| Author | Message | |||
     SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 773 Registered: 2-2006 |
"The auditor, Robert Morrison, told the council that the budget, which was given to the council last night, included some $5.7 million in revenue that does not exist and should be removed from the spending plan. ..... 'You are at the edge of a very steep slope and if you take this step you will be setting yourself up for a potential default.'" Excerpted from the Star-Ledger (see: http://www.nj.com/news/times/index.ssf?/base/news-1/11575157508120.xml&coll=5) Remember Arthur Anderson, the national accounting firm dissolved because it illegally approved Enron’s phony accounts? A NJ auditor has called the bluff of Hamilton township, by refusing to approve fake revenue factored into the town’s budget. Will South Orange’s auditors refuse to approve phony revenue from non-existent development projects? If they approve fake budgets as Arthur Anderson did, SO’s auditors also can suffer criminal and civil penalties that could put them out of business. And if they do call South Orange’s bluff, what would it do to the rates of tax increases and the enormous debt the town already has? | |||
| red_alert Citizen Username: Red_alert Post Number: 330 Registered: 3-2005 |
And would this open the door to additional review and examination. Beyond revenues, the auditors should also look at the way the town spends the money. | |||
| Nancy - LibraryLady Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 3838 Registered: 5-2001  |
SORising.. which projects and what revenue are you refering to exactly?? Will South Orange’s auditors refuse to approve phony revenue from non-existent development projects? | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 774 Registered: 2-2006 |
LL, the income that has been projected from Beifus, the Old Shop Rite development and any "coming soon" development that has been factored into SO's budget, this year, or in the next 2-5 years. | |||
| Cali6buff Citizen Username: Cali6buff Post Number: 81 Registered: 4-2006 |
SOrising. Which of those have? Any facts? | |||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 1022 Registered: 1-2006 |
Well, are the budgets public items? If so, Mr. Rosner, where are they deposited, and what must a humble taxpayer do to obtain the opportunity to review and copy them? jd | |||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4617 Registered: 5-2001  |
Cali, I do not know if these items are or are not part of any budget, but their "tax impacts" were certainly communicated to us back in 2003! http://www.southorange.org/redevelopment/Redev.pdf | |||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2939 Registered: 4-2002 |
Joel: The budgets are public items. One can make an OPRA request thru the village clerks office or one can download last year's budget from the village website: http://www.southorange.org/budget.asp We also have a indepent auditor review the books each year. I do not remember the name of the firm, but one can get that from the village clerk too. It also sometimes helps to look at the budget workshop minutes which are available online - http://www.southorange.org/minutes.asp (under the BOT meeting minutes). | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 775 Registered: 2-2006 |
Why is only last year's budget on the town website, Trustee Rosner, when we are 9 months into a 12-month year? Why is the current budget not on the town's website? | |||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2940 Registered: 4-2002 |
SOrising: The current budget has not been approved yet and could not have been done until we heard back from the state (extraordinary aid application). We are getting $200,000 in extraordinary aid. The chair of finance (trustee Rosen) has requested we have one more budget workshop before passing the budget. I expect we will vote on the final budget at the meeting on 09/25. I specifically suggested looking at the budget workshop minutes because the budget was not approved yet. | |||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 8313 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark: Are you aware of any plans by the State to change the budget process so that municipalities don't have to wait until the fiscal year is almost over before they can adopt a new budget? Either changing the date by which extraordinary aid is announced or changing the fiscal year for municipalities would help resolve this ongoing problem. | |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1890 Registered: 3-2003 |
I'm not really sure what purpose is served by waiting until after the final budget is adopted before posting it on the Village website. Maplewood posts its proposed budget on its website. The purpose of posting the proposed budget is to allow the public to analyze it and make comments, if any, prior to its adoption as the final budget. This may be complcated by the timing of the extraordinary aid announcement, but Maplewood seems to be able to handle it. | |||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2941 Registered: 4-2002 |
Joan: I know Corzine would like to see the process changed, but my gut tells me it will not be any different. Just too many political obstacles in the way. Spitz: For some reason, I thought the proposed budget was online. I am not really sure why it would not be but will ask at the next finance meeting. The CBAC members all have a copy of the budget that was sent to Trenton so no reason for it not to be viewed online (as opposed to an OPRA request). I will say though if anyone really wants to understand the budget process, the best way in my opinion would be to go to the open budget workshop meetings. It makes it much easier to understand than trying to read thru pages of numbers. | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 776 Registered: 2-2006 |
If CBAC members have copies of the proposed budget, for a year that is 3/4ths gone, it should by all means be available on the town's website. Why wait until the next finance meeting, Trustee Rosner? Why not call the village administrator this evening or tomorrow and ask that the proposed budget, for the current, almost over year, be posted immediately on the town's website, so that all can see and comment on it? That way, the entire town could see whether unrealized revenues from coming-soon properties in the incomplete casino of SO are being counted in this year's budget; it would not have to take Cali's implied word that they aren't, but could see directly, as the CBAC has, whether or not South Orange's auditors will face a difficult dilemma. | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 777 Registered: 2-2006 |
If CBAC members have copies of the proposed budget, for a year that is 3/4ths gone, it should by all means be available on the town's website. Why wait until the next finance meeting, Trustee Rosner? Why not call the village administrator this evening or tomorrow and ask that the proposed budget, for the current, almost over year, be posted immediately on the town's website, so that all can see and comment on it? That way, the entire town could see whether unrealized revenues from coming-soon properties in the incomplete casino of SO are being counted in this year's budget; it would not have to take Cali's implied word that they aren't, but could see directly, as the CBAC has, whether or not South Orange's auditors will face a difficult dilemma. | |||
