Sunday, November 18, 2007

2 MILLION IN CUTS PROPOSED..BUDGET HEARING NOV 28

The Greenburgh Town Board will hold our budget hearing on November 28th at 7:15 PM at Greenburgh Town Hall. Prior to submitting the proposed 2008 budget to the Town Board for consideration, I CUT over $2 MILLION DOLLARS from department budget requests. Some of the department heads have already started lobbying to have the funds restored. If you would like a copy of the list of budget cuts that I submitted to the Town Board, please e mail me and I'll forward the list to you. Many of the initiatives that were deleted from the proposed budget were worthwhile expenditures. We need to prioritize spending and have to do a better job of saying no, instead of yes to requests. Otherwise, tax hikes will be much higher.
Your suggestions re: additional cuts are welcome and will be considered.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well it's about time that you said no to some of the department heads.
I hope that you hit the ones that were mentioned on the blog.
Look again and you will find more areas to cut some funding.
Police, Dpw are the two areas where there is a lot of money being wasted.
Thank you for making some cuts,but 2 million is just a drop in the bucket.

Anonymous said...

If you found where to cut 2 million i'm sure you could find some more places to cut.
In the past years everyone was giving away the ship,that's why we are in this boat.

Anonymous said...

Find out how many police officers work inside and cut those positions or put more officers on the street. Have Kevin Morgan check this out. He probaly knows where to make the cuts.

Anonymous said...

Why do we need a Commisioneer a Deputy Commissioneer and a Assistant to the Commissioneer in Recreation? Any Idea's ? You also have 3 foremen in Parks Maint. when in the old days there were only 2 for the

Anonymous said...

That's right the recreation department is top heavy also .Start cutting some positions. What do the parks employees do during the winter months.What you should have is temporary help in many of these dept.
Having full time workers costs the tax payers more money.
Most of the large concerns have been taking this route and are doing very well.

Anonymous said...

In checking the comments on the blog one can see there are many avenues that cuts could be made.
The tax rate should be lowered by much more.

Anonymous said...

We could achieve a REALLY low tax rate by dropping ALL services not REQUIRED by NY State.
Folks, everything has a price -
When you take a property off the tax rolls to make it a park or housing for the homeless or reduce its taxes to help out seniors or veterans or the differently-abled, the rest of the taxpayers must make up the difference. When, as in the case of Fairview, more than 1/3 of the properties do not pay property tax, the burden on everyone else is substantially increased. Opening the TDYCC 24/7 shound fabulous- but examine the cost; if the cost is acceptable, then stop complaining about tax increases. Who did you think was going to pay for the additional costs? Santa Claus? The Villages? No, you and your neighbors - and don't be fooled by crap that the State or Feds are paying - that's still you and your neighbors footing the bill.

Anonymous said...

ANGRY FIREMEN

Anonymous said...

Jobs is not where the cuts should be made, Greenburgh is under staffed as is, for the size.

Anonymous said...

How can you say that the town is understaffed.
Maybe you are going arround with blinders on.
We have too many in authority,plus the ones who should take orders.
Ifn everyone did their jobs there would be no overtime.
See if you could get the figures as too how many employees,and heads,and next in line.
You probably never thought that there were that many.

Anonymous said...

Sell Waterwheel -- put it back on taxrolls. Put money in reserve for new police station.

Anonymous said...

You have millions in the palm of yor hands and you're throwing it away. Sell the waterwheel property it will serve the communities well.We do not need more affordable housing while the residents will be receiving a greater than expected raise in taxes..
Use your head on this one.

Anonymous said...

wAIT A MINUTE....Police headquarters was just renovated.
This is what is wrong,if a new headquarters was needed why was the renovation okayed by the board.
Why do we spend money without thinking first.?
How much did the renovation cost the tax payers?
This is the same as the library plan,we could have lived with what we had ,maybe some renovation,but the board went ahead to save friends jobs affiliated with the library and now we are in a good fix.
The price of this new library will be much much more than was stated.
The parks keep getting work done every year,at tax payers expense.
WHY?
Can't you see that there is something wrong with these pictures.

Anonymous said...

They waste money on temporary fixes

Anonymous said...

Temporary fixing is costing the taxpayer millions.
The people in charge of these renovation think money grows on trees,and the board goes along with all their ideas.
Well now this has got to stop.

Anonymous said...

Hey Feiner this year put your whole salary into escrow and then based on your performance see if you get anything back.

Anonymous said...

Have we built into the budget a contingcy for losing the Fortress Bible lawsuit, and that property coming off the tax rolls?

Anonymous said...

Most, if not all, of the Fortress property is presently classified as religous, so there is not tax. So no loss.

Anonymous said...

How can I make my property religious to avoid taxes. Can my house be a church of scientology?

Anonymous said...

