Some provisions of Montville's agreements under the 1991 Kelly Bill, which called for municipalities to reimburse homeowner associations a percentage of their operating costs, will expire at the end of 2007. A previous Montville Township Committee offered the associations more than the bill required.
The biggest item for discussion is roadway repair and replacement, including storm drains, catch basins, curbs, and fire hydrants. The impact on Longview's budget alone could be over $600,000.
With thousands of Montville's registered voters living in its 8 affected communities, any changes to Montville's agreements under Kelly Bill will certainly become a campaign topic.
Update: From Mayor Art Daughtry - New Kelly bill agreements were approved by the Township Committee and signed by 7 of the 8 communities on Thursday evening, Nov. 1. The new agreements include road maintenance for a 25-year term. The local coalition is also working with other towns to form a County Coalition. I am reaching out to a county freeholder who served as an officer with the NJ League of municipalities. The league can collect data from each community. The goal being Montville Township, along with the County coalition can stakeholder a state legislator to submit a new bill, or revised Kelly bill, which would permanently address road maintenance.
Those residents pay taxes too! Why shouldn't that get what all other tax payers get?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 7, 2007 10:06 PM
I sat on the Township Committee when the Kelly bill was enacted and what it required was the minimal in municipal services for Townhouse and condominium owners. It put no restriction on the maximum. It allowed the Township to phase in the costs of snow plowing an street lighting over a 5 year period. I favored the immeadiate payment of 100 percent the first year. These residents had no reduction in their taxes because they were paying for some of the same services anyother resident would get as part of the property taxes. The principle is simple. These residents pay the same rate of taxes and should be given the same rate of general services. Period. In 2005 the Committee voted to take over the cost of road improvements the same way that any residential developement would have. When a new subdivision is built out, no one asks those residents to pay for their own street improvements and in fairness that should apply to Condominium developements as well. These multi-residential developements do have features that are covered by their Association Fee's but public improvements should not be among them. The right to a safe street with lighting and snow plowing and the repair of those streets should be equal for any property tax paying resident.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 8, 2007 1:03 PM
Dan, You favored 100% the first year? Did you make a motion for 100%? Let's see, that was John, Marie, Steve, Jean, and you. Who voted against you?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 8, 2007 6:58 PM
I will tell you what. You name the other people on the Township Committee at that time and I will answer because none of the people you name were there.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 9, 2007 9:14 AM
The point is: You did not have to wait until the sunset provision of the bill came up. Why didn't you push for the 100% before now? Do you smell some votes out there?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 9, 2007 10:52 AM
I guess Ron was right that it would become a campaign topic since Dan jumped on it right away.
My question is didn't those townhouse developments promise to maintain their own roads and collect their own garabge etc. in return for getting higher density approved? They might have 5 units per acre in an area that allowed only one house per acre.
If they agreed to pay for those services themselves then why should other taxpayers now pay for them? Isn't it only because politicians are trying to buy votes?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 9, 2007 5:17 PM
I'm sorry. The point is that the Kelly bill had a 5 year impltmentation period at which point 100 percent was funded. That was 10 years or so ago. You need to go back and learn what the issue is instead of just taking shots. I know that Soussa said he wasn't going to post anonymous comments but obviously he makes an exception for the Republican Candidates and their supporters.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 9, 2007 5:17 PM
As usual, Dan doesn’t have his facts straight. Most importantly, all interested in this topic should attend, or have their respective association representative attend the Township Committee meeting Tuesday at 8 PM. The Kelly bill agreements will be discussed and information and facts exchanged in a public forum between the TC, including our administrator and representatives from the condo/townhouse associations.
No final decisions regarding the new agreements will be forthcoming on Tuesday night. This discussion is to get all the facts and circumstances surrounding how the old agreement was prepared, what are requirements within the Kelly bill, and what other benefits might be considered put forth in a public forum. Of course Dan talks about the roads however, as was typical during his tenure on the TC nothing is written in the agreement the quantifies roads which is now being viewed by some association representatives as meaning the Township fixes their driveways. This is just one example of some of the real issues that need to be addressed. To date, and I keep asking this, Montville Township is the only municipality in the State that has such an agreement. I trust if other municipalities have developed such a liberal concept that this information will be presented Tuesday evening.
I must admit it has been very encouraging to see folks on both sides of this issue keeping an open mind.
The current contracts expire within the next 90 days and my personal goal is to try to have the new agreement in place prior to Election Day due to all of the politics involved. Our administrator, Frank Bastone, has been meeting with some of the association representatives and I trust he will have some recommendations for the TC to consider by the October 9 TC meeting. I would hope the TC could vote on the agreements by October 23. Again these are my personal goals and at the TC meeting on Tuesday the entire TC will discuss this and we should all have the proposed timeframes agreed to.
Regards, Art Daughtry
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
September 10, 2007 9:09 AM
Art, As you well know driveways and parking areas have never been part of any agreement and the Representative of the Associations know full well that what you are saying isn't true. That was exposed in the Debate in front of the Association leadership. This is about public roadways and tax equity. It is really that simple. They have never asked for improvements on their private property and your trying to paint it that way is unfair to a proper understanding of the issue. Further more to Anonymous. The residents never agreed to anything. The developers and the Township Officials made that agreement back in the 80's in order to lessen the opposition to these projects. The Courts ruled those agreements were not equitable and Municpalities all over New Jersey were required to provide some degree of equity to Multi-Family Housing owners who pay the same rate of property taxes as single family owners. As far as being a "Campaign" issue I have a 15 year position on this issue. I worked with the Associations to arrive at an equitable solution and thought we had ended this as an issue 2 years ago. If Township Leaders don't want to honor previous agreements than they put the issue on the Table not I.
Posted by
Dan grant
on
September 10, 2007 10:27 AM
When you buy into a condo, an informed person, does the research to see how old the property is and what percentage of their fees are put aside for improvements, etc. So when the roof or siding or roadways need improving either that money is there or it has to be assessed onto the owners for improvements. I personally know of several communities on Long Island (one similar to Long View..except more upscale) and when their roadways were being re-paved and widened...guess who picked up the tab...the homeowners..and when they needed snow removal..the owners paid that tab..and a 3 bedroom townhouse (25 years old) paid $18,000.00 in property taxes.
The informed buyer knew all of this going in to agreement...and did not look to the town to pick up their expenses...goes with the territory...should be simple.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 14, 2007 3:33 PM
Give Jim Sandham credit for standing up to the crowd on Tuesday. The town counsel should represent everybody in Montville not just the few who live in condos.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 14, 2007 7:20 PM
I agree with the previous post. Jim was the only person on the TC in my opinion who didn't cater to the crowd that was present. Jean, Steve, and Deb all came out strongly in favor of providing all services. Art was less clear in his stance, but focused on the fact that it would take a while to hammer out all of the definitions and terms. Only Jim came out and said that he didn't yet have an opinion on the issue and needed more time to figure things out.
It was interesting to see that Deb neither recused herself from the proceedings nor stepped down from the dais, due to her residence within one of the condo communities that are negotiating with the town. In the past, for instance, Art stepped down when dealing with the school board budget.
Talk about a conflict of interest! What can we do to make sure that she doesn't vote on this? With her vote a shoe-in, that means that the condos only need to win 50% of the remaining votes instead of the 60% required in a fair vote.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 15, 2007 9:29 PM
Did she even disclose that she lived in one of them? How shameful.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 16, 2007 11:49 AM
How could our Deputy Mayor Deb Nielson take part in this discussion? Isn't she a home owner in Longview -- one of the affected developments? Talk about a conflict of interest. She should be ashamed!!!! I suspect that the attorney will not let her take part in any votes (so as to avoid a lawsuit), but it is still inappropriate for her to take part in the discussion as "deputy mayor". If she has something to say on the subject, she should step down and go to the microphone like all the other citizens.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 16, 2007 8:49 PM
Condo owners represent 23% of the households in town and only 20% of the township committee. If condos were 51% of the households should the committee people who live in the condos refrain from participating even though they represented the majority?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 16, 2007 9:20 PM
I did some research into this before I posted the topic and was told that there is precedent on this issue. The town actually enters into separate agreements with each condo association, so there are 8 separate agreements that have to be voted on by the Township Committee.
The town attorney gave an opinion back when Dan Grant owned a unit in Campagna and was permitted to vote on all agreements except the one affecting Campagna.
Posted by
Ron Soussa
on
September 16, 2007 10:24 PM
Ron -
The condos are engaging in collective bargaining here. They had a single attorney representing them. While each community may have a different physical contracts with the town, the agreement was being discussed as a single entity. If each of the communitees were going to have materially different contracts (some better, some worse) then each would have its own attorney in order to avoid conflict of interest on the negotiating attorney.
Given that, the question would be whether a sitting member should be speaking as a town leader on this issue, or as a citizen. At the very least, fair and immediate disclosure is called for. Usually, I take note of such things, but in this case, I don't remember it. SINCE THE TC REFUSES TO BROADCAST their meetings, perhaps someone else who was present remembers.
Anonymous (9/16/07, 9:20PM) - I think that your statistic is inaccurate. I believe that the number mentioned was 15%. Nonetheless, in the hypothetical situation given, the committee members would be required (by law) to abstain from voting. It is a conflict of interest.
Rob, I wasn't giving my own opinion; it was the town attorney's opinion in the Dan Grant/Campagna case.
And apparently the different associations do have somewhat different agreements. What the differences are, I don't know.
I do know that Longview (and presumeably the other associations) has its own attorney to negotiate its agreement and handle its other legal work. They may have decided it is most efficient to have one attorney present their case to the township committee as a matter of efficiency but I don't know if that rises to the level of "collective bargaining".
Full disclosure: I live in Longview :)
Posted by
Ron Soussa
on
September 17, 2007 8:30 AM
I don't know under what circumstances NY operates but NJ passed a law called the Municipal Services Act which required Municpalites to either provide services to Multi Residential units equal to the services given to single home/lot owners or compensate them to an equal degree. This superceded any prior agreement between developers and municpalities. They covered Street lighting,Snow Plowing and waste collection if in fact that was part of a municipal service. It in no way limited the services a municipality could provide if they wanted to but it established a minimum that was required. Because each complex is a seperate entity there are separate agreements with each one. In the case of snowplowing the complexes have agreed to provide their own vender who also does their private area's which are not public. The Township compensates them for the public road ways only and at a rate equal to the per mile costs for snow plowing on any public street. Trash Collection is provided as it would be for any resident. Parsippany under Mayor Priori refused to give trash collection to the muli-family units in his Town and lost that issue in court. In the issue of Deb Nielson the attorney's position is the same as it was for me. As a general topic she can participate in the discussion and if any vote takes place she can vote on any complex except the one She lives in. According to the Attorney when an issue effects a broad group of citizens a Committee member who is a member of that group can vote on it. As an extreme example the committee votes on the Tax rate and budget but as taxpayers they are actually in conflict. School Board members vote on School expenditures that benefit the schools their children attend. Of Course Mrs. Nielsen cannot vote on any item that would benefit her complex directly. We did sewer expansion by districts and no one suggested that by bringing sewers to Towaco or any other section that a Committee Member that may eventually benefit from that couldn't vote on it. As I remember Nielson did state that she lived in Longview but someone would have to listen to the tape to be sure. She certainly should have.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 17, 2007 2:41 PM
When these residents moved into their communitees, they received a prospectus. That document would have told them that they were not entitled to certain services from the town. That compromise should have gone into the negotiated price of their residence.
