| Author | Message | ||
     J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 613 Registered: 3-2003 |
Right about now, someone will probably step in to mention that our tax bill is far more affected by increases in the school district portion of it than the town portion. Indeed, I would bet our school taxes will be going up substantially next year and/or services will diminish as the district attempts to meet state and federal education requirements. This may translate into additional pressure on the Village to cut costs or else 'artificially' manipulate the rate of tax increase, so that our reckoning is put off a little longer (or until a sudden and miraculous blossoming of downtown ratables refills the Village coffers). Last time I mentioned that the school district must contend with unfunded mandates, Mark pointed out that the town must cope with unfunded mandates as well. So I'd like to know, what are these and how much do they amount to? By the way, I was once interested in serving on the CBAC, even signed up to receive information about it. But I quickly got turned off the idea when I heard about a CBAC committee's recommendations having been politely and completely ignored. It seemed CBAC service might be an infuriating waste of time, so I resolved to wait and see whether the organization turned out to have more influence that I supposed. So far it doesn't appear that way. However, if I'm wrong I'd like to hear why I should revise my opinion. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5610 Registered: 4-1998  |
JGBerkeley has inspired me. I would be happy to participate in the SOCBAC either as a participant or simply an observer. When are meetings? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 345 Registered: 3-2003 |
Dave: e-mail John Gross at jgross@southorange.org and ask that your e-mail address be put on the list for CBAC meeting dates. I think that his assistant, Laura Harris, handles the notifications. It seems to be a very informal group and basically anyone who wants to can join as a member or attend meetings as a non-member. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 745 Registered: 4-2002 |
J Crohn: When the CBAC was active, I remember very well following some of the suggestions. One year they suggested a larger tax increase and it was politely ingored. I assure you we all read the comments from the CBAC and take them seriously. As for unfunded mandates, here is the biggest one - we need to provide police and fire protection for SHU despite the fact they do not have to pay property taxes. Given that they occupy 37 acres, it is more than just a minor burden. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 615 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mark, How large a percentage of the Village budget do (unfunded) police/fire services to SHU comprise? Is it, like, five and half percent? | ||
| patjoyce Citizen Username: Patjoyce Post Number: 34 Registered: 7-2001 |
The Village Administrator has presented to the BOT and the CBAC an initial list of ideas to address the projected budget shortfall. Some of the savings arise form attrition of employees who are not replaced. Concurrently department heads are proposing to the Administrator cost saving mechanisms which they believe are feasible. Some employee vacancies should be filled because when a cost/benefit analysis is done it may be more costly in the long run not to fill that position. I voted against a greater tax increase this year because I believed that the budget could withstand some contraction. If that is occurring without massive layoffs, I would not criticize the Administrator for accomplishing this goal in the least painful manner. Patrick | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 746 Registered: 4-2002 |
J Crohn: It is hard to come up with an exact number. We are looking at some hard data right now based on the number of calls (police and fire) to SHU vs. the total public safety budget. Depending on how you look at the data it will be more than 5% and probably closer to 10%. Certainly large enough to make a difference in our property taxes. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 346 Registered: 3-2003 |
Patrick: I think it was you who said at the BOT meeting that had you known that were we in the fiscal condition we were, you would not have approved the new hires over the summer. I don't know if anybody was ever calling for "massive layoffs," but I think we're talking about looking a little harder than we had in the past. If I recall, at the BOT meeting where the term "crisis" was used, John Gross said he had never been asked to look at that before. My impression was that there were places or positions that could be cut, without hurting services. Maybe this is what you're saying. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2003 |
I am a new member and feel that we need to develop a statement of mission/goal/objectives for the group. I also think that we need to understand not only costs but potential revenue drivers. Local government cost only represents 25% of the tax rate. The remaining 75% tends to out of our direct control. Whereas revenue opportuntities can have 100% impact. | ||
| growler Citizen Username: Growler Post Number: 268 Registered: 11-2001 |
I still think that SHU issue needs to be addressed, which it obviously is. If they say they have "deep pockets" then they should open the pocket up to help support the town where they reside in. 37 acres is a lot of space to occupy w/out chipping in something. How about a percentage from the student population. Or build a certian $ amount into the tution per student that directly goes to the town. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 617 Registered: 3-2003 |
