Thanks to all the good citizens of Rutland who participated in the Rutland Taxpayer's first public info forum. Many voiced concerns regarding the impact on taxpayers of the budget being presented in March by the Mayor, Board and School District.
To further elaborate on the School Budget, the CFO for the school district has announced even if they level funded their budget, the Budget would still result in a 10% increase in costs to the taxpayer.
While the State’s Education formula is complex, Despite warnings from the State to keep local ed budgets low, the school's costs per student has risen to above $11K, at the same time the student population continues to decline, while the state's reimbursement will remain at barely above $8K.
Last year, we saw the School District ask and be approved for a multi-million dollar bond for energy efficiencies that would span a 10 or 15 year contract which was advertised at "no costs." I, for one, am for door/window replacements, insulation, tweaking the furnace for better performance, but what we have is a 10 year management contract that goes beyond these necessities and that is not free and the district has failed to meet the net neutral energy performance that was marketed to voters as "a savings to the taxpayers." to reach the "no costs" effect.
This year there is a school bond that is vague at best, does speak to Stafford as its objective but leaves the door open for other spending sprees once the bond is approved.
Let's face it, the State is looking at a $150K revenue shortfall or more. Mr. Ammons continues to muddy the water when asked about the School District's spending by focusing on Homestead Act charts. Only 50% of our homeowners receive a Homestead Refund. The State has publicly stated the average refund check for homeowners is $400 for their part of the Education Tax Formula. Rutland City residents are still facing a 14.9% increase in local education costs.
We are thankful to the residents who were able to attend the meeting. Hopefully it was worth your while. It was our intent to have free flowing dialogue among attendees. Please feel free to contact us at anytime. Our new and beautiful website developed by Shawn Pemrick is www.rutvt.blogspot.com enjoy casting your vote on some of the poll questions.
As there is still time till March 2, Rutland Taxpayers United is seeking volunteers to provide handouts to the public, family or friends in your neighborhood.
A reminder, the Recreation Department will hold its umpteenth public forum February 18. As of today, Ejay Bishop, Director has failed to produce one document speaking to yearly operational costs, definitive revenues, etc. to the public in support of this excessive spending plan while absentee ballots were available March 10. Contrary to his public statements, this will not costs .01 cent, it will not be for 30 years, and the Boys and Girls Club can only pay rent (if any) if they receive public funding. The "Bubble," project can never be modified once erected and the roof itself was said in the beginning to have a 10-15 year life span at today's costs of replacement around $1.5 million. In ten or fifteen years, will it be closer to a replacement costs of $5 million? There has been no attempt at "GRANTS." as usual. Mr. Bishop is not a resident of Rutland and will not be affected by the tax increase or any ramifications should the roof not meet expectations and must be replaced and has said he is not sure on the warranty aspect. Where do we find these people?
As my parents have always advise me, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Without a fee structure how does Mr. Bishop intend to gather revenue in support of a massive structure. They have carried a $1.2 net loss last year. Not exactly a net neutral department as misspoken by Alderwoman Sharon Davis. In fact, the tax dollars spent on Giorgetti Rink in order to meet the needs of area hockey groups was suppose to pay for itself. Giorgetti saw a $100K net loss and the Concession Stand of all things had a $6K loss. How do you lose money renting ice skates and collecting user fees?
Since the Board of Aldermen seem to have washed their hands of any oversight thru the creation of Police Commissions, Development Boards, and the Downtown Partnership as way to exercise their "escape clause" "we have no control," of what goes on in our city departments, it may be time to review who else is running.
Only three Aldermen protested the municipal budget by voting "NO" David Dress, Robert Barrett and Joanne Slattery.
We have two residents who have thrown their hats into the Aldermanic Ring, Ed Larson at EDIN2010@msn.com and Dan White no email listed.
Vote your hearts out and let your voices be heard!
Thanks again, we welcome your feedback.
Nicole Breton 775-4808
Dawn Hance 775-4406
To further elaborate on the School Budget, the CFO for the school district has announced even if they level funded their budget, the Budget would still result in a 10% increase in costs to the taxpayer.
While the State’s Education formula is complex, Despite warnings from the State to keep local ed budgets low, the school's costs per student has risen to above $11K, at the same time the student population continues to decline, while the state's reimbursement will remain at barely above $8K.
Last year, we saw the School District ask and be approved for a multi-million dollar bond for energy efficiencies that would span a 10 or 15 year contract which was advertised at "no costs." I, for one, am for door/window replacements, insulation, tweaking the furnace for better performance, but what we have is a 10 year management contract that goes beyond these necessities and that is not free and the district has failed to meet the net neutral energy performance that was marketed to voters as "a savings to the taxpayers." to reach the "no costs" effect.
This year there is a school bond that is vague at best, does speak to Stafford as its objective but leaves the door open for other spending sprees once the bond is approved.
