Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Tonight's "financial review"

Anyone catch tonight's financial review? Though the Council majority wasn't giving Tom Ruocco any credit for his idea to press for mid-year spending cuts, the Council did meet tonight in response to his request.

In short, we were reminded about all our reserves that are available if the Town has less money coming in the door. And to the delight of the Council majority, spending cuts were basically ignored... though Tom Ruocco pressed during the session.

Then when staff were done offering their views on the budget, Council members were basically told there'd be no discussion tonight.


But not surprising since the Council majority insists on wasting money. I can't wait for November 2009.

In the meantime, we could immediately take several easy steps to reduce spending:

1) eliminate wasteful spending - i.e. the strategic plan
2) visit the vehicle use policy and gas use policy
3) ban out of state travel

The list goes on and on.

Also, I'd vote no on the two energy referenda next week. Why?

More on that tomorrow.

Anyway, we could've taken action tonight to begin to reduce spending, but we didn't. And who knows when we'll ever get around to taking action... most likely not in the next twelve months because we all know who's in charge... certainly not the taxpayers.

Tim White


Anonymous said...

TM says it is a hardship becuase conveyance tax down $250K. What was the drop on property tax for vehicles? People are getting rid of trucks/SUV's in droves....


Anonymous said...

All capital spending items for 2009 and 2010 should be dropped and if they are deemed really necessary at a later date they can be reintroduced.

To help the state, we are the state, the turf and West Main Streetscape should be returned. Face it neither of these are needed. Many property owners on West Main St take very good care of their and there are others that don't seem to care. Why should taxpayer pay for property improvements when the owners don't care, isn't that like welfare for business.

As for the reevaluation it should be deferred because the real estate market has more to decline from the bubble peak. Other towns have in the past postponed their reevaluation and others have phased it in. It seems that the Dems would like to have the reevaluation with higher guestimates of house values and by pushing the grand list up, they will be able to say that they controlled the rise in the mill rate.

Can someone tell us how the state determines how much a town gets. I have the feeling that Cheshire is considered a rich town because of a high grand list and therefore get less money.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know if referendum #7 which reads: "Shall the $400,000 appropriation and bond authorization for infrastructure improvements at CHS be approved?" an attempt to get funding for the turf? The explanation says it may be spent for infrastucture improvements at CHS including, BUT NOT LIMITERD TO, locker replaceent, auditorium windows, re-tile classrooms and bleachers in the boys gym. If this referendum item is approved, could the money be spent on the turf? It seems to me that it could. Is this a backdoor attempt to get it through?

Anonymous said...

The 400k for the schools is targeted for the renovation of the high school boys football locker room. The reason was two weeks ago the locker room was shut down by the principal because of the unsafe healthy and totally unsanitary conditions. It also was shut down because NEASK the certification group was making a visit. Now some members of the BOW want to renovate the locker. Why bother? The kids did not take of it, the coach's did not take care of it, the Athletic Director failed in his job responsibilities to take care of it, the high school principal; failed and it goes all the way to the Supt's office. Why would want to reword these failures with a new locker room? The BOE should examine why it got into that deplorable condition and discipline the management. Oh, I forgot, the word discipline should be used as we may hurt somebody's feelings. Cut the nonsense, start making cuts and make these people have ownership.

Anonymous said...

I'm voting NO on EVERY budget question.

Sadly, only a 2 X 4 will knock any sense into the spendaholics at Town Hall.

Message to Hall, Esty, Ecke and co. WE ARE IN A RECESSION!!!!


Anonymous said...

Conditions in the boys locker room have been deplorable for years. Two years ago, some boys showed up at a BOE meeting with photos and it was disgusting. But the locker room doesn't stink half as bad as this loosely worded referendum item. This seems to be a very thinly veiled attempt at getting money for the turf field without giving the taxpayers a chance to vote on it specifically.

Anonymous said...

How much does it cost to paint and clean up a locker room?
Does it really cost $400K?

I await the findings of the turf heads....lets see if they have a plan to raise the difference.
It better not be through town funding.

tim white said...

It better not be through town funding.

If Altieri is reelected next year, it will almost certainly be another Rubber Stamp majority. And he'll see it as a mandate for turf.

Anonymous said...

He better not...
I'll run against him if I have to. I am in his district, but he totally ignored all the things I offered to him during his campaigning last year.
He should be an easy person to beat!

Anonymous said...

They are not cutting back on anything because they have the extra money. They have overtaxed us the last 3 years. There is so much fat built into the last few budgets that it makes me sick. Wake up a smell the coffee. Look at the details. TC do your job.

Anonymous said...

This could be a very long recession. It would be utterly foolish to spend down our reserves and then find out the fiscal hole in 2010 and 2011 is even larger.

Stop the insanity NOW

Anonymous said...

I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!

Sorry for offtopic