| Author | Message | ||
     Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 35 Registered: 2-2003 |
J. Crohn, Yes. there is a BOT meeting scheduled for Monday September 15, at 8 pm. at Village Hall. Eric | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 68 Registered: 4-2003 |
NCJanow: At the risk of engaging in your "issue", please clarify for me what it is when a CFO tells his bosses (the BOT) that there is a $4M surplus and then asks for, and gets, a raise by these same bosses (actually, there were only two "Yes" votes. Two BOT abstained, and 2 voted "NO", but the raise went thru anyway.) And then, a week before the budget vote in September 03, this same CFO tells his bosses (the BOT) that, oops, there's a $1.1 million shortfall. Someone's a crook, and some others, who haven't taken him to task, nor, as noracoombs says above, "fired him on 9/6", are accomplices (minus Patrick Joyce) not only to his mismanagement and (intentional?) misrepresentation, but also contributors to the lack of vigilance and financial supervision that has led to a need for a double-digit rise in '04 and '05 taxes, for which we will all now pay. That significant rise in taxes (estimated to be 15-22% in '05 by this same CFO if taxes are "only" raised 4.7% in '04) will clearly have a negative effect on the marketability of this town, which will clearly have a negative effect on the ability to attract businesses, which will clearly have a negative effect on our tax base. All this, while the CFO drives around in a Village-paid SUV, and with a Village-paid cell phone in his pocket (along with his very high salary and other perks). Montclair, a town of 39,000 people - more than double the 16,000 of South Orange - just hired a new Administrator for $120,000/year. He gets NO town-paid vehicle, NOR a town-paid cell phone. Please wake up and smell the roses. Your posts criticizing my use of words is incomprehensible when the people who are defaming what it means to be a community leader get your support, instead of your questions and concern. | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 60 Registered: 6-2001 |
Seton Hall did not do any planning? I would say they did quite a bit of planning. They planned dorms, parking decks and a new library. And guess what. The South Orange planning board approved them all. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 376 Registered: 6-2001  |
Same said Village provided SUV (why an SUV???) was parked in the A&P parking lot Friday night while Scary Mary did her grocery shopping. The she *food* shops at A&P is alone a sign of incompetence. Is the fuel for this gas-guzzler paid for by Village taxes? If so, I want to know why it's used as a family vehicle. | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 61 Registered: 6-2001 |
According to www.easidemographics.com South Orange had a 1990 population of 16,391 and a 2002 population of 17,128. That is a 4.4% increase in the number of Village residents and I doubt it counts Gaslight Commons. | ||
| hariseldon Citizen Username: Hariseldon Post Number: 137 Registered: 5-2001  |
Bets, your recent post is taking on the air of a stalker. Talk about scary.... | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 228 Registered: 8-2002 |
It amazes me that anyone cares about a cell phone and car -- that is a small fraction of his compensation. Ridiculous. And -- in any "company provided" vehicle scenario -- personal use is assumed. Probably the same with the village (that portion is reported to the IRS as taxable comp). Most of the comments here lately are based on conjecture and inuendo. Stop debating at that level and go to the BOT meeting... Lastly, the language, wash, is indeed inappropriate, IMO. You derail the comments into a level of name calling -- and then, no -- its no longer a discussion -- its accusation. Pete | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 293 Registered: 3-2003 |
I have some questions for the trustees who post on this board because I am still trying to figure out what happened this year regarding the budget. When the municipal budget for 2003-2004 was introduced this year in February or March, it called for an increase of 11%. At the time it was introduced by Steve Steglitz, as chairman of the Finance Committee, it was stated that the 11% figure was inflated to increase our chances of obtaining extraordinary aid from the State. There was considerable discussion about the tax increase in the "South Orange Taxes - Something Has to Give" thread on this board. Mark Rosner says in his post of Friday, April 25, 2003, 10:45 a.m. "At one point there was a projection of a 10% increase in the municpal portion this year (2003-2004). However, because of the recent increases in the ratables, the revenue from Gaslight Commons and some cuts in the budget helped reduce the impact." In a follow-up post I asked whether the municapl budget to be opened for the discussion and voted on the following Monday was the 11% as introduced or the 4.8% which Mark had talked about in his postings in that thread. I don't think I ever got an answer. Each time the budget was on the agenda, it was never discussed or voted upon because SO had not yet heard anything from the State regarding extraordinary aid. At what point did the BOT first discuss the 4.6% increase? When Steve Steglitz said the trustees always knew there was a need for a 10.8%, was this correct? If so, why was 4.6-4.8% figure discussed so much, although as I said, I don't think it was ever really discussed in a BOT meeting? I think I understand Patrick Joyce's expalantion about the surplus, and I think this was the explantion Allan Rosen gave as to why he couldn't approve a 4.6% increase this year. Was this it, or is there more? Additionally, I thought that this approach of throwing a lot of numbers around with nothing one could even discuss intelligently was not a very businesslike way of handling a budget. