| Author |
Message |
    
Ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 415
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 4:12 pm: | 
|
I live in Maplewood, but I hope that won't stop you from answering my questions. The bottom line seems to be that the school district has $550,000 less in tax revenue than it would have had without PILOT. This means higher school taxes for me and everyone else in SOMA. Whether the estimates of school children living in the developments will be right only time will tell. |
Davec
Citizen
Username: Davec
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 2, 2002 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Thank you Mr Rosner for the time you spend responding to these questions. It is a good feeling to have our local leaders responding directly to their consitituents. |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 61
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, August 4, 2002 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Ashear: Of course I will answer your questions. As I suspected, this was going to be more of a complaint from Maplewood residents.
I know we won't know for some time the number of students, but I would find it hard to believe that there will be a significant number.
|
Sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 494
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 8:35 am: |
|
I (a Maplewood resident) would like to know why South Orange is allowed to take an action such as this since we have a shared school district and it will negatively impact the non-South Orange taxpayers. It seems that the PILOT regulations should require that the ENTIRE amount of lost school funding, be made up from the "extra" revenue being generated by the program, not based on an estimate, but based on reality. |
Njjoseph
Supporter
Username: Njjoseph
Post Number: 1630
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 8:39 am: |
|
We may be opening up a bigger can of worms than we care to. Didn't I read a post last year, probably during discussions of Maplewood's reval, that stated that South Orange pays more per student than Maplewood? If so, is it really fair -- isn't South Orange already paying their fair share even without a portion of the $550,000? |
Sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 496
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 10:06 am: |
|
NJJ - you may be right about whether it is a mistake to raise this, but I guess it is raised now.
Re whether it is fair that South Orange pays more "per student" ... I believe that the reason for that IS "fairness". If I understand it correctly, this is the result of the equalization method which seeks to distribute the tax burden in the same way as if all the properties of the two towns were in a single municipality (i.e. it is equalized across the school district rather than at the township level.) Apparently, South Orange just has fewer school aged children per dollar of property value. If we were trying to equalize things on a "per student" basis and took it to the extreme (household level rather than town or school district level), then only families with school-aged children would pay school tax and those with more children would pay more tax than those with fewer children. I'm sure that there are those who would like that approach, but that is not what publicly funded education is all about. |
Njjoseph
Supporter
Username: Njjoseph
Post Number: 1632
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 10:24 am: |
|
Sac, you're probably right on everything you just wrote, but I always wondered if it was equitable. I don't have all of the numbers in front of me, so I'm just going on my memory of discussions here. It seems that So. Orange's tax burden is based more on potential number of students in the school system, rather than actual number.
OTOH, there are several houses over $1,000,000 in So. Orange; I believe that Maplewood only has one that hit that amount.
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 958
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 10:49 am: |
|
The towns do not pay on a "per student" basis. The South Orange-Maplewood School District is a single governmental entity, and was created at the time South Orange and Maplewood were a single municipality. Taxes are assessed based on property values (just like town property taxes), as if the two towns were still a single municipality. |
Sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 498
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 11:21 am: |
|
Nohero explained it more concisely than I did ...
Thanks. |
Njjoseph
Supporter
Username: Njjoseph
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 11:37 am: |
|
But that's exactly the point! Neither town pays based on number of students. For a Maplewoodian to even suggest that there is something wrong with PILOT because of the school funding is not appropriate.
When you consider that South Orange already pays a disproportionate amount, why ask them to pay even more? What would prevent them from separating from the SOMA school system if they thought they could run their own system cheaper?
Is this all about saving Maplewood taxpayers a few dollars/year? |
Brianoleary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 613
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 12:25 pm: |
|
I'm a South Orange resident concerned about the impact of PILOT agreements. As Mark Rosner has written, they have their advantages, and they have their costs.
The element missing in the posts in this thread is the impact of a PILOT on remaining taxpayers in South Orange. The village agrees that for a period of time (e.g., twenty years) a property is declared a "zero ratable" and thus owes no property taxes to the village, the schools or the county. In exchange, it agrees to pay the village a certain amount per year for the twenty years. The town can use this money as it chooses.
At the same time, the amount of money that South Orange residents pay to fund schools and county government is based on the equalized value of the property in the village. This includes the estimated value of the PILOT properties. Because the owners of the PILOT properties pay no taxes based on property wealth, the money that would have been paid to the schools or the county is paid by all other taxpayers in the village, according to the value of their properties. In effect, we pay a higher schools or county tax rate because the available base is smaller. In itself, this does not make PILOT agreements a bad thing, just an "eyes open" thing.
