Joan Coe
User
Platinum Board Member
| Posts: 151 |   |
|
Board of Selectmen Hearing - August 9,2006 - 2006/08/16 07:49
Board of Selectmen - August 9, 2006
Before this board decides to impoverish the taxpayers with a $13.5 million dollar encumbrance, as policy makers this board should get a copy of the tape of the Board of Finance meeting where Bond Counsel read the riot act to the Board of Finance on the implications of voting for a $110 million high school. They told the board that they were elected to make the decisions, not based on political expediency but the future implications of their vote. They told the board as did Kevin Kane in his letter to the Board of Finance that all Capital Expenditures would have to wait for years until the town was able to absorb the financial implications. The $110 million high school was not forwarded to Referendum. In a letter written to the Finance Board, Kevin Kane, Director of Finance stated, “if the town does approve the purchase of development rights for the Ethel Walker property the Debt Policy of no more than 7% will not be adhered to at a minimum for four fiscal years from, 2008 through 2011. In order to get back to debt service of no more than 7% the Board of Finance will have to have a moratorium of no capital projects for the fiscal year 2007/08 along with fiscal years 2008/09 and 2009/10.” That would mean NO NEW PROJECTS!!! Recently there was an article in The Hartford Courant about an Ethel Walker alumni donating money for an Observatory. There are many deep pockets from alumni and present student body parents who could contribute this amount to save the woods. Where they asked to contribute? The financial burden of this project should not be placed on the taxpayers but should come from the Ethel Walker alumni. It is the responsibility of the Ethel Walker School to save the woods not the taxpayers of Simsbury.
This board, in establishing public policy should also take into account what the implications of their votes to tax and spend are on the taxpayers of Simsbury. High taxes have grave implications on residential properties. Simsbury already has the highest taxes in the Valley. We cannot compete in the housing market or in the business community with high taxes. Many projects in the 10 year Capital expenditure plan would be eliminated. It is very disconcerting when John Hampton, who has consistently voted for projects with major financial implications, has not paid his taxes to the town. According to town records, John Hampton owes the town $ 203.69. John Hampton does not pay residential property. John Hampton’s taxes are $195.99 and then there was interest on a late fee of $7.70 with a total of $ 203.69. I would suggest that John Hampton pay his taxes before he does any voting on tax implications to the taxpayers.
Presently you are being asked to extend the consultant’s contract as the Town Planner. I would hope that Hiram Peck has been in contact with many Simsbury residents who are concerned about big box development in Simsbury. The majority of residents would like to keep the character of Simsbury as a rural town. There should be language in the both the planning and zoning regulations that establishes 20,000 sq. ft. as the largest area for a single business. Incorporating 20,000 sq.ft. as a limit will still give some flexibility to a developer who would have to have a very good reason for change and would allow the boards and commissions the ability to deny a big box development in Simsbury. There should also be language in the regulations about setbacks in a development that would have trees and berms hide the bricks and mortar from view. These concepts should be brought to the attention of the permanent Town Planner when interviewed and made very clear that Simsbury’s character is of prime importance to the residents of Simsbury. Protecting a neighborhood and protecting property values is of prime importance. Simsbury should maintain its rural character.
The Director of Community Planning and Development, as the window to the town should have understanding of the community needs. In the past, the developers set the agenda on the application and the plans and the Director of Community Planning and Development was acting as the facilitator for the project with a “we can make it work” attitude, placing the boards and commissions at odds with the developer. In my opinion this was one of the reasons for this stigma that Simsbury is a difficult town for developers. The developers have to understand the rules of engagement and try to adjust their projects so they meet the community needs for economic development and residents needs for maintaining their quality of life and protecting property values. We need someone who can work effectively with the developer and meet the expectations of the community.
|
Specter (1116)