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 378 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sorry, boyz, but I beg to differ. I want to know why a small-town business administrator requires an enormous SUV to conduct his daily business. Is it because he's also Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer? Do those jobs demand 4-wheel drive capability? The vehicle is inappropriate and extremely inefficient fuel wise. The cost of gas becomes a factor because of the woeful mileage such a vehicle boasts. Personal use is fine for Mr. Gross; an elected village trustee should provide her own transportation. hariseldon, I find your accusation that I'm a stalker offensive. I was at A&P to buy cigarettes and wine, not meat and dairy. I'm sure that will provoke more comments from the peanut gallery. I go to Millburn for my food-shopping; another sore point to be sure. | ||
| hariseldon Citizen Username: Hariseldon Post Number: 138 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bets..I would no sooner recognize a trustee or administrators car as I would yours. Unless it has a sticker screaming "Administrator" splashed across the windshield, I wouldn't know who's car was whos. And to criticize a trustee for actually patronizing a store that is located in the village,well, what could she be thinking spending her money in a town store? It seems that alone is grounds for impeachment in your view. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 379 Registered: 6-2001 |
Actually, hariseldon, A&P is in Maplewood. I recognized the vehicle because of the municipal plates and the driver (a village trustee) and being cut-off when it made a left turn from Third Street onto Valley. Kinda hard to forget an SUV when you have to slam on the brakes to avoid an accident. So, my questions again: why is the "town car" an SUV and why is a village trustee using it as her personal vehicle? | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 69 Registered: 4-2003 |
peteglider et al: Please re-read my post of 9/13. There is no "inappropriate" language in there, and NOTHING in there is innuendo. Watch the tape of the Sept 8, Board meeting. You see one trustee or another state EVERY FACT in my 9/8 piece. Steglitz calling the Village Administrator the "Village CFO" and "Treasurer"; Rosen pointing out the "$1.1 million shortfall" newly revealed by the Administrator; other BOT making reference to the surprise email they received from Gross the first week of September, stating that the 4.7% increase in '04 could be sustained only by implementing a 15-22% increase in '05. These stats aren't my make-believes. They are REAL, verifiable, and spoken at the BOT meeting. As far as the Village-paid SUV and cell phone, that's on record too. Perhaps you and NCJanow both need a little walk in the country to wake up, and smell the roses for what they really are. | ||
| bets Citizen Username: Bets Post Number: 380 Registered: 6-2001 |
Washashore posted on 9/13:
Mark Rosner said on Friday, July 25, in the Extraordinary Aid thread:
And obviously, Ms. Theroux recused herself. So the contract passed 2-1. What a way to do business. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 166 Registered: 5-2001 |
Like Seton Hall, the Nj Transit Bus Garage in Maplewood enjoys exemption from property taxes. This largest employer in town does make a payment in lieu of taxes, but it is far from the amount that Maplewood would receive normally. Over the past two years we have heard much about statewide property tax reform, but again this year the constitutional convention was voted down in the state senate. A look at the Star-Ledger's tax trauma index at http://hometown.aol.com/njfabian shows that many of the traumitized towns are in Essex County. One must ask if the suburban NJ counties will ever support legislation that effectively transfers more state dollars to Essex (e.g., Newark already gets more state educatioanal aide than all of Morris County). Is it more likely that the legislature would be inclined to allow Essex towns greater flexibility in determining revenue raising measures rather than pass a statewide fix? There are several other methods, other than property tax, that could spread the revenue burden to a greater number of shoulders. A local income tax is one. With a credit for property taxes few homeowners would see any difference, but many individuals who do not support the village (or town)including many Seton Hall (and bus garage) staff, 2/3 of the SO-M staff, most village (and township) employees, and all renters would then have a financial stake in the efficiency of local government. There are other possibilities that the creative minds of SO can construct. The hurdle issue is to decide whether to pursue the statewide fix or a more local strategy. JTL | ||
| HGB Citizen Username: Hgb Post Number: 23 Registered: 1-2003 |
I am relatively new to SO and have been following this discussion. Can someone please explain why the budget cannot be cut to reduce the need to increase property taxes? I think the citizens would support a reduction in some services. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 229 Registered: 8-2002 |
