| Author |
Message |
    
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4292
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 7:38 am: | 
|
Last night Janine Bauer requested that the Board of Trustees DOUBLE the current Open Space Trust Fund Tax from .01 of assessed value to .02 of assessed value.
So, the average home currently assessed at $200,000 that pays $20/year toward the Open Space Trust Fund would pay $40/year. However, as Howard Levison pointed out, after the reval, that same house will likely be assessed at $400,000 and will wind up paying $80/year for the Open Space Trust Fund if this passes!
I was initially one of the largest supporters of the Open Space Trust Fund when it was first enacted thinking naively that it would actually be used for acquiring OPEN SPACE.
However, since that time, the Village has only considered using this money for things like dredging the river and rebuilding the Old Stone House.
Ironically, the current Open Space Trust Fund collects about $100,000 per year and Janine Bauer now suggests the Village needs more money. By simply not funding Tau, the Village could have had the equivalent of an extra 2.5 years of Open Space money to use for things like the Old Stone House.
Better yet, how about better fiscal responsibility and a real sense of PRIORITY - like not LOSING Grants - instead of continually finding new ways to increase taxes on residents? |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 834
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
|
The "average home" after the reval will still be "average" and still have the exact same property / school tax burden as before the reval by definition. The logic surrounding this part of the argument is faulty.
Raising the tax from .01 to .02 of assessed value is, indeed, a tax increase, however, and even if for a "good cause," should be questioned. I simply think keeping the argument pure and simple is better than trying to throw in reval scare tactics which are incorrect.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2841
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
Actually, Ms. Bauer asked to have a question put on the ballot to let the public vote on the issue. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4296
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:47 am: |
|
Argon,
Good point...although I had no intention of using reval scare tactics. I think it is a fair assumption that most houses are currently assessed at 50% or less of their true value. So, after the reval, in theory, the average house assessment will roughly double & the tax rate will roughly be cut in half, therefore keeping a reval "revenue neutral".
However, the Open Space Trust Fund is based on a flat rate and does not change due to a reval. So, a .01 rate that generates $100,000 now will remain at .01 after the reval, but generate approximately $200,000 since the VALUE of assessed properties will rise.
In other words, it is virtually assured that the current rate of the Open Space Trust Fund will generate more money after the reval without doing ANYTHING. |
Pizzaz
Supporter
Username: Pizzaz
Post Number: 3833
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:52 am: |
|
...and by extension a .01 increase would raise another $200k thereby increasing the fund from 100k per annum to 400k. Some increase, for what and who controls it? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4297
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Mark,
Thank you for the clarification. Ms. Bauer did ask the BOT to put the question on the ballot. However, as I have heard the BOT state many times, they will not put something on the ballot everytime something comes up.
My opinion is that the BOT should reject this request.
(although I have a feeling that statement alone will be enough to motivate several members of the BOT to approve this)  |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1815
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
My recollection is that Patrick Joyce and others had to fight pretty hard to get the open space question on the ballot in the first place. I don't think the open space funds have ever been used the way they or most people who voted for it intended. Can anybody confirm if this is correct?
Edited to add: Patrick fought for this before he was elected a Trustee. |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 835
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Too bad they didn't think of this sooner, maybe all that "green space" money could have saved the quarry.
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1816
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 1:08 pm: |
|
The ironic thing is that I think that's what they hoped it would be used for, and that's why there was some resistance on the part of the BOT. Now with the 1 cent increase per $100 of assessed value, it's seen as a source of funds for restoration of historical projects which would be difficult to fund otherwise. I think there are some posters who were involved with the original open space question and maybe they can shed some light, or confirm whether my recollection is correct.
Also, how much has been collected through the open space levy and how much has been spent to date?
Edited to add: Eric doesn't post anymore but I think he was involved with the open space question. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4299
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Spitz,
I was one of the people strongly in favor of the creation Open Space Trust Fund. Sure...on a personal level I was hoping it would help save the Quarry, although there were other reasons as well. For example, by having an Open Space Trust Fund, it made us eligible for other other grants (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/trust.htm)
We initially went before the BOT and encountered much resistance to having it placed on the the ballot. Ultimately, we had a petition drive to collect 2000 signatures to have it put on the balot and when we had around 1500 signatures, the BOT saw the writing on the wall & agreed to put it to a referendum on the ballot.
The referendum passed overwhelmingly in November 1999 and has been in place since. Unfortunately, there was never any intent by the BOT to save the quarry and no open space anywhere in the Village has been acquired with the funds.
