, why not place as a discussion item on the agenda? |
Nuff Sayid
Citizen
Username: Parkingsux
Post Number: 439
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Why would the VP reject what he knows for sure?
Quote:But the Emperor has nothing at all on! said a little child.
http://hjem.get2net.dk/chenero/hca/hcaev009_en2.html
|
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 427
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 8:59 am: |
|
Lewisinsov, please share your analysis of the two towns budgets and where you project significant savings in further detail. |
Politicalmon
Citizen
Username: Politicalmon
Post Number: 177
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:30 am: |
|
Merging the two towns would save millions over the years as duplicity in overpaid, underutilized administrative positions are eliminated, pensions & health care exposure would also be reduced. A number of years ago the state government provided grants for the municipalities who were interested in pursuing such a position; I don’t believe anyone from the BOT pursued this option though I believe many of the incumbent members are aware of its existence. From what I’ve been told it would not be in the best interests of South Orange to pursue such a concept.
A number of years ago Princeton and Princeton Junction received the grant money and did the study. Their populations mirror that of South Orange and Maplewood. They concluded that the taxpayers would save millions over the years, yet the organization that represents the municipal workers union, police and fire unions lobbied against this and it was eventually defeated.
Here in South Orange we would have the same group and other special interest groups (Seton Hall being one) that would oppose this since it would open the doors for more responsible government and more accountability. This would be the last thing our political representatives in South Orange would like to see, they will attempt to appease the masses by merging small nonentities like the parks department. We need to really get down and pursue this idea across the complete strata of government.
A referendum is a good start but I would think this would have to be pursued simultaneously in both communities. Lets face it we already pay the majority of our tax dollars to the BOE it makes total sense to pursue this consolidation at all costs. It will be the only way that we could slow down the rapidly rising property taxes (municipal portion) and get a more responsible government.
|
Cali6buff
Citizen
Username: Cali6buff
Post Number: 31
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:06 am: |
|
I can't believe what a panacea merging the two towns is perceived to be on this board.
I'd like to see a study as well, but I have a real hard time believing outlandish statements like those of POLITICALMON.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2836
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:07 am: |
|
Politicalmon: Based on the princeton study, the larger municipality usually has less to gain from a merger. Second, the savings according the preliminary study was certainly less than millions and far less in the implementation years. The reason it seems that princeton voted it down (the smaller one voted against, the larger township voted in favor - surprisingly) was mostly because of fear of loss of control (at least according to the outside consultant that did the study).
We HAVE been using grants to pay for the shared service reports and we intend to use every bit of grant money we can get to complete the study.
The union issues (espeically since S. Orange has civil service - mapelwood does not) will create the largest hurdle.
One thing I see for sure from the study is that out biggest waste of our tax dollars is the money going to the county (and most of it is goes to the courts and prisons). We pay almost as much to the county as we do for our municipal services and we get virtually nothing in return. One would be hard pressed to come up with a benefit other than the reservation (and note, they spend virtually nothing on maintenance).
I think we will get to the point where most will recognize that we have to do a study to at least consider a full consolidation. However, just to put things in perspective, the most optimistic report will show a 10% of the municipal portion and that only comes after several years (that means a $300 savings for the average taxpayer which might not prove to be enough incentive for some to want to give up control).
SORising: Any meeting advertised on the village calendar is open to the public UNLESS otherwise noted. If there is reason to go into closed session, then that is usually after the public session.
Howard: Shared services has been on the agenda every month. We discussed doing a consolidation study once, but the majority wanted to use the grant funds to study shared services first. It will come up again when we discuss next month.
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 433
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 10:31 am: |
|
Trustee Rosner, what, exactly is the difference between shared services and consolidation for particular departments? Would it be possible for recreation and health departments in the two towns to actually be consolidated without the entire towns? Must two administrative apparati be preserved when towns share services but don't actually consolidate them?
Rastro, if SO were to have merger as a referendum item in its next elections and it gained majority support, merger would not happen any time soon. It would simply provide a reading at the time of the vote of what SO residents thought. Maplewood, of course, would have to consider the question. By the time Mplwd mulled it over and studies were completed, it would probably be another year or two before anything significant happened. But having the referendum would focus attention on the question, which seems to be avoided.
Practically, it would take so long to address, there could be another referendum long before merger occurred, to update the snapshot of opinion at that point in time. The referendum would be little more than a poll of the public on the question, which might hasten the availability in the public domain of exactly the kind of information you recommended. Having a statement of public will is not the same as implementing it.
While I do think there would be some cost savings, I hope that a larger (merged) town might produce better leadership for this area (and perhaps for Mplwd also, but they would have to decide that). |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2838
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 11:08 am: |
|
SOrising: I am not sure I am the expert on this but here goes what I hope is a condensed version and comments.
