| Author |
Message |
    
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 413
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 5:01 pm: | 
|
At last night's BOT meeting Taylor raised the issue that SO has a lack of sufficient indoor recreation space. And there was some discussion about the possibility of building something...possibly on some land SO owns in Maplewood, which Maplewood uses for parking and other things but for which SO receives no revenue or use. There was discussion of a collaborative effort to build a "Y", somewhere in town, and so on.
If I've got this right, this raises some issues in my mind:
1. How is is that SO owns land in Maplewood which Maplewood uses but from which SO receives no revenue. And if there is parking available there, why can't SO commuters use it?
2. How can the town possibly consider another capital project when it can't even finance the ones it has?
3. Why does the town feel the need to provide indoor recreation space? What specific programs are they looking to provide, and who has determined the need over and above what the schools already provide? How would it be staffed? What are anticipated costs and maintenance, etc.?
4. Where is the overall vision for the town and what would NOT be done in order to provide indoor recreation space? You just can't be adding to the pile of projects.
In my way of thinking, no one...not a BOT member, not the Village President, not any committee, not any resident...can propose any more spending without at least suggesting where the money would come from.
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1444
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 5:40 pm: |
|
I've been wondering whether the revaluation is going to influence people's thinking about some of these proposals. Granted a lot of houses will see their assessments go down in relation to other houses. There are also a lot of houses that are going to see their relative assessments go up, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these residents object to major new expenses.
On the other hand, people in South Orange seem willing to pay up without asking questions, so there might not be a change of sentiment.
Just keep it mind, its not the revaluation that's the problem. It's the taxes. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 451
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 7:01 am: |
|
Again we see a random proposal that is not in sync with an unknown "Vision".
As the Millennium project shows there will be significant increase in density which is a driver for Recreation and Open Space. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 518
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
Spitz, do you really think it is fair to say that people in S. Orange don't mind just paying up without asking questions?
Unless they read this message board, or attend/watch on TV the BOT meetings ( ) how can they KNOW about the way the township spends?
It seems to me that most projects are well underway and difficult to stop once they are responsibly reported to the tax payers. (like the Tony Smith thing that will cost us 1/4 million dollars!)
IMO, any major expense for expensive "extras" like an indoor recreation facility or outdoor art work, should be put on a ballot and well explained in the sorry excuse for a local paper in advance of the next election!
I wonder when desperately needed infrastructure expenses - written about at length on past threads - will be up for discussion at a BOT meeting? Like the sad state of the historic Town Hall, or the Stone House and on and on.
BOT, please learn to prioritize like responsible grown-ups!
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1445
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:24 am: |
|
Let's see: We have Village Hall, the Library, the Old Stone House, the Firehouse and I'm sure there are a few other things on the "to do" list. Then the proposal for a recreation center comes out of a recreation committee report by Art Taylor. The V.P. tells Art to study the alternatives. No problem, we'll just grant more PILOTs to pay for it.
Of course, they would like us to forget that most of the additional pilot money from the projects that should have been completed by now (Beifus, New Market) will be going to subsidize SOPAC, which was supposed to be self-sustaining. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:37 am: |
|
Pdg - I didn't see your post until after I posted above. I see that you share some of my concerns.
My comment about people in SO just paying up, and not complaining, is part of what I call the "South Orange gene." I'm serious - the feeling in Village Hall is that the residents in SO are willing to pay for the "high degree of services" they receive. I have heard this phrase used in Village Hall.
p.s. - I think that the CBAC (Howard or Harold) might be able to confirm this. I heard this rationale used by John Gross at a CBAC meeting I happened to attend called Municipal Finance 101 a couple of years ago when it appeared we had a budget crisis.
|
michael brant
Citizen
Username: Mbrant
Post Number: 114
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
WHY NOT BETTER UTILIZE THE FACILITIES IN THE SCHOOLS!