Since the money is not being used for it's original intent, I think the real Ballot Question should be whether the program should be discontinued or not. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1817
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
MHD - You raise a very valid point. Thanks for refreshing my memory. I did sign the petition and my thinking was pretty much like yours. I've been wondering for some time now what we (the Village) has been doing with the money. Maybe the ballot question should be whether the program is discontinued or not.
The proposal is a way of increasing taxes without having to worry about budget caps or worrying about dealing with our fiscal problems.
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 620
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 2:12 pm: |
|
There are a number of points to be made about the Open Space Trust Fund. In response to a CBAC recommendation the BOT made a policy statement on to what these funds could be allocated. I think we should go further as Maplewood has recently (“Maplewood Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Committee” see <www.howard-levison.com/maplewood_open_space_trust_fund_advisory_committee.pdf>) and create an ordinance of our own.
As suggested by Janine, creating an inventory of Historical sites that are in need of funds would be helpful. We have a number of municipal owned properties that should be included on that list - Town Hall and Connett Library just to name a few. I assume that this may be Janine Bauer’s intent but I would not want it to only for Historical purposes. We need to create additional open space! This was original purpose for creating this "tax".
There is a recent report, The Open Space and Recreation Master Plan that should be used as a basis for moving forward with how/where funds should be allocated. This report should also be incorporated as part of the Master Plan.
The CBAC has made a number of requests to the Administration publish a reconciliation of these funds. The following is the last report and in need of an update: |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 623
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 3:01 pm: |
|
AS I understand it, Maplewood's intention is to use the Open Space funds to improve/repair/upgrade a lot of the playing fields in our parks. In truth, most of them need it desperately.
Time will tell whether the money is spent as it was portrayed when it went on the ballot. If Maplewood really improves the fields and parks, I'm all for it.
I don't think there was any dream of creating additional Open Space in Maplewood when this ballot measure was presented........ We can barely afford to keep up the space we have. I'm not an expert, but this was my understanding. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4372
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Mark Rosner got it half right in today's News Record:
Trustee Mark Rosner said he supports putting the question on the ballot, but he said he’s against the special tax.
“ It’s just more money for the government to waste,” he said. The special tax will likely collect more money — even without a ballot question.
Mark, Please don't bother voting to put the question on the ballot and save us all the grief of mounting a campaign against it.  |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2848
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 2:31 pm: |
|
MHD: Actually, the quote is not quite accurate. I said I would not be against it being on the ballot but would only support placing it on the ballot if more than one person expressed an interest.
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 631
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 7:06 pm: |
|
If passed prior to revaluation it will double after revaluation (we currently assess close to 50% of actual) or represent an equivalent of $.04/$100 of current assessment.
We should not change current policy that prevents use for operating expenses.
We must have a clear statement of what these funds can be used for.
We must have a periodic statement of how/where the funds have been allocated.
We must have an inventory of potential projects and estimate costs.
We should reinstate the Open Space Committee. |
rssounds
Citizen
Username: Rssounds
Post Number: 387
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 12:01 am: |
|
FYI. State law limits the use of OSTF to:
Purchase, development, improvements of open space.
Purchase, development, improvements of outdoor recreational space.
Purchase or improvements to historic structures or properties. SO's Stone House might be a good candidate.
OSTF may not be used for salaries or routine maintenance. New Jersey Green Acres is the final arbiter in determining proper use of these funds.
OSTF monies may be used to secure matching grants or to service loans for projects limited to the above. The state and the county both favor towns that have OSTF in place when they consider awarding grants or loans for projects.
Currently, there are 12 or 13 towns in Essex County that have OSTF. Clearly, towns in densely populated areas will apply their funds towards improvements of recreational facilities or historic properties rather than purchase of open space which is in short supply.
Andy Brady (SO Director of Recreation) would be a good person to contact re use of the fund in the past or the future. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 632
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 6:30 am: |
|
The reason for the comment was that it had been proposed that OSTF's be used to cover the cost of the River Cleanup. The cleanup is a prerequisite for the River project. The CBAC's opinion was that it was inappropriate and requested that the BOT clarify how/what project were acceptable. See excerpt below from:
South Orange Citizens Budget Advisory Committee (CBAC)
Statement Concerning the Village’s Preliminary 2006 Capital Budget
Delivered to the South Orange Board of Trustees
January 9, 2006
6. Before considering whether to approve funding for the dredging of the Rahway River through the use of the Village’s Open Space Trust Funds, the CBAC recommends that the Board of Trustees hold an open public discussion to establish priorities and allocation guidelines for the Open Space Trust Fund generally. Also the CBAC strongly urges the BOT to determine whether to fund the dredging project this year and, if so, through what source of funds as soon
as possible.
