| Author |
Message |
    
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 49
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 5:55 pm: | 
|
M.Rosner: I assume that the municipal budget to be voted on Monday is the budget with the 11% increase. If this is correct, and the request for extraordinary aid is denied, what items in the budget will be deleted to bring it down to a 4.8% increase? |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 57
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 9:17 pm: |
|
M. Rosner: I was watching the Maplewood Township Committee Meeting this evening (get a life doublea). Actually, I was surfing and the CBAC was discussing the 2003 budget,so it gave me a way of comparing the Maplewood discussion to the budget discussion I heard last night at the Board of Trustees meeting.
Of significance is the recommendation by the Maplewood CBAC that the total budget increase be kept at the cost of living increase, or 2.6%.It was recognized that even though union negotiations with the police and fireman would probably result in increases greater than the 2.6%, the overall budget increase be kept at 2.6%. The Maplewood Township Committee appeared ready to go along with this recommendation. From there, they did discuss the surplus a little while, and said they would have to look at it. I recognize that considerable discussion took place last night at the BOT regarding the surplus, and maintaing our credit rating, but nevertheless it would be interesting to see how Maplewood comes out, since the two towns budget problems are quite similar.
In addition, Maplewood has submitted a request for extraordinary aid specifically to cover the cost of the initial payment on the Verizon building. Of note is the fact that Mayor Deluca has been in contact with the Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs, and has made an appointment to go to Trenton to meet with her. I believe her name is Miss Ricketts. Miss Ricketts told Mayor Deluca that municipalities should come in to make their case for their request for extraordinary aid. Has South Orange been in contact with the DCA? |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 8:36 am: |
|
I think Steve Steglitz is chairing finance this year. Patrick Joyce is on the committee.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 305
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:03 am: |
|
Brian: I forgot they had switched which committees they chaired last year. Patrick Joyce is looking into whether the budget could be put online at some point. It is available at village hall and one could join the CBAC and really learn how the whole budget process works.
How large was Maplewood's increase the prior two years? It would be silly to look at one year when we should be looking at windows of at least 3 years.
Another problem that was mentioned the other night is that when the economy is slow, the collection rate is usually lower. The past few years the collection rate has been over 98%. If it drops, we are still responsible for making the full 100% payment to the schools and the county. That is one of the reasons it is important to have a surpus, along with having money available for an emergency.
Several years ago we did send someone to Trenton. One year Assemblyman Caraballo made a plea for us in hopes that would help. The sad fact is that over 80% of the municipalities do not get etraordinary aid and as long as we have a surplus, we probably won't. Usually a town only goes to Trenton when they think they have a chance. I promise that if Maplewood gets municipal aid this year (and they maintain a surplus in the budget), I will personally go to Trenton next year and bang on the doors.
Trustee election is on May 13th.
www.leadershipwithvision.org
Vote Line A
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 233
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:11 am: |
|
Speaking of "windows", why does your campaign literature describe the "Average only 3.3% annual increase" for municipal taxes over an EIGHT YEAR window, instead of just the past FOUR years. Two of the Four incumbents were not even in office EIGHT years ago.
What was the average increase over the past FOUR years, which is really what should be used as a basis for re-election? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 307
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:24 am: |
|
We used the average amount of time that the four incumbents have been on the board.
All kidding aside, the idea was to show the tax increases since the redevelopment started. There were many accusations that the average tax increases were going to be over 10% due to the redevelopment. Since Bill Calabrese and Allan Rosen were instrumental in the early stages, they thought the full time line should be used. I can remember sitting at a meeting as a resident when I heard a resident insist that redevelopment must be stopped, how it was going to destroy the village, property values were going to plummet and a host of other things. Her favorite term was the village would be forever considered "blighted".
How wrong she was. Even with things not happening as fast as some would like, the village is still far better today than it was four, six or eight years ago.
However, just to be fair, I will get you the average increase of the past four years (although doublea will probably beat me to it). I do think it is around 4.5%. We had one very tough year with managing the budget and the prior CFO had made some miscalculations and mistakes that needed to be corrected.
Trustee election is on May 13th.
www.leadershipwithvision.org
Vote Line A
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 58
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:36 am: |
|
Mark: Thanks for responding. I don't know what their increase the prior two years was, but I don't think it was the 10% that we expeienced. Of course, Maplewood did reduce its surplus resulting in a credit downgrade. I just wonder whether South Orange has looked at what might be done to reduce the increase below the 4.4 - 4.6% mentioned Monday evening. I'm guessing that was nwyave asking questions Monday and am posting this for his benefit as well as your response. Steve Steglitz said that in the future we might look at different ways of doing some things to reduce expenses and I took this as a hopeful sign that we are really going to try to do something.