I hear the residents of these communitees complaining that they are not getting services for their taxes, but they did receive a 'discount' on their purchase price to compensate for that. If they didn't recieve that discount, then they can only blame themselves.
This is akin to someone buying a house near GI salvage, and then complaining about their neighbor. Sorry - that condition has not changed. Should that person then run for the township committee and push for banning of salvage yards in town?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 17, 2007 10:58 PM
Montville republcins are in big trouble. Sandham doesnt want Nielson to be able to vote and he is appealing the town attorneys decision to Trenton. The mayor supports him too.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 19, 2007 3:54 PM
First, Deb Nielson did nothing wrong. I asked for advice of counsel & we were informed with an immediate, off the cuff response that she could discuss and vote on the issue. While there are technically 8 separate agreements, we have so far entered into collective negotiations as the condos have formed a coalition with 1 legal representative. Since we are negotiating collectively and since there is initiative to make all the agreements identical, a vote for any would be a vote for all. Therefore, I have asked for further review of Deb's status in this vote. I would be doing that for any TC member who lived in a condo, regardless of their position on the matter & regardless of Party. As a CPA I am keen on independence in appearance and fact.
As I stated at the last TC meeting, I understand the underlying fairness principle at work here. But, shouldn't we weigh the fact that, as Dan stated, the developers promised to cover many costs so that it would lessen the opposition of the Montville voters? Then the courts ruled that 'certain services' (snow plowing, electricity for street lights & leaves/solid waste removal should be paid for by the town. Fine. Prior TC’s went way beyond what the Courts decided was fair and equitable and gave much more. Why? Were they smarter than the Courts or just attracting votes? Don’t we have an obligation to our citizens that agreed to the higher density condo developments because they were promised the condos would cover many costs! As I stated, this is a complicated issue (as evidenced by the condos forming a coalition & hiring legal representation that advised of the numerous times he went to court over the issues involved and the numerous legal cases across the state). If it were simple, why all the legal wrangling? Why wouldn’t we ask each Condo Association to prioritize the other 7-8 services they get above the Kelly Bill? What is important to the seniors at Campagna may be unimportant to Longview owners with children. And vice versa. Maybe we could reach an agreement with each Condo Assoc if they each fund several of their lower priorities. To Montville Taxpayers (condo & non-condo owners) - I have not finalized my opinion yet as I need additional info that is forthcoming, but fairness to ALL Montville Township taxpayers will be my guideline. Jim Sandham
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
September 19, 2007 10:42 PM
Can anyone tell us what about the Montville agreements go beyond the requirements of the Kelly bill?
Are we talking only about roadway maintenance, storm drains, catch basins, and fire hydrants?
Posted by
Ron Soussa
on
September 20, 2007 8:50 AM
Let's leave it to the basic issue and leave out the speculation about "being smarter than the Courts or seeking votes." The issue for me is simple and I have the history to go with it. These agreements between developers and Governing bodies have a long and sordid history. When Long View was approved by the planning board they attached a number of conditions to the approval, all of which were thrown out by the courts. Beyond the Court ruling on the equity provided to these developments by the Municipal Services Act there is an argument to be made that the full range of services be provided all residential units when it comes to normal public improvements. You would never expect a subdivision to pay as individual homeowners for repair of their streets and while I understand the political motivation for making these complexes responsible in the first place it hasn't held up in the long run and basically in my view just isn't fair.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 20, 2007 12:16 PM
Jim, Is the town negotiating with the coalition or with the individual associations? I believe there is case history here with Dan and Campagna.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 20, 2007 6:38 PM
When these condos were built the developers made a deal with the town. In order to obtain approval for the high density complex the town mandated that the condo association would be responsible for certain maintenance (snow removal, road repair, etc). Because the condo owners were going to have those extra expenses, they paid a lower price for their units (this is simple economics).
Thereafter the state passed a law requiring that the towns provide a minimum amount of services. This new law certainly gave a monetary benefit to the condo owners who paid less for their units because they were supposed to foot the bill. Of course the town needs to comply with the law and provide the statutorily required services. But why did the town EVER offer or give more services than they were required to?
When I bought my house I knew that the town would not be responsible for maintaining my lawn, my driveway, snowplow my walkways, etc. If for some reason the state passed a law requiring the town to repair cracks in my driveway, would that mean that they should now also gratuitously offer to mow my lawn, paint my house and provide snow removal for my walkway? Of course not. But that is what the condo associations are asking for!!!! (For those of you who do not understand the analogy – it is not those specific services that the condos are asking for. Rather, they are asking the town to provide free services that they were not entitled to when they purchased their unit).
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 20, 2007 9:35 PM
Jim -
Thanks for keeping an open mind on this issue.
Dan -
If an individual bought their home with the expectation (and obligation) that they'd be paying for the repair of their streets, then I would expect them to pay for it. It was a cost that they should have taken into consideration when making their purchase. That is the nature of the free market.
I'm not sure that this is any different than buying a home right by a river that frequently floods, and then petitioning the town to fix the flooding issue.
It should be pointed out that one issue raised during the TC meeting was that the condo associations stopped paying into certain internal capital improvement funds when the town started paying for extra services a few years ago, and that they'd have a deficit in those funds if the town recinded those services. Is this a valid argument? Where did that money go? It remained in the pockets of the condo owners - it didn't disappear.
Here is what I believe is being forgotten here. Individuals own their units and are taxed at a rate that is the equal to any other tax payer. Associations don't actually pay the taxes. The roads are not closed off to the public and if these were gated communities totally contained it would be a totally differant issue. I think it is subjective to say that they payed less because of the required association fees. The fact is that the Township often alters the conditions around or bordering homes and improves the conditions that the home was purchased under. If we buy openspace bordering a development and prevent more homes from being built those existing homes go up in value. When we do drainage projects that keeps home which formally were flooded those values on those homes increase. When we take over private roads which we have done in the past those residents benefit. When we extend sewers into areas that didn't have them before those people benefit. The inclination is that the conditions under which you bought your home is your problem and that may well be if you border a junk yard or have a substandard non-conforming lot but in terms of public roadways and public improvements I think it is a different issue.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 21, 2007 12:45 PM
It is a shame that the mayor and one councilman are pitting one group of Montville residents against another.
We all pay the same rate of taxes and should get the same level of services.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 21, 2007 4:01 PM
It is unfortunate and not the first time this has happened. We are all residents no matter where in the Township we live or what type of housing we live in. We talk a lot about the need for a sense of Community but we have a reluctance to understand the needs and rights of all our citizens.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 21, 2007 5:42 PM
Our association only receives street lighting and prorated reimbursement for snow plowing through the Kelly Bill. You can't get any more basic than that. What's more, our development, like many phases of other condo developments, was built AFTER 1991! We pay the same tax rate as other home owners in Montville. We deserve equal municipal services, and equal treatment under the law, and the township is bound to deliver nothing less. Further, our association is 100% fully funded. All common areas, including sidewalks and driveways, are maintained through association dues. As for road repairs, we've yet to have the town become involved. But, I guess it's okay when hoardes of township residents decend upon our development every year and disregard road signs and parking regulations to bring their children trick or treating, or bring their teens to practice driving. Let's not cloud the issue here. We are all Montville Township home owners and we all deserve the same services. It's a shame it took the Kelly Bill to reinforce the concept. And it's a bigger shame that it's a topic of debate in a forum such as this. By the way, Art & Jim, we also have the right to vote too.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 22, 2007 9:53 AM
I'm for any resolution to this that keeps votes away from Dan Grant.
If Dan gets in, surely we'll be hosting a "Getting to know you" night at town hall for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 22, 2007 12:17 PM
Yes, condo owners WILL BE HEARD at the polls. Mayor and council DO you GET IT?
We WILL VOTE for TWO candidates who understand our issues.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 22, 2007 2:31 PM
First, we are not pitting residents against residents. Did that happen when past TC's gave the extra services to the condos? At least this debate is out in the open. Why do people try to put spin on discussion & debate or make threats about their votes? We all want elected officials with integrity, yet we cast them as evil & threaten them if they want to get more info, debate issues in public or stand up for what they believe if it's counter to one's own view. I was elected to lead - that's what I try to do. Some people may not like a single decision I make and let that influence their vote more than my leadership, my service and my integrity. I think that's myopic and a poor decision (of course), but it's their right. But from my perspective I'd rather lose some votes than my integrity. To correct the prior posting of bad facts - Some of the extra services ABOVE what the Kelly bill requires that are currently provided to the condos include: street maintenance (e.g.: road re-paving); hydrant, storm & sanitary sewer maintenance; curb repairs; street signs. That hasn't cost the Town much in the last several years. But..Do you what the cost of these services are going forward? Neither do I! That's why I have asked for the estimated cost over a 10 or 20 year period - as some of these are long term costs. At the last TC mtg I did not think it prudent to decide on the issue until I knew the facts & figures. The fact that others made a decision without that info is their choice. There are many factors at play - the underlying fairness to condo owners; the underlying fairness to non-condo owners given the pre-existing developer agreements; why the Courts decided on only the 3 main services in the Kelly bill & not the others noted above; whether the condo roads will be brought up to town specifications (as the were built as 'private' roads); whether they will be dedicated as public access roads & ,therefore, subject to the more lenient Township solicitation rules (vs. what the condo associations allow); whether the condos agree to the Town's calculation for reimbursement; the fact that only a handful of other condos across the state (as provided by the condo attorney) get services above the Kelly bill. I am sure the TC will sort this all out and get to a resolution that is fair to all citizens. Let the discussion & debate continue in any public forum including this one, but sans the spin & the threats. Jim Sandham PS - Notice how Dan didn't want to answer my 'smarter than the courts or attracting votes' question! Know this - I will decide on the merits of the issue, not on how many votes it gets me. If that means I'm not politically expedient nor a savy politician, I'll take that as a compliment.
