| Author | Message | |||
     Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 432 Registered: 1-2004  |
The following link is a copy of the CBAC's Capital Budget recommendations presented at the Jan. 9, 2006 BOT meeting. www.howard-levison.com/SOCBACFinal2006CapitalBudgetRecs.html The CBAC will present its Operating Budget recommendations at the next BOT meeting (Feb. 15, 2006). I will post a copy after the meeting. Note: Trustee Rosen respond to the CBAC’s Capital Budget recommendations as follows: 1) There will be an allocation of funds for the revaluation. It is anticipated that the Board will pass a special emergency ordinance some time in the spring, probably by March because the Board wants to send out for bids to commence the revaluation process, 2) The Atlantic Group update is, in fact, being held until the Board gets the results back from the Master Plan development and the Valley Street report which are anticipated by the summertime. 3) The issue of information technology will be addressed by the Public Information Committee and by the Board as a whole. 4) The Board urged the Village Administrator to continue the trend of putting as much information as possible in the Capital Budget. 5) The consensus of the Board will, probably through the Operating Budget, experiment this year with obtaining one hybrid vehicle to test out its effectineness. 6) A discussion of the Open Space Trust Fund will be held tonight. The Village will definitely be proceeding with the dredging project this year as it needs to be done. Most likely it will be handled as a Capital item with a five year expected lifetime. The only question is the funding source for the project. 7) The Board recommended to the Village Administrator that the River Greenway Project be listed in the Capital Budget even though the funding was at the moment coming from other sources. 8) The concept of “Friends of…” is an idea that has to be studied by various Committees. 9) It is certainly the intent of this Board to establish priorities and try to keep both the Capital Budget and the Operating Budget as responsible as possible. | |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1406 Registered: 3-2003 |
I just noticed that Howard said he would post the CBAC's comments on the Operating Budget after this evening's meeting. | |||
| Harold Colton-Max Citizen Username: Coltonmax Post Number: 47 Registered: 1-2004 |
Not to steal Howard's thunder, but these are this is the statement that I delivered earlier tonight on behalf of the CBAC: South Orange Citizens Budget Advisory Committee (CBAC) Statement Concerning the Village’s Preliminary 2006 Operating Budget Delivered to the South Orange Board of Trustees February 15, 2006 • The Village should provide a list by individual of all supervisory employees that detail all job titles held by that employee; • The Village should review the current Organization Charts and revise accordingly; • All of the Village’s Preliminary 2006 Operating Budget documents should include actuals in addition to budgeted numbers for previous years. • The Village should provide the CBAC with all documents in a timely fashion; • The Village should provide the CBAC with a special request list, redacting all confidential personnel matters; • The Board of Trustees should discuss renegotiation of developer agreements and financial agreements (including PILOTs) where the developer has not met targets - re: budget projections had assumed completion of projects and flow of tax revenue from these projects. • The Board of Trustees should consider retaining separate real estate transaction attorneys to represent the interests of the Village in all real estate transactions. • The Board of Trustees should determine whether the Township is entitled to receive greater value for properties sold or transferred to developers given delays in projects (i.e., the New Market project).. | |||
| Harold Colton-Max Citizen Username: Coltonmax Post Number: 48 Registered: 1-2004 |
The CBAC also delivered the following statement to the BOT earlier tonight concerning the Old Stone House. South Orange Citizens Budget Advisory Committee (CBAC) Statement Concerning the Old Stone House Delivered to the South Orange Board of Trustees February 15, 2006 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. The Old Stone House is a listed Historic Building that has been in disrepair since the Board of Education vacated it some fifteen years ago. The current state of the building requires a significant investment, first to stabilize it from collapsing, then to spend an unknown amount developing the structure into a usable public space. The final cost of stabilizing and developing the Old Stone House is estimated to be $2 million or more. Approximately $160,000 in grants exclusively designated for stabilization currently are pending. In addition, $80,000 for this purpose has been earmarked from our Open Space Trust Fund. Recent bids received for the stabilization phase project a cost of $500,000. Therefore, if stabilization is to proceed, there is an immediate need to raise an additional $260,000. These monies could be funded directly from the Open Space Trust Fund, or through the Capital Budget process (bonding). Stabilization would provide a facility that is externally historic and internally secure from further deterioration ¡V a base building. However, there is a small likelihood that the building cannot be stabilized or that the cost of stabilization will exceed the $500,000 estimate. The next phase after stabilization is to fit out the facility for an intended use. Three uses currently are being discussed: 1. Satisfy the expansion needs of the Police Department. Detailed requirements have not yet been determined, but the scope of the project has been proposed to include the Juvenile and Records divisions. Unknown restrictions or costs may be imposed by Police Department needs for other uses. 2. Provide the Historical Society with space for a museum. 