Well, for those who have not heard, yet, I finally formally decided to run for re-election as Village Trustee in the May 12 election (and filed appropriate papers on March 18). Many people certainly have asked "why" when it can be such a Thankless job. I definitely gave it alot of thought over the past few months and went back and forth on the decision a few times. While there are far too many people that get into local politics for their own personal agenda or some higher political ambition, I am glad to say that my motives are far more simplistic - I simply enjoy serving the community and wanted to do what I can to make it a better place.
I am actually quite proud of the many accomplishments over the past 2 years and am glad we have been able to start to unwind some of the terrible decisions and attitudes of the past.
After a lengthy search process for the best possible runningmates, I am very proud and excited about the final result - I will be running together with Janine Bauer and Nancy Gould.
The notion of running together with Janine Bauer may come as a surprise to many people. As many of you know, Janine ran for Trustee on the opposing ticket 2 years ago. However, Janine and I have spoken quite a number of times over the past two years and she has actually been quite supportive of what we have been doing. We ultimately agreed it was time to look ahead and move beyond the politics of the past. In addition, Janine has stayed very active in the community - continuing to serve both on the Environmental Commission and on the River Greenway Committee. She also previously served on the Planning Board, where she helped advocate to preserve as much of the quarry as possible (a cause I was very passionate about, as well.) She is a practicing attorney, as a partner in a law firm specializing in land use, environmental, transportation, contracts and business litigation. She lives in West Montrose with her husband and 2 children. I urge you to get to know her and see that she will be a huge asset to the entire town.
Nancy Gould is currently a Real Estate Agent and formerly a Partner in a large Architectural/Engineering firm in New York, where she managed multi-million dollar large-scale development projects and was in charge of the Planning and Urban design departments for the firm. She also currently sits on the South Orange Planning Board. She lives in Montrose with her Husband and 16 year old son. Nancy is a fantastic person and will also be a huge asset to the entire town.
We also decided that we will be running under the name "Pure Progress" (www.pureprogress.org) to continue the vision and platform we laid out and began implementing two years ago. Obviously, Janine and Nancy will each bring their fresh perspectives, but the core of our values remains the same.
I look forward to the campaign over the next 7 weeks and hope you get a chance to talk with Janine, Nancy or myself to learn about our ideas and values. It's time to spring forward and not fall back.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sad Eyes
On February 17, the BOT held the most recent Budget Workshop. This time, we focused on reaching a conclusion on Recreation Fees, reviewing the budget of the Police Department and reviewing the budget for the Department of Public Works.
With respect to Recreation, it was agreed to do the following:
With respect to Recreation, it was agreed to do the following:
- increase the fees for Summer Camp to $700/child, with a $100 discount for each additional child per family (beyond one)
- increase the fees for Recreation Badges to $30/person, with a maximum of $120/family
- increase the fees for programs at the Baird by $10
- implement a $10 discount for residents that sign up for Baird programs and have a Recreation Badge
With respect to the Police Department, no formal decisions were reached, however it was recommended that the vacant positions that currently exist in the Department not be filled at this time. However to help meet the Policing needs of the community, it was strongly suggested that the Police Officer currently assigned to Information Management be utilized as a Police Officer and the position of Information Management be filled by a Civilian. In addition, it was strongly suggested that additional per diem dispatchers and Crossing Guards be identified, so Police Officers are not utilized to fill-in for those jobs, causing costly overtime expenses to occur.
With respect to Public Works, the joint bid with Maplewood for large turf mowing was discussed and identified as an area to save around $180,000/year.
