Referendum to Study consolidating Maplewood & South Orange (edited) archived
The latest is that this issue WILL be on the ballot as a referendum in both towns in November.
Signatures are now being collected for the "Commissioner" positions. (5 positions in each town)
I think having a STUDY (which is what this referendum is for) is a great idea. Our taxes are OBSCENE compared to most places in this state, let along the country and we should do everything we can to EXPLORE ways to reduce the tax burden.
Signatures are now being collected for the "Commissioner" positions. (5 positions in each town)
I think having a STUDY (which is what this referendum is for) is a great idea. Our taxes are OBSCENE compared to most places in this state, let along the country and we should do everything we can to EXPLORE ways to reduce the tax burden.
Having a shared services study is a great idea.
I'm not convinced that the referendum is the best way to get there. We can get state funding for a study, without a referendum. I'm sorry that we've been limited in our options to express our opinions, now that the referendum is on the ballot.
I'm not convinced that the referendum is the best way to get there. We can get state funding for a study, without a referendum. I'm sorry that we've been limited in our options to express our opinions, now that the referendum is on the ballot.
How does one go about throwing their hat into the ring for the "Commissioner" positions? Are are they already "filled?"
I agree with Nohero.
If you vote for the referendum, you are voting for a commission to study consolidation with South Orange (or Maplewood if you are a South Orange voter) with shared services as an after thought and no approved mandate to examine shared services with other municipalities as an off shoot of this study. State oversight of the study could likely serve to strictly limit the study to the terms contained in the referendum even though some more optimistic persons (such as Fred) will argue that once the study has been approved by the electorate, the scope of the study can easily be changed at least as pertains to the shared services portion.
As I stated on the other thread, I would much rather see our attention given to the convening of a regional group, comprised of all interested municipalities which could look into ways in which we could all share services when and where appropriate. No referendum is required for such a study and the results are apt to be far more promising.
Re: Commissioner candidates -- could anyone in the know please share with us the names of those who will appear on the ballot for each town.
If you vote for the referendum, you are voting for a commission to study consolidation with South Orange (or Maplewood if you are a South Orange voter) with shared services as an after thought and no approved mandate to examine shared services with other municipalities as an off shoot of this study. State oversight of the study could likely serve to strictly limit the study to the terms contained in the referendum even though some more optimistic persons (such as Fred) will argue that once the study has been approved by the electorate, the scope of the study can easily be changed at least as pertains to the shared services portion.
As I stated on the other thread, I would much rather see our attention given to the convening of a regional group, comprised of all interested municipalities which could look into ways in which we could all share services when and where appropriate. No referendum is required for such a study and the results are apt to be far more promising.
Re: Commissioner candidates -- could anyone in the know please share with us the names of those who will appear on the ballot for each town.
Posted By: joan crystalRe: Commissioner candidates -- could anyone in the know please share with us the names of those who will appear on the ballot for each town.
If anyone wants to run to be a commissioner - September 28 is the deadline to submit petitions, I believe. I was told that petition forms can be obtained at the Municipal Building, but I haven't checked there about that. You only need 25 signatures to get on the ballot.
Dave:
Any way you could include a link to the 250+ prior comments on this thread?
Thanks.
Any way you could include a link to the 250+ prior comments on this thread?
Thanks.
What is the advantage of merging the towns? I can't imagine that shared services will save us enough money to make any difference in our taxes. Has anyone made any predictions of what merging the towns would mean for the average homeowner? Or are we just looking for better services through a merger?
I've said for years we should merge our rec departments. I can see that yielding some positive results.
I've said for years we should merge our rec departments. I can see that yielding some positive results.
Joan and Nohero,
I would suggest that you both hop down and file for the Commissioner election to defend your positions. Otherwise all the candidates may well be "pro-merger". Just a thought.
I am an agnostic on the subject. While commonsense tells me that a municipality with 40,000 plus residents should be able to be more efficient than two towns with roughly 20,000 residents each, I am hard pressed to see significant savings, especially in the short term during a shakeout. You can't go from two police department with 100 plus officers to one department with 50 officers, or even 75.
I would suggest that you both hop down and file for the Commissioner election to defend your positions. Otherwise all the candidates may well be "pro-merger". Just a thought.
