No dice
As publicized on the Teaneck Township website, mailing of 2006 tax bills was delayed this year as the Township awaited a response from the State of New Jersey on the Extraordinary Aid Application it submitted. If the aid were awarded, there would be a reduction in the tax rate.
The list of lucky winners has been released, and Teaneck is not on it. There's no reason to be bitter or upset, though. Teaneck residents should be honored that their contributions are not being returned to them. And we should be pleased that we have the opportunity to be good sports and tip our caps to our neighbors in Bogota, Englewood, Ft. Lee, New Milford, Paramus, and Ridgefield Park, whose municipal governments will all receive six figure checks from Trenton.
At least the mailings can now proceed without further delay...
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 1:14 PM
9 Comments:
Unfortunately, Teaneck's application for extraordinary aid was rejected by the State of New Jersey. Most disappointingly, many (though, not all) of those municipalities that were successful recipients of this aid are wealthier or have far broader sources of commercial and residential property wealth than does Teaneck. While Teaneck has been far more forthright and responsible in its finances as compared to many of our neighbors, those municipalities that have created their own problems seem to be rewarded, while the Teaneck's of this world are forced to struggle on their own.
It always amuses me that the State is very effective in taking money out of our pockets, and then returning a small percentage for a road or two, an ambulance or fire truck, or for a property tax rebate, and then expects us to be grateful for the privelege. Our fair share of income and sales tax revenue contributions were included in the more than $25 million sprinkled to 106 of the state's 566 municipalities, while we received zilch. Nada. Bubkes.
Paramus with half of its local revenue coming from commercial property has a check for a half million dollars on the way. Fort Lee is getting $350,000, while our neighbors in Bogota, New Milford and Ridgefield Park will be taking $250,000, $100,000 and $300,000 to the bank, respectively.
I have no idea what they wrote in their application, but there is $400,000 allocated to Englewood, a municipality that is wealthier than Teaneck, both in terms of income and assessed property per capita, as documented in the 2004 Legislative Data Book. In addition to the current extraordinary largess, Englewood also receives 20% of its school budget from the state (about $3,000 of the comparative cost per pupil of $15,000), while Teaneck gets a mere 8% (about $1,200 per pupil on the same basis). Englewood already has a larger percentage of its property taxes coming from commercial sources (about 25%, compared to our 15%), providing a more evenly balanced distribution of property tax burden to a source that places far less demand on municipal resources (especially schools) than do homeowners. A drive down Palisade Avenue or Route 4 will demonstrate that Englewood is about to turn on the spigot for a number of substantial new sources of property tax revenue, while we in Teaneck are left to quibble about sticking a building or two here and a few townhouses there.
As documented in the June 2006 issue of the "New Jersey Reporter," New Jersey leads the nation with almost $2,000 in property taxes collected per capita. Teaneck collects some $3,000 per capita, nearly 50% more than the state average. Teaneck has one of the highest equalized property tax rates in the county.
As recommended by the Teaneck Taxes Task Force of the Teaneck Community Project (the "Visioning Process") in its report, Teaneck must work on controlling expenditures and find new sources of revenue, a task that the newly-implemented Financial Advisory Board should strive to fulfil. But as the report also urged, Teaneck needs to be far more aggressive in obtaining its fair share of revenue from the State of New Jersey. We must work with our legislators to ensure that Teaneck is not bypassed year after year. A single check for several hundred thousand dollars from the state would have gone a long way to easing the tax burden for homeowners, and would be far simpler than the painful, bone-cutting reductions in expenditures that would be required to meet a comparable reduction on our own.
Alan Sohn
Well put.
Having sustained yet another blow to our already dented hopes for some needed tax relief, it's easy to lose hope. One great source of comfort is the talent and dedication of the Teaneck residents who are working hard to solve the many problems we face.
Alan Sohn said...
Unfortunately, Teaneck's application for extraordinary aid was rejected by the State of New Jersey. Most disappointingly, many (though, not all) of those municipalities that were successful recipients of this aid are wealthier or have far broader sources of commercial and residential property wealth than does Teaneck. While Teaneck has been far more forthright and responsible in its finances as compared to many of our neighbors, those municipalities that have created their own problems seem to be rewarded, while the Teaneck's of this world are forced to struggle on their own.
Mr. Sohn, you've been involved in politics locally for a number of years. I assume you understand, by looking at the numbers you've quoted, that extraordinary aid is doled out primarily based on where it will politically be most effective.
Once our state legislators get done with their investigation of the last Teaneck election, one would hope that they might focus on getting Teaneck something more than zilch, nada or bubkes.
Hopefully, that will be sooner than later.
Good luck on that one -- for all Ms. Weinberg is supposed to have such influence at the state level, it doesn't seem to do us any good when it comes to getting us some tax relief in the form of aid, grants, and other such methods that other communities around us use successfully. Very discouraging, but not surprising...
Municipalities that apply for extra state aid to offset their tax levies must outline circumstances that warrant additional funding, such as unusually high increases in expenses or the loss of a large ratable from the tax rolls.
According to the article there appears to be some actual criteria use to determine this aid. Does anyone have any information as to how Teaneck justified it's request?
Hometown bias aside, we can all agree that Teaneck is at the very least, as worthy as Paramus, Fort Lee, Bogota, New Milford & Ridgefield Park to receive 'extraordinary aid' from our great state. Why then, did we get "zilch, Nada. Bubkes."? Could it be that our own Loretta Weinberg was too busy trying to find out who didn't play nice during the past election that she forgot about her hometown's need for financial aid or perhaps that our town manager is weak in areas other than human resources???
Perhaps Teaneck simply did not meet the qualifications. Were there "high increases in expenses or the loss of a large ratable?"
It's easy to start laying blame without research. It's interesting to note that the previous poster is picking Loretta Weinberg and the town manager to blame and ignoring the council.
Does anyone have any real informtation about Teaneck's request?
Perhaps someone in Teaneck municipal government or a member of one of the advisory councils could contact a municipal officials in the winning towns and see if they would be able to share their applications with us so we could learn from them how to prepare a successful application.
Perhaps someone in Teaneck municipal government or a member of one of the advisory councils could contact a municipal officials in the winning towns and see if they would be able to share their applications with us so we could learn from them how to prepare a successful application.
You mean our direct competitors in the mad scramble for table scraps from Trenton? I doubt they'd be willing to help.
Post a Comment
<< Home