Shared services would mean both towns would retain their departments and there would be a combined effort by the administators and the towns to coordinate those services in a cost effective way. For instance, the baseball program is a shared service thru the recreation department. There was no cost savings but there was a benefit to the kids and to the baseball program.
Consolidation of the deparments would mean one department performing the work for both towns. In most cases that would mean that one town would control the department and "sell" the service to the other town or a similar arrangement.
There are other terms that come into play. Like for the health dept, we are consideing a regional health department which could provide services for other towns too (they would then contribute). Since both towns have a very small health department, there is an opportunity to provide better services for the same cost (or with a minimal savings).
Sometimes there is a joint meeting or board that oversees the operations. Right now both towns are part of the joint sewer meeting. I think there are actually 12 towns that participate. That has proved to be very successful in keeping the costs down (as compared to towns that do not participate).
There are a lot of legal issues, public relations, control issues, etc to consider. Plus to really see any chance at consolidtion or sharing services means the state really has to provide the funds for consultants and for implementation. Right now the state is still working on how to dispense money, how much, etc. Trenton (and for now, Corzine) says he is in favor and how towns have to share services, yada, yada, yada, but there has been virtually nothing to back up what is being said in public.
South Orange and Maplewood are way ahead of most towns when it comes to shared services (generic term) because we already share a school system. The biggest potential savings is clearly public safety. It also is the most difficult (unions). I will also add that SHU provides a wrinkle into the picture (we can go into those details or debate some other time).
You can take this next statement any way you want, but I don't think different leadership is really a byproduct of merging towns or services. That comes from elections and getting people to pay attention to what is going on in their towns, getting to know the candidates, doing honest appraisals of candidates while ignoring party lines, and actually voting (in all elections). |
Old and Gray
Citizen
Username: Pastmyprime
Post Number: 390
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 3:09 pm: |
|
In regard to shared services:
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
BY TOM HESTER
Star-Ledger Staff
Lawmakers yesterday were told it won't be easy to change work rules for public employees in the effort to have towns share public services as a way to curb property taxes.
As lawmakers prepare for summer sessions on property taxes, the Assembly Housing and Local Government committee heard from state officials and union representatives who said changing civil service regulations would face opposition from unions.
One key reason towns don't share services is because some give their workers civil service protections, and others don't -- and nobody knows what to do when two such towns want to get together.
But Department of Personnel officials told lawmakers that changing the rules could affect union contracts, 8,000 job titles, workers' salaries, benefits and pension, job seniority and bumping rights, performance reviews, and promotional examinations.
"As much as we want to encourage regionalization, the logistics of this is going to be impossible," said Assemblyman Joseph Cryan (D-Union).
"They are going to need massive, massive pieces of legislation to tie all this into each other," said an angry Ronald Bakely, director of the New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council, after the hearing concluded. "This is going to be a nightmare."
Assemblyman Gerald B. Green (D-Union), the committee chairman, said if the Legislature is to encourage shared public services between local governments, "We need to have one policy in place."
"We are looking at what policies need to be put in place to make government run a little bit better," Green said. "Right now, it seems civil service controls everything we do. We need the ability to maneuver in municipalities and see what is good for the employee. We seem to have lost that control."
The New Jersey State League of Municipalities is in favor of the review.
Green stressed that the Legislature does not intend to tamper with the civil service rights of police officers or paid firefighters nor get involved with volunteer firefighters' standards or benefits. He also said the Legislature does not intend to eliminate the state Personnel Department, which oversees civil service regulations.
Public employee costs, encouraging shared services and regionalization, and school spending will be examined by special committees beginning next month when the Legislature convenes an ongoing special session to examine property tax relief.
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 440
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 7:11 pm: |
|
If two towns merge, they could let positions from one town atrophy through attrition, simply not replace people through one or the other town's system and hire them through the other's system. Others close to retirement could be provided with incentives to retire early and others could be given incentives to transfer to another municipality. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 441
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 7:19 pm: |
|
Thanks for the explanation, Trustee Rosner.
What is the wrinkle that SHU presents in merger discussions (T. Rosner or anyone else who knows)? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2839
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 11:05 am: |
|
SOrising: Based on number of calls (police and fire), 10% of the Public Safety budget goes towards SHU. Maplewood does not have anything that compares (tax-exempt property that is 37 acres). I don't really see this as a dealbreaker for maplewood but let's face it, Maplewood is going to want this entered into the equation for which town pays how much. OF course a total consolidation makes that issue go away.
There needs to be a cooperative effort between the state, the unions, the towns, and the residents to force a change to the current system.
|
Frederick Schmid
Citizen
Username: Carlfrederick
Post Number: 70
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Hope the merger never happens. The savings won't materialize. And you will have a town of 40,000 + which opens a whole new level of bureauracy. Heaven help. If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page