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
September 22, 2007 4:39 PM
Jim, Is the town negotiating with the coalition or with the individual associations? I believe there is case history here with Dan and Campagna.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 22, 2007 8:29 PM
Anonynous 2:31 pm. Condo owners = 25; Non-condo owners = 75%. Do YOU get it?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 22, 2007 9:05 PM
Mr Sandman: Quite a lecture. Are you an adjunct professor, member of a debate team? Least you forget, there are two issues. 1: What is a fair distribution of public services given condos pay same tax rate, 2: Politicians are elected to represent concerns of their constituents. After reading the blog, your long winded diatribes are justification for non-support of the condos. Otherwise, you would pledge support. You are oblivious to double taxation aspects. My taxes pay for public services in the single family areas. We subsidize their roads and utilities. Please do not campaign in our neighborhood. This tea party attitude is not welcome.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 23, 2007 12:00 AM
So, Jim as I understand it, it's okay to allocate property taxes collected from condo owners who pay at the same rate as single-family homeowners to plow, repair, and repave roadways of same single-family homeowners, as well as repair and/or replace their street signs, yet you apparently consider these services above and beyond what should be provided to condo developments in which property-tax paying homeowners reside? Why should condos have to prioritize which municipal services they would like to receive and which they want to pay for? Do you ask single-family homeowners these questions? My property taxes have increased 350% since I purchased a condo unit in this town after the Kelly Bill was enacted. I would just like to be treated like everyone else without having to take a stand. I understand that you will try to vote fairly, just like the many of us condo owners thought you would when we cast our vote for your election.
Dan, When are you going to stop taking Ron's bait? You are fighting a losing battle on this forum. What's done is done. You just set yourself up for more political and personal attacks, and I think you're negatively impacting public sentiment on this issue. Sometimes silence is golden.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 23, 2007 1:23 AM
This is funny. Condo owners got breaks when they purchased their unit due to the additional maintanence requirements they faced. Now, they're fighting for EQUAL TREATMENT as the other tax payers in town.
Where's the give back? Nobody discounted the cost of my home when I bought it. Why should you get all the benefits you DIDN'T bargain for in addition to your reduced cost of purchasing your home? And threatening politicians with loss of your vote is silly. Fact is, if most of the single family homeowners thought a single vote was extorted in this fashion, that politician would lose alot more votes from us than all the condo owners combined.
Let our TC get all the facts and vote accordingly, without your cheap threats.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 23, 2007 9:44 AM
Anonymous 9:44AM: What are these alleged breaks condo owners received? What reduced purchase price? I would like specifics cited with evidence. I did not receive any when I purchased my home and I had a very compentent attorney review my prospectus. Please investigate the facts more fully using legimate independent sources and not let the postings on this site form your opinion. No one is threatening anyone here. My property taxes have tripled over the years and I pay taxes at the same rate as you. I don't complain when my property tax dollars are used to replace your street signs. Why can't you extend me the same courtesy?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 23, 2007 11:55 AM
Dear Anonymous at 12 a.m. - 1. It's Sandham, not Sandman. 2. Elected officials are supposed to represent ALL constituents. 3. I plan on walking all areas of the Township next year, as I did back in 2005. If someone has a disagreement with one of my positions, they are welcome to discuss it with me if I knock on their door.
To others - As I stated, I HAVEN'T made a decision and won't until I get all the info I've asked for. I am weighing the underlying fairness principle against an original agreement. I understand the equal services for equal taxes argument. I also understand that not all people pay the same amount of taxes to the US Gov't (or NJ) and get varying levels of service. It is not a clear cut, black & white decision. I do want to weigh all the factors, some of which I enumerated in my prior posts.
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
September 23, 2007 12:14 PM
to anon poster at 9:44 above. We received NO price breaks when we purchased our condo. I reviewed listing prices of local homes. My condo is more expensive than many of our friends houses and so are the taxes we pay. When I leave my driveway, we should get our street maintained. The seniors in campagna and longview, what other town benefits do they get for their tax dollars? No kids contributing to schools the most expensive part of our bill. We are only asking for waht others have. we are asking for what is reasonable and fair.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 23, 2007 12:48 PM
There seems to be the general misconception that all taxpayers are due the same benefits for their tax dollars. That's simply not the case. Government - at all levels - doesn't hide that. We have programs that are specific to constituents in specific age ranges, income brackets, and - yes - geographic locations. Our taxes are based on the total need for government expenditures anticipated, not on the amount that the individual making the payment will utilize.
Due to zoning restrictions on my property, I cannot decide to add a dozen stories to my home and rent out space to tenants. If, for some reason, the board of adjustment decided to grant me a variance to add those floors and tenants, then they could grant that approval in exchange for certain concessions. Would I be in my rights to petition - or demand - that the town remove those restrictions? It seems that is what is happening here.
It is interesting to see that while Jim hasn't expressed an opinion either way, everyone is interpretting all of the issues and facts that he's posting to indicate that he's against providing the additional services. Apparently, everyone agrees that the logical conclusion in response to these issues/facts is to deny to condo owners' requests.
The issue of whether condo buyers received reduced prices based on the lack of municipal services is simple to validate. All you need to do is choose a high-volume, rational market such as New York City, and compare the selling prices of units with similar square feet and amenities, taking into account the condo fees associated with them. Once those fees are taken into account, the monthly payments are roughly the same for units with high condo association fees as for those with low fees. It's simple economics.
Robert, The original owners received a price reduction on the initial purchase. Once there was a resale, that reduction is out the window. It's simple economics!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 24, 2007 6:58 AM
Annon 6:58 am -- guess you did not take any economics classes. Robert Lefkowitz is correct. Even for resales the condo association fees affect the market rate. Up until the time that the town began providing services in excess of what the Kelly Bill required, the condo owners had increased maintenance fees to cover the costs. The market price of the units reflected this increased maintenance costs. Any other increase in the price of the units was in response to other market factors which increased prices of all homes in Montville.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 24, 2007 9:35 AM
Anonymous (6:58 AM) -
That's like saying an original owner of a property received a discount because their house had septic instead of sewer, but subsequent purchasors don't get the break. Of course they do. It's part of the condition of the home. Just because the price went up from one buyer to the next doesn't mean that the discount went away.
The economics is simple: if there were two condo communities in town that were exactly the same in all aspects, except one had all the municpal services being sought, and one did not, would you be willing to pay more for a condo that had those services? Of course you would. Why? Because your yearly outlay in terms of your condo association fees would be lowered accordingly. You would pay more for the condo with the services, and someone else would pay less for the condos that provided their own services. All the condos in town pay for their own services: that doesn't mean that all those condo owners pay the higher of the two prices above, it means they pay the lower.
Dear Anonymous; if you think that my streets in my complex are private property... than take this as a clear statement to you...KEEP OFF! your assumption to such an extreme is a waste of time. This ruling by the good State of NJ should be held up such that money has been assessed (taxed) and is used where it should be. Excess waste (like the money spent on lawyers ) in this case, should be eliminated.
Posted by
Changebridge neighbor
on
September 24, 2007 10:31 AM
Robert, when we run sewers to those homes with septic systems, their home values increase and in many cases we prevented people from having to spend $30,000-$40,000 to repair failing septics. Should we not have done it? Is this really so different? Public entities should not base their public responsibilities on the effect it might have on the values of resident's homes or what they pay for them. It should be based on fairness of services and need. When homes had their water contaminated we put in water lines. When septics in areas went bad we ran sewers. When flooding occurred we try to mitigate the flooding. Part of the agreement to take over public improvement repairs in these areas was that they be in good condition and they were all built to Township standards. In fact these roads are superior to many of the public roadways we have in the Township and they represent about 10 percent of the Total streets in the Township.
To anonymous Sept 23, 1:23 AM You really have identified one of the problems of what Montville Politics has become. Decisions are made based on who supports or opposes an issue, not on the merit of the issue. You say that I negatively effect the outcome by taking a position. Then you ought to blame those in powewr who would make a decision based on me rather then the issue itself. I seek public office and I have always taken positions that help the voters understand what they can expect from me. I certainly won't stop in this campaign. For three years we have had some of the nastiest politics I have ever seen in this Township. Instead of critizing me for fighting back against this shameful behavior you should think about voting for people who will not behave in this manner.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 24, 2007 11:47 AM
Condomin owners just want to be treated like single family home. We dont have many school age children that are the big part of tax.
Why won't mayer Daughtery and mr. Sandham treat us the same as the rest of the town. We pay taxes to!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 24, 2007 2:41 PM
Dan: All I meant was that your messages, right or wrong, are falling on deaf ears on this forum. Take your message to the public at large and not limit it to the 30 or so people who regularly post on this forum.
Robert: Again, where is the proof that condo owners actually received discounted purchase pricing? FYI: I pay low fees and have never been assessed because our board is fiscally responsible and our association is 100% fully funded, not because of municipal service concessions. And I certainly do expect to be provided with equitable municipal services since I pay a double-digit tax bill every year.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 24, 2007 6:44 PM
kiss equal tax rates!! equal services!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 24, 2007 8:30 PM
When the town runs sewers to a neighborhood, they do so because of their own plans and needs, not because the homeowners demanded that it be done. In fact, if a homeowner petitioned the town to provide sewers to his street because his septic was nearing the end of its life, he would be told that the town has its list and its order and that it can't deviate from it. On the other hand, if the homeowner had just spent the $30K-$40K (you're numbers, not mine) one year to replace his system and received notice that the town would be putting in sewers, his objections would be ignored. He would have to pay additional money to hook up to the municipal sewers, and his recent investment would be lost. The point: the town does not consult with homeowners to seek the best ways to benefit them financially.
Just last week at the Township Committee meeting, two homeowners petitioned the TC regarding a drainage project that was being proposed for their neighborhood. Their views were heard and their concerns may be investigated, but neither they nor their neighbors will be able to tell the town what to do - nor should they.
Anonymous (6:44) - I answered your question at 9:40 this morning. Whether you pay double-digit or single-digit taxes doesn't determine your eligibility for services.
By the way, does anybody know how condo owners are taxed for their share of community property? Is that part of each condo owner's tax assessment or is it part of their association fees?
It is part of each individual owner's property tax assessment. The association is not responsible for paying any property taxes to the town. Association dues are for maintaining the buildings and common areas only. As far as concessions, the only one of which I am aware is that our development absorbed part of the town's Mt. Laurel affordable housing obligation in order to receive the density variance.
