| Author | Message | ||
     Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3711 Registered: 5-2004  |
I really don't want to change the subject, but I do have a question. Why can this issue be put on a ballot due to a petition, but another issue cannot? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4540 Registered: 5-2001  |
Rastro, Good question. In this case, there is a specific state Statute (40:43-66.40) which deals with how to Petition for formation of a joint municipal consolidation study commission. With an issue like Tau, there are provisions for general petition initiatives, although according to the Village Attorney they do not apply based on the way our specific government is chartered. (Although, regardless of the statutes, they would be incredibly foolish to ignore a petition of 1700 residents) | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4541 Registered: 5-2001 |
Here's the article from today's News Record: Joint services on ballot? By Philip Sean Curran Staff Writer A grass roots coalition wants to create a 10- member commission to study whether Maplewood and South Orange should merge or consolidate certain services. The coalition, made up of South Orange and Maplewood residents concerned about rising taxes, is trying to create the commission through a referendum this autumn. They will spend the coming days gathering enough signatures — approximately 540 in South Orange and 734 in Maplewood — to make that happen. They face an early September deadline to get everything to the Essex County Clerk’s Office so the question can be printed on the ballot. If they are successful, voters in South Orange and Maplewood will decide the referendum Nov. 7. The referendum will need to pass in both towns to create the study commission. “ We have to look at all alternatives to curtail tax increases,” said Jeff DuBowy, a South Orange resident who is gathering signatures. Each town would have five unpaid members on the study commission; they would be elected at the same time voters are deciding the ballot question. “ We’ve been wanting to do this for years,” said Howard Levison, a South Orange resident also part of the effort. Levison will be a candidate for one of the five South Orange slots on the study commission. He ran for village trustee in 2005, but lost. A Web site, www.somastudy.org, was created to answer residents’ questions. A voter- backed referendum takes the decision out of the hands of both governing bodies. If it passes, officials will be powerless to stop the commission from forming. Both governing bodies could have created a consolidation commission on their own. A six- member committee, made up of officials in both communities, recommended in October they take this step. But it was not acted on. “ It’s a no- brainer to study this,” said Maplewood Mayor Fred R. Profeta Jr. Profeta was careful to say he was not part of the petition drive but supported it. But he has not closed the door to running for one of the five Maplewood seats on the commission. “ I favor consolidation,” said Village Trustee Allan Rosen. Should the referendum pass, the commission would start working immediately. They would have 10 months to complete a report, one recommending a merger or the towns or the sharing of services, Levison said. Whatever the study commission recommends, the decision would go back to voters for a 2007 referendum, Levison said. That means South Orange and Maplewood voters could decide a year from now to have their towns merge. Home rule is often considered sacrosanct in New Jersey. Communities are reluctant to surrender their authority. But supporters of the petition drive the point to recent comments by Gov. Jon Corzine. In a speech last month, he said shared services was a way to lighten the burden of property taxes “ Consolidating or sharing services understandably presents emotional, political and governmental challenges,” Corzine said. He called for using $ 250 million to provide incentives for municipal governments to move in that direction. South Orange and Maplewood enjoy a leg up on other communities, already sharing the same school district. | ||
| Nuff Sayid Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 474 Registered: 6-2005  |
It's a no brainer. Good Luck! | ||
| mjh Supporter Username: Mjh Post Number: 744 Registered: 5-2001 |
Can anyone answer why Mayor Profetta and Trustee Rosen haven't managed to get this going previously, since they are quoted here as being so supportive of the petition? At a glance, it looks more like J Q Public is dragging our "leaders" toward consolidation kicking and screaming. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4543 Registered: 5-2001 |
mjh, Take a look at the response given at the last BOT Meeting when a similar question was asked & see if you can decipher the answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEuKXSRk4FE | ||
| MARK J ESPOSITO Citizen Username: Clinger9 Post Number: 11 Registered: 5-2003 |
