| Author | Message | ||
     vermontgolfer Citizen Username: Vermontgolfer Post Number: 46 Registered: 12-2002 |
Maybe I'm simplifying this to much, but it seems that David has it correct. Our tax dollars are not going to change, regardless of where the PILOT monies are used. What seems to be the problem is the budgeting process or lack thereof from the school district. I think the focus should be put on their shoulders and since we all seem determeined to accomplish something positvie here, for our interests, maybe it's high time we start putting the pressure on them. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 191 Registered: 9-2002  |
Mr. Rosner or Matthews, Does the school district collect taxes from property owners, or from the towns? Meaning does the BOE simply hand a bill to the towns? I'm trying to understand if it matters (under the law) where the funding comes from. How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 455 Registered: 4-2002 |
The village collects the taxes and we send them their share. I am not sure what you mean about where the funding comes from? Vermontgolfer: I agree. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 201 Registered: 3-2003 |
To a large extent I agree with those who say the problem is with the school budgeting process. That is why I started a separate thread on the subject -"South Orange Members of the Board of School Estimate". This year the S.O. members failed miserably in not saying to the BOE, "you have not handled the budget process appropriately and we're not approving any special questions until you reexamine the basic T&E budget". If it was the school administration's fault for a sloppy budget process, then let the BOE hand it back to the administration. The problem with the S.O. representatives is that they don't do this, and it has been this way every year in recent history. Maybe some of the new members on the BOE will be more exacting of the administration, and remember there were three BOE members who dissented on the special questions because of the manner in which they were being handled. As I suggested in my other post, the S.O. members have to get more involved with the school budget process -go the the meetings or watch them on tape,listen to the administration's presentation and the BOE's questions, read the posts on the MOL Education thread. Yes, the BSE is lobbied by parents, and yes, a lot of their requests are legitimate, but we're talking about how you get there,and in recent years the S.O. members on the BSE have not done their job in the best manner possible, other than just saying "yes" to special questions. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 192 Registered: 9-2002 |
Mr. Rosner, I'm not sure where I'm going with it yet, either. I wanted to see if the town was simply given a bill, and the town had the discretion to collect the funds as they saw fit, or if there was a requirement that it be done through property taxes. Again, I'm still not sure where I'm going with this, but I have a tickle in the back of my brain. Of course, that could be the burrito from last night. How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 458 Registered: 4-2002 |
woodstock: Ok, it would be great if we had discretion with the county funds. We collect for them too and we get next to nothing in return. In fact the county probably costs us money because sometimes we have to do their work. I only wish that the taxes had to be collected seperately. Many people still do not realize that the school portion is over 50% of their tax bill. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 193 Registered: 9-2002 |
So Mr. Rosner, just to be sure I understand, the town has no discretion about how the funds (county or school taxes) are collected? I'm being a bit thick today. How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all? | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3144 Registered: 5-2001 |
Here in NJ municipalities are responsible for collecting the school and county taxes and passing the money on. An interesting side light is that if a property assessment (and thus the tax) is reduced by the county tax board the municipality is still responsible for the full amount. This also may be the case with unpaid taxes, but I am not sure about this. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 459 Registered: 4-2002 |
bobk: We are still responsible for unpaid taxes. What a dumb system. Woodstock: We must collect the taxes for the county and the schools. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 194 Registered: 9-2002 |
I'm sure it's just the way I'm asking my question. And I'm sure it's been answered ad nauseum. But I'm just not quite getting it. Check one: [ ] The town is assessed an amount by the school board, and can collect those funds how ever it wants. [ ] The town is assessed an amount by the school board, and it must collect the amount as a defined percentage of each property owners' property. [ ] Neither. Here's how it works:_________________ How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 460 Registered: 4-2002 |
My instinct is to say "who cares", we have to pay the damn tax anyway. Your second choice is closer. Each home has an assesed value. The tax rate the school board has approved (and yes approved by the BSE too) is then multiplied by the assessed value and the village tax collector receives the funds for the schools which usuall comes in one check from the propertyowner covering the school, county and municipal portion. At some point the village gives the school and the county their share. As stated before we are required to pay the school and county even if the taxes go unpaid by a propertyowner. In a sense it is a double whammy when there are unpaid taxes. Of course we don't have this issue with a PILOT (oh, don't start that again). Hey woodstock, I know you have something in mind. Do I need to have the tax collector or the village administrator give the exact timing and method? | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 228 Registered: 3-2003 |
