| Author |
Message |
    
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3405
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 12:17 pm: | 
|
Sure sounds like a great time to increase the Municipal Budget by another 1% for a Tony Smith Sculpture!  |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
|
A couple of years ago we were told we had a fiscal crisis when it appeared the municpal budget might increase by 20%. This was a worst case scenario, and intially the BOT said something had to be done. As things turned out, the worst case scenario didn't develop, and things went back to business as usual.
Now it seems that we really have a fiscal crisis.
Some of it is unavoidable. But how many times have a small number of us asked have you ever heard Bill C. say we can't afford something.
Once again, a lot of taxpayers who are now paying 12,000 - 15,000 in taxes, and will be paying in the middle to upper 20's might wake-up. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2594
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 12:43 pm: |
|
There is going to be a discussion about the budget when it is introduced. The CBAC did go into some of the specifics when they read their statement.
Specific budget questions can be emailed to Jgross@southorange.org
At this point, I am waiting for some information myself and not ready to go into a back and forth in this format. I think we have had 4 budget meetings so far (three of them were in open session the full time).
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
In previous years, the Village President has always introduced the budget with the caution that the budget as introduced is artificially high so as to increase our chances of receiving extraordinary aid from the state.
This year it doesn't seem as if it's necessary to inflate the numbers. Can the budget be introduced with the real numbers this year so that the taxpayers can intelligently analyze and discuss the budget? Thank you. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2402
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 2:01 pm: |
|
I really never understood that - "the budget as introduced is artificially high so as to increase our chances of receiving extraordinary aid from the state." Isn't that fraud? And isn't committing fraud in full view of the public not just illegal, but a bit stupid as well? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2596
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Rastro: Technically, it is not artificially hight. It is more like a worst case scenario before it is fine tuned and adjusted.
Besides, the whole system is stupid. I mean really, does anyone believe that W. Orange received $500,000 last year (actually I think the last two years) for any reason other than Dick Codey lives in W. Orange?
Whatever extraordinary aid is given out is purely political and not based on need.
What we need to do is get Corzine to take up residence in S. Orange - maybe one of the realtors can show him one a new homes in the quarry? Or perhaps he would like a fixer-upper like the Old Stone house? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 2:13 pm: |
|
With respect to j. dranove's remarks at 12:09 PM today, what specific accounting standards are municipalities in NJ supposed to observe? How often are they audited?
Anyone? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2597
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 2:23 pm: |
|
The village is audited each year by an independent auditor. Having said that, I will point out the firm is hired by the village. Several years ago the policy was we would use one auditor for three years and then go out to bid again. Some of us felt we should switch firms even if the current firm came in with a lower bid.
The state also reviews every budget, but I can't say for sure how extensive a review is done.
I will have to find out which accounting methods are used. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 460
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 2:31 pm: |
|
As a follow up to Mark's comment on budget questions/issues they can be sent to the CBAC as well.
Since we have not been able to have the administration respond to some of our technology requests you can temporally send these to (levisonh@cs.com) |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Mark - It is always introduced with the cautionary note that it is not the final budget and the numbers are higher in order to better our chances of receiving aid.
I do agree with your statement that the aid give out is political and not based on need. The municipalities that do not apply for aid present their budgets with real numbers, giving the public an opportunity to know what numbers are acually being talked about.
To repeat, this year the budget should be presented as best as it can be determined at the time. At least we will know what we are talking about.
I think it's really silly that each year, the budget is presented and then any discussions by the public are held off because the Village President says it really doesn't make sense to discuss the budget since we haven't heard from the state yet.
Then, usually in August, when we have received notice from the state, there is a BOT meeting adopting the budget, without any further discussion.
I do realize that anyone can talk about the budget during the public portion of the meeting, but we're back to the fact that without real numbers it's difficult to do so.
I doubt if John Gross handled the budget in this manner in Neptune. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2599
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Spitz: Agreed |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1459
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Thanks. |
Old and Gray
Citizen
Username: Pastmyprime
Post Number: 321
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 3:06 pm: |
|
I think this is a bit late but as for Village buying "green" cars...Are not most of the Village's Non Emergency vehicles hand me down police cars? Why not continue the practice of recylcing these cars for use.