Loosing the Fortress church is no loss in revenue.
This development would only cause the people that live in that area more problems with more traffic that they cannot afford at the moment.
Not only local traffic would be affected but the traffic on the Sprain would also be impacted. This we do not need on this dangerous highway.

Anonymous said...

This church is in Mt.Vernon let it stay there .
Why should the area take on more problems than what they have.

Anonymous said...

Because they own the property?

Anonymous said...

So what,it is not good for a place of worship since it will generate more traffic for the local residents.
They have enough at this moment
Many cannot get out of their street as it is.The property should have never been purchased for this reason without consulting the people in charge of all the particulars concerning the traffic on local streets and on the parkway.
Once the study was made in the right manner then they could proceed to build or sell.
Traffic in this area is getting worse every day.
The home owners do not need any more problems than what they have.
We all know that with houses of worship there is never enough parking in the designated lot,so where can these people park on the street or on the parkway.

Anonymous said...

It is right on Dobbs Ferry, a major road, and next to Sprain, with easy access to Sprain from Dobbs Ferry rd. Westcheter Day won their law suit, and they are on Orienta park, which is virtually landlocked. A country club is rigth down the street. Franks and the golf driving range were zoned commerical. Besides, Feienr makes decisions to overrule zoning when he wants, like for Greenburgh Health Center, which doesnt have adequate parking. So why not Fortreess Bible? Becuase G7 will be afraid of losing more students?

Anonymous said...

Feiner does not make decisios to overrule the zoning board,remember Sheehan changed the zoning map for Dromore rd.

Anonymous said...

I think Sheehan was correcting an obvious error.

And who was pushing for GNC change?

Anonymous said...

I beg to differ with you he had the map changed ,and by the way he did this on his own.
The map was correct and he wanted it to show different zoning specs.
Stellato was the one takking the orders from Sheehan alone.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with you. There was never any zoning change passed by the Council that would extend the multi-family zone as far away from Central Avenue as that property is. Only the develper and Paul are taking your position.

hal samis said...

Sheehan/Stellato did have the map changed but only to conform to a prior zoning resolution. It is a minor point of contention whether a new resolution was needed to change the map back. I thought that at this late date everyone understood that the unresolved legal issue is whether an incorrectly executed map determines the zoning or the words of the zoning rsolution itself. The complication arises with Town law stating the zoning map is the final authority.

The problem for the developer is that he spent considerable sums of money (purchase, plans, lawyers, architect, etc) based upon a faulty map which was further exacerbated by the Planning Department telling him and his agents to use the map.

If you purchase a new automobile and the brakes fail because of a defect in the manufacture and you are in an accident attributable to these brakes, I doubt that you will be satisfied by the maker just offering to replace your brakes. Likewise, the developer wants to hold the Town to its own code and sue for something like specific performance which would be to rule that the property is within the mixed used district shown on the map which, in turn, would allow him to proceed with his development plan. In other words, the developer wants the Town to take responsibility for the incorrect map. Such a decision needs a Court to decide, not public opinion. And despite all the Edgemont legal experts saying the developer will lose, they said the same thing three and two years ago about Bernstein's lawsuits. The one true thing about the legal process is that it's not where you start be where you finish and Appeals Courts exist for this very purpose.

What the controversy re Sheehan/Stellato is about is that they wanted to quietly substitute a new, corrected map for the existing incorrect one and hope that no one would be the wiser.

Even though this would restore things to how they should have been per existing zoning resolution and also to prevent future mistakes from occuring, it was certainly done in a sneaky manner and a nonsensical one to boot because lots of people already were aware of the existence of the incorrect map.

Just another replay of the old "end justifies the means" debate and whether you agree or disagree, the two distinct puzzle parts have little do with each other for the purpose of deciding whether it is the zoning resolution or the zoning map which rules. My guess is that if it gets to Court, the Court will side with the developer because he can substantiate performing due diligence; wheras even at the time of the "secret meeting" the partipants were proceeding on the assumption that the zoning allowed multi-family; AND the decision will not cause any unbearable hardship upon the Town.
Regarding the school district's potential distress, any "estimates" of how many schoolchildren will emerge from these new units will not be viewed as anything but unsustainable guesses. Furthermore, the Court will likely charge the Town to be more responsible in the future and run checks to see that documents and maps and local laws are accurate and consistent before they are deemed to represent the procedural standard.

Anonymous said...

The zoning map was changed without a resolution coming from the entire board.
Sheehan took it upon himself to get the map changed.

Anonymous said...

Hal,

The developer had been notified months, if not a year ago, when he went for a demolition permit, that the property was zoned single family. He chose not to contest it at that time. He should not have spent all those expenses you talk about, and in addition directly or indirectly contributinng to Paul's re-election campaign, without challenging the decision at that time.