Budget Hearing April 9, 2013 My Comments

Public Hearing Budget 2013/14 April 9, 2013 Capital Improvements Property values have been reduced on average by 13.88% since revaluation leaving a huge hole in the Grand List. Since property values determine the taxes, the Town should formulate a budget consistent with the loss in property values. Since property values have been equated with income, a loss in property values should be reflected in the budget. If my income goes down my State and Federal taxes go down. Promoting a budget increase with an average of a 13.88% reduction in property values is unrealistic.  All property values have been reduced and all town budgets should reflect the loss. According to Zillow homes in my zip code will be reduced another 1.4% in the future. This does not correlate with the present budgets. Why the big disconnect?  I am concerned that the Capital Improvements has now become an offline account for maintenance. This is not acceptable. The Town budget is filled with politically motivated projects giving the golfers their share, the Seniors their share, the Greenway group their share which accounts for more for the lobby groups  at the expense of the majority of the taxpayers. The Senior Center should be incorporated into the Simsbury Library since the library has evolved into a community center and most of materials will eventually be delivered electronically leaving large areas unused. The library is in the center of town, has parking and meets the ADA requirements. Why has this low cost option been ignored? There have been several articles about the loss of employment in the Insurance Industry. MetLife is moving to North Carolina with a loss of over 1,000 jobs and The Hartford in Simsbury, the largest taxpayer, has sold many of its business with articles stating that they are moving out of the Simsbury facility, leaving an empty building. This building will probably be demolished, leaving Simsbury with a greatly diminished Grand List. Once again First Selectman Mary Glassman is spending taxpayer money on issues that are out of her control. The taxpayers funded a whim of a purchase of the Simsbury Airport that would lose over $200,000 a year and the owners were not interested in selling. Now Glassman has appropriated over $30,000 to study what to do with The Hartford building when it becomes vacant. First Selectman Mary Glassman has no control on the decisions of the shareholders and the President of The Hartford. Although The Hartford is one of the highest taxpayers, the town has no control of The Hartford’s bottom line.  The Hartford building will probably be demolished and they will take over $46 million dollars off their balance sheet and $1.7 million of taxes as did Aetna and Pfizer.  The taxpayers should not support another whim for political capital.  I am very concerned that the taxpayers are continually asked to pay millions of dollars for studies, charettes and designs that are never implemented. The town has continually hired consultants to review the town organization and all the studies stated that Simsbury should have a town manager form of government. First Selectman Mary Glassman ran on the platform of having a Town Manager for Simsbury and since she has been elected she forgot her promise to her constituents. We not only don’t have professional management we have a First Selectman with a six figure salary delegating all her responsibilities to a pseudo-town manager as stated in the approved Charter Revision, Chapter V, Section 502 Duties. Since the First Selectman has diminished duties the salary should be reduced. Many of the Town projects in the Capital Improvement Projects should be placed in the operating budget not off line in Capital Improvements. CNR Why has the Board of Finance increased the money pool in the CNR budget.  It appears that this will decrease the operating budget and make it appear that spending has been reduced. Most projects are for maintenance that should be in the operating budget, not CNR. This is voodoo economics. The golf course has not made money for years, this year no fees were raised and now the golf lobby is asking for carpeting. The taxpayers should not subsidize the golfers Every year we have appropriations for trucks. What happens to the trucks that are replaced? Why have road improvements included in the CNR when the town appropriated over $2 million for roads? Is this double dipping?’ . Operating Budget The budgets as presented are inconsistent with the economic times. There is a reduction in the collection of $360,907,557. Assessments are reduced on average 13.88%. The Simsbury Farms Fund is deficient by $96,374 and the town continually adds money from the taxpayers to make the supposedly self-sufficient fund whole. Why has the Town continually placed $50,000 in the town budget for Main Street Partnership, a non-profit organization? Although they do an important job, they should be subsidized by the Chamber of Commerce, not the taxpayers. Since alcohol consumption is allowed on town property and I have noticed barrels at Simsbury Farms filled with beer cans and bottles, how much money is collected from the recycling of these products? Where does the money go? The actuarial assumptions used for funding the pension funds are over exuberant.  The town had assumed a 7.5% return on investments but changed that figure to 7%, still too high. It also assumes a projected salary increase by 4%. This is not attainable in the economic climate, leaving our pension funds deficient. Investments are down, revenues are down, property values are down. There are over 700 residents unemployed in Simsbury as of January and that doesn’t include college graduates who can’t find jobs and those either no longer looking for employment or underemployed.  Foreclosures are up. The banks pay the taxes on the foreclosed houses but empty houses cannot spend money leaving our businesses with fewer customers and neighborhoods blighted. Any increase in the budget is unacceptable.  I will vote NO on the budget as presented.   Board of Education All of the issues I have discussed about revenues and expenditures hold true to the Board of Education budget. There is declining enrollment along with lower property values and the budgets are still increasing. Mandates for more performance evaluations can be enforced with the Principals and the heads of departments. There is no need for 3 Vice Principals at the High School. We spend over $100,000 for Security with 3 different organizations reporting leaving a whole in the chain of command. Sending Security to out of town games are costly and not needed since every town supplies their own security. I am concerned that more and more money is being allocated for Charter and Magnet schools for a few students at the expense of the taxpayers to enrich their studies with buses taking them to their out of town schools. Why should the taxpayers support enhanced education for a few students? These entities have been losing money year after year and should be eliminated or paid from the CREC budgets. I am concerned that the initiation of all day kindergarten has placed many students in a one size fits all curriculum. There have been many studies on early childhood education and the maturation of children at the Kindergarten level. There has been discussion of Red Shirting, holding children back to give them time to mature. There have been discussions about Non-Graded education where students move from one group to another as they mature. Since there are projections of fewer children entering Kindergarten every year I would like to have kindergarten through second grade conform to a modified Non-Graded education, moving the children from a pre-kindergarten program to a more complex curriculum at the second grade level.  It appears that this modification would reduce the staff and enhance the educational experience of the children. Why can’t this program be implemented within the Simsbury schools? Does the Board of Education have the projected costs of educating all the students through graduation after the Grant money is no longer funded. It appears from the budget that most of the money appropriated is for staff. What quality of education would be reduced if a Vice Principal from the High School and an assistant Superintendent was eliminated from the budget? We are facing hard times and we all must cut back on our spending. The quality of education should not be dependent on how much money is spent but how we allocate our resources.  We all can do with less, so can the Board of Education. All Budgets must be reduced. As presented I will vote no for the budgets as presented.