| Author | Message | ||
     nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 103 Registered: 1-2003 |
So as not to get lost in another thread: I understand that there is an Asst Director for Recreation that is an open position in the budget and is going to be discussed/voted on tonight. Any budget cut will be difficult and with some pain - seems like we should act on those that affect open positions first and not those would require a termination. As such it seems like a no-brainer that with the situation on hand this would be a position that would be deferred for the time being. I am interested in hearing, if possible, what the BOT who participate in this forum think about such deferral. Thanks | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 14 Registered: 4-2003 |
nwyave: You are right on target. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 104 Registered: 1-2003 |
Tonight I went to the BOT meeting and found it very disappointing. The issue of this hire was raised. I believe that it is the range of $50k per year. I felt that it was similar to a flag waving exercise. All the members of the BOT indicated their love for the parks and the needs of our children. I went to the podium and made the point that I believe that until a comprehensive fiscal plan was made that ensured a small or no muni budget increase next year (remember any budget increase is on already very high taxes), this position should be deferred. I can't for the life of me understand why, a position such as this - that has been open for more than a year - would be filled now. The arguments that I heard were just not ones that can be easily digested when we are in such a crisis. Perhaps it is a position that should be filled, but shouldn't we wait until we know we have a plan where we can make up the budget shortfall that we are facing? All I keep hearing is that we won't have a 20% muni tax increase next year, yet, I haven't seen any fiscal changes that would bring down that # to a very low #. I have three small children, 2 who would currently potentially benefit from such a hire, but yet I do find it fiscally irresponsible, being that we are in this position, to make such a hire. I have heard on a recurring basis that much of the budget is fixed, contractual and police/fire related. Why when we have an opportunity to temporarily freeze a discretionary expense we aren't doing it? Trustee Rosen made an excellent point when he said perhaps he would vote for this in a month when he saw all the other cuts that could potentially reduce next year's tax increase. It would make sense to potentially hire another recreation person when we know we have our fiscal house in order, not before such point. The only trustees that voted against this measure were Trustees Joyce and Rosen. Trustee Steglitz was not in attendance and the President did not vote as I believe that he would only vote in situations where this a tie (I may be wrong on this). I can go on and on on this. One Trustee even said and I almost quote, that this wasn't a big expenditure in the big scheme of the budget. I don't want to take it out of context, because I don't think he really meant what he said. I would strongly disagree though, and counter that $50k, or $12,500 for the balance of this year is very material when we are in the financial crisis that we face. Does that mean I am against recreation - no! What it does mean is that I fully understand that we are in a fiscal crisis. Another trustee said that she could not face the citizens of this town and cut services and also raise taxes. I know the statement is only with good intent, but I can't accept it. Nobody wants to cut services, but I guarantee that more citizens would say to potentiall cut certain services than increase taxes by such a large amount or use our surplus to bring down the increase - thereby jeopardizing future years tax increases. Lastly, again I know it is with good intent, but I rather not hear anymore that the situation that we are in is due to NJ's crazy way of relying on property taxes to fund education. The situation is what it is, we need to deal with it and make painful decisions where and when necessary. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 105 Registered: 1-2003 |
Now that I've raved a bit, I would like to add that I imagine being on the BOT is a thankless job and one that is done on a volunteer basis and takes a lot of one's time. I know that each BOT works in good faith and I think each of the trustees deserves kudos and appreciation for their commitment. Even though I stongly disagree with what I saw this evening, I woudn't want the aforementioned to go unsaid. Now with this said, I think my previous post is complete. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 241 Registered: 8-2002 |
wow -- thx -- for your insight and passion! I guess at some point there is the question -- what services do we cut last? (other than safety?) My guess is that the largest number of villagers come in contact with the recreation dept. So arguably, the "face" of the village -- and good or bad service -- hits many who use the recplex. So maybe other things get cut first? But certainly -- assuming that this is the "low" season for the recreation dept -- I'd hold off a new hire right now! Pete | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 396 Registered: 5-2001 |
