August 10, 2011 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • Page 7 Mahwah Bergen County board sets township’s tax rate by Frank J. McMahon The Bergen County Board of Taxation has established the Township of Mahwah’s tax rate for the 2011 fiscal year. The borough’s property tax bills will be based on that new rate. The borough’s total tax rate for 2011 is now $1.58 per $100 of assessed valuation. That total tax rate is comprised of a Bergen County tax rate of 22.5 cents, the Bergen County Open Space tax rate of three tenths of a cent, the borough’s school district’s tax rate of 96.1 cents, a library tax of 3.9 cents, and the municipal tax rate of 34.2 cents. The new total tax rate of $1.58 will result in a $7,421 property tax for the homeowner whose property has the borough’s average assessed value of $469,678. That property tax is $187 less than last year, but some property owners may experience a property tax increase depending on the reassessed values of their homes. Last year’s total tax rate of $2.124 and last year’s average assessed value of $358,229, which was set prior to the recent revaluation of the township, resulted in a property tax of $7,608 for the owner of a home with the average assessed value. A homeowner’s property tax obligation is determined by multiplying the property’s assessed value in hundreds of dollars by the tax rate. In April, a split Mahwah Township Council voted 52 to adopt a $34,727,326 budget for 2011. That budget represented a $134,030 increase over the township’s 2010 budget, but resulted in a decrease in the township’s municipal tax rate by 11.2 cents from last year’s tax rate of 49.3 cents, which included the library tax. The tax rate decrease was due to the revaluation, which increased the average assessed value of a home in the township from $358,229 to $469,678. Mahwah Business Administrator Brian Campion told the council at that time that the budget includes an addi- tional $175,000 from surplus to cover the expected cost of the new contracts that were approved by the council for the township’s Policemen’s Benevolent Association and the township’s white and blue collar unions. That prompted two members of the council, John Spiech and Harry Williams, to vote against the transfer of money from surplus to cover the cost of the new union contracts and the adoption of the budget. Spiech explained his vote, saying he was opposed to using additional surplus money to cover the cost of the new union contracts and he is concerned that the township may not be able to replace that surplus next year because he doesn’t know what the economy will be like next year. Williams explained his vote, saying the council conceded too much in settling the union contracts. He objected to the use of surplus to cover the increased cost of those contract agreements instead of using it for tax relief.