MOST-ake
The Municipal Open Space Trust Fund may not be as wrong for Teaneck as the Suburbanite's headline was this week for its cover story about it (note to the editors: $5.5k is not equal to $550,000). However, while a program that puts aside money from a special levy to preserve and maintain parks seems harmless on the face of it, three years after its approval by the voters, it is becoming clear that the MOST may require reconsideration.By this summer, the fund will have already taken over $1 million out of the pockets of Teaneck taxpayers with little to show for it but a hefty bank balance. This is not for lack of trying, though. The Council is apparently unsure of what to do with this vast sum because there isn't really much that needs doing. Sure, there are wish lists out there- some have a vision of ambitious land purchases to augment existing nature areas and others want to upgrade sports fields, but these are surely luxuries in a year in which the municipal tax burden is slated to rise 7.6%. While Teaneck certainly has uses for an extra million bucks, this money cannot be applied to them. The embarrassment of riches locked away in the MOST is becoming exactly that- an embarrassment.
The problem begins with the terms of the program itself. In the aftermath of the revaluation, the levy is scaled incorrectly. This year, the cost to taxpayers of what was intended to be an extra little tax is doubling to something much more significant- $0.01 per $100 of assessed value means a lot more when your assessment grows by 100% or more in one shot. The consequence of this change is that money is being pumped into the MOST at a faster rate, even as previous collections sit there unused.
Defenders of the program might argue that this does not present any particular problem. After all, it is nice that our parks and recreational areas have a nest egg that will help ensure their preservation for years to come. But it is not clear that they need such protection to begin with. It is probable that the majority of the residents of a suburban town will continue to favor appropriate expenditures on parks and recreation as needed for a long time to come. There is probably not a need to compel this support through additional taxation in the interim.
More importantly, the MOST comes at great cost. By raising additional taxes that are earmarked for particular uses, the Township saps its taxation power on non-necessities and reduces our flexibility to spend on our most pressing needs, which change from year to year. To meet our obligations to employees or solve unforeseen problems, Teaneck must tax even more or cut elsewhere to make ends meet, even as the cash in the MOST fund piles up.
The bottom line is, the MOST may be weakening our tax base unnecessarily. That is the one thing we need the LEAST.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 12:58 PM
11 Comments:
Can MOST funds be used pay for park maintenance and operating expenses currently funded through the general budget?
Each April we have the opportunity to go to the polls and vote yea or no on the school budget. We have no such right for our municipal budget. The Open Space Trust Fund was established based on the results of a community referendum. Its passage demonstrates an affirmative commitment by Teaneck's voters to tax themselves for the specific purpose of recreation and open space preservation, funds that will not be used to cover ongoing maintenance costs.
An additional dedicated tax that added $20 to the average property owner for the past two years and through a revaluation-related quirk will raise about $50 this year per property, has had no apparent effect on our tax base. Given that municipal and school tax requirements are calculated first
and then divided by the total assessed valuation to calculate a tax rate, it seems hard to understand how the Township will "sap its [sic] taxation power" through a continued Open Space dedicated levy.
The implementation of the Open Space Trust Fund provides the township with a source of funds that will only become harder to find in our current economic climate, and would be difficult (if not impossible) to justify without the dedicated funds the voters have provided based on their own votes. With a small and dwindling number of target properties and limited municipal sources, the Open Space Trust Fund may be the best avenue to make purchases that can benefit us and our children for generations to come.
These funds will allow the Township to pursue conservation options such as purchase of (all or portions of) the 1500 River Road property or development of a Windsor Park path, among other possibilities.
If combined with an aggressive push to raise additional corporate funds for the purpose, the use of these funds to cover artificial turf at Votee Park -- despite the apparent paradox of using such funds to eliminate grass -- would allow for more effective use of a park area that is tenderized each year by soccer cleats into a giant mud pie. Artificial turf would last 15 to 20 years and reduce the township's annual costs for maintaining the field, offering net savings to Teaneck's taxpayers.
I must agree that the fact that no money has been spent from the accumulated dedicated taxes is a major disappointment.
