| Author | Message | ||
     SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 456 Registered: 2-2006 |
From today's NY Times article about NJ budget deal: "Mr. Corzine said that the use of a portion of the sales tax increase on municipal aid would not prevent the state from exploring other ways to lower property taxes, including holding a legislative session this summer on subjects like streamlining the state's 566 municipalities. 'We have a series of reviews going on that will bring fundamental property tax reform,' Mr. Corzine said." So, it looks like some revenues will come to SO for property tax relief, thanks to the Speaker of the NJ legislature, and maybe more later because of the Governor. (I hope the BOT does not take this as a sign they should increase bonding.) Aside from this, does anyone know what the Governor's plans for "streamlining municipalities" might be and how they might impact SO and Maplewood's shared services or possible merger? | ||
| Politicalmon Citizen Username: Politicalmon Post Number: 196 Registered: 9-2005  |
From what I can gather - 50% of the 1% sales tax increase will be used to offset property tax increases for the 1st year and then 100% for the following years. In addition, there will be cuts made in municipal aid to all communities in NJ. So due to this, Municipal governments will have less to work with and therefore will be forced to raise local property taxes to make up for the loss of funding from Trenton. So in essence they make it sound like tax relief is coming while at the same time they are cutting municipal funding - in the end we will end up paying more! As long as the state budget keeps increasing and local politicians protect their turfs and roadblock shared services & township consolidation there is big dark storm gathering energy. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10057 Registered: 4-1997  |
The cuts to municipal aid was what would have happened had the sales tax not been raised. | ||
| Politicalmon Citizen Username: Politicalmon Post Number: 197 Registered: 9-2005 |
Agreed simply because of the huge defecit, but based on a discussion with a state non profit fiscal watchdog group the cuts will turn into no aid what so ever and local defecits will have to be addressed through local funding. | ||
| frannyfree Citizen Username: Frannyfree Post Number: 205 Registered: 1-2004 |
We will always get the shaft from our politicians. We wont see a penny. It's all for them and their pet projects and the people be damned..hey you live in NJ! | ||
| David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 51 Registered: 4-2003 |
With our sky-high property taxes and joint school system, South Orange and Maplewood are prime candidates for municipal consolidation. Corzine is right about NJ having too many municipalities. Are there really very many compelling reason to remain apart? Lower taxes could be realized statewide if towns consolidated where it makes sense. The elimination of county governments would be the next step, and again I'll ask why not? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2868 Registered: 4-2002 |
David: Some of the money has been earmarked for towns to look at consolidation of services or the towns. I continue to ask that we do a consolidation study and hopefully the state will fund the full cost of a study and implementation. It is easy to say we should have municipal consolidation (and elimination of county government) as long as the funding to back up those ideas are there. I think the timing to do a study is right because it appears Corzine is willing to back up his words with money (via the 1% increase in sales tax). There is no question in my mind S. Orange and Maplewood could be a model study. The only question I have is why would any one object to having this study done if the cost is minimal? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4477 Registered: 5-2001  |
His name is Bill Calabrese and he doesn't want to lose POWER. | ||
| David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 52 Registered: 4-2003 |
I doubt anyone outside of political office-holders (not selfless ones like you, Mark, but "others") would object to a study. However, is a costly study really needed? Who cannot see that there would be savings? Is it a question of knowing HOW MUCH savings before the idea is worthwhile? WHO CARES? Any savings at all would result in lower taxes. THE BOT has given lip service to "studying" the cost benefits of merged services (although NOT of merged townships) for YEARS. Yes, years. Stop looking for someone to foot the bill for a study and just consider doing something NOW. Perhaps we should start the call for ONE TOWN, ONE VISION. Please, anyone with good reasons we should remain two towns, speak up! | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10241 Registered: 4-1997 |
Because SO taxes would go even higher if Maplewood were included in a two-town reval? Just a guess, really. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2871 Registered: 4-2002 |
David: There are legal issues why an official study has to be done. Plus eventually it has to be sold to the voters and they are going to want to make an informed decision based on the pros and the cons. I will say that if property tax savings is the real goal, then elimination of county government, and ending the use of property tax for the primary funding source for schools would be far more beneficial to towns like ours. The average town spends over 50% of their property tax bill for education so obviously towns with mostly commercial ratables are in a better position financially. The other towns fight to get commercial ratables even when their downtowns are not designed for large commercial development. Consolidation makes sense to do, but at best will bring us a small savings. By most estimates it will mean a 5 - 10% savings of the municipal portion. That means the average in S. Orange would go from $12,000 to $11,700 (10% of the municipal portion which on average is $3,000). Some people will argue it is not worth giving up control of the police, fire, recreation, etc for a small savings. However, I think we need to do everything we can do. Consolidation, sharing services, eliminating the county government and using income taxes (and yes, that would mean a large increase) to fund schools. Our property taxes are insane and steps need to be taken. At my level, the only thing to do is consolidation and to lobby the state for other changes. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4479 Registered: 5-2001 |