However, even with all of these changes, an enormous budget gap still remains. As a result, this past Monday night, the BOT voted to submit a layoff plan to the State of NJ which proposes the elimination of the following positions:
- Public Works – 5 positions
- Recreation and Cultural Affairs – 2 positions
- Code Enforcement & Inspections – 4 positions
- Municipal Court – 1 position
The Board of Trustees also is recommending to the Board of the South Orange Library that it eliminate two positions, in addition to not filling one open position. (The BOT simply controls the amount of money provided to the Library, but the Library Board actually determines how that money is spent)
Clearly, this process has been the most difficult thing we have been faced with and none of these decisions were reached easily or with any pleasure. However, the Village taxpayers spend over $22M for personnel (including salary, benefits and taxes) in a budget of almost $34.5M for 176.5 full time employees across all departments. In addition, over 62% of personnel costs are just for Public Safety (Police and Fire) alone.
As I have said on this blog and publicly numerous times, this financial situation is simply unsustainable. South Orange is one of the most "tax-stressed" communities in the State and something must be done to help the residents. I urge the Unions that represent the majority of the Village employees to work diligently to put an end to the spiraling costs of salaries, health care and benefits for the sake of all residents and employees.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Big Muddy
Once again, it is Budget season and the Board of Trustees has begun holding frequent Budget Workshops to analyze the budget and determine what should be included this year and what won't. As expected, just like EVERY organization, times are very difficult this year with the unprecedented economic climate we face. However, far worse than expected is that we are looking down the barrel of a $5 MILLION budget gap, which would translate to a 27% Municipal Tax increase if nothing were done!
Clearly, a 27% increase is completely unacceptable. However, we are now faced with the difficult task of determining what elements of the budget should be trimmed to reduce the gap.
At this point, the largest drivers of the increase are: Reduced Surplus (about $1.8M), Personnel Costs, Fixed Costs, Reduced State Aid, (last year we received $600k in extraordinary aid that we cannot count on again), Debt Service and Capital Improvements. With respect to Capital Improvements, we have identified approximately $11M of projects that are LONG overdue, such as replacement of vehicles, building maintenance and roadway improvements for which money has never been set aside. To undertake these projects, requires a 5% "down payment", which equates to almost $550k. It might be easy to suggest deferring these improvements, but the problem is that has been the "answer" for many many years and at some point the work must be done or we will face the situation of the Old Stone House with many more assets of the town.
So, to deal with these challenges, we asked all Village Departments to propose how they can cut a percentage of their current budgets by reducing services/staff costs and/or what revenue could be increased. Monday night, we met with the first two departments - Library and Recreation to hear their proposals.
From Library, the proposals came to a net change of 0%...which unfortunately does not help the situation.
From Recreation, some proposals were presented as follows:
Clearly, a 27% increase is completely unacceptable. However, we are now faced with the difficult task of determining what elements of the budget should be trimmed to reduce the gap.
At this point, the largest drivers of the increase are: Reduced Surplus (about $1.8M), Personnel Costs, Fixed Costs, Reduced State Aid, (last year we received $600k in extraordinary aid that we cannot count on again), Debt Service and Capital Improvements. With respect to Capital Improvements, we have identified approximately $11M of projects that are LONG overdue, such as replacement of vehicles, building maintenance and roadway improvements for which money has never been set aside. To undertake these projects, requires a 5% "down payment", which equates to almost $550k. It might be easy to suggest deferring these improvements, but the problem is that has been the "answer" for many many years and at some point the work must be done or we will face the situation of the Old Stone House with many more assets of the town.
So, to deal with these challenges, we asked all Village Departments to propose how they can cut a percentage of their current budgets by reducing services/staff costs and/or what revenue could be increased. Monday night, we met with the first two departments - Library and Recreation to hear their proposals.
From Library, the proposals came to a net change of 0%...which unfortunately does not help the situation.
From Recreation, some proposals were presented as follows:
- Increase the cost of Recreation Badges/Guest Passes/Babysitter Passes
- Increase the cost of Summer Day Camp
- Increase the cost of program fees
- Eliminate the fireworks from Village Aglow
- Reduce some costs for Holiday Lighting
At this point, no final decisions have been made. Depending on the severity of these increases, this COULD generate an additional $200k or so, but that is still a long long way away from $5M!
The next Budget Workshop is February 17 at 7:30pm in Village Hall
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Just around the corner to the Light of Day
One of the biggest frustrations we have faced on the Board has been the glacial pace of progress for the renovation of the Firehouse. (Although, I am certain our frustration doesn't even remotely approach the level of frustration felt by our Fire Department who have had to endure difficult conditions in temporary trailers for far too long.)As Chair of the Public Safety Committee, I have met with the Fire Chief periodically to tour the Firehouse in order to see the progress (or lack thereof) firsthand. Earlier today, I had my most recent visit and the good news is that significant progress has been made since I first toured the building in 2007 - when studs were exposed and the building was essentially a gutted shell. On subsequent visits in 2008, the rough/finish electrical was completed, sheetrock was installed and finished and plumbing fixtures were installed etc.
This morning, I noticed much more "finish" work that had been completed since my last visit - such as the front extension doors were removed, carpet and molding has been installed, lockers were installed in the dormitory and appliances were installed in the kitchen. 
The good news is that we are very close to having the construction completed. The bad news is that the remaining "punch list" items are lengthy and are still realistically a couple months away from completion, in my personal opinion. Once the punch list is completed, there is still the procurement and installation of furniture, bedding, communications equipment etc which will likely take another month or two. I wish I had thought to take pictures of the project on previous visits so people could appreciate the progress that HAS been made. However, I did take some pictures this morning, so people can see the progress that still remains.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel... but the tunnel is still not as short as we would like it to be.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Enough is Enough
Anyone who has read previous entries of this blog knows of the financial challenges we constantly face in the Village and my frustration with those challenges. This frustration was brought to a new level Wednesday night when the BOT was asked to pass an Ordinance to bond an additional $275,000 for SOPAC.
This request was raised in Closed Session a few months ago and I was shocked when I first heard they wanted MORE money. For anyone who doesn't know the background, when the project was first conceived in the late 1990s, construction bids were rejected when the low bid came in at $12.7 million--$3.4 million over the original budget. The lowest bidder, Arnell Construction, was asked to "value engineer" the building to reduce costs, and submitted a design-build proposal of $10.5 million. Ironically, several years later, Change Orders for almost an additional $4 million were approved. Around the time the facility was completed, it was determined that there was an acoustical defect which prevented the main performance stage from being used at the same time as the Loft space above, due to the transference of sound between the floors.
The contractor made claims against SOPAC for change orders, increased construction costs, and late payment/interest penalties. SOPAC made a claim to remedy the acoustical defect and to oppose increased construction costs.
However, instead of fighting the issue, a "settlement" was reached for SOPAC to pay the contractor WITHOUT having the flaw repaired. Since SOPAC is largely funded by the Village (to the tune of $300,000/year for Operating Expenses), they returned to the Village for and additional $275,000 for this "Settlement".
Village President Newman suggested we meet with members of the SOPAC Board to better understand their predicament. On November 21, 2008 (nearly 2 months ago!) Trustee Levison and I met with Mr. Leitner, Mr Wolf and Ms. Stoller. While the conversation was pleasant and cordial, Trustee Levison & I each had several very specific action items that were agreed to coming out of the meeting. For me, it was simple:
1) Provide full details around the current finances of SOPAC, including salaries of all employees, benefits, raises etc. We need to ensure that current expended funds are being spent wisely before even considering more.
2) Review and Provide recommendations for improving the programming to have wider appeal to increase the likelihood of all shows selling-out, so the facility can start to wean itself off its dependence on the taxpayers.
In the TWO MONTHS that have elapsed since we met, no further information was provided.
When asked to vote on the funding, it was actually easy based on a complete lack of Responsibility:
a. Nobody has taken the Responsibility to be accountable for the significant flaw to the building
b. Nobody has taken Responsibility for proving they are spending taxpayer money wisely before asking for more
c. Nobody has taken Responsibility to follow-up on their commitment made 2 months ago. To add insult to injury, after the vote, Mr. Leitner had the nerve to blame the holidays for the delay. I can't speak for anyone else, but if I was looking for someone to give me $275,000, I would be certain to follow-up and provide any and all information that was requested....especially if I had 2 months to do so.
As with the situation/controversy around Tau, this has absolutely nothing to do with "Art", and everything to do with Fiscal Responsibility and Transparency. Enough is Enough.
This request was raised in Closed Session a few months ago and I was shocked when I first heard they wanted MORE money. For anyone who doesn't know the background, when the project was first conceived in the late 1990s, construction bids were rejected when the low bid came in at $12.7 million--$3.4 million over the original budget. The lowest bidder, Arnell Construction, was asked to "value engineer" the building to reduce costs, and submitted a design-build proposal of $10.5 million. Ironically, several years later, Change Orders for almost an additional $4 million were approved. Around the time the facility was completed, it was determined that there was an acoustical defect which prevented the main performance stage from being used at the same time as the Loft space above, due to the transference of sound between the floors.
The contractor made claims against SOPAC for change orders, increased construction costs, and late payment/interest penalties. SOPAC made a claim to remedy the acoustical defect and to oppose increased construction costs.
However, instead of fighting the issue, a "settlement" was reached for SOPAC to pay the contractor WITHOUT having the flaw repaired. Since SOPAC is largely funded by the Village (to the tune of $300,000/year for Operating Expenses), they returned to the Village for and additional $275,000 for this "Settlement".
Village President Newman suggested we meet with members of the SOPAC Board to better understand their predicament. On November 21, 2008 (nearly 2 months ago!) Trustee Levison and I met with Mr. Leitner, Mr Wolf and Ms. Stoller. While the conversation was pleasant and cordial, Trustee Levison & I each had several very specific action items that were agreed to coming out of the meeting. For me, it was simple:
1) Provide full details around the current finances of SOPAC, including salaries of all employees, benefits, raises etc. We need to ensure that current expended funds are being spent wisely before even considering more.
2) Review and Provide recommendations for improving the programming to have wider appeal to increase the likelihood of all shows selling-out, so the facility can start to wean itself off its dependence on the taxpayers.
In the TWO MONTHS that have elapsed since we met, no further information was provided.
When asked to vote on the funding, it was actually easy based on a complete lack of Responsibility:
a. Nobody has taken the Responsibility to be accountable for the significant flaw to the building
b. Nobody has taken Responsibility for proving they are spending taxpayer money wisely before asking for more
c. Nobody has taken Responsibility to follow-up on their commitment made 2 months ago. To add insult to injury, after the vote, Mr. Leitner had the nerve to blame the holidays for the delay. I can't speak for anyone else, but if I was looking for someone to give me $275,000, I would be certain to follow-up and provide any and all information that was requested....especially if I had 2 months to do so.
As with the situation/controversy around Tau, this has absolutely nothing to do with "Art", and everything to do with Fiscal Responsibility and Transparency. Enough is Enough.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Happy Holidays & Happy New Year
Hard to believe another year is coming to an end. It is amazing how the years seem to go by faster each year. I think 2008 will be remembered as an interesting year for both South Orange and the Country.Across the Country, 2008 will be remembered most as the year people celebrated the historic election of Barack Obama and the sense of hope an optimism he brings. At the same time, 2008 will also be remembered for the meltdown of the economy and the painful aftermath after so many years of greed and excess.
In South Orange, we celebrated the long awaited opening of Eden Gourmet (plus Kitchen a la Mode, Robyn Ross, Sparkhouse Kids, Rita's, Village Trattoria and a number of others). The Village saw its first new Village Attorney, as well as its first new (Acting) Village Clerk in many many years. The Village also began to plant the seeds for our future over the next 10-20 years with the start of a series of comprehensive Village Planning "Conversations" with the community to help chart a course for where we want to go.
In 2009, we can look forward to having this process finish up, HOPEFULLY along with the the long overdue (understatement of the year) construction of our historic firehouse.
In 2009, we can look forward to having this process finish up, HOPEFULLY along with the the long overdue (understatement of the year) construction of our historic firehouse.
I just want to wish everyone a very Happy Holiday and all the best for a very Happy New Year!
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Democracy in Action
For anyone who has read my previous blog posts on the "Parking Woes", we had a very interesting BOT meeting last night where the proposed Ordinances finally came to a head, a public hearing was held and a decision was reached.
For the first Ordinance, it was proposed to limit parking to 2 hours from 8am-noon on streets within a 3/8 mile radius of the train station. At the meeting last night, over 20 residents stood up to speak their mind and share their opinion on the Ordinance. While the majority of residents favored the Ordinance, there were some who felt their street should be excluded from the restrictions and there were some who felt the Ordinance didn't go far enough. In the end, the Ordinance passed by a vote of 4-2. The new restrictions will now go into effect in January.
For the other big Ordinance of the night, it was proposed to create residential permit parking on a number of streets that did not immediately abut homes or businesses. This time over 20 residents stood up to unanimously oppose this plan - mostly on the grounds they did not want the parking in their residential neighborhoods, but also on the fear of safety issues and the fact that there does not seem to be a crushing demand for parking at Mountain Station. In the end, there was no motion to move this Ordinance forward and it died.
I completely understand and respect the concerns of all the residents who came forward to speak on both of these Ordinances. I also certainly appreciated the time everyone took to sit through a very long meeting in order to be heard. I certainly learned alot by listening to what everyone said. I was particularly impressed at how professional and respectful everyone (both on the Board and at the podium) was towards each other. It just proves that people can disagree but do so in an adult manner.
I still feel that we desperately need additional commuter parking, however, I now feel we should focus that effort for South Orange station only and in areas which will have much less impact on the neighborhood, such as N. Ridgewood Rd (which already has bumper to bumper FREE daily parking) and Meadowbrook Lane (which has plenty of capacity - especially in the Winter).
I want to thank everyone who came out to the meeting to share their opinions and to participate in the process. While I'm sure not everyone walked away happy with the results, I am certain that everyone would have rather spent their evening elsewhere and I do think the process was fair. However, clearly we learned alot about how we can improve for next time.
For the first Ordinance, it was proposed to limit parking to 2 hours from 8am-noon on streets within a 3/8 mile radius of the train station. At the meeting last night, over 20 residents stood up to speak their mind and share their opinion on the Ordinance. While the majority of residents favored the Ordinance, there were some who felt their street should be excluded from the restrictions and there were some who felt the Ordinance didn't go far enough. In the end, the Ordinance passed by a vote of 4-2. The new restrictions will now go into effect in January.
For the other big Ordinance of the night, it was proposed to create residential permit parking on a number of streets that did not immediately abut homes or businesses. This time over 20 residents stood up to unanimously oppose this plan - mostly on the grounds they did not want the parking in their residential neighborhoods, but also on the fear of safety issues and the fact that there does not seem to be a crushing demand for parking at Mountain Station. In the end, there was no motion to move this Ordinance forward and it died.
I completely understand and respect the concerns of all the residents who came forward to speak on both of these Ordinances. I also certainly appreciated the time everyone took to sit through a very long meeting in order to be heard. I certainly learned alot by listening to what everyone said. I was particularly impressed at how professional and respectful everyone (both on the Board and at the podium) was towards each other. It just proves that people can disagree but do so in an adult manner.
I still feel that we desperately need additional commuter parking, however, I now feel we should focus that effort for South Orange station only and in areas which will have much less impact on the neighborhood, such as N. Ridgewood Rd (which already has bumper to bumper FREE daily parking) and Meadowbrook Lane (which has plenty of capacity - especially in the Winter).
I want to thank everyone who came out to the meeting to share their opinions and to participate in the process. While I'm sure not everyone walked away happy with the results, I am certain that everyone would have rather spent their evening elsewhere and I do think the process was fair. However, clearly we learned alot about how we can improve for next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)