| Author |
Message |
    
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4549
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 12:58 pm: | 
|
I am pretty sure this term was mentioned more then once at Monday's BOT meeting. Can someone please explain what this is and how do the municipalities apply for money.
Thanks! |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3731
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Great question.
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/lgs/lfns/05lfns/2005-19.doc
Quote:The Extraordinary Municipal Aid Program, (N.J.S.A. 52:27D-118.35 et seq.), provides additional state aid to address a municipality's extraordinary need because of severe fiscal crisis outside of the municipality’s control.
Quote:To receive aid, applicants must demonstrate that significant measures are in place to reduce spending and improve governmental efficiencies.
Uh oh.....
Here is the history of aid received over the past few years:
http://www.nj.gov/dca/lgs/muniaid/aidmenu.shtml |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2702
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 2:34 pm: |
|
An application must be filed by a certain deadline (Usually in the spring). In the end, it would seem the decision is a political one as to which towns actually receive a reward versus a real need. W. Orange received $500,000 each of the past two years. S. Orange recieved $100,000 last year.
|
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4558
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 10:24 pm: |
|
Thanks MHD that's what I thought I heard.
Mark Thanks for your response. Political or not, why would the state give us any extra money this year? How can we even in good faith apply for any of this money? If the TS statue was being paid for with private donations and grant money, as until recently many thought was the case, we'd have an extra $250,000 to more then cover any "severe fiscal crisis outside of the municipality's control," occurrence.
I can just see it now. After our application is read, everyone breaks out in laughter. Based on giving us $100,000 last year, if I were one of the people involved in making decisions for who gets this money, I wouldn't give any to South Orange. My thought would be, 'hmmm we gave them $100,000 last year. They're back asking for money, yet this year they've spent more then twice the amount we gave them last year on something, though nice, the town can't really afford.' |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 257
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 7:02 am: |
|
The crisis is within our control.
jd |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4571
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 9:45 am: |
|
joel
Exactly! We created our own problem, well then again we didn't the BOT did. Therefore I can't believe the state will give us money this year. If I was the person in charge of making the decision to give this money away, It would be hard for me not to laugh when I read South Orange's request. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3744
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 9:58 am: |
|
I believe Dr. Rosen stated at the BOT Meeting that a decision on Extraordinary Aid was going to be made by Trenton by Friday.
I sure hope Trenton doesn't read the Star Ledger. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2712
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 10:03 am: |
|
I believe funding of extraordinary funds is highly political, and therefore the BOT's specific actions are unlikely to affect our award of said funds. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2704
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 10:05 am: |
|
JTA: The TS bond was in 2004 so it has nothing to do with this years budget (at least from the point of view of the state or this application).
All one has to do is look at which towns receive money each year along with the political party in control, etc. How else would you explain W. Orange getting $500,000 last year (codey was governor and he was the senate president).
Pretty much every town in NJ has a "crisis" budget according to the extraordinary aid applications. There has never been any logic or fact based reasoning for why they award money to one town over another.
For instance, they know we have to provide services for SHU but receive no tax dollars. That puts a major strain on our budget and was exactly the type of problem the extraordinary aid is supposed to address.
|
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 10:41 am: |
|
Trustee Rosner, if the TS sculpture bond was in 2004, which bond was it, specifically? Several people tried to locate it in the town's records and could not.
Can you tell us a hearing date, ordinance date, anything that would help identify the bond from 2004 that covered the TS sculpture? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2705
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 10:53 am: |
|
SOrising: I will post it later in the day unless by some chance someone beats me to it.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3746
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:27 am: |
|
The 2004 Bond Ordinance has been posted here:
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=572944#POST5729 44
(the PDF version is much more readable)
I'll leave it to everyone else to try identify where the Tony Smith Sculpture is referenced...  |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2706
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
Here is a link to the budget workshop minutes of 02/18/2004. This is when individual items to be included were discussed and the only way you could find the answer to MHD's question:
http://www.southorange.org/minutes/2004/02-18-04BW.pdf
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3748
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
|
For the record, the link that Mark just posted was NOT ONLINE prior to Tuesday (March 28). Also, that meeting referenced was on a WEDNESDAY (between regular meetings) and was not televised to my knowledge. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 733
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Quote:Street, sidewalk and roadway improvement - $650,000
A discussion ensued about starting to pay down the $250,000 in debt for the Arts Center from CDBG funds. Accordingly, $250,000 is available in the capital budget to pay for the Tony Smith sculpture and the other $400,000 is for street, sidewalk and roadway improvements. Trustee Rosner thought that money for the Tony Smith sculpture was to be raised through donations. He requested a copy of the minutes of the CDBG hearing which discussed the Tony Smith sculpture.