And Robert, cite hard facts in your lectures, not hypotheticals. Your example was comparing apples to oranges.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 25, 2007 7:45 AM
annon 7:45am -- Robert was citing facts. As far as comparing apples to oranges -- it looks to me like he was responding to Dan's examples.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 25, 2007 7:56 AM
Robert, many times we did react to both individual neighborhhood concerns and petitions. Lake Valhalla residents came to the Committee asking for sewers. In Towaco people asked for water lines and we always had meetings to discuss the projects with the residents. When the contamination hit streets in Montville we worked with the state to insure water lines were put in. It was really based on need and the plans were flexible enough although there was an over all plan. Streets are repaved after a review of the Township engineer. Drainage issues are usually done on a request basis. None of this was based on value gained or conditions at the time of purchase. When an area was schedualed for sewers the health department would allow temporary repairs do be done to a septic so that very few people were put into the position of having to put new systems in only to have the Township come by with sewers and yes the Township requires people to hook up. The sewer plan was in place for years so that people could see where they stood in terms of time. We also had developements that the Township required to put in dry lines in case sewers ever came and you can count on the fact that those people paid for a service and the infrastucture even though they may never get the service so it has worked both ways. It still boils down to the concept of having equal services for for equal taxes. The difference is that many if not all of these developements brought services to areas that would have been either never been given or would have been done at tax payers expense and because of the developement we didn't have to do that. They become links in a system that serves everyone. Government is there to provide these most basic services of safety, health first and foremost and and I do agree that it shouldn't matter what kind of housing you live in or your property tax assesment. We are one community. Fairness dictates that general infrastucture should be paid by the general revenue.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 25, 2007 8:14 AM
Dan, try to keep your posts under 40,000 words.
Condo owners should get the services required under the Kelly Law. However, anything else is off the table. If your builder made a deal with the town, then live with it. Nobody wants you to be treated unfairly but you received some benefit in exchange for whatever deal was cut. If you can't figure out what that was, that's your problem. Check with the town to find out what it was.
At the end of the day, you shouldn't get squat! Stop your whinng and trying to intimidate the TC (with voting power) to get your way.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 25, 2007 12:00 PM
Short and sweet.
A. I don't live in a Condo.
B. I have made my position clear
C. Does that mean you won't be voting for me?
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 25, 2007 2:10 PM
I pay taxes on my small condo that are much higher than some homes sitting on a half acre pay, and haven't had kids in school for over 19 years Take the time to look up the tax records and you will see this is true in many cases. All I ask for is the same services as a homeowner that does not live in a condo. Nothing more!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 26, 2007 1:17 AM
As a condo owner, we are given no concession when it comes to taxes. If are asked to mainatain our own roads, etc. then our taxes should decrease.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 26, 2007 6:40 AM
There is talk about putting in age-restricted housing in town. With the concern about our over-crowded schools, it is possible that they might be approved with the restriction that they cannot send children to Montville schools. This is not unprecedented, and some municipalities even provide token tax breaks to residents of these communities so that they are not paying full school taxes.
Would it be fair for residents of that community to remove the age-restriction after 10 years, and then expect that they could send their children to our schools? Even if they paid full school taxes at that point, they'd still be placing more of a burden on the school system than was initially agreed to.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 26, 2007 10:35 AM
What is suggested by the previous anonymous post is against the State of NJ law. The only law which allow special treatment on property taxes are veterans deductions and the income qualified freeze the State put into effect which is now frozen itself. Understanding the differance between what can be done and what should be done is why we need the Legislature to enact legitimate property tax reform particularly on the cost of education which is about 65 per-cent of your property tax bill. Selecting special groups with in the township to pit against each other will never accomplish anything and will continue to harm the over all Community and have no effect on the over all tax rate. We ought to begin to realize that we are all in this together. I noticed that the Mayor was able to compete in a "Mayor's Cooking Contest" and miss a meeting of Morris County Mayors on property tax reform. So much for priorities.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 26, 2007 12:12 PM
To the condo owners who are complaining about your high taxes for your units-- you fail to remember that you are paying taxes for the common areas (club house, guard house, pool, grassy areas, etc.) which are 100% owned by you and are your property. Not only that, but you also own the streets, which you could elect to close off to outsiders. If you don't want outsider's bringing their kids around trick or treating, you could easily prevent it. That option is not open to the rest of us. When you think about how much land and structure you actually own, your taxes are not that high.
As far as services -- we are all taxed at an equal tax rate. However, the amount of taxes we pay is based upon our land and structures' assessment. Assessments are not always equitable. For instance a new house built today has a higher assessment than the exact same house built 5 years ago. Therefore, even though the homeowners have the same size property and the same size house, the new home is paying more taxes. If someone buys a resale, their taxes do not increase to market value. This is unfair, unequitable. That is how it works. We don't all get fair and equitable treatment.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 26, 2007 1:28 PM
Dan
I guess that means you haven't tried my award winning recipe. Actually it was our administrators and it was a great evening and I was proud to represent Montville Township.
Maybe you prefer crow to healthy fish.
You are truly amazing!
Regards, Art Daughtry
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
September 27, 2007 12:19 AM
Art, Actually I heard a certain chef helped you but thank God you won. Tax reform would seem to me to be a more important issue but to each his own. I guess I will see you at the planning Board tonight for the GI Auto Salvage discussion.
Regards, Dan
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
September 27, 2007 9:28 AM
Forget about reading the tax records. Read your perspectus. If that doesn't include the information disclosing that you won't have these services, then you should either sue the town for all services, or sue your condo association for not disclosing to you the limitations. If it does include the disclosures about municipal service limitations, then shame on you.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 27, 2007 11:46 AM
Dan,
Could you occassionally make a post that doesn't insinuate you're thinking of the voters issues more than the next guy?
Geez, next someone will post they're going on a 2 week vacation. Of course you'll respond stating during that posters vacation, you'll be in deep thought about tax reform and the Kelly Law.
In other words, stop your veiled "begs" for votes!! It's almost comical if it wasn't so pathetic.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 28, 2007 10:54 AM
Dan, There is a blog for the Mayors' Cookoff but I'm sure you know that. Why don't you start a vacation blog?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 28, 2007 7:03 PM
I'm not an experienced homeowner, but I never expected to pay full taxes on my property and also be expected to pay for roadways that are open to the public. Such an issue should be indicated within sales contracts, condo association publications etc., before a purchase occurs.
Taxes in this development most likely average $7000-9000 on average for townhomes (excluding the single family style). I'm sure that there are single family homes throughout Montville paying comparable levels of taxes and the town is responsible for the roadways/sewers/etc. Considering the density of the population within PUD communities in Montville, in combination with the overall tax revenue that such communities generate, I am perplexed that this discussion is even occurring.
I sincerely hope that the township decides to consider us homeowners as whole people rather than just half people. If we are to pay for public roadways (sewers etc.), then we should pay significantly less in taxes and maintenance charges. We are not being treated equally with other taxpayers.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 29, 2007 8:14 PM
I'm not an experienced homeowner, but I never expected to pay full taxes on my property and also be expected to pay for roadways that are open to the public. Such an issue should be indicated within sales contracts, condo association publications etc., before a purchase occurs.
Taxes in this development most likely average $7000-9000 on average for townhomes (excluding the single family style). I'm sure that there are single family homes throughout Montville paying comparable levels of taxes and the town is responsible for the roadways/sewers/etc. Considering the density of the population within PUD communities in Montville, in combination with the overall tax revenue that such communities generate, I am perplexed that this discussion is even occurring.
I sincerely hope that the township decides to consider us homeowners as whole people rather than just half people. If we are to pay for public roadways (sewers etc.), then we should pay significantly less in taxes and maintenance charges. We are not being treated equally with other taxpayers.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 29, 2007 8:15 PM
I do not think this discussion should be taking place - the residents in the condo communities should receive the same services from the town as other homeowners throughout the township. If you think about it from a mathematical perspective, the residents of condo communities should actually receive more services.
I could be wrong, however, I believe that the smallest parcel a single family home may be constructed upon in the township (without a variance) is 2/3 of an acre.
Within the Changebridge at Montville development, you generally have between 4 and 6 units per building. In the benefit of the township's argument, lets assume that 4 of the 6 units are 30 feet wide and 2 of the 6 are 25 feet wide; each end-unit will have 30 feet of side-yard space. This equals approximately 230 feet of frontage (170 feet for the units and 60 feet for end-cap yard space).
Also consider that each unit has about 30 feet of front and backyard space, with each unit having a depth of approximately 45 feet without a garage and 60 feet with a garage. This equates to a total depth of approximately 120 feet. Therefore, 230 feet of frontage times 120 feet of depth equals a total site size of 27,600 square feet (almost 2/3 of an acre).
Conservatively assuming that each unit can sell on the open market for $500k-600k (and has an approximately tax liability of $7000 for 2-beds, $8000 for 3-beds and $8500 for end units), the annual tax liability of all 6 units equates to $47000-$50000.
Where else in Montville can you fit six taxable households on a 2/3 acre lot generating nearly $50,000 in taxes, when the typical single family house is situated on the same size lot? Note that the residents within the condo communities (excluding the single family homes) do not even own the front and back yards!
The argument gets even more ridiculous when you consider that a single-family house pays $88 per quarter for a sewer connection (on a 2/3 acre site with 230 feet of frontage) and a 6-unit townhouse building (on a 2/3 acre site with 230 feet of frontage) pays $528 per quarter(6 * $88.00) for sewer charges.
How about the number of younger and older residents that do not have children yet pay full school taxes? The density of these communist sways in favor the town in a very very significant manner.
So again, I ask why is there even a Kelly Bill? Why does the town not want to pay for snow plowing, road and sewer repairs etc.
Why are we even debating about the township not providing equal services to townhouse owners? It appears that the town benefits significantly from these developments.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 29, 2007 9:01 PM
"Such an issue should be indicated within sales contracts, condo association publications etc., before a purchase occurs."
Read your perspectus and get back to us. Either the information was in there, or you were defrauded.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 29, 2007 9:35 PM
I do not think this discussion should be taking place - the residents in the condo communities should receive the same services from the town as other homeowners throughout the township. If you think about it from a mathematical perspective, the residents of condo communities should actually receive more services.
I could be wrong, however, I believe that the smallest parcel a single family home may be constructed upon in the township (without a variance) is 2/3 of an acre.
Within the Changebridge at Montville development, you generally have between 4 and 6 units per building. In the benefit of the township's argument, lets assume that 4 of the 6 units are 30 feet wide and 2 of the 6 are 25 feet wide; each end-unit will have 30 feet of side-yard space. This equals approximately 230 feet of frontage (170 feet for the units and 60 feet for end-cap yard space).
Also consider that each unit has about 30 feet of front and backyard space, with each unit having a depth of approximately 45 feet without a garage and 60 feet with a garage. This equates to a total depth of approximately 120 feet. Therefore, 230 feet of frontage times 120 feet of depth equals a total site size of 27,600 square feet (almost 2/3 of an acre).
Conservatively assuming that each unit can sell on the open market for $500k-600k (and has an approximately tax liability of $7000 for 2-beds, $8000 for 3-beds and $8500 for end units), the annual tax liability of all 6 units equates to $47000-$50000.
Where else in Montville can you fit six taxable households and generating nearly $50,000 in taxes with the frontage of a single-family house on a 2/3 acre site? When the homeowners do not even own the front and back yards!
And the town does not want to pay for snow plowing, road and sewer repairs etc.!
The argument gets even more ridiculous when you consider that a single-family house pays $88 per quarter for a sewer connection (on a 2/3 acre site with 230 feet of frontage) and a 6-unit townhouse building (on a 2/3 acre site with 230 feet of frontage) pays $528 per quarter(6 * $88.00) for sewer charges.
