| Author | Message | ||
     sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 758 Registered: 5-2001 |
Those of us who live in Maplewood are not happy that South Orange is getting money that would otherwise go to the schools! | ||
| sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 759 Registered: 5-2001 |
Those of us who live in Maplewood are not happy that South Orange is getting money that would otherwise go to the schools! | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 236 Registered: 4-2002 |
I am sure of that, but Maplewood has done PILOT agreements too. I would be happy to join Maplewood in a trip to Trenton to change the system of funding. I would love to see it based on the number of students from each township instead of the current flawed formula. | ||
| scollins Citizen Username: Scollins Post Number: 33 Registered: 8-2001 |
Those of us in South Orange who are being told that it is a good deal by the Administration are not happy either. The Gaslight Commons should be paying $1,250,000 in taxes based on the assesment of 25 Million (which I think is low). They are paying $500,000. Who makes up the difference? This is a zero sum deal. If the developer is getting a $750,000 tax break someone else is paying that money. Where do I sign up my property for a Pilot? That would stabilize my taxes for a while. Brian, thanks for clarifying. I am glad there is a candidate running that seems to have a handle of the shell game going on here. You have my vote already. | ||
| sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 760 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sorry Mark, but that is not a fair argument. The formula may be flawed but the attempt is to equalize it over property values as if the two towns were one community (as they are for school district purposes). If the equalization does not achieve that, then it should be fixed. But that is different than doing it on a per student basis. (If that were the basis, then carrying it to extremes would mean that only households with children in the schools would pay school tax and they would pay based on the number of children in their household.) Both towns would be worse off if we had separate school districts (and had to support two administrations, heaven forbid!). Having brought the two together means that the entire community needs to be considered as one and the taxes distributed according to property values in that whole community (not on numbers of students per town.) That is what the equalization formulas are for. I would be all for addressing any inequities in the formulas regarding that goal, whether the result is to my personal advantage or disadvantage, but the number of students in each town has nothing to do with that. | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 89 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree with Mr. O'Leary. Sac and Scollins are right in their different arguments. I have also thought about the issue alot as I look at that ugly behemoth (Gaslight Commons) every day. If you abate for school and county taxes, the entire amount of revenue shrinks. If school district expenses go up, all of us get (1) less educational services or (2) to share the burden posed by the abatement. Sorry, but it is not a good deal for those of us who pay for use school services. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 31 Registered: 3-2003 |
M.Rosner: When the "Market Square"redevelopment was first discussed at a S.O. Trustees meeting about 2 1/2 years ago, my recollection is that is was stated that it would be a PILOT. This was before it was contemplated that there would be a substantial of rentals/condominiums (I think). What's planned now? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 240 Registered: 4-2002 |
Well, the development was announced just under two years ago (04/30/3001) and the project was first presented to the trustees in May or June of 2001. At no time have I discussed a PILOT for this project nor have I been asked to vote on one. I really can't guess what the board would do until the developer gets an approval on the plans from the planning board. At that time, if the developer thinks they need a PILOT to make the project work, they would come to the BOT. My guess is that any develper would ask and that is their right. I would hope a PILOT is only given to a developer that brings something to the table that helps the village and only requests a PILOT to insure that the project is financially feasible. I know and understand that a PILOT should be the exception, and not given automatically. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 32 Registered: 3-2003 |
I think if you go back to the meeting I'm referring to (and I can't recall the exact date), Steve Steglitz said it was going to be a PILOT. | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1255 Registered: 3-2002 |
I think there is agreement that a PILOT agreement allows a developer to build a property worth "x" and make a payment to the village that is less than it would have owed if the building had been assessed at "x" and taxed at the current rate. Whether you think that residents of South Orange or Maplewood make up the difference, it is clear that somebody pays. From 1993 through 2002, the total value of assessed property in South Orange declined by more than $57 million (about 5.5%). Even if the school budget had remained flat, that means the schools tax rate would have increased for all assessed properties in South Orange. One option to keep the tax rate stable is to develop properties that increase assessed valuations at a rate comparable to the general increase in the cost of goverment services. We agree that adding a PILOT property does not change the assessed valuation of village property. In an environment in which both school and municipal budgets are increasing, that in effect shifts taxes toward the balance of assessed properties in town. | ||
| Ed May Citizen Username: Edmay Post Number: 1321 Registered: 9-2001  |
Brian Where do you stand on county government? The impact it has on local taxes. Could / should county government be abolished? Should SO / M leave Essex County? That sort of thing. Ed May | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1263 Registered: 3-2002 |
