Forget about the majors. Even the triple-A PawSox have fans in Haiti:
Haha... actually, I'm not totally convinced that my colleague is a big fan. Serge, a nurse with whom I work, spends a lot of time our girls soccer program. And I think he may have just gotten the cap someplace... without regard to being big into Pawtucket. But I don't care. Go Sox!
Tim White
ESPN just ran this nice article about our girl's soccer & responsible sexuality program. The nurse who coordinates the program is named Marc Antoine, a soft-spoken guy who makes a great effort at outreach and inclusion.
I'm not getting into many details, but I can assure you that anyone in Cheshire would be shocked at how little is known by most country girls here. It is a reality that some girls are unaware of their pregnancy until they start to obviously show in their third trimester. Things have improved in our region, but awareness is still too low... and it's abysmally low in the areas beyond our region. But as our founder, Jerry Lowney, says... "We just help one person at a time."
Tim White
The Huffington Post's Jeffrey Collins has an interesting article on the closing of public pools across America due to budgetary constraints:
as the Great Recession has drained city budgets across the country, it also has drained public pools for good. From New York City to Sacramento, Calif., pools now considered costly extravagances are being shuttered, taking away a rite of summer for millions.
It's an interesting read. But keep in mind, this is about summer-only pools being closed. It's not about year-round facilities.
Tim White
Most importantly, no one was injured... which brings me to the memorial service...
Via referendum in 1996, the white elephant was born. As with many government projects, it contained two critical issues:
1) the capital budget; and
2) the operating budget.
First, we had the $2.9 million capital costs. But by the time the capital costs stopped being recorded, it was already in excess of $4.0 million.* And while Council after Council have been fired by the voters every two years since 1999, in part because of the pool, the voters were never really given an honest take on whether the additional $1.1 million was legal. Instead, Council's simply skirted the rules by spending less than the $330,000** referendum limit.
Second, we had the annual operating subsidy of $400,000. With the explanatory text of the referendum suggesting both a year-round and self-sustaining facility, the pols who brought forward the pool in 1996 were lacking:
1) intellectual honesty;
2) the ability or willingness to critically analyze the proposal; or
3) the means to tell the future of energy costs.
I think the biggest problem was #3. Though I think all three issues played some role to varying extents.
And of course, Council after Council refused to address the problems of the pool directly. Instead, the M.O. was to throw more good money after bad. It wasn't until 2010 that a Council accepted the need to tackle the pool head-on.
The $7 million referendum failed, but it was the first time that a Council acted responsibly. And the PBCs work is still outstanding. I expect they'll soon return to the Council with a plan for the bubble. But I also expect the proposal could exceed $1,000,000. If so, it'll probably be sunk even before a Council vote. In other words, my feeling is that the PBC work is an exercise in futility... other than showing the voters that it's not viable... at least in this economic climate.
So my guess is that although the Council will continue to have discussions regarding a year-round pool into the 2011 fall election, the pool has finally met it's match... a combination of:
1) Father Time;
2) New England's winter snows; and
3) the voters.
Yup. Between the seven million dollar pool structure and the half million dollar track, the voters have made it clear to the Town's elected officials that there's a difference between necessities and niceties.
Looking forward to the immediate consequences of the bubble collapse, what will happen with pool programs? I'm sure some will be cancelled, but others will be relocated. One thing to keep in mind -- not for this year, but next -- is that if the pool structure passed, it was stated that it would've been possible to relocate swim programs. So programming would have continued without a great deal of interruption.
Looking farther into the future, this raises a question about the scope of an agreement between the Town and Yankee Gas. The pool would've been profitable for Yankee in the short-term. But laying pipeline extensions to Norton and Doolittle may have a 30-year payback. Combining the two would've been beneficial to the town and, perhaps, acceptable to Yankee. But the lack of the pool will certainly be taken into consideration by Yankee as the DPUC requires their projects to have timelines for their projected ROI.
And looking to our spring ritual, I expect the PBC to complete their bubble study prior to the adoption of the Town's operating budget. It'd certainly make the budget process easier having a sense of whether there could be another $400,000 subsidy for a year-round pool... or if that subsidy may be reduced for a summer-only pool. My guess is that the Council will adopt a budget with a $50,000 to $100,000 subsidy for a summer-only pool.