So, back on 2/18/04, Trustee Rosner was apparently surprised to learn for the first time that the village was planning to pay $250,000 toward the TS sculpture. Does this mean it wasn't specifically voted on? Mark, can you please offer some clarification? Was there a vote by each trustee to approve $250,000 of the proposed $650,000 slated for street, sidewalk and roadway improvements be used instead to install and fabricate the TS sculpture?
And, btw, could you please direct me to whom I should contact to learn more about the details behind the decision to build/install the gazebo and fountain? In particular, I am eager to learn whether this project was bonded and if it has yet been paid off.
Thanks! |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2716
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
So just to be clear, he funding for the sculpture was buried in an appropriation for "Street, Sidewalk and Roadway Improvement"?
The minutes are quite sparse. can someone explain how the below lines follow, particularly the use of the word "Accordingly"?
Quote:A discussion ensued about starting to pay down the $250,000 in debt for the Arts Center from CDBG funds. Accordingly, $250,000 is available in the capital budget to pay for the Tony Smith sculpture...
It appears, then, that the CDBG funds were used to pay down debt on SOPAC. Coincidentally, the exact same amount of money was allocated to the sculpture. Sounds almost exactly like what HUD was trying to prevent with their "supplanting" rules.
Also, Mark, do you recall if you ever received the minutes for the CDBG hearings you requested? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3749
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Quote:could you please direct me to whom I should contact to learn more about the details behind the decision to build/install the gazebo and fountain? In particular, I am eager to learn whether this project was bonded
PDG - this question was asked at the BOT Meeting on February 27, 2006 during remonstrances on this subject. You can check it on out online or I can send you the specific video clip by email tonight. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 510
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Mark, how does clear the issue. All it does is generate more questions such as why is the sculpture listed under "Street, Sidewalk & Road Improvement". What was the intent? Why wasn't it a stand alone item. Do "Road Improvements..." have the same useful life as a sculpture as required for bonding? How would the Bond holders know they are loaning monies for a sculpture? Why was there a discussion of SOPAC Capital and CBDG funds at the same time as the TS sculpture. Did you get the CDBG hearing as requested?
"Street Sidewalk and Roadway Improvement $650,000 Yes
A discussion ensued about starting to pay down the $250,000 in debt for the Arts Center from CDBG funds. Accordingly $250,000 is available in the capital budget to pay for the Tony Smith sculpture and the other $400,000 is for street sidewalk and roadway improvements. Trustee Rosner thought that money for the Tony Smith sculpture was to be raised through donations. He requested a copy of the minutes of the CDBG hearing which discussed the Tony Smith sculpture."
Also, it is curious that at the same meeting FEB 2004 there was discussion of the need for a new roof for the New and Connett (EIES) Libraries. Is this as well "Coming Soon" or should we order more buckets? Are we still waiting of EIES to help in fixing the Connett roof or will it become the next Old Stone House?
"Library Roof Replacement $80,000 Yes
The Village Administrator noted that funds for this project will be reallocated from money that has already been allocated. Trustee Theroux noted that the Library applied for a grant for this project but $250,000 of endowment money was used to pay for the library renovations. She requested that $100,000 be allocated for the library roof and the Connett Building. Trustee Theroux asked that $80,000 be left in the budget Trustee Steglitz agreed to repair the library but he did not want to repair the Connett Building asserting that EIES should take on some responsibility for repair and maintenance of the building. Trustees Joyce and Rosner concurred Trustee Taylor opined that money should be funded to repair the Connett Building. Trustee Rosen opined that repair of the Connett Building should be postponed." |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2707
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Rastro: I was never given a copy of the CDBG application (and I don't think I asked again ).
PDG: At budget workshops, we usually sit around a table and go over each item. The votes are usually informal. The assumption has usually been if you do not object or do not say anything that you are ok with the item. Some items obviously generate much more discussion than others.
The real problem here was when the budget ordinance came up in August, we saw what MHD posted earlier. So there was no reminder that the sculpture was under the streets, sidewalks and roadway improvements line item. It was probaly another 10 months before the sculpture came up again.
I seemed to be the only one that was surprised about the funding. I am guessing that maybe I missed a discussion from an earlier meeting or something.
