Maplewood Increases Taxes More Than Mandated 2% Cap
What else are we supposed to do? The Tax re-assessment was mandated by the state, wasn't it?
I suspect that they had to make cuts that many of us don't like just to get to the level in the current proposal. What else can/should be cut?
Mike,
I don't follow. You say if this was included in the 2016 budget it would have put us over the cap. The TC found away around that by using an SEA. What was the alternative?
Also you seem to be contradicting the title of this thread.
1. N.J.S.40A:4-53 is amended to read as follows:
40A:4-53. A local unit may adopt an ordinance authorizing special emergency appropriations for the carrying out of any of the following purposes:
a. Preparation of an approved tax map.
b. Preparation and execution of a complete program of revaluation of real property for the use of the local assessor, or of any program to update and make current any previous revaluation program when such is ordered by the county board of taxation.
c. Preparation of a revision and codification of its ordinances.
d. Engagement of special consultants for the preparation, and the preparation of a master plan or plans, when required to conform to the planning laws of the State.
e. Preparation of drainage maps for flood control purposes.
f. Preliminary engineering studies and planning necessary for the installation and construction of a sanitary sewer system.
g. Authorized expenses of a consolidation commission established pursuant to the "Municipal Consolidation Act," P.L.1977, c.435 (C.40:43-66.35 et seq.) or sections 25 through 29 of the “Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act,” P.L.2007, c.63 (C.40A:65-25 through C.40A:65-29) .
h. Contractually required severance liabilities resulting from the layoff or retirement of employees. Such liabilities shall be paid without interest and, at the sole discretion of the local unit, may be paid in equal annual installments over a period not to exceed five years.
i. Preparation of a sanitary or storm system map.
j. Non-recurring expenses incurred by a municipality to implement a consolidation with another municipality, or municipalities, pursuant to the “Municipal Consolidation Act,” P.L.1977, c.435 (C.40:43-66.35 et seq.); the sparsely populated municipalities law, P.L.1995, c.376 (C.40:43-66.78 et seq.); sections 25 through 29 of the “Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act,” P.L.2007, c.63 (C.40A:65-25 through C.40A:65-29); or N.J.S.40A:7-1 et seq., in the case of a consolidation effectuated through the annexation of land comprising an entire municipality or entire municipalities, to another municipality.
A copy of all ordinances or resolutions as adopted relating to special emergency appropriations shall be filed with the director.
(cf: P.L.2010, c.46, s.1)
Clearly the township could legally use the Special Emergency Appropriation as they did. I don't think they should have used it as the result was, in effect, raising taxes past the 2% cap.
We knew we had this expense coming up in 2016 and rather than balancing that expense with the additional funding items in the budget, we chose a legislative misdirection.
There is a 2% cap.
This is not part of that cap.
When you charge legislative misdirection, are you talking about the legislative body that wrote the law or the one that is following the law?
There a number of recurring expenses which are excluded from the cap because they tend to increase at a faster rate than inflation. Employee health benefits and pensions are just two examples. The town could have increased taxes by more than the 2% cap but chose not to raise taxes beyond the 2% cap to cover these expenditures.
It seems like your real complaint is that the TC should have cut other expenses this year to pay $411k of reassessment costs this year without having to raise the total budget more than 2% over last year. A valid opinion perhaps, but (a) calling something that is specifically provided for by statute an "end around" or misleading seems unfair, and (b) criticizing the TC for not "making tough budget decisions" would be more persuasive if you actually suggested where they could have reduced costs. If you're a candidate for TC and want votes, tell us specifically what you would have done differently had you been on the TC. If you expect Maplewoodians to vote for a Republican, you need to break from your national party's tactic of criticizing "tax and spend Democrats" while offering no credible alternatives. Also, given that your opponent is not currently on the TC, I'm not sure smearing the current TC (which is as responsive and responsible as I've ever seen) gets you very far.
MikeSummersgill said:
The Township Committee knew what it was doing and ran an end around with the SEA instead of making the tough budget decisions we elected them to make.
Seems to me they made exactly the tough budget decision I elected them to make.
I thought I recognized the OP as the Republican candidate for TC but wasn't sure until I read tomdevon's post.
In any event what are some of the alternatives the TC could have explored?
Maybe they should have explored leaving one seat on the TC unfilled for year. That would save the taxpayers all of the lavish payments and benefits bestowed upon members. I mean, it's good enough for the Supreme court and the state Elections board that would have pursued charges against our county executive.
max_weisenfeld said:
MikeSummersgill said:
The Township Committee knew what it was doing and ran an end around with the SEA instead of making the tough budget decisions we elected them to make.
Seems to me they made exactly the tough budget decision I elected them to make.
Two things: what max-weisenfeld said, and what tomdevon said (particularly under (b), where the substance behind the criticism of the TC is sorely lacking).
alias said:
Flash in the pan. Pooofff.
Hopefully not, as another strong voice would be welcome on the TC, but as a registered Republican (too lazy to change to Independent, to be honest) who has been well-served by years of Dem votes, I'm not motivated by party but rather substance. I could care less about any party affiliation in local elections (hell, that applies in any election) if I believe in the candidates ability and substantive and reasonable approach to local issues. As above, that starts with meat on the bones of any platform or individual criticism.
The first sentence of Mike's final paragraph of his op sums it up:
MikeSummersgill said:
...............
I don’t know enough about municipal debt rates, accounting treatments, and appropriation reserves (yet) but it certainly feels like the SEA law was manipulated and we have been misled. ............
He doesn't know enough about how the budgeting process works and, importantly, the impact on municipal services if the full sum was included as part of the 2016 operating budget and other expenses cut in order to keep the budget under a 2% increase. Legislatively the state recognizes that because this type of large expense is mandated at unpredictable intervals it falls into a specific accounting treatment.