With regard to the extraordinary aid request by Maplewood, I was calling this to your attention since Maplewood's request is for a specific item, and I assume it was a personal visit to Trenton last year that resulted in Maplewood's getting extraordinary aid. Maplewood did point out that this was a tough year and 80% of the requests are denied. Nevertheless, it seems me that if we have the opportunity in the future to personally plead our case in Trenton, we should do so. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 59
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 11:18 am: |
|
Mark: Excuse all the postings, but I wonder whether any personal contact was made with Trenton a few years ago when we were hit with a large increase because of the Seton Hall fire. If we did everything we could do,then there is nothing more that can be asked. But if we didn't try to set up a meeting in Trenton to plead our case, to say there is nothing we can do about taxes is not correct. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 309
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 11:33 am: |
|
Doublea: We met with the loacl assembly person and state senator the year of the fire. It does not matter where the meeting takes place, since these awards are stricly political (imho). I say this because somehow W. Orange received some money last year yet they did not feel a need to increase their taxes. That is totally contradictrory to what the aid is for. I think Roseland received some aid and considering their commercial tax base, it is insane that they received one penny.
However, we do very well with grants and we were able to get an "extra" $300,000 from the state for the Irvington Ave. project. This was like getting etraordinary aid only being told what to spend it on.
Trustee election is on May 13th.
www.leadershipwithvision.org
Vote Line A
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 12:43 pm: |
|
I know I am revisiting a post I made earlier in the thread, but it's an important theme for me.
Despite all the talk about redevelopment, assessed values in South Orange have actually dropped by almost 6% in the last ten years. It's not just a function of tax appeals. Since 1993, total assessed value has declined every year other than 1998.
What's going on here? How can we be such an appealing and attractive place to do business, to live and work and at the same time lose ratables? The slow pace of redevelopment plays a role, as does providing abatements to residential properties like Gaslight Commons.
In terms of spending, we have two municipal governments managing a community the size of West Orange or Montclair. While we can retain our identity, it is time to actively look at having much more active engagement with Maplewood on issues like shared services and joint planning for recreational and open space. I think our team is well-positioned to lead on that front.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 117
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Mr. O'Leary,
Can you shed more light on the 6% decrease in the assessment? If a reassessment has not happened in 12 years, on what is this based? Can you break it down by residential and commercial? I can understand if the commercial property base has dropped (well, I don't understand it, but I can accept it). But isn't it apples and oranges to say that the total assessment has dropped when some properties are assessed at current "value" and others are assessed at 1991 "value"?
This is a large part of my (and I believe doublea's) problem with the current tax situation. It's inequitable. There are properties with assessments based on different years. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 312
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Anyone can play with numbers and keep changing the years that come into play. Tax appeals did have a lot to do with the reductions in assesed values. Church street represented an increase. The Beifus site will represent a large increase.
The homes on Jessica Way represented an increase. Those are all in the last four years. Clearly the Sickley property represented a decrease, but we added 265 parking spaces for commuters during the day and shoppers and businesses on the weekends and evenings (granted, that deal was before I was on the BOT). And we got someone else to pay for the project. And our own parking authority manages the lot.
Brian, the truth is the redevelopment is working even if slowly. To speed it up would mean eliminating part of the open process. Are you suggesting eliminating the planning board? The supermarket developer has been there for six months. Would you like to eliminate Main Street? Almost every developer that comes to the village works with those volunteers and they do have input into every project (not that every thing they suggest is accepted by a developer).
How would you speed up the process. Just saying you would speed it up is not an answer. Also, if the supermarket site is approved and with the Biefus site being contructed what other sites are you referring to?
Trustee election is on May 13th.
www.leadershipwithvision.org
Vote Line A
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 316
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:39 pm: |
|
By the way, the bulk of the decrease in ratables is from property Seton Hall purchased which represents $4,800,000 out of the almost $6,000,000 in decrease. The other major reduction was the Sickley site.
By the way, Seton Hall pays a 70% PILOT on those properties which covers the municipal and school portion of what the tax bill would have been. The county loses out but the reality is they do not have to pay one penny in taxes legally.
Brian, the reality is that the ratables are going up and sometimes we have to look at the whole picture. Despite your position on the PILOT to Gaslight Commons, the bottom line is a significant increase in the village revenue while at the same time there is a decrease in the ratable. That is because a long-term pilot does not count in the assessed values for ratables. However if it did, there would be a major increase in the ratable with a similar increase in our school and county tax while the village would get less money. And it means Maplewood is subidizing our portion of the school portion that is now absorbed by both towns (they get to pay 58% of the bill).