[Insert obligatory TAU comment here]  | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 539 Registered: 2-2006 |
It isn't clear to me, why that would be true, Dave. Would you please explain it? If it were true, maybe property tax equilibrium in the two towns could be achieved simply by raising SO's taxes gradually, across a long period of time, according to what might be their normal course anyway, while Mplwd's are held in place. The state could subsidize the difference in gradually attenuating amounts, until equilibrium were achieved, as part of its funding the merger/consolidation. Possible? Anyone? David Lackey, differences in municipal personnel systems might need studies, analysis, or other think-tanking before we should try to implement a merger of different systems. It would be unfair to implement municipal mergers at the expense of town employees. For potential merger areas of less complexity, scarce state monies, at a time of significant deficits both in NJ and in SO, might be better spent as you suggest, on mergeing itself. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10243 Registered: 4-1997 |
It's really a guess based on an assumption that the average house in South Orange has a slightly higher value than the average house in Maplewood. As for the adjustment/raising of a property re-evaluation over time, Maplewood looked into that and wasn't able to do so legally. The reason for the two towns originally separating was due to a re-evaluation disagreement. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2872 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: Actually, I think Maplewood would wind up with the larger increase, not S. Orange (at least that is what I saw from one of the initial reports from the first consultant). However, there would be a net savings for both towns and in the long run the argument about which town gets the short end of the stick with the school funding goes away. SORising: You are correct about the municipal personnel systems (civil service in S. ORange, not in maplewood) need to be worked out. There is legislation pending to help make it easier to sort these things out, but until they pass we will not know exactly how that will work out. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 540 Registered: 2-2006 |
If the Governor is serious about wanting to reduce the number of municipalities, there would have to be a well-thought through system or wide net of carrots and sticks to move it along. I don't understand how county governments could be eliminated. What about unincorporated areas? Perhaps the role of county governments should change but how would they be eliminated? | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 23695 Registered: 6-2001  |
Sorry Mark. Other than the pathetically unactive elections, what decisions have voters EVER made in this town? | ||
| David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 53 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mark, Perhaps in my zeal for lowering taxes, I am indeed being too hasty about township consolidation. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. I just won't hang any banners or organize any marches until you get your studies, panels and debates going. Also, I agree with your assessment that more tax savings would be found in eliminating counties and changing the school-funding source. SOrising, To eliminate county government, some of the duties now performed by the county would have to be taken over by the state, while the rest would be taken over by the townships. In this scenario, both state taxes and local taxes would have to rise, but the taxes we pay now to the county would be eliminated. The big-picture savings would be achieved by removing that layer of government. Yes, jobs would be lost, but don't most people feel that government is too big? Your remark above about S.O-Mapl. municipal workers losing their jobs if we were to consolidate is a sad but necessary effect. Why have two people do the job that one can do just as well? Connecticut eliminated counties about 40 years ago. Some Essex County employees would be hired by the state and municipalities. Some would have to shift to the private sector. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 541 Registered: 2-2006 |
DL, I didn't say that positions would not be eliminated. But there are better than worse ways to do that. I still don't understand what would happen to people who don't live in towns but in unincorporated areas. Usually they would have a county government to turn to for ordinances, services, whatever. I don't understand how it could be completely eliminated, so it seems like we might throw the baby out with the bath water if it were entirely eliminated. If you lived in a county but not in a town, would you want to have to contact Trenton for everything? How would it work, really? | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 173 Registered: 4-2003 |
School funding should not be impacted in South Orange (or Maplewood) because the tax division is based on (state) adjusted tax ratables which should not be changed by revaluation or consolidation. That should be no obstacle to (study of) consolidation. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5652 Registered: 10-1999  |
SOrising - Unlike some other other states, New Jersey does not have any unincorporated areas. Every square inch is part of some municipality. That's why elimination of county government is given serious consideration here. | ||
| Tea Kettle Citizen Username: Teacup Post Number: 9 Registered: 7-2006  |
I love counties for having the first cleared roads in the winter. I love counties for having a county court system. Are county taxes, really, what's draining us? Or is it just an easy thing to pick off since the seat of the county is located "down there". However, do both SO and Mplwd need a fire and police chief? Two sets of 911 dispatchers? Is crime so rampant that there is this need? This is a redundancy of service. Mplwd & SO are already praised for sharing a school system, why not more services? It's not about the number of staff, but the amount of staff at the top. I suppose you can argue that clearing the roads pose a redundancy of service, but I would like to see Mplwd and SO come up with the cash to repave Valley or Springfield on their own, without the pool of county resources. Mostly, I think that Corzine was addressing the hundreds of school districts over hundreds of towns. Why does Teterboro need a school board? If you think taxes are high, imagine having to pay for 2 high school principles, two of everything. Maybe we should be asking our surrounding towns to start consolidating services to save them, and ultimately, us. | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 309 Registered: 2-2003 |