3. Combine Police Department and Historical Society uses. The Old Stone House has a total of 5,000 usable square feet. The building is land-locked, with no parking or road access. The Historical Society has a 15-year lease on the property. Alternatives to the projected uses above include: -Satisfy the Police Department¡¦s expansion needs by building a second story addition to the current Police Headquarters. This would provide an opportunity to address existing infrastructure problems such as the air conditioning system, sewage backup in the Records room, and the fact that the exercise room currently is shared with a backup generator. Additionally, future maintenance and operational expenses for a new facility might be lower than for a rebuilt Old Stone House, and significant funding from grants might be available. -Proceed with stabilizing the Old Stone House, but hold off on further renovation. -Defer stabilization with the understanding that the Old Stone House may collapse before it can be stabilized. -Relocate the historical portion of the House to another site, such as Grove Park. 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. | |||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3372 Registered: 5-2001  |
Good work, Gentlemen! | |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1409 Registered: 3-2003 |
Harold/Howard - The CBAC's comments about renegotiating the pilot agreemnts because of the delay in these projects seems quite appropriate. This seems to be one of the big deficienceies with the pilot agreements as they stand. You did mention in particular the increased value of the New Market property. What is this based on? | |||
| Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 3160 Registered: 11-2001  |
MHD: ...and Ladies. | |||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 1799 Registered: 8-2002 |
by and large -- very good work CBAC... but a hybrid vehicle? gotta be kidding me -- IMO, an unnecessary distraction in a challenging budget year. there is enough 2nd party research to show that hybrids will NEVER pay back their additional upfront cost over the lifetime of the vehicle. does the village need to spend money to verify this? I think not. the village should absolutely NOT even consider this. /p | |||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 442 Registered: 1-2004 |
Even if we receive grants that support the purchase? | |||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 1803 Registered: 8-2002 |
Howard -- yes, even if there is a grant, I would oppose it -- there is clearly enough data to show that hybrids are not cost effective. Moreover, the lifetime repair and service costs are projected to be much higher than conventional vehicles. In this case, even with a grant, this is a "gift horse" that makes no sense economically for the village. OTOH -- I would support "downsizing" village vehicles to 6 and 4 cylinder or diesel (for trucks). -- Pete | |||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2567 Registered: 4-2002 |
Pete: I agree with your views and did say so. | |||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 444 Registered: 1-2004 |
peteglider - I would like to see your data that supports your conclusion or would like to discuss: Sample analysis by a gov't agency:
| |||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 1807 Registered: 8-2002 |
Thanks Howard -- the most recent information I've seen on hybrids has been in popular magazines, Consumer Reports, Popular Science, Car & Driver. The data you attached appears to be a comparison of alternative fuel cars -- nice, of course, but perhaps not needed in SO. I truly question the low anticipated service costs for the Prius -- considering the battery pack cost of $3000+. (yes, I realize the Prius battery is guaranteed for 80k miles, but...see below). Also -- the cost assumptions are off, I'd say for a town like SO -- does the village keep its vehicles only 5 years on average? I've seen many that are much much older. In that case depreciation isn't an issue -- its really maintenance/fuel. If the analysis is based on EPA estimated mileage -- its been acknowledged that those are wildly optimistic for hybrids, an issue that manufacturers have had to address relative to unsatisfied customers. Lastly -- comparing a Taurus to a Prius is ludicrous. How about a Corolla or Civic? That's the same size class car and more meaningful if the village needs to buy a car. From an vehicle emissions perspective -- this is a nice experiment. But not from an economic one, and I'd say not from an environmental one either (in whose landfills will hybrid batteries end up or how will they be economically recycled?) Pete | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2006 |
"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." Thank you for your hard work for the sake of the town, CBAC members. I applaud most of your recommendations. Those urging the town to renegotiate development contracts given that deadlines have not been met and to hire outside legal counsel for real estate transactions are especially important in light of the town’s mounting deficit and debt burden (at approximately $1M and rising, if figures mentioned in the BOT’s meeting last night are accurate). I would add to this a recommendation to hire a real estate development consultant or representative for the town as well, given that knowledge of the law is necessary but may not be sufficient to get SO the best (or even decent) deals it can get in various development projects. That said, with respect to the Old Stone House, an irresolvable contradiction may exist between two of your recommendations. The extreme deterioration of the Old Stone House may preclude the possibility of taking, “immediate action to stop...further deterioration” while making a decision to stabilize it contingent upon the town’s actually assigning (as opposed to only initiating a discussion about assigning) priority to its capital projects. (If the discussion about priorities were only initiated rather than actually assigned, it might be possible to avoid the contradiction. I take it that this is not the probable meaning you intend, however, despite the ambiguity on this point in your statement.) In short, the condition of the OSH is nothing less than