| Author | Message | ||
     J L Bryant Citizen Username: Jeffbryant Post Number: 42 Registered: 6-2002 |
www.state.nj.us/dca/news/2006/pr072806.shtml so..... when do our rebate checks come??? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4501 Registered: 5-2001  |
I'm sure glad we can now get the essential Tau.  | ||
| Nancy - LibraryLady Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 3757 Registered: 5-2001  |
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=664218#POST6642 18 | ||
| J L Bryant Citizen Username: Jeffbryant Post Number: 43 Registered: 6-2002 |
My apologies Nancy-LL... didn't mean to hijack your original posting by any means. Just saw the dca announcement myself today..... But I sure would like to know how the $200K is to be parcelled out..... | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2879 Registered: 4-2002 |
J L Bryant: It is used to reduce the municipal portion of the tax increase. It is scheduled to be discussed at the Sept. 11th BOT meeting. | ||
| J L Bryant Citizen Username: Jeffbryant Post Number: 44 Registered: 6-2002 |
mrosner - municipal portion??? don't our property taxes constitute the bulk of village's coffers, from whence will flow said 'municipal portion'? (acknowledging that other revenue sources - parking tickets, rents, contracts, etc. contribute to the total village "income", as well) so.... we, directly as residents, see none of the extraordinary aid? Help me understand why this aid can't be passed back to the residents. We kick in all year.... then village expenditures become too high anyway, so then we have to apply for state aid, because we can't control our bankbook??? Or better, (because I highly doubt the village's budget for next year will decrease *heaven forbid!!*), how do we make sure that next year we don't have some 'need' to apply for state aid again. Why shouldn't we strive to 'self-sufficient'? (gee, are these questions rhetorical?)  | ||
| Nancy - LibraryLady Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 3761 Registered: 5-2001 |
JL-no problem. I'm glad you raised it again. My thread was dying on the vine. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2881 Registered: 4-2002 |
JL Bryant: The municipal portion of the tax bill is about 25% of the total (the balance goes to the BOE and the county). Yes, the bulk of the revenue for the village comes from property taxes. The village submits a budget to the state along with an application for extraordinary aid (or whatever the name is this year). The aid then reduces the amount of the increase of the final tax increase. For example if the increase was going to be 9.4%, and we received $200,000, the increase would be 8% instead (NOTE - THOSE NUMBERS ARE NOT THE REAL NUMBERS). Thus in effect, each propertyowner is given his "fair share" (as much as fair can mean when it comes to property taxes) via a reduction in the size of the increase (and yes, I know it sounds insane, but that is the property tax system in NJ. Don't shoot the messenger.... Every town in the state asks for this aid because it seems to have to do more with political connections than acutal need. For example, W. Orange is being given $600,000 this year and $500,000 each of the past two years. Amazingly enough Codey lives in W. Orange (good thing we are his neighbor...) and thus the generous award. Almost by definition property taxes will increase every year. Increases in pay (mostly union contracts that have been awarded increases of about 4%, often by state arbitrators, mean a $600,000 increase in the budget). Also, the state has required towns to once again contribute to the state pension system. The contribution for 2006 is going to be $500,000 higher than last year (this is an expense that can not be controlled locally). Health insurance premiums have had double digit increases. Just to stay even, we need to come up with over $1,000,000 in new revenue (and that would satisfy one year). We will always apply for any aid available. | ||
| Nuff Sayid Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 465 Registered: 6-2005  |
It's time to merge.....government entities. You proved it....!! | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 810 Registered: 1-2006 |
What is the co-pay on health insurance? jd | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 23758 Registered: 6-2001  |
At my job, I'm responsible for 40 percent of my health insurance coverage. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1867 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Every town in the state asks for this aid..." This is not correct. I called the DCA last year and as I recall, around 1/3 asked for aid. South Orange has just gotten in the habit of asking for it every year. There's always Allan Rosen's famous statement about three years ago when South Orange received $50,000. It was something like "I don't know why we received it this year. We really didn't need it." | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15472 Registered: 10-2001  |
It should work out to roughly 2 lattes per year. Or three scones. | ||
| tototoo Citizen Username: Tototoo Post Number: 181 Registered: 1-2002 |
S, as always, puts it in perfect perspective. Thanky. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2883 Registered: 4-2002 |
Spitz: You are right, not every town asks for it, but still, the aid given has nothing to do with need. It is all about politics. Personally, I think it is a good idea to keep applying for aid. We should never expect it but it would be foolish not to apply. I will also add a lot of towns that do not ask are sometimes promised aid form other sources and do not have to go through this process. I can't explain why Trustee Rosen would have made that statement. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 578 Registered: 2-2006 |
Trustee Rosner, will you promise now not to use this rebate to pay for Tau or to make it possible to use other money for Tau? sbenois, as LL's original thread on this topic suggested, the Tauistas are demanding $170,000 from the town for their pet project and the town can't legally use the 2004 bond money they were trying to use before. It may be that the BOT and Tauistas take away even your scones and lattes. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 579 Registered: 2-2006 |