As for how that $300,000 savings plays out politically... I venture that if you ignore all the moving pieces of the budget, there will be a Democratic proposal to increase the education budget by the amount reduced in the pool subsidy. If that happens, most eyes will be on the annual debate of the school budget... not on the pool. That would signal the planting of flowers on the bubble's grave... with the year-round pool being unceremoniously walked into the sunset.
Or maybe the Y will lease the facility for $1 / year?
Tim White
* This does not include all capital improvements to the pool, such as the $250,000 wasted on mold remediation in September 2009.
** The threshold is now $350k, but it was raised after the pool construction was supposedly completed in 2003.
The Council is again moving forward with the linear trail. I understand the December Council meeting made two things happen:
1) $812,000 in federal and state grants was reallocated to the West Main Street to Jarvis Street section; and
2) the state DOT was asked to design the entire West Main to Southington trail.
The NHRs Luther Turmelle explains that the tradeoff in getting the DOT to do this work was a Council promise to move forward with the trail in next August's capital budget.
the funding is contingent on the town making a good faith effort to include the project in the 2011-12 capital budget and to get voters to approve the expenditure in November.
And since this stretch of trail is estimated to cost more than $2,000,000, we should probably expect to see more than a million property tax dollars included in the November 2011 referenda for this stretch of trail.
Although I don't support the idea of borrowing and spending more money on expanded services until we -- Cheshire, Hartford & Washington -- get our financial house in order, the Council does. As such, I have a suggestion:
Follow the lead of the turf supporters and fundraise to complete this project.
There's even some big funding available from non-government sources. American Express recently donated $200,000 for rails-to-trails. With some effort -- besides forced taxation at the local, state and federal levels of future taxpayers -- maybe Cheshire could score a trail grant?
Tim White
I'm sitting in the Port-au-Prince international airport, Toussaint l'Ouverture.* And I'm on my laptop... loving how much technology has improved. Unfortunately, best I can tell I can probably only access about half the websites I try to visit with my current connection. So I say this with caution because I can only read the URL.
Apparently my former high school gym teacher, Steve Addazio, has been named the head football coach at Temple University. Good for him. For those of you who don't know the history, Coach Addazio is the pretty much the one-man show that turned an average football team into one of the best teams in the country.
I graduated in 1990. And Coach started at CHS while I was probably sophomore or junior. Anyway in the fall of 1989, Coach brought our team to the state championship and we lost to Glastonbury. Two years later he began is five-year unbeaten streak.
Now that's not the UConn girls... or the Ed Aston girls' swim team... but it's still a fantastic record. If I recall correctly, near the end of the streak the Rams had the second-longest winning streak in the country.
Tim White
* Monsieur l'Ouverture is the George Washington of Haiti.
For three years I've been the lone vote on the Council opposing the TMs contract on the basis of poor performance.* But tonight I understand the vote on the TMs contract extension passed 5 - 2. Jimmy and Anne were opposed and Steve Carroll and Patti Flynn Harris abstained.
I applaud Jimmy and Anne. I'm uncertain of their reasons, but I'm guessing that it was partly for the reasons I mentioned yesterday. In particular, it's nice to see elected officials who demand an end to the waste and mismanagement of the DPW. And as for hearing about how "hard-working" staff can be... I recall Council Chairman Slocum's recent Herald LTTE.
Just because one "works hard" doesn't mean one is effective. Someone could "work" 16 hour days. But if someone else can do the same workload in eight hours, then the 16 hour person may need to be replaced. So with regard to the whole "he works hard" argument, I dismiss it. Besides, most of the "hard work" is spent cultivating the nonsense message that he and his office are apolitical... and also simply controlling the information, reminding staff that they are not allowed to speak openly and that all information must be vetted through The Boss -- or else.
Again, I thank Jimmy Sima and Anne Giddings for their votes tonight in opposition to the Town's highly political and unnecessarily costly mismanagement.
I also understand that some sort of turf vote passed 5 - 4 with Anne Giddings, Tom Ruocco, David Schrumm and Jimmy Sima being opposed. I agree with my fellow Rs. The long-term liabilities facing the USA, the State of Connecticut and the Town of Cheshire are enormous. Cheshire has spiraling healthcare costs, an underfunded pension plan, a $30 million sewer plant coming toward us... along with about $60 million in existing debt and an annual operating budget of $100 million.