exigent. The basic decision the town faces is whether it is worth saving or not. If not, it will lose it forever. This would be an inestimable loss, given that it is probably the oldest structure in the State of NJ and it is clearly one of the oldest in the entire country. (The Jamestown colony was founded in 1608, I believe, the oldest colony to have survived into the colonial period. The OSH is believed to date to the 1640s, only 30 years or so later.) While is it laudable to urge the town to prioritize its capital expenses, if the town has never done this before or resists doing it now, old habits can die hard. It may take considerable pressure to get the town to prioritize capital expenditures, as the CBAC probably knows better than most. So another way to describe the exigency the town faces is whether it wants to lose the OSH while the town leadership wrangles with the CBAC and others to continue its long-standing and entrenched practices, to reject long-overdue reforms of the town’s standard operating procedures. Citizens of the town should not allow South Orange to be forced into a lose-lose choice or stymied by its dilemma. The town should not settle for sacrificing either the OSH, or long-overdue reforms. It should not allow one to be pitted against the other. Saving the OSH and instituting necessary reform are both within the town’s reach. Because of the inexcusable state into which the town and the OSH have fallen, however, if the CBAC amended it recommendations so that the OSH’s stabilization were not held hostage to needed reforms, it would further the goal of saving the OSH while simulataneously wresting much needed reforms from the town as well. Given how long it would take to even commence stabilizing the OSH, let alone actually accomplishing it, even if actions were taken tomorrow to do it, the OSH simply does not have the time it would take to wrest all of the budgetary reforms the CBAC is trying to get from the town. Members of the CBAC, I urge you to reconsider so that the OSH is not lost while you pursue your stated reforms about the town’s budget process. By all means, pursue those reforms and do so vigorously. But allow the stabilization of the OSH to move quickly forward so that it may move forward at all. Realistically, it is now or never for the OSH. Once lost, it can never be regained. | |||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 445 Registered: 1-2004 |
The CBAC agrees with your/community concerns for the OSH. The intent of the recommendation was to immediately protect the OSH from the elements while the BOT wrestles with the priority issue as well as to define/detail potential uses. It is my understanding that the Historical Society agrees with this recommendation. The bottom line is either to spend $500k or find a less expensive protection solution (covering over the roof/boarding of windows/etc.) Note: The $500k stabilization is non-historical and does not yield a usable building (which has been estimated in the millions). btw - thanks for your input. | |||
| patjoyce Citizen Username: Patjoyce Post Number: 97 Registered: 7-2001 |
What a great, civil discourse between Howard and Pete regarding the Hybrid. When reasonable arguments are put forth, without any of the inflamed rhetoric or hidden agenda spin, we who read can become educated as to the pros and cons. Thank you both. And great job by the CBAC. | |||
| Brett Weir Citizen Username: Brett_weir Post Number: 1235 Registered: 4-2004  |
It is easy to jump on the fuel efficiency of hybrid vehicles, especially after the gas scare last summer. But I think the posts above demonstrate that fuel efficiency and cost efficiency are not necessarily synonymous. And it's also worth noting that municipal vehicles are not simply transportation for routine business; during severe winter storms and other weather conditions, town workers are expected to respond 24/7 and stay in motion for prolonged periods. There still is too little anecdotal information on how hybrids perform in extreme cold, extreme heat, soaking wet and in other adverse scenarios. Diesel engines, for instance, are very high maintenance and vulnerable under extreme temperatures. It is good to "think green" and this technology will certainly evolve over time. But it may not be ready for governtment service just yet. | |||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 1811 Registered: 8-2002 |
Thanks Pat (and Howard). BTW -- in the scheme of things if the village wants to try a hybrid for a few years -- its not a ton of money. I'd rather not, but, its not a "big" deal. I would MUCH rather focus our discussion on the key issues the CBAC mentions, and the village faces. (but can you tell, I really don't think hybrids are a panacea ;-) Pete | |||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4041 Registered: 1-2004  |
Wow Pete and Howard! Thanks for opening my eyes about the hybrids! I was kicking myself for not holding out and buying one. Also, the two of you are a PERFECT example on how two adults should conduct themselves when they don't see eye to eye on an issues. A healthy discussion, is always better then the shouting matches that take place with our BOT. Any chance we can get both of you to run in the next election? We need level headed people to represent us. | |||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2343 Registered: 5-2004  |
Actually, I believe (and I could be misreading things) that the studies on the efficiency of hybrids indicated that using them for highway travel did not give a reasonable payback. City driving (and short trips) yielded a different story. I'll see if I can find the details. | |||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2344 Registered: 5-2004 |
According to http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/hev/cost_calc.html , hybrids get better mileage doing city driving that highway. I am guessing that is because of regenerative braking, and the fact that the gas engine can shut off when not needed, among other things. Whether this is something the town should look into is another issue entirely. The savings would be miniscule in comparison to the things that this would be distracting attention from. | |||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2568 Registered: 4-2002 |
