This is the latest installment in a series of stories about the Montclair budget, by the Concerned Citizens of Montclair.
At the Town Council meeting last Tuesday night, Marc Dashield gave us the “good news.” The municipal budget would contribute only a 4.3% increase to property taxes. Combined with a 1.4% decrease in the BOE budget and a 2.5% increase in the county budget, he said that the overall increase in property taxes would be 1.3%.
But if you get out your calculator, the numbers don’t work…….
The BOE budget is the largest portion of the total tax bill at 58% so….. 58% x -1.4% = -0.812%
The Municipal budget is next at 25% of the total tax bill so…….. 25% x 4.3% = 1.075%
Then, the County budget is 17% of the total tax bill so…… 17% x 2.5% = 0.425%
If you add these percentages up, you get Total 0.688 = 0.69%
So,why does Marc say our overall tax increase is 1.3%?
Well, if one uses 7.0% for the municipal budget increase (this was the original increase spoken of by the Town Manager and Town Council), you DO get 1.3% as the overall tax increase! So lets do the calculation again using a 7.0% increase in the Municipal budget:
BOE 58% x -1.4% = -0.812%
Municipal 25% x 7.0% = 1.75%
County 17% x 3.5% = 0.425%
Total = 1.36%
So which one is it? Is the municipal budget going up 7% or 4.3%? Have there really been any reductions in municipal expenses or not?
We emailed all members of the Town Council to ask for clarification on this issue. While we did receive a response from Cary Africk, we’re still waiting for an answer to our question.
This news is really upsetting. I’m really feeling sick. Maybe I should do like some of our “wonderful” leaders and bury my head in the sand and hope it all goes away. Or better yet, I’ll just go for a bike ride.
Good catch CCM. Either issue, being it a lack of facility with basic budgetary mathematics, or basic dishonesty are fundamental reasons for turning out these incompetents and bringing in adult supervision. It appears as though they have grown quite accustomed to operating in an environment of voter laxity, and the misplaced trust of their constituents.
Very disturbing…The Council is already smoking too much of that marijuana.
I have been working for over a day to get the numbers to “add up.” In this process I have been working with the Town Manager, who is also the Temporary CFO.
It’s not that difficult. Or at least it shouldn’t be.
For some, it’s a matter of philosophy: Do you want to trust people to get the numbers right, or do you want to see what goes into the numbers?
Years ago the BOE inadvertently used the WRONG Net Valuation Taxable and this caused us to see a lower increase than we actually had in the Tax RATE.
Sort of like cooking: I want to watch the stew being made.
I’ll have it for you, readers, as soon as possible.
Thanks Cary, but we’re not making sausage here, we’re doing simple budget math. When cooking the results don’t have to be exact, unlike math. People who can’t competently work with numbers simply shouldn’t be working with them. If it’s not lack of facility with the numbers that resulted in the budget being incorrectly reported, now that is a worse problem. In business people get fired for making mistakes like this. In either case, neither incompetence nor dishonesty should be tolerated. Do you have an argument to the contrary?
Oakey, doakey! Here you go:
For 2011
Total Tax Levy
( Municipal/County//Schools) $183,301,047.00
NET TAXABLE VALUE $7,181,141,428.00
TAX RATE 2.553
The Total Tax Levy is how much we spend — schools, county, municipality, etc.
The Net Taxable value is how much everything is worth in the town (all the assessments added up).
The Tax Rate is one divided by the other.
For 2010 the tax rate was 2.519
So, if you calculate the percent increase from 2010 to 2011 you get (2.553-2.519)/2.519
which is a 1.35% increase!
Now the total amount YOU pay is the Tax Rate times YOUR assessment!
Cary Africk
dead,
I’m in agreement with you.
Mind you, this is just the simplest aspect of the budget process.
And in the Municipality people get sloppy with their language, confusing Levy with Rate, etc. And the Net Taxable Value does move around until the County finalizes it.
If you want to see someone with great facility with numbers, look at Dana Sullivan’s Budget Presentations for the BOE. CLEAR numbers, CLEAR explanations. And, most important, during the budget process she shows the movement of the numbers each time they change.
This is unbelievable, but not surprising. Why should Montclair citizens believe ANYTHING this council says or trust the department heads in this town — it is obvious something nefarious is going on. It is high time the lid was lifted wide open on what you people are doing with all this money you are collecting from the town! I guarantee if you got an independant auditor in they would fine kick backs, under the table stuff, bid rigging, nepatism, obsolete jobs, corruption. Don’t take cops off the street, fire the higher ups making $100 grand and over AND collecting full benefits on our dime — doing NOTHING!
