| Author |
Message |
    
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1256
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 11:47 am: | 
|
The Village website says that final adoption of the 2005 budget is on the agenda for Sept. 12. Could the proposed budget be put on the Village website? Also, can a comparative budget to 2004 put on the website? Thank you.
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 170
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Hate to see this request fall lower down on thee topic list. Its a great idea to see the budget with vs. prior year numbers, so residents have a chance to look it over and provide meaningful comments at any meeting. Let's hear it for more open government. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 10:03 pm: |
|
The 2004 budget is still on the Village website. The 2005 budget was introduced on March 16,2005. At the time it was introduced, it was stated that the increase shown was higher than the increase to be ultimately agreed to, to increase our chances of receiving extraordinary aid.
South Orange did in fact receive $100,000 in extraordinary aid. The 2005 budget to be voted on at the September 12 meeting should be posted before the meeting - not after, as has been the case.
The budget introduced is not the "real" budget.
|
South Orange Maven
Citizen
Username: Somaven
Post Number: 19
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 10:12 pm: |
|
If they can't manage to post it to the Village website, perhaps one of the posting members of the CBAC or Mr. Rosner can post it here. |
Harold Colton-Max
Citizen
Username: Coltonmax
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 10:58 pm: |
|
All --
You can get a copy of the Village's Preliminary 2005 Operating Budget from Village Hall at the Clerk's office.
The Village Administrator provided the South Orange Citizens Budget Advisory Committee with a number of documents that provide back-up documentation for the Village's 2005 Preliminary Budget. I am only able to post two of the three here(both .pdf files), including:
- Budget Document #1: 2005 Preliminary Current Fund Budget Summary;
- Budget Document #2: 2005 Preliminary Current Fund Salary & Wage Budget; and,
(The third document -- Budget Document #3: 2005 Preliminary Current Fund Other Expense Budget -- is apparently too large to post. I can e-mail it to anyone who is interested).
The CBAC has been in the process of reviewing the Village's 2005 budget for a number of months now. We are presently considering what recommendations to make to the Board of Trustees. Suggestions are welcome.
Thanks.
-- Harold |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2191
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
Thanks Harold.
Spitz: I sent the request to John Gross and Allan Rosen (chair of finance).
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2193
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
By the way, the BOT has budget hearings in Dec. / January (in the past they have been on Saturday mornings) are open to the public. For those who are concerned, these meetings can prove to be helpful in understanding how certain decisions about the budget are made.
You can sign up on the village calendar for notifications of any meeting. The budget meetings are run by the finance committee, but the full BOT goes to the budget meetings.
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
Thanks Harold and Mark. Just to help me and probably other readers understand the new budget cap law, can you confirm my understanding: The new budget cap law caps the annual increase of expenditures within the cap at 2.5%. The law allows the municipality to increase the cap by an additional 1% by ordinance, which the BOT did earlier this year.
There are expenditures which are not subject to the cap, such as debt service and increased medical benefits. Thus, this explains how the total increase can be greater than 3.5%. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2194
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Spitz: I will not attempt to explain the new budget cap law, which in my opinion was done as a political gimmick.
For one thing, a large portion of the budget is for salary increases - and most of those are done thru arbitration. How can an arbitrator appointed by the state agree to an increase greater than 3.5% and still expect any municipality to stay under the cap.
There is also the issue of the pension shortfall which has to do with the way the state funded the plans. Basically, they used a higher interest rate assumption and got away with lower payments (in some years no payment was needed ). We are not paying the price (both the state and just about every town in the state).
(I am not saying to do away with arbitration or that employees don't deserve the raise, but that it contradicts the state cap rules).