Let's face it, the State is looking at a $150K revenue shortfall or more. Mr. Ammons continues to muddy the water when asked about the School District's spending by focusing on Homestead Act charts. Only 50% of our homeowners receive a Homestead Refund. The State has publicly stated the average refund check for homeowners is $400 for their part of the Education Tax Formula. Rutland City residents are still facing a 14.9% increase in local education costs.
We are thankful to the residents who were able to attend the meeting. Hopefully it was worth your while. It was our intent to have free flowing dialogue among attendees. Please feel free to contact us at anytime. Our new and beautiful website developed by Shawn Pemrick is www.rutvt.blogspot.com enjoy casting your vote on some of the poll questions.
As there is still time till March 2, Rutland Taxpayers United is seeking volunteers to provide handouts to the public, family or friends in your neighborhood.
A reminder, the Recreation Department will hold its umpteenth public forum February 18. As of today, Ejay Bishop, Director has failed to produce one document speaking to yearly operational costs, definitive revenues, etc. to the public in support of this excessive spending plan while absentee ballots were available March 10. Contrary to his public statements, this will not costs .01 cent, it will not be for 30 years, and the Boys and Girls Club can only pay rent (if any) if they receive public funding. The "Bubble," project can never be modified once erected and the roof itself was said in the beginning to have a 10-15 year life span at today's costs of replacement around $1.5 million. In ten or fifteen years, will it be closer to a replacement costs of $5 million? There has been no attempt at "GRANTS." as usual. Mr. Bishop is not a resident of Rutland and will not be affected by the tax increase or any ramifications should the roof not meet expectations and must be replaced and has said he is not sure on the warranty aspect. Where do we find these people?
As my parents have always advise me, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Without a fee structure how does Mr. Bishop intend to gather revenue in support of a massive structure. They have carried a $1.2 net loss last year. Not exactly a net neutral department as misspoken by Alderwoman Sharon Davis. In fact, the tax dollars spent on Giorgetti Rink in order to meet the needs of area hockey groups was suppose to pay for itself. Giorgetti saw a $100K net loss and the Concession Stand of all things had a $6K loss. How do you lose money renting ice skates and collecting user fees?
Since the Board of Aldermen seem to have washed their hands of any oversight thru the creation of Police Commissions, Development Boards, and the Downtown Partnership as way to exercise their "escape clause" "we have no control," of what goes on in our city departments, it may be time to review who else is running.
Only three Aldermen protested the municipal budget by voting "NO" David Dress, Robert Barrett and Joanne Slattery.
We have two residents who have thrown their hats into the Aldermanic Ring, Ed Larson at EDIN2010@msn.com and Dan White no email listed.
Vote your hearts out and let your voices be heard!
Thanks again, we welcome your feedback.
Nicole Breton 775-4808
Dawn Hance 775-4406
I attended the meeting last evening at the Recreation Department, and after Mr. Bishop's presentation and having a further explaination of the finances of the proposed bond, I am now a stronger supporter of the recreation department and their plans to be the first department within our community to take a positive step towards making Rutland a better place to live! We need more people like Ejay and his staff in our community who are willing to move us as a communinty forward. I am interested to know where these figures listed in this newsletter have come from and do they represent all the facts. If Ejay is unwilling to make public all the revenues where have these figures come from and that would lead me to believe that these figures are false because you are not presenting all of the information and it is simply because you don't have all the information. It seems to me that the author of this newsletter has nothing good to say I am sure if his or her parents advised them about a free lunch they probably also warned them about "having nothing good to say" expenditures are all that you are presenting and not revenues. To also correct you on the point about "the Bubble" warranties what was presented last night was that there is a warranty and most manufacturers provide a 10 to 15 year warranty they also referenced a bubble that was erected in 1975 here in Vermont which still stands and operates today. One thing that is also missing is that this poject will create jobs and opportunities for other businesses within our community to reap the benefits of bringing visitors to our community. At the meeting last night was a representative of the local Hockey association who pointed out that the local hockey association is bringing in people for out of state to participate in tournaments here in Rutland this boosts revenues across the board for Rutland, Hotels, restuarants convient stores, gas stations and many more. If we could use this facility to bring in more Hockey tournaments and now the opportunity to bring in other sport tournaments beyond just hockey it would be a great boost for the local economy. Beyond that the construction jobs and the enfusion of 4.5 million dollars into our local economy. This blog in my opinion is about not wanting to pay for anything, but the expectations are for everything. You want the police chief and the mayor to have better control over our police force, but do it with systems that have been in place for over a decade. Find something positive and write about that, help to move Rutland forward by building walls and keeping this community from moving forward will only create less jobs,and less people moving here to Rutland and more peolple moving away which means more taxes for those who remain here in Rutland.
ReplyDelete