| Author |
Message |
    
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 685
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:27 pm: | 
|
This one's from back in 1991: http://www.memun.org/SchoolsProject/html/Resources/Budget/taxexempt_propty.htm
Excerpt:
With no where else to turn to for additional revenues, save an increase in the property tax rate, municipalities like Bangor [Maine], with a high percentage of tax exempt properties on their books (Bangor's is about 40 percent), are looking at ways to negotiate payments in lieu of taxes from them.
Saying that while they do not make money, tax exempt properties and institutions do make use of such municipal services as police, fire and snow removal and therefore should pay for them.
As the property tax crisis grows, municipalities are looking into every corner for revenues, the tax exempt properties being one, so it is not surprising that their investigations are being monitored and commented on by the daily press.
The Bangor Daily News is closely covering the progress of Bangor's fire fee proposal; an article in the Maine Times (2/1/91) has proposed that "Municipalities should require 'contributions' from churches, colleges, schools and military bases and other property owners now exempt from local property taxes."
And, in an editorial entitled "Service fees for the free riders," the Portland Press Herald (2/6/91) urged legislators to let municipalities impose service fees on property tax exempt institutions, saying "There's nothing wrong in requiring tax exempt organizations to pay their fair share of basic street, garbage, are and police costs. But convincing lawmakers of that won't be easy".
This article looks briefly at the law governing tax exempt properties and the current efforts by a few of Maine's municipalities to work within as well as around the law.
The rest examines Maine state law, suits, and challenges on this subject and might possibly be of interest to someone looking for comparable points of argument relative to NJ law. |
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 104
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 12:56 am: |
|
Re: Getting SHU to face up to its moral responsibilities and obligations, I quote Mr. Rosner from several different posts, above, followed by my suggested way of getting PILOTed by SHU:
"A couple of years ago each of the trustees met with a representative from SHU to discuss. A formal letter was also sent to them. They gave a formal response which made their position very clear (they have no intention of making any kind of payment of taxes for property within the main campus as long as they have no legal oblication)." and
"Just to clarify, I am not saying we only have to exert pressure in one place. In the long run, it is best if we work thru Trenton so that they (SHU)are required to contribute annually and not just give us a one time donation.
I will make sure some kind of financial analysis is sent to SHU." and
"Based on experience I do not think they (SHU)can be shamed because they always come back with the argument that they have no legal obligation and they do not want to "burden" the students with addtional expenses."}
My suggestion for getting SHU to face up to its moral responsibility even if it refuses to acknowledge that it has one: when SHU wants something from S.O. (such as dugouts on our playing fields so that THEIR female soccer players can gain collegiate status), South Orange leadership should use this NEED of SHU's to coax SHU to make payments for the benefit of South Orange (even if South Orange, in the process, "gets" $68,000 worth of dugouts that it can use for "free".)
The amount of money we pay for extra police, fire, and other services because of the presence of SHU within our borders should generate a greater appreciation for and understanding of its fiduciary responsibility to the Village. The fact that this responsibility is lost on this institution that claims to be a leader of all things spiritual and moral,is difficult to fathom.
Mr. Rosner, instead of spending time going to Trenton as you suggest, or spending time even thinking about going to Trenton, your time would be better spent in defense of Village interests in not being so quick to say "yes" to SHU's puny $68,000 "gift" of dugouts to meet ITS own need, when that need, in the hands of more astute Village negotiators, could have been leveraged to provide so much more for the Village.
And lest we forget, as far as I know, the "yes" was given to SHU BEFORE any agreement had been reached as to whom would be required to maintain the dugouts, remove the (inevitable) graffitti, make sure they do not become a source of homeless habitat, or unsafe location when not in sports use. Another sign of poor, weak negotiation skills.
Mr. Rosner, I would appreciate a response from you as to why Trenton is more appealing to you as a way to gain SHU's greater involvement in Village financial responsibilities than is saying "NO" to SHU when it needs something from us, until SHU owns up to its moral responsibility in greater monetary terms. |
vermontgolfer
Citizen
Username: Vermontgolfer
Post Number: 224
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 7:21 am: |
|
wasashore,
Glad to see you've joined us on this one, but jeez, you need to get some sleep or maybe this is just making up for snoozing off at 10:30 PM Monday and missing the rest of the BOT meeting.
