| Author |
Message |
    
Daveclark
Citizen
Username: Daveclark
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 7:30 am: | 
|
Has anyone looked into whether merging South Orange and Maplewood, or at least consolidating more services, would help control costs and property taxes? It seems fairly elementary to me. We already combine the school system, which is a big start. How about the police force, fire departments, etc.? S.O.'s dump is in a central location for both towns and could be used for both.
Here are two towns, 24,000 and 16,000 population, that would probably do a better job controlling costs if they were one. We hear all the time that the key to N.J.'s high taxes is the "home rule" of its 568 municipalities, which leads to redundancies. Well, there is plenty of redundancy right here.
I don't expect any council members of either town to be in favor of this, of course, but I would be interested in what others have to say about it. |
Marian
Citizen
Username: Marian
Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 9:43 am: |
|
I've been thinking the same thing for a while. Didn't the two towns used to be one about a hundred years ago? I live in Maplewood and our property taxes just went up AGAIN! My husband and I are now close to paying 5 figures on what I assure you is a modest 3-bedroom home. On a recent property tax discussion in the Soapbox section of this site, I suggested the 2 towns unite. Got some positive feedback and some negative. I would like to see an impartial accounting firm conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the effect a merger would have on property taxes. Any ideas how we could go about this? |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 48
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 11:48 am: |
|
Daveclark: Why would I care if the two towns merged? I would gladly give up my seat if I thought there would be a real savings. I just doubt there would be any savings and there could actually be an increase for the first few years.
Over 50% of the tax bill is for the schools and we already share a school system.
Around 20% of your tax bill goes to the county and that would remain unchanged.
We would still need the same number of firefighters and police officers (there are those who argue both towns are understaffed), but yes, you would only need one police chief/director and one fire chief, but still the same number of total people. Also, we would still need a fire house in both towns to maintain a quick response time. We would still need both police stations because neither would be large enough on their own.
Although both towns could use one town dump, the number of employees would remain level. Any savings would come from sharing equipment (but because of the increase usage, it would need to be replaced more often).
As for the other areas - recreation, engineering, code enforcement, administrator's office, any savings would come from sharing a department head but it would be minimal because each department head would now need a high level assistant.
Both towns already buy supplies, cars, trucks, etc through the state contract so the prices have already been competitively priced.
But, if we could get an independent accounting done I would be in favor of it just to see where we could merge some services without merging the towns and to put this issue to rest once and for all. My guess is that the accounting bill would be more than the savings.
The question is how much of a savings per household would be needed to justify such a merger in the minds of the voters.
I would guess a Reval of both towns would have to be done at the same time.
Both towns have a Citizen's advisory budget committee. Maybe they would volunteer to do such an analysis?
My real feeling is that we need to force the state to start giving real money to towns that do not have commercial ratables. We all shop at one of the malls, yet our towns do not get any of the benefits of those spending dollars. We are being penalized for living in a small residential town without the kind of space needed that would bring in a large commercial development. If we could get the state to come up with a formula that would fairly distribute sales tax revenue we would be generate a much large savings in our taxes than a merger. If we could just get the state to go back to using the lottery profits for education dollars we would generate a larger savings. If we could just get the state to take over the costs of the court systems instead of using county tax dollars, we would generate a far larger savings.
So why a merger might (and I am not convinced) a savings of a few dollars per household, getting the state to do any of the above could generate a savings of hundreds of dollars per household.
Don't think that almost every person who has run for trustee in S. Orange or the town council in Maplewood did not think they could figure out a way to cut taxes either through merging services or cutting the "fat " out of the budget. |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 77
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 11:36 am: |
|
While I appreciate Mr. Rosenr taking the time to post here & shre his thoughts, I disagree with his impressions. I think consolidating can save alot of money, particularly since I think all of the services that he lists can most likely be merged and therefore reduced in size. If you consider the size (both geographically & population) of Maplewood combined, we are much smaller than many individual towns in NJ. They seem to manage just fine with 1 dump, 1 firehouse, 1 police station, 1 town hall, etc. Economies of Scale is a pretty simple concept that is fundamental to business. The same should hold true to government.
On a related point, I also disagree that we deserve special treatment for not having commercial ratables. Although, perhaps we should get special treatment for supporting a non-tax paying entity such as Seton Hall. If South Orange stopped trying to add additional RESIDENTIAL development on every quare inch of it's property and focused more on attracting viable businesses to it's downtown area, perhaps our taxes wouldn't be skyrocketing out of control. I am still amazed at the number of vacant stores on South Orange avenue. Compared to Maplewood, Millburn, Montclair or other surrounding towns, it really is embarassing. |
Davec
Citizen
Username: Davec
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 1:16 pm: |
|
I think other towns which have only one police station for a town the size of a "merged" town also do not have the proximity to Newark, which from the police blotter appears to be the souce of a significant portion of crime.