I am an agnostic on the subject. While commonsense tells me that a municipality with 40,000 plus residents should be able to be more efficient than two towns with roughly 20,000 residents each, I am hard pressed to see significant savings, especially in the short term during a shakeout. You can't go from two police department with 100 plus officers to one department with 50 officers, or even 75.
Jeffl:
Who said the persons behind the consolidation commission referendum have made any prior determination that there are either fiscal or improved services advantages to either consolidating with or sharing services with South Orange? To the best of my knowledge none of the proponents I have spoken with here or on the various occassions when I have seen persons circulating the petition to get the referendum on the ballot have identified any clear advantages to Maplewood residents for consolidation nor do they have any clear idea of significant cost savings which would result from shared services.
There was a recent study conducted which explored the possibility of sharing recreation and cultural affairs services with South Orange. Copies are available at Town Hall (or you can stop by and borrow my copy). We don't need to commission a new study to go over the same material which was studied as recently as April 2006.
The real cost savings would come from casting a broader net but the referendum as presently worded does not allow for this.
Who said the persons behind the consolidation commission referendum have made any prior determination that there are either fiscal or improved services advantages to either consolidating with or sharing services with South Orange? To the best of my knowledge none of the proponents I have spoken with here or on the various occassions when I have seen persons circulating the petition to get the referendum on the ballot have identified any clear advantages to Maplewood residents for consolidation nor do they have any clear idea of significant cost savings which would result from shared services.
There was a recent study conducted which explored the possibility of sharing recreation and cultural affairs services with South Orange. Copies are available at Town Hall (or you can stop by and borrow my copy). We don't need to commission a new study to go over the same material which was studied as recently as April 2006.
The real cost savings would come from casting a broader net but the referendum as presently worded does not allow for this.
So what would we call ourselves? MapleOrange? SouthWood? I am partial to the latter.
I guess we could go the route of Parsippany-Troy Hills and Peapack-Gladstone and hyphenate but who would get top billing? Would we be South Orange-Maplewood or Maplewood-South Orange?
I guess we could go the route of Parsippany-Troy Hills and Peapack-Gladstone and hyphenate but who would get top billing? Would we be South Orange-Maplewood or Maplewood-South Orange?
BobK:
I would hope all of the candidates running for commission seats would at the very least be let's give this thing a chance. Otherwise, should the study be approved by the electorate, it would likely be doomed to failure before it even started.
I would hope all of the candidates running for commission seats would at the very least be let's give this thing a chance. Otherwise, should the study be approved by the electorate, it would likely be doomed to failure before it even started.
I remember that South Orange floated a discussion regarding changing its name to South Mountain in a socio-economic attempt to distance itself from Orange and East Orange. Something along the lines of what South Belmar did when they changed its name to Lake Como to remove the "stigma" of having Belmar in its name. It didn't fool anyone.
While my post was tongue in cheek, don't think this won't be a bone of contention if we do merge.
While my post was tongue in cheek, don't think this won't be a bone of contention if we do merge.
It can work. Passaic Township, which is in Morris County, changed its name to Long Hill Township a few years ago and according to one resident I know the image has improved.
i moved to maplewood to live in maplewood ... home of the inventor of the golf tee, and the place of the first ever game of ultimate frisbee. down with the south orange merge!
If a merger could save in taxes, I would be all for it. However, let's take a look at the shared school district; really a cost saver there, huh? We pay SOOO much less than surrounding towns, right????
While I think Gov. Corzine had good intentions in suggesting shared services as a tax saver, the reality is that it hasn't really panned out anywhere in NJ. Probably because you have to pay for all these study commissions...
ML
While I think Gov. Corzine had good intentions in suggesting shared services as a tax saver, the reality is that it hasn't really panned out anywhere in NJ. Probably because you have to pay for all these study commissions...
ML
One way to save our tax money is to reduce the services provided. I am not sure that most persons living in our two towns would want to do that. Another possibility is to avoid duplication of effort by centralizing certain services at the State, County or regional level. Services would remain the same or even improve for some but there would be savings due to scale. The problem here is loss of control over the service by the municipality which signs on to this type of plan. Again, not everyone would want this. A third means of saving is to create specialties within each of the participating municipalities so that one municipality becomes the provider of one service, the next provides another and so on. If these specialties are of equal value, this becomes a no cost action for everyone. Otherwise, inequities can be handled through billing for services. Again, there is less duplication of effort also less cost for training and less down time for functions which do not require a single full-time position for each municipality.
