2015 Budget Comments to RTM April 30, 2014

2015 Budget Comments to RTM April 30, 2014

Every year we are forced to believe that when revenues decrease taxes must increase instead of decreasing spending. Given that logic when revenues increase as is the case this year with the “unexpected windfall” then taxes must decrease right?

The taxpayers should receive the revenue “windfall”, and taxes should be reduced. But that is not happening in the 2015 budget. Why does the town bureaucracy receive the revenue “windfall” and increase spending?

It also should be noted that some of the revenue “windfall” is from taxes that were finally paid and we won’t see this money again.

Unfortunately in this budget spending is increasing by millions of dollars at a time when scaling back operations and finding cost efficiencies should be the number one priority. The taxpayers need the RTM to control spending, something that this budget does not do.

Is the increased spending reasonable and necessary? Or did the “unexpected windfall” create a spending frenzy?

One of many concerns in this budget is the funding of vacant positions. The taxpayers are funding vacant positions in Police, Public Works as well as Planning and Development Departments.

The examples I am aware of are: there are 70 FTE in the Police Department, but there is funding for 72 in the budget. There has not been a code enforcement officer in Zoning since last November, but there is funding for the position in the budget. As well as the position of Assistant Public Works Director – which has been vacant for months, but there is still funding in the budget for the position.

Is funding vacant positions reasonable or could there be some cost savings by eliminating vacant positions in the budget?

If the four vacant positions mentioned were eliminated from the budget, there would be at least a $500,000 spending reduction with NO Impact on Town Operations. That is ZERO impact to Town Operations with a $500,000 reduction in tax burden to the Taxpayers.

Also, concerns should be raised over the nonunion raises built into the budget; the funded part time position in Planning that is not listed in the employee numbers; the $40,000 given to the EDC Staff that businesses regularly complain about; golf course expenditures; the $250,000 Economic Assistance Fund; a Car Wash Facility rejected by the voters in a 2002 referendum; and the long list of Capital Improvement Projects.

Another area of great concern every year is increasing the Board of Education budget by millions of dollars. This spiraling out of control practice needs to stop we cannot afford it.

The Board of Education budget needs to be reduced to what the taxpayers can afford this year the RTM should fund the Board of Education at the Minimum Budget Requirement.

Questions should also be asked about encumbrances, grants, the IB Program and the number of small class sizes at Fitch High School for cost savings in these areas.

During the recent CAFR presentation to the Town Council it was stated that the Board of Education has $376,000 in encumbrances. Why? Encumbrances in the Town and Board of Education were supposed to be eliminated in 2012.

Should this amount be returned to the budget, the BOE budget could easily be reduced by $376,000 with NO impact to BOE Operations. That is ZERO impact to BOE Operations with a $376,000 reduction in tax burden to the Taxpayers.

As for grants, during the Board of Education budget presentation to the Town Council grant money was mentioned twice. How much grant money does the Board of Education have to spend each year outside of the budget? And what do they spend it on? Please see the most recent Connecticut Economic Resource Center 2013 information, which states the Board of Education spent $78,536,129 in 2011. That is millions of dollars more than the amount approved by the RTM.

Also, the $400,000 per year IB Program which will have 13 graduates this school year should be replaced by an expanded AP program which will cost less with more benefit to the students as well as their parents, who are the taxpayers.

And then there is the issue of small class sizes at FHS, which was brought up early in the budget process, the Superintendent publicly stated that he would be reviewing the situation. Based on the BOE class size list it was evident that there could be cost savings by combining small classes at the High School. Were small class sizes at the High School reviewed and should the BOE show some savings in that area in the budget?

Regarding Capital Improvement Projects is it a need or a want? Is it necessary or is it nice to have?

Please do not support projects for:

Trail Improvement

Open Space

Golf Course

Nonfriable asbestos removal

Spicer House Renovations

Town Hall Consultant to determine space needs.

Renovation to Annex Barn to store light bulbs and toilet paper

Smith House consultant to determine maintenance needs

Construction of Permanent Vehicle Wash Facility which the voters said NO to in a 2002 referendum.

$250,000 Economic Assistance Fund the need should be established, before the money is allocated for ALL expenditures.

WPCF Pump Stations and Treatment Facility projects planned for a 2015 referendum should not be supported

WPCF projects that increase user fees also should not be supported. Remember the taxpayers are the users.

There are many areas of this budget that the Town of Groton and Board of Education are not being fiscally appropriate with the taxpayer’s money and spending reductions need to be made. The RTM is the only hope left for the 2015 budget. It is my hope that the RTM will reduce spending to what is fiscally appropriate.