Trustee election is on May 13th.
www.leadershipwithvision.org
Vote Line A
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1310
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Mark, if you feel that there are things on the BOE and my service that need to be addressed as part of this campaign, I hope you will post them. I would be happy to answer any questions here or in the candidates' area.
In dollar terms, ratables have decreased $57 million since 1993 (not $6 million). Using Mark's numbers, Seton Hall purchases account for less than 10% of the total decline.
If the reality is that ratables are going up, why are the numbers going down? Mark, I'm not playing with numbers - these are the figures on which the schools tax rate is set.
You value the Gaslight Commons agreement because it provides the municipal government $500,000 annually. I don't because the muncipality allowed a property worth $25 million to make a 2% payment in lieu of taxes while every other residential property in town pays 5% annually. The value of the foregone tax revenue is $750,000.
I've served seven years leading a joint school system. The argument that a PILOT agreement is a good thing because Maplewood foots the bill strikes me as a narrow and self-defeating one. So then Maplewood does to South Orange what we do to them. Who loses? People whose homes are fully assessed. It's one community; we need to look at it that way.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 42
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Firstly - congratulations to both parties on the debate tonight. Thanks - I believe it was informative.
Secondly - with regard to the ratables decrease issue. Can we see a simple reconciliation that will help clarify.
Assessed Value 1993 = $XXXX
Major Increases:
Please List w/corresponding ratable value
Major Decreases:
Please list w/corresponding ratable value
Other to reconcile- $XXX
= Current Ratable Value
It is difficult to follow this thread with the back and forth on the issue. The simple reconciliation above listing the major variables will help clarify.
Thanks. |
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 43
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Ok, now to my favorite issue - muni tax increases. I keep hearing its a major issue, but unfortunately tonight the debate ran out of time, with my hand raised with one more question - of course along this theme.
I would think at this point both parties should be knowledgeable about the budget and be able to set expectations with voters. Remember Pres Bush senior "Read my Lips" comments is thought to have a lot to do with his not being reelected! I think it is a fair question to ask what does each platform commit itself to in terms of annual tax increases over each of the next 4 years. I know this is an extremely difficult question and one that is dependant on factors out of trustees control - i.e. state aid. However, notwithstanding that, I think that candidates should have enough information to make such a representation and I think that voters have a right to know what % increase that candidates are standing by now, hold them accountable to that and if it can't be done, see if there is a valid reason. Perhaps there will be a valid reason, but it will then be for the elected trustee to explain. Otherwise, I really think that we are sidestepping what might very well be the most important issue that we all currently face.
Thanks - |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 321
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 11:19 am: |
|
The problem is/was it should be easier for an income tax based system. The tax revenue goes up as people's income goes up. With property taxes, you need to raise the tax rate every year just to stay even.
My goal is always to be as close to a zero increase as possible. The reality is with pay increases, unfunded legislation that gets passed by the state and congress, inflation etc. makes the whole process a moving target. I do think we need to try to keep the average increase under 4% and I really will strive to be closer to 2%.
By the way, if anyone noticed in the Star-Leger this morning, it looks like we will be getting $440,000 from the state historic grant toward ths firehouse renovation. That was what we had hoped for originally and it looked like McGreevey had killed it. Of course we won't have the money in time for this year's budget but it will help for next year.
Trustee election is on May 13th.
www.leadershipwithvision.org
Vote Line A
|
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 11:56 am: |
|
Mark - thanks, but the whole point of the pointed question is to get something that the voters can bank on, which would mean that the trustees\town would have to do prioritzation of needs\wants or go higher than the amount commited to and feel comfortable with being able to justify such amount.
With that said, and assuming that both parties have sufficient knowledge of the towns financial situation, I ask again, what % increase in muni taxes would each platform represent that they will not exceed and then live by it or feel comfortable justifying an excess. This is a very fair question and in my mind the most obvious, in a tax weary community. I think the voters need to know an answer. By your post, can I say deduce that your committing to an increase of no more than 4%?
With regard to the Fire House - I saw that too - That is great. How much is being spent this year? I assume this affects our current year tax increase? What hypothetically would the grant be if it was received this year have on the muni tax increase?
The article also says that it is hoped that the legislature and and govenor will act bu 6/27. Doesn't that give us time to affect the cy budget?
Lastly, does the Old Stone House grant affect the budget? Was anything included for this year in the current year budget?
Thanks |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 323
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 12:18 pm: |
|
The old stone house grant will not affect our budget.