"The BOE and the School supt. do not want to discuss the budget with the village. They have made that clear. Carrot or no carrot, they have not shown any interest." Well, especially given recent events, I wonder if it's getting to the point that something's going to have to give. The other night, a school board member said to me, "You know, I've actually sat down and done the math. If we were to cut administrative salaries 2% across the board, we could afford to keep one teacher. Which would be good, but what about next year?" Well, if the Village could afford to pay for one teacher salary next year out of PILOTs and we were able to negotiate an admin salary cut (or, I don't know, perk reductions, no more car, palm, whatever) in exchange for it, then that would be one teacher for two years. And if Maplewood joined us, that would be one teacher for three years. It's a drop in the bucket. But every drop matters right now, and will for the next 3 years if the board's calculations are correct. "The BOT seems to take the heat for both and the voter turnout is the proof of that." For the record, I do not--nor, I must say, does anyone I know--blame the BOT for the district's woes. (I certainly don't blame Mark Rosner. ) I blame a collection of unfortunate economic circumstances the BOT must contend with along with everyone else. But I have presumed the Village is better equipped than the school district to raise revenue without incurring as much voter ire, because everybody I've talked to who has access to the school budget claims without reservation that there simply is no room to cut any other expenses, which is why we are losing teachers and programs and our taxes are going up. Until Property Tax Reform Day arrives on a whim from Trenton, the only source of funding we're likely to see for the schools other than property taxes is commercial development. That is why I have kept coming back to PILOTs and what we might consider doing with them. | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 41 Registered: 3-2003 |
While it seems to have been raised some time ago I nonetheless wanted to comment. I believe that the theater improvements in the capital budget (approx $40,000.00) are for the Baird Community House theater and not the Village Art Center. This can be verified with John Gross. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 203 Registered: 3-2003 |
Thanks Ed. That sounds more like it. | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 43 Registered: 3-2003 |
I have talked with John Gross and it appears that with the holiday, vacation and other scheduling issues that Thursday July 31st is the best night for the information session on tax abatements and PILOT agreements. Tentative location is Village hall which will permit it to be done as a power point presentation and be televised for those who can't attend. If there are particular questions anyone wants answered they can be emailed to John Gross at Jgross@southorange.org or snail mailed to John at Village Hall 101 south Orange Avenue, South Orange, New Jersey 07079. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 75 Registered: 1-2003 |
One thing that has become evident from this thread is that the revenues generated from a pilot (and I am not debating the + or - of a pilot) masks the real increases in the muni tax. With the gaslight pilot going all to the town and not shared with the other 2 jurisdictions as is done with all other property taxes, the town has the ability to appear more tax efficient than it really is. I understand the muni tax projected increase for 03 is 4.5%. Mark - What would it be without the Gaslight project? The Pilot process could be dangerous as it could make one jurisdiction look good at the expense of the others, when the underlying economics do not really support that, but the Pilot allocation is causing that. Moreover, and more concerning, it could mask increase spending and decrease accountability. What prevents the town from receiving the full proceeds of the pilot and then contributing "x" amount to the school system on behalf of the property taxes that are due from SO citizens to support the school. Isn't the process that the total Education budget is arrived at and then allocated between SO and Maplewood and from that point allocated to the different property owners of each town. In this scenario, the amount allocated to SO would be the same, but prior to the allocation to property owners, the town would make topside contribution, thereby reducing the education tax to be allocated to individual residents. Yes the result on paper in terms of what citizens would pay in total taxes would remain the same, but it would: - be fairer in terms of allocating the tax base to the town vs the school - increase accountability and prevent the Pilot from making one taxing jurisdiction appear overly efficient vs the other or more importantly prevent any jurisdiction to increase spending and have the pilot mask such increase. The bottom line would be the same and it would not affect SO vs Maplewood at all. Can something like that be done with pilots going forward or am I missing something? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 461 Registered: 4-2002 |
Ed: Thanks for getting a date picked for a meeting. Jcrohn: Maplewood, the BOE and S. Orange should sit down and have a real discussion about the budget and the problems going forward. There are many reasons why it is not just a matter of figuring out how to give them more money to retain teachers. There are questions about the size of the administrative staff, the amount spent on "problem students", the contnuing inablilty to get rid of students who do not live in our district and a host of other issues. I think before we figure out how to find more money to spend, we need a comprehensive review of the budget to see if there are places to save or streamline (just like the 2% administrative cuts you mentioned). Nwyave: Actually, I think the town is more efficient than the other two jurisdictions. The county offers no services (ok, they provide a court house in Newark). The schools provide a good service yet clearly the cost of providing