On a separate topic, the argument that continues to surface about the "disproportionate" amount per student that South Orange pays deserves some consideration. Both South Orange and Maplewood pay taxes based on equalized property values. South Orange pays about 43% of the local cost of schools; Maplewood pays about 57%. South Orange enrollment makes up about a third of all students, so the per-student cost for South Orange is higher. Taxation, though, is a function of equalized property wealth, and the two towns are treated the same in this regard.
A good argument can be had that the use of property taxes to fund schools is a flawed notion, but (given the way schools in New Jersey are funded) South Orange does not pay a disproportionate share of the cost of schools in South Orange and Maplewood. |
Openspacer
Citizen
Username: Openspacer
Post Number: 30
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 1:16 pm: |
|
mrosner,
1) How many PILOT properties are there in S.O.?
2) Are the Shop-Rite and Biefus sites being planned or proposed as PILOTS?
3) Does Maplewood have any PILOTS?
Thanks,
Dan Shelffo |
Ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 416
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Now I'm even more confused. From what Brian said it sounds like the PILOTs in SO don't effect anyone taxes outside SO because the total school and county tax burden on SO is calculated including the value of the PILOTed property. It's just that the burden of paying those taxes is divided up among everyone in SO except the owner of the PILOTed propery. Based on the numbers Mark Rosner posted above it seems like the reduction in the village portion of the tax rate would be less than the increase in the other portions. So why PILOT? What am I missing? |
Sac
Citizen
Username: Sac
Post Number: 499
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Maybe I misunderstood.
What I thought was that the PILOTed properties are exempt from the property tax and instead, a payment is made which only benefits the South Orange municipality (by lowering the municipal portion of their taxes). Therefore, those properties do not contribute to school or (I suppose) county taxes. Now, the South Orange taxpayers would benefit since the municipal portion is lowered, but there is no such benefit to the Maplewood taxpayers. And, if there are any students at all living in those properties (hard to imagine although I can believe it is relatively few), then there is probably at least some increase in school costs attributable to those properties and Maplewood taxpayers would pay for that disproportionately.
It just seems to me that if we have a school district funded by property tax, then all taxable properties in the school district need to contribute equally (not on a per student basis, but on the property value basis that has been established as the method). This doesn't mean that I think property tax is the best way to fund schools, but since that is the system we have, it bothers me that some otherwise taxable properties are exempt from participating. And the fact that those properties are only in one of the towns makes it unfair if the justification being made to the other town's taxpayers is that the "in lieu of taxes" payment will make it up to them.
I guess to simplify what I said at the beginning, it seems to me that the South Orange municipal government should only have the right to waive the municipal portion of the tax, not the county or school district portions and I don't understand why the PILOT regulations allow that.
If I have misunderstood the program, then I would be happy to have it clarified. |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 62
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Openspacer: I do not know if there are other PILOT's of this type. There are some non-profit's that are not required to pay taxes, but have agreed to pay a portion to S. Orange.
There has not been discussions about giving a PILOT to the Beifus or Shop-Rite site. I would guess that both developer's will request one, but I do not know if they will be granted.
I do not know if there are any PILOT agreements in Maplewood.
Ashear: Sometimes there is a bigger picture than just the money in the short term. A PILOT helps to get a project done when it might not have been done otherwise. And there was a lot of reasons and support for the property to be developed as a residential property. In the long run, the propery will be come a taxpayer the same as any other.
Brian: I disagree that the "equalized wealth" formula is a fair way to asses the taxes for the two towns. While it should be one of the factors, it should not be the only one. I would think that total population of the two towns should be factored in. Of course, the whole conversation would be moot if the state funded the schools in a fair and equitable (and constitutional?) way. |
Brianoleary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 617
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 5, 2002 - 6:26 pm: |
|
lol.. A Waterlands thread is such a strange place for a property tax discussion. I have missed the walk on the last three Saturdays, Mark (vacations). Maybe we'll make the one later this week. |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 63
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 6, 2002 - 9:42 am: |
|
Brian: I made it the last two Saturdays. Hope to see you this week. Maybe we should start a thread on the walks and see if we can get more people to come. |
Brianoleary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 622
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 6, 2002 - 11:13 am: |
|
I tried opening a walk thread some time back; you lead and I'll follow this time  |
Bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 196
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 6, 2002 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Mark,
Are the apartment complexes on Church Street PILOTed? Where in South Orange's budget would these payments appear as appropriations? Thanks. |
Mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 64
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 7, 2002 - 10:48 am: |
|
No, there is not a PILOT for church street. I think the payments appear as ordinary tax revenue. I will ask the village administrator and let you know if it is on a special line.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page