| Author | Message | ||
     mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 209 Registered: 5-2001 |
I propose ELIMINATING the Gaslight newsletter (or have it paid for by the Incumbents Campaign funds). Seriously, though...the Village has a website...use it for disseminating information to the public. Kill the Gaslight. It's a propaganda rag anyway. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 248 Registered: 4-2002 |
I agree that we should not minimize the 25% portion of the tax bill, but a lot of people do not realize how much the school portion is or that the county portion is almost as much as the municipal portion. Really, we get virtually no services from the county, and I can't figure out what they spend the money on. 5% increases are clearly too much (they have actually been lower). I think that a good goal is 2% which is realistic considering inflation, salary increases, etc. We should have some years with increases of less than 2% once all the projects kick in. We do use 5 year projections and we do try to stick to them. As for using an outside consultant I think it was reasonable since we were way behind in getting a webpage in the first place and we did not have an in-house person till late last year. He is only one person and he does have a lot of job titles. Clearly everyone was disappointed that the outside vendor did not deliver in a timely manner. I think the trustees were already aware of the situation (I was) and I did not want to interfere with the presentation. I will agree if it makes more sense to use and outside consultant when we do not have the expertise in-house, then that is what we should do. Hiring another tech person would be more expensive. All in all I thought the website has progressed very well and we have done it in a very cost-effective manner. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 34 Registered: 3-2003 |
Municipal tax rate 2000 - $1.24 Municipal tax rate 2001 - 1.31 Municipal tax rate 2002 - 1.37 Increase of 10.48% last two years | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 76 Registered: 9-2002 |
Why stop at regionalizing services? Why not regionalize tax revenue as well? I shop at the Livingston and Short hills malls. Why do those towns get a benefit from it, and we do not? Perhaps commercial rateables should be at a county level, not [just] a town level. This basically penalizes a town for being a nice quiet place to live. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 249 Registered: 4-2002 |
Woodstock: You are right about that. In fact, when the malls started to take over NJ, there was a discussion about having sales tax revenue shared based on population to help offset the impact it would have on towns without malls. There is no question that revenue sharing is needed (maybe we need Bud Selig to take over the state) and would be a great solution. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 78 Registered: 9-2002 |
Mark, Ok, can we count on your run with that thought?  On a serious note, we can all agree that something is a good idea, but if no one follows through, that's all it will be - an idea. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 250 Registered: 4-2002 |
I agree. I did discuss this with Fred Caraballo two years ago. We now have a new assembly person and his office is in S. Orange so there is no reason not to meet with him. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 30 Registered: 1-2003 |
2 items: - most importantly, we are still not addressing the fundamental question - what will be done specifically to keep the muni tax increases at 2% over the next few years that was not done over the last few years? I am sure that the town must have all different projections - upside, downside, realistic. Can we assume a 2% increase over each of the next few years? Will trustees be willing to be held accountable to that? I still have not heard any concrete suggestions on how that would be done and the thread again is starting to go towards hypotheticals that will likely not realize any stabilization of taxes for awhile. which leads to a second point: - I think the point is being missed entirely re. the outside consultant. We need to prioritize and cut whereever we can - including $6k. If a web page has to wait until it gets done, lets face it, its not the end of the world. Is it the end of the world now, as that web page has not gotton done to date? I understand that all staff usually have many projects on their plate at a time. A prudent manager, especially one that is getting directive from tax weary citizens and their elected trustees should prioritize - period. I'm getting desperate for suggestions from potential candidates! What was done last year with tax revenue that can be deleted from current/ensuing years budgets? What is a muni tax increase that each platform will be willing to be held "accountable" to? We should not be projecting 5% increases to be conservative. Believe me, you will not find a more financially conservative person than me and I appreciate conservatism. However, in this case, I fear that we spend to that "conservative" #. I would really like to hear from the individuals who are seeking to be trustee, what is their plan to keep the muni tax rate increases at 2% or less and are they willing to commit to that #. Remember this is about 25% of our total tax bill. - | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 254 Registered: 4-2002 |