Earlier in this thread I wrote that about 18% of South Orange's property tax bill goes to the county ($0.89 per hundred of assessed valuation). It is the smallest of the three assessments. The county does provide some services (maintaining county roads, parks, etc) whose cost will not go away if county government itself is eliminated. The county also holds a debt obligation that would have to be apportioned or paid off if county government were dismantled. This says to me that any move to abolish county government needs to start first with a considered study of what services would stay and then move on to how they might be funded. It is possible to have county administration coordinated through Trenton (the department of education has such a structure), but it is not clear that it is necessarily cheaper. Hence, the study, which I'd support. In Essex County, it is popular to say that the state should pick up a larger share of the cost of county government. It's useful to realize, though, that many other counties do not have the problems we have in Essex County and are not keen to pay, through income or sales taxes, for our local share. One of the reasons that county taxes here are high is the relative dearth of commercial ratables, particularly in the larger cities. This both burdens the smaller property tax base and divides the county (the Millburn and Montclair initiatives are examples). It might make more sense to band together to create regional development that makes the best use of the competitive advantages that cities like Newark can offer businesses. Harvard Business School's Michael Porter has done some great work in this regard. Even if we dismantled the county, the problems that Newark, East Orange, Irvington and other towns face will still be there, and they will still be our neighbors. If we find a way to solve them together, the county problem becomes significantly smaller. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 243 Registered: 4-2002 |
Brian: The problem with the argument that certain services won't go away if we abolish county taxes is partially true. Their service is minimal at best. I think the real problem with Essex County is the court system. Essex has the largest caseload in the state. Newark, which is the largest city in the state pays far less than they should towards the county and that is why our share is so much larger than it should be. There is no question that almost every town in Essex (except maybe E. Orange and Newark) would benefit by becoming attached to another county. It would make more sense for the State to subidize Newark before allowing towns to secede from the county. That would not require any special legislation, it would be fairer to the landlocked towns and should Newark ever become the city it once was would be beneficial to the rest of the county. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1268 Registered: 3-2002 |
It still seems the case that we would rather have Newark, which is two blocks from my house, as an ally in change instead of a ward of the state. The cost of county government has increased less since 1993 than either the muncipality or the schools. We can secede, but the problems that start two blocks away won't change when our tax burden shifts. I can see a path to eliminating county government, but I can't see seceding to get away from our neighbors. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 27 Registered: 1-2003 |
Maybe I have not read the individual responses thoroughly enough, but this thread has to do with municipal taxes. I respect that each platform and citizens in general may have different opinions with regard to pilot programs that have been granted in the past as well as our "county" tax situation. Notwithstanding that, I would like to know, given where we stand right now and assuming that we will continue to have the current county situation, what the respective platforms would do to minimize the municipal tax increases going forward. I think that specifics (again not criticizing past decisions, but respecting where we are are today) are in order here (i.e. cut this, spend that ...) and if the answer is that one can not can not commit to any specifics, we should hear that and not beat around the bush. Everybody in SO is concerned about high taxes. If one wants to be elected to a trustee, with all due respect, rhetoric and criticizing the past is not enough. We should hear specific ideas going forward - even real thoughts - better yet commitments - on what municipal tax percentage increases should be expected over the next several years. I hear the word "accountable" used a lot - this would be a perfect example of holding candidates accountable. Thanks and good luck to all. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 74 Registered: 9-2002 |
<long-rant> Is the town budget available online? I mean, full disclosure of revenues (including sources) and disbursements (or obligations)? I know that it is probably available at town hall, but since most of us do not work in the immediate area, and town hall is not open when most of us are home, getting (or making) a copy in person isn't feasible. Perhaps that would make it easier for the current trustees to make their case for the way things are, and it would also give the rest of us lay people (and tax experts) the opportunity to see where our money goes and make concrete suggestions. As it is, it seems like there is a lot of finger pointing, or saying "That's just the way things are." I doubt anyone involved in our town government wants to see high taxes. I just want everything that can be done (and thought of) to be done. If it's a county thing, we need to work with other towns to bring it to the county's attention more (or more forcefully). If it's a state thing, same thing at the state level. I just don't see how we're all paying all this money to the county/town/school board, and everyone state-wide thinks our tax system is broken. How do other states handle their tax problems? Why are New Jersey taxes so incredibly high in comparison to other states? And once that question is answered, can we do something about it to fix it? I think this goes back to the question about making tough decisions. they don't have to mean cuts in services or higher taxes. Perhaps we just need a new way of doing things. How many school districts are there in NJ? Over 600? How many school superintendents? BoEs? More important, BoE staff members? How much overhead could be eliminated by consolidating? But it's not just school taxes. Even if school taxes were eliminated, my taxes would still be higher than those of just about any small town in another state. How do they do it? Can we learn fgrom them? Is anyone even trying to find out? That's not just a question for the incumbents. If someone wants my vote, tell me how you're going to figure it out. I don't need the answer of how it will be solved. But I'd like someone to stand up and say something other than "That's the way things are" or "It's because of the incumbents." I don't need a solution, but I do want a PLAN. </long-rant> | ||
| dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 90 Registered: 5-2001 |
While your at it, look at how many health officers, code enforcers, etc., etc. There are not even enough of them so they often have to work for two towns. Too much redundancy. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 246 Registered: 4-2002 |
woodstock: The full budget is not online at this time. The request for a copy can be made online, but there is a charge for making a copy (I know with the high taxes every resident should be given a copy for free). The best way to really learn the tax process is to join the Citizens Budget Avisory Committee. They do a thorough review of the budget and they can have the Village Administrator available to answer any questions that arise about municipal budgets and finances. Most people have identified the problem that towns like S. Orange have is that there are not enough commercial ratables to generate revenue. Towns like Summit, Clark, Springfield, Cherry Hill, Bridgewater, etc. that have a lot of commercial space do not have the kinds of problems that S. Orange, Mapleowood, Glen Ridge, etc have. Clearly if the state had fewer municipalities, or a system that somehow gave money from towns that had an abundance of commercial ratables helping to fund the schools it would go a long way to solving the problem. Even if the budget could be streamlined it would not solve the problem to the magnitude one would want. The municipal budget is about 25% of your total property taxes. Over 50% goes to the Police and Fire Departments. When you see how far the balance goes (Road repairs, code enforcement, running village hall, etc) and you can see that even with some savings here and there that might be possible and you are talking less than $100.00 per household per year. We have been doing what we can to stabalize taxes, but unless there is real tax reform in this state, and especially the issue of how the schools should be funded, we will always have high property taxes. I have looked at some other state models to see what the differences are and what they do. Many states use a sales tax to help fund the schools. I do not think there is any state that has as many towns as NJ per square mile. Fewer towns means less paid employees working in government especially at the higher levels. I still think our best chance of saving dollars is to regionalize services. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 28 Registered: 1-2003 |
Thanks - I would still propose that we stay away from the education or county tax issues and focus for a minute exclusively on the municipal tax issues. We are well aware of the county and and education tax problems. As has been said on this tread, the muni tax portion of our bill is substantial (say 25% or so) and thus should not be minimized. What I would like to know is a simple answer to the following: Do either of the platforms have concrete suggestions on how our municipal tax bill will be kept in line in the ensuing years. If I am not mistaken we are looking at another 5% or so increase this year. I do hate though when we talk imply there would only be a x$s per household savings if we did away with this or that. That argument would be ok if our tax burden already wasn't as high as it is. Being that it is as high as it is, any marginal increase is burdensome. I would think my question is easy here. If the candidates are familiar with the budget and I would think they themselves should be if they are interested in the trustee psn, then then they should have concrete proposals re municipal tax increases. I don't think 5% annual increases are acceptable and I would bet most SO citizens agree. I hold the trustee psn in high regard and one that should be voted for after much thought. This thread has gone on for one week now, and I am very disappointed that none of the candidates have proposed one concrete specific idea re. holding municipal taxes in line. There has been a constant focus on the county situation and the education portion of the taxes. To me that is sidestepping the difficult issues and choices that have to be made that affect municipal taxes. A very small $ item comes to mind that in my mind is indicative that there are opportunities to save $s. I was at the trustee meeting the other day when the web site was reviewed. It was mentioned that one section of the site, the calendar, was outsourced to consultants for $6,000. To add insult to injury that is the one page that is behind schedule. To add further insult to injury one trustee indicated to my chagrin that we would continue to to use consultants if they were cost effective. We have municipal employees - there should not be a use of a consultant unless it is replacing a municipal worker. Otherwise we need to prioritize - period. I was disappointed when I did not hear any trustee being upset that we had spent even the relatively small amount of $6k on something that could have been deferred until our internal staff could have done it - especially since the consultant had failed to deliver on a timely basis. Instead I heard nothing. Either we are ok with continued tax increases, or we will need to make the difficult choices that will help at least control these increases. Again, sorry for the rant, do any of the platforms have a specific proposal re municipal spending that will help keep municipal tax increases in line. Remember this is not a question on county or education taxes and lastly, with the insert in the gaslight this month that indicated the tax revenue from each of the redevelopement projects, I would think that the candidates, if they really believe in that revenue, should find it much easier to say that those revenues would cover any muni tax increase - unless those projects are costing more that the tax increase. I am not saying that, but we can't have it both ways. If that revenue is truly all incremental, we should certainly see some years of nil muni tax increases - What gives? Again thanks - and some concrete answers please. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 29 Registered: 1-2003 |
One last point. When I ask for a concrete suggestion - I respect those suggestions that indicate regionalization of services or petitioning the state for more funding, but I am really asking for something that can be realized immediately - i.e. in the next budget. Those other suggestions, while positive, I believe will not affect our tax situation immediately. |