As for the firehouse grant, we had always expected that eventually we would get some grant money towards the renovation. I will check to see if it will be in this year's budget or next year's. I am sure the finance committee will be addressing the effect on the budget and would rather wait till I get a full report before making any comments.
How can any one trustee give a committment? It takes four votes to pass the budget and the VP only votes if there is a tie.
I will commit that unless there are unforseen circumstances I will do whatever I can to keep the average increase under 4%. I know that is more vague than you want, and sounds like political waffling, but it is just not that easy. I don't want to be in a position where I have to vote to cut services because of a campaign promise but I would not want to break that promise.
I pay property taxes the same an anyone else and believe me, the last thing I want to do is increase my own taxes.
Trustee election is on May 13th.
www.leadershipwithvision.org
Vote Line A
|
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 47
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 3:02 pm: |
|
ok - I understand the constraints, your commitment is fair.
Brian - what is your "commitment" using the same constraints that Mark posted - re future years muni tax increases?
With re. to the firehouse grant, I think it would be useful to get that answer sooner than later. I for one would be happy if it turned out that the actual muni tax increase this year would be reduced by x%, if thinking aggressively for the moment, we assumed that the grant came in this year. It would also help rationalize a portion of the increase even if we knew that x% benefit would not be realized this year but next.
Thanks |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 325
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 3:20 pm: |
|
I don't think it is legal to assume. We have to have it in writing from the state before we can count that money.
Trustee election is on May 13th.
www.leadershipwithvision.org
Vote Line A
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 3:43 pm: |
|
I'm comfortable comfortable committing to tax increases that match the general increase in the CPI.
Here's the thing, though: on the revenue side, our ability to manage the local impact of increases in the cost of government services depends on growth in the total value of assessed properties. Some of that growth will take three years or more to come on line. It may also require an investment upfront to better redevelop and market the downtown area.
If the long-term health of the Village demands increases in tax rates beyond the growth in CPI, I would want the trustees to first bring to the community a full, three- or five-year picture of what we need and how it will get paid back. A "business plan" for remaking South Orange seems like a straightforward effort to build confidence that things are being done well.
It's also important to work jointly with the school district to understand their needs and plan accordingly. Holding a municipal increase to a minimum while shifting costs to taxpayers (my PILOT argument) is not a desirable goal.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Nwyave, I have the total assessed valuations by year, which I can post, but I can't do the reconciliation you asked for given the data I have on hand. Do you at least want the year-by-year valuations?
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 48
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Brian - sure re the valuations - thanks. That would be helpful.
Brian - to focus a bit more on your response re. the muni tax increase "commitment" - that word broadly defined. Are you saying that if the CPI is 2%, your realistic target would be 2% and if you exceeded that you would feel that you would need to justify yourself?
Brian - Given your post, do you feel that you would be able to live w/i the cpi target in say 04 or does your "upfront investment" affect this target in 04 - and if so what then would be your target\commitment in 04?
Mark - Why wouldn't it be legal to do a hypothetical analysis? Nobody is saying that that is the new rate or the money is coming in this year. I just want to get a feel for how much of our muni tax hike, if any, is due to expenditures on the firehouse that might now be recoupable. Similar to saying how much of our tax increase this year is due to increased insurance or interest costs.
Thanks - |
Brian O'Leary
Citizen
Username: Brianoleary
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 1, 2003 - 9:48 pm: |
|
Yes, if the CPI is 2%, I'd target a 2% increase and expect to justify anything above that. In terms of investment, I'd look first for cost offsets in the current budget before proposing additions to the total. That applies for 2004 and beyond.
I will post the numbers either later tonight or tomorrow.
www.opensouthorange.com
Vote Line B on May 13th
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 285
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 9:26 am: |
|
I see that on the agenda for TONIGHT'S Trustee meeting, there will be the public hearing on the budget.
Mark - welcome back from vacation. For people who can't make it to Village Hall during business hours, is an electronic copy of the budget available online or available to be emailed so people could review it prior to the meeting?
Thanks. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 408
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:23 am: |
|
There is no electronic copy of the budget available on-line although. I did ask the finance committee to look into the issue for next year to see if it is possible and what the pros anc cons would be of doing such. I am not sure when their next meeting is and if they have put this item on that agenda.
I will ask tonight.
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 286
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:31 pm: |
|
Thank you, Mark.
I was unable to watch the meeting tonight....did the budget get approved? What is the bottom line of the increase? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 413
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 11:53 am: |
|
The budget hearing had to be postponed again due to the state not getting back yet. Next hearing is scheduled for the June 23rd meeting. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page