Pay Me My Money Down

As we wind down the year, it's time again to ramp up the Budget discussions for 2011. This past week, we held the first Budget Workshop and focused on the subsidy for the four nonprofit organizations that receive money from the Village - Youthnet, Community Coalition on Race, SOPAC and Main Street.

We began with an overview of the outlook for 2011 and 2012, in general. The "good" news is that if we kept everything flat, we would "only" have a 3.5% increase in 2011 (if we find another $240k in revenue or cuts) and a 7.6% increase in 2012. (Once again, the biggest drivers being healthcare and pension increases). However, this does not account for having ANY capital expenditures (street paving, significant building improvements, Fire Equipment etc) which obviously is not realistic. So, as a result, we once again are faced with the big challenge of weighing our options and determining if there are additional "revenue enhancements" (ok...tax increases) or spending cuts that can be found.

With that framing the discussion, we reviewed the budgets of the 4 nonprofits in intimate detail and their respective financial requests:

• Youthnet - requested $15k; accepted by the Board with the suggestion that Youthnet should work to increase its fundraising from the community
• Community Coalition on Race - requested $22.5; after a lengthy discussion, concerns were raised about the expenses for the organization, such as payroll for 3 employees, rent expenses and $200/month in telecommunications expenses. In addition, as discussed previously, the CCRs involvement in divisive and political issues continues to be a concern of the BOT. No decision on funding was reached.
• SOPAC - requested $337,000, an increase from the $229,500 that was provided in 2010. Extensive discussion was held and, in the end, the BOT agreed to maintain the same level of support as 2010 ($229,500) for now, with the option to revise it closer to SOPAC's requested amount once we had better clarity on the rest of the budget.
• Main Street - requested $50k; accepted by the Board but it was noted that the additional $12k provided last year for Downtown After Sundown will be raised by the Citizens Public Safety Committee for 2011.

In addition, we agreed to ensure there were contractual agreements between the Village and each of these entities to ensure that they are performing to service levels specified and meeting goals specified by the Village.

We obviously still have a LONG way to go for the upcoming Budget with many more Workshops to come.

Light of Day

This evening, I was invited to participate in a "Light Walk" with representatives from Seton Hall. This was organized by SGA president, Melissa Boege, to allow us to see the streets of South Orange at night through the eyes of students. Together with Police Chief Chelel, we walked from the Wilden Gate, along Eder Terr, College Place, Fairview Ave, Gardiner Ave, Riggs Place, Grove Road and Turrell Ave during the nighttime hours to observe the residential streets at night. Over the years, there have been a number of muggings outside the Seton Hall gates and we are always looking for ways to reduce crime.

The most glaring issue I noticed was the huge number of homes that did not bother to simply have a porch light turned on outside. In all neighborhoods, especially where the homes are relatively close to the street, the light provided by porch lights makes an enormous difference in the perceived (and real) safety of the area. We all love the gaslights in South Orange, but everyone knows that they provide limited light, resulting in dark sidewalks which is only further exasperated when homeowners do not keep their home lit up.

It is so simple these days to install a light sensor on your porch light which causes the light to automatically turn on at dusk and turn off at dawn. The incremental energy cost of leaving a light on all night is so minuscule that it is probably the simplest and easiest thing you can do to protect your home, as well as the pedestrians that walk along the sidewalks at night.

I encourage everyone to spread the word to your friends and neighbors - for the benefit of everyone, please turn on your porch light and keep it on all night!

Does this bus stop at 82nd St?

At last night's Public Safety Committee Meeting we had a discussion about the school bus service that is provided to students in the West Montrose neighborhood who attend Marshall School. The origin of the conversation was from a discussion with the Board of Education last year when we were reviewing the budget and we were informed of the existence of this bus route because it was declared a "hazardous route". As a result of this designation, all 32 children in the neighborhood are provided bus service to school, which dictates the need for an added bus and bus driver, costing the school district between $25,000 and $50,000 each year.

Apparently, back in July 2001 the Board of Education was going to discontinue this bus route because the State determined that any bus routes for children who live less than 1.5 miles from school are considered "courtesy routes". To get around this, some residents at the time lobbied to have this route deemed a "hazardous route" instead, which would require the School District to provide a bus. That practice continues to this day.

