We are once again in the midst of budget season and after numerous Budget Workshops, we were finally presented with some tangible options for trimming the budget. Initially, we faced a 13% municipal tax increase for the "introduced budget", but the Board agreed to try to attain "only" a 5% increase. To close that gap requires almost $1.5 million in additional revenue and/or cuts.
At the Budget Meeting on March 25, the Board of Trustees agreed to the following: (amount in parentheses is the cost savings/additional revenue in 2008)
Additional Revenue:
- Increase parking ticket fines by $10 (~$109k)
Service/Funding Reductions:
- Cut funding for Main Street, CCR, CRC, Youthnet & SOMACOM by 10% (~$12k)
- Reduce publication of the Gaslight to 6x/year (from 10x/year) (~15k)
- Elimination of July 4th fireworks/evening activities (this had long been discussed over the past several years anyway due to Public Safety concerns) (~$30k)
- Reduce Summer concert budget by $2k
- Reduce holiday decoration budget by $2k
- Reduce lodging costs for League of Municipalities Conference by $2k
- Eliminate Grant Writing Consultant (~$20k)
- Have website articles written in-house (~$12.6k)
- Open pool one week later in June (~$7k)
- Move all Village Hall clerical staff to same floor to improve efficiency (~$46k)
- Encourage health benefits opt out for covered familiy members (~$33k)
- Close Recycling Center on M/W/F
- Privatize Crossing Guards (~$39k)
(Note: This was a preliminary amount which has since been determined to be inaccurate. As of June 16, 2008, NO DECISION has been reached yet on this item)
- Reduce Code Enforcement (~$16k)
- Purchase 3 Police cars (instead of 4) (~$34.5k)
It was also agreed to Capitalize certain engineering expenses, public work expenses and IT expenses, along with the $300,000 SOPAC operating expenses (~$583k). This is an area that I strongly disagree with and feel that it is simply creative accounting which shifts operating expenses to our already excessive debt service that will be paid for over the next 30 years without fixing our tax problem (and in fact, making it worse).
There were also some other suggested reductions that were rejected for now:
- Elimination of leaf pickup (~$91.4k)
- Elimination of Village Aglow (~$4k)
- Elimination of Police detail at SOPAC (~$29k)
- Close the Baird on Sunday and one evening (~$16k)
- Discontinue the Gallery (~$100k)
It is obvious that there will be somebody who will stand up to defend each of the reductions agreed to above. Everyone has there own particular "pet" service that they feel is sacred and cannot be touched. However, we must look at everything and try to make cost-benefit decisions that will impact the least number of residents and bring the greatest savings.
Ironically, after all of the above, it only reduced the budget by $975k, still leaving us with an 8.1% municipal tax increase. So, before everyone starts trying to defend their favorite municipal service above, we STILL need to identify ANOTHER $514k in cuts to bring us in line with a 5% increase.
In my opinion, we MUST start with requiring mandatory healthcare contributions for all staff. A 20% contribution towards their healthcare by ALL staff, would save the Village over $415,000 anually alone. Unfortunately, nothing is easy in Municipal government and a majority of positions are governed by Union contracts which are currently under negotiation and subject to binding arbitration. However, this is an area that MUST be addressed, as fully paid healthcare is nothing more than a relic from an era that no longer exists in the real world. It is time that government joins the real world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It would be helpful if you'd indicate what the expected savings are for each of the proposed cost-cutting measures.
Also, while I recognize that this may be unwieldy, when it comes to cutting the smaller expenses that affect the quality of life here - I'm thinking of the July 4th fireworks, for starters - isn't there some way that you could place these decisions in the hands of the citizens?
Finally, my guess is that neither you nor most of your fellow Trustees nor most of your fellow villagers are looking forward to a guaranteed pension from their employers. I think that the idea of paying lucrative pensions to the local government employees is something that needs to examined critically. I hope the board has the guts to do that.