"One year they suggested a larger tax increase and it was politely ingored." Not to pick on you, Mark, but it surely matters what the proposed tax increase was for, when it would have happened, and whether doing it back then might have made it easier to hold the line later (that is, now). E.g., a 4.5% increase designed to increase sources of revenue beginning, say, three years ago, might plausibly have spared us some part of later ~4.5% compounded increases. For instance, if the CBAC had recommended hiring a redevelopment consultant a couple of years ago, and if taxes were raised to do it, then (theoretically) the town might be in better shape today as a result. But I'm just speculating. Why, in the instance you mention in which they were ignored, did the CBAC suggest increasing the tax increase? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 749 Registered: 4-2002 |
growler: I have been suggesting and trying to get SHU to add $100.00 per student per year to help with public safety. They have repeatedly refused and unless Trenton steps in, we do not stand a chance. My feeling is that SHU has a moral obligation to contribute financially to the village even if they do not have a legal obligation. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 620 Registered: 3-2003 |
"They have repeatedly refused and unless Trenton steps in, we do not stand a chance." Could the Village back SHU into a corner over this? I'm thinking in terms of surtaxing off-campus residences within a (particularly large) radius of the school $100 per resident per year. If not that, then surely there must be some precedent for recouping local expenses from a private school, somewhere in the state. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 751 Registered: 4-2002 |
jcrohn: no precedent that I know about but would love to hear that there is one. The CBAC suggestions were not about policy decisions (hiring a redevolopment consultant) but felt the board should increase the reserve as well as some other suggestions. We did increase the reserve and we did take some of the suggestions into consideration. No BOT member wanted to go along with a larger increase. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 641 Registered: 3-2003 |
"no precedent that I know about but would love to hear that there is one." Might it be the Village attorney's job to research that question? | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 73 Registered: 6-2001 |
Pat and Mark, Seton Hall just got permission from the BOT to put up dugouts on the little league field. As I understand it, they need the dugouts in order to compete in woman's softball in the Big East conference. It would seem to me that South Orange needs to be better at negotiating these type of things in order to get SHU to pay their fair share. Can you each explain how you voted on this issue and why? | ||
| patjoyce Citizen Username: Patjoyce Post Number: 39 Registered: 7-2001 |
Allan Rosen asked that the issue be tabled for the purpose of getting SHU to negotiate on other issues. (Arts Center, paymenets in lieus of taxes, off-campus housing issues) The vote was delayed for one month at the end of which time not much progress had been made with SHU regarding any of the issues which were being discussed. I voted with Allan against the resolution to permit the dugouts on the theory that we need to get SHU to take us seriously as a negotiating entity. Patrick | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 754 Registered: 4-2002 |
We have tried many things with SHU in the past and all with no real effect. The department head and several baseball coaches felt that the dugouts would be more of a benefit to the residents than to SHU in the long run. SHU was/is paying the full cost of the dugouts. This could be used as a stepping stone to a better relationship just as well as be a negotiating tool. If we want to play hardball, there are better places for us to negotiate with SHU. Allan Rosen had asked us to wait one month and I went along with that. I found out that nobody from the village had bought this up with SHU after the one month, I did not see the point is delaying the project when I was being told that this was going to benefit the village baseball teams too. As I said to Trustee Rosen at the meeting, if he is looking for more leverage in regards to SOPAC, I did not see how this was going to help the situation but only further detract from focusing on what is important. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5655 Registered: 4-1998 |
So what is the better negotiating tool and how many trees will be cut down to help SHU have dugouts? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 347 Registered: 3-2003 |
What has to be done to bring this matter up with SHU? I had raised my concern that because of the SOPAC negotiations, the matter of in-lieu of payments by SHU was not getting any attention. Can one of the BOT members who participates on this board please bring the matter up at a BOT meeting. I know the general problem has been discussed, but I'm talking about some specific course of action. It appears that nothing is going to happen unless someone is specifically directed to enter into discussions with SHU. If a resolution is required, then initiate a resolution. |
