| Author | Message | ||
     doublea Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 963 Registered: 3-2003 |
The BOT introduced the 2006 municipal budget at this week's BOT meeting. As introduced, the budget proposed would bring an 8.7% increase in municipal taxes to homeowners. As in past years, it was explained, the budget was introduced at this level to increase South Orange's chance of receiving aid from the state. Allan Rosen is quoted in the News-Record as saying the budget finally adopted will probably result in a 4.5% increase. Under the new budget caps, the budget increase is limited to 2.5%. This can be increased by 1% by the BOT passing a resolution, which it has done. Any increase above the resulting 3.5% must be approved by the voters. My question to Allan or anyone who is familiar with the budget caps is, is this correct, and if so, is it expected that the voters in SO will be asked to approve the excess amount in the fall? I think one of the real questions is, if in fact we do receive aid from the state, why don't we use it to reduce the total increase to the amount which is permitted without having to put any additional increase to the voters? Perhaps the CBAC can offer their comments? Thank you. | ||
| Harold Colton-Max Citizen Username: Coltonmax Post Number: 40 Registered: 1-2004 |
doublea -- While the CBAC has received the Village's Preliminary 2005 Budget documents, we have not yet had the opportunity to go over them with the Village Administrator or the BOT Finance Committee Chair. As you may already be aware, the CBAC has its next meeting scheduled for this Thursday, March 24 at 7:00 p.m. at Village Hall. I will make certain that the other members are aware of the question that you are raising here, though I doubt that the CBAC will take a formal position on the budget for a little while. I hope this information is helpful. -- Harold | ||
| Pizzaz Citizen Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 1662 Registered: 11-2001  |
Harold: I've been extended the privilege to request the attendance of the Finance sub-committee of the Recreation and Cultural Affairs Advisory Committee at your next scheduled CBAC meeting. Our purpose is to review with your members the recommendation set forth last year to the BoT as it relates to a cost study of program activities of the Department. I look forward to a joint effort of both committees. I will communicate this meeting to the RCA Advisory sub-committee membership, today. Thank you. John Pogany | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 144 Registered: 4-2003 |
doublea: The cap applies not to the budget as a whole or to the tax increase, but it applies to expenditures "within caps". Towns are allowed to increase the cap allowance by 1% to 3.5%. Large increases outside of caps that are fueling the budget increase include: a) health insurance $255,000. b) pensions $253,000. c) debt service $121,ooo. d) reserve for uncollected taxes $117,000. There are others, but you get the idea. Increases within caps will not exceed the 3 1/2% limit; so there is no need for the public to vote on the budget. And this is true despite the increase in salaries and wages which comes to just over 4%. | ||
| doublea Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 971 Registered: 3-2003 |
Thanks Allan. I have a question about the reserve for uncollected taxes. I've observed that the tax collection rate for South Orange in recent years has been very high (or at least it seems that it is). Does the reserve truly reflect the actual historical rate of uncollected taxes? My understanding is that this is the swing factor that is used to build up the surplus. Thanks again for your response. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 201 Registered: 1-2004  |
Doublea: You are correct. | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 146 Registered: 4-2003 |
Doublea: As Howard says, you are correct. The reseve for uncollected taxes has historically been underestimated (or rather the collection rate) in order to recapture surplus which has been used in the budget as revenue. However the reserve goes up also as the budget increases because the tax collections for all three entities, municipality, school, and county, go up. And the reserve applies to the whole shebang of collections. So 1% on the reserve is approximately $700,000. | ||
| doublea Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 975 Registered: 3-2003 |
Thanks again Allan for participating on MOL. I'll have to think about the reserve question. I realize it has to do with how much we want to keep in surplus, which is always subject to different views. I think that the very low rate on tax delinquicies is something to be proud of. It's my guess that South Orange is near the top in terms of tax collections. | ||
| Harold Colton-Max Citizen Username: Coltonmax Post Number: 41 Registered: 1-2004 |
Pizzaz/John -- Thank you for your interest in collaborating with the CBAC on the issue of recreation fees. The agenda for the next CBAC meeting has already been set and it does not include a discussion of this issue. Therefore, I would suggest that we discuss (off of MOL, perhaps) having the discussion about the recreation fees at the next CBAC meeting. We will be setting the meeting date on Thursday. Please let me know your general availability for a weeknight meeting at 7:00 p.m at Village Hall in April so we can try to pick a date that you could make as well. Thanks again. -- Harold | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 157 Registered: 1-2003 |