I believe we should be avoiding the addition of significant, long-term liabilities, such as the turf. And with the Washington Establishment still believing the ridiculous Keynesian economic theory that money grows on trees, I don't see America's economy improving for years. Unemployment will remain high and no elected official is going to want to see the turf replacement when it arrives in the 5-yr capital budget in only three years.
Tim White
* Two years ago, the vote was 5 - 4. But I only recall my colleagues opposing the raise... not the performance.
It'll probably be an interesting Council meeting tomorrow night.
First thing will likely be the appointments of Steve Carroll and Patti Flynn Harris to fill the vacancies of Justin Adinolfi and yours truly.
Then you'll see the turf vote. I'm uncertain of what way it'll go, but this was my whip count back in June: 4 favor, 3 oppose, 2 unknown. I had Justin listed in favor and myself opposed with David Schrumm and Anne Giddings opinions unknown.
And last, but certainly not least, the annual vote on extending the TMs contract. I don't know how this vote will go. But seven years ago I asked the TM to "make the trains run on time." Unfortunately, he's done far more than that. And since his last contract extension, he's:
1) Meddled in union affairs to influence the outcome of last year's election.
2) Ignored the crisis at the PD, in order to spend time in Hartford advocating for John Destefano's regional sales tax.
3) Accepted the waste and mismanagement at the DPW.
Judgment matters. He could do a good job making the trains run on time. But for him, that's not enough. He insists on playing politics and accepting poor quality work -- at the expense of the taxpayer -- while covering up for his cronies.
A TM should be a professional, not a politician. We can do better.
And on a related note... in case you hadn't noticed... we've had one TM since 2000. And if you go back to 1999, with one exception, the voters have switched Councils every two years. Anyone see a pattern there? Unfortunately for the taxpayers, they don't have the opportunity to vote on the Chief Executive.
Tim White
$425,000 Fire Dept breathing apparatus
YES 8800 73.99%
NO 3094 26.01%
Total votes 11894
$1.5m Road Repavement
YES 7196 62.48%
NO 4321 37.52%
Total votes 11517
$1m roof replacement
YES 6279 54.90%
NO 5159 45.10%
Total votes 11438
$570,000 Dodd kitchen renovations
YES 5960 51.84%
NO 5538 48.16%
Total votes 11498
$475,000 CHS track replacement
YES 4542 39.48%
NO 6962 60.52%
Total votes 11504
Here's a ten year history of Cheshire referenda results. And see here for a trend analysis of certain referenda.
I'm guessing the recent history of rejected recreation-related projects (2005 linear trail, 2010 pool, 2010 track) will be taken into consideration by the Council when the turf comes to a vote.
With regard to the track, I'm uncertain what will happen with the $150,000 previously appropriated. My guess is that it'll be used to perform ongoing maintenance... or the Council could probably defund all or some of the appropriation... before it gets used on other projects "related to the track." Wouldn't be surprised if David Schrumm already knows the answer to that.
It's also notable that the Dodd kitchen renovations weren't given any sort of massive support, while roads were given pretty strong support.
Tim White
The MRJs Jesse Buchanan reported:
The Board of Education approved three motions which support the Cheshire High School artificial turf project Thursday night and forward it to the Town Council.
The motions were approved in a six to one vote with Republican Alan Sobol the lone dissenter.
Thank you Alan. This will be another long-term liability given to the taxpayers. And we need to reduce those liabilities, not increase them.
While some argue that the Town must replace the turf -- either with artificial turf or natural turf -- I suggest waiting to see the results of the $475,000 track referendum on November 2. If that fails -- and I think it may* -- then the taxpayers will have spoken loud'n'clear.
Tim White
* Recent recreation projects, such as the pool and linear trail, failed. And roads and energy improvements have seen support decreasing significantly in recent years.
At last night's debate, Vickie Nardello (D) and Kathy Brown (R) were told and asked:
The August 3, 2008 Waterbury Republican American editorial described the “discretionary funds” in Hartford as “slush funds.” Cheshire’s $525,000 turf originated from these “discretionary funds.” Since this money has not yet been spent, do you support or oppose defunding the turf project in an effort to balance the state budget?
Here is their response:
After years of seeing it, I've gotten tired of Vickie spewing facts to divert attention without ever actually answering a question. Which in this case was:
In an effort to balance the budget, would you defund the turf?
Instead we get the runaround... like when she started defending her opposition to the death penalty in all instances because an innocent person may be put to death... huh?... news to Rep. Nardello... those two predators are NOT innocent! Yet in her heart of hearts, she wants to protect the lives of those two murderers!
Agree with her or not -- and I agree with her -- at least Kathy Brown was direct in her answer.
Tim White
When asked if -- in an effort to balance the budget -- she would defund the turf grant, Mary Fritz explains that we just don't understand... the $525,000 isn't really in the budget! It's really just a debt service line item in a future budget... NBD!
Thanks Mary for letting us know just how stupid we are!
Kinda reminds me of the September 2005 LTTE from Steve Carroll explaining the difference between the operating costs of the school budget and the capital costs of the linear trail... a letter which was soon followed by a resident chastising Steve for his letter. And in the audience tonight I already had one unaffiliated voter tell me "spending is spending... what doesn't she understand?"
Thank you Mary for putting the 90th district in play! She's so arrogant and she doesn't even know it.
And here's Richard Abbate's response... which I think may have been his best comments of the night...
I thank you Richard for standing up to Mary.
UPDATE: Here's the question I posed... The August 3, 2008 Waterbury Republican American editorial described the “discretionary funds” in Hartford as “slush funds.” Cheshire’s $525,000 turf originated from these “discretionary funds.” Since this money has not yet been spent, do you support or oppose defunding the turf project in an effort to balance the state budget?
Tim White
As you might expect, I'm cleaning house and tossing a bunch of old papers. In the process, I came across the original Council motion regarding the turf:
Some have wondered if the Turf Committee was created by way of a Council motion.
It was not.
Frankly though, I still feel that the Turf Committee is an integral part of the process and do appreciate the work they've done. Regardless, if I were voting... I don't see how I'd support increasing services,* if I felt the long-term liabilities related to replacing the field would be borne by the local taxpayers.
Tim White
* from 30 two-hour uses per year to 300 two-hour uses per year.
In a recent post on the Council voting to raise Parks & Rec fees I wrote:
My concern was not only increasing fees in this economy, it was also the process.
The process concerns me because I don't want residents to believe that a Council vote has real legislative authority, unless that is true. And based on previous TM explanations I've been given, I understand that the Council has no actual authority over P&R fees.
So why did we vote?
I'm not entirely sure. But the TM wasn't there and my process concern was relatively minor in the bigger picture. Nonetheless...
Going forward, I hope that when the Council votes on P&R and pool fees it is made clear to the voters that the vote is symbolic only. And I also hope the TM -- the paid, full-time staff -- stops failing to disclose relevant facts when the Council votes. But then, the TM has always had a preference for omitting -- rather than disclosing -- relevant information.
I think it's important that the voters be given an accurate understanding of Council actions. And I've felt this way for years. For example, in June 2007 the TM had the authority to work with the Friends of Boulder Knoll, yet he refused to act. But the former Council majority refused to publicly chastise the TM. So they kowtowed to his wishes and knowingly misled the voters by voting to authorize and direct the TM to act.
I'm leaving the Council now. But I hope that when issues regarding the authority of the Council vs. the authority of the TM arise, the Council makes clear to the voters if the vote has legal standing or is simply symbolic. Symbolic votes have value, but the voters should know if a vote is symbolic or legal.
For more on the Council vote on P&R fees, you can see the Herald article here and the MRJ article here.
And here are my comments regarding the relevance of a Council vote on P&R fees:
Tim White
At Tuesday's meeting, the Council voted to increase fees at the Parks & Recreation Department, including at the pool. Both the Herald's Josh Morgan and the MRJs Jesse Buchanan reported on it.
Here is the resolution, along with the fee schedule:
Councilman Ecke and I opposed the motion. Here are my comments prior to the vote:
My concern was not only increasing fees in this economy, it was also the process. I'm running out the door now, but will hopefully find some time this weekend to give some more background on my "process" concern.
Tim White
Yesterday I wrote about natural gas pipelines in town, including:
I thank Jimmy Sima and the Planning Committee for looking at not only the initial costs, but at the lifecycle costs, including the much larger relationship. It's also nice to see the Council and BOE doing this for many big, new projects, such as the pool, the turf and natural gas pipelines.
And today I see this Luther Turmelle article on the BOE turf discussion delays, including:
“It’s one thing that the board is taking an approach where they want more concrete answers about building a financial reserve for replacing the field,” said Peter Massey, a nine-year school board member who is stepping down this month. “But on the other side of the coin, I can’t remember doing it this way for any other major capital project in town. Is it a smart thing? Yes, but it shouldn’t be the thing that’s holding this up.”