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 171
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
I don't understand how there was $2.075 million dollars in uncollected taxes in 2004. That's a hefty chunk out of $11.178 million in the adopted 2004 budget. That's about 18% of the "Other Expense" budget. What effort does the town go to to collect these taxes, anyway? |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1259
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Mark - I think the cap applies to the increase in expentitures - not the tax increase. This is where I was wrong. You can have a budget increase of 3.5%, but the impact on taxes could be greater.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2195
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Spitz: ok, you are probably right. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2197
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Here is the link to the 2005 municpal budget:
http://www.southorange.org/news.asp?page=7 |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1260
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Thanks for the link. As introduced, the budget called for an 8.716% increase in taxes. The $100,000 received for extraordinary aid reduces the increase to 8.1%.
As mentioned above, the 8.7% increase is represented by the BOT as being exaggerated in order to increase our chances of receiving extraordinary aid.
What is the "real" increase that the BOT and CBAC have discussed? I guess the swing factors are the amount of surplus to be used and the amount set aside for uncollected taxes? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2199
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
4.5% - 4.9% is what the BOT is shooting for as an increase this year (this does not reflect my point of view, but a collective one). |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 173
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
|
I'd like to re-ask my question. Namely, why are there over $2 million in annual uncollected taxes? And what is the effort to reduce that amount? It would be nice to know if this is what other towns experience and how they deal with it, rather than just budgeting for it. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1261
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
jj- Actually, SO has a very high tax collection rate - approximately 98%. It's my understanding that the amount put in the budget is really a fudge factor, which is played around with to get to the desired tax increase.
I have asked the question in the past on this board why we have to have such a high number which doesn't approximate the real uncollected tax amount. By artifically making the number higher, the effect is to raise the tax increase.
Perhaps this is something that the CBAC can address. |
Harold Colton-Max
Citizen
Username: Coltonmax
Post Number: 46
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:47 pm: |
|
Spitz --
From the conversations that the CBAC has had with the Village Administrator, it is my recollection that the actual collection rate is somewhere around 99% -- perhaps the highest in the state.
When we have discussed the discrepancy between the budgeted uncollected taxes and the likely uncollected taxes, the main reason provided is conservatism. Basically, the Village is much better off overestimating expenses or underestimating revenue than the reverse.
Also, any positive budgetary impact -- expenses lower than expected or revenues higher than expected -- will go to the surplus. This means that the additional funds collected in this year may help to cushion against larger tax increases in future years.
In my opinion (I am not speaking for the CBAC here, just myself), there is a real discussion about how conservative that we want to be about uncollected taxes (ie, perhaps we should we budget for a slightly higher collection rate), but the overall concept of making conservative budgets estimates for uncollected taxes is good budget policy.
BTW, we are probably going to seriously examine how to deal with rising costs in the next few years, primarily because of financial obligations that are just coming back on the books. Specifically, the state permitted municipalities to take a few years off from paying into pension funds. Starting this year, though, South Orange's obligation will increase by 20% of the overall obligation until we get back to 100% in a five years.
I hope that this information is useful. Again, the CBAC is open to concrete suggestions for thie year's operating budget...
Thanks.
-- Harold |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 175
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Can someone explain to me why this year's budget gets adopted 9 months into the year? Is that the way most towns do this? I don't understand why the budget isn't adopted before the year begins and then reviewed on a monthly or quarterly basis as the year progresses for actual vs. planned figures. Who could run a business this way?
Also, I would like to know why the capital improvement budget was halved to about $250,000 and the recreation budget so dramatically increased to $946,000. Could explain why there is so little in the way of capital improvements being done. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 376
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
This is not to put off the question and there will be a follow up response.
We encourage the community to participate and be involved and are seeking solutions on how we the CBAC can communicate and have better dialogue (other than MOL).
Why don't you join or come to a CBAC meeting and raise these questions? We have actively discussed most of these questions.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2201
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
jayjay: We have to wait for the state to review the budget and to find out about whether we weould get extraordinary aid (ok, it has a different name now, but I don't remember the new name). We were given $100,000 and that was announced over the summer. Most towns are in the same predictament, but I do know some towns get this done by July.
|
SO1969
Citizen
Username: Bklyn1969
Post Number: 86
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
I'm starting to think Jayjay and Parkingsux and the CBAC members are on the case and I can relax...phew. Except, their views are views and not the actions of the BOT and I don't have any reason to think the majority of BOT members and the VP share their views. Back to worrying.