None of these is what is proposed by the referendum which will be on the November ballot.
None of these is what is proposed by the referendum which will be on the November ballot.
As I see it, and as you note, to really save money the towns would have to cut duplicated services such as the fire dept, police, DPW and other depts/positions. While this may benefit the two towns, it comes at a cost to those workers who have been in these jobs for potentially many years and they and their families are part of the community, pay taxes and have friends that are taxpayers (read: voters).
And then what do the towns do to get rid of them? Fire them outright? Offer them a buy-out? Early retirement? Forget about the pension issue.
I think it's a no-win situation, at least politically.
And then what do the towns do to get rid of them? Fire them outright? Offer them a buy-out? Early retirement? Forget about the pension issue.
I think it's a no-win situation, at least politically.
Mary:
The problem goes deeper than that. In order to serve a town of approximately 40,000 persons, which includes a major university, the police and fire departments would have to stay at about the same strength within a combined department as they are now with two separate sets of departments. Not much savings there in positions or money. You might be able to get by with one training officer rather than two and a single administrative officer in each department but the remaining officer would be sent back to a line operation because the need would till be there. Ditto for Public Works since we would still have the same combined number of streets to clear of snow, trees to care for, parks to maintain, vehicles to maintain and repair, etc.
The savings if any would come from removing potential duplication of effort and there is relatively little of that.
The problem goes deeper than that. In order to serve a town of approximately 40,000 persons, which includes a major university, the police and fire departments would have to stay at about the same strength within a combined department as they are now with two separate sets of departments. Not much savings there in positions or money. You might be able to get by with one training officer rather than two and a single administrative officer in each department but the remaining officer would be sent back to a line operation because the need would till be there. Ditto for Public Works since we would still have the same combined number of streets to clear of snow, trees to care for, parks to maintain, vehicles to maintain and repair, etc.
The savings if any would come from removing potential duplication of effort and there is relatively little of that.
Joan makes very strong arguments for a "no" vote. What are the arguments on the other side?
good question, LOST...seems to me the proponents of the "two towns consolidating as one town commission" (let's call it what it is) are taking a "just because" attitude rather than a "just cause" attitude (as in, "why should you vote for the referendum? -- just because") . It almost seems as if they want the burden of proof to be shifted to those against the referendum.
Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the study was not that the two towns merged, just merged services.
Kibbegirl:
You are wrong. If you read wording in the referendum we are being asked to consider in November, you will see that the primary emphasis is on consolidation of our two municipalities. Shared services between our two towns is something to be considered only in the event that the study determines consolidation won't work.
You are wrong. If you read wording in the referendum we are being asked to consider in November, you will see that the primary emphasis is on consolidation of our two municipalities. Shared services between our two towns is something to be considered only in the event that the study determines consolidation won't work.
Lost,
I will try to share my opinions on why this STUDY is a good idea.
1) If this referendum passes it will launch a STUDY. Just a STUDY. Not a consolidation. Not a merger. A STUDY.
2) There will be a seperate STATE referendum on the ballot this November asking asking voters to "Dedicate Annual Revenue Of An Amount Equal To A Tax Rate Of 0.5% Under The State Sales Tax For Property Tax Reform." If this passes, it will allocate money to fund things like this STUDY and possible implementation of any positive reccomendations that come out of the study. The state is looking to make money available to help us and we should take advantage of that.
3) Our tax burden is OBSCENE. Ask your friends and neighbors that live in other parts of the state or in other states what they pay and then watch their reaction when you tell them what you pay. Sure...alot of the tax burden is from the County & the Schools. Sure...those areas need to explore additional ways to save money (or spend more wisely), too. However, they are not mutually exclusive. We should think out of the box and STUDY if there are real tangible ways to save money.
