|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jan 12, 2006 17:24:41 GMT -5
Executive Session – Real Estate Negotiations
TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 – 7:00 PM
Silas Deane Middle School – Auditorium
Pledge of Allegiance
Update on Board of Education Community Conversations
Recording of Attendance by Town Clerk
A. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Chairman may indicate those matters of unfinished business to be considered.
1. Hearings:
a. Resolution – Property Tax Increase Limitation for Senior Citizens
2. General Comments
a. Public
b. Council
B. COUNCIL ACTION
1. Ordinances, Resolutions and Appointments for Action
a. Acceptance of Resignations from Boards and Commissions
b. Appointments to Boards and Commissions
c. Resolution – Property Tax Increase Limitation for Senior Citizens
2. Unfinished Business: Nothing this week.
* Recommend taking these items off of the table.
3. Other Business
a. Budget Transfer – Snow – Sand and Salt
b. Wethersfield High School Swimming Pool
c. Tax Exemptions – Veterans
d. Debt Management Plan
e. Boat Maintenance - Police
4. Bids
a. Police Cruiser Bid
b. Gasoline Bid
5. Ordinances, Resolutions and Appointments for Introduction
6. Minutes
a. December 19, 2005 (Tabled 1/3/06)
b. January 3, 2006
C. Adjournment |
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jan 13, 2006 7:57:32 GMT -5
I am intrigued with a proposal which was introduced at the 1/3/2006 Town Council meeting by Councilor David Drake who, to a high degree, provided the guidance and oversight for three, big-ticket, very well run, on-time, and much appreciated projects (Webb School renovation; SDMS renovation and Francis-Stillman Bldg [BOE] renovation):
1. Hearings:
a. Resolution – Property Tax Increase Limitation for Senior Citizens
Perhaps Mr. Drake or someone else "in the know" might be able to elaborate on this proposal. Details please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jan 13, 2006 13:18:21 GMT -5
I went to the Town's website, to the Manager's section where the link to the Agenda is found. Included in the posted Agenda was a link to the (unapproved) version of the 1/3/2006 Town Council meeting. In it was this: [my suggested changes][/color]
|
|
|
|
Post by morganika on Jan 13, 2006 14:56:41 GMT -5
I think the limitation is a good idea. How about more reasonable tax increases in general? I'm guessing that's not on the table at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jan 14, 2006 7:56:33 GMT -5
Though this proposal was not attributed to Councilor David Drake (R) on 1/3/2006, it was (as confirmed by the Manager's attachments to the 1/17/2006 agenda for Council).
I believe that Drake is taking the right approach. He is not asking for this suggested "tax increase limitation" to be instituted now; rather, he is proposing that this possibility be investigated and studied, hence the charge to Ms. Therrien.
I certainly endorse this measured approach. I feel the Majority Council should have no problem accepting this method: investigate, learn, discuss and then act. Hopefully, it will be passed 9-0-0.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Jan 16, 2006 7:36:12 GMT -5
If all that is being proposed is having Bonnie get some facts and figures to see whether such a proposal is feasible, then how can anyone object to it?
Well, maybe the current Council majority could, because (1) they are being told to kill the proposal since it came from a Republican and (2) they don't want the public to catch wind of it and force them to do something that they can't claim credit for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jubashero on Jan 16, 2006 9:03:08 GMT -5
The Councilor Drake proposal, as amended, probably is going to be defeated due to its general nature rather than substantive issues. For example, does the proposal include all seniors, or only those with incomes below a specific level, and what about spouses? Furthermore, how does the proposal mesh with the existing exemption program?
I think the questions that should be asked at this time should be about the current program. What are the statistics on the current tax exemption program for seniors (i.e., percentage and actual number of seniors taking advantage of the tax exemption, range and average tax exemption, income restrictions, etc.)? Does the town get reimbursed from the state for this tax exemption program? If so, what are the limitations on any modification to the existing program?
A sound proposal can be proffered after this information is compiled with specific modifications and/or to develop a program that aids those seniors that may be eligible for, but not taking advantage of the existing program, to apply for that program.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jan 16, 2006 11:59:28 GMT -5
If all that is being proposed is having Bonnie get some facts and figures to see whether such a proposal is feasible, then how can anyone object to it? Well, maybe the current Council majority could, because (1) ... it came from a Republican and (2) they ... can't claim credit for. -and- The Councilor Drake proposal, as amended [?], probably is going to be defeated.... A sound proposal can be proffered after this information is compiled with specific modifications and/or to develop a program that aids those seniors that may be eligible for, but not taking advantage of the existing program, to apply for that program.