Do the new Pulte properties figure into this years taxes and if so how much? Some have been sold and occupied. Is the real potential tax increase this year much higher and masked by these additional revenues? I thought those revenues were supposed to help keep taxes down - per a Gaslight article several years ago. 60 properties at 20k each is $1.2 million - even of 20% are ratable this year, its nice money. Are they at all included in this year's revenue forecast? | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 147 Registered: 4-2003 |
Only a very minor portion of the Pulte construction is applicable to this year's budget. I believe about 4 homes which were sold early in 2004 are included at 'full" price. The site is included as under construction, but that is nowhere near the assessments that will be included after CO's are issued. I would estimate that the Village will eventually gain about $450,000. for municipal purposes and $900,000. toward the schools. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 107 Registered: 10-2004 |
ouch! ouch! ouch! - 4%+ increase in our taxes again! What the F is going on here? Cut something. Cut everything! Stop the madness the budget is out of control. The total bill should not be increasing this way every year. | ||
| Mrs T Citizen Username: Netjack Post Number: 60 Registered: 12-2004 |
The property taxes are INSANE. I pay 10k plus and it just keeps going up and up. I'm leaving SO and Essex CO. | ||
| elliott spitzer Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 989 Registered: 3-2003 |
A question about the budget caps. The statutory budget cap is 2.5%. This can be increased another 1% by the BOT by passing an ordinance. As indicated by Trustee Rosen above, increases outside of cap are permitted such as increases in health insurance costs, pensions, debt service and reserve for uncollected taxes. Assume this adds another 1% to the tax increase for a year. Does this total, amounting to a 4.5% increase, then go into the base for purpose of determining the budget cap in the following year? | ||
| elliott spitzer Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 996 Registered: 3-2003 |
Bump. Why is the reserve for uncollected taxes increasing, when the Village President says in his State of the Village Progress Report that "our tax collection rate and net surplus are both at all time highs." My question is once this amount is included in the budget as an item which is outside cap, does it become part of the basis on which future budget caps are based, and thus compound? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2102 Registered: 5-2001  |
Doublea, Did you see this article in today's Star Ledger: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1113544293259270.xml GOP calls for state to foot 30 percent of property tax tabs Although, if this ever were to actually happen (yeah, right!) I could imagine South Orange using this as an opportunity to spend 30% MORE, instead of actually cutting taxes.  | ||
| Eliot Spitzer Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1007 Registered: 3-2003 |
mhd - I did hear about the proposal on the news last evening. It certainly deserves to be looked at, but probably won't because of the Democratic majority which favors a convention. I know you were present at this week's BOT meeting. One of the most dramatic moments I thought was when the Doctor from Turrel Ave. got up to speak. He has lived in South Orange for many years and said that he knows quite a few "solid citizens" who are talking about moving out of South Orange because of the taxes. I know that the feeling of the younger people is fine, let them move, there are always young people willing to move to South Orange. At some point, depending on interest rates and the economy, there is a real risk that the taxes in South Orange are going to make selling much more difficult, and will most likely impact the sales prices of houses. | ||
| woodstock Supporter Username: Woodstock Post Number: 966 Registered: 9-2002  |
doublea, it's already impacting the sale prices of homes. I was told by three different realtors that our house, had it been in Livingston (with no midtown direct, and no "cute" town), would have sold for between 40% and 75% more than it did here in SO. I don't know if that's been a long standing price difference, but when we were looking in Livingston, 3-4 bedroom, 2 bath splits were going for around $800k there. Can you imagine a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house in South Orange going for that? Even with the price differences, Livingston houses seem to be cheaper to own, given the tax differences. | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 534 Registered: 3-2002 |
There has long been a difference. Back in 1996 we looked in Maplewood, S. Orange and Millburn. The Millburn prices were much higher for equivalent value, some of it reflecting the difference in cost of ownership due to property taxes. (we ran the numbers...) | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2106 Registered: 5-2001 |
Woodstock, Have you sold your house, yet? Did you buy a new house already? |