4) I have no idea how much savings can be found, BUT even if it were $100/year, isn't that worth a onetime investment of $5 to find out? I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
5) There are plenty of simple things that APPEAR would lead to significant cost savings, however, without real data it is difficult to make a definite conclusion. It is very likely that a "combined" town with a larger population will still need the same number of police officers and fire fighters. But, For example: If one town of 17,000 and one town of 23,000 each have their own separate police chief, fire chief, Village Administrator, Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Municipal Judge etc do you think that a single town of 40,000 still needs TWO police chiefs, TWO fire chiefs, TWO Village Administrators, TWO Village Clerks, TWO Village Attorneys, TWO Municipal Judges etc? I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
6) In addition to potential elimination of redundancies, there is the potential sharing of infratructure and purchasing power. Does each town need their own Salt Shed, Snow Plows, Municipal Court etc? I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
7) Currently, the kids in both towns go to school together, but cannot participate in all recreational activities together. Perhaps, this is an area that is not a financial argument, but an argument for providing greater services. I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
8) Finally, I do not think it makes any sense to change the NAME of the town(s) if a consolidation were recommended. Each town has it's own identity which can remain. We could potentially have a single umbrella government across those two towns (like Millburn & Short Hills). Can this single umbrella government save money, provide greater services and be a first step in many other ways to explore saving additional money & provding greater services? I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
The bottomline is that my mind is completely open to whether or not a CONSOLIDATION should be done, until there is enough factual evidence to see whether or not it is worthwhile. However, I think there is plenty of factual evidence that makes me feel strongly that having a STUDY to explore these questions is a very positive idea for our towns.
On November 7, Please Vote YES on Municipal Question #1 to authorize a STUDY.
I will try to share my opinions on why this STUDY is a good idea.
1) If this referendum passes it will launch a STUDY. Just a STUDY. Not a consolidation. Not a merger. A STUDY.
2) There will be a seperate STATE referendum on the ballot this November asking asking voters to "Dedicate Annual Revenue Of An Amount Equal To A Tax Rate Of 0.5% Under The State Sales Tax For Property Tax Reform." If this passes, it will allocate money to fund things like this STUDY and possible implementation of any positive reccomendations that come out of the study. The state is looking to make money available to help us and we should take advantage of that.
3) Our tax burden is OBSCENE. Ask your friends and neighbors that live in other parts of the state or in other states what they pay and then watch their reaction when you tell them what you pay. Sure...alot of the tax burden is from the County & the Schools. Sure...those areas need to explore additional ways to save money (or spend more wisely), too. However, they are not mutually exclusive. We should think out of the box and STUDY if there are real tangible ways to save money.
4) I have no idea how much savings can be found, BUT even if it were $100/year, isn't that worth a onetime investment of $5 to find out? I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
5) There are plenty of simple things that APPEAR would lead to significant cost savings, however, without real data it is difficult to make a definite conclusion. It is very likely that a "combined" town with a larger population will still need the same number of police officers and fire fighters. But, For example: If one town of 17,000 and one town of 23,000 each have their own separate police chief, fire chief, Village Administrator, Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Municipal Judge etc do you think that a single town of 40,000 still needs TWO police chiefs, TWO fire chiefs, TWO Village Administrators, TWO Village Clerks, TWO Village Attorneys, TWO Municipal Judges etc? I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
6) In addition to potential elimination of redundancies, there is the potential sharing of infratructure and purchasing power. Does each town need their own Salt Shed, Snow Plows, Municipal Court etc? I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
7) Currently, the kids in both towns go to school together, but cannot participate in all recreational activities together. Perhaps, this is an area that is not a financial argument, but an argument for providing greater services. I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
8) Finally, I do not think it makes any sense to change the NAME of the town(s) if a consolidation were recommended. Each town has it's own identity which can remain. We could potentially have a single umbrella government across those two towns (like Millburn & Short Hills). Can this single umbrella government save money, provide greater services and be a first step in many other ways to explore saving additional money & provding greater services? I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
The bottomline is that my mind is completely open to whether or not a CONSOLIDATION should be done, until there is enough factual evidence to see whether or not it is worthwhile. However, I think there is plenty of factual evidence that makes me feel strongly that having a STUDY to explore these questions is a very positive idea for our towns.
On November 7, Please Vote YES on Municipal Question #1 to authorize a STUDY.