I HAVE NOT SEEN MANY OF THE MEETINGS BUT I BELIEVE I HAVE SEEN ENOUGHT TO FORM AN OPINION. ART TAYLOR SEEMS TO BRING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THE TABLE. WHEN IS HIS TERM UP? |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
I've said this before, but Baird Community Center used to be a center for Village youth. It was systematically converted for use by senior citizens (a good thing) and Cultural Affairs. If the SOPAC is to be the new center of S.O. Cultural Affairs, perhaps B.C.C. should be returned to a youth center. Maybe over time an expansion could be planned that would include an indoor field house such as Seton Hall has- smaller but similar in concept. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 414
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 7:15 pm: |
|
The Recreation Dept needs to work in sync with all the other departments in the town, and as Mr Devaris stated in the last BOT meeting, it is up to the BOT to put it all together and prioritize. This system where a BOT member (in this case Taylor) reports on a Rec committee idea and then Calabrese sends him off to work further on it, is frankly, absurd. Each committee looks at their own "wish list", and then pushes it along. This is a waste of effort and resources and ultimately, money. Wasn't it the Recreation folks who pushed through the Tony Smith sculpture? And were behind the River Project? And jumped on SOPAC too, I think? Don't these people pay taxes?
Its up to the BOT to put a stop to these nice-to-haves. Put together a sensible budget, a priority list, timelines, maintenance costs, etc. Start acting like professionals. It takes more than "let's get a barn" thinking to run a town. |
Matt Foley
Citizen
Username: Mattfoley
Post Number: 563
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 7:46 pm: |
|
jayjay- I beleive the land in question is the expanse at the entrance of Chyzowich Field. It is currently (under)utilized as a parking area for the BOE. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1378
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 8:01 pm: |
|
M. Brant...please quit yelling.
Do you actually know the extent to which the schools are used? My sense is that it is pretty significant (and, in fact, the school district is concerned about their costs for non-school activities!)
Even in my family's limited experience, we've seen lots of use of schools for non-school activities. We hold Brownies at the elementary school. I've taken night school classes at SOMS. My babysitter takes night school classes at Columbia High School. My daughter has been part of the indoor winter soccer program Sundays at SOMS.
Not to say that we don't need more facities, but I don't have the sense that the schools have a lot of excees facilities to offer. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1449
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Recreation is one of the areas which is being looked at to share services with Maplewood. It seems that an indoor recreation center is something that might be exactly the type of facility that should be considered to share with Maplewood, if one is to be built. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 416
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 10:23 pm: |
|
Spitz- Shared services is a catch phrase that the BOT's uses to make us think they are really serious about lowering taxes by exploring what we could do with Maplewood. They have taken the Health Department and Recreation Department as their first steps. If they were really serious, why not look at everything from the top down, starting with administration and combining of the two towns? In any event, sharing services should not be a vehicle for doing more things to cost us more money, IMO. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Precisely. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2393
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 10:01 am: |
|
I disagree with the way the administration does most things, and I do agree that looking at all operations as an opportunity for consolidation should be done. However these kinds of things are typically very complex, and starting with a smaller project (such as recreation) might be a good pilot program. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2591
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 10:09 am: |
|
Jayjay, Spitz: The shared services reports are being prepared by outside consultants. Depending on the size of the department and some other factors determine the cost of the studies. Most of this expense can be covered by grants but it is a timely process. Certain departments lend themselves to an easier (quicker) analysis. Certain issues that apply to the study of one department will also apply to other departments, so in some sense we are actually discussing more than just health and recreation.
The largest potential savings would probably come from public safety but obviously is also the one with the most potential obstacles.
Sometimes it might turn out sharing services is good for one town, but not the other. The goal is to save money or improve services without an increase in cost for both towns.
Right now over 75% of our tax bill goes to education and the county. That means the average taxpayer is paying almost $3,000 / year to the municpal portion of the tax bill. Best case scenarios of shared services (or full consolidation) show a long term savings of 10% on that portion of the tax bill. So clearly we need to be careful how much we spend on a study of shared services, otherwise we could spend more than we might potentially save.
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 10:14 am: |
|
That was my point Rastro. Recreation is one area that has been discussed. Yet when the subject was mentioned, although the Y in Maplewood was mentioned, and even though the property mentioned that we own is in Maplewood, the possibility of sharing the facility with Maplewood wasn't mentioned. It seems that this is a natural if SO is serious about sharing services, starting with recreation. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2592
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
Spitz, Rastro: Maplewood knows about our interest and the idea of a joint partnership with them will be on the table.
By the way, both towns have to be serious about sharing services, not just S. Orange.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page