Jubashero may be right, oldetowne. If it is defeated on the grounds that it is not really a proposal for a detailed program but rather an idea worth investigating, then any time they please, the Majority Party might introduce it as their own and lay claim to it - some how this seems like deja vu all over again. Having it coöpted and rebranded by the Majority Council may be the price that Drake (and the Minority Council) will have to pay for what may be a good idea and worthwhile plan. Besides, three Republicans are neither a quorum nor a sufficient majority to pass it. I don't think Wethersfield will see a coälition Council in the near future. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Jan 16, 2006 12:09:59 GMT -5
I didn't think it was possible to be MORE political than the last Council was, but the current one is definitely headed in that direction. And the BOE is hard on their heels.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Jan 16, 2006 13:52:24 GMT -5
I didn't think it was possible to be MORE political than the last Council was, but the current one is definitely headed in that direction. And the BOE is hard on their heels. "Politics" is a misnomer for what passes as political in Wethersfield. Venal, vindictive, small-minded, petty, partisan and ad hominem are more appropriate. "Politics" and "political" assume content and issues. Would that they were part of the landscape. However, ideological positions are verboten in town. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jan 17, 2006 6:24:12 GMT -5
standish, I love your challenging dialog. Nothing like stetchng the mind as well as the body each day.
Time for breakfast, but first, these appetizers:
venal: [Latin: venum: sale] open to bribery; corruptible;Obtainable for a price.
vindictive: [Latin: vindex: surety, avenger] re/vengeful; hurtful, spiteful, malicious
petty: [French: smaller, lesser, minor] trivial; narrowmindedness; stingy
partisan: [Latin: pars: portion] fervent, biased, (militant) supporter
verboten: [German: verbieten, to forbid] forbidden
ad hominem; [Latin: at the person] appealing to listeners' emotions instead of reason or logic; highlighting adversary's (purported, personal) failings instead of the actual issue(s) Changed title; sounded better |
|
|
|
Post by standish on Jan 17, 2006 6:56:46 GMT -5
I claim a softer definition of "venal". I don't purport that anyone on Council is "open to bribery" or "attainable for a price". The definition I had in mind is "self-interested", which might take the form of serving on Council with the hope of a more advantageous position in the future. Other forms of self-interest may apply.
Nor are the plethora of negative characteristics a constant. They tend to appear more often during controversy. Council usually serves with better motives.
My main point was that platforms, issues and ideas are notably absent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jan 17, 2006 9:13:39 GMT -5
Per 'venal' I was just going by the lexicon etiologically.
Self-interested: self-serving; opportunistic (In medicine there is the well-known "opportunistic infection"; hmmm, might this have some application to ladder-climbing partisans or perquisite-seeking, political parasites?. Nah! I don't believe we have any of those in Wethersfield. Ours are honorable men (and women). )
p/s: Key Leigh sounded better than Key Standish, in the vein of Key Largo and Key West.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Jan 18, 2006 7:24:33 GMT -5
Following some positioning and posturing, the Town Council passed the Drake Proposal for Tax Increase Limitations for Senior Citizens: 9-0-0, putting the homework asignment on Ms. Therrien. With a little administration, she may have the facts, figures and factoids [rhetorical: May I use that term here, Leigh?] before the Council prior to the closing of budget dliberations and its final draft, allowing it to be decided aye or nay for FI 2006-2007.
Ms. Dobruck (Infiltation and Inflow - I&I - citizen activist) pointed out to Council (braintrust of which is a holdover from the last one) that through Ms Therrien, they have not kept their promise to issue quarterly reports on the status of efforts to address this issue in and by the Town.
Mr. Lichtenbaum felt that Wethersfield should be one of an apparent majority and not allow a second public comments opportunity at Town Council meetings. Ms. Ruhe reminded the Council that Wethersfield is Wethersfield and we should not use our neighbors, (implying near and far both geographically and statistically) as our yardstick for making decisions.
Mr. Drake asked the Town Manager for a report (a "Gant Chart" or similar) about the status of the work efforts at the Town Hall / Library renovation project. Neither LadyJane, nor I spoke reguarding snow handling or removal issues. Removed morganika from last sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Jan 18, 2006 10:47:56 GMT -5
The update/status report on the town hall renovations should be quite interesting. Those of us who recall that the Council chambers were supposed to be available once again by New Years 2006 will not be surprised to learn that New Years 2007 may be a more realistic target.
With all due respect for those volunteers who serve on the committee, I suggest that the Council take a mulligan on this and appoint an entirely new building committee - supported by professional staff other than those town employees currently handling the matter - and get it done right.
|
|