MONTGOMERY, N.J. - Barbara Lehman has lived in this central New Jersey community for 30 years, but her time here is nearing an end. ADVERTISEMENT She sent her children through Montgomery's well-regarded schools. And she enjoys the rolling landscape even as housing developments have spread across it in recent years. But her property taxes have climbed 56 percent since 2000 to a knee-buckling $14,000 a year — a heavy load for a high school French teacher whose salary goes up only about 3 percent a year. "Oh, it's terrible," Lehman said. Despite efforts by governors and lawmakers to do something about it, New Jersey has the highest property taxes in America — a burden that is alarming young couples and retirees alike and deepening public cynicism in a state with a long and rich history of graft and self-dealing. The average property owner in the Garden State pays about $6,000 a year in property taxes, twice the national average. A recent analysis by The New York Times found property taxes increased two to three times faster than personal income from 2000 to 2004 in the suburbs surrounding New York City. New Jersey's booming Somerset County — where Montgomery is situated — got slammed harder than anywhere else in the region, with property taxes climbing 41 percent there while income increased but 5 percent. Susan Horowitz and her husband just marked their 30th year in Montgomery, but they are unsure how long they will be staying. Both are retired teachers who have watched their property taxes nearly double since 2000 to about $12,500 per year. "I look at my pension as paying my property taxes," Horowitz said. "We love living here and as long as we can afford the taxes — because we've paid off our mortgage — we'd like to stay here, but we just don't know." The burden is blamed on a number of factors, including New Jersey's inordinately heavy reliance on property taxes. Property taxes are used to cover most county, municipal and school operations. They account for about 50 percent of taxes collected in the state, compared with a national average of about 30 percent. In addition, because of state budget woes, most New Jersey municipalities and schools have gone five straight years without an increase in their state aid. During that time, property taxes statewide have risen, on average, 7 percent a year. Many also pin the blame on the way many of New Jersey's 566 cities and towns insist on having their own schools, police departments, public works crews and the like, instead of consolidating services with those of other communities to reduce administrative costs. Somerset County, for example, has 21 municipalities. Densely populated Bergen County, just across the Hudson River from New York City, has a staggering 70. Some lawmakers are looking into merging school systems and municipalities but are likely to run into resistance from local officeholders if they try to force the issue. Another reason for high property taxes: State and local government owe billions per year to the state's public employee pension system, which has been riddled by abuses. Also, by court order, the state must send huge chunks of school aid to struggling urban schools, meaning less money is available for middle-class districts. Somerset County is about an hour's drive west of New York City and has gone through explosive growth over the past two decades as the ring of commuter communities extends farther and farther west. Its population has ballooned from about 200,000 people in 1980 to nearly 300,000, and it boasts giant new housing developments and brand-new schools. Its winding two-lane highways now get clogged during rush hour. Somerset ranks as the seventh-wealthiest county in the country with a per capita income of $37,970, according to Census figures. Many Somerset County residents commute to New York; others work in Somerset County or close by at several big pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson. Much of its property taxes go toward the building of schools to accommodate the boom in population. Lehman paid $2,500 a year in property taxes when she moved to Montgomery in 1976. By 2000, her taxes had reached about $9,000. "I will miss it, but I'm moving somewhere where my taxes are a little lower," said Lehman, who plans to move to Long Beach Island. Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine and the Legislature are trying to provide some relief. They plan to spend the rest of the year considering ways to cut state reliance on property taxes. But Lehman and others are not convinced help is coming. Phyllis Beal, a psychiatric social worker who has seen her property taxes in the Somerset County community of Franklin increase 50 percent since 2000, said: "Our legislators are so beholden to special interests in every direction." | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 479 Registered: 8-2001 |
Since school funding makes up the lion's share of our property tax burden, and SO/M already share a consolidated school district, I don't see where further consolidation is going to give us a very big bang for our buck. Focusing on the school board's budget and expenditures feels like a better opportunity. If there is an opportunity to save by further consolidation of services, without breaking anything, I support pursuing it, but I don't see the huge windfall that some seem to expect materializing. Add another neighboring town into the mix and maybe we're on to something, but I suspect the ones we'd like to merge with won't want us, and vice versa. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4544 Registered: 5-2001 |
wnb, Keep in mind this is NOT a question of whether or not to consolidate. This is simply a petition drive to put a referendum on the ballot to decide if a STUDY should be done. In my opinion, let's not jump to any conclusions until we simply see what the STUDY shows. Since the STUDY will largely be paid for by the State, I can't think of a reason to not at least STUDY this, right? | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 481 Registered: 8-2001 |
Right, I wasn't making a statement in opposition to the study... only making a speculatory observation. A study is in order to get past speculatory observations and into facts. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 624 Registered: 2-2006 |
