Board of Aldermen — 3/21/17 Page 10
manageable or reasonable. What is it going to be this year? $26.75/$1,000; next year $28? $35? Does it go
over $30 a $1,000. | think you’ve lost focus on that. You're going to turn people away from this city. Yes,
we’ve got a lot to offer but at these tax rates, look around. It’s obvious that there are ways to overcome your
problems. That’s by following the Cap and overriding it if it needs to be overridden. That’s why we sent you
here to make those tough decisions. This legislation is disappointing and an abandonment of what taxpayers
expect from you. | urge you to reject this scheme, and | thank everyone who does not support it. Thank you.
Robert Sullivan, 12 Stoneybrook Road
I’m going to talk about the wastewater fund legislation. Here’s why | am against this legislation. One of the
main reasons for the legislation, as stated, is the wastewater fund cannot be comingled with city tax revenues,
etc., etc., etc. These funds are not being comingled. The legislation, if approved and implemented, will create
a $9.1 million Spending Cap space or gap that was reported as $5 million in the Telegraph. Based on the
budget hearing and two citizens’ analysis, we indicated to the Budget Committee that it was $9.1 million and
not $5 million. That is the amount that in the next oncoming budget season that the aldermen can increase the
budget by over and above the Spending Cap of approximately 1.33 percent. The Board of Aldermen, if they
needed money above and beyond what the Spending Cap allows for the upcoming budget yet, could override
the Spending Cap and add more money if they wanted to. The ability to do that exists each and every year.
As reported in the Telegraph, if this legislation is not enacted then drastic budget cuts would occur to our
services. | want to after | finish my notes here, | want to address some of the things that Mayor Donchess
stated during his comments. Drastic budget cuts. This is due mainly to the rising city pension costs of $2
million this year. These $2 million is less than 1 percent of the city’s total budget. So the city politicians cannot
find less than 1 percent to cut from the budget so that critical services cannot be cut? At the budget public
hearing, it was discussed that the necessary changes to the budget can be made without creating a $9.1
million gap or shell game. This was discussed at the budget public hearing by Alderman Schoneman. This
should be further evaluated before you proceed with any other steps.
When | read the legislation, and I’ve been noticing this with other pieces of legislation over the past three
years, the fiscal notes there’s never anything mentioned. | want to talk to the property tax owners what this is
going to cost, give them a rank. Someone should be doing this. The cost of this legislation to the taxpayers is
somewhere between $2 million and $9.1 million. This equates to approximately $70 to $280 increase to your
tax bill above and beyond the normal increases that will take place in the next fiscal year. So for your
information, your tax bills, and this is my estimate, and | think I’m pretty right, will increase between $250 and
$460 assuming that you have a present day property tax bill of $6,000.
Now Mayor Donchess, | want to address a couple of things you stated during discussion point. Reasonable
tax rate. We used to hear this. We hear this each and every year. What does that mean? Reasonable tax
rate? Manage expenditures reasonably. The Board of Aldermen over the past several years, the last five or
six, have been approving contracts, cