Support the Weinberg Nature Center
- Details
- Hits: 3854
Lena Crandall read the following letter at the Scarsdale Schools Budget Forum on January 19 on behalf of the Friends of the Scarsdale Parks. Dear Members of the Scarsdale Board of Education: The Friends of the Scarsdale Parks is aware of the working relationship between the school district and the Weinberg Nature Center, which is a village-owned park adjacent to Saxon Woods, a Westchester County park. There is great potential for outdoor science programs and sustainability studies throughout this vast public preserve. Please continue to provide both staff time and budget resources for programs at Weinberg. It's an investment that will benefit not only our students, but also the community at large.
The Friends similarly recognize the educational value of the organic gardens at all of our schools and also recommend continued support.
Thank you,
Lena Crandall
Dorothy Kroenlein
Co-Presidents
A Call for Open Government
- Details
- Hits: 4173
Dear Mayor Stevens: Where is the open government Scarsdalians expect? On Thursday, January 6th, you scheduled a Board meeting for discussion of the SCC. Shouldn't you have expected a large turn-out and therefore have held the meeting in Rutherford Hall?
It took less than 10 minutes for you to figure out that the attendees that evening couldn't legally fit in the Trustees' Board Room and you moved us to the larger hall.
But, more importantly there were no cameras/video recording made and no newspaper reporter taking notes.
As it turned out, the meeting was attended by at least 30 people who had many reasoned and factual points against the SCC financial projections.
In addition to your fiduciary responsibilities you have an obligation to conduct meetings of this importance for all to be able to review the next day.
It is strange that you are proceeding so hastily and semi-privately. Since this SCC issue is of such public importance, it is ironic that this meeting went on without the Village at large being a witness.
We would appreciate if you would reply to our e-mail of last week, asking you to inform us as to what you are planning to do next. If indeed you and the Board do not recuse yourselves completely from this SCC issue, due to personal conflicts of interest, you owe our community another public hearing for the sake of transparent government before you proceed.
The Village taxpayers have already shouldered $12,000 for SCC mailings in addition to $35,000 for last years’ consultants. Before you commit any more tax dollars for the SCC project, the public should be made aware of any additional expenses in a public forum to be held in the next few weeks.
Sincerely yours,
Jeannie and Bernard Mackler
ECC Objects to Greenburgh Tax Hike
- Details
- Hits: 4577
To Supervisor Paul Feiner and the Town Board of Greenburgh; I’m writing this open letter on behalf of the Edgemont Community Council. We wish to express our disappointment at the town board’s recent passing of the 2011 budget. The new budget calls for a 7% increase in overall spending, funded by drawing down on the fund balance, borrowing, and tax increases — 4.5% for unincorporated, which includes an almost incredible 87% increase for the town entire.
Our new governor, Andrew Cuomo, has made it clear that he plans to implement an austerity budget in Albany and is proposing a 2% cap on property taxes. Early indications are that the legislature will support him.
But in the Town of Greenburgh, austerity is a foreign concept:
- The Edgemont Community Council made numerous suggestions for cuts in the budget; almost all were ignored.
- There was no set-aside to pay for damages in the Fortress Bible lawsuit, creating a potential, gigantic hole in the 2011 budget. There was also no set-aside for the cost of revaluation or the millions of dollars needed to remediate the pools at Veteran Park .
- Instead, you voted to draw down fund balance to reduce a substantial double-digit tax hike to 4.5% and thereby cynically postponed making the truly hard decisions about town spending until after this year’s town board election.
- Borrowing will fund payments required by tax certioraris — meaning future taxpayers will have to pay off current operating expenses, a very poor way to manage the budget.
- And the impending 2% cap was ignored.
Both the Edgemont School District and Greenville Fire District have managed to keep tax increases very close to the 2% level in recent years; both districts should be able to manage if the tax cap is passed. Even Westchester County , with strong bipartisan support, not only met the 2% cap, it actually managed to cut property taxes for 2011.
But even though every other taxing district in the state of New York seems to have answered the clarion call this year to reduce spending and keep property tax hikes below 2%, the Town of Greenburgh has not.
Although the town budget has already been passed, the Edgemont Community Council therefore urges the town board to reconsider its spending to meet the 2% tax cap for 2011. Given the state of the economy, it’s the prudent thing to do even if the cap never becomes law. And under no circumstances should the town meet a 2% tax cap by borrowing money to meet operating expenses. That idea was even rejected last month at the county level. That kind of irresponsible financial gimmickry fools nobody.
We note with great dismay that, at a time of financial extremis and when other municipal authorities nationwide are undertaking to rein in spending, when stripped of this year’s one-shot gimmicks, the Town's budget (and tax-burden) continues to grow at an effective rate of over 15%.
This is an extravagance that residents cannot afford. Town officials should be focused instead on reducing spending to manageable and sustainable levels — not on justifying higher taxes while also drawing down on reserve fund balances and pursuing unprecedented borrowing to fund tax certioraris and other known, current expenses.
