| Author | Message | ||
     Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 672 Registered: 1-2004  |
Please join us in a petition to include a "Consolidation Study Commission" question on the Nov. 2006 ballot. For all the details go to www.SOMaStudy.org | ||
| Jeff DuBowy Supporter Username: Jeffd Post Number: 139 Registered: 11-2003 |
A grass roots effort by South Orange and Maplewood taxpayers is seeking petitions to initiate a referendum asking the question: “Shall a joint municipal consolidation study commission be formed to study the feasibility of consolidating the Township of South Orange Village and the Township of Maplewood into a single new municipality, to study the question of the form of government under which such new municipality should be governed, and to make recommendations thereon; or, in the alternative, to make recommendations on the consolidation of certain municipal services?” NJSA 40:43-66.41 In order to place this question on the ballot of the November 2006 election, we need 800 signatures of Maplewood registered voters and 600 signatures of South Orange registered voters by the end of August. The petition does not take a position on the sharing of services or consolidation, but merely seeks the establishment of a "Study Commission". If we get the required number of signatures, the voters will decide in the November 2006 election whether the joint study commission will be formed. Any consolidation recommendation would have to be voted on by the community in the November 2007 election. There are many questions that will be asked. Please visit www.SOMaStudy.org and read the fact sheet. What is this going to cost? It is my understanding the study should cost well under $100,000. The state has been paying for at least 50% of the cost of these studies. The remainder of cost to be split by the towns equally, which could be $25,000 for each town. In light of the recent initiatives that Governor Corzine is taking, it is quite possible the state picks up the entire cost. A hard cost will be determined and disseminated to the public before they vote on this proposal. Where does the Governing body of the towns stand on this issue? In 2004, South Orange’s Board of Trustees and Maplewood’s Township Committee formed a Joint Services Study Committee to review sharing services. And, in October 2005, based on its joint review, this committee unanimously recommended: 1. Study sharing services among two, small departments – health and recreation; and, 2. Form a Joint Consolidation Commission, under New Jersey’s Municipal Consolidation Act, to further study the benefits of sharing other government services. To date, no ordinance or action has been taken on the second recommendation. I queried the South Orange BOT in July on these issues. You can view this dialog at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEuKXSRk4FE We need signatures on petitions to place a question on the ballot. There is no cost except the efforts and time of many volunteers in our communities. If you would like to support the effort for a study commission, go to the web site of the South Orange Maplewood Concerned Taxpayers (SOMACT) where you can download a petition, sign it and mail it in. (www.SOMastudy.org) We need original signatures. Any additional signatures of friends and neighbors will help us meet our goal. You can also email your friends and neighbors urging them to sign and send in petitions. Time is very limited, requiring immediate action. As one of the most tax stressed communities in New Jersey, I strongly urge you to join me and support this effort. Sincerely, Jeff DuBowy | ||
| Sheena Collum Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 777 Registered: 4-2005  |
Wonderful as always Howard, Jeff and Michael... it's been a great pleasure assisting you in your efforts  I got no response in another thread so I'll repeat - if anyone here likes to rollerblade - that is my vehicle of choice for going to neighborhoods this weekend.... And a small request - if I'm at your door... and your a MOLer... introduce yourself... I'm very pleasant (unless you're attempting to limit my speaking time to 3 minutes and won't let me defer it to a previous speaker (ahem...), lol). G'night all | ||
| Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese  Post Number: 2105 Registered: 7-2004  |
Sheena, I'm sorry if I don't invite you in. If I put on the charm I may never be able to get rid of you. It's better to play it safe. Have a nice time this weekend. | ||
| Sheena Collum Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 779 Registered: 4-2005 |
Mayor - I'm sure your 'charm factor' ranks among the highest. But before playin' it safe - make sure you sign a petition . Enjoy your weekend as well. | ||
| Tea Kettle Citizen Username: Teacup Post Number: 18 Registered: 7-2006  |