Seriously, I agree we need to exert pressure toward SHU but as Mark, I believe point out, they have no legal responsibilty and frankly while they may want the dugouts I'm not sure cutting off one's nose, with excuses to Michael Jackson, to spite one's face is always the best approach. I do think, all BOT members included though I don't know them all personally and obviously can't speak for them, would all welcome some significant payment from SHU. We now must all help to find ways to make this a reality. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 798
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 8:31 am: |
|
wash: It is simple why Trenton is a better solution. It is a permanent one as opposed to one that has to be re-negotiated every year. It would set the amount based on a formula. There are other towns in the state with the same problem and they will support our efforts. There is greater strength in numbers.
As for the dugouts, our local baseball coaches (all volunteers) supported the dugouts as did the dept. head in Recreation. They stated it would be more of a benefit to our kids than to SHU. What is your problem with the dugouts?
By the way wash, I am sure surprised to hear your concern about how I offer my time. I do not actually have to travel to Trenton to discuss this issue. We have local representatives and letters and email work just fine. But since you are concerned, maybe you would like to volunteer to help try and get more money from SHU. Feel free to write me.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, SHU does pay the village $143,000 a year for property they own outside the main campus. That amount is not quite what the municipal portion would have been. They have also made some one-time donations including $10,000 last year.
I think they should pay substantially more but I did not want anyone to think they gave the village nothing - it is actually next to nothing.
|
Washashore
Citizen
Username: Washashore
Post Number: 106
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 9:54 am: |
|
VG: Thanks for your concern about my sleep depravation. Sometimes, I do my best thinking in the wee hours of the morning!
Mr. Rosner: I agree something negotiated once, for all time, is better than a continual need. But SHU has regular needs - e.g. wanting/getting a variance to SO zoning height limits that, according to some SO folks who live in proximity to SHU, screwed them royaly. To my knowledge, SO got NOTHING in return for the granting of that variance. Re: the dugouts: as I said, regardless of whatever benefit SO may get from this "freebee", it was an opportunity to NEGOTIATE with SHU: we give them what they want (dugouts), and they give us what we want (better fiscal responsibility, in a specific monetary amount) from which SHU does not necessarily gain anything on THEIR wish list.
Not a difficult concept to understand, but one, apparently, that SO's negotiators have been woefully ineffectual at accomplishing.
Thank you for soliciting my help in getting better cooperation from SHU. I am way ahead of you on this one: I supported ALL of the candidates who ran against the incumbent BOT in 2003 in hopes of getting BETTER negotiators at the table, and I plan to support all of the candidates who run against the incumbent BOT in 2005 for the same reason (except for Patrick).
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 359
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 9:59 am: |
|
When I was looking at houses in Maplewood and South Orange, at least 2 realtors explained that the higher taxes in South Orange are a result of SHU (this was about 3 years ago).
I don't know whether realtors are saying this anymore, but for sure it made me look more closely at taxes. At the time the reval in Maplewood was up in the air -- so to me that seemed more like a crap shoot to buy there.
(although she was probably trying to get me to buy in Short Hills, instead ;-)
I was struck by the info VG found on Princeton -- that they contribute to the school system. Although a direct payment to the village would be my preference by far, a "good will" partnering with the school district in providind real help wouldn't be so bas either.
Pete |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 365
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:48 am: |
|
The info from Princeton was very informative, and is basically a primer on the tax exempt status of colleges and universities. If I understand what Princeton is doing, it continues to pay school taxes on the residences it acquires, so that it can't be accused of using the public school without paying taxes. This is probably not the case with Seton Hall, but as least SH does pay almost the full municipal tax on the private residences it does acquire.
That is pretty interesting information that Pete relays above about the realtors, and really does highlight the problem. After all, that is their business and they're probably in the best position to know how the situation effects the marketability of houses.
Pete: Please be assured that I have no understanding at all about the finances of Catholic colleges and universities, and even less about those that are part of a diocese or not, as you mentioned in another thread. If it is relevant, I'm sure we would all understand.
