Trustees Further SID Discussion

Following the , the Board of Trustees (BOT) invited committee members to return at Monday’s BOT meeting to answer some questions that the BOT may have. 

During the , it was decided that the trustees would read the report and any questions they may have would be asked at Monday’s meeting.

Trustee Janine Bauer stated she was surprised to see that (MSSO) would be dissolved should the BOT structure the SID after the advisory committee’s report.  Bauer didn’t want to see certain parts of MSSO be left out should MSSO be dissolved; particularly the organization’s designing committee. 

Committee member Kyle McLaughlin, also a member of the board of MSSO, said that “two organizations working separately on downtown development would be counterproductive.”  He said the SID would have to take a “Main Street approach” in terms of design and organizational management.  He said that MSSO’s funding has been “questionable” and that the funding for a SID would be more firm.  He also said that according to the committee’s trustee liaisons, Michael Goldberg and Mark Rosner, any funding that went to MSSO would be given to the SID.

Bauer asked if the SID would include a design committee and McLaughlin said that it was up to the board of the SID.  He said it was up to the SID board to capture “the passion of the volunteers” to keep a design committee going.

Committee chairperson Robyn Fields explained that MSSO would not be dissolved, but instead “rolled in” to the SID.  She stated that individually, the SID or Main Street may be entitled to certain loans and grants that the other may not.  Combined they would be eligible for both loans.

Trustee Nancy Gould asked about the sunset clause.  The sunset clause allows business owners to vote to end the SID after the third year if the committee’s SID plan is enacted.  Gould questioned what the timeline of dissolving a SID would be.  She asked in terms of the SID’s employees, would they all be let go immediately and would all projects in the works be stopped.

Fields stated that while property owners may vote to end the SID, it’s actually up to the BOT to pass an ordinance that would dissolve the SID.

Gould also questioned the timeline of the budget and the sunset clause since the vote to end the SID would come at the same time that the budget had reached its full capacity.

McLaughlin explained that ultimately the budget will be decided by the SID board and the projected one may not be used at all.

Village President Alex Torpey asked what the SID’s relationship would be with the Chamber of Commerce.

McLaughlin explained that the committee’s only discussion regarding the Chamber was that it is a “pay to play” organization since businesses pay to receive the services provided.  He stated that MSSO was more “in line” with the goals of a SID.

Torpey asked about the feasibility of a SID that doesn’t assess businesses.  McLaughlin said that he didn’t think that a SID without an assessment would accomplish its purpose.

Torpey explained that he expected a SID to be a “clearing house” for the downtown and a way to manage all the different elements of the downtown.  He said that after discussions with members of local government and business owners, there was a lack of unification over what the goals of downtown were.

Trustee Mark Rosner explained that any money currently spent on services in the downtown would be given to the SID.  He said that there was a cap on how much money the SID could receive from the village; however the town could give more money to the SID if a special project required it.

Fields said that for a SID to be successful, it would need to be funded.  Since business owners don’t “give just to give out of the goodness of their hearts,” the village would need to provide funds and the assessments would be necessary to “force” business owners to pay into the SID.

, the public comments section featured business owners who came out to ask questions of the committee and how a SID would work.

Leslie Pogany, the owner of , said that if the village had a project that they wanted done, business owners might be willing to help out.  She stated that there could be a SID type program without a tax on business owners.

Pogany also showed a list of the proposed assessed businesses that was included in the SID report and asked if the village could send out a mailer and ask those businesses their opinions on a SID.  She felt that since the committee was not unanimous in their recommendations, perhaps other input was required to make a decision over whether a SID should be implemented.

Elaine Harris, a lawyer and property owner in South Orange, said that she seconds Bauer’s earlier comments about the dissolution of MSSO.  She then asked if businesses that are already paying taxes on services that may also be provided by a SID, would be given a tax credit since they would be paying twice for the services.

Village Counsel Steven Rother explained that a SID is not supposed to replace any services paid for by taxpayers.  He said that he believed that a SID should be adding additional services to businesses.

Harris then asked if there would be a public affirmation if any member of the BOT had any financial interest in a SID being enacted.

Rother confirmed that any elected official who has a financial interest in any action taken by the government is required to state so by law.

Carole Anzalone-Newman, executive director of MSSO, said that the BOT can dissolve the SID at any point.  She then stated that it would be “ludicrous” for a SID not to use the volunteers currently involved with MSSO.  She said that a SID would be a funding mechanism.  She said that MSSO was always expected to be a part of a SID.  She said that the point of any organization is to get the most return on an investment and that MSSO would not be going anywhere.

Following the public comment section of the meeting, Trustee Howard Levison asked that the Chamber of Commerce present an alternative business plan for what they would offer to the village either with or without a SID.  He asked that it be presented at the next meeting.

The BOT will further this discussion at the November 14 conference agenda.