It’s despicable, but I am really starting to believe this MUST be going on. Take a drive down Upper Mountain and South Mountain — that stretch of homes, I would LOVE to hear a tally of how much taxes this town collects annually from those homes alone!!! WHERE IS THIS MONEY GOING?? Reckoning day is coming, I pray.
Cary,
If BOE budget is about $110MM & Town is about $70MM, then how do you figure the County is only $3MM?
Here’s the Mayor’s explanation:
Mayor Jerry Fried said he doesn’t understand the confusion.
He explained that the current budget has a total tax impact on homeowners of 1.3%.
“Their taxes would go up 1.3%,” he said. “If their taxes were $10,000 last year, they would be $10,130 this year.
“Maybe the reason why CCM is confused is because they don’t understand the effect of tax appeals,” he said. “If your taxes were $10,000 last year and tax appeals shrunk the value of all town properties by, say, 5%, your taxes would have to go up by 5% to $10,500 just to make up for the tax appeals.”
Fried emphasized that the municipal portion of the budget represents about 26 percent of your tax bill. The school budget represents about 58 percent of your bill. The share of your taxes that goes to Essex County is about 16 percent.
“It’s crucial to remember that we must credit taxpayers who have successfully appealed their taxes … over 2 million dollars in ‘spending’ in 2011 and that 58 percent of that ‘spending’ is, in fact, school tax,” Fried said earlier this month. “So, our municipal tax increase is going to be mostly paying back school and other taxes previously collected. It isn’t simple to explain.
“Also, I think it’s important to look at the policy decisions that this council has made in 2010-11 with our new township manager” such as significantly downsizing over 25 jobs in 2010 with more coming in 2011, he added.
Cary-
Yes, your calculation is another method of getting to a 1.3% overall tax increase. BUT, it still does not address our question. Will the Municipal budget increase by 4.3% as Marc Dashield indicated or will it increase by 7%.
Can you break out the 2011 Total Tax Levy of $183.3 million down to the BOE budget, the County budget and the Municipal budget and show the % increase or decrease from 2010? That would give us our answer.
More smoke and mirrors from the Township. The municipal budget is reaping all the benefits that the BOE budget created. They earmark cuts for the programs that actually have a direct impact on the taxpayers, such as libraries and parks maintenance, to hide increases and the status quo for the departments and people in other areas of our town government that should be the focus of cuts. WHY DOES MR. DASHIELD NOT WANT TO SHOW A LINE ITEM BUDGET? If anyone can get this answered, we would see how long and hard the taxpayers have been getting shafted by Town Hall!
Kevin, where are you getting this stuff from Fried? Patch?
Is Fried saying that the money to finance tax appeals makes up a fourth budget, in addition to country, town and schools?
This wouldn’t be so confusing if Mr. Dashield explained his numbers just like to BOE. The BOE in black and white told people how much ratables in town went down and what the net effect on the school tax rate would be. The school tax levy went down 3.6%, but due to the reductions in net valuation in town (due to tax appeals), the school tax rate only went down 1.5%. It doesn’t seem like it should be that difficult for Mr. Dashield to provide the same 2 sets of numbers – i.e. what is the percentage of the tax levy increase for the municipality and what is the percentage of the tax rate increase for the municipality.
These numbers should be broken down for School/Municipality and County. They’re not though because Jerry Fried wants to hide the number of his increase behind the cost cutting measures of the BOE. And because I suspect that the Municipality numbers are the largest of the 3.
Roo, yes on Patch. I have no idea of what the heck the Mayor is saying, other than it appears to be the fault of those who have successfully appealed their taxes?
http://montclair.patch.com/articles/the-township-budget-anyone-have-a-calculator
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Great catch CCM. Cary’s reply and Fried’s explanation do nothing to answer your question. They are riding on the backs of the BOE to take credit for the 1.3% increase. We should demand a zero increase.
We should not only demand a zero increase, we should tell the mayor to stop blaming the increases on people who successfully appeal their taxes. It’s not their fault!!!! A. They could have done a town wide revaluation two years ago. B. People have a legal right to appeal. If your house is worth 20% less than it was 3 years ago but your taxes have gone up 20% you’d be a fool not to appeal. Instead of saying “bad bad citizens”, how about just stepping up to the plate and saying you mucked up and you’re going to fix it and how. Infuriating.