HGB -- I don't think that more efficiency or budget cuts is the issue (depending on the cuts, certainly). IMO -- every $$ spent needs to be evaluated more carefully, and some things we may need to do without. It appears that the village is suffering from a "surprise" deficit. So far the information is sketchy on 1) exactly how this happened, and 2) why there wasn't monitoring in place to pick this up sooner. IMO -- there's been some unwarranted name calling in this forum -- not only is it premature, the greater issue is 1) what will be done to minimize the financial impact, and 2) putting the responsibility for this issue where it belongs. In this forum we can "shout" that its the CFO's fault -- and I'm not minimizing his and his office's responsibility -- BUT we really don't know -- were the revenue reports incorrect? was an auditor involved? was the investment manager incorrect? was the village given wrong info? etc. (this is all conjecture on my part) A few years ago I was in a similar situation in my previous town. Turns out that the firm managing the investments had a guy who was churning the accounts. BUT the reports he sent out (which went only the the office) hid that activity. Once it was uncovered, the investment firm was replaced -- and then -- EVERY trustee started getting regularly monthly statements at home. None of us on the board were financial experts -- but between us we were able to ask enough questions! Cuts can be made, surely, but more needs to be done. Pete | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 294 Registered: 3-2003 |
I've asked the questions above regarding the budget process so that at least I, and others who are concerned, can really understand what happened. I think I understand the problem with the surplus number, i.e. Allan Rosen said he thought we were starting the year with $4million when we only had $3million. Was this only reason for the 15-22% estimate of the increase next year if the 4.6% increase was adopted? Or was it the fact that the 4.6% was being used back in the spring for political reasons, with knowledge that it would lead to a very large increase the following year. Whatever the answer, I'm not trying to engage in finger pointing, but trying to get the budget process on some kind of credible level. I really don't think there was any one number that one could point to this year and say "that's the increase we're talking about." | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 612 Registered: 4-2002 |
Doublea: The last few years the CFO has done five year projections. This year had always called for a higher increase than any other. I think the most recent projection called for 10.9% in 2003. However, we took some steps last year when discussing the budget to offset some of that increase. When we were working on the budget earlier this year we discussed the budget and we agreed to keep the increase under 5%. We knew we were going to have to make up the "loss" via a larger increase next year and/or make some cuts. I was under the impression that we might be looking at a 8 - 9% increase next year (instead of 4- 5%), nothing near 15-22%. As for being a political decision, I have always stated that we should always have a goal of keeping increases to a minimum. I have also said many times that the increase in taxes should be looked at over a period of time of at least five years. That is how to avoid whether a smaller increase only happens in election years and how the village compares to other towns. One thing is for sure, the board needs to deal with making some cuts before considering a large increase in taxes. | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 11 Registered: 4-2003 |
Doublea: The surplus is the key to the extent of the increases for both this year but particularly next year. The Village appropriates current surplus into the budget as a revenue and then recaptures as much as possible by underestimating other revenues including the reserve for uncollected taxes. This works satisfactorily as long as the process can be repeated the following year. We were told the yearend surplus was presumably 4 million dollars and we were appropriating approximately 2.9 million of that amount as a revenue for 2003. We were willing to lower the surplus by roughly $900,000.-$1,000,000. That means we would have recaptured roughly $2,000,000 during the year and ended the year with a surplus of about $3,000,000. That would have permitted us to appropriate again $2,900,000. of surplus into the 2004 budget. Instead, after an audit which the Trustees have not received nor seen the results of, we are told the starting surplus was approx. $3.5 million dollars and we will end the year with about $2.5 million dollars of surplus. Also the BoT voted to appropriate $3.1 million dollars of surplus as a revenue in the 2003 budget, which cannot be done in 2004 as we will have at least 1/2 million dollars less in surplus. The Board also voted to use up $900,000. of water surplus in the 2003 budget, when we know (were told) that there can be no more than $400,000 of water surplus at the end of 2003. Thus we will be lacking at least $1 million dollars of revenue for 2004 that cannot be applied to that budget (approx 7 1/2% since 1%=$140,000). In addition that represents a double whammy since this year's shortfall also has to be made up to prevent a recurrence. Thus the surplus problem represents most of the 20-22% figure being bandied about for next year, the rest being the "normal" 4 1/2% increase required for salary increases and other expenditures. The Board will thus have to find far more drastic solutions to the 2004 budget than had we faced up to the problem in the current year. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 70 Registered: 4-2003 |
What does "IMO" stand for? |
