Council mtg 1/9
I've been on the Council for three years now. This meeting seemed to be the smoothest one I've been to so far. That was nice.
All of the votes were unanimous, so not much to mention there. If you couldn't tell by watching the tv, I was happy to get a chance to do my blowhard routine about biodiesel. lol. Seriously though, we got some useful meeting dates:
WPCA - tomorrow, Wed Jan 10, town hall - will discuss changing the sewer fee. You may want to mention this to your friends. I doubt many people know about it. If enacted, look for single person homes to benefit, while multi-person houses take the brunt of it. And if you're curious... my neighborhood doesn't have sewers.
Full Council - may have a special meeting next week, exclusively to discuss northend development. Matt Hall to update us.
Council Budget Committee -
Wed, Mar 14, 6pm - revenue, benefits, debt, capital non-recurring
Tues, Mar 20, 7pm - public hearing (unusually early this year... an idea from Budget Chair, Mike Ecke... I like the idea)
Wed, Mar 21, 6pm - elections, town clerk, planning, public works/public properties/WPCD
Thurs, Mar 22, 6pm - finance/general services, building inspection, police/animal control, fire
Mon, Mar 26, 6pm - youth & social services, senior & transportation services, parks & recreation/pool, performing & fine arts, economic development, town mgr/council/town atty
Tues, Mar 27, 6pm - library, education
Wed, Mar 28, 6pm - agenda TBD
Mon, Apr 3, 7pm - additional public hearing, if necessary
Tues Apr 11, 7:30pm - regular Council meeting, including budget vote
Any thoughts on tonight's meeting?
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
10 comments:
Hey tim what happened to the leg agenda? I thought that wass going tobe a humdinger of a discussion. I always took forward to it aid it is a great way to spend my evening!
Tim, can you provide an update as soon as you have it regarding the WPCA recommendation on the sewer fees is. I would like to knwo how they are going to accurately bill residents for usage, that is water into the sewers versus water used for gardening purposes etc. To me this is more about increasing taxes on people in this town without regard for ability to pay.
I have to tell you, outside your self and matt hall on the other side, I dont see any other member of the council as being really interested and attuned to what middle income taxpayers in this town are going through.
I hope the boe, tc, and members of the public really dig deep when reviewing the budgets. I've already looked through the detail of some of the boe budget and it's clear that in many accounts (for several previous years) the money requested is much higher than the money that was actually expended. If they didn't spend what they previously requested, why are they, in many cases, requesting even more for 07/08? These are the things the boe member and tc members should be questioning.
Tim....look at the ad in Cheshire herald today for youth baseball.they announce the merger between the 2 leagues. it seems they are merging ,but still offering both types of play to the kids:Little League and Cal Ripken league..to top it off..you can play in both leagues if you want....how is this going to cut down on the amount of games being played and help with the overcrowding of the fields..it doesnt..it really allows for twice as many games as you can play both types of ball....I was in support of giving them the land on Jarvis Rd to help the people near McNamara Field, but not anymore...if they get the land, they shouldnt be allowed to play on any other fields...this increase in games is ridiculous and i am surprised as i really thought Mr Kaplan was looking out for the good of the town(controlling amount of games and overcrowding of fields)but I guess i should of realized differently. Do you think the kids really care what type of league they play in..once again its adults going overboard with youth sports.
the number of games will not change, but players can play for either team LL or Ripkin, Most will not as there will be days when they conflict so don;t start saying there will be more games etc cuz
THAT DOG DON'T HUNT
anon 5:16...I agree with breachway..if the kids can play in both leagues..how can you say there wont be more games? if the little league kids decide they want to play cal ripken and the cal ripken kids want toplay little league too...you end up with 2 bigger leagues..Right?there will have to be more teams to make up for the extra kids...if 100 kids that use to play cal ripken only, decide to play both now...you have to have more teams..hence more games..and dont give us that crap about conflicting games....the ad says there may be conflicts due to weather and fields only...why would they allow you to sign up for both if they didnt think it would work schedule wise...
no-listen
there will be and equal amount of games lets say 20 for each age group. The kids can play in either but the number of games will not change,
Just opportunity for kids to play in more games.
Kids who love the game often play in more than one league, this is a non issue.
Plus many kids will only play in one league a small % will want to play in both
breach & 8:17... first, i just sent off an email to the town manager & P&R director to get a better sense of our ballfield usage... how many leagues, how many games, how many fields, etc. I really haven't dug too much into this.
(I think we're already using 20-25 fields in Cheshire & 2 in Wallingford, so 4 new ones might not make much of a dent in overall use. Btw, that 20-25 count is what i could come up with... that's why i asked... I'm really not sure. But on the back of a napkin I'm thinking... Bartlem - 3, Cheshire Park - 2, Mac - 4, Quinipiac - ?, at least 7 schools with fields used to varying extents.)
second, my sense is this... if the youth leagues have fields, they'll use them. So my thinking right now is to let them use the land... contingent upon a reduction in the use of MacNamara.
Breach (or anyone else)... feel free to give me a call this weekend. I'm not certain that I fully understand your concern. 439-4394
Sewer use should be based on city water that flows through the water meter. What a peron does with the water after the meter is up to them, but the sewer use fee should be based on consumption, total consumption. if you want to water your garden, wash your car, fine, just know it will cost you to do that. In the long run the money collected will be about the same, the difference is those who use less pay less.
A simle method is whatever your city water bill is, that is the same charge for the sewer use. Paid quarterly, one quarter in arrears. Tie the water complany billing information into the WPCA billing system like many other Towns do.
So people who use city water and septic will have to pay, too, if it's based on "water in"? Also, people who use more water are already paying more for water. It's not like you get a discount or anything for using less. The more you use, the higher your bill. Charges should be based on "water out" through the system only. Many towns in the south have two separate water lines. One for gardens, car washing, etc. that is not chlorinated or purified. The other is. This cuts down on the cost. We really don't need to chlorinate water just to water a garden or wash a car.
Post a Comment