McCheese wrote the book on charm! Actually, he's just sited in a footnote. I would like to get a petition together to form a study comission to study the validity of studies. The goal would be to produce a study regarding the cost / benefits of studies. The commission will be made up in half by stakeholders who believe that studies are invaluable and any cost is offset by the supposed "benefit" of obsure, useless knowledge. The other half would be the types that can be called "bull in china shops" that believe that action first, then consideration, is the best route. The commission will spend 80% of the time fighting over the basic premises and study design. The remaining 20% will be the two factions meeting separately to form their own findings. Once the public gets antsy wondering why the report has yet to surface, the two sides will try their best of combine their separate reports. The final report will conclude that studies, sometimes, but not always, provide us with information. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8019 Registered: 5-2001 |
I would be much more willing to support a study that had a chance of bringing about some real cash savings such as a proposal to form a single municipality comprised of all of the towns in Suburban Essex County. South Orange and Maplewood are both too small and to heavily invested in residential ratables for shared services or consolidation liminted to our two towns to amount to much in the way of real property tax relief. | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1746 Registered: 3-2002 |
Joan, The question is this...why would the towns with the major ratables (e.g. the Short Hills Mall) supporting them want to merge with a town that has almost no ratables? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1240 Registered: 6-2001 |
Howard & Jeff, There's a discussion going on over at http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?3132/135736 Several questions have been raised, but answers seem to be in short supply. Mayhewdrive has tried to help, but he has limited information, not being a member of the Commmittee. I'm hoping to meet with Mayhew over the weekend and hopefully learn more, (at this point Andrea cannot join us) but at the moment, I can't see the 7.5% reduction in spending needed to make this palatable, much less acceptable. Can either of you address the concerns raised at Mostly Maplewood? Thanks for any help in understanding. TomR P.s. I'm happy to read that two more members have been added to the Maplewood contingent of the Committee. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8021 Registered: 5-2001 |
Susan: A major municipal consolidation of the type I am suggesting in my post would have benefits for all municipalities concerned which would go far beyond the question of which town has the greater number of commercial/industrial ratables. If we were to be able to form a single municipality of Suburban Essex, we would have combined resources and a single forum for planning and development which would enable us to create and maintain a community which could offer more and better services and maintenance of infrastructure than we could possibly hope for now. Each of our towns has strengths that could contribute to making such an endeavor a success if such consolidation were approached properly. As far as you specific question is concerned, one might equally ask why Maplewood and/or South Orange would want to assume a share of the cost of the municipal services, maintenance of infrastructure, environmental and public safety concerns connected with having a major shopping mall within the boundaries of a combined municipality of which we are a part. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1244 Registered: 6-2001 |
A member of the Committee has pointed out a possible error in my methodology for analyzing the costs/savings to residents of the two towns. Until we figure out which of us is correct, ignore my prior postings on this subject. TomR | ||
| red_alert Citizen Username: Red_alert Post Number: 324 Registered: 3-2005 |
This is a very interesting proposal and should be raised with both South Orange and Maplewood governing bodies. We need a way to be more cost efficient and more effective with the tax revenue. There is an opportunity to share services and subseqently lower the tax burden on the residents. This can also provide better support for our public services (police, rescue squad, fire, etc.). I also remember reading an article in the Star Ledger a few weeks ago on the Tax Stress factor which rates how much impact the taxes have on their town's residents. Like most of the towns in Essex County, South Orange rated high on the Tax Stress level. Sharing services with Maplewood could alleviate the strain for both towns. | ||
| Two Senses Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 453 Registered: 7-2004 |
Do the math! For only 14,000* households, is it possible we really don’t need: 2 town administrators 2 chief financial officers 2 emergency safety officers 2 town clerks 2 tax assessors 2 tax collectors 2 police chiefs 2 fire chiefs 2 engineering departments 2 building departments 2 public works departments 2 recreation departments 2 health departments 2 library systems and 2 dog catchers If we never eliminate a single rank and file job, piece of equipment, building, or service contract, there’s such obvious opportunity for savings. And, if there’s no interest in getting with the program, saving money, and reducing taxes, then re-channel all of this redundancy into expanded services, and become the most desirable community in the state – further driving up everyone’s home value. P.S. Does anyone know what we pay all of these folks? *2005 U.S. Census Households: South Orange 5,522 + Maplewood 8,452. |