How about the number of younger and older residents that do not have children yet pay full school taxes? The density of these communist sways in favor the town in a very very significant manner.
So again, I ask why is there even a Kelly Bill? Why are we even debating about the township not providing equal services to townhouse owners? It appears that the town benefits significantly from these developments.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 29, 2007 10:09 PM
Many good points made on both sides of the issue. I will consider all of it, along with what the actual cost of those services are over the next 10 years (which I have asked for and is forthcoming). What I can say is that Dan was part of the TC 5 years ago that went beyond the Kelly Bill and provided Condo Owners with a much broader array of services. That makes it more troubling to remove any service at a later time. Maybe it was provided under a legitimate perspective of the "fairness principle", which may be the prevailing position of this TC. BUT...what I ask citizens on both sides of the issue to consider is this - WHERE WAS THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION 5 YEARS AGO? Albeit a sometiems fiery discussion, isn't it better to get all perspectives out and have an informed public? Art, Steve, Deb & I (and Tim Braden, too) as Republicans are committed to full, open and fair discussion of issues!
PS - I believe Jean would also state that, but can not speak for her as I have not discussed this particular view with her.
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
September 29, 2007 10:32 PM
Fact #1: Snow/ice fighting, street cleaning, street lighting, fire hydrant maintenance, sanitary and storm sewer maintenance, and solid waste collection/disposal are considered municipal services under the Kelly Bill and must be provided equally to all Township residents. Fact #2: In 2005, The Town assumed responsibility for pothole patching, street repaving, and traffic sign maintenance for roadways considered main thoroughfares only. Parking areas, recreational, and storage areas are not covered. Two of eight Associations have also been provided with street sign maintenance and curb maintenance under their separate 2005 agreements with the town. Under their agreements, the remaining six assumed responsibility for curb repair and street sign maintenance, and have different stipulations as to when the Town need become involved for road maintenance. Fact #3: The Kelly Bill a/k/a Municipal Services Act is not going anywhere. It is a law. Fact #4: The reimbursable services agreements negotiated under the Kelly bill between the Township and each Association are the only things expiring. Fact #6: Township engineers are in the process of inspecting each condo development's infrastructure. Fact #8: Contrary to popular opinion expressed by many bloggers on this site, It has nothing to do with developer concessions, discounted purchase prices, specualtion, dirty politics or hypotheticals. It has to do with the possibility of the TC flip-flopping on road maintenance and re-negotiating the rate at which the Town will reimburse qualified private communities for the municipal services these private communities provide, in lieu of the Town, to their owners through Association maintenance fees. Now that the facts have been presented (to all Anon posters, these are public records) can we please stop the ugliness and let the proper parties involved do their jobs?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 30, 2007 8:40 AM
Jim - I agree that it is good to have discussion/debate/information about issues. You question why this type of dialogue did not occur 5 years ago -- the only reason that is is occurring today is because a PRIVATE CITIZEN created this blog. Why doesn't the town provide this type of forum on the website- they can and it would not cost anything!!!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 30, 2007 2:44 PM
"So again, I ask why is there even a Kelly Bill? Why are we even debating about the township not providing equal services to townhouse owners? It appears that the town benefits significantly from these developments."
Why? It's simple. Developers bought this land, and wanted to maximize there profit (as they have every right to). The trouble was, the town didn't have this land zoned for the density of a townhome community. Such density taps the town for more road repairs (on the existing streets), bigger schools, etc. What to do? Well, the town and the developers reached an agreement that in exchange for the variances required to build these communities, the residents would be required to provide certain services normally provided by the town. This allowed the town to allocate larger percentages of the tax revenues from the condo communities toward the other areas that would be overburdened by having a high-density residential neighborhood that was not anticipated by town planners. The Kelly Bill was enacted when legistors concluded that the developers did not have the right to sign away certain services for their buyers. Indeed, it actually meant that the town got a bad deal, in that it was being told that it could not enforce part of the agreement that they'd made.
Towns don't want to pay for additional services because they quite possibly wouldn't have allowed these condos to be built had they known what they'd be forced to pay for.
By the way, the poster of the question above grossly underestimated the assets owned by the condo owners. What about the streets, the parking lots, the clubhouse, the facilities buildings, the pool, the tennis courts, the guard house that could be used to exclude non-residents?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 30, 2007 8:48 PM
Fact: Juxtaposing the word "fact" with a statement, does not actually turn the statement into a fact. Please support your assertions with some kind of citations. Perhaps Mr. Soussa will host those documents like he has hosted meeting minutes, recordings, etc.
I'm particularly interested in knowing what leads you to the conclusions for facts 1, 2, and 8. Also, why were facts 5 and 7 redacted from your post?
It is interesting to note that fact 2 is in dispute with what the mayor has said about this subject (i.e., the definition of what roads are covered).
Posted by
Anonymous
on
September 30, 2007 9:17 PM
I believe that we should focus on forward thinking rather than what was done in the past. We should not be discussing the developers profit, who wanted what votes for political purposes 10 years ago, or whether or not the Kelly Bill was a component of a purchase/sale contract.
What we should be discussing here is ... if these citizens are paying their fair share of taxes, what can be done to ratify permanent documentation that makes the property and people treated the same as any other single-family residence in the community? What can be done to guarantee that this debate does not ever have to occur again in the future? And how can we do it?
Answer these three questions and then implement a course of action that treats all property owners as equals.
Why must this be like a bad history lesson where some people are counted as full citizens and others are subject to the "3/5's Compromise of 1787".
Posted by
An anon poster of several comments
on
September 30, 2007 9:17 PM
If we want to take the discussion further ...
Would the TC be open people living within the Condo Communities paying NO TAXES at all to the Township (meanwhile the significant number of 2-person households would continue paying their school tax) and letting each community be in charge of funding their own services (road, sewer, trash, etc.)?
Maybe all of the PUD communities within the township should get together and establish their own type of UNION where we call certain shots?
Considering the overall population, density, and tax revenue within each community, I think we have a chance of making our voices heard in an effective manner.
Think of how effective other unions have been ... electrical, teaching, etc.
How receptive would the Township and other community leaders be for this type of motion?
Posted by
Equal treatment for equal tax payment!
on
September 30, 2007 9:24 PM
All documents cited were made available to the Board of Directors of each condo Association. If you belong to an Association, these documents can be made available under the Sunshine Law to you by contacting your respective management company. You can also research the Kelly Bill online.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 1, 2007 7:13 AM
Anonymous on September 30, 2007
I will be happy to host any documents related to this issue. Just email them to me.
Increasingly we are either shifting the cost of providing services back to indivdual taxpayers in the form of fees or denying services to people who ought to be entitled to them. For the first time we have parents paying for busing for children and you can see from this blog that some feel that Condo and Townhouse residents should keep keep paying for the public improvements within the residential complex but clearly public roadways and not on their private area. When I walk door to door I frequently hear people say that they don't have any children so why should they pay taxes for schools or for recreational facilities that as a township we ought to be proud of. We are losing a sense of community. Not every property tax payer will make use of every service the township has but every service has an effect on the overall value of the community. All of this is fostered by unrealistic promises of lowering taxes for the sake of political power. Property taxes will be lowered when and if the the State Legislature takes the burden of the cost of education off the backs of property tax payers alone until then the leadership of the Community should not try to divide the Community by encouraging people to take sides on some of these issues.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
October 1, 2007 6:01 PM
AND THEREIN LIES THE DIFFERENCE FOLKS! Dan sees an open, public discussion as encouraging people to take sides...therefore, there was no such discussion 5 years ago! I believe all citizens have a voice in their government and that discussion, and even debate, is a good thing. And I believe that philosophy will get forthright politicans more votes than it loses. And Dan, who promised to lower taxes? Show us where a local Republican stated they were going to lower taxes. Save yourself some time -- you can't! And someone did some homework, but misinterpreted - from the 9/30 8:40 a.m. post - the Kelly Bill does NOT cover fire hydrants; sanitary nor storm sewer maintenance; and, only the electricity for street lights. The confusion may be due to the wording in the condo agreements - "Municipal Services that we set forth in the 'Kelly Bill' and otherwise provided..." Those services are 'otherwise provided' as the agreement went beyond the Kelly Bill with those services as well as the correct noting of pothole patching, street repaving and traffic sign maintenance in 2005. Hope this clears up some facts.
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
October 1, 2007 9:43 PM
PS - walked some condo's in town yesterday and had a nice conversation with a gentleman who believed that the bigger issue will be the actual reimbursement rates from the Township to the Condo's for those services that the Township doesn't supply directly. Just some more info to ponder...
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
October 1, 2007 9:47 PM
I really do not understand why we are discussing developers, profits, Clubhouse etc. The club house and parking areas are covered by the community maintenance charges.
We are discussing the roadways that cars travel on as well as the curbing, street signs, sidewalks, and sewers.
The funny thing about all who are arguing in favor of those in condo communities paying for their roadways, is that they have not responded to the mathematical breakdown example of the tax and sewer payments.
The residents within these communities PAY A SIGNFICANT amount of taxes and do not have that much roadway within each complex.
Furthermore, the roadways are not gated and are completely accessible to the public.
The density is an ASSET to the town. Less roadways and sewers cost much less to maintain. Meanwhile, each townhome pays the tax equivalent of an average $500k-700k single family house on a 2/3 acre parcel (as noted in the example above, single-family homes in the PUD communities were excluded ... as they sell in the 800-900k range and have higher taxes).
If you all break down the math, there is no reason why the township should not be paying for the roadways (to drive on ... not hte parking areas), sewers, signs, curbs, and sidewalks. Condo owners pay a lot in taxes, and should receive the SAME SERVICES as other residents.
If you can understand real estate, finance, or basic mathematics, surely it makes sense for the town to provide equal services.
Posted by
look at the math example above
on
October 1, 2007 10:27 PM
As an aside, historically, the town would not have grown to be the desirable community it is, had the PUD developments not been constructed.
The confluence of all such factors including diversity of real estate product and pricing, density of developments providing excess tax revenues for services rendered, the establishments of communities and neighborhoods throughout a township, a strong source of children that MAKE this SCHOOL system great, and a strong source of households without children that pay school tax, and the list goes on.
My advise to the town is not to pinch pennies. Prospective property buyers will consider such costs, thereby reducing the prices willing to be paid, thereby reducing assessments, thereby reducing overall tax revenues, not to mention the potential slowing of property transfers within such high density developments ... the overall affect could really affect the town in a negative way.
Posted by
Condos pay for roads for no tax payments to the town
on
October 1, 2007 10:28 PM
To the poster of:
"Anonymous said...
"So again, I ask why is there even a Kelly Bill? Why are we even debating about the township not providing equal services to townhouse owners? It appears that the town benefits significantly from these developments."
