Thursday, May 21, 2009

Richmond Glen will likely be a tax drain

On April 15 I prepared a fiscal impact analysis of the Richmond Glen development. Since that time - and despite the Council leadership - I've been able to gather additional information. The most critical information is the likely sales price of the new units.

Using several sources, I now estimate that both the worst case scenario (Scenario 6) and the most likely case scenario (Scenario 5) will result in tax drains on the town. Even the best case scenario (Scenario 4) is not much better than a wash when you consider other issues, such as the additional impervious surfaces hurting the environment.

Assumptions are as follows:

A - range of estimates provided by the attorney to the Council
AA - see my estimated calculation here and explanation here, the tax estimate was based on a document (provided to the PZC in 2005) that established the likely sales price for the units and was updated using estimates based on the National Association of Realtors annual estimates
B - provided by the attorney
D - range of estimates provided by the attorney
F - my estimate using the old cliche 2.3 kids as the high estimate, then chose 1.0 kid as the low estimate and divided in half for the middle estimate
H - see
my estimate here, I used the schools' own numbers
J - see
my estimate here, I used the fiscal impact analysis for the residential component of the proposed north end development
L - the attorney mentioned $350,000 as a taxable number for age-restricted units, I chose a lower number that is likely more indicative of other age-restricted developments in town
M - this number is a guess based on some uninformed discussion last night
N - L x M
O - my guess that has no basis in fact
Q - 2009 / 10 mill rate


I think it's pretty obvious why the Council leadership strongly opposed performing a fiscal impact analysis. They didn't want anyone to see their sweetheart deal $10 easement for what it was.

Regardless, the Council leadership obviously still wants me to believe:



Tim White

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is a shame that the "CPA" head of our budget committee couldn't figure out how to to an analusis on this property.
Good work Tim, but all it is going to do now is show us how much more this will cost all of us.
There will be those who will tell you that it is up to the P & Z to discuss this, but I say that anyone in power in this town should stop this ridiculous TC from allowing thes developers to walk all over the tax payers of this town.

Anonymous said...

"It is a shame that the "CPA" head of our budget"

You've got to be kidding. He certainly knows how and that the Cheshire taxpayers will lose big time.

Ecke went out of his way to help push this through, with his comparison to Quarry Village. He and the other Dems serve the developers and other special interests. They must be getting taken care of one way or another.

Some people go into public service to serve the public, others to serve thier friends and themselves.

Good job Dems, you stuck it to us again.

Anonymous said...

Good job Dems, you stuck it to us again.

May 22, 2009 11:29 AM

You are correct, the republicans havent cost us a dime lately... or have they?

Anonymous said...

Good job Dems, you stuck it to us again.

May 22, 2009 11:29 AM

You are correct, the republicans havent cost us a dime lately... or have they?

Anonymous said...

"You are correct, the republicans havent cost us a dime lately... or have they?"
Just remember....there are 5 Dems to 4 Republicans on the TC.

All the voting is controlled by the Dems, if one should come over to the good side, it is a fluke.

The Republicans have tried to save thousands, but to no avail when the voting begins.

Anonymous said...

Government is the tax drain. And more government only drains more. If the public would focus on getting out to vote in LOCAL elections and elect people that are committed to ending the relentless expansion of preserving and growing town "services" then arguments over tax positives because of some new residential development would be moot.

There was a time when people wanted to move into a town like Cheshire because the schools were good, the neighborhoods were safe and the services, while spare, were sufficient and most of all taxes were low. Fast forward 20 years and we have a whole new generation of followers who have subscribed to the notion that taxpayers owe government something...(above and beyond taxes)...loyalty to town services. This is fast becoming a reality that is crushing us in the state, will soon do so in town, and worst of all nationally, where a slippery slope has beome a free fall of the cliff...as the last 100 plus days have made that an inevitability.

If people are to take back control of their lives they have to declare a new independence. This Brodach decision is not where a case gets made for tax positives or negatives. We all live on property that was once pasture or forest. Your house is here because someone built it, you liked it and you own it with the expectation to sell it someday with some hoped for equity. I think you should give the Serenity Ranch ROW a rest. Instead please show up at the polling place when local elections take place. Express your frustrations there and then commit to keep those elected to spend your money in check.

Tim Slocum

Anonymous said...

Pleeeze, Republicans, come up with good, appealing candidates so the Dems don't keep control by default. "Change we can believe in."

Anonymous said...

"Change we can believe in."

At the national level, the Dems are going for change.

At the local level, the Dems are just using their power to maintain their same old policy of giving away our tax money to the Good Ole Boys.

There's money to be made by keeping the local boys happy. Favoritism at all levels is alive and well.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:26 PM

If you have some suggestions for a good appealing candidates don't keep them a secret. Encourage them to come forward or share your suggestions. Contact the Republican Town Committee - Marilyn Bartoli 271-2497.

If your comment by default also means you're not happy with some of the current R's now serving don't keep that a secret either. Our names, numbers and most emails are public info.

Tim Slocum 272-0652, 272-3529.

Anonymous said...

Tim Slocum,

Anon 7:26 back here again. I’m completely happy with you, Tom Ruocco, Jim Sima, and Tim White on the Council.

My point is that the rest of the Republican slate needs to be filled by equally appealing district and at-large candidates. Given the growing public dissatisfaction with the unseemly conduct of this current Council majority, there’s no reason why they should be re-elected. This is your election to lose.

As 9:42 points out, the irony in this election is that the local Republicans are the party of change, reform, and good government, while the local Dems are the party of the special interests and big $$$.

It’s time for a change. Now get the best possible candidates for 1st, 3rd, and at-large to carry that message.

PS: I'm unable to run because my work takes me out of town regularly. But I will volunteer.

Anonymous said...

There are a few people that would consider or have considered placing themselves up for election. When they approached the Republican Town Chairman the first two questions were; are now a Republican? If not you have to change to a Republican before I will speak with you. This is an attitude that stops some good independents from participating. When the two major parties embrace non-party individuals progress can be made. This attitude is like stating you cannot come to my church until you change to my religion.

Anonymous said...

806: I think state law requires that candidates nominated by a party must belong to that party. Both parties do the same. Sheldon Dill had to become a Dem before the Dems supported him for council.

Personally, I'd like to see non-partisan local elections as in other states, where individuals run for town office without party nominations or labels. But Conn. law doesn't allow that.

Anonymous said...

after nov 3 which can't come soon enough the rep will hold 3seats atbest
no plan or no real candidates
now the dems are going to have a field daywith your mistakes
is shrumm running
ha what a joke

Anonymous said...

Atleast when the Dems run the town smart choices will be made. Maybe we could save a few bucks too!

Anonymous said...

You can tell by the last two posts (same spammer) that he really is as stupid as he seems by his resoning, speeeling, n typoos. Teechers like him make our skools great.