Election

sac said:

The supposed imbalance between the two towns is simply the result of the distribution of students and property values in the towns.   

This is exactly right, but it's not "supposed", it's real.  South Orange pays 50% more per student than Maplewood does.  Is this fair?  I honestly don't know.  It is clear that South Orange subsidizes Maplewood to some degree.  But I do know that it is arbitrary, as we are forced to be a consolidated district by statute. 

Personally, I think that the state funding formula as mandated by the Abbott decisions is wrong.  Cities like Jersey City, Long Branch, Asbury Park, and Hoboken have hidden billions of dollars in property values from the school funding formula using PILOTs, while still receiving the bulk of the state aid due to the Abbott decisions.  State aid is entirely funded by income tax, which is Constitutionally dedicated to property tax relief. 

So in South Orange, we overpay twice.  Our income taxes are much higher than the NJ average, and go to fund schools in Abbott districts, while our property taxes go disproportionately to fund the SOMA school district. 

One study I read shows that we are underfunded by state aid by an average of $3700 per household.  My study indicates we are overfunding the SOMA school district by $2300 per household.  That's $6000 annually for the average SO taxpayer.  If both of these anomalies were fixed, the average South Orange property tax bill would drop from about $16,000 annually to $10,000.  That's hard to ignore.

I hate the "mic drop" thing but i guess it applies here.

It is one district, so it shouldn't be looked at as how much is paid by town.  Assuming the equalization formula is correct, then each homeowner pays exactly what they would pay if the two towns were merged into one town.  And that's exactly what should happen.  The logical (and wrong-headed) extension of your proposal is that people should be taxed by neighborhood or even by household according to the number of students in that neighborhood or household and I think it's pretty clear that is wrong.  The only way that South Orange residents should pay only for South Orange students would be if the towns were separated into two districts. Do you really think that would save you money?

Ron, I think during the presentation there was a mention of the disparity in property values. I think it was suggested that the high taxes due to our assessments in South Orange had actually increased property values in Maplewood due to increased sales. I may not be articulating it correctly but having worked for years in  real estate, I have watched Maplewood increase in value. So I'm wondering if a study done since both of our towns were recently assessed would yield a new perspective.

As for the Abbot school district, I did student teaching in Newark. I was surprised at the difference in teacher's salaries. At the time starting salaries in Newark were significantly higher than those in South Orange, not quite twice but in the neighborhood. 

@sac, I think that the assumption is that if we were one town South Orange would still pay more because of our higher property values? I'm honestly trying to look at the other side. It is ironic that in South Orange I'm in an area of town that is taxed higher than other areas, and we are, I believe, the only street with no lights! So on the "light" side, property values are in the eye of the assessor!

The assessments should absolutely be done correctly and the equalization formula accurate.  No argument there.  If they aren't, then that should be addressed.

But a $300,000 value home anywhere in the district should pay half the school tax that a $600,000 home pays, regardless of which town they are in.  The number of students in the house, or the neighborhood, or the town is irrelevant and should not change that.

Sac has this exactly right.  I'll go beyond that and say that (if the equalization formula is up to date, of course) I believe it would be immoral of us in South Orange to try to drive up taxes for equivalent homes in Maplewood in order to save taxes ourselves.  If we are one district, then we need to act like it, even if we average higher property values per student.

If we aren't willing to carry our own weight, then let's have an honest discussion about what it would look like to become our own sub scale school district. As a South Orange voter, one of my core values is that I will not vote for candidates who want to start a tax war with Maplewood.

It is all just a symptom of the corrosive impact of financing education primarily with property taxes. 

Gilgul said:

It is all just a symptom of the corrosive impact of financing education primarily with property taxes. 

Twice in one day I agree with Gilgul. A new record!

Of course there are fairer and better ways to fund education than our system in this state which is way too dependent on property taxes.  But, as long as that is the system we have, then taxes should be the same for equivalent properties throughout the applicable taxing jurisdiction.  For municipal taxes, that is the town. But for the schools it is the entire school district.

Gilgul said:

It is all just a symptom of the corrosive impact of financing education primarily with property taxes. 

Agreed.

jimmurphy said:

Gilgul said:

It is all just a symptom of the corrosive impact of financing education primarily with property taxes. 

