Cost/benefit analysis gaining support?

I'm not sure yet if my call for a cost/benefit analysis gained some support today, but it may have. (And if you missed my earlier posts on calling for a cost/benefit analysis, you can read more here, here and here.)

I feel it may have gained support because of what I read in Matt Altieri's letter in today's Herald. The letter was quite pleasing to see... so much so that I just sent him the following email:
Matt...

I read your letter in today's Herald.

One line in particular jumped out at me...

"Cheshire wins when we leave all that posturing at the door and look at the issues with practical and non-partisan points of view."

I agree. And since my call for a cost-benefit analysis of the rainy day fund is a non-partisan, non-ideological request... will you join me in my call for this cost-benefit analysis?

thanks,
Tim

Anyway... for the benefit of the taxpayers, I'm hoping that we can finally move forward. I mean, it seems to me that spending $5,500 for bond insurance is better than increasing taxes by $2,000,000.

Tim White
Town Council, Budget Committee