nwyave: I think the point is understood very well. We made a decision to have a website. It was requested by many including many people on this message board. We set a budget and a time line. It has already taken longer than I had hoped but we are not over the budget including the $6,000 for an oustide vendor. There will be times when an outside consultant will be a better way to go. I would rather it be done right than trying to have unqualified people try to figure it out. As for what we have been trying to do to help stablaize taxes is we are trying to follow the outline of the Atlantic Report that was done in 1994. While some of the report might be dated, the conclusions are still valid. We need more ratables that have a minimal impact on services. The Gaslight Commons will be bringing $500,000 in taxes to the village. That is over a $400,000 increase over what we were getting from the auto dealership. Candlewyk properties which has started work at the Beifus site is another increased ratable. It will bring new retail space into the downtown on S. Orange Ave along with more parking. There is a project for the Shop-rite site that has been before the planning board for several months. That too will be an increase in the ratable. At the same time, we actively seek grants and funds from various sources. For instance, the Irvington Ave. redevelopment which has a budget of over $900,000, with $720,000 coming from grants. Originally we were expecting less than $450,000 from grants. After the work is done, we epect that new businesses will want to open up there too. I can only say that I will try to do whatever I can to keep the taxes stable and the increases minimal. With the state and the county giving less and doing less it puts more pressure on municipalities and it becomes more and more of a juggling act each year. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 211 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, As one of the people who advocated for the Village having a website, I agree it is a very important tool for a community to have - one which if used properly can ultimately save money for the Village. I wonder why none of the tremendous volunteers in the community were engaged to work on the Village website. I'm willing to bet that many talented people would have come forward to offer their services for free or virtually free. Brian and his campaign didn't spend a dime on their website - www.opensouthorange.com (except to register the domain name) and I think they got a pretty decent result. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 256 Registered: 4-2002 |
Mayhewdrive: We did discuss that and we did have some conversations with volunteers. The problem is that websites need to be maintained on a regular basis. It is not only easy or fair to count on volunteers. I do agree that there will be ways to help save the village money in the future, but I feel that we really need to have one paid professional in charge of the website. I did raise the issue that after the website is complete that maybe we could use qualified volunteers to do some of the work on the web page. By the way, the business listings were taken from a Main Street piece which is mostly a volunteer organization. A campaign website is a short term project and we are hoping that the village website can be used for much more including some of the suggestions that you have made. By the way, I told Brian that I liked his website very much. Trustee election is on May 13th. Vote Line A | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 37 Registered: 3-2003 |
nwyave: As suggested, please get involved in the Citizens Advisory Budget Committee. Thus far in the discussions, I don't think there has been any wiilingness or desire to talk about cutting expenses - it has all been about the revenue side. Perhaps there is nothing to cut, but at least it should be discussed. Like you, over the years I have not noted any particular inclination on the part of the BOT to turn down any requests for expenditures. Something has to give - we have to start somewhere. To say that municipal taxes are "only" 27% of total taxes is misleading, especially in you have a house that is assessed more than the "average" assessment. M.Rosner: In your post above, you say that South Orange is receiving $500,000 per your from Gaslight Commons, $400,000 more that it was receiving from the old auto dealership. Yet the current issue of the Gaslight says the tax impact is $500,000. Shouldn't the number in the Gaslight said "net tax impact $400,000?" And shouldn't all the other tax impact figures be revised as well, since there are already existing structures? | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 32 Registered: 1-2003 |
Mark, Lets be clear here, what are the Trustees projecting for a municapal tax increase next year - forget the conservative # or any other # - the realistic one that voters (I am sure many undecided, such as me) should be placing there vote on. I am sure that # is available. Either we count those new development projects in the tax projecion and you become "accountable" for getting that revenue and get credit for it or we exclude them as they are too iffy. At this point somebody has to take a stronger psn - and this is directed to all candidates. With all due respect, I am truly amazed that people running for office - and this is directed to all candidates - are not being more specific here. The question I believe is one that needs to be answered. With regard to the $6k spent on the website to a consultant - again I go back to priortization. That page is still not done - would have it been the end of the world if we waited until our internal staff handled it? That is my point. In addition, regardless if something is in the budget or not, it does not have to be spent - coming in under budget is acceptable. I am not trying to give anybody a hard time here at all. I am truly an undecided voter. I do think though that we have to be more specific on a very important issue. doublea - I am sure that you are right re the cost side of the equation. In additon, when we talk about the "net tax impact", we should also be deducting at any incremental costs, if any, in having the project. That would give us the true "net tax impact." Of course that would have to be weighed against qualitative factors such as leaving a vacant auto dealership lot. Thanks. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 258 Registered: 4-2002 |