NWyAve, I saw your questioning on TV and completely agree with you. We are in "crisis mode" and ALL discretionary spending should be put on hold until ALL items can be prioritized and examined. I don't understand how your question got twisted into a suggestion that cuts should be made to the police. NOBODY is suggesting that. How did you even know this new position was going to be discussed? It was not listed on the meeting agenda posted online. I'm sure if more people knew about this new hire in a time of fiscal crisis, more people would have come out to support your position. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 106 Registered: 1-2003 |
Pete: Thanks - I agree that recreation is key, so maybe it is something thats should have eventually get funded. I also agree that with both you and Mayhew Drive - lets get all possible cuts on one page, see if in aggregate they are sufficient and then begin the process of picking and choosing. To pick one above all others now without seeing what other items may be subject to cuts, is in my opinion financially irresponsible and not prudent. Mayhew - Don't know why my point was changed to suggest cuts to police. I never said that. I found out about the potential hire by casually bumping in to somebody in town who mentioned it to me. | ||
| happyman Citizen Username: Happyman Post Number: 40 Registered: 6-2001 |
NWYAVE: Thank you for your thorough report and standing up as the voice of many taxpayers in this town. Most citizens would agree we are in an emergency fiscal situation and all new spending(open positions, et al) must be frozen until a thorough review of our 1-3 year budget is completed. I find it unbelievable that a Trustee would state that they felt "uncomfortable facing the citizens of SO" with budget cuts, what she should be feeling is disgrace for allowing the town to come to such a state of fiscal crisis! | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 622 Registered: 4-2002 |
The position was discussed about one year ago. It was on the agenda under resolutions because a person had finally been recomended. The department has been understaffed for a long time now needs to be bought up to speed(check out some of the other threads on this board). The BOT does need to make cuts, I just don't think this is one of the positions to be cut. We pay a lot in taxes, but I don't think we want to pay more and have less services. If we cut certain services it could impact on our property values. This position costs less than $10.00 per year per homeonwer. While not trying to minimize the need to save every dollar, I think we can find better places in the budget to make cuts than in the rec department( and not hiring would be a cut since the position was in the budget). Peteglider: Hiring in low season makes sense because we need to make sure they are up to speed and can get certain improvements in place before the spring. It might have been ok to wait one month as Trustee Rosen suggested, but I did not see how that would make a difference. He agreed that we needed to hire the person and just wanted to review the budget again. We still need to identify and implement cuts in the budget. Nwyave: I am glad you came to the meeting and help spark the discussion. I just respectfully disagree about this particular position. You did not mention public safety, but I do want to point out that since police and fire are the greatest portion of the municipal budget, on some level, the assumption is that if there are going to be significant cuts, that some must be in that area. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5231 Registered: 5-2001  |
That's only $10 per household... this is only $40 per household... this is only $90.... etc etc. etc. How about a CUT that matches that $10 so it evens out? Let's see the BOT challenge themselves: from now on match every spending addition with an equal cut elsewhere. Brainstorm... Be creative. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 355 Registered: 9-2002  |
There has been a lot of discussion about "appropriate cuts," and Mr. Rosner indicates above where most of the budget is spent. Can someone indicate where budget cuts could be made, where they think they should be made, and what real impact they would have on the town budget and property taxes? I realize it's politically difficult to make these kinds of statements in this kind of forum, but if we are talking about making cuts, what cuts are realistic, and when can they come into effect? I assume the various town employees have contracts that indicate salaries, benefits, etc. So what can realistically be cut from them? Or would it only be when a contract comes up for renewal? What options are there? Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | ||
| Jeff Alexander Citizen Username: Jalexander Post Number: 35 Registered: 5-2003 |