First of all, I LOVE CCM! Great people, hard workers, just what we need! And I want to get them all the data they, and everyone else, deserves to have.
Hey, it took me a DAY to get what I gave everyone and, yes, I know we need more detail!
In the days when we had a CFO it was hard to get data. Now, with no CFO it’s all the more difficult.
I really think there’s a difference in philosophy that is being demonstrated. There are those saying “Look, we trust the Manager, the CFO, etc and we just let them do their job.” I say, “I trust the Manager, the CFO, etc. but I want to understand their process so as a Councilor I can make (or suggest) changes that will make things better.”
The BOE did a terrific job. Lots of residents with expertise, and a philosophy from the Board and Administation that had them all working together. Information was freely ACCESSIBLE.
Bottom line is yes, we need more data published. I’m working on it!
Oh, one other thing? Blaming the residents who appealed their assessments for the “trouble” we’re in? NOT!
If the assessments had been done properly, or we reassessed, we wouldn’t be in this pickle.
Cary
Getaclue,
Not sure if this is the information you might be requesting? I found this on the Montclair website.
http://www.montclairnjusa.org/dmdocuments/Introduced_Budget_2011.pdf
In reference to the above document, I noticed on page 9 that it details an “Analysis of Compensated Absence Liability” for 7,936 days and $3.18M. Before I jump to conclusions, does anyone know what this means?
There is also an Expenditure Detail listed here.
http://www.montclairnjusa.org/dmdocuments/2011_expenditure_details.pdf
Hope that helps!
Cary, how is it that you cannot get your hands on this data? It is obviously available to the Town Manager/CFO, if not, then how do the come to their financial conclusions? THE MUST EXIST, and in a format that can be discernible. If not, then SOMEBODY IS NOT DOING THERE JOB! Cary, you represnet the taxpayers, we pay the bills, I WANT AN ITEMIZED BILL! Not just, “take my word for it” or “it’s really hard to get you the data”. These answers are unacceptable. If Dashield cannot present the data, then he is either NOT doing his job, or, hiding something. Unless I see otherwise, I will mistrust everything our Government is telling me, including you.
Yes, CCM, nice catch. Deserves an explanation. Maybe Dashield can clear it up–Fried apparently doesn’t know the numbers.
One more thing Cary, your comment:
Blaming the residents who appealed their assessments for the “trouble” we’re in? NOT!
Maybe not you, but I saw Nick Lewis’ presentation a few weeks ago during the council meeting –HE CERTAINLY IS! Tap danced all around it trying not to SAY that, but what was the purpose of his ‘study?!’ It’s ridiculous, the problem is NOT tax appeals, it’s the continual increase in taxes — it’s a viscious cycle and unless you STOP the increases in our taxes, our property values will continue to drop, and people will continue to appeal their taxes!! We do not have a revenue problem people, we have a spending problem!!!
There is no omniscient ‘man behind the curtain’ in charge of this town’s finances — there are a bunch of bumbling fools who are either A) clueless to the corruption going on in town — B) on the take or C) choose to turn a blind eye. There can be no other logical conclusion.
Why don’t we put out an RFP for someone to run the whole ball of wax; provide police and fire protection, recreation and parks, trash and recycling, parking, water and sewer, everything.
Maybe Halliburton will bid.
Oh Boy! I think it is great that Cary responded but he still didn’t explain if the municipal budget is going up 4.3 or 7%. What is wrong with this town, why does everything budget related have to be so secretive?
Well there is a lot of budget detail available, but it isn’t always easy to parse it. For example, salary & wages for the township manager are $648k for 2011, down from previous years, but there is nothing in the same document to tell you how many people that covers. You can find out that we will be spending $98k this year on vehicles for the police department. You can see that the biggest departmental cost is for the police at about $12 Million, and that this line has INCREASED for 2011, but you can’t see how it compares to other towns of similar size. You can see that the 2d largest category of spending for the municipal budget is insurance, even though the general insurance market had been soft for years with premiums decreasing generally, but you can’t tell if the increase is related to the recent disaster in Japan or any other reasonable explanation. You can see that debt is a whopping $7 million, not including the school debt, I’m guessing slightly more than the impact of tax appeals, but I haven’t found where there is any consideration of reducing it or converting short to longer term. So there is a lot of data, but there is not a narrative to explain it, at least not that I’ve found.
Such good points raised in this post, we need the whole town to start asking and demanding answers….why should we let a chosen few ruin it for everyone else and basically have free reign with OUR money!