Trustee Rosner, will you promise now not to use this rebate to pay for Tau or to make it possible to use other money for Tau? sbenois, as LL's original thread on this topic suggested, the Tauistas are demanding $170,000 from the town for their pet project and the town can't legally use the 2004 bond money they were trying to use before. It may be that the BOT and Tauistas take away even your scones and lattes. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2885 Registered: 4-2002 |
I will agree to use the money to reduce the increase to the budget that was agreed upon by the full BOT a couple of months ago. I am not even sure it would be legal to use the money for anything other than tax relief. | ||
| J L Bryant Citizen Username: Jeffbryant Post Number: 51 Registered: 6-2002 |
Trustee Rosner - I appreciate your notes, but I'm still not quite understanding why taxpayers can't receive money back from the town (I guess I'm dense), after the town receives aid. BUT I'd like to go one step better than SOrising... any chance you'd agree to reduce next year's 'municipal portion' by the amount addressed by the aid, so that we don't have to figure (or 'count on') another potential hand-out to then balance our town check book??? In simplistic terms - will you reduce the budget..... so that we don't need 'aid'? For my view, whether "aid" is offered from a state, federal, or philathropic source, our proverbial town 'bank-book' ought to be kept in order. Applying for 'free' money isn't something we should regularly figure on year after year. If sources appear every once in a while, fine..... but our village income/budget ought to be based only what we know is due (prop. taxes, rental income, etc.; NOT tickets, btw!). IF that was how the town check-book was.... then issuing money back to taxpayers WOULD be possible, BECAUSE any 'aid' would be in excess of the budget. Too simple?? too idealistic? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3699 Registered: 5-2004  |
JL, that would require the town to actually raise taxes by the amount indicated. The whole point of the relief is to reduce the amount of the budget that is raised through taxes. In other words, you could pay the higher amount and get a refund, or you could pay the lower amount from the outset. Either way, the funding is the same. Except now the town would have to the expense of sending checks out to all taxpayers. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 584 Registered: 2-2006 |
Rastro, I'm wondering if there isn't something to JL Bryant's request. First, I'd also like to be clear: does the town actually budget this state rebate when it draws up the annual operating budget? Second, I agree with Bryant that the town should actually reduce spending, if nothing else as a counterbalance to the deficits created by unfinished developement that they projected income for, the operating deficit from SOPAC and other revenue deficits. Including this phantom income, from several sources, as part of the income of the town is insane. Starting next year, they should cut the budget exactly in proportion to the deficits created by fantasy revenue projections as well as operating deficits like SOPAC. Does anyone know the projected deficits from all of these sources: fantasy revenues and known operating deficits? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2886 Registered: 4-2002 |
Rastro: You have it right. And I imagine doing the calcluations and sending the checks would eat up a lot of the ais. Sorising: Would you state which services you would be ok with cutting to help reduce the budget? Bryant: The aid can only be used towards the budget for the year it was applied for and received. It can't be counted on when calculating the budget. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1868 Registered: 3-2003 |
The fact of the matter is that with the new budget caps, the town can't increase the budget by more than 2.5% plus an additional 1% without voter approval. Debt service isn't included in the budget cap. The town can play around with debt service, such as the SOPAC debt which is off the balance sheet. Apart from debt service, it is highly unlikely that the voters in SO (or most municipalities for that matter) would approve a budget hike in excess of the statutory budget cap. The increase in the tax rate is not the same as the increase in the budget. One of the things Corzine has proposed is to limit the increase in the overall taxes to 4%, putting a cap on the actual tax increase. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4507 Registered: 5-2001 |
At a minimum, you can review the following "Redevelopment Update" (http://www.southorange.org/redevelopment/Redev.pdf) from 2003 which shows how much tax revenue was anticipated from Beifus, the Shop Rite site & Sayid that has not materialized. | ||
| Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 2556 Registered: 5-2005  |
I remember seeing something on a 2003 BOT meeting minutes that indicated there was a "hole" in the budget due to properties being demolished and reconstruction not coming online when it should have and tried to address this at a BOT meeting about 6 weeks ago and was told basically by Trustee Rosen and our VP that my concerns were unfounded. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2887 Registered: 4-2002 |
Spitz: Corzine also did not have a problem with increasing our municipal contribution to the pension fund. Our increase (note: not the total contribution) is slated to be over $500,000 next year. That by itself is about a 3.5% increase. Also, when unions go to arbitration they are routinely given a 4% increase (or in that area). So if Corzine is serious about a real budget cap, he needs to explain how to deal with just those two budget items - total increase assuming no other changes would be over 7%. And for those who talk about cutting health benefits or asking employees need to realize that would be considered a give back by arbitrators and they would get a large pay increase (that is the reality, not how I feel it should be). | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 587 Registered: 2-2006 |
T. Rosner, for starters, freeze all positions for new hires. Cut the town administrator's and village counsel's salaries significantly and continue to do so for several years. Across the board freezes might be another place to look. Contributions to the county should be reduced. I am sure others can think of other alternatives. Why can't the police and fire departments of SO and Mplwd share dispatchers? Ask all department heads to prioritize budget needs and make across the board cuts to everyone. Instead of mounting debt, the town should be starting and funding a rainy-day fund for emergencies that is allowed to grow for several years and by a certain percentage thereafter. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 588 Registered: 2-2006 |