But wnb is right that there should be studies, not just one study, MHD. SO should be looking at several other towns all at once for many reasons. Even if Mplwd were to decide it were interested in consolidating with SO, that would yield a fairly small town of only 30-32,000 residents. Meanwhile, it would be surrounded by much larger towns like a merged W. Orange, Orange and Montclair; merged Millburn, Short Hills and Livingston, etc. The money the state is putting up to fund these studies may be gone during a second round of consolidation studies. Although its a good idea, it is not comprehensive enough to best position South Orange, given the rush for the study monies and other mergers further along than ours. I heard similar laments from a Maplewood resident this morning. The referendum question should be amended to include other towns besides Maplewood. It just is not smart to put all our eggs in one town. You told us before you attended a high school that serves six towns now. This would be a smarted move. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4548 Registered: 5-2001 |
SORising, One step at a time. My understanding is that the current State statute is only for the STUDY of the consolidation of TWO municipalities. I agree that further consolidations could be studied, but this does need to be done one step at a time. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 626 Registered: 2-2006 |
But the question, since it has been an ostacle or excuse in the past, is whether later there will be state funding for another study, or other towns still interested in talking to SO about shared services. I understand some people will fear-monger the issue of a study (Calabrese: Profeta is trying to take over SO), but if the study is the first step, if we wait to have similar studies for other towns (two at a time for each study SO&WO; SO&Livingston; SO&Millburn, etc.), when we finally get around to it, it might be too late. Then if Mplwd really doesn't want to move forward, we could be up a creek, for a combination of several reasons: state funding stream, geography, other conversations others are having about the same topic, etc. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3715 Registered: 5-2004 |
Just to clarify, is the study to consolidate the towns, or to consolidate services betrween the towns? My impression was around shared services, but SOrising is talking about merging towns. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4554 Registered: 5-2001 |
Rastro, The STUDY is to explore both options. Per the wording that would appear on the referendum: “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?” | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 628 Registered: 2-2006 |
I think the study could cover both, shared services and mergers, Rastro. It is only a study. But we should definitely approach West Orange and other towns rather than foreclosing future options by not having a wider approach, by not getting the studies underway as soon as possible rather than waiting until it may be too late to keep options open because others have acted more quickly and with greater purpose than we have. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5713 Registered: 10-1999  |
A referendum is necessary, if you want to seriously consider consolidation. A referendum is not necessary, if you just want to seriously consider the sharing of services. So, why bother with the referendum, unless you seriously want to consider merging the towns? Would it make more sense to put more effort into studying the sharing of services - a project which has broader support? | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 631 Registered: 2-2006 |
There are, potentially, Nohero, several referenda. There is a petition circulating to ask SO and MPLD voters if they want a referendum to have a study that would examine shared services, consolidation or both. (A website with the exact wording can be found on some other threads.) If enough signatures are gathered and it makes it onto the Nov. ballot, a commission to examine the same issues would be formed; people would vote for the members of the commission on the same Nov. ballot. Consolidation would require approval at the polls, another referendum. Although I don't believe a referendum is legally required if SO wanted to share services with Mplwd, it is necessary if the BOT and/or town council of Mplwd blocks the implementation of share services. I gather this is what has occurred and triggered the petition for a plebescite, to get around obstruction by the governing bodies of the two towns which have killed implementing shared services by inaction. | ||
| Psychomom Citizen Username: Psychomom Post Number: 494 Registered: 5-2005  |
These consolidation ideas sound good on paper but learn from experience,it seldom works out the way its planned. ie the IHM/St. Paul's merger (long thread on MOL which got way outta hand with mudslinging and nastiness) Then there's the question of lost jobs in a merger, and who is in charge say of a joint police or fire dept. One town is the "winner" and one the loser any way you look at it. And who decides who merges with whom? You just assume it would be Mplwd/so and it probably would be but suppose it was Orange/So Orange or Mplwd/Irvington??? Could get really ugly. | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 763 Registered: 1-2004 |