I interpret what Mike is writing as - the general public were informed that the budget will remain below the mandated 2% cap (it was proposed to be up as high as 5% before the final round).
Most folks were relieved because they assumed that budget would include all the year's projected expenses. Now we find out that that is not true. Perhaps the TC needs to be more communicative, e.g., something like- the budget is under the 2% cap and includes all except X, Y, and Z, plus the mandated reval.
The TC needs to inform us exactly what it is and not just a "for the media" statement of the 2%. Perhaps we need more education as to what is in and what is out...and that is fine, but we cannot know unless informed. So now we know that our taxes will increase even more because of this exclusion from the budget (however legal and usual that is).
The games that are played when informing the public need to stop!
This is similar to the TC announcing that the PO building and site was sold for $1,250,000, when in reality it was sold for only about $600,000 after discounting the payback to the developer of $200,000 for demo and haz mat (why are we paying for that?) and the PILOT ($350, 000- why?) plus the cost of the sewer bypass ($60,000 - paid by you and me) and the eventual cost of the fix to the sewers on MA which weret he basis of the rehab designation and will not be repaired in all of the comign construciton (as confirmed by the mayor recently). Add to that the $25,000 that the TC gave the MVA out of taxpayer funds to promote the development (Why isn't JMF paying for that?). Do the math....
Same twisted information....
it has got to stop.
How are tax increase rates and the mandated 2% cap affected by the announcement that our area homes' values will shortly be reassessed by the city? If (for ex) our home's value increased a lot since we purchased it a couple of years ago, should we worry that this will have a direct impact on our own tax rate? Or would the 2% cap remain at least roughly in place?
- Rj
This 2% cap is complete bull***** foisted on us by Trenton under the pretense of doing something about property taxes. I trust our T.C. more than Trenton to do what is right for Maplewood.
robjohn99 said:
How are tax increase rates and the mandated 2% cap affected by the announcement that our area homes' values will shortly be reassessed by the city? If (for ex) our home's value increased a lot since we purchased it a couple of years ago, should we worry that this will have a direct impact on our own tax rate? Or would the 2% cap remain at least roughly in place?
- Rj
The town will look at the increase (or decrease) in the assessed value of your real property in comparison to how everyone else's property increased (or decreased) in value since the last reassessment. You would have to look at how the value everyone else's real property changed during that period to know how your own taxes will be impacted, if at all by the reassessment.
But does that "maximum 2%" kick in in some way, OR: (for example): if our home value went up by 25% or something in the past 2 years, could our own taxes ALSO go up by that amount somehow? (just checking!)
- rj
The town will look at the increase (or decrease) in the assessed value of your real property in comparison to how everyone else's property increased (or decreased) in value since the last reassessment. You would have to look at how the value everyone else's real property changed during that period to know how your own taxes will be impacted, if at all by the reassessment.
The cap only applies to the aggregate change year to yeat. It is irrelevant on changing values at a reassessment.
if your house value jumps by 25% it is likely that most others did as well. To yield the same amount of revenue for the town the rate will decrease.
MikeSummersgill said:
Clearly the township could legally use the Special Emergency Appropriation as they did. I don't think they should have used it as the result was, in effect, raising taxes past the 2% cap.
We knew we had this expense coming up in 2016 and rather than balancing that expense with the additional funding items in the budget, we chose a legislative misdirection.
Rather than legislative misdirection I would call it poor governance by not knowing how to budget correctly.
lord_pabulum said:
MikeSummersgill said:
Clearly the township could legally use the Special Emergency Appropriation as they did. I don't think they should have used it as the result was, in effect, raising taxes past the 2% cap.
We knew we had this expense coming up in 2016 and rather than balancing that expense with the additional funding items in the budget, we chose a legislative misdirection.
Rather than legislative misdirection I would call it poor governance by not knowing how to budget correctly.
What should they have cut? I rather suspect they do know how to budget and fully understand the the 2% cap is childish.
without that 2% cap, I shudder to think what my taxes would be right now. even though I shudder to know what they are anyway.
lord_pabulum said:
MikeSummersgill said:
Clearly the township could legally use the Special Emergency Appropriation as they did. I don't think they should have used it as the result was, in effect, raising taxes past the 2% cap.
We knew we had this expense coming up in 2016 and rather than balancing that expense with the additional funding items in the budget, we chose a legislative misdirection.
Rather than legislative misdirection I would call it poor governance by not knowing how to budget correctly.
Define "correctly".
Maybe like planning to spend millions on the library while are schools are cut to the bone.
OliveBee said:
Maybe like planning to spend millions on the library while are schools are cut to the bone.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand the town council has discretion as to how to fund the library but no influence over the school budget. Why conflate the two?
The Maplewood Township Committee recently passed the 2016 budget of $41.88MM and Mayor Deluca celebrated the “1.96%” increase. However, while the Township Committee was discussing the budget, they were also discussing a Special Emergency Appropriation of $411,000 for the property tax reassessment required by Essex County. Had this $411,000 been included in the 2016 budget (we knew it was coming and budget was still open), the tax increase would have been 2.96% - well over the cap. The Township Committee knew what it was doing and ran an end around with the SEA instead of making the tough budget decisions we elected them to make. You can actually see Mayor Deluca setting this up at during the March 1st meeting (1:08:00 mark).
If you read the Special Emergency Appropriation ordinance (2812-16) you’ll notice that the expense is spread across 5 years but even if you divide $411,000 by 5, the resulting additional $82,200 still puts us over the cap at 2.2%.
I don’t know enough about municipal debt rates, accounting treatments, and appropriation reserves (yet) but it certainly feels like the SEA law was manipulated and we have been misled. A $411,000 2016 reassessment definitely isn’t free and probably should have been paid for this year.