Besides the Administrator's Truck(which was discussed months ago is provided because he is Emergency Mangement Director), The Parking Authority Vehicles...what other departments could use a hybrid?
The police, Fire Department, The DPW obviously need specific types of vehicles. The parking authority should continue to use small 4-wheel drive vehicles because they do work in inclement weather, and the animal control officer needs a vehicle that can hold a dog crate.
The only department I think could use a hybrid is the code enforcement officers, but why should we buy new cars for them, when they are doing just fine with the out of service police cars?
Going Green is good, but costly, but it seems it isn't beneficial unless your trying to get a 30 second spot on News 12.
Instead of buying cars, how about giving employees who do not need a Village Car milage reimbursement for use of a personal vehicle? |
Politicalmon
Citizen
Username: Politicalmon
Post Number: 101
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 5:30 pm: |
|
I firmly believe an independent Citizens group made up of taxpayers with accounting backgrounds from our community should hire the budget auditor. Having the Village hire the auditor make me question the auditors true independence. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1484
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 3:33 pm: |
|
When will the budget be presented? |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 10:29 pm: |
|
Current issue of Consumer Reports compares 5 year operating costs of hybrids vs comparable all gas vehicles --
the Accord hybrid costs $10,250 MORE to operate (service, insure, buy, etc). over 5 years
the Prius costs $5250 MORE than a comparble Corolla
and FYI a Highlander hybrid, $13,000 MORE than the gas version.
but I suppose if we're already paying for a Tony Smith, then maybe a Prius is cheap in comparison... ;-)
/p |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2502
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 6, 2006 - 11:20 pm: |
|
pete,
what caused this increased cost? Higher maintenance? |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 9:03 am: |
|
rastro - don't have the issue here at work -- but considering that their calculations include the federal tax credit (which i don't think the village would qualify for) -- the scenario would be even worse. as i recall costs were higher all across the board -- acquisition, depreciation, insurance, service, etc. -- pete |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2509
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Interesting that insurance would be higher. I'll have to scam my parents' copy of CR. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 490
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Post from another thread:
The Tony Smith sculpture is not an isolated situation. Reported in last weeks NewsRecord “Old Stone House gets $500,000 for repairs” is just another example of understanding priorities and impact to our taxes.
Not that these are worthy projects, it is how our government makes what seems to be decisions as though it has deep pockets – at the same time there is a run away budget and high probability of two digit tax increases.
We have promises from well-meaning groups representing that they can raise funds to cover these debts.
The CBAC made a reasonable recommendation about these projects:
The CBAC recommends that the Board of Trustees take immediate action to stop the further deterioration of the Old Stone House by immediate non-historic prophylactic repair.
The CBAC recommends that a discussion of capital priorities be initiated before proceeding with stabilizing the Old Stone House. A decision about stabilization and further development should be made according to the project’s place among these priorities. Consideration of proposed uses for the Old Stone House requires greater project and financial detail.
In our opinion, various infrastructure needs throughout the Township have a greater immediate claim to funding than the Old Stone House, whether from bonding or the Open Space Trust Fund. Some current high-priority projects would include a new roof and air conditioning for the New Library; a new roof for the Old Library; extensive external repairs and a new or repaired roof for City Hall; and a new or repaired roof for the Baird Center.
Therefore, before proceeding with the stabilization project, a discussion of Village-wide priorities and assignment of funding sources should be initiated. A decision then can be made based on these criteria, which should include greater project and financial detail for multiple proposed uses for the Old Stone House.
Some specific items that need to be addressed include the following:
1. Defining Police Department use requirements;
2. Defining Historical Society projected use of the facility;
3. Defining the scope of the proposed stabilization
4. Projected other sources of fund to include but not be limited to Grants (naming specifically which and how much; and Fundraising (projected amount over what period and who will implement;
5. Projected costs of both PD alternatives as it relates to No. 1 above requirement; and
6. Projected cost of current maintenance required at the PD that would be included in the second story addition alternative.