The need for the Town of Greenburgh to start holding the line on spending has become all the more important given Governor Cuomo's goal of imposing a 2% cap on property tax increases. The Governor's goal is laudable and, whether or not enacted into law, the Town should undertake to live within its means — and the means of its residents.
Geoff Loftus
Member of the Board of Directors
Edgemont Community Council
Why Steroids Are Dangerous
- Details
- Hits: 3906
Here is a monthly conversation starter from the Scarsdale Taskforce on Drugs and Alcohol. Ask Your Kids: Do you know what anabolic-androgenic steroids are and why these drugs are dangerous? Answer: Steroids are used to build muscle but they are illegal when used without a prescription from a doctor. Some teens abuse steroids not knowing that there are very dangerous side-effects such as prematurely stunting growth, accelerated puberty changes and abnormal sexual development. Adolescent girls in particular may suffer from severe acne, excessive body and facial hair, deepened voice, disruption of the menstrual cycle, and permanent infertility.
The Scarsdale Task Force on Drugs and Alcohol is a community action group made up of concerned individuals, representatives of the schools, the Village, local, social and civic organizations and religious institutions. The Task Force educates youth and adults about drugs and alcohol, helps people develop drug-free attitudes and habits, and recommends resources to those whose lives are affected by drugs and alcohol dependency. Learn more at: http://www.scarsdaleschools.org/DATF
No Village Debt for the SCC
- Details
- Hits: 4735
To Scarsdale10583: These are comments I made at the December 14 Board of Trustees meeting based on a more detailed letter I had previously sent the Clerk and Mayor for the public record.
There is a saying on Wall Street that when things are priced for perfection that the situation is ripe for financial catastrophe. In January of 2000 tech stocks were priced for perfection, in the first quarter of 2008 credit was priced for perfection. As soon as something started to go wrong in both these cases financial decimation occurred. These are just two recent examples of this principle, the consequences of the latter we will continue to live with for many years.
It is time we all started looking at the SCC’s financial plan critically and objectively. Importantly, each of you as individuals needs to conduct this work. Not spend taxpayer money to outsource it to a consultant who can be blamed down the road when something goes wrong.
I have started that review process myself and here are just a few of my early observations:
Forecast SCC revenues do not resemble the start up curve for any business I have seen in my over 25 years as a business and Wall Street professional. No business goes to 100% revenue on day one. If the SCC misses their revenue projections they cannot cover their costs or service the debt.
In my opinion they make the bold assumption that charter members will rewrite a contract and voluntarily raise the fee they pay in years 1 – 3 by 70%. If this circa $500,000 per year in revenue doesn’t materialize the SCC will lose money and not be able to service the debt.
A full 41% of forecast revenues go to debt service. Let me repeat that. 41% of revenues go to pay the debt service. This is really the only number you need to know. The debt service coverage ratio is 1.2 times. No private business could borrow at this leverage level. They require the Village debt guarantee as lenders have learned, many times quite painfully, that this is too much debt. If our society learned any lesson in the last three painful years it is that financial leverage kills. This is extreme financial leverage.
If nothing else I said puts the financial risk that would be imposed on the taxpayers into stark contract the comparison of the SCC to the Greenwich Y will. It is a similarly affluent community, though over three times the size of Scarsdale. In 2009 they launched a $25 million above ground pool project very similar in scope and dollar magnitude to the SCC. Except they already had in place $3.24 million a year in like-kind revenues and an established donor base for contributions. It didn’t turn out too well. They ran out of money and had to halt construction. They are saddled with $17 million in debt that they are working with their lenders to restructure. In a GO bond there is no restructuring. The taxpayers pay.
To summarize: Y and SCC are both $25 Mn projects. Debt level is $17 mn for the Y and $16 mn proposed for the SCC. Revenues for the Y on an apples to apples basis are 25% higher for the Y than the SCC. The Y failed on their debt. How can the SCC expect to service the same level of debt with 25% less revenue without recourse to the taxpayers?
The reality is that the SCC’s financial plan is “priced for perfection” as currently presented. It will go wrong. There is no cushion or protection for taxpayers and we will end up paying for it.
Other financial professionals in our community are also writing letters regarding the financial risks posed to the Village’s borrowing costs, AAA rating, tax base, etc. These letters speak for themselves and only add to the case I am presenting here tonight. I urge you to read them thoughtfully.
It is pretty simple, actions speak louder than words. If this really is self financially supported why do they need the Village’s balance sheet. The answer is obvious. In reality it isn’t self-supporting. They need the Village to pay in order to build it.
Now more than ever is not the time for a leap of financial faith that benefits a minority in the community but is underwritten and paid for by all taxpayers.
Once again, I call on the Trustees to conclusively and irrevocably fulfill your fiduciary responsibility to the community’s taxpayers and enact a resolution that if ever built the SCC must be 100% self financed with exactly zero debt support from the taxpayers. This is long overdue.
Truly yours,
Michael Weinstein
Butler Road