This tax is deigned with a sunset provision, and it's clear that there will come a time in the not-too-distant future when the additional dedicated revenue source is no longer needed.
As part of an effort to reimplement the Open Space Trust Fund, we need to see a few changes. The Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Board, together with the Township Council, needs to elaborate on how the funds have been spent and list prospective uses for these funds over the additional three-year renewal period. The current penny per $100 tax rate is probably too high, and should be cut to around a half-cent, plus or minus, based on a specified set of proposed purchases.
If the funds raised to date have been spent effectively and plans for the future are clearly defined, I am confident that most Teaneck residents would join me in supporting an extension of the Open Space Trust Fund. But without showing how the first million has been utilized and without a clear plan for the goals and objectives for spending the next several hundred thousand, a renewal by the voters will be unlikely.
Alan Sohn
Yesterday, you wanted to get rid of Rodda Center youth programs or charge market rate fees for them. Today, you want to get rid of the Municipal Open Space Trust Fund. What will we get rid of tomorrow? Fuzzy kittens and cute puppies?
Given that municipal and school tax requirements are calculated first and then divided by the total assessed valuation to calculate a tax rate, it seems hard to understand how the Township will "sap its [sic] taxation power" through a continued Open Space dedicated levy.
Sic indeed- "its" is the grammatically correct word there.
On the substance of this comment, every dollar removed from the pocket of the Teaneck taxpayer reduces the ability of said taxpayer to pay for other things. Sure, most people can cover the extra $20 or $50 or $100 per year it costs them, but that is not the point. You could say that about any incremental tax increase. There is only so much you can ask for. In this case, the Township is raising money it cannot really use when it has other obvious needs. That is what I mean by sapping taxation power. Is it really worth it?
As for Fed Up's suggestion that by taking aim at this seemingly innocent program I am showing myself to be some hard-hearted Scrooge, I think that's a simplistic view. It may seem like MOST and recreational programs are all sweetness and light, but I am not coming out against preserving parkland or helping out seniors, I am questioning the way we are going about accomplishing those things.
I had assumed that fed up was being facetious in assuming that teaneckblog would advocate getting rid of "Fuzzy kittens and cute puppies". Surely, fed up meant that teaneckblog would be in favor of imposing appropriate fees on cuddly pets, with a sliding scale for the less fortunate, given his (or is it her?) recent anti-senior and anti-open space rants.
Alan Sohn
News flash- we impose fees on "cuddly pets" already.
The problem is that fees are imposed equally on all pets, no matter how cute. If the cuddliest pets paid higher fees in proportion to their cuddliness, we'd have a far fairer system and bring in much-needed revenue.
Alan Sohn
The only reason why I initially supported the open space tax is because the state would provide matching funds.
Is that still the case? Is there a limit to what the state matches?
I would certainly recommend not taxing $1 more than the limit for matching.
Also, there should be a vote to reduce the tax by whatever factor equalizes the increase in assessments on properties.
I'm not familiar with the details of this law, but suspect the allowed uses might be more accomidating for outer suburban towns wishing to buy up farmland to preserve than towns such as Teaneck where there is really little open space to buy (and what space there is might very well be more appropriate for development!)
The only reason why I initially supported the open space tax is because the state would provide matching funds.
Same here, but this begs the question of what we need those matching funds for anyway... It seemed like a good idea at the time, but now it seems like a better idea to let the sun set on this additional tax.
Blogger:
Perhaps you'd care to give your opinion on the use of Open Space Trust Fund money for the "inclusive playground proposed for the north end of Votee Park."
Why not use that money to build a park over the Railroad tracks either at Cedar Lane or Rt 4?
With State/County Green acres matching grants and the State/Federal Highway funds already allocated toward replacing that bridge it would be a bargain.
The idea that the greenbelt is in danger coupled with an opportunity to "replace" what is destined to be lost by another lane of traffic makes a great sell at the higher levels of government.
Assuming TVAC wants a new building at a higher elevation (higher elevation = faster response time), you might be able to reclaim the space their building occupies or restore it to the tax rolls.
Post a Comment
<< Home