Did the BOT follow through with this recommendation? I have doubts given the statement from the NewsRecord article, “I think we’re going to find some use for that building, no matter what, Calabrese said. He estimated it will cost more than $1 million.”
Current commitments for the Old Stone House are from the Open Space Trust Fund: $108k (tax dollars), Historical Society Trust Fund: $155k, and Bond Issue: $240k (tax dollars). The stabilization does not provide historic relevance (roof material, boarded windows etc) but rather future repairs if funded will provide that.
Now, lets take a quick look at the SOPAC impact. A bond issue for construction estimated to be between $10-14 million – to be paid back starting 2013 over a 30 year period for over $600k/year. In addition, the Village has budgeted a contribution to operating expenses at $350-500/yr. Currently $230k/yr CDBG and $176k Cinema lease has been identified as funding sources.
What we need is a little “sunshine” on these projects as well as understanding the other priorities the Village faces to the deteriorating infrastructure. As Trustee Rosen stated “It’s really a crime what’s taken place.”
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 491
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Post from another thread:
The Tony Smith sculpture is not an isolated situation. Reported in last weeks NewsRecord “Old Stone House gets $500,000 for repairs” is just another example of understanding priorities and impact to our taxes.
Not that these are worthy projects, it is how our government makes what seems to be decisions as though it has deep pockets – at the same time there is a run away budget and high probability of two digit tax increases.
We have promises from well-meaning groups representing that they can raise funds to cover these debts.
The CBAC made a reasonable recommendation about these projects:
The CBAC recommends that the Board of Trustees take immediate action to stop the further deterioration of the Old Stone House by immediate non-historic prophylactic repair.
The CBAC recommends that a discussion of capital priorities be initiated before proceeding with stabilizing the Old Stone House. A decision about stabilization and further development should be made according to the project’s place among these priorities. Consideration of proposed uses for the Old Stone House requires greater project and financial detail.
In our opinion, various infrastructure needs throughout the Township have a greater immediate claim to funding than the Old Stone House, whether from bonding or the Open Space Trust Fund. Some current high-priority projects would include a new roof and air conditioning for the New Library; a new roof for the Old Library; extensive external repairs and a new or repaired roof for City Hall; and a new or repaired roof for the Baird Center.
Therefore, before proceeding with the stabilization project, a discussion of Village-wide priorities and assignment of funding sources should be initiated. A decision then can be made based on these criteria, which should include greater project and financial detail for multiple proposed uses for the Old Stone House.
Some specific items that need to be addressed include the following:
1. Defining Police Department use requirements;
2. Defining Historical Society projected use of the facility;
3. Defining the scope of the proposed stabilization
4. Projected other sources of fund to include but not be limited to Grants (naming specifically which and how much; and Fundraising (projected amount over what period and who will implement;
5. Projected costs of both PD alternatives as it relates to No. 1 above requirement; and
6. Projected cost of current maintenance required at the PD that would be included in the second story addition alternative.
Did the BOT follow through with this recommendation? I have doubts given the statement from the NewsRecord article, “I think we’re going to find some use for that building, no matter what, Calabrese said. He estimated it will cost more than $1 million.”
Current commitments for the Old Stone House are from the Open Space Trust Fund: $108k (tax dollars), Historical Society Trust Fund: $155k, and Bond Issue: $240k (tax dollars). The stabilization does not provide historic relevance (roof material, boarded windows etc) but rather future repairs if funded will provide that.
Now, lets take a quick look at the SOPAC impact. A bond issue for construction estimated to be between $10-14 million – to be paid back starting 2013 over a 30 year period for over $600k/year. In addition, the Village has budgeted a contribution to operating expenses at $350-500k/yr. Currently $230k/yr CDBG and $176k Cinema lease has been identified as funding sources.
What we need is a little “sunshine” on these projects as well as understanding the other priorities the Village faces to the deteriorating infrastructure. As Trustee Rosen stated “It’s really a crime what’s taken place.”
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page