You should request info about the gazebo from the Village administrator. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Trustee Rosner, I simply don't understand what the notes are saying. Specifically, the following doesn't make sense to me:
"A discussion ensued about starting to pay down the $250,000 for the Arts Center from CDBG funds. Accordingly, $250,000 is available in the capital budget to pay for the TS sculpture....."
This indicates there was a deficit of $250,000 in SOPAC funds. The implication is that CDBG monies would be used to fill it. The description also suggests that the deficit existed prior to funding for the TS sculpture becoming an issue. What is the cause of the $250k hole in SOPAC funding?
The use of the word "Accordingly" is especially obtuse. It suggests that the second sentence resulted as a cause of the first. Yet which "capital budget" in the second sentence is being referenced? Is it the general capital budget of the town, the specific capital budget of SOPAC, or another capital budget? How is the capital budget, whichever one it is, related to the first sentence, if it is?
Anyone could guess at what is meant here, but what, in fact, apart from speculation, is actually meant here? Since you were there, please explain how the two sentences are related, Trustee Rosner, and what they are trying to say, but not clearly.
Thank you. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Trustee Rosner, I simply don't understand what the notes are saying. Specifically, the following doesn't make sense to me:
"A discussion ensued about starting to pay down the $250,000 for the Arts Center from CDBG funds. Accordingly, $250,000 is available in the capital budget to pay for the TS sculpture....."
This indicates there was a deficit of $250,000 in SOPAC funds. The implication is that CDBG monies would be used to fill it. The description also suggests that the deficit existed prior to funding for the TS sculpture becoming an issue. What is the cause of the $250k hole in SOPAC funding?
The use of the word "Accordingly" is especially obtuse. It suggests that the second sentence resulted as a cause of the first. Yet which "capital budget" in the second sentence is being referenced? Is it the general capital budget of the town, the specific capital budget of SOPAC, or another capital budget? How is the capital budget, whichever one it is, related to the first sentence, if it is?
Anyone could guess at what is meant here, but what, in fact, apart from speculation, is actually meant here? Since you were there, please explain how the two sentences are related, Trustee Rosner, and what they are trying to say, but not clearly.
Thank you. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2708
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 3:17 pm: |
|
SOrising: I am not even going to try to guess the exact meaning of the statement in question. Please send an email to John Gross or perhaps ask him at the next meeting.
Clearly I was concerned then about the funding and I raised the issue back then about the grant and donations (although I appeared to be the only one who wanted to discuss). |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:41 pm: |
|
True, Trustee Rosner. Thank you for being concerned about the sculpture funding and asking about it, the grant and donations. I hope you will continue to ask and to be concerned about them.
As my (and many others') elected representative, one who also, along with others, supervises Mr. Gross, would you please ask him the question you have asked me to ask him and then let us know?
Thank you for representing the best interests of the town in doing so. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 259
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 6:08 pm: |
|
It is not a capital improvement, and can not be bonded under GAAP.
jd |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3756
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 6:42 pm: |
|
Joel,
Can you provide a reference to support that? If so, the rules have been broken for years, while the Village has been bonding for Copy Machines and Computers. (items that, ironically, will be paid for over 5 years, but will typically have a much shorter lifespan) - Who here is still using a computer from 2001?
Sort of like the gazebo, which was paid for less than 10 years ago with DEBT and will continue to be paid for, even after it's ripped out! |
SoOrLady
Citizen
Username: Soorlady
Post Number: 3171
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 6:45 pm: |
|
You both saw at the meeting that our BOT has a rather broad definition for the term "capital" |
Lt. Columbo
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9074
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 6:46 pm: |
|
but not as broad as "improvement" |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 261
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 7:24 pm: |
|
It is a capital idea.
When the trial ends, and I get a full night's sleep, without worry about arrest by the Calabrese crew, I will follow up.
jd |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Okay South Orangians. If they used bond money to pay for the sculpture, it is illegal. And if they used CDBG monies, is it also illegal. Things are at a point at which outside investigations are needed. If several people contact HUD’s Office of the Inspector General, the investigations might begin. Several people contacting them will increase the likelihood of the investigation commencing quickly with oversight of the proper HUD authority, AND it might also help the town’s ability to apply for future grants. If the town rises up against these illegalities and tries to stop them, authorities might look more favorably on the town than if they kept silent once they knew illegalities had occurred.
Please read and act on the following. (OIG stands for HUD’s Office of the Inspector General).