Open your mind people. So a few people lose jobs. Yikes, I guess everyone would rather have skyrocketing taxes. If we ever consolidated the towns, you could come up with some township name, and then each town gets to keep their zip code and their current name. Kinda like Millburn/SH; they have two zipcodes, two towns, but one municipality. And remember, So and M used to be one town a long time ago. For pete's sake, we already share the schools. I say name it South Mountain Township. THen, within S. Mountain Twnshp, you have people who live in the Village of S. Orange at 07079 and people who live in Maplewood at 07040. Govt gets set up so that people get elected from all neighborhoods, and we vote on a mayor. Or maybe some other system, but anyway we'd have one fire department, one police dept, one rec dept. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5715 Registered: 10-1999 |
Psychomom - The people in each town decide who to merge with. Nobody can make a town merge with another town, if the people don't vote for it. All I meant, in my earlier post, was that the shared services can be studied without a referendum, and without electing a commission to study the issue. If members of one or the other governing body oppose looking at shared services, then lobby them. Make the study of shared services a campaign issue. Looking at sharing services is a good idea, and getting a more detailed study of that should start right away. It might be easier to get more people on board, if it's "decoupled" from the idea of consolidation. Oh, and Short Hills and Millburn are not two towns. The town is Millburn, and Short Hills is a section of it. And as for relations between Short Hills and the rest of Millburn, have you looked at the school discussions in the "Millburn/Short Hills" section? | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 764 Registered: 1-2004 |
I said "kinda like". Okay, so there was never a merger, but they are two zipcodes and guess what? They act like two towns. According to SH, Millburn is like so the wrong side of the tracks. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4562 Registered: 5-2001 |
Received very positive feedback from people today while gathering signatures on the petition. If you have not already signed the petition, please download, print and sign it ASAP at www.somastudy.com | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8042 Registered: 5-2001 |
MHD wrote: "In my opinion, let's not jump to any conclusions until we simply see what the STUDY shows. Since the STUDY will largely be paid for by the State, I can't think of a reason to not at least STUDY this, right? " It is the "largely paid for by the State" component which needs to be examined. This study, if approved by the electorate, will not be free. Each town will have to pay towards the cost of the study, money that may mean cutting other services since we are now operating under a municipal tax cap and money, if authorized which could be better spent on things we really need now even if the funding can be squeezed into our tight budgets without sacrificing other proposed expenditures. It would also require the time, energy, and commitment of some of our most capable citizens at a time when we need to direct these creative energies towards regionalization initiatives which have a far better chance of reducing duplication of services across municipal lines and saving us some real tax dollars. | ||
| fredprofeta Citizen Username: Fredprofeta Post Number: 129 Registered: 10-2001 |
Joan: I don't think that your analysis is correct. See my very recent post on the Maplewood thread about the cost - there is much more likely to be a "reward" than a cost. As to the second part of your post, you seem to be making a distinction between the human resources necessary to study a full consolidation, and that necessary to study broader regionalization efforts. In my opinion, the distinction is false. Regionalization takes a lot of time also, and the climate is not ripe yet to reach out to other contiguous towns to join the study. See an earlier post of mine on the Maplewood thread. Further regionalization efforts would best be enhanced by starting something serious and effective between M and SO. We must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As to the time committment, remember that no one has to become a commissioner unless he/she calculates that the time is there. And most of the "heavy lifting" regarding fiscal analysis is borne by the State and the consultant. There is a lot of creative energy and talent that has not yet been effectively tapped in these two towns. We have a big surplus, and I cannot think of a more exciting way to energize that surplus than an initiative of this importance and prominence in the State, especially in light of the Governor's stated policy. | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 638 Registered: 2-2006 |