Spitz, it is outrageous that there is no cap on debt service. One reason why new trustees are needed who will pass ordinances to ensure that there are. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1869 Registered: 3-2003 |
John Gross stated at a CBAC meeting a few years ago that most of the residents in South Orange are satisfied with the level of taxes. He said that SO residents are happy to pay the taxes for the high level of services they receive. | ||
| Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 2568 Registered: 5-2005 |
Yes Spitz, and since that meeting the lunatic asylum has managed to round up all the escaped inmates, and the rest of the residents are able to be heard..  | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1870 Registered: 3-2003 |
SOP - I'm just repeating what he said. Howard was at that meeting when Gross made the statement. (It was the municiapl finanace 101 meeting the year that it appeared we had a fiscal crisis.) No doubt Gross was echoing the VP's and BOT's opinion. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2889 Registered: 4-2002 |
SOrising: I think you should try to come to a budget meeting this winter. It might help you understand how and where our tax dollars go (municipal portion). We already have a hiring freeze in place excpet to replace essential employees (e.g. police). The largest part of the budget goes to the salary and benefits of public safety employees (police, fire). Your complaint should be with state arbitrators who seem to think towns have unlimited resources. We have a rainy day fund to some extent (surplus). However, most people do not want to hear we are putting money away for the future and would prefer to see our current taxes kept as low as possible. We discussed sharing dispatchers at length, and there were several reasons given why it would not be the most effective (by the police and fire chiefs), and the potential savings would be minimal. By the way, when we look to share services, it has to benefit both towns. As we saw with our recent study to work out a plan to have a combined recreation department, there were many obstacles and in the end, Mapelwood would not see the same savings S. Orange would (Full study is available thru the clerk's office). | ||
| Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 2576 Registered: 5-2005 |
mrosner, You post that there is a hiring freeze in place except to replace essential employees (e.g. police). We lost an police officer in the most tragic of circumstances, but I heard some while back that we are not getting another officer as the budget can't take it. I have always hoped this was wrong, but had heard nothing otherwise. Since there is not a freeze in place for much needed/essential employees, could you please let me know if we are getting another police officer for South Orange? Thank you | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2890 Registered: 4-2002 |
SOparents: Obviously it is up to the full BOT, but as far as I know the intention is to fill that vacant position. That position is already in the budget. | ||
| Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 2578 Registered: 5-2005 |
Thank you! | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 589 Registered: 2-2006 |
Well, T. Rosner, why don't you list all the new hires this year for us all to see? Of course, SOPAC has a few positions and since we are subsidizing it, we should know about those as well. I think several new hires were made in the recreation department. You did not reply to my suggestion that the village administrator, CFO and treasurer and village counsel take substantial cuts. If Maplewood is not interested in shared services, look to West Orange or Livingston. Spitz, the "high level of services" our taxes pay for are amazing. The height of arrogance. Incredible. Another reason to cut back on one of Gross' three salaries for a hamlet of 16,000 people. | ||
| Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 2579 Registered: 5-2005 |
I still don't understand the logic of bunking the majority of our Administrators saleries onto his tenured position. He is tenured as the treasurer, right? He wasn't tenured as the Administrator, but the administrators salary was by far the biggest figure listed, and somehow, most of that is now on the tenured one..... If the treasurers position warranted the salary it now commands, surely it would have had it prior to him being tenured.  | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 23770 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mark - are you on record as saying the SOPD is currently hiring off of the list? As far as blaming state arbitrators for the sky-high taxes, please do not even suggest to me that police and fire do not deserve annual increases in salary until the same policy is enforced on administrators who have unlimited benefits and job tenure. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2891 Registered: 4-2002 |
Bets: Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say whether the police and fire deserve raises or not. I said if Corzine wants a 4% total cap then the arbitrators need to look at the impact of the total package and the impact towards his goal. S. Orange hires off the list. SOrising: I try to answer questions. If you don't like them then don't engage me in a dialogue. If you would like a complete list of employees this year vs last year, please put in a request to the village clerk (or administrator). I do not keep them in my head and I do this to try to be helpful. Sorry you don't apprectiate. Every year the village hires part-timers in recreation and DPW. The number of those positions has been consistent with past years. However, no new positions have been created. I have posted in the past I will not discuss the performance of a specific employee or their pay. I take it that you are not happy with Mr. Gross's pay or his performance. I think it is fairly obvious, if an employee has a contract, the village has to honor it (whether I voted in favor of the contract or not). | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1871 Registered: 3-2003 |
Whatever happened to the CBAC's recommendation a couple of years ago that consideratrion be given to including some of the indirect costs attributable to the recreation department in the fees charged for various activities? |