The irony of the entire situation is that Marshall School services children in Kindergarten through 2nd grade (kids who are typically 5-7 years old) and are too young to walk to school by themselves. As a result, if a bus were not provided, the likely outcome is that they would be driven to school by their parent and the notion of the route being "hazardous" is a red herring.

As a parent of a 3rd grader at South Mountain School, I completely sympathize with the challenges parents have in getting their kids to school on time while also trying to get themselves to work on time. When my daughter was in Kindergarten & 1st grade, she went to school at South Mountain Annex, which is probably about a mile from my house. However, since the school is up an extremely steep hill without any sidewalks, we were forced to drive her to school and adjust our work schedules. In hindsight, should we have lobbied to have our route designated "hazardous", as well, so we could receive busing from the District? Likewise, I imagine there are MANY neighborhoods in town that take "hazardous" routes to school.

Should busing be provided to all students? Should all busing be eliminated?

I'd love to hear what you think.

Dirty Boulevard

Two weeks ago at a Public Works Committee meeting, we were joined by several property owners who were outraged over the current condition of our downtown. They noted problems such as gum on the sidewalks, litter, hanging baskets with no visible flowers, planting beds not mulched/filled with weeds, peeling paint on gas lamps/trash cans, awnings covered in bird excrement and crooked signs. They even went so far to bring pictures to show specific examples of these issues. While we have discussed most of these issues at one point or another, I can't say that I disagree with their concerns and share their frustration that these issues remain.

Clearly, beautification of the downtown is a complex problem - a combination of people who have no regard for the town and will freely litter, together with an aging infrastructure (the sidewalks and Gaslamps have been there for over 12 years), melded with SOME property/business owners who do not properly care for their property/sidewalks, combined with sporadic and inconsistent Code Enforcement, in conjunction with limited resources (people and money) for Public Works. The question then becomes how to solve the problem. Should all taxpayers pay for additional resources? Should the business/property owners bear the sole responsibility?

There have been at least three times over the past 10 years that the concept of a Special Improvement District (or Business Improvement District or Downtown Redevelopment Management Corporation) has been proposed to help fund dedicated resources for this constant maintenance that is needed to keep our town attractive and competitive. Each time the idea was killed off, largely by merchants who were opposed to this "tax" being imposed upon them by the Government.

Now, several property owners are suggesting that THEY take the lead to help create some structure for downtown cleanliness and beautification. Will this make a difference and gain consensus or are they simply revisiting the same idea that has been repeatedly rejected? I'm intrigued to learn more and am curious what you think.

W(Rec)k on the Highway

Last night's BOT meeting was largely dominated by discussions centering around the Recreation Department. Specifically, how to better manage the basketball courts at the Baird and what to do about the upcoming vacancy in the position of Assistant Director of Cultural Affairs.

The basketball courts adjacent to the Baird Center have been the site of several recent controversies - most notably a "pistol whipping" on May 27, 2009 and most recently an enormous impromptu "tournament" on May 21, 2010 which attracted literally hundreds of kids from Newark and surrounding towns and which required a large police response to disperse. As a result, Trustee Gould, Chair of the Recreation Committee, has discussed among the committee the idea of constructing an attractive wrought iron fence around the courts to better control access to the facility. To me, this sounds like an optimal solution which would have a minimal cost impact and would ensure that the courts can be properly controlled when they are "open" and can also be closed when they are unsupervised at times when the Baird Center is closed. By enclosing the courts, players can be directed to enter through the Baird Center and could even be asked to sign-in. If too many people want to access the courts at once, access could be restricted to a safe number of participants. Apparently, this is exactly how the courts used to be operated several years ago before they were re-done and it seemed to work well. I think installing a fence now is an easy solution to prevent a recurrence of the serious problems that have occurred in the past.

The other issue raised and discussed was how to handle the resignation of the Assistant Director of Cultural Affairs. While the resignation of any staff member is always a loss, we also have to view this as an opportunity to better rationalize our staffing and spending on Cultural Affairs. We all agree that cultural affairs is an important part of our lives, however the Village currently spends an enormous amount of money on these activities through the Baird, SOPAC, the Library and the School District. There is now a great opportunity to better consolidate these services, particularly in light of the resignation of the Executive Director of SOPAC and ongoing discussions with Maplewood on "sharing services" with respect to Recreation. The tax burden in our community is still way too high and we have to capitalize on opportunities like this to do everything we can to maintain quality services so residents want to move and stay here, while also reducing that tax burden so residents can afford to stay here.