Posted By: mayhewdriveWe could potentially have a single umbrella government across those two towns (like Millburn & Short Hills). Can this single umbrella government save money, provide greater services and be a first step in many other ways to explore saving additional money & provding greater services? I don't know, but I think it is worth looking at.
Not to be critical, but at least get your facts straight. Millburn and Short Hills are not two different towns, and they never were. "Short Hills" is a developer's term, that became a name for that part of the Township.
As for whether voting "Yes" is the right thing to do - I just don't see it. We can study and implement shared services (and get funding for that, by the way) without having a "Consolidation Commission".
I know you folks in South Orange view this as a potential opportunity for "regime change", but it seems that this vote is a needless detour from the road to real reform.
imho.
Mayhew Drive:
In response to your points above:
1. The study will cost municipal money that could be put to better use given municipal spending caps and very tight municipal budgets in both towns. It will also cost State money which could be put to better use either through direct subsidy of real property taxes (money in hand to help pay school, county and municipal taxes) or to fund a broad based study of ways in which each of the State's municipalities that sign on to the concept of consolidation/shared services can share services to the benefit of all. What we have at present is a system by which teams of towns look to consolidate or share amongst themselves but without considering the alternatives of casting a broader net when it comes to consolidating municipal governments or school districts or sharing services. At best this is a distraction in terms of resources that could be put to more effective use in working to solve our real property tax problems in this State. The argument lets approve a study for the sake of conducting a study just isn't strong enough for me.
2. What Nohero said. We don't need a referendum to study shared services, only to implement consolidation. There are other means by which State funds, if available at all, can be obtained for a shared services study.
3. Agreed. Our real property taxes are obscene. We need a better, more comprehensive plan for addressing this problem and that means a much broader based initiative with more of a regional perspective and a more thoughtful direction. IMHO, the referendum if passed could lead to higher not lower taxes for all of us in our two towns. We should seek consolidation of consolidation/shared services efforts to pool the resources of all of the municipalities in our region to study this issue in a meaningful manner.
4. Yes, it would be nice to save $100 a year each in taxes but suppose for the same $5 you could end up with a proposal which would save several times that and provide improved/increased services to boot. Which study would you rather have? There is much more promise in real tax savings if we look to a broader based study. Once we approve a limited study through voter referendum, wouldn't we be obligated to follow through with that voter-mandated study as mandated prior to looking into a broader-based initiative? Even if the two could be conducted simultaneously, wouldn't this be a dreadful duplication of effort in our attempts to reduce duplication in government?
5. Agreed. However, there will be strong argument made for continuing the positions/salaries of both sets of top administrators for the life of their employment and once the duplicate positions are vacated, there will be a strong tendency to want to keep the second of each sets of positions as a deputy director, with little reduction in salary. I don't see much reduction in budget at least in the short term coming from that.
6. We should be able to save on some infrastructure and equipment purchases. However, given the larger work force which will be required for most government services in the consolidated municipality, we will likely find that either town's facilities are insufficient to house the new government. This will either lead to a pressing need to build a new expanded set of government structures to house the combined departments or a move to decentralize with some of the town programs being housed in one set of buildings and some in the other. Unless we are planning to significantly reduce staffing and equipment, and I don't see that happening, we will need our existing structures and possibly more. The change will come in how those buildings and equipment are allocated.
7. If you haven't already, take a look at the shared services report I referred to in the prior thread on the old board (Dave may we have a link PLEASE!!). You will see that there are major differences in how the recreation and cultural affairs function in our two towns are organized and function. We will need a lot more than a willingness to have our children attend the same recreation programs together before these functions can be consolidated. What will require nothing but the willingness of our two town recreation departments is a policy to admit children from both towns to each of the programs from either town which are geared towards our school aged population. To some extent this agreement already exists and has existed for many years.
8. The name selected for a consolidated municipality really doesn't make any difference, at least until such time as the electorate of both towns approves such a consolidation.