I saw your posts on the Maplewood thread, F. Profeta, and you did not answer the question why W. Orange could not be added to the study. See my post on the Mplwd thread. If W. Orange were part of a proposed study, it might convince me and others there would be more reward than cost to a study that is too narrowly conceived to be very helpful and too limited in choices to be very productive. The "perfect" of your nomeclature would be a study on many towns that Joan and others have requested. The "good" would be a study that would not limit our options to two poor ones (see my earlier post on the lose-lose scenario of doing nothing or proceeding with the study as it is presently conceived). | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8044 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fred: Where do you see the reward for Maplewood? I haven't seen anyone in this discussion on any of the related threads spell out the answer to that question. How do you know that other towns in our area would be unwilling to consider any regionalization initiatives at this time that would include Maplewood (or South Orange for that matter)? I am sure you know far more about this than I or the majority of other posters to these threads and I would appreciate your input. Could you please give us some information regarding recent failed attempts in this area or even discussions which lead you to believe that attempts at consolidation or shared services with towns other than South Orange would be doomed to failure? It would be especially helpful for us to know why these attempts failed or it was concluded that these attempts would fail and why you think that a referendum on the ballot to study consolidation with South Orange or shared services with South Orange would enhance our ability to enter into meaningful discussion/ negotiation with other communities, that could not be entered into if the proposed referendum as worded did not appear on this November's ballot. I am willing to be convinced that this referendum is a good thing (or at least a necessary thing) but I need a few more facts to go on. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1877 Registered: 3-2003 |
Joan - As I recall, several months ago in a discussion about shared services in the Malpewood section, you suggested Millburn be considered in addition to/ rather than South Orange. Is there any chance you might be raising fewer questions if the proposed referundum were to study consolidation of Maplewood and Millburn? | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1752 Registered: 3-2002 |
I too am still unclear on this. And I don't buy the argument that "it doesn't cost much, let's just see what develops". This is a big project, and the energy that goes into it isn't available for something else. We've done a number of smaller studies on consolidation, even if the implementation has lagged. Presumably we started with areas that either represent "low hanging fruit" or seem easier to implement. So, in those studies, what percent of the two towns budgets were addressed, and what level of savings were identified? I don't have the history on this. My hypothesis is that most of our money is spent on salaries, benefits and pensions. I think there is a real danger that focusing the town's and state's attention on on squeezing benefits from consolidation may act as a distraction from the much harder questions of reforming in areas like healthcare and pension benefits for state and local employees. I'm worried about this on both state and local levels. I'm willing to be convinced, but I don't buy the argument that we should just start the process in case it is useful. Much as I respect some of those driving this process I'm not clear on why this is a good idea (either in terms of demonstrable possible impact or in context of channeling the necessary political energies for electoral change in S.O. next spring). | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 640 Registered: 2-2006 |
Spitz, I think someone remarked on the Mplwd thread discussion of this referendum that Millburn does not now want to have a study examining partnering with Mplwd. susan1014, I believe recreation and health departments were examined as the low hanging fruit. Not sure, but think there may have been slight increase in shared rec activities but I believe Mplwd balked at having one health officer for both towns or some other aspect of health merger. The cost savings here, as FP may have indicated, were minimal, but some improvement of rec services may have occurred. The larger savings is supposed to be in fire and police sharing/mergers. Here the differences in the personnel systems of the two towns makes it difficult, so much so, that without sufficient will (as would be provided by approval of a referendum, it is reasonably argued), it has thus far been stymied. There are also union issues. More info is available on the Mplwd thread about these topics. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8048 Registered: 5-2001 |
Spitz: I did not advocate a consolidation with Millburn in a prior post on any of these related threads. I pointed out that there were factors to consider in a potential consolidation with Millburn just as there would be with proposed consolidation with any other municipality. For the record I am not opposed to consolidation or sharing of services but I feel that consolidating ONLY with South Orange would not result in much of a savings for Maplewood residents tax-wise because the two towns are too similar. Millburn has a much larger commercial tax base than we do and some homes which are valued at much more that most Maplewood homes but Millburn also has additional expenses and problems associated with this additional tax base and Millburn would be looking to gain something from a consolidation with us and I am not sure what that would be. | ||
| Tea Kettle Citizen Username: Teacup Post Number: 23 Registered: 7-2006  |
Susan, I feel the same way. The state is giving out money to form these commissions, and it feels like Mplwd & SO don't want to be left behind. We already consolidated the #1 township expense. Unless we are thinking about widening the school consolidation to other towns, I feel as if it is just a way for people looking for power to say see, we tried to help you, we did this. And also get some cash from the state. | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 489 Registered: 8-2001 |