No Surrender

Well, we busted out of class
Had to get away from those fools
We learned more from a 3-minute record, baby
Than we ever learned in school

As most people who know me (and as you can tell from the titles of my blog posts), I am a huge Bruce Springsteen fan. However, many people don't realize that part of the genesis of this is the fact that we both grew up in same town and graduated from the same High School (although a number of years apart). Having had a few common teachers in High School, the reputation Bruce Springsteen left behind in school as being a complete slacker and a disruptive force in the classroom is far cry from the man we all know today. On the other hand, I was a rather serious student in school and was glad to have been in all honors classes, finishing #11 in my graduating class of over 220 students. So, as much as I admire Bruce Springsteen today for his philanthropy, his inspirational writing, his values and all he has accomplished, I have to say I am glad we were not in the same classes.

The point is that different people have different needs in school. These differences require varying educational techniques to maximize their academic potential and to motivate students to learn. While Bruce Springsteen has gone on to unimaginable fame & success, he clearly would have struggled with advanced classes in school.

On the other hand, I recall a time when I was accidentally placed in a "College Prep" English class instead of "Honors" and was quickly bored, as well as distracted by the shorter attention spans of my classmates. I was looking for a challenge, yet my classmates needed more attention to get past elements that I found to be more rudimentary. My personal experience is a prime reason why levels in schools have been created and are important to be continued. This is further supported by a study entitled "Detracking America's Schools - Equity at Zero Cost? " (Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, v. 15, no. 4, Fall 1996, pp. 623-645 L. M. Argys, D. I. Rees, Dominic J. Brewer ). In this study, the main conclusion was "abolishing tracking in America's schools would have a large positive impact on achievement for students currently in the lower tracks, but that this increase in achievement would come at the expense of students in upper-track classes."

I have great respect for Superintendent Osborne and the members of the Board of Ed, for the time they devote to our community and for the intelligence and good intentions I know they bring to their roles. I fully realize their desire to provide excellence for all students. However, different students need differentiated instruction and trying to combine these students in a single classroom will inevitably result in the teacher teaching to the lowest common denominator, depriving the highest achieving students of being challenged to their full potential.

Let's address the elephant in the room - This is not and should not be about race. There are high achieving students of all races and everyone should be given an opportunity to reach their full potential. However, the changes being proposed in our school district would require significant investments in Professional Development and take a long time to properly implement. I am disappointed that this proposal surfaced this past week and is targeted to be implemented in the upcoming school year, yet during 4 months of budget discussions, increases in spending for Professional Development to address this gap were never mentioned.

I urge the Superintendent and Board of Education to re-evaluate and reject the proposal being discussed and engage the community in a dialog on how best to improve our school district. The current plan sounds like simply the surrender of our highest achieving students in an unproven experiment for which our community will be paying the price for years to come.

Long Walk Home

Tonight was the annual Board of School Estimate vote on the school budget. For those who do not know, South Orange/Maplewood are quite unique by the nature of the joint school district and as a result the school budget is not voted on directly the the residents, but by a "Board of School Estimate", which consists of three elected officials from South Orange, three elected officials from Maplewood and two members of the Board of Education. This year the budget passed unanimously 8-0.

This was my 3rd budget and certainly the most difficult, largely the result of a MASSIVE cut to State Aid by Governor Christie. As a result of the cut, very difficult choices were made by the Administration and Board of Ed to propose a budget with a 3.23% increase in South Orange. Further compounding an increase beyond the original target and beyond the rate of inflation was the fact that this budget delayed the implementation of a technology lab in the Middle School and results in the outsourcing of paraprofessional staff. Certainly any budget that directly impacts people is painful and difficult for everyone involved and not something that anyone relishes. Having been the victim of the budget axe firsthand, I know exactly how it feels. I know it is a minor consolation, but the staff that are being outsourced will be offered a job with the outsourced agency (albeit without health care benefits) and will be reassigned to the District if they so choose.