With all due respect.. . And what will a double digit tax increase (on top of our already "extortionistic" level of taxes) do to our property values? I would argue that our property values would increase a minimum of 20% if our taxes were comparable to Millburn/Short Hills rather than to medieval feudal land with a masked executioner/ tax collector | ||
| happyman Citizen Username: Happyman Post Number: 41 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mark: Let me just express what I am hearing from my friends and neighbors…. They are foremost afraid and then angry…Afraid that fiscal oversights/mistakes are forcing their taxes to a level that, in this time of “corporate cutbacks,” they can not afford. Afraid that the individual/s, they have entrusted to manage the financial side of our town, are stating that an error was made, but are looking to the taxpayers to fund it through increased taxes. Afraid that the CFO directed to keep our taxes down is the same individual slated to spend. They are Angry that few on the BOT (there are exceptions) are as afraid and angry as they are. They are angry that the BOT is not asking for: 1) An immediate halt on new spending 2) A complete review of the next 3 years budget, in light of specific rateables not producing income, and the recent swing from budget surplus to budget deficit. 3) Proposed cuts to staff/ staff benefits/services 4) A cap on tax increases 5) Answers to J. Crohn’s post of 9/13/03 12:46pm and Noracoombs’ post of 9/13/03 4:07pm I too am respectful of the donation of time and energy you and most of BOT put forth, however, please read the other treads again, go to a neighborhood party, listen to the conversations on the soccer bleachers …..people are upset! People view this as a Crisis! You write: “We pay a lot in taxes, but I don't think we want to pay more and have less services.” [In times of crisis, sometimes you do.] “If we cut certain services it could impact on our property values.” [When the local newspaper reports that our taxes may go up 15-20%, that Impacts Property valves!] As always, thank you for posting on SOOL and allowing us the opportunity to discuss this vital issue…. The NOT SO Happyman | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 623 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: This was not an increase since this position was in the budget. I said I did not want to minimize the $10.00 but that was the cost per household and I am not sure that everyone realized the impact meant. I do not believe for one second the increase will be anywhere near 20%. That was a worst case scenario that was presented based on a lot of if this and if that. The media chose to present one side of the story. For the record, the News-Record never showed up to a budget meeting this year. In years past, there has been usually at least one person from the paper who did show up at budget meetings. Happyman: We have been doing five year projections for some time now because we did not want the budget analyzed based on only one year (i.e. 0% increase in an election year and 10% the following year). I agree we should halt any new spending until we have fully reviewed the budget. I have made some suggestions for cuts and the BOT will discuss all the proposed cuts and will have to make some decisions. I will have to look at Ms. Crohn's post and the one from noracoombs again. As for caps on increases, there are too many variables to make a blanket statement. Union contracts, civil service contracts, uncollected property taxes (number goes up in bad times), tax appeals, lawsuits, snow, etc. I always think our goal should be to keep the increases to a minimum and try to never exceed 5%. It is really the property tax system that is the problem. We need to coninue to pressure the state to make some real changes to the system. The gap between the towns without a lot of ratables vs the towns that have continues to grow. We have become like one of the small market teams in baseball trying to compete against the Yankees. Revenue sharing is the answer and the sales tax is what could be the funding method (I know, sounds like Florio's plan, but he was right just had lousy PR). If anyone has suggestions on where to cut feel free to send them to me. I will either submit them or explain why I think it is not a good idea. Heck, I don't want my wife yelling at me anymore about the high taxes so I need to do whatever I can to minimize the increase. | ||
| alison Citizen Username: Alison Post Number: 52 Registered: 6-2002 |
Why don't South Orange and Maplewood work together to pool resources and share services? Certainly there must be some kind of efficiency and cost saving that could result. My impression has always been that Maplewood would entertain the conversation but that South Orange would not. | ||