In response to your points above:
1. The study will cost municipal money that could be put to better use given municipal spending caps and very tight municipal budgets in both towns. It will also cost State money which could be put to better use either through direct subsidy of real property taxes (money in hand to help pay school, county and municipal taxes) or to fund a broad based study of ways in which each of the State's municipalities that sign on to the concept of consolidation/shared services can share services to the benefit of all. What we have at present is a system by which teams of towns look to consolidate or share amongst themselves but without considering the alternatives of casting a broader net when it comes to consolidating municipal governments or school districts or sharing services. At best this is a distraction in terms of resources that could be put to more effective use in working to solve our real property tax problems in this State. The argument lets approve a study for the sake of conducting a study just isn't strong enough for me.
2. What Nohero said. We don't need a referendum to study shared services, only to implement consolidation. There are other means by which State funds, if available at all, can be obtained for a shared services study.
3. Agreed. Our real property taxes are obscene. We need a better, more comprehensive plan for addressing this problem and that means a much broader based initiative with more of a regional perspective and a more thoughtful direction. IMHO, the referendum if passed could lead to higher not lower taxes for all of us in our two towns. We should seek consolidation of consolidation/shared services efforts to pool the resources of all of the municipalities in our region to study this issue in a meaningful manner.
4. Yes, it would be nice to save $100 a year each in taxes but suppose for the same $5 you could end up with a proposal which would save several times that and provide improved/increased services to boot. Which study would you rather have? There is much more promise in real tax savings if we look to a broader based study. Once we approve a limited study through voter referendum, wouldn't we be obligated to follow through with that voter-mandated study as mandated prior to looking into a broader-based initiative? Even if the two could be conducted simultaneously, wouldn't this be a dreadful duplication of effort in our attempts to reduce duplication in government?
5. Agreed. However, there will be strong argument made for continuing the positions/salaries of both sets of top administrators for the life of their employment and once the duplicate positions are vacated, there will be a strong tendency to want to keep the second of each sets of positions as a deputy director, with little reduction in salary. I don't see much reduction in budget at least in the short term coming from that.
6. We should be able to save on some infrastructure and equipment purchases. However, given the larger work force which will be required for most government services in the consolidated municipality, we will likely find that either town's facilities are insufficient to house the new government. This will either lead to a pressing need to build a new expanded set of government structures to house the combined departments or a move to decentralize with some of the town programs being housed in one set of buildings and some in the other. Unless we are planning to significantly reduce staffing and equipment, and I don't see that happening, we will need our existing structures and possibly more. The change will come in how those buildings and equipment are allocated.
7. If you haven't already, take a look at the shared services report I referred to in the prior thread on the old board (Dave may we have a link PLEASE!!). You will see that there are major differences in how the recreation and cultural affairs function in our two towns are organized and function. We will need a lot more than a willingness to have our children attend the same recreation programs together before these functions can be consolidated. What will require nothing but the willingness of our two town recreation departments is a policy to admit children from both towns to each of the programs from either town which are geared towards our school aged population. To some extent this agreement already exists and has existed for many years.
8. The name selected for a consolidated municipality really doesn't make any difference, at least until such time as the electorate of both towns approves such a consolidation.
Sep 27, 2006 at 6:01am Edited
I don't see why we can't go from two police (and fire) depts with, say, 50 staff each, to a single dept with, say, 90 people. The assumption that the result will necessarily have to be a dept with 100 people is PRECISELY what the study should examine. And I hope the elected commisioners will be not be UNDULY influenced by local politics.
Local politics are a factor which the consolidation commission, if approved by the electorate, needs to look into in detail. There is the consideration of the form the new municipal government would take for one thing, the way in which elected representatives would be chosen (political party vs non-partisan/wards vs at large representatives/length of term/etc.) The commission should also look at any obligations political or otherwise that each of the towns has made to special interest groups from PILOTs to pension plans which will need to be assumed by the new municipality as well as any outstanding contracts, grants, existing shared service agreements which don't currently include both towns, etc. Issues such as how to handle the differences with the town pools and with trash collection (including recycling) will also have to be examined.
It is important to look into the consolidation question from a practical rather than a purely hypothetical perspective and that includes being fully aware of the political ramifications of such an action.
It is important to look into the consolidation question from a practical rather than a purely hypothetical perspective and that includes being fully aware of the political ramifications of such an action.
You can not reply as this discussion is Closed!
Rentals
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
Advertisement
LOST