that service is spiraling out of control (increases have been double that of the towns and the average class size has increased). It is hard to understand what you mean about "fairer" and try to relate it to the property tax system. Maplewood pays 57% of the school budget but over the last ten years (at least) they have had over 60% (currently almost 65%) of the student population. As I said before we have an entity called Seton Hall and we need to provide services for them (Fire, Police, etc). Maplewood does not a have tax-exempt property that even begins to compare to SHU. A PILOT is a tool to help bring in development that might not happen otherwise. In the long run it is good for both towns and the county if that development is successful. The schools and the county are still getting a fair amount from S. Orange and the residents are rewarded with the tax benefit. By the way next year will be the first year that the village will be getting the full benefit of the PILOT. The bottom line is that the PILOT did not affect Maplewood or the County yet helps the residents of S. Orange. Maplewood is paying the exact same amount they were paying before to the schools and the county still gets the same amount of money. If we shared the money with Maplewood (or the schools) we would be in effect paying a portion of the residents of Maplewood's property tax. Would that be fair? | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 32 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. Matthews: Thank you for scheduling a date for the meeting. July 31 works for me. Perhaps others interested in this meeting could indicate if it works for them as well so we will know if it is, indeed, a "good" date. You requested questions from residents for presentation/discussion at the meeting. My questions concern South Orange's loss of $57 million in tax ratables over the last ten years. Q1: How can S.O. be better off with a PILOT at GC if part of our problem is a decline in tax ratables? Q2: What will granting additional PILOTS to Beifus and/or New Market Square do for increasing or decreasing S.O. tax ratables and our overall fiscal health? Q3: What is the relationship between lost tax ratables and residential property school tax increases? Thank you. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 76 Registered: 1-2003 |
By "fairer" I mean that the school system would still get something (not everything had it not been piloted) and the village would get some of the proceeds, the big loser being the county, which I think there is a less of a concern. My point is less of an argument of Pilot or not, which is your point of "I believe regarding A PILOT is a tool to help bring in development that might not happen otherwise. In the long run it is good for both towns and the county if that development is successful, " but rather how the Pilot proceeds should be allocated. I go back to my post in that allocating the proceeds of a pilot would fairer in terms of allocating the tax proceeds to both the town and the school rather than only the town. It would increase accountability and prevent the Pilot from making one taxing jurisdiction appear overly efficient vs the other or more importantly prevent any jurisdiction to increase spending and have the pilot mask such increase. It seems that if legally ok, that my suggestion would be reasonable for both the village and school tax allocations. Lastly, how much pilot dollars are we receiving this year from the gaslight what would be the muni tax % increase this year be without the gaslight pilot revenues? Thanks | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 464 Registered: 4-2002 |
Nwyave: As I said before if we allocate money to the schools, we are helping the Maplewood residents. The only way it could work fairly is for each $4,300 we give they make a contribution of $5,700. I understand what you are driving out, but I think it is impossible to put the word fair in any statement regarding property taxes. If we had a fair system doublea and woodstock would not be hoping for a reval while others are absolutely against one. If the system was fair, the state would fund the schools becaue of the inequities in the amount of commercial ratables from one town to the next. The state would not allow any entity that requires services to be tax-exempt unless the state reimbursed the municipality (unfunded mandates from the state) for those services. The point is we have a set of rules and a system that we have to work within. As a village we need to do what is best for all the residents and we should use all the tools that are available to us to use. South Orange is a small village with limited resources and property. We need to maximize our sources of revenue. If everything was fair, there would be revenue sharing among the towns (we all shop at the Short Hills Mall, but when was the last time Milburn offered to give us a share of the property tax revenue?). I just think it is wrong to say we should share revenue with Maplewood (and that is what you are suggesting) from the PILOT without taking every factor and every source of revenue into consideration. A prime example would be that a couple of years ago Maplewood received extraordinary aid from the state, but S. Orange did not. We certainly had shown at least an equal need for those funds but for whatever reason we did not get them. Maplewood did not (nor am I suggesting that they shoud have) give that money or a portion of it to the schools. Based on your comments, they should have turned over a portion of those funds to the schools since basically it is money that is not counted and made them look more efficient than they really were. I don't know the amount we are getting this year from the PILOT but I will ask Mr. Gross at the next meeting. Assuming the budget was exactly the same but we did not have the income from the PILOT, the increase would have been larger. I can't give the exact amount of that increase unless I now the amount we received. The reality is we would have had to made some cuts that we have not wanted to make in order to minimize the increase. |