This budget proposes using $150,000 from the Open Space Trust Fund (OSTF) for dredging the Rahway River. We understand that river maintenance is a prerequisite to proceeding with the town’s River Greenway and Bike Path Project (for which Open Space monies are also allocated), and that paying for dredging out of the Trust Fund may make sense in this context.
However, it may also be noted that dredging is the town’s long-standing obligation under an Army Corps of Engineers Agreement, and that dredging this year represents deferred maintenance from 2000. The CBAC endorses efforts not only to minimize this year’s tax impact where possible, but also to avoid piling up long-term debt via capital budget allocations for maintenance expenses. Still, in the absence of an articulated allocation policy, using OSTF
monies to pay for maintenance dredging now might set an unwelcome precedent.
Although we make no recommendation at this time for or against using OSTF monies to pay for dredging, we believe a decision about using OSTF monies for this capital budget item (Engineering Services, page 6, line 2) should be deferred until after the Trustees have had their public discussion and established guidelines for use of the fund.
However, as noted above, the CBAC understands that whether the dredging of the Rahway River is completed this year can have serious implications for the Village. Therefore, we suggest that the Board of Trustees should hold this public discussion about the Open Space Trust Funds and make a decision about whether and how to fund this project (i.e., using Open Space Trust Funds, the Village’s Capital Budget or the Village’s Operating Budget) with all due speed. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 457
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 9:54 am: |
|
Historic preservation funds should be separated from Open Space Funds. Lumping them is misleading to the public which might not easily recognize that OSTFs can go to historic preservation and provides no way for people who want to fund the OSTF but not historic preservation to do so. The reverse is also true, that people who want to direct money to historic preservation want to know that it would be used for that and nothing else, like preserving or purchasing open spaces.
I agree that there should be an oversight committee for the OSTF, and one for historic preservation if that were ever separated. |
rssounds
Citizen
Username: Rssounds
Post Number: 388
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 11:36 am: |
|
To separate the funds would require an act of the state legislature, plus each town would then be required to place the issue before the public in a general election. Not likely. As to whether or not SO's OSTF may be used for dredging, perhaps a call to Mike Heenehan from Green Acres' Legal Services and Stewardship is in order. 609-984-0534. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4381
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 7, 2006 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Based on the Meeting Agenda posted it appears this is already being "spun" by the Village:
"13. Referendum re: Historic Preservation Trust Fund
A. It has been suggested that $.01 be added to the amount collected for the trust fund."
It is not a "one penny" increase, but rather an increase of one cent per hundred dollars of assessed value, (or a 100% increase in the existing tax, before the revaluation)
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 9:17 am: |
|
Yes, it is a bad way to go, MHD. Separating the funds (historic preservation and open space) would also contribute to a better balance of power. If the funds were separated, there could be two committees of oversight instead of one with twice the amount of money. The goals of historic preservation and open space diverge enough that oversight groups should have flexibility to focus on respective missions of each unencumbered by the other. It would not prevent them from working in concert as needed and deemed appropriate.
Getting legislation passed is not impossible. It would be easier with a different BOT than the present or if the present were to be more pro-active on these things than they are. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
From today's NY Times:
"While other states used the low interest rates of the past several years to free up money by refinancing debt, New Jersey has gone on the equivalent of a borrowing spree.
For instance, the state borrowed against its proceeds from the tobacco settlement, and against future toll collections on the public highways. Now, with other states now reaping the benefits of their frugality and an improved economy, New Jersey finds itself saddled with costly interest payments and few attractive borrowing gimmicks left. Indeed, a study in the spring by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that 42 states were expecting a surplus.
'In 11 states, the state government cannot take on general obligation debt and in other places, culturally, it's unacceptable to borrow, so if they want to build a road or a new school they pay up front, in cash,' said Arturo Perez, a budget specialist for the conference. 'But New Jersey isn't one of those places, and over the past few years, the way that power to borrow has been used has led them to where they are today.'"
So, it looks likes South Orange's Board of Trustees is still stuck in the borrowing spree mania of the past and the borrow-against-future-proceeds mentality that characterized the state until recently.
Only trouble is, in our case, the future proceeds, dependent on crony development schemes, weren't as reliable as tobacco settlements that had already been won if not distributed, and highway toll proceeds that have a history and income probability.
Is this South Orange's own trickle-down-dumb-down invention of fiscal mismanagement and revenue wishful thinkings?
Why don't we have a wake-up-to-take-back referendum limiting the amount of debt South Orange can take on? Then the BOT wouldn't be able to finance their on-going leDgerdemain and just might have to find other hobbies that don't hurt the town.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
Open Space Reconciliation