ARCHIVES
 




 		  
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Sunset for the "Kelly Bill"?
Posted by Ron Soussa at 12:08 PM
 
11/5 - See Daily Record.

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.


141 Comments    |    Post a comment
Home
 


 
141 Comments:

Those residents pay taxes too! Why shouldn't that get what all other tax payers get?
Posted by Anonymous 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 Anonymous 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 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 Anonymous 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 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 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 Anonymous 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 Blogger 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 Anonymous 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 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 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.
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on September 14, 2007 11:30 PM
 
 
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 Anonymous on September 15, 2007 9:29 PM
 
 
Did she even disclose that she lived in one of them? How shameful.
Posted by Anonymous 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 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 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 Blogger 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.
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on September 16, 2007 11:58 PM
 
 
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 Blogger 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 Anonymous 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 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 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 Anonymous 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 Blogger 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 Anonymous 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 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 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.
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on September 21, 2007 10:32 AM
 
 
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 Anonymous 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 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 Anonymous 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 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 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 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 Anonymous 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Anonymous 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 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.
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on September 23, 2007 10:16 PM
 
 
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 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 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.
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on September 24, 2007 9:40 AM
 
 
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 Anonymous 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 Anonymous 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 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 Anonymous on September 24, 2007 6:44 PM
 
 
kiss
equal tax rates!!
equal services!!
Posted by Anonymous 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?
Posted by Blogger Robert Lefkowitz on September 24, 2007 10:51 PM
 
 
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 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 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 Anonymous 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 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 Anonymous 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 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 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 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 Anonymous 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