This years municipal tax increase is 4.48%. I have not seen the latest five year projection but if I think we are looking at 4% next year and then we are hoping for a return to the less than 2% a year increases. There are some items in the budget which make it very hard to be more concrete. There is a lot of old equipment in the village and we have a timetable to replace it. That kind of plan did not seem to exist ten years ago or if it did, it was not followed. We only count a project in the projection when we are reasonably certain that it is going to be completed. The next one to go on the tax roll will probably be at the old Beifus site, although that probably won't generate addittional revenue till sometime in 2005 and fully in 2006. The same is true for the New Market Square development. With 20-20 hindsight maybe we could have waited since it is not here yet. We do analyze when we should use a outside person and when we can do the work ourselves. This issue will come up in other areas and I will tell you without hesitation no matter whom is elected there will be times when an outside consultant will be used. However, anytime we can do it in-house, I expect that we follow that route. This particular decision is made by the village administrator and was within the budget parameters set by the board. The village administrator is the equivalent to the CEO of a medium size business and needs to make certain decisions without coming to the BOT or waiting for the meetings. There are times we disagree with his decision, but most of the time we tend to agree. And I promise you, he knows when one of us is not thrilled with something. Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 83 Registered: 9-2002 |
Assuming the county and school tax increases are on par with the municipal increase, this means my taxes will be going up $1000 this year. Might I ask, other than higher paid municipal workers, what will I be getting for this money? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 41 Registered: 3-2003 |
This is beginning (or should I say continuing )to sound like smoke and mirrors. My total taxes are also going up over $1000 this coming year on top of a $1000 increases last year. We are now being told that the local tax increase will be 4.48% this year and 4% the following year before maybe returning to 2%. However, as I pointed out in one of my posts above, the local tax portion increased a total of 10.48% for the two years prior, thus meaning the total tax increase over this four year period is almost 19% instead of the 4 times 1.5% or 6% increase that the current Board agreed to 4 hears ago. With our very high tax rate, the difference in dollar terms is significant. Remember, the total budget is never going to decrease. I am just trying to put some kind of reign on spending or tax increases. I really have no political axe to grind. However, my impression is that for sure Bill Calabrese is a wonderful person and South Orange's number one booster. However, in his desire to make and keep South Orange the wonderful town it is, he does not try to prioritize expenditures and at times it seems as if nothing is too good for the Village. I think we all wish this were true, but the harsh reality is that we can't afford it any longer. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 261 Registered: 4-2002 |
Woodstock: From the county portion(19%), we get very little. The school portion is 56% and is the bulk of your property tax bill. From the village which is the remaining 25%, we have police, fire, public works and recreation making up the bulk of the budget. Each year we spend $450,000 - $500,000 to repave and repair roads. Just last month renovations and improvements were done at the library. The recreation department offers many programs for every age. We have a great baseball program with a major assist from many volunteers. The playground at the waterlands was redone last year and is really beautiful. There is a new playground in Newstead next to the firehouse. We did an improvement to the Tichenor-Garfield-Prospect intersection that has been a great improvement to the traffic problems there. The list goes on and on. I think the taxpayers get the most bang for the buck from the village, but obviously our property taxes are too high as they are almost everywhere in Northern NJ. We continue to solicit grants whenever possible and about 70% of the Irvington Avenue improvements scheduled to start this summer will be from grants. We have a full time professional fire department vs. a volunteer fire department that some town have. Crime was down 28% last year and down 46% over the last 10 years. When we were hoping to continue increases under 2% we were also not expecting major cuts from the state, and less funds available from grants. We also seem to be doing some of the services for the county (including snow-plowing when they do not send trucks fast enough). Also, we had expected to receive a major grant from the state for the firehouse renovations, but McGreevey completely cut the program. There is still a chance that we might get money in the future for that project but the amount that was expected (based on conversations with the state) was at least $375,000 and as much as $750,000. That alone would be a 4% increase in taxes and the renovations needed to be done. I know it sounds like a broken record, but without more commercial ratables or a change in the funding method for schools, we are always going to have a higher tax rate that most towns. Trustee election is on May 13th. www.leadershipwithvision.org Vote Line A | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 43 Registered: 3-2003 |
Let's have a revaluation so everyone pays their fair share of these expenditures. I'm sure that all taxpayers in the Village who want to continue this spending would have no objection to a reavaluation! | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 44 Registered: 3-2003 |
Let's have a revaluation so every property owner pays their fair share of these expenses. I'm sure that everyone who wants to continue with this spending has no objection to a revaluation! | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 84 Registered: 9-2002 |
Doublea - I assume you had our tongue firmly planted in your cheek when you said that  The opposition to a reval in South Orange is strong, particularly given what happened with Maplewood's reval. Everyone assumes that a reval automatically means higher taxes. Fairness is not a concern (at least, not enough to part with more money)_ for those with home that are not proportionally valued. And to be honest, if my home were valued at 50% of my neighbor's equivalent home, I wouldn't be thrilled about equalization either. Does anyone know... if South Orange does a reval, is that valuation used for county and school taxes? And if so, are those rates adjusted to reflect the fact that other towns have not been reval'ed? By the way, there is a rumor that there will be a reval in SO when the quarry is developed, some time around 2007. Does anyone know if there is any truth to that? |