This is the type of questionable accounting I am talking about —
“For example, salary & wages for the township manager are $648k for 2011, down from previous years, but there is nothing in the same document to tell you how many people that covers.”
We need to benchmark against other comparable towns obviously. And why doesn’t the council answer the question of why the heck we have 65 municipal employees earning over $100!!!! Plus their benefits and their pensions for life which puts it way higher. This has to be exposed and ended.
Don’t fire patrol cops and firemen, get rid of the glut at the top. I wonder how many people are sitting at their desks, with obsolete jobs, collecting fat paychecks on our dime. Come on people of Montclair, we don’t have to take this anymore!!!
It will be interesting to see the impact of the MEA meeting with the BOE. Evidently the the Board has come back with a new proposal in response to the MEA suggested $131 fee per household to save the aides. Wonder what the new % increase will be now?
http://montclair.patch.com/articles/union-negotiations-come-to-head-next-week
I didn’t mean to suggest any criticism of the hard working core of the municipal services — police, fire, and sanitation workers. But if we are going to close pre-k and libraries, we have to look at all of the expenses.
Who do these people think they are — $131 a household to SAVE AIDES?? You have got to be kidding! They better not cave on this. Why don’t they just come and take 50% of our wages? I mean really, it will never be enough. We’re not entitled to keep any of our hard earned money! If it’s not communism, I don’t know what is.
@CME: I suspect that part of the reason that things have continued along this path is that most residents are just too busy working and managing households, and they have had no real reason to suspect such incompetence and inability by their elected officials to administer their duties and husband the taxpayers capital. That is why so many frauds can be perpetuated for as long as they are, just percolating under the radar until someone gets curious.
deadeye, I am so happy to think this pot may be percolating over! we’re all curious and want answers. go CCM – so glad you all are on this.
Here’s some numbers!
Municipal Tax Levy 2011 51,030,656.54
Municipal Tax Levy 2010 48,924,389.87
Difference 2,106,266.67
Pct Difference 4.3%
To paraphrase Marx (the comedian): “You want numbers? I have numbers! and if you don’t like those numbers I have other numbers!”
Coming to you live from zip code 07042 (not those snooty guys in 043):
It looks like the calculation of a “blended” 1.3% tax increase for 2011 may have assumed the County would be flat. No chance. With a 3% County increase the blended rate goes up to 1.8%.
@Cary – So what you are saying is that the tax LEVY will rise 4.3% (which is well above the 2% leaky cap enacted by the state).
Now if we factor in the levy increase with the decline in ratables due to appeals, are we back up to the 7%, municipal tax RATE increase that we were originally told to expect?
Take out the knife and start cutting then, Africk. Don’t cave, be strong, the town is relying on you to be an honest voice of fiscal reason on the council, are you up for the task?
It is absolutely fantastic what CCM is doing here. They have all the town administrators running scared and tripping over themselves. They are finally uncovering what most of us have thought to be true for a long time – the town is run by incompetents who do not think twice about reaching into our pockets to facilitate their excess and laziness.
I’ve been to several of their meetings and the level of intellect and integrity is extremely high. I’m very grateful to them.
Blend schmend. Let’s strap on some balls and see real numbers. This is getting beyond stupid.
Thanks for the numbers Cary. Seems like the details of how the 1.3% blended total tax rate was achieved are still hazy.
You are right Cary, this whole situation really is a “bizarre trip”.
Let’s pool our money and hire a forensic auditor, I don’t trust anything coming from the mayor, town manager or coucil. Thank god people are waking up and askng questions. We demand answers! As nigator said, the town is run by incompetents who do not think twice about reaching into our pockets to facilitate their excess and laziness.
Why would anyone strap on balls? That makes absolutely no sense.
I guess if you don’t come by them naturally? Or they’ve been removed?
CME – you need to attribute that quote to commonsense. While I may have thought that many a time, I don’t think I ever posted that!
The TAX LEVY is increasing 4.3%
The overall, i.e. blended rate no longer looks (to me) to be 1.3%. It’s more. But not a LOT more. 1.8% if the County goes up by 3% in their LEVY. County numbers have not been set yet.
Cary
Now Cary is not sure?
dazed,
The County has not set its levy yet. Thus, there are no firm numbers. Thus, I can’t be sure.
Roo, for those who have none it may be the only option.
Well, another year, another tax hike.
Where is a my tax appeal application form ?
Just found this on ProPublica. Site that grades states on their spending transparency. Here’s the link: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/03/22/state-spending-transparency-scorecard/