Why? It's simple. Developers bought this land, and wanted to maximize there profit ...."
Based upon our statement, which bears nothing on the present, it is my opinion that you likely do not have any involvement professionally in real estate finance or appraisal, or loan underwriting, or crafting of real estate deals, or planning (from a real estate, development, or municipal perspective).
Quite frankly, it sounds like you typed something that you heard from someone else ... and don't really understand the mathematics and moving parts behind assessment, taxation, PUD developments, urban/suburban planning, etc.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 1, 2007 10:42 PM
For those who want to stay in the past ... talking about developers and profit and other nonsense ... you should probably stop visiting this blog.
Consider a cynic's perspective of a hypothetical to illustrate a point .
.. lets say the developer and certain members of the TC were conspiring to share profits and established a way for the developer to make a healthy sum in turn for a "fee split". Then the Kelly Bill comes around and makes things smooth before the bow breaks (like what is about to happen in the present).
If such an event happened, why should we be basing our decisions, opinions, future planning, and establishment of tax treatment on a crooked matter? Just because it was the way it was originally crafted?
If we, as a town or state or county, continually made decisions based upon past precident, then new precident would never be created ... no new solutions would ever come to pass ... no innovative ideas ... no forward thinking ... we would be stuck.
For those who continually harp on the developer's perspective, that is an event that occurred 20-years ago. Let it be.
On a silly note, if you do believe that what happend in the past should continue to be paid for in the future ... are you for, or against, repirations for slavery before and during the Civil War?
If you are for the past, then you should willfully pay up - and Condo/townhouse owners should be locked into the Kelly Bill's expiration. And all of the major real estate companies in the area should expect to be sued for not disclosing this matter (which would definately hurt the town's tax revenues).
if you are not for the past ... then you probably don't want to pay repirations - and then maybe you should be quiet about the developer who got some from the town - and not make current and prospective owners pay for something that happened 20 years ago.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 1, 2007 10:52 PM
To annon Oct 1, 10:52pm - If your accusation regarding kick backs from the developers is true, then take your "facts" to the authorities. With regard to following precident - clearly you are not familiar with our judicial system -- which is based on following precident!! And yes, it does allow us to move forward.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 2, 2007 8:39 AM
Dan Grant you are flat out lying again. Who said they would lower taxes?
I'm not sure why people are suddenly equating the deals that were initially made with the condos as shady or illegal. They were done in full view, with everyone benefiting (the town, the residents, and the developers). All of this information should be available in the perspectuses that everyone is required to get prior to purchasing a unit. Is anyone saying that they didn't get a perspectus?
While the deal may have been entered into initially when each community was built, it is still a deal between two existing entities: the town and the condo association. The condo owners need to understand that many of the rest of us are asking why the condo associations should be let out of their end of the deal. It is not a matter of our saying that something was done in the past and therefore should continue, but rather that something was agreed to in the past, both parties received benefits in exchange for their agreement, and now one party is proposing terminating the agreement.
In response to the math example given above, you are not considering the full real estate represented by your share of the condo. Remember, you own far more than your unit. You own the parking lots, the roads, the pool, etc. That's a lot more land than you've included in your calculations.
And on one off-topic note: Yes, we pay too much in taxes. Money is wasted all over the place, and our politicians should not aim to keep taxes level - they should be aiming to lower them. It can be done - especially here.
Robert, I really hate to disagree but the driving force behind Jade, Hunting Hills, LongView, Chase and even Rachel Gardens was another Court decision in the Mt Laural Case which required them all to provide a 20 percent affordable componant. Other deals made between the Township and the builders took a back seat to the requirements of Mt Laural, so many of the conditions included in the approval process by planning boards were thrown out by the Courts and eventually led to the Kelly Bill being passed. Montville Township was one of the towns sued by developers, they decided to settle and that is all history now but I do think it is relevant to the ability of Associations who had no choice but to accept the agreements made by developers who were never going to live here anyway. I also think the individual homeowner, being the one actually paying the taxes has a legitimate grievence, in getting equal services on public infrastructure so we have a differance of opinion on it. I will say that in all the time I have lived in this Township (all my life) I have never seen the kind of poisonous attitute I see now. The author of this website and his previous site are part of the poison and he is supported by members of the "Party in Power" beause they want to look like good guys. The fact is that aside from denying people a service that I believe they are entitled to there will be no savings reflected in anyone's tax bill. When we took children off of school buses and made their parents pay you saw no savings in your tax bill but others saw an increase in their expences. This senario will be repeated over and over again and I don't like any of it. The property tax crisis in New Jersey will not be solved from the 18 percent of the tax dollar that municpalities take.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
October 2, 2007 2:09 PM
Then why are you running for local office instead of a state office? Dan, why are you running for an office to tell us what you CAN'T do? Maybe you should run for the BoE instead, after all busing is their responsibility, not the TC's. It's time to tell the people what you can do about the 18% of Muni taxes that you would influence. Stop pointing the finger elsewhere - it's about being accountable for what you do control, not whining about what you don't! Truth is in your last 3 year term Muni taxes went up 36%. That equates to 6.5% (18% x 36%) on a resident's total tax bill. I'm sure our Seniors and all taxpayers would have liked those $$ in their pocket. Trenton didn't spend that money out of our budget, you did! WHINING IS NOT WINNING & POINTING A FINGER IS NOT PUBLIC SERVICE!
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
October 2, 2007 9:29 PM
In response to Robert Lefkowitz, who said ...
" In response to the math example given above, you are not considering the full real estate represented by your share of the condo. Remember, you own far more than your unit. You own the parking lots, the roads, the pool, etc. That's a lot more land than you've included in your calculations."
We own only the land under the actual townhouse unit (this, as noted previously, excludes single-family homes). Read up buddy. Being informed will make you look less stupid.
Posted by
In response to Robert Lefkowitz ...
on
October 2, 2007 11:17 PM
Is Jim Sandham running for public office this year? Why is he the only republican who is addressing issues here? When will Mayor Daughtry and Tim Braden voice their opinion. The only thing that we know about Braden is that he was against our voting for our mayor. For that matter, where does Dan's running mate stand on any issues?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 2, 2007 11:20 PM
To the poster of,
"Anonymous said... To annon Oct 1, 10:52pm - If your accusation regarding kick backs from the developers is true, then take your "facts" to the authorities. With regard to following precident - clearly you are not familiar with our judicial system -- which is based on following precident!! And yes, it does allow us to move forward."
You obviously lacked in the critical reading portion of your high school english/lit course(s). I proposed a hypothetical scenario, as indicated by the word "hypothetical" utilized in the posting.
The scenario was developed to illustrate a point you obliviot. The point to stop dwelling on the developers who are gone ... and to focus on how valuble these lowly condo communities to Montville Township as a whole.
Furthermore, I am very familiar with the judicial system. I had a difficult time deciding whether to go to law school or to go into the real estate profession. Any movement forward is based upon changing a precident. However, each real estate deal does not create a new "law". Just becuase the devleoper struck a very beneficial deal, does not mean that people should have to pay for the TC short-sight and the developer's luck.
Furthermore, how can you even consider property owners within these townhouse communities receive less services than any one else? Townhouses pay 7-9k and single fams w/in the communities pay between 15-20k in annual tax.
It's funny that my points/questions are yet to receive a successful rebut - that also assumes that the rebut is factual and correct (emphasis on both elements).
The stupidity in this forum is astounding. It's like debating with middle-schoolers.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 2, 2007 11:28 PM
annon Oct 2, 11:17pm -- If you are a condo owner I guess you never read your perspectus. If you are not a condo owner, then you do not understand what a condo association is. The condo association owns all of the land - the front yards, back yards, streets, driveways, parking spaces, land that the tennis court, club house and/pool sit on. You as the condo owner own a percentage of the condo association's assets (all the land above mentioned). Therefore you own that land. No different than someone who owns stock in Microsoft -- they are owners (albiet a very small percentage) of Microsoft. You should get educated before you post.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 3, 2007 10:04 AM
Hmmm.... Where to start?
Dan - Mt. Laurel doesn't impact this discussion. You say that "Other deals made between the Township and the builders took a back seat to the requirements of Mt Laural, so many of the conditions included in the approval process by planning boards were thrown out by the Courts and eventually led to the Kelly Bill being passed." One wouldn't have anything to do with the other. Mt. Laurel required compromises on the part of the builder. The builder also struck deals with the town. The fact that some of those deals were thrown out by the courts shows that the town didn't get as good a deal as they'd thought they were getting. It should also reinforce that the components left intact by the Kelly bill were fair.
You said that the current owners "had no choice but to accept the agreements made by developers". That is not correct. They purchased their condo with full knowledge of the pre-existing conditions. Nobody here has said - and I've asked - that they did not get a prospectus and or that their prospectus did not include this information. When I moved into town, I looked at a house that had an oil tank burried in the backyard. It was a pre-existing condition that I elected to avoid. The condo owners could have done the same thing. They chose not to.
to the author calling himself "In response to Robert Lefkowitz" - As a condo owner, you don't own any land. You own the unit that you live in, and a percentage of the condo association's assets. That is why you can't put a swingset in your backyard - it's not your yard. You - as a collective - do own the parking lots, pool, clubhouse, all of the land, etc. If you think that you only own the small area that you claim, then who owns the rest?
To Anonymous who posted on October 2, 2007 at 11:28 PM - I think that your humor will be lost on most of the people here. Allow me to explain. You see, anon goes ahead and criticises another poster for lacking english skills, but then goes on to invent words like 'obliviot'. He follows by forgetting to use a verb in the next sentence. I suppose that it was an attempt at irony, but I think that it was too subtle to be recognized. On the other hand, expecting that everyone would know that his hypothetical goes from one paragraph to the next is poor grammar at its highest. Hey, you threw down the gauntlet about use of english.
Continuing, did you really say that you know a lot about the law because you thought about becoming a lawyer? You really should have stuck around for the contracts course, so that you'd know that the contract is enforceable even though the builder is out of the picture. Take some responsibility for your actions: if you don't like the deal that you signed on to, then say that you made a bad deal. Admit it, and move on. I can't blame you for wanting to correct your oversight, but don't blame this on crooked deals that you say you knew nothing about. Empower yourself and take responsibility.
Finally, if you want to cite facts, then do it the right way. Go ahead an provide them to the webmaster. He has said that he'd host them. They're not facts just because you shout them over and over.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 3, 2007 3:34 PM
All we know about Dan's running mate is that he lost 2 out of 2 elections and wore a black armband supporitng the high school prinicpal who disconnected the fire alarms.