***********************************************************************
WHAT DOES THE OIG HOTLINE DO? Take reports of fraud, waste, abuse, and serious mismanagement in HUD-funded programs and operations and refer such allegations to OIG investigators and auditors, or to HUD program officials to ensure that allegations of wrongdoing are independently addressed.
1. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY --
FRAUD - individuals, groups, or businesses that are stealing taxpayers' monies from HUD.
WASTE - individuals, groups, or businesses that are spending taxpayers' monies in a manner that does not further HUD's mission and goals.
ABUSE - HUD officials or HUD-funded local officials whose actions exceed the authority granted to them by HUD policies and regulations.
SERIOUS MISMANAGEMENT - a significant failure by a HUD program office or a program office entity that is due to managerial incompetence or inattention.
WHY REPORT? All federal employees are required to report violations of law and Standards of Conduct and danger to public health and safety. All citizens should feel a moral responsibility to report violations to assure that taxpayers' monies are well spent.
WILL HUD PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY? Yes, if you are a federal employee complainant. On request and at OIG's discretion, this protection can be extended to non-federal complainants. The identities of confidential complainants are protected because only OIG personnel know them. However, the Inspector General Act of 1978 gives us authority to disclose a confidential complainant's identity in limited situations, such as where the disclosure of a complainant's identity is unavoidable in pursuit of an audit or an investigation. This kind of disclosure is necessary only on an extremely infrequent basis. Of course, an anonymous complainant is always protected because we do not know that person's identity.
From an OIG point of view, it is more advantageous to know the identity of the complainant in case it is necessary to interview the complainant or ask follow-up questions.
WHAT DO I NEED TO KNOW WHEN CONTACTING THE OIG? There are several things to keep in mind when reporting fraud, waste, abuse, and serious mismanagement. You need to report immediately, while facts are still fresh in your mind and be prepared to answer the questions who, what, when, where, why, and how.
· Who was involved? (Names, addresses, phone numbers, if available)
· What happened? (Summary of events, additional sources of evidence)
· When did it happen? (Date, time, frequency)
· Where did it happen? (Location, city, state)
· Why was it done? (Estimated loss to the government, gain to violator)
· How could it happen? (What scheme was used)
For these items, you will need to do more preliminary inquiry. The most successful OIG cases are those that include supporting documentation. Reports that are too vague or cannot be supported can result in a closed report, without any action taken.
WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT IF YOU MAKE A REPORT TO THE OIG HOTLINE? If HUD knows who you are and opens a case to address your allegations, you will receive a letter that provides you with the number of the Hotline case that it opened to address your allegations. HUD will also advise you at that time that it will notify you when the case is closed and provide information on how to obtain the case results under the Freedom of Information Act.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO BE AWARE that the decision on how HUD proceeds with a Hotline case rests exclusively with the Agency. HUD will contact you again only if it needs additional information.
HUD cannot provide you with case status updates or other information while the case review is in progress. Further, its decision to close a case is final; there are no appeal rights provided by the Inspector General Act of 1978.
WHAT HAPPENS IF HUD DOES NOT OPEN A CASE BASED ON A REPORT TO THE OIG HOTLINE? A vast majority of the reports that HUD receives in the OIG Hotline do not result in cases because they are program-related or administrative matters. In these situations, the reporter will receive a letter explaining that the report is unrelated to the OIG mission and that HUD has referred it to a HUD program office or another government agency for investigation. HUD will provide you with a contact number, if one is available.
WHAT KINDS OF THINGS HUD DOES NOT OPEN CASES ON. The HUD OIG Hotline is a report intake operation. OIG does not open cases on allegations that can be addressed through existing complaint resolution mechanisms that provide appeal rights and access to the federal and state court systems. It does not open cases on disputes that have been or can be addressed through civil proceedings. It also does not open cases on allegations involving maintenance issues, landlord-tenant disagreements, income calculations for voucher purposes, or personnel issues in HUD or HUD-funded programs that can be addressed under labor-management agreements.
HOW TO CONTACT THE OIG HOTLINE? There are four ways to contact the OIG Hotline:
You can call toll-free at - 1-800-347-3735
You can fax at - (202) 708-4829
You can e-mail at - hotline@hudoig.gov
You can write HUD at:
HUD OIG Hotline (GFI)
451 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3758
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 7:51 pm: |
|
I sure hope the don't watch THIS: www.howard-levison.com/Sculpturequotes.wmv
or read this: http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3133&post=569806#POST569806 |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page