Rastro: I seemed to remember reading the same articles you have read. I do think it might make sense for SOPA to consider one since they use a smaller car and they often have let their car idle (while looking for a permit, writing a ticket, etc). | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 2 Registered: 2-2006 |
"Note: The $500k stabilization is non-historical" It is not clear what you mean by this statement, Howard. If conducted by preservation specialists, as opposed to village personnel, or any others who are not preservation professionals, knowledge of historical construction methods, materials and the building itself, are integral to the stabilization; stabilizing the OSH so that preservation standards, including those of state and federal landmarking authorities and grantors, is different from stabilizing non-landmarked buildings. I would be surprised if the grant(s) awarded to stabilize the OSH would be available without preservation expertise directing the stabilization. It is doubtful the landmarking agencies or grantor would allow non-expert stabilization to be attempted without jeopardizing both the landmark status and the grant money. | |||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2346 Registered: 5-2004 |
Mark, I have no problem if they do it on a regular re-lease or re-purchase cycle. In other words, if they're already in the market for a new car, great. Go for it. If not, I feel they should wait until they are. Speaking of... are there regular cycles in which the town buys or leases vehicles? Or it is more like "use it until it wears out"? | |||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10723 Registered: 5-2001 |
I have no idea what vehicles SOPA is using now, I just hope they aren't Ford police cars. Assuming they are using compact vehicles, the payback for a Prius is never going to happen. The best solution is to require the enforcement people to shut the vehicle off when writing tickets, etc. | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 3 Registered: 2-2006 |
Correction: "; stabilizing the OSH so that preservation standards, including those of state and federal landmarking authorities and grantors, are met, is different from stabilizing non-landmarked buildings." | |||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2572 Registered: 4-2002 |
Rastro: There are regular cycles for replacing the cars in the police dept. Other cars are replaced when needed for the most part. Maintenance costs are factored into the decision process. Cars are almost always purchased at prices negotiated thru a state contract. | |||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 447 Registered: 1-2004 |
The recommendation was made against current requests for non-emergency replacement vehicles. | |||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4045 Registered: 1-2004 |
Bob K Isn't it more cost effective to letting a car idle the minute or two it takes to place a ticket on a windshield? | |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1416 Registered: 3-2003 |
I have this vision in my head of John Gross replacing his SUV with a bicycle. Just think of the publicity this would get the town. "South Orange, N.J., a diverse, progressive community, is the first town in the country too go truly green and has replaced the SUV previouly driven by its Village Administrator with a bicycle. John Gross, the Village Administrator, said that in addition to helping South Orange hold down its fuel costs, it is helping him lose a few extra pounds. 'It's really a win-win solution for everybody,' said Gross." | |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1453 Registered: 3-2003 |
Howard/Harold - During the CBAC's presentation, did I hear that there is an increase of $950,000 in debt service this year? | |||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 456 Registered: 1-2004 |
yes! | |||
| Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 3215 Registered: 11-2001 |
What is the increase attributable to? (i.e. what year and projects were the expenditures for and what is the principle amount of the bond that this increase relates to?) | |||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 457 Registered: 1-2004 |
The following is the Debt Service proposed budget:
| |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1454 Registered: 3-2003 |
Is my understanding correct that debt service is outside the budget caps? If so, percentage-wise, how much does this increased debt service increase the budget? | |||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2593 Registered: 4-2002 |
Spitz: It translates to a 6% tax increase. | |||
| Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 3216 Registered: 11-2001 |
Howard, thanks for the link. The 2005 Bond issue included what capital items? The gross book amount should be incorporated into this statement to readily understand the amount of debt and the remaining balance after the current budget cycle, IMO. | |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1455 Registered: 3-2003 |
And that's on top of the increase subject to caps? So we're looking at a total increase of around 10%? | |||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 102 Registered: 1-2006 |
Specifics of anything would be appreciated. General Improvement Bonds without maturity dates, interest rates, designation of where funds go, and something called "Administrators Adjustment" are woefully inadequate. There are $748,000 dollars in adjustment, apparently not voted upon. What do the bond documents state about adjustments? The 2005 General Improvement bond, accounted for as a 2006 Department Request, (which department - can this be secret and comply with open government laws?) in the sum of $601,018, is for what, pray tell? jd | |||
| Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 3217 Registered: 11-2001 |
Ouch.... By all appearances, is it fair to say that we have been fiscally mismanaged? If not, why not? |