| Nancy - LibraryLady Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 3841 Registered: 5-2001 |
If the CBAC member's who post on this board had copies of the proposed budget that had unrealized revenue from coming-soon properties in the incompleter casino of SO being counted I am sure that they would of already posted it. Unless they all are in on the charade as well. The again maybe not. Howard?? | |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1892 Registered: 3-2003 |
LL - You're right. SOR - While I agree that the proposed budget should be online, I think you're stretching it as far as suggesting that non-existent revenues might be used in the budget. | |||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 6105 Registered: 1-2004  |
I think it's ironic we're getting $200,000 in 'extraordinary aid' when we are wasting at least twice that amount on a sculpture. | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 780 Registered: 2-2006 |
If there is nothing to worry about, post the budget for a year almost over on the town's website. How long will it be before next year's budget is publicly acknowledged? Over a year from now? The proof is in the budget. Let's see it on the town website and make sure next year's is put up before the money is already spent and the year concluded. Its hard to control a budget publicized reluctantly only after its spent. What will our honest and honorable trustees do? | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 781 Registered: 2-2006 |
Oh, and PS, calling on all trustees, Trustee Rosner, and all others, have you ever seen a draft of this year's budget that counted projected but unrealized revenues from unfinished development projects in town? | |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1893 Registered: 3-2003 |
I do know that Allan Rosen had discussed using $500,000 of the $1 million front-end payment from Sterling in this year's budget and the remaining $500,000 next year. In order to do so, the payment must actually be received. If it's not received, it can't be included in this year's budget. As you can appreciate, there's a difference between a proposed budget which includes an item, but can't be included if it's not actually received. You seem to be suggesting that some revenue items which aren't actually received are included in the final budget. | |||
| Cali6buff Citizen Username: Cali6buff Post Number: 82 Registered: 4-2006 |
SOrising - that's really the question you should ask *BEFORE* floating accusations. Don't you think? | |||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 683 Registered: 1-2004  |
I will try to respond the budget question. The Administration annually provides to the CBAC budget projections that include various documents. Some year’s revenue has been included in the package. The latest was 2004 that I have posted below. We have discussed the revenue issues at various CBAC meetings with the understanding that there have been shortfalls due to projects not meeting projected/planned time frames. Not only is there revenue (taxes/pilots) shortfall but also there is additional expenses being accumulated as a result of the real estate transactions that include bond/note interest and principle repayments. One particular project – New Market that is now under construction (note: we still do know if title has been passed or how ownership will be provided between Stirling and Garden of Eden) should have had made a payment. We have been told it was being booked as revenue but it is our contention that it should be applied against the loan (bond/note).
| |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1894 Registered: 3-2003 |
What is the admistration's rationale in not applying it against the bond/note? Does the administration still plan on booking it as revenue(assumimg it is received prior to adoption of the final budget), and if so, will the CBAC be questioning it at the workshop and the BOT meeting when the budget is supposed to be adopted? | |||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 684 Registered: 1-2004 |
The rational is that it will keep this years tax increase down. | |||
| Nuff Sayid Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 495 Registered: 6-2005  |
I wonder if we'd learn this in a budget workshop session?  Some numbers screw the taxpayers for sure!! | |||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1895 Registered: 3-2003 |
Howard - That plus the additional debt service which results is not an item which is within CAP. Is this legitimate under recognized accounting prinples? To some extent, it's like the payment which Maplewoood received for property and Profeta took it all in in one year and Huemer argued it should be spread over five. p.s. How was the money which the Village received for the Midas property treated - as revenue or did it go against the note/bond? | |||
| Nuff Sayid Citizen Username: Parkingsux Post Number: 496 Registered: 6-2005 |
It sounds like a runaway train ready to wreck down the line to me (smoke and mirrors). Who's making these decisions? Whatever happened to establishing GAAP principles for government accounting as it was talked about 6-8 years ago? | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 784 Registered: 2-2006 |
It would be great if the million from Sterling had been received (or even likely to be paid at all). But lacking any evidence it has been received, or the title transferred, it is unlikely any of this money will be available this fiscal year, either for the bond or to reduce taxes. Is there any real deadline for this year's budget to be finalized? I also would like to know if there is a snowball's chance in Hades of GAAP being required for municipal finances and budgets any time soon. Howard, why are the latest projections already two years old? What about 2005, even some insight into earlier quarters from this year? | |||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 685 Registered: 1-2004 |
As I said, that was the last time we received such a report. | |||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 794 Registered: 2-2006 |
MHD, you wrote in another thread that tomorrow night may be the "final vote" of the "budget hearing." Does this mean the 2006 budget will be approved tomorrow night? If not, what does it mean? | |||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 4644 Registered: 5-2001 |
SOR, Every year there is a Public Hearing on the Budget. This year, the hearing has been on the agenda at least previous 3 times, but was ultimately deferred until the town heard from the State on "Extraordinary Aid". Now that we have heard about the Extraordinary Aid, I assume the Public Hearing scheduled for Monday night will actually happen. |
2004 Budget - Revenue Projection