This year we the people are feeling the financial crunch of higher costs of energy, food, clothing, medical, prescription drugs, gas etc on our daily budget. The interest on bank savings is not keeping up with inflation. The stock markets and the bond markets are imploding on a daily basis. Our 401k is now less than 101k. Our homes have depreciated in value. If people have jobs they are concerned that they might have their jobs eliminated and many have lived on fixed incomes for years. We the people do not have control of many outside forces but the 3.73% that we are being asked to pay for town and educational services are excessive.. When budgets are tight at home most people start cutting discretionary purchases. However, town budgets never reflect the economic reality that we have to do with less, not more.
According to town key indicators, the average of the 10 year operating budgets ( 1999-2009) for the board of selectman increased 4.63%, the board of education budget increased 5.85% with a reduction in enrollment. Last year the BOS budget increased 6.10% and the BOE budget increased 5.07% with declining enrollment. How can budgets increase at this rate year after year? It appears to me that we the people have been overtaxed over the years and this year is no different. Many residents are on fixed income, many people have not had raises in years, including town employees and many residents are losing their jobs due to downsizing. What happened to the interest on the money ($575,309) in the employee salary account for three years? How does this affect the town’s bond rating? Now is not the time to increase spending, Farmington has recently said no, now it is time for Simsbury residents to vote no on increased budget creep.
We the people should mandate that our elected officials find ways to increase revenues.
I recently asked Rep. Linda Schofield why boats and airplanes are not included in property taxes. The response was that owners of planes pay $90 for weighing less than 3,000 pounds to $2,500 for planes weighing more than 12,000 pounds in registration fess and planes manufactured before 1946 pay the statutory registration fee or $100, whichever is less and the exemption was to encourage more planes to come to and be kept in the state. As for boats, they register and pay $7.50 for boats less than 12 feet to $525 for boats that are 65 feet and over. This loophole should be closed. According to this letter, Vermont taxes both boats and planes, why not Connecticut?. These sweetheart deals should be eliminated. Simsbury would be the beneficiary of these property taxes.
Recently in The Hartford Courant there was an article about the towns recovering money in lieu of taxes from the state for tax-exempt schools. Simsbury has Ethel Walker School, Westminster School, Masters School and St. Mary’s School. All these schools and all their homes contiguous to the schools are tax exempt. Simsbury was not on the list. Why? Has First Selectman Mary Glassman asked for the money?
Why do kindergarten children need $1,300 laptop computers and why do we need so many smart boards? Computers should not take the place of interaction between the teachers and the students. If there is a choice between teachers and computers, employing teachers is a no-brainer? How does the BOE justify over $80,000 in Conference Workshops? Does this include trips to China and Finland? Are any other foreign countries in the horizon for visits from the BOE? What benefit to the children’s educational experience is derived from excursions by the BOE to foreign countries? How does the BOS justify spending over $50,000 on Economic Development with money going towards Main Street Partnership, a non-profit organization? Why are the taxpayers being told that the Simsbury Farms Special Revenue Fund is self-sufficient when all the Capital Expenditures are off budget? There are many expenditures that can be cut from the BOS and BOE budgets. It is time to reduce spending which is in keeping with what every citizen is doing in times when every penny counts.
We the people can control our own budgets and eliminate discretionary expenditures in a time of uncertainty, why should the town budget not reflect the same mentality? We can no longer have a tax and spend mentality. It is time to say no.
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!
Atticus
User Junior Board Member
Posts: 9
Re:Budget Hearing -Operating Budgets - 2008/05/07 18:19supposedly school funds were not used for the Finland extravagansa. Simsbury citizens are being choked by taxes. unfortunately, it seems that you are the only one that is doing anything about it, and noone else seems to care.
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!
DirtyJobsGuy
User Junior Board Member
Posts: 6
Re:Budget Hearing -Operating Budgets - 2008/05/08 16:49Yep, we surely are mystified that Simsbury has an 'anti-business' reputation. Just as we are thinking about buying our tiny airport, our citizenry is pushing to tax the airplanes!
The real reason that planes and boats are not subject to property tax is that they would rapidly move either out of state or to towns with low tax rates. The net tax revenue from all the support services drops rapidly and we have overall lower tax revenue.
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!
Dino Sore
User Junior Board Member
Posts: 9
Re:Budget Hearing -Operating Budgets - 2008/05/09 13:19DirtyJobsGuy wrote: The real reason that planes and boats are not subject to property tax is that they would rapidly move either out of state or to towns with low tax rates. The net tax revenue from all the support services drops rapidly and we have overall lower tax revenue.
Excellent point!
Sound tax policy is where the tax is fair, easy to administer, and does not unduly influence the economic decisions of individuals or corporations.
Recall the 1990 federal luxury tax on yachts, which quickly killed the US yacht industry and put thousands of Americans out of work. It was estimated that the government paid out millions more in unemployment benefits to those displaced workers than it took in on the luxury tax.
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!
SBspook
User Senior Board Member
Posts: 11
Re:Budget Hearing -Operating Budgets - 2008/05/16 21:07It would be nice to see a group like SHARE or Save The Woods develop to take on some of the spending issues in this town. I attended the board of finance meeting where they explained the revaluation, and how it relates to the mil rate. There were maybe 2 dozen people in attendance. Poor turnout for something which a lot more people in town are complaining about. I guess if you didn't attend, you have nothing to complain about.
I recently heard that the Board of education is buying $1,000 laptop computers for the K-3rd grade and more of those smart white boards. I don't understand what happened to chalk and a blackboard.
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!
SBspook
User Senior Board Member
Posts: 11
Re:Budget Hearing -Operating Budgets - 2008/05/16 21:31Dino & Dirty - Are either of you advocating that the town actually purchase the airport? If so, for what? The land, or to run it as an airport? The land does have some commercial value and I think a few years back one of the companies near there expanded.
As for using it as an airport. Does anyone think the town is sophisticated enough to run an airport? I think many of our elected officials are having a hard enough time figuring out how not to run the town into the ground.
Guys like Mr. Ryan think their instant authorities on municipal airports because they've read a few articles about these new 5 passenger micro-jet's that are being marketed as a sort of airplane taxi. There are a few major flaws in their logic:
1) This air taxi, small jet concept is an unproven business plan. While lower in cost to existing jet aircraft, these jets are not cheap @ $1.5m+. And jet fuel is no bargain.
2) Yes the government has programs which assist towns to purchase their airports. Some programs provide up to 90% of the purchase price, and there are additional programs to upgrade the electronics capabilities of these airports (RADAR, communications, etc). However the federal government has been very slow to pay out, and once that's over... guess what... the town is now in the business of running an airport... And at who's expense... The taxpayers!
3) From what I've read these air taxi services are targeting small airports positioned near larger markets with highway access. There is just not enough business to justify one of these air taxi charter companies wanting to use Simsbury. Simsbury airport is nowhere near 84 or 91... that is unless you go through Granby... which brings you to Bradley airport... which brings me to my 2 last points
4) Simsbury airport is in the traffic pattern of Bradley airport. I highly doubt that Bradley or the FAA will allow more traffic from Simsbury airport, and definitely not jet traffic.
5) Simsbury airport has the ability to grow, and will continue to, and would better serve an air taxi type of business.
I had seen the presentation of the results of the initial study on purchasing the airport. For each of the 3 years they presented, the airport would run at a significant loss! Somewhere around $80k / year is what I remember hearing.
So could someone please explain to me why this would be a good deal for Simsbury?
Registered users are welcome to participate in discussions.
If you are already registered, please login first. Not registered? Signup for free!