Budget mtg 3/29
Three departments came in tonight: Economic Development, Library and Education.
The Econ Dev department was fairly status quo. Aside from the proposed budget though, there was a suggestion of the town doing a survey of local businesses at some point in the future. I think this could be a good idea, but wasn't quite sure why we would need to do that. Doesn't Sheldon Dill (The Chamber) do that? He IS a one man survey. I mean, he certainly seems to know everything that's happening in town. Ha. Kidding! Although I think he is doing a really good job, but this... this is different. This would be a formal survey. Anyway, it's not in the budget... but may be something worth considering in the future.
The ED Coordinator, Jerry Sitko, also discussed the work of some of the town boards that he works with: ED Commission, Energy Commission, Beautification Committee and the Historic District Commission. He mentioned that Beautification is considering doing something with the barrels around town and the HDC has all sorts of events going on. (EDC and Energy have both been mentioned recently, elsewhere on my blog.)
The Library went next. They had all sorts of new ideas. The one that jumped out at me as being the most visible would be the addition of Sunday hours. The other thing that I felt was important were the efficiencies and cost-savings that our new Library Director has found. And there were several mentioned. That's always good to hear. The library even found a new benefactor... someone who visits this blog! (Feel free to name yourself, but I thought it best to leave you anonymous, unless you say otherwise.)
And finally, Education. There was quite a bit of discussion here, although not too many people at the meeting. Healthcare costs were of interest, although this specific item will have its own meeting next week. The other item that got discussed a bit was energy. A few people commented on this. My basic focus was the usual: conserving energy and clean energy. I didn't ask for specific feedback, but floated some cost-saving ideas, such as: 1) adjust the calendar, move the April vacation or Teacher Development days to Jan and save energy; 2) centralize the use of school facilities in the evening, thereby reducing both energy and staff costs; 3) use Park & Rec staff, instead of maintenance staff... they cost less... and as a former P&R employee who opened and closed schools at night, I know this job is not real complicated; 4) switch our school buses to biofuel, the Energy Commission began investigating this option this past Monday... we may be able to do it at no additional cost and it could be good for both the environment and for kids with asthma; 5) create an operational trust fund, similar to the medical trust fund; 6) invest money in replacing inefficient equipment, particularly in the cafeterias, such as refrigerators; and 7) I think I suggested some other ideas... they don't come to mind now, but... my main point this evening was...
The lack of transparency in our school system. I believe my words were "There is a severe lack of transparency in the school budget... and until there is transparency in the budget... and until we hold the elected members of our Board of Education to account... there's really not much point in having much of any discussion (about the budget) because as I've publicly explained... based on my experience... I can't figure out where these (budget) numbers come from. The Board of Ed is doing a disservice to our children, to the voters and to the Superintendent of Schools." I'm not even going to get into explaining this right now. The list is too long and I'm going to bed in a few minutes.
Talking about transparency, sadly, I felt the discussion bordered on humorous when one resident started asking questions about where money gets spent and why money gets shifted from account to account by the BOE. And to me, there seemed to be no real answer. And I can't quote the discussion verbatim, but during this discussion, this thought came to mind...
If the Town has a budget of $20,000,000 and ends up with a surplus of $1,500,000 (estimated), then how does the Board have a budget of $50,000,000 and end up with a surplus of $0? (That's only an estimate... but it's based on history... something that the Board never seems to use when producing their budget. They seem to prefer using the prior year's budget and adding 5%, rather than looking at actual expenditures to create their new budget.)
In fairness, there are significant differences in the way the two bodies are funded. And if the state offers additional funding, the money comes to the town, not the schools. But seriously... the Board of Ed never has a surplus at the end of the year. Why?
On a different topic... there was also an Alcohol Awareness Forum in Town Hall tonight. And it was filmed. So hopefully that will be on Channel 14 this weekend. I didn't go to the meeting, but I strongly urge people to watch it. (Teenage alcohol and drug use relate to my concerns with the lack of transparency in our schools.)
Tim White
Town Council, Budget Committee
TimWhite98@yahoo.com
14 comments:
Well, Tim, congrats on your announcement re: running for state office. Good luck with that.