There has been talk about M-SO shared services. Beyond that, can anyone identify things that the municipalities and the county are both doing (perhaps including the roads, but I am thinking beyond that), that could have redundancies eliminated by getting rid of either the municipality function or the county function? Is there any shot in heck that Millburn would consider a three-way consolidation of certain services? | ||
| metfan33 Citizen Username: Metfan33 Post Number: 1 Registered: 7-2006 |
If merging with Maplewood is such a problem because of Civil Service why not look at West Orange? I believe Orange is doing this right now | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1206 Registered: 6-2001 |
How many PILOT properties does South Orange have? How many does Maplewood have? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 605 Registered: 2-2006 |
Article in Star Ledger today saying W. Orange is talkinkg with Montclair and Orange about consolidating. Will South Orange be left behind? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4527 Registered: 5-2001 |
SORising, Your post is very timely. An effort had just gotten underway to put a referendum on the November Ballot to decide whether or not a Joint Consolidation Commission should be formed with Maplewood to STUDY the idea of consolidation and/or shared services. To accomplish this, signatures of registered voters are URGENTLY needed by the end of the month. (Unlike Tau, there is a provision in the State for this petition to be binding to initiate a referendum if enough signatures are gathered) Go to www.somastudy.org NOW and download a petition, have it signed by you, your spouse & your neighbor immediately. When complete, mail it to: Jeff Dubowy 669 Mountain Drive South Orange, New Jersey 07079 | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 607 Registered: 2-2006 |
Thanks, MHD. How many signatures are needed by the end of the month? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4529 Registered: 5-2001 |
Approximately 600 from South Orange and approximately 800 from Maplewood | ||
| Kibbegirl Citizen Username: Kibbegirl Post Number: 692 Registered: 5-2003 |
Great link! I've printed mine and have forwarded the link to others! | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2902 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: I am pretty sure the signature has to be from a registered voter. I know the goal is to get more signatures than required in case some are disqualified. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4530 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, Yes...you are correct. Although, I did say that above ("signatures of registered voters are URGENTLY needed by the end of the month"). Sorry if it wasn't clear. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2904 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: Sorry, I did not catch that in your post. Let's hope we get enough signatures soon enough to get this on the ballot this year. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4532 Registered: 5-2001 |
ACK!!! Mark Rosner & I are in agreement? Hmmm....maybe I should reconsider my opinion on this issue. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2905 Registered: 4-2002 |
If you change your mind, you will be in agreement with our VP. You just can't win with this one. haha.. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 610 Registered: 2-2006 |
Yes, he's trying to ride in your wake, MHD. | ||
| Mergele Citizen Username: Mergele Post Number: 426 Registered: 7-2003  |
Apparently there was a meeting on this last night? or is it tonight? Yesterday was the 8th, but today is Wednesday... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:31:47 -0400 Subject: South Orange Maplewood Concerned Taxpayers Dear Neighbor, As you know, there has been much discussion at the state level regarding property tax reform. As one of the most tax stressed communities in New Jersey, most of us in South Orange and Maplewood are following the media coverage carefully. In an effort to find ways to alleviate the heavy property tax burden our community carries, a group of South Orange and Maplewood taxpayers has formed a grass roots organization called South Orange Maplewood Concerned Taxpayers (SOMACT). SOMACT is currently seeking community support for a study commission to determine the advisability of sharing municipal services or the consolidation of the two towns. The first step in this process is to file petitions in South Orange and Maplewood seeking to include a consolidation study commission question on the November 2006 election ballot. Under New Jersey law, we will have to obtain the required signatures by the end of August. With such a tight time frame, SOMACT needs the help of fellow taxpayers and therefore is holding a meeting Wednesday night, August 8, 8:00, at the home of (deleted name and address for public posting; PL me for details). Please reply to me if you can attend. If you would like to join in the effort, but cannot make the meeting, please also reply. For further information, I have Study Commission Questions & Answers set forth below. Hope to see you Wednesday night. ----------------------------------------------- | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4533 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mergele, The meeting was last night. The next step is for everyone to go to www.somastudy.com and download/print/sign the petition! | ||
| Sheena Collum Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 772 Registered: 4-2005  |
This is a great opportunity for anyone who would like to be more involved to come on board. Please contact Jeff if you're interested. 600 signatures is a piece of cake if we have enough volunteers. And if any of you rollerblade - you're welcome to come to the neighborhoods with me (always makes time go by faster if you don't hit a rock...) | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1873 Registered: 3-2003 |
I posted a link to the Tax Trauma Index in the Extraordinary Aid thread - it should have been posted here. |