I do agree with Mayhewdrive that it is embarassing to see the number of vacant lots in South Orange. I think there should be a limited-time incentive (by end of year) to get those business in the "pipeline" up and running. The longer they are vacant, the longer the town forgoes the revenue. (Do the current owners of the building pay property tax?) |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 3356
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 4:42 pm: |
|
I don't think the Village loses revenue on empty stores. The owners pay. |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 49
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 10:50 pm: |
|
Mayhewdrive: I really suggest that you go to a CBAC meeting or to the budget meetings next winter.
It is imperative to have a fire house in a central location in S. Orange and in Maplewood. There is no way to have just one. I have never heard anyone complain that we have too many police officers in either town. I hear people asking why we don't have more. Merging the towns would not save.
So the three biggest budget items (schools, county and public safety) would not be impacted by merging the towns and those account for over 85% of the property taxes.
I am not asking for special treatment from the state, just equal treatment. But you are right about Seton Hall being a big problem tax wise. They represent 25% of the population in S. Orange and pay virtually no taxes. I suggested that they add a line to each full-time student's tuition bill for public safety of $100.00 per year. That would go a long way towards covering the public safety expenses and would represent a much large amount than we could ever save from merging the towns. Even though they do not have a legal obligation to pay taxes, they do have a moral obligation and there are other universities in this country that do just what I am suggesting they do.
As for the empty stores, I still maintain that the landlords should be the ones that find retail businesses. Main Street also receives funding to help find businesses. You will also note that some of our surrounding towns have the exact same problems with empty store fronts including Milburn. Summit had seven new empty spaces so far this year and Milburn filled in three stores, but found four new empty spaces.
|
Brianoleary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 607
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 7:12 am: |
|
Mark, like you, I'm aware that certain costs are fixed, at least in the near term, but it seems that looking at the possibility in more detail (taking time to jointly study it, which I don't think we've done yet) is still worth doing.
Even if the money at play is limited to 15% of the current spending, that's close to $20 million annually across the two towns. How much of that can be saved is unclear, but the state provides aid for communities who want to study consolidation or interlocal issues. Such a study would either confirm what you have summarized or show that there are some good opportunities that we can still elect to take or keep at a distance.
I think doing the study might also help make the case you want to make with the state about local funding. If we do the study and can show clearly that we are operating as effectively as we can and we still have unduly high tax rates, that's a better starting point for discussions on additional aid.
Finally, and speaking as a resident and not as a Board member, I'd look to include the school district in the study, as well. In addition to consuming the largest portion of the local property tax assessment, the schools also are only local obligation that the state is constitionally required to support. Property tax relief through schools has greater dollar potential and possibly greater political potential. Wherever the aid comes in, it helps reduce local taxes.
Hey, I am off today to Cape Cod for a week's rest and relaxation, so if I am quiet in the meantime, think of me as a lobster-red Irishman on the sandy shores of Massachusetts. Hope we catch up on the Saturday morning walk soon. |
Joancrystal
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 874
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 9:31 am: |
|
Here is a copy of the posting I made recently to a similar topic in soap box. It goes a little further than Mark's comments in identifying the kind of costs we would be looking at if our two towns merged. It also addresses some of the legal actions that would have to be taken if a merger were to be agreed to in principal. This is not the sort of solution that anyone could count on the short term.
As Imd pointed out so eloquently [see parallel thread in soap box], merging our two towns could actually end up in costing us a lot of money and not just in legal fees. There would be legislation that needed changing, maps that needed to be redrawn, books of ordinances that would have to be redrafted. Agreement would have to be reached not just on what to call the new town but which form of municipal government would be used (South Orange has a Board of Trustees and Maplewood has a Township Committee). Ordinances which differed between the two towns (whether to permit dogs in the town parks for example, Maplewood does, South Orange doesn't), setting salaries for comparable positions in the two towns which may presently have different pay scales and/or benefits packages, resolving issues over what may be varying insurance plans, coverage, and costs, determinig which labor union(s)would represent employees doing the same work who might presently be covered by different unions, looking into how to resolve present loan obligations and possible budget deficits, setting priorities for present capital budget projects (revitalization of Springfield Avenue or deveopment of the long awaited arts center, etc.). All of this comes before we even consider the issues involved in merging the staffs of two different towns and deciding who gets to be chief of each merged department and where the new municipal buildings will be located.
It is far simpler and less expensive to remain two separate towns.
This does not and should preclude looking into even further increasing ways in which Maplewood and South Orange can enter into regionalization and mutual assistance agreements. |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 50
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 3:15 pm: |
|
JoanCrystal, thanks for putting all that in writing. I had alluded in an earlier posts that it could be more expensive in the earlier years to try and merge the towns.
However, Brian is right in that we should look at each department and see if merging services would be feasible. And of course, there is no reason why certain services have to be limited to just the two towns. I have felt that adding West Orange and Orange to the mix with certain services could be beneficial.
Of course I will maintain that if the schools were properly funded by the state, then all this would be moot. As Brian points out the state has an obligation under the constitution to support schools which it is not doing.
|
Hariseldon
Citizen
Username: Hariseldon
Post Number: 92
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 10:45 am: |
|
How bout MERGING the two threads (Soapbox and So. Orange)? If we can merge threads, can town mergers be far behind? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page