I'm glad to see bipartisan support for the review of long-term costs for various projects in town. Though I'm confused by the statement from Bob Behrer:
“When the town built the senior center, nobody asked how they were going to pay for replacing it or modernizing it some day,” Behrer said. “They just went ahead and built it like every other town project except for this one.”
As I explained above, that's simply not true. There's a new sheriff in town. The 20th Council is less than one year old, yet it's been reviewing the long-term costs on several large ticket projects.
I thank Council Chairman Tim Slocum for making this change happen. I also hope that people begin to acknowledge the reality of the 20th Council, rather than repeatedly referencing the inaction and lack of long-term planning by former Councils.
Tim White
My biggest concern with the turf -- and with all projects -- is spending. I want to know about initial and lifecycle costs. As such, there have been statements made during Council meetings that current turf products typically have eight year warranties, but are used for ten to twelve years.
That sounds reasonable, but I want to parse that statement a bit.
Beside assertions that the turf would definitely last eight to ten years or more, it's been stated that the turf would allow for 300 uses annually, but...
What is a use?
I distinctly recall a "use" being defined at a Council meeting a few years ago and a use is not a day. Rather...
1 use = 2 hours
So the Relay for Life is 12 uses. And how many uses is each game? 1 use or 2 uses? How about practice after school? If practice lasts for four hours, then that's two uses.
My point is this... I'm guessing that if the turf is installed, the school's AD will come under immense pressure to use the field more than the 300 uses. And if the life is ten years, but it gets 400 uses annually... does the field last only 7.5 years? Is the 8 year warranty invalidated due to excessive use?
Considering we'd be taking on a known long-term liability, I hope the BOE gets details on this.
Tim White
I'm sure many of you have seen the recent Heralds, including a new talking point for turf:
The Council voted for the "50% goal." Now the Council is moving the goal line!
That's a factual statement, but also a serious distortion of reality.
Perhaps a more honest and complete talking point would be:
Last November's Lame Duck Council voted for the "50% goal." Now -- of the current nine Council members, including one elected Council member who voted for the "50% goal" -- the new Council is moving the goal line!
Seriously, this is ridiculous. I hope somebody submits an LTTE and reminds people that the November 2009 Council vote included only one elected Council member among the nine current Council members.
Don't get me wrong though. I respect the fact that people are raising money. And I understand the concerns that Councils have not historically asked for replacement funding -- look at the playground at Bartlem -- but for me The Bailout changed everything. And I do think the current Council has a legitimate -- though short -- record on considering long-term, lifecycle costs. We did it with the pool structure. And I hope we continue to do that, particularly with the more visible, larger ticket items.
I think the turf would be really nice. But I also think it's going to drive up long-term costs for taxpayers. And I still need to hear a convincing argument addressing those costs, if I'm going to support the turf.
Tim White
The MRJs Jesse Buchanan reports on the BOEs turf vote:
Some Board of Education members still have unanswered questions about the Cheshire High School artificial turf project and a motion to forward it to the Town Council was tabled Thursday.
Remaining questions, such as how the field's replacement will be funded, will be discussed at an upcoming board planning committee meeting.
"There were more questions than answers," said board member Tony Perugini of the turf project.
Thank you Tony for asking questions.
Tim White
I began explaining the expanding track & field project a few days ago. Now I'm wondering in terms of a referendum... in what way do you feel the Council should handle the project?
Should the Council combine everything into one project -- track, turf, add-on's and the "D" at one time? How about dealing with all the rubberized stuff (track, long jump, pole vault and the "D") at one time, while the turf is handled separately?
Based on the meeting discussions I've heard, the pole vault and long jump areas are not being seriously considered for improvements... unless "the funds allow." And since that's the case, I'm not in favor of spending any money on the add-on's.
That leaves the track, the "D" and the turf. I'm undecided on this, but:
1) I'm not convinced the expansion of turf services* will be privately funded over the next, say, five years; and
2) I believe the track needs improvement...
So I am in favor of moving forward with the track sans turf... and probably in connection with the "D" as one referedum item... along with any drainage improvements that need to be made.
How would you address the track / turf / "D" & various add-on's?
Tim White
* By turf services, I mean the stated increase in use from 30 two-hour events to 300 two-hour events / year.