Ask anyone who had him for a teacher. He's a real jerk.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 3, 2007 4:30 PM
dans running mate stands where dan tells him to stand.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 3, 2007 5:22 PM
First, give credit to private citizens, including all 4 local candidates, that put their butt on the line running for public office. Thick skin required. It is time away from family that should be appreciated. That said, Dan & Mike lost convincingly in 2005 as their message did not resonate with the voters. And history repeats itself! Also, Mike lost in the 2006 Dem primary to Jean. Interesting editorial in today's Daily Record from the outgoing Mayor of Hopatcong about deals made in private. No further editorial comment from me...draw your own conclusions :-)
Posted by
JIm Sandham
on
October 3, 2007 10:17 PM
Dan, I feel all dirty after reading your posts. Something about how you're always angling (usually weakly veiled) in each post for voters.
Maybe if you just stood up and stated your positions, without lying and posturing, someone in this town might vote for you out of sympathy.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 4, 2007 4:57 PM
LOL, Jim I quess you haven't been around long enough to know but I lost my first 4 attempts at local election before I won for the first time and then won four more terms. I once lost an election by 25 votes and came back the next year led the other three with 5400 votes. You're not suggesting that losing an election disqualifies one from ever seeking election in the future are you? Sounds a little undemocratic to me. You have to remember that Republicans outnumber Democrats in Montville Township by 4-1 so we don't start from the same place. I can also think of three or four Presidents and a host of state and local people who have lost then went on to serve other terms and other positions. After all losing an election isn't like winning and then leaving before your term is up. Ask your guru Pat what Jim Carville said about any election. You can't put you name on the line without risking ignominious (sic) defeat but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
October 4, 2007 5:09 PM
Dan, After losing six elections you should be able to take a hint.
The voters really don't like you.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 4, 2007 6:01 PM
Come on Ron, I have a better record then many of the sports teams and if you include primaries I'm doing ok. Besides every election stands on it's own. Maybe you missed the part about losing 4, winning 2, losing 1, winning 3. Don't I at least get an A for effort?
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
October 4, 2007 6:24 PM
Dan - I gave all 4 local people credit for running. My point was that your politics hasn't changed from the last time you lost, so I don't expect a different outcome in 2007. As to your cheap shot about me winning the BoE election & then stepping down -- I don't think I need to apologize for getting a promotion at work which required a lot of travel outside the U.S., continuing on the BoE for 6 months (missing only 1 meeting) & doing my job but realizing 2 things: the toll it took on my family (as when I was home I was spending a lot of time on BoE matters instead of my children) and that maybe someone who didn't travel could dedicate more time for the students. I thinkit was a good decision and the right one! You are amazing, though. You spin these ideological platitudes to voters about you caring about people and families yet you take cheap shots when someone tries to do the right thing! That's why I think your recent history of losing will repeat in 2007 - you keep making the same mistakes and the voters see through your antics. But one question I have for you: When are you going to move aside to let some of the fresh talent in the Dem Party take a shot a running for TC? I think voters would look forward to new, open debate of the issues rather than your old perspectives. Sorry to the readers of this site to be getting off the Condo discussion. Maybe we should post a topic - are the Montville Dems ready for new voices the way the Republicans and the rest of Montville was in 2004 & 2005? Hmmmm...
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
October 4, 2007 9:25 PM
Jim, I will wait for the voters to make that determination on me. As far as "letting new blood take over" we are wide open and Democrats can enter a primary. None expressed an interest so here I am. It is interesting the your quest for new leadership threw out a team (and I include myself as well as Republicans)that brought Montville Township the many improvements that it has and the new leadership has never identified which of those improvements you would have eliminated. The Ranking of 13th of the top 100 communities may not be all that meaningful but I would rather see the Township there then not. You guys push "Hot Button" issues and make the same mistakes you have accused previous Township Committee's of making. Your budgets have taken $1.2 million from the water rate payers to achieve your "Tax reductions" (100 percent of Condo owners pay for water as well as many single family homes which was the same "mistake" other Township Committees have made according to Art. So some of the issues are the same old issues because the same old leadership remains in place even if the faces change. The same tactics remain and that alone is cause for running no matter what happens.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
October 5, 2007 12:43 PM
Dan, results are what matter and the voters have already graded you and Mike with an F. Your "Taxes Are Just Right" slogan was a lead balloon.
And as I've said many times before, a trained seal could have built those public improvements like your "team" did - with no regard for their cost. Those projects went millions of dollars over budget, with absolutely no accountability.
You have no right to take credit for those buildings if you won't take the blame for their outrageous cost.
I am happy to follow the outstanding example of the Mt. Olive blog (62 questions to a candidate in just 2 days!) to provide each of the 4 candidates for Township Committee a chance to respond to resident's questions.
Art Daughtry, Tim Braden, Dan Grant, and Mike O'Brien are invited to submit their introductions (to Editor@OurMontville.com) which will be their introductory statement. See Scott Ireland's example.
Ron, elections are won or lost, not graded and it is an insult to anyone who has sought public office to put it in the those terms. There are any number of people in town who have lost elections and your attacks on me are personal as is your law suit against myself and Marie Cetrulo. The last time the Republicans gave me an F on a report card, I think voters reacted to the lack of decency and I won that election. I served for 15 years and you say it was all bad and the voters were just stupid. What ever the outcome I have faith that most voters are just trying to elect the person they feel will address their concerns and win or lose I will always feel that way.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
October 6, 2007 11:22 AM
Dan, it seems that you like lawsuits since you start so many of them.
You filed a complaint with the NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission. They fined you.
You admitted under oath that you made false statements that you knew at the time were false.
You sued me for statements that were completely true and your complaint was dismissed.
You even sued your neighbors at the Changebridge condos and lost.
You forgot that Grant also sued Montville Township about town hall and lost that one too.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 20, 2007 4:05 PM
A large number of condo residents do not have children. Perhaps we should pass a resolution they do not have to contribute to School Taxes. That should even things out!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 20, 2007 4:22 PM
If the town were to pass a resolution that condo owners that don't have children don't have to pay school taxes, then you would need to amend it to include all citizens that do not have children. If not, then the town would find itself in a lawsuit that they would lose.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 21, 2007 1:22 PM
Hi Everyone
I was hoping to provide some specific information regarding the Kelly Bill and some tentative agreements that might be voted on at this Tuesday’s TC meeting. I honestly do not know how close we are until after our closed session meeting. During open session there will definitely be some discussion and a slim chance we may vote on the agreements. Negotiations will probably continue through Monday so the best I can advise is come to the meeting if you wish and hear first hand. It is just as safe to get the info from your respective coalition members. I will do my best to get you on your way promptly. Of course you are welcome to stay and listen to the other township business.
I will definitely update all on this web site when it is appropriate.
There has been so much learned and after the agreements are signed there is still much more to do from both sides to eliminate this process from the 500 plus municipalities. I have used the term “whisper factor” to describe some of the most simple of facts learned from this process. More on that after the TC has approved the agreements, whenever that may be.
I will be stating this Tuesday night however you folks truly need to take the lead and form a County Coalition and share information. Much of this could have been avoided, or at the least better understood, if you communicated with your neighbors.
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
October 21, 2007 10:20 PM
We all pay for the schools whether we have children or not. That's what America is about. If you don't like it, leave!
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 21, 2007 10:28 PM
Hi Everyone
I was hoping to provide some specific information regarding the Kelly Bill and some tentative agreements that might be voted on at this Tuesday’s TC meeting. I honestly do not know how close we are until after our closed session meeting. During open session there will definitely be some discussion and a slim chance we may vote on the agreements. Negotiations will probably continue through Monday so the best I can advise is come to the meeting if you wish and hear first hand. It is just as safe to get the info from your respective coalition members. I will do my best to get you on your way promptly. Of course you are welcome to stay and listen to the other township business.
I will definitely update all on this web site when it is appropriate.
There has been so much learned and after the agreements are signed there is still much more to do from both sides to eliminate this process from the 500 plus municipalities. I have used the term “whisper factor” to describe some of the most simple of facts learned from this process. More on that after the TC has approved the agreements whenever that may be.
I will be stating this Tuesday night however you folks truly need to take the lead and form County Coalition and share information. Much of this could have been avoided or at the least better understood if you communicated with your neighbors.
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
October 21, 2007 11:26 PM
HOW INTERESTING THAT ALL THE "ANONYMOUS" POSTINGS ARE SO PARTISAN. ARE THOSE POSTERS AFRAID TO HAVE THIER NAMES KNOWN? hIDING BEHIND THE "ANONYMOUS" SIGNATURE REALLY IS COWARDICE!
Posted by
Joe Nadler
on
October 30, 2007 1:42 PM
And typing in all CAPITALS is really annoying.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
October 30, 2007 3:44 PM
New Kelly bill agreements were approved by the Township Committee and signed by 7 of the 8 communities on Thursday evening, Nov. 1. The new agreements include road maintenance for a 25-year term. The local coalition is also working with other towns to form a County Coalition. I am reaching out to a county freeholder who served as an officer with the NJ League of municipalities. The league can collect data from each community. The goal being Montville Township, along with the County coalition can stakeholder a state legislator to submit a new bill, or revised Kelly bill, which would permanently address road maintenance.
I’d like to thank everyone for being patient and the professionalism demonstrated by the coalition.
Regards, Art Daughtry
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
November 2, 2007 8:31 AM
Art -
Can you please disclose the reimbursement rate that was agreed to between the township and the communities for snow plowing? Was the rate that the township administer had calculated used, or was the condo-calculated rate used? Will the rate change over the 5/25 year period?
Art, why would all that be needed when a municipality could simply accept the public roadways and improvements in the same manner that they do any other developement? Did The Township Attorney have an opinion on doing it that way? No sarcasm, no politics meant. I am just asking a question.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
November 2, 2007 2:58 PM
Why were there different rates in discussion? What were they?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 3, 2007 11:32 AM
why did only 7 of the 8 associations sign on. which one did not and why?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 4, 2007 9:33 AM
There were different rates being discussed because the Kelly Bill requires that towns either plow the snow in townhouse communities or pay the communities a rate equivalent to what it would cost the towns if they were doing the plowing. In the past, the town had 'guesstimated' the internal cost of plowing, and then each time the contract was renewed, they increased it based on inflation. Following that standard, the rate that was requested by the townhouse communities this year was $3,000. However, the new township administrator actually calculated our internal cost, and determined that it was only $1,600. This was right in line with other local towns.
If you ask me, we should not be paying for the service to be provided, but expanding the town's snow plowing capacity to deal with the additional requirements of the townhouse communities. That way, instead of the town paying money out to contractors, we could be improving our own equipment, and all Montville residents could share the same service levels.
You are correct that the base rate was about $1600. There is also case law from up by Vernon Valley that a difficulty factor can and should be used to figure reimbursements for snow plowing. After review by our administrator and our public works director it was concluded our costs were roughly $2000 and I believe that is per lane mile. No one wanted to penalize the citizens for the past over payments so it was agreed to freeze the payment at the current $3000 figure.