Regarding the BOE and the alcohol forum, did you find it odd that the BOE member who insisted on keeping the drug and alcohol counselor at CHS during the "zero-growth" budget year is now defending the Farmington couple accused of hosting a beer bash with underage children? I certainly did. Please don't anyone blog on and say he is just doing his job. He should have just done what we've been telling our kids since kindergarten--just say no. He should have referred them to another attorney.
you mean the mom arrested for DWI who is now looking for AR on the kegger...sweet
I will be watching the special ed budget by the way. If funds are short, raise the parking fee at CHS. The teens all want to save the planet, let them start by riding the bus
anon 6:03pm... ouch! I wasn't sure that I was comfortable with your comment, so googled it a bit and found: http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctbracone0329.artmar29,0,6889502.story
Ignoring the hometown connection for a second, this really is a serious issue. And I don't have kids, so can't speak with any sort of authority there, but... I recently read a comment from someone about underage drinking. The basic comment was that many people say there's nothing that can be done about it, but that's what people said about underage smoking 20 years ago.
Hmmm... I can't back up that notion with any sort of facts or figures. But from my own personal perspective, I definitely feel as though smoking cigarettes today is nowhere near as accepted as it was when I was a kid. And if society could have a similar dialogue about drinking, then maybe things would change.
Anyway... it's just a thought. And I do believe that underage drinking is a serious issue that society should address.
About running for state rep... thanks.
Tim,
I'm not sure that the recent decline in cigarette use can be attributed to increased or different dialogue. Even when I was a kid (1970s-1980s), we were told that cigarette use was dangerous to our health. So the message about cigarettes has been around for years, but it is only recently that cigarette use has seen dramatic declines. I think this decline can be attributed to the increased cost of cigarettes due to taxes and the inconvenience of using them (no smoking inside, etc.). It seems that people have difficulty judging long-term costs (i.e. if you smoke today, it may hurt you 40 years from now), but they readily understand and respond to immediate costs.
The problem with reducing underage drinking is that there is little incentive to increase the cost of alcohol as was done for cigarettes. These numbers are fuzzy, but it seems to me that over a few year a pack of cigarettes went from $1.50 to $4 or $5. Can you imagine if a 6 pack of beer were to cost $20 to $25? Becasue alcohol consumption is so widely accepted and even touted as beneficial to one's health, the abstinence message is difficult to sell to teens.
Underage drinking forum
Rather than trying to stop all kids from drinking, we should focus on curbing binge drinking, which probably causes most of the problems associated with underage drinking. I don't have any easy solutions, but I think teaching kids to drink responsibly may be a start.
Often, town officials compare Cheshire to Glastonbury as a way of showing how a similar community operates. I'm not sure that the comparison is valid anymore:
Glastonbury budget hearing
Brick, isn't the gasoline used, smog generated and the traffic congestion created by all those kids driving to CHS a bit inconsistent with how "green" they all claim to be?
Let's get them ready now for the post-gasoline world
Emma's Dad... I share your sentiments on taking a practical (my word, not yours) approach to addressing this serious issue (underage drinking). But at the same time, I think back to Times Square circa 1993 and America's Mayor taking office.
By most accounts I've read and heard, Rudy's zero-tolerance policy worked quite well. I remember Times Sqare in 1993 and know Times Square today... there is a big difference.
I haven't spent a great deal of time researching this. But from what I've heard from most people who are involved in this... they seem to say zero-tolerance is the best, if not only, option.
And about Glastonbury... that seems very concerning. Although perhaps people in Glastonbury look to their Board of Finance (probably a very different setup from Cheshire) for the big question of taxes. From my own experience here in Cheshire though... while not too many people turn out to meetings... they sure do watch Channel 14. I bet a few thousand people, if not more, watch it fairly regularly.
Anon,
"Wake up Cheshire", before your septic tank starts to send amazing aromas up through your tulips, one of these days.
The meeting this week at town hall proves only one thing, developers seem to be the only ones who are upset about the "newly discovered" State conservation plan for Cheshire. Where were the residents?