The fact is that this has been highlighted by some of our trustees as one of the problems for our high taxes, and other than the possibility of sharing some services with other municipalities, the outlook is pretty grim.
It just seems that this really should be a priority item, and maybe our state representatives should be asked to a BOT meeting
to discuss the problem and get their support. We should still continue to approach SHU on the local level. This no doubt will have to wait until the SOPAC negotiations are completed, one way or the other.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 689
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:04 am: |
|
"It is simple why Trenton is a better solution. It is a permanent one as opposed to one that has to be re-negotiated every year. It would set the amount based on a formula. There are other towns in the state with the same problem and they will support our efforts. There is greater strength in numbers."
I'm all for what Mark is after, but I'm not sure one approach (seeking new legislation) really precludes the other (local pressure).
In fact, lobbying Trenton has an specific advantage that could be tied to local pressuring of SHU: even if we were unsuccessful in getting legislation enacted in one or two years, a concerted political effort aimed at the state level would inform SHU in no uncertain terms that the writing is on the wall. They might then reason that it is better to placate us now with significantly increased voluntary contributions than to wind up forced by law to pay (possibly more) in the long run. |
vermontgolfer
Citizen
Username: Vermontgolfer
Post Number: 227
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:11 am: |
|
J. Crohn,
Don't want to speak for Mark, he's man enough to do that himself, but I don't think he's saying that Trenton is the only one, what he implies, as I understand it, is if new legislation is passed it then is something that happens unless other new legislation is passed to change it.
I think we're all on the same wavelength, well almost all of us, just need to put a plan together. I think it would be prudent for the BOT to appoint a commitee to spearhead this project. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 360
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:25 am: |
|
Doublea --
SHU appears to be diocesan -- that is, it is run by the Newark Diocese. This becomes messy because potentially the budget for the college and the budget for the diocese (all the RC churches in the area) are intertwined. Ultimately the titular head of SHU is the Archbishop of Newark (with the day to day executive being the President). I don't know in practical terms how much the college President/trustees can act without approval of the Archbishop. But I do see that the Archbishop is considered the President of the Board of Trustees.
Other large "Catholic" universities, like Boston College (my undergrad alma mater!) are not diocesan. They may be linked with a religious order (e.g., Jesuits) -- but that gives them far more freedom to act independently.
In comparison -- Notre Dame and BC have many more trustees, much more diverse (including females!) than SHU.
Just suggesting -- this could be a challenge on more fronts than we might realize.
Pete |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 60
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 7:55 pm: |
|
If this is already posted, just direct me to where I can see it, if not. What services does the town provide to SHU? What is the cost of these services? Does SHU pay the town for anything? |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 366
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 9:38 am: |
|
A lot of this was already discussed in the "South Orange Taxes and Seton Hall" thread, the last post being Sept. 18, 2003. I think Mark Rosner said the Village was trying to work up some cost numbers.
My recollection is that one of the reasons given for the tax increase the year following the Seton Hall fire was that the Village had to purchase an additional fire engine directly related to S.O's responsibility at Seton Hall. This was when the subject of additional payments from Seton Hall was last discussed, which probably resulted in the conversations that Mark refers to that took place two years ago. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 61
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Does the village charge SHU a fire district fee or fire district tax? If not, can/should they? |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 12
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 10:00 am: |
|
Can someone develop a list of services that would be reduced/eliminated if SHU were not part of SO - incorporated as part of say Newark.
What are the indirect sevices that are provided such as supporting off-campus housing (both private and SU owned)?
Does SHU purchasing have a "most favored nation" process with SO businesses? If not, would it attract businesses to SO? If so, what has been the impact. Are there other businesses can we attacted?
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 799
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Pete: You clearly understand the real problem and is a strong reason why we need legislation that will require a payment.
J Crohn: VG is correct that I did not state that we should not try and pursue all avenues with SHU. We should, but in the long run our best solution is Trenton.
Princeton U might give money, but it is far less than what they would have to pay if they were taxed like any commercial propety. We do get $143,000 from them but obviously that is a minimal amount compared to what they should be "donating" to the village.
