| Author |
Message |
    
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 474
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | 
|
I'm starting a new thread for this subject since it is important enough to have its own thread.
If the South Orange voters, in a non-binding referundum, approve the proposal to allocate education costs on the basis of the number of students, what steps then have to be taken? |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 828
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:40 pm: |
|
While on the surface this seems like a "no-brainer" for South Orange, I wonder if this would trigger a pseudo "border war" with Maplewood and eliminate the chance for sharing/consolidating any new services with Maplewood.
Just curious.... |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 475
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:57 pm: |
|
I had thought of that and it certainly will be a consideration. I wonder if the committee formulated its recommendation before the discussions about shared services began in earnest? Nevertheless, it would be helpful to know what has to be done and I'm sure this will be explained in the future.
The fact of the matter is that one way or the other South Orange is getting hit on the education costs. |
sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 973
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:11 pm: |
|
The idea is that if South Orange and Maplewood were all one town, the individual tax amounts per property for the schools would match the results of the current allocation. Now, if the current formulas are not achieving that, and the result is causing an excessive burden over that amount for South Orange residents, then something should be changed.
However, allocation on a per student basis is a different thing and is not consistent with that objective. Carried to the extreme, i.e. to the household level, allocation on a per student basis would mean that childless households would not contribute at all to the school portion of the tax and those households with children would have their contribution doubled or tripled or whatever based on the number of children they had in public schools.
Assuming that the current allocation does mimic the results that would occur if the two towns were one, then the per student difference between the two towns is due to lower average property values (not assessed values) in Maplewood than South Orange. If that is the case, then the statement that "South Orange is getting hit on the education costs" is no more true than it would be for Maplewood. (Actually, we are all getting hit, no question, but that is a different discussion.) |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4731
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:15 pm: |
|
This would require a real change in state policy where the vast majority of school funding comes from property taxes which are based on assessed values.
As indicated in the other thread, there is at least one town in Northern NJ which is trying to opt out of a similar multi-town system based on the cost factors because of higher property values but a smaller student population. Withdrawing from the district and merging with Livingston or West Orange would probably be more doable. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 271
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:26 pm: |
|
How do you merge? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:48 pm: |
|
The current formula is based on assessed values. That includes tax-exempty property. If we could get the state to just modify the current formula to not include tax-exempty property we would have a much more level playing field. Other than SHU both towns have a similar amount of assessed tax-exempty property values. SHU is the reason this formula does not work fairly. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2901
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:49 pm: |
|
As others have pointed out, education costs are not "allocated" between the two towns.
We're not the same as those other multi-town districts, which were created by their individual towns. Our school district is a single school district, and the property within the district is taxed based upon the assessed value. It's the same as if our single district was within the borders of a single municipality (which was the case before the separation of the two towns).
But, this is a question which has come up from time to time over the years:
quote:The idea of division of the school district was by no means dead, however. The disparity of burden caused the question to be brought up for investigation again. For example, in 1906, "Because the village is required to contribute seventy-seven percent of the total sum raised by taxation for school purposes in the South Orange School district, comprising the village and township, separation of the district was advocated by Village President, Robert S. Sinclair, in a message to the Village Board of Trustees last night. The board decided to call a special meeting of the village residents in the village hall for Monday evening, December 17.
"Data compiled by Mr. Sinclair showed that the village will be required to pay in 1907, $30,582 with 596 pupils enrolled, to maintain the schools, although the township will pay only $9,268, with 132 less pupils. In the event of the Board of Education deciding to erect a new school house on the township line, as is proposed [this would be Fielding School], the village will pay three-fourths of the cost…..
"Edward D. Duffield, former assistant attorney general of the state was chosen chairman of the meeting, and Everitt Yeaw, a New York publisher, secretary. Mr. Duffield, in the opening speech, related how the separation of the village and township as regards municipal matters was brought about by legislation when the township decided that consolidation was not wanted. At that time the question of dividing the school district was thoroughly discussed, and he said that it was agreed between the village and township representatives that the district was not to be disturbed, and that it was upon this agreement alone that the township consented to separation, and had not this consent been obtained the village would not have been divorced.
"He said that the number of children attending the public school should not be compared with the amount of taxes paid. If this were the basis upon which to judge the situation, it might be pointed out that there are sections of the village paying a great deal more than their share, but the wealthy are obliged to pay in proportion to their ratables for the education of the poor." South Orange Bulletin, Dec. 20, 1906
Source: Henry W. Foster, The Evolution of Public Education in a New Jersey School District |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page