I'm talking to YOU, the folks living in an R-20 zoned area (read--a house on approx. 1/2 acre). YOU have been cut out of the possibility of getting a sewer line connected to your house. Are you really sure that you have enough land that has the right kind of soil to put in another septic tank (for about $15,000 -20,000)? Wouldn't you prefer a $7,000 sewer assessment spread out over 20 years at low interest, to investing in another septic tank???? Well guess what! you are out of luck unless your town council and all departments decide to challenge the state on their "map".
But at Tuesday's meeting, basically, the developers showed up
to grab on to first dibs for whatever remains of the sewer line hook ups.
And YOU the individual small homeowners have received no committment from the town to be served first if the town can drag it's sorry deriere out of this mess and actually get some sort of approval from the DEP map makers for new hookups. Guess who'll get it?...developers, perhaps a Wal-Mart in the north end of town. Who knows?
Think of it this way, you are being asked to pay for improvements,possible upgrades to the town's treatment,denitrification plant,that only the people already on sewer lines can benefit from. Yet YOU are being asked to pay for town services that you are not being offered. Great deal? huh.
It's like being told that the State of Connecticut doesn't want to pay for any more students in the Cheshire school system, so Cheshire must cap the number of pupils. Those families who have 3 and 4 year olds are then told,"guess what...your kids can't go to Cheshire schools, but you are welcome to home school them!!" but you must pay your full taxes anyway.
We are now in a situation of separate and unequal town services.
Wake up your town councilor, reps and anybody whose cage needs to be rattled.
anon.
Brick: Once upon a time teenagers did without their own cars. Now there is a consitutional right for all of them to have their very own Lexus.
Am I the only person who doesn;t want Cheshire to become a clone of Westport?
I do not want to live in a town where placating the "needs" of yuppie adolescents transcends the needs of the more deserving.
My son's special ed teacher was almost let go a couple of years ago , but teenagers couldn;t spring $20/month to park their car and learn that's something you usually pay for in the real world.
Please
Brick, free parking is going to go the way of the rotary phone as a "demand management" tool to reduce traffic and fight global warming. I expect it as a mandate before the end of the first Hillary Clinton term. Get ready for it. Again, all those Gen Y's complaining about global warming seem to be fine doing their part to melt the glaciers
I'm sorry, obviously we have evolved into a society that is becoming a banana republic so our 16 year olds can have the latest threads from Banana Republic. My bad.
Brick, we certainly agree on the desirablity of Hillary presidency but since the GOP is busy destroying its image by being the giveaway party ( and free parking to teenagers is the local version of the highway bill) I have little doubt we will lose the bidding war in 2008.
Unless we actually focus on government providing basic services and charging people who can afford it for amenities, we will fight on the enemy's turf and our weapons will be weaker than theirs
BTW, there are taxes on cell phones. Perhaps ala tobacco they will be raised to discourage use by teenagers
http://www.cellphonecarriers.com/cell-phone-taxes-surcharges.html
Cell Phone Taxes
Sales Tax - Sales tax rates will apply for every state that charges for a sales tax. These charges can be levied against recurring monthly charges, local usage, toll usage, or roaming usage. If your state does not charge for sales tax, no sales tax rate will be applied. Important note: The sales tax rate is based on the mailing address of your bill.
City Tax - If your city charges a tax on sales, that rate will also apply on your monthly phone bill based on recurring monthly charges, local usage, toll usage, or roaming usage.
County Tax - If your county charges a tax on sales, that rate will also apply on your monthly phone bill based on recurring monthly charges, local usage, toll usage, or roaming usage.
Federal Excise Tax - Telephone services are subject to a 3% federal excise tax on a cellular customers recurring monthly charges. This tax is collected by the cellular service provider and remitted to the IRS. (Internal Revenue Service) This tax does not apply on phone sales, accessories or surcharges.
Annual Regulatory Fee - Telecommunications companies are assessed an annual regulatory fee (sometimes called a Federal Regulatory Charge) by the federal government. This results in a one time annual charge per cell phone number. As of October 2002, it was .24 cents.
CHS Parking:
You see it as a tax.
I see it as giving away an amentity for free.
If you want to "run government like a business" you don't want to give away valuable amentities. I suppose one could make the point the marginal costs of additional customers to the town pool is low, so let's eliminate the pool fees. Maximising revenue is also what businesses do, but as we have seen, even Republicans suddenly forget that when they apply their theories.
Post a Comment