Thank you for beginning to get the budget under control, Trustee Goldberg. Please continue in the task.
For those who may not know, would you explain what capitalizing expenses means and its significance? I agree with you wholeheartedly, that SOPAC operating expenses should not, under any circumstances, be capitalized.
Total public subsidies to all arts in South Orange is unaffordable and unsustainable, at least at present and for the foreseeable future. Minutes from the Finance Committee from last fall, I believe, indicated that total costs, direct and indirect, to SOPAC is over $1,000,000 for one year. Add another $100K to that for the gallery, more for summer concerts, etc., and you have to ask, isn't South Orange's appetite for these things out of line with its ability to pay for them, given the considerable debt load we already have and significant money lost to interest payments each year?
You are correct that the town is sinking under the weight of funding sacred cows. It simply has to end if the town is to become attractive to the kind of investment it needs. I hope its leaders have the courage to lead in this respect and that the next election will produce more who are.
Another broad area that needs scrutiny and change is the long-standing practice in South Orange of shifting significant amounts of money from the public treasury to private enterprises and corporations of all kinds. Main Street South Orange might provide one exception to this, as the main street model is used throughout this and other states and has a noteworthy track record, I believe. But, possibly, even it should be examined.
The main problem with transferring public funds to private purposes of course is that it drains limited resources away from essential public needs, leaving the budget with deficits and taxpayers obligated with more and more debt. The accute shortage of public monies in South Orange for infrastructure and many other things is due in part to this practice. It must end.
For this reason, funding to all private groups presently subsidized by tax revenues must end. Although I could understand the need for a graduated reduction, the 10% cut of only $12K, is far too little. This year, they should be cut at least by one third, to produce $36K, minimum, in total savings. And similar cuts should be made in the next two years, until the practice is ended entirely. Even then, it will take 3 years to accomplish.
There was some discussion on the CBAC email loop about the reduction to the Gaslight. The study cited as justification not to reduce the number of issues is of questionable value, meaning its conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt. My impression is that this publication is expensive to produce and mail to all households in the town. I also think that increasing it with advertising clutter will increase the chances that it won't be read, as busy people are flooded with junk mail already.
Another member of the CBAC pointed out that Gaslight costs might be reduced by asking residents to opt out of receiving a hard copy in favor of printing it from the town website. This should be pursued. I think it would and should also be incentivized if the BOT allowed residents some choice in how the savings were used. For example, more persons might opt out of hard copy costs of the Gaslight if they were told that all savings would be dedicated to debt and interest payment reduction for the town.
About asking employees to pay for health care costs, I agree with you, with a few caveats. In general, I think other measures such as those I've suggested should be taken before employees are asked to bear the brunt of failed fiscal policies that have characterized South Orange for decades. Secondly, I would feel better about it if some kinds of means testing could be introduced. I guess that might mean that low income persons would be protected from cuts to fully funded health care costs while higher income employees would bear more of their own health care costs.
In a similar vein, a guaranteed pension for higher earners needs to be reduced or eliminated and matching 401(k) plans is a way to start.
Generally, SO does need to share personnel with Maplewood and other entities. If the employees' union in SO is non-competitive with other entities where they don't exist, this should be used in contract negotiations with the municipal union for SO employees. At some point, SO should just contribute to Maplewood hiring personnel to serve both towns and phase out SO personnel if the latter insists on mandated health care and pension costs.
---SMB WEBER
How about checking with the lawyers to see if there is anything that can be done about all the properties that the previous BOT gave 30 year tax waivers to?
That won't decrease spending, but it (hopefully) would increase revenue.
If nothing can be done, then how about going after you-know-who for corruption and trying to recoup some of the losses from him. Even if you don't get a dime, he should still be made accountable for all the insider deals that went on.
For a start, how about you cut the expenses you cover for the administrator, like his gas guzzling SUV and the village gas he uses to fill it up?
Post a Comment