This is an incredibly frustrating situation all around and the anger can and should be best directed at Trenton for putting the district in a no-win situation. The Superintendent and Board of Ed should be commended for doing the best they could with the limited resources they were provided by the Governor. All School Districts in NJ are dealing with this new harsh reality and in the end I think the decisions that were made were an attempt to minimize the impact on education for the majority of our students. I just now hope that the Teachers Union accepts the zero percent salary increase that was built into this budget, so further cuts are not needed.

Loose Change

It's the peak of Budget season again and there is good news and bad news. The good news is that a tax increase that was once projected at around 29% has been whittled down to "only" 6.8% (so far) at our last Budget Workshop on March 15 without any major cuts. The reduction was mostly due to a recognition of surplus, projected revenue from the new Sterling Properties project and a better than expected tax collection rate.

The bad news is that we learned this week that the new Governor has radically cut State Aid to Municipalities, resulting in an additional cut over of over $400,000, which would theoretically bring the tax increase back up to almost 9%. (To add insult to injury, the Governor also cut state aid to the school district by over 80%, or $5.3M!)

Clearly a 9% Municipal increase is unacceptable under any circumstances (and even more so in this economy).

After a review of all departments, now we are starting to discuss opportunities to reduce costs or increase revenue. At the last Budget Meeting a number of increases to "user fees" were discussed and agreed to. Specifically:

• Increase the cost of Use Permits to $50 (from $0)
• Increase the cost of zoning approvals to $50 (from $0)
• Increase the cost of street opening permits to $138 (from $100)
• Increase the cost of a code reinspection to $50 (from $0)
• Increase the cost of white metal pickup to $75 (from $0)
• Increase the cost of toter delivery to $50 (from $0)
• Increase the cost of mulch/woodchip delivery to $50 (from $0)
• Increase the cost for household bulk pickup to $75 (from $0)

While nobody ever wants costs to rise, it seems only fair to raise the fee for services that are used by those individuals. In addition, many of these services would still likely cost the same (or even more) if contracted for privately.

In the end, these fees add up over the course of a year and should be borne by the people who use these services. We still have a ways to go to refine and reduce the budget further, but the process is underway and we are continuing to try to find creative solutions to our very difficult tax burden.

Let's Be Friends

It's another new year, which brings a new budget cycle to work through. Already, there has been alot of talk about comments made by Township Committee Member Fred Profeta in Maplewood during their Budget Workshop this past weekend. I commend Mr. Profeta on his willingness to make bold proposals and try to "take on some sacred cows and not worry about the political consequences".

The part of his remarks that seems to have gotten the most attention is his suggestion for increased Shared Services with those of us in South Orange. Mr. Profeta is no stranger to promoting Shared Services as he was actively involved in the effort to pass a referendum in November 2006 to create a joint municipal consolidation study commission between South Orange and Maplewood. At that time, the referendum passed overwhelmingly in South Orange, but was defeated in Maplewood. There are many theories why the effort failed in Maplewood, but many have suggested it was largely due to a concerted campaign by some Maplewood residents promoting "Keep Maplewood Maplewood".

In any event, Mr. Profeta and (many, if not all of) his colleagues on the Township Committee new seem to be in agreement in principal with South Orange that Sharing Services between two relatively small municipalities is a good idea. While any sharing of services certainly has the potential to bring cost savings through headcount reduction, it is not always a guarantee and as such, proper analysis needs to occur. It's also important to realize that reductions (or even suggested reductions) in staff greatly impact the employees and their families. It's imperative that we are sensitive to how these ideas are reported to ensure that the process is fair and that we (and the media) are clear about where we are in the process, being careful to distinguish between "ideas" and "real negotiations".

I certainly don't fault Mr. Profeta at all, as I think he was very clear in saying "None of the details have been analyzed or worked out." I just wish the media and public had realized that and not been so quick to assume these ideas are all a "done deal".

Obviously, this is not to suggest that these ideas won't or shouldn't be explored in greater detail. With the insane tax burden we already carry, we have to continue to look at all options to increase efficiency. I'm just glad that we now have willing partners in Maplewood that are serious about working together with us.