Annon 11/4 The only association that has not signed is the Meadows, which is located behind town hall. The sticking point is the definition of a road vs. a parking area. Also their president and negotiator is in Florida at the moment. Also the citizens of that association and their representatives need to discuss parking area maintenance issues, which have nothing to do with the township. I’m concerned the association has no plan for any parking area maintenance, which could put the citizens at risk to an un-planned added assessment in the future.
Annon 11/3 the three rates for snow removal were the current rate of $3000, the rate that the township could do it at $2000, and the flat standard rate of $1600. As stated above the TC kept the rate at $3000 so it would not put an added burden on the townhouse/condo owners.
Robert, the Township was ready to take it over however we would probably have made a bigger mess of the snow in these complexes because these citizens would still be paying a private contractor for sidewalk and driveway snow removal. Can you imagine a Township truck doing the traditional one pass up and down a street pushing snow onto their sidewalks and driveways after they were just cleaned by their contractor? It simply made no sense and would cause much pain to both the township and those citizens. While the Township is overpaying at this time it appears to be the fair thing to do. Over time they will catch up to the correct rate and no increases will be forthcoming until they reach the $3000 number
You might want to ask former elected officials why no one did any homework regarding payment calculations and definition and delineation of parking areas vs. roads. Unfortunately there is even more of these issues being discovered but it serves no purpose to add fuel to this fire. The most important part of all of this is that we, the Township Committee, are documenting all of this and sharing the info with the coalition so we can all collectively address the issue at the state level and end this local political madness.
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
November 4, 2007 11:28 PM
You've overpaid in the past, and now you consider it to be a penalty to pay the right amount? I bet you don't run your business that way.
What does it mean that we're freezing the rate at $3,000. If this is a 5-year contract, then our internal rate would need to go up by more than 10% per year in order for the freeze to go away. That's never going to happen.
You've run on a ticket of fiscal responsiblitily. This seems to be the opposite. What else would you call overpaying for something?
Regarding the 25 year assumption of road repairs, can you see any circumstance where this would ever revert back to the townhome communities' responsibility? You've basically told them to stop saving up for their road repairs for the next 25 years. "In order to be fair", won't future TC's be saddled with the burden of funding these repairs - even if Trenton reaffirms that this is not the responsibility of the municipality? This sounds like just the kind of thing you'd accuse your opponent and the 'old regime' of doing.
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 5, 2007 8:48 AM
What changed between the last township meeting and the 'special' meeting that was held to vote for these contracts? There was a flyer going around the townhouse communities that encouraged residents to vote Art out of office for not approving this contract. Is the only reason that the meeting was held on an emergent basis that it needed to be voted on before the election?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 5, 2007 12:33 PM
Why I am voting for Art and Tim and why you should too:
Art and Tim have the integrity to handle the tough issues. They learn all the facts BEFORE they arrive at an opinion. Art handled the Kelly bill in this fashion. Instead of just sprouting the popular rhetoric right away, he took the time to carefully weigh all of the factors involved with the issue. I have watched Art at township committee meetings all year, where he has struggled mightily and carefully to balance the cost of taxpayer's expense versus the value of the services provided. This is the FIRST year that a priority list of funding for projects has been established. Thus, instead of 50 different projects being funded at 30% a piece, with not one having any hope for completion but our property taxes going up over 11% nonetheless, this Township committee has managed to keep tax increases below 5%, pay down debt and finish some priority projects.
I have known Tim socially for a long time. He grew up in this town and has seen its government in various forms. He's learned from the good and the bad. He too is a man of great integrity who will weigh all of the evidence before coming to a decision, not one who will just promise you what you want to hear and then not carry through. He and I have disagreed on topics in the past but he has always had a rational and thoughful reason for his position.
Don't get me wrong, Dan Grant seems like a nice enough man, and his past volunteerism to this town cannot be questioned. However, it is evident that Dan is not a rational thinker. His posts on this blog are full of personal attacks and unsubstantiated "facts." In fact, the mailer I received from his campaign today contains not one reference source for the various "facts" set forth therein. Its easy to attack the people who are working hard and making tough choices but if you are going to do so, at least set forth the sources to back up your points. Dan Grant's and Mike O'Brian's mailer claims (again unsubstantiated) that "at the time Montville had the highest debt we also had the highest property values and became the number on[sic] rated Town in the state." Well, here is a news flash, property values in Morris county are still high, despite lower values nationwide (Star Ledger November 4, 2007) and Montville was ranked the 13th best place in the COUNTRY to live (Money Magazine August 2007) and the highest rated town in the tri-state area. This township committee is obviously striking the right balance and Art and Tim will continue to make the tough but right choices.
Posted by
Maritza Byrne
on
November 5, 2007 7:45 PM
On Nov 4th Art Daughtry stated: "Robert, the Township was ready to take it over however we would probably have made a bigger mess of the snow in these complexes because these citizens would still be paying a private contractor for sidewalk and driveway snow removal. Can you imagine a Township truck doing the traditional one pass up and down a street pushing snow onto their sidewalks and driveways after they were just cleaned by their contractor? It simply made no sense and would cause much pain to both the township and those citizens." How is this any different than when I spend hours shoveling my driveway and then the township plows come by and push all the snow back onto my driveway and I (an individual with a shovel) need to go back out and shovel again?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 5, 2007 9:18 PM
Anon 11/5
It is very different. The condo associations have the ability to pay one contractor for road, parking areas and sidewalk snow removal. Since they have complete control they would not create double work for themselves.
We, the private homeowners, are not in control of what happens first so we get plowed back in if we pay a plowing contractor to do our driveway before the final pass is completed by our road dept.
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
November 6, 2007 10:05 AM
Hi Maritza
Thanks so much for your kind words and support. However I think it is even more important that the public knows of your efforts and the other member’s efforts regarding the Open Space Committee.
Maritza is the chairwomen of this committee that researches properties in Montville Twp. And recommends the highest ranked pieces to the Township Committee for preservation. Once the Township Committee agrees with the recommendations this Committee then works with Township staff to attempt to secure as much grant money as possible from the County and State.
I am pleased to tell my fellow citizens that Maritza and her team were advised on Wednesday that both pieces of property the Township wanted to protect this year were approved for grant funds by the county. These grants are VERY competitive and Montville came out on top with both of our submissions.
Great job Maritza and fellow Committee members.
Regards, Art
Posted by
Art Daughtry
on
November 8, 2007 1:04 PM
I am not one to relive elections. I congratulate Art and Tim. I am more than satisfied with the time and energy I put into my 15 years on the committee. People can vote for anyone they want to, for whatever reason they want. That is the nature of elections, however facts are facts, even if you choose not to believe them. Maritza, we had a 7 percent tax increase this year after the Committee took $700,000 (Two Tax Points) from the Water rate payers not "less then 5 percent")
You are of course entitled to believe that Montville Township became so highly rated because of the past two years but most believe that the previous 15 years of improvement in facilities while still maintaining a high Bond Rating had much more to do with it but call me irrational.
Tim never lived under various forms of government, infact Montville has had the same form of government for my lifetime and substantially longer than that. This form allows 3 out of 5 people to decide who the Mayor of 22,000 residents is going to be. I think that is wrong and I believe the voters did too.
It all boils down to differences in policy and while that is fine and everyone has an opinion you can't have your own set of facts. I also don't know to what your are referring when you accuse me of "personal attacks" maybe you could sight an example or two.
Posted by
Dan Grant
on
November 9, 2007 12:14 PM
Dan, If we had your chosen form of government (a directly elected mayor), please tell me how the township government would be more responsive to ME? Would it lower my taxes? Would I get better services? Would the town's infrastructure be maintained better? In other words, what's your point?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 9, 2007 5:47 PM
The condo associations have the ability to pay one contractor to perform a coordinated effort removing their snow. There is value in the added convenience of not having the private contractor's work subverted by the town's clearing efforts. There is also value in that the condo associations are able to negotiate with a contractor for a larger swath of land (leading to lower charges). I would have hoped that these benefits were calculated into the price that was compensated to the condos.
A directly elected mayor would result in a more responsive government in several ways. First, a directly elected strong mayor (my choice) would be responsible for proposing a budget. This makes one elected indidual responsible for the budget rather than a hired administrator. Second, by choosing one of the Faulkner act forms of Government, we would be doing away with a form of government that largely distinguishes itself by the fact that it makes it virtually impossible for the people to take advantage of initiative and referendum. Those two powers are the forefront of a responsive government. They ensure that if our leaders don't respond to our requests, we can pursue them ourselves. You would be hard-pressed to do that Montville under our charter.
Dan - you are right, the election is over. But facts are facts, so let's get them right!
1. Why did you insist on trying to split our community by pitting Condo Owners against Homeowners? Only for your political gain! Unfortunately it forced what should have been a true, deliberate negotiation into an accelerated process with political under tones!
2. Why didn't you tell people in your ad and your post above that the last 3 years you were on the TC your group moved over $5 million from water/sewer? $1.2 million over the last 2 years is much closer to what a true allocation of expenses would be and we are moving to that model, but we are still trying to kick the habit your group got the Township budget addicted to!
Finally, to give you some financial guidance – debt didn't come down just because we made payments – equivalent sized payments were made during your Reign of Spending! The difference is this TC set capital spending limits and stuck to them – spending only $2 million in 2 years (2006&2007) although requests submitted totaled over $8 million. That’s the true difference between debt doubling in your tenure and being reduced by 10% in the last 2 years!
All your spin goes for naught – as a wise man once said, in the end the truth prevailed!
I know you did some good things in your 15 years, but certainly will not miss your rhetoric now that you are 'retiring'.
I do wish you good health and good luck in your next endeavor.
Jim
Posted by
Jim Sandham
on
November 10, 2007 12:38 AM
Robert, Our current form of gov't provides for initiative and referendum. What's your gripe?
Posted by
Anonymous
on
November 11, 2007 9:02 PM
Do we really have initiative and referendum? Let's say that you're sitting at a Township Committee meeting and you witness passage of an ordinance that you're dead against. The state recommended forms of municipal government would require that you put together a petition with signatures of 650 registered voters in order to force the Township Committee to recondsider (and if they didn't change their decision, the question would go to the voters). To be safe, you'd probably want to collect 10% extra signatures, totaling 715.
In Montville, under our charter, you would need 3,417 signatures. The additional 10% would bring the total to 3,759 signatures from registered voters. If that wasn't onerous enough, you could only enlist 4 people to assist you in collecting signatures, and you would have only 30 days to do it in.
To put things into perspective, we had approximately 4,250 people vote in the recent election. That was 4,250 people who were willing to cast an anonymous vote. In this case, you'd need practically 90% of that number of voters - and they'd need to be willing to put their names down publicly as being against the Township Committee.
I stand by my statement that the current charter makes it virtually impossible for the people to take advantage of initiative and referendum.
You are absolutely right Robert and that is why over the years I tried to get changes in our form of government. The present form enacted by a special act of the Legislature doesn't really allow the people to have a voice in many of the important issues of the day.