| NCJanow Citizen Username: Librarylady Post Number: 954 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually Alison, I've always had the opposite impression. South Orange residents pay much more per household towards the school budget than Maplewoodians. . Trash disposal is handled differently, with Maplewood bundling it into the taxes and SO not. Our library is civil service, Maplewood has two and is not. That being said.. if we all put our thinking caps on maybe we can figure a way out. But we all should remember, that minicipal taxes are only about 25% of the bill and 5% of 25% is a much smaller dollar increase than 5% of 100%. Now if somebody can tell me what I get for my 25% of taxes that goes to the county gov't? NCJ aka LibraryLady | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 107 Registered: 1-2003 |
I would stay focused on the muni taxes and not discount it at all. 25% of our individual taxes are significant. We don't have much control on the county govt so I hate to say it, why spend time on it. Lets focus our resources on finding out ways to reduce what is in our control - muni and education. Remember if you are paying 15k in taxes now, muni taxes represent 3750 - certainly not a small amount. If you have a 10% to 20% increase on that number it means 375 - 750. That is only muni not to mention what ever increase will come through on the county and education side. Am I getting nervous - absolutely - I think every resident in town should be. Not to beat a dead horse - but the word "only" in these threads kills me. Its all the "onlys" that add up to the situation we are in. Either we are going to be able to impose real fiscal discipline or we are all going to pay for it - in more ways than one - in hard $ taxes being paid and in soft dollars (that can translate into hard $s) by having reduced property values. At this point, when it comes to expenditures, nothing should be considered "only." | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 397 Registered: 5-2001 |
NWyave, I agree that all things should be considered (with the exception of public safety, such as police & fire). Isn't it correct that next year is going to be brutal because the ratables projected with downtown development have not materialized, yet? Going on the assumption that the vast majority of people would much prefer service cuts to even higher taxes (which is also what I am hearing from people), is it feasabile to "suspend" some "non-essential" services for next year & reinstate them when the ratables materialize? I have no idea how much any of the following cost, but if it is "significant", perhaps they should be considered. Remember - this is a "crisis" and we need to act like it, think out of the box & potentially take radical steps: - 4th of July fireworks (suspend for 1 year or charge admission) - Pool (close for 1 season or open only on weekends) - Gaslight newsletter (distribute electronically ONLY or get rid of it) I honeestly have no idea what other services our taxes pay for, but I'm sure there are a whole host of things like these that can & should be considered. Other suggestions? | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 63 Registered: 6-2001 |
It seems to me that supervisory personnel get automatic raises every year regardless of performance or budgetary considerations. Take the position of Assistant Director of Recreation/Cultural Affairs. Mark is right that the position has been discussed before. It even showed up in the 2001 salary ordinance. The salary was $44,465. It showed up again in 2002 with a salary of $46,244 even though the position was never filled. And in 2003, it is listed at $48,093. Maybe raises should not be so automatic. I am all for rewarding people who perform but I feel that across the board raises are an insult to those employees that do excel in their jobs (and the Village has quite a few) and to the taxpayers. Even if it is "only" 25% of our taxes. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 624 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dan: I agree, raises should not be automatic. I never understood why and we need to look at that again. Especially now. Mayhewdrive: I would not be in favor of closing the pool. Too many people use it, even during the week. I would have no problem eliminating the fireworks or at least coordinating with Maplewood so we alternate with them instead of having a show in both towns. I would not want to figure out how to charge admission. As for sharing services with Maplewood, there have been attempts by both sides over the years. Instead of finger pointing we need to sit down again and address the issue again. If Maplewood is not interested we can have discussions with W. Orange. I am not sure if the savings would be that great, but every little bit helps. As for the muni taxes being "only" 25% of the total bill, it is true that the numbers are too big to use the word only. However when compared to the county which is about 19% of the bill we get much more bang for the buck. The coutny portion has always been too high for what we get. We should all be very wary of our property taxes. The state has the ability to correct a lot of the problems but because towns like S. Orange represent a minority in the state, they are apt to continue to do nothing to improve the situation. I have sometimes remarked (joked) what we really need is an unmarked E-Z pass reader at Valley St and S. Orange Ave to charge a toll for every car that passes through the village (exempt for residents). |