They are entitled to the same services as any other taxpayer. If we take all the calls for police and fire as a percentage of total calls then I think it is safe to say that we could use that as a base. Then we can add for any other services that we can directly attribute to the school. It is hard to calculate other costs (snow plowing, leaf pick-up, maintenance of the parks, etc). It would be a good start if they just paid their fair share for public safety (fire and police).
Washashore: I would be willing to let Trustee Joyce be in charge of negotiations or being a liason for negotiations.
Howard: We would eliminate the need to provide fire and police protection, inspections, etc. Of course Newark would not agree to taking them so the point is moot anyway.
Off-campus housing that is privately owned pays taxes. SHU also pays the municpal share of taxes on off-campus property and that is how the $143,000 previously mentioned was arrived at and is renegotiated at the end of the term of this short term PILOT (does NOT work like a long-term PILOT).
SHU is not large enough to attract the types of businesses as has happened in college towns. Some of the local eating and drinking establishments have done well because they cater to the students. SHU has their own fast food place and a book store.
|
jrf
Citizen
Username: Jrf
Post Number: 349
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 10:14 am: |
|
Why not force SHU to build a basketball arena on the Beifus site? 
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 13
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 11:24 am: |
|
Mark, you did not answer the question on SHU purchasing policy. Do they have a "most favored nation" policy with SO businesses? |
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 36
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Howard: not to our knowledge. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 362
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 1:02 pm: |
|
...other than pizza and chicken wings restaurants, are there businesses in SO that SHU/students could really buy from in any quantity?
maybe services (electricians, accountants, etc.)?
wouldn't hurt to contact the SHU purchasing/sourcing office to find out more.
great idea, though!
Pete |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 802
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Howard: As Allan said, not to our knowledge.
Pete: Any place that sells Beer. j/k. Laptop computers and clothing. I am not sure a local store could profit selling laptop computers and the school has a lot of supplies available on campus.
Urban Femme says they get some business from the students. I would guess that s. mountain jean co gets a fair amount of business.
I think the real issue for many residents is there a business that could thrive serving the students and residents and we always come back to a book store. Any other thoughts?
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 14
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 2:35 pm: |
|
I would think a discussion with SHU administration would help. I have a number of ideas. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 706
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 4:52 pm: |
|
We need an Ethiopean restaurant on SO Ave.
And a Vietnamese restaurant.
Possibly a Greek or Middle Eastern restaurant.
(And, um, a really good bookstore.) |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 561
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 5:06 pm: |
|
I'd even settle for a GOOD eat-in Chinese restaurant and a GOOD Thai restaurant.
Don't forget, according to the Gaslight newsletter, South Orange IS the dining MECCA of Essex County. (their words, not mine) |
psychobabbler
Citizen
Username: Psychobabbler
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Yes, all of the above restaurants, including a good eat-in Chinese restaurant - one that doesn't have pictures of the food on the walls - in my mind, a dead give away that the food's going to be mediocre, at best.
I suppose the Gaslight newsletter must have conveniently forgotten to include the Gaslight Brewery as part of the great dining mecca of Essex County. Oh, wait a minute, maybe the lousy food, rude service, and inhospitality to families might have caused them to leave this SO establishment off the list...
|
NCJanow(akaLibraryLady)
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 8:24 am: |
|
With all the kvetching we do online about the Gaslight..whoa they're still in business. SOMEONE SOMEWHERE must be eating and/or drinking there. The didn't fold like the Grille did in such a short time.
Believe me, I am the first to complain about the Gaslight; poor service, yucky food..they had the nerve to charge me for a bag of peanuts to go with my drink. So WHO is patronizing them?
NCJ aka LibraryLady
On a coffee break..or something like it.
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 383
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 1:16 pm: |
|
I received in the mail today The Link News which is the Long Branch, West Long Branch , Monmouth Beach weekly newspaper. There is a story which says that Monmouth University just presented West Long Branch with a check in the amount of $172,352. This represented the annual voluntary payment in lieu of taxes and an additional contribution of $25,000 toward the purchase of a fire truck. In addition to annual in lieu of payments of almost $150,000, Monmouth University is contributing a total of $250,000 for the purchase of a fire truck which costs $500,000. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page