Agreed.

I agree. What are other options?

Most states do not fund schools with property taxes to the extent NJ does. State funding through income tax would probably be the best. That is actually whst Byrne promised but the money got diverted. We need to make sure State funding is dedicated and not divertable. 

Gilgul said:

Most states do not fund schools with property taxes to the extent NJ does. State funding through income tax would probably be the best. That is actually whst Byrne promised but the money got diverted. We need to make sure State funding is dedicated and not divertable. 

Thanks. Is there anyone in the current political arena with a proposal?

Morganna said:


Thanks. Is there anyone in the current political arena with a proposal?

Unfortunately no.  Christie said 7 years ago he was going to fix it, but to do so would require replacing 3 or 4 State Supreme Court Judges, who would then overturn the Abbott decisions and allow more equitable distribution of state aid.  That was all a ruse.  It didn't happen and was just an excuse for him to try to get more conservative judges on the court.  What he has done is divert funding from liberal leaning inner suburbs like ours to more conservative towns in more rural areas.  Sadly, Phil Murphy, who is likely to be our next Governor, appears to have no clue on the subject.  When asked at a town hall here in South Orange last year, his answer was like a deer in the headlights. 

Rob_Sandow said:



Sadly, Phil Murphy, who is likely to be our next Governor, appears to have no clue on the subject.

That seems to be the way that everyone describes him.  I have yet to meet anyone excited about him as a candidate so why don't people take the effort to vote for someone else instead of the guy anointed by the machine. That's what happened in the Presidential election and we saw how that worked out.  

michaelgoldberg said:

That seems to be the way that everyone describes him.  I have yet to meet anyone excited about him as a candidate so why don't people take the effort to vote for someone else instead of the guy anointed by the machine. That's what happened in the Presidential election and we saw how that worked out.  

I wouldn't go that far.  I actually thought his positions on most issues were OK, just not this one.  He needs some education on the subject.  If "the machine" had anointed someone, it probably would have been Lesniak or Wisniewski.  Murphy actually seems to have come out of left field.  If anything, like Corzine before him, his "anointment" seems to have more to do with his personal wealth and ability to outspend anyone else in the race.  He will certainly be better than the guy in there now. 

Rob_Sandow said:

Morganna said:

Rob, will there be anything further on your report? I heard the issue mentioned at the planning board meeting last night.

The BOT passed a resolution last year.  I wrote most of it and it basically recounts the highlights of my presentation.  http://southorange.no-ip.org/w...


The purpose was really to bring light onto the issue with the citizens of South Orange and to get the BOT to acknowledge the issue with an official action. 


I don't think there will be any further updates to the report unless we see some significant movement as a result of the resolution.

With regard to the resolution you referenced: it states as a premise that South Orange sends 33% of the District's enrollment to the District's schools.

Insofar as the resolution calls for the same treatment as afforded to regional school districts, the resolution speaks to the number of pupils resident in the constituent districts.

The former, to me, refers to the actual number of students enrolled in the District's schools.

The latter; seems to refer the student's eligible for enrollment in a district's school system. (I looked for a definition of resident pupil, but was unable to find it. Probably my search skills).

Any help you may be able to provide will be appreciated.

Also, if your presentation to the Board of Trustees is available (video or print) I'd like to review same.

Again, thanks for any help with the above; and thanks for being involved.

TomR

Tom_R said:

Rob_Sandow said:

With regard to the resolution you referenced: it states as a premise that South Orange sends 33% of the District's enrollment to the District's schools.

Insofar as the resolution calls for the same treatment as afforded to regional school districts, the resolution speaks to the number of pupils resident in the constituent districts.

The former, to me, refers to the actual number of students enrolled in the District's schools.

The latter; seems to refer the student's eligible for enrollment in a district's school system. (I looked for a definition of resident pupil, but was unable to find it. Probably my search skills).

Any help you may be able to provide will be appreciated.

Also, if your presentation to the Board of Trustees is available (video or print) I'd like to review same.

Again, thanks for any help with the above; and thanks for being involved.

TomR

It's based on actual enrollment from the school district.  The presentation is available online if you look up BOT meeting videos on the Village web site.  It was in January of 2016.