Our largest expense is already consolidated between the two towns and I don't see anyone sitting back smiling at how much money it has saved us, what wonderful condition our schools are in, and how fortunate we all are to live in such a wonderfully consolidated school district. I feel that considering consolidation of more services before you have successfully consolidated the ones you already have, is premature. Is there an analysis that has shown precisely how much has actually been saved as a result of the school district consolidation? Was it ever held up to a target standard, and if so, did it achieve what it was supposed to achieve or did it fall short? I walk through the schools for adult education programs or events and I'm frankly appalled at the environment we put our kids into every day, and the message this sends to them. However right now the discussion is far from "should we consolidate more." It is "should voters be given an opportunity to decide whether or not further consolidation should even be considered." Now I'm naturally suspicious of government studies and I'm from South Orange so forgive me for being naturally suspicious of things that obviously cost money but "aren't going to cost us anything." I'm also, as you can gather, suspicious of consolidation as a silver bullet to cure all of our taxation ills. I've seen it executed poorly in the public sector and I've seen it executed poorly in the corporate sector. That said, I believe giving the choice to the voters as to whether or not to proceed with this study, is probably the best course of action at this time. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 2162 Registered: 8-2002 |
In reality, isn't the biggest expense people: wages and benefits? Police, fire, rescue, town, teachers, etc! To save money, there really needs to be a rationalization of things like insurance, sick time/pay, retirement, and so on. But that is likely one of the hardest things to accomplish in 1 town, neverthemind multiple. Otherwise to bring homeowners taxes down, its the old song, you need more commercial ratables! I'm all for a joint study -- in the area of purchasing, back office processing, and so on -- we should do everything possible together. Even on a small scale -- how about both town pools coming together on a single chemical supplier, single company to repair equipment, etc.? Pete | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 490 Registered: 8-2001 |
No, the vast majority of property taxes collected in SO and Maplewood go to our consolidated school district. You can try to slice it a different way if you like to separate "people" from "non-people" costs, but it does not and will not change the fact that the school district is the largest portion of the bill any way you slice it. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8052 Registered: 5-2001 |
Personnel costs can be controlled by cutting staff, job restructuring, increased use of part-time vs full-time staff where full time staff isn't really needed, etc. Problem is greater in uncontrolled expenditures for existing debt service, insurance (including non-health insurance), pensions for existing retirees and the like. These costs will remain an obligation for any consolidated municipality which may arise from the Commission proposal, should the ballot question pass in November (assuming it makes the ballot). One of the things voters should consider is the financial obligation their town will assume in taking on a proportion of the consolidation partner(s)' mandated expenditures. Tax breaks for piloted projects and the like, which put a heavier tax burden on non-subsidized taxpayers also have to be considered in the equation if real property tax savings for residents is a prime consideration in deciding whether or not to vote for consolidation or even a consolidation study. | ||
| Politicalmon Citizen Username: Politicalmon Post Number: 237 Registered: 9-2005  |
Shared services and regional consolidation not only works but will generate substantial savings for the taxpayers. This is really a no brainer - look at Pennsylvania and Connecticut were this thinking is the norm - good schools systems and low taxes regardless of whether they have ratable or not. You can be guaranteed that the special interest groups that have much to lose if this materializes will make their best effort of defeating this resolution. Promote share services and combine the communities - 1 local government and this would be the best time to move much of what the paper pushers do in local government to a web based delivery system - streamline local government with technology. Let the cards fall where they will, let's cut the fat and get our communities back on track one brick at a time. | ||
| wnb Citizen Username: Wnb Post Number: 491 Registered: 8-2001 |
I would not call community consolidation a "no brainer." I do not need to look to CT and PA, I can look right here at SO & M. Is our consolidated school district significantly better, cheaper than it was before consolidation? Has anybody ever bothered to figure that out? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1249 Registered: 6-2001 |
Before we had a consolidated School District, didn't we have one town with one School District? TomR | ||
| Politicalmon Citizen Username: Politicalmon Post Number: 238 Registered: 9-2005 |
wnb, If you are looking at SO & M school district then you know that it has always been 1 district and never part of a consolidation. So what is it you are trying to say? |
