Open space referendum
As I mentioned in a previous post, it was unclear to me why two of five referenda included "aggregate" dollar amounts, but the $1,000,000 open space question did not include the $250,000 from three years ago. And while I specifically addressed this during a recent Council meeting, I hadn't received an update. So today I called the "decision maker" myself.
I'd never spoken with "Bond Counsel" before, but I called today. I spoke with one attorney and he clarified the Charter rules for me. Basically, if a referendum question relates to a specific item, then it must be aggregated. But open space questions are never (as far as I know) related to specific land parcels. Therefore, the $250,000 may be "exempt" from being aggregated... or more precisely... the Charter is vague on this. Therefore, it's a judgement call that could appropriately go either way... too bad the Council never opined on this.
Bottom line on the wording of the question... since the referenda had to be filed with the SOTS 45 days prior to the election, the open space question is already set in stone.
Nonetheless, this offers another place I'd like to revise the Charter...
1) separating the school and town budgets,
2) adopting tax limits that require a certain per cent increase to obtain voter approval at referendum,
3) enacting term limits for elected officials,
4) moving some authority from our (FOI-resistant!) WPCA to the Council, and
5) clarifying the rules governing referenda.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th district
12 comments:
If we had only bought the 109 acres that Bowman and Calcagni own in the North end, we would have been able to develop part and have a beautiful park. Instead we end up with traffic congestion and a sprawling residential/retail mall which will result in us paying higher taxes.
Why did our elected officials let us down and vote for the interests of the developers over those of the Cheshire residents?
Prove to me that it will lead to higher taxes.
None of the proponents and their political supporters want to be honest with the taxpayers. They don't want to estimate the costs of a new firehouse and all the equipment that goes with it, the cost of replacing sewer capacity for this sprawling development, the added cost of a paid fire department, the very high cost of educating lots of children looking for a good school system, the state's financial support for infrastructure improvements( electric, water, sewer) and the huge 30 to 50 million for state highway improvements to the interchange ramps and widening of rt 10.
Go to Waterbury to see the highway improvements that were made for the Brass City Mall.
So, it's not for us to prove it will lead to higher taxes, both state and local, but for you and your developer friends to present real costs to the taxpayers and to prove your point.
This project has so many more negatives than positive, and will only benefit the developer.
So you are just using the normal scare tactics. I would like to know when people became so anti children?
Has the school system not lost over 60 students in the last two years? Even if there are more kids than projected would the number ever reach 60? (I also heard that they are in the process of cutting the number of residential units) I am sure that you will say next that we need a new elementary school and a new high school for about $200 million. A paid fire department, new fire house, new trucks and who knows what else you would say to stop a project that you don’t want.
Reality is it will gross about $2 to $2.5 million A YEAR in taxes and have one time permit fees of just over $1 million. They will also pay for any road improvements that are necessary. So over the next ten years will Cheshire have over $20 - $25 million in additional expenditures? No where near, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER SCARE TACTIC nothing more.
2:06:00 PM
These are definitely not scare tactics. It's reality as opposed to misinformation and misleading information from W/S and supporters like you.
I don't think Cheshire should have a goal of increasing the school population and increasing the educational costs to the taxpayers. It would be good for the taxpayers to have a decreasing school population.
This development is nothing more than the selling of the Cheshire school system for the profit of the local developers and you know it. Stick it to the taxpayers.
We have had to listen to your phoney petition results, and the off-the-wall estimate of the number of children based on a local cop's, brother of Council person Mike Ecke, independent survey. What motivates a cop to run surveys for a developer and why would anyone believe his results. Then we has to listen to all the realestate sales people that were ordered to testifying for the mall.
This whole process is a case study in deception, including the shenanigans of attacking innocent people, has been disgusting.
Not one fact in your reply, why would I expect more?
The tax revenue on a yearly basis of 2 to 2.5 mil and the one time 1 mil in application fees will be spent the first year just to pay for the average annual budget increases for the Town and BOE and that is not counting if there are increased costs to the Town and BOE due to the development. Factor in any increased infrastructure costs starting the second year, fire station, police. Granted infrastructure costs like a new fire station is a municipal bond and we pay for it over 20 years, it is still a cost and a tax increase. The important number to know is the net tax revenue increase, including all subsequent infrastructure improvements, increased educational costs for the following years. The idea of increased valuation every 4 years will lead to higher tax revenue to offset increased town costs is not really true. After this is all said and done, the tax revenue problem and the spending problems we will still be with us, it will just be at a higher dollar rate.
Doesn't the BOE budget increase every year and won't it go up without this project? So if it is not built won't the taxpayers have to come up with the $2.5m? The up front $1m would be money spent to offset expenses that would not have come without this project. This project will not cost the town more than $2.5m per year.
It was my understanding that the Fire Department has consistently requested a North End Firehouse for years now. It was my understanding that they did so not because they saw a W/S development in their crystal ball but because they were concerned about responding to calls in that area of town (i.e. Birch Drive) and whether lives would be lost in the time it took to get there. Have we begun to put a price tag on lives? Do we know more then our fire chief?
Check out the 2002 Strategic Plan for the Town of Cheshire and a North End Firehouse is listed. It was not only asked for by the Fire Department but has been talked about and planned for. But, it is easier to use it as a scare tactic when discussing the north end project then to be honest and admit one would have to be built regardless of whether W/S moves in or something else does.
"a North End Firehouse is listed"
Did they talk about having a paid fire dept rather than volunteers? Who wants to volunteer and risk their lives fighting mall fires or 4 story apartent fires? Other considerations are that where are you going to get volunteers live or work close to the northend fire station? How are employers going to react to volunteers servicing a higher level of calls?
Did they consider the magnitude of the exposure to fires and other calls that the fire dept responds to? Remember the sprawling mall is just the beginning of the commercial retail development, the other sections of this zone will be rapidly developed.
Since Planning and Zoning did not take the time to get expert opinions of the consequences of changing the zoning and rushed for approval, they opened Pandora's box and the Cheshire taxpayers have been stuck.
Just a quick few questions. First, have you discussed this situation with the Fire Chief or Fire Marshall? Have you looked into the amount of fires that our reported on average in malls? It may surprise you too know that with newer complexes and malls the amount of call originating there drop because of the precautions, such as sprinkler systems, that need to be installed. What would be the alternative or safer? Manufacturing fires? If residential is being included within the North End the hope would be that the new volunteers might originate from their. Some already live in the North End. I think that this discussion of the impact on the Fire House department needs to take place with the actual fire department. Instead we have people running around scaring people with supposed “facts” about the Fire Department and no input has actually, to my knowledge, been provided by them.
Post a Comment