We really need to think about long-term implications and budget for them when taking on anything new. Just properly budgeting for the in place capital plant and the pension costs and structural matters beyond our village's control (I'm sure there are many), we'd probably have significant tax increases for several years.
When people say the cost of increasing the # of basketball hoops is X (materials & intallation), it's not...it is that plus the staff and police time associated with the expanded facility, maintaining it, etc.
Same with dog run. I haven't posted on it, because I like the idea (no dogs, 2 cats, just think it is an attractive and relatively cheap amenity, like the community interaction I've seen at others) - but I need to be honest that the cost isn't the one time installation. It is the maintenance and whatever supervisory costs and, potentially, insurance related costs that might come with it.
BOT: adopt CBAC's recommendations, including on IT. Let's develop the capability to know where we're at and plan for the future, develop a consensus - with public input - on what we want to do/be, and figure out how much it costs.
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 182
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Sheena-
I pulled the numbers off the budget document posted on the 2005 Budget thread, and those numbers were not including the salaries, as I do not know how to apportion capital improvement salaries. I did not see numbers on how much the Recreation Dept pulls in. If you know them, please post it. What I do know is the sorry state of the public buildings, roads and parks in the town.
Am I against a dog park? Not in principle. I just want to see what we have, maintained before we go off on another tangent. Look at our main park. Trees along Ridgewood Rd. are now gone. The little house by the pond is a mess. Baird center is atrocious on the inside. Look at all the streetscaping installed downtown a few years ago. Its all loaded with weeds, half the plants are missing. Nobody thinks about maintenance before this stuff is done. So, once a year a crew throws some mulch around and waters occassionally. Big deal. It wasn't the right type of installation if maintenance wasn't part of the job spec. But did anyone even solicit multiple design proposals? I predict the same thing will happen with the dog park. I hope I'm wrong, but if history is any indication.... |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2208
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
SO1969: We have a full time animal control officer. I know he will find the time to police a small dog run without any additional expenditure.
We currently maintain the parks and therefore no additional costs (cut the grass, trim trees, etc).
Jayjay: The landscaping in the downtown was done by a local landscape architect. Although I was not on the BOT when it was done, his design called for him to use low maintenance plantings and trees. Landscaping always requires some maintenance. The parking authority takes care of the plantings by the parking lots and every year they maintain (yes, mulch, new plants, etc). People walk thru the bushes and on the plantings all over the village. Some people let their dogs walk and urinate on the plantings - including those right on Sloan Street. Low maintenance or not, if people don't respect the property then there will be work needed.
As for a dog park, you just don't get it. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 183
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
Mr. Rosner-
I know the streetscaping was done by a local architect, but who else was solicited for design proposals? Being local shouldn't guarantee you the job.
Any proposal should have taken into account how people actually behave. We have a semi-urban environment downtown. I'm not sure its practical or efficient to have town workers perform the jobs typically done by professional landscapers. Just look at the alleys by Neelam and Ambience, or even the grounds around town hall, and Spiotta park. It's not maintained properly, and probably never will be.
I have heard that this was Mr. Scerbo's first streetscape job. Not to discredit him, but if this is so, shouldn't other landscape architects been solicited for proposals too?
As for the dog park, with all due respect, I think I do get it.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2209
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
As I said, I was not on the BOT then and do not know if others were solicited. I read his proposal and it talked about low maintenance plantings - which you said was probably never considered.
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 184
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Not to belabor the point, but what is low maintenance in a typical surburban yard, may not qualify if planted on city sidewalks. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2212
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
jayjay: And I agree - we should look for alternatives to the maintenance and to what we plant. That was one of the main reasons I keep pushing for a DMC. A few people (I won't mention any names) have done their best to delay one from getting started and now more than ever we need one (with or without a SID). |
Parkingsux
Citizen
Username: Parkingsux
Post Number: 96
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
D R M C - The only delay is with the BoT.
When will the demolition on Vose begin? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page