| Author |
Message |
    
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 495
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:08 pm: | 
|
In connection with its proposals to make changes to the South Orange Charter, the Committee has suggested placing a non-binding referundum on the November ballot regarding the distribution of education costs between South Orange and Maplewood.
Another subject that has been discussed in the past is changing the governing law to allow the voting public to vote on the school budget rather than the Board of School Estimate. Maybe we should take this opportunity to place a non-binding referundum on the ballot asking the BOT to work with Maplewood and whoever else is required to try to change the present procedure. |
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 770
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 9:09 pm: |
|
The Board of School Estimate was put in place as part of keeping the school district together when South Orange and Maplewood became separate towns. The idea is that one town could not outvote the other because votes from BSE representatives from both towns are required to approve a budget.
Also you should be aware that in towns where citizens vote on the school budgets directly, defeated budgets are treated the same as ours are every year--that is, submitted to a panel of BOE and municipal officials.
As far as "distribution of education costs" between the two towns, for the purposes of the school district it makes no more sense to say that South Orange pays more per pupil than Maplewood than it does to say that the Jefferson area pays more per pupil than Hilton, or that Newstead pays more per pupil than Tuxedo Park. It is all about assessed valuation. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 502
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 9:25 pm: |
|
The non-binding referundum on education costs is the proposal of the Charter Commission. When asked about this at the public meeting last week, they acknowledged that it is symbolic only. Some people have suggested that this is "shadow dancing." It really doesn't do anything. My suggestion is meant to address part of the problem which is the tendency of the BOSE to give the BOE a blank check. I'm sure on this last point we disagree. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 503
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 10:43 pm: |
|
"It is all about assessed valuation."
Then you shouldn't object in principle to a revaluation so that everyone pays their fair share based upon current values. |
kathy
Citizen
Username: Kathy
Post Number: 771
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - 5:49 pm: |
|
doublea, I don't object to a reval. Were you suggesting that I did? But a SO reval could well increase the percentage of total school district costs that SO would pay.
There has been a suggestion that the percentage of school taxes assigned to South Orange was fixed at some point. I was looking in the Foster book the other night and couldn't find information on that particular point. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 506
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - 6:56 pm: |
|
In theory, the percentage of school costs paid by SO should not be effected by a revaluation. This is because every year an equalized assessed value is derived by taking into account the sales values of properties and their assessments and arriving at a total assessed value which is supposed to reflect 100% of market value.
One of my constant refrains on this board is that there is no doubt that under the law we are due for a revaluation. I don't know if my taxes will increase or decrease, but I do know that I am assessed higher than comparable houses. One of the reasons for my request that there be a revaluation is because of the tendency of the BOSE, most of the time because of lobbying by some residents, to basically give the BOE a blank check.
If that is going to continue to be the case, let's make sure the increased taxes are paid according to true assessed values.
I was responding to your post a few days ago where you mentioned the difficulties with any revaluation.
I've said it before but I'll say it again - because of the extremely high tax rate in South Orange, which is only going higher, any differences in assessments of comparable properties can be very large in terms of absolute dollars.
I think we really have to bite the bullet and have a reval. When you have houses selling for $1million assessed at $300,000, and other houses selling for $800,000 assessed at $400,000, this difference is too large not to do something. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 507
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - 10:37 pm: |
|
On the school budget currently being discussed, I'll repeat here what was posted in the education thread, in case members of the BOSE did not see it.
In the School Budget 101 sessions, a chart showed that SOM spends slighly less per student than Millburn, but more than Livingston, Montclair or West Orange and more than the average of GH and I DFGs. And this is with Montclair and West Orange receiving more state aid because they are in a lower dfg than SOM.
Last year the Star-Ledger ran a story in which South Orange was one of the most tax-traumatized municipalities in the state. We are in the top tier for school spending on a per pupil basis when compared to similar districts- it can't be said that we don't value education. If the BOE and BOSE were to approve the Superintendent's request for an 8% school tax increase, we would probably be a contender for the top spot on the "tax traumatized" list. My suggestion to have a non-bindinding referundum on the voting procedure was meant to restore some accountability to the process - something more than "we'll approve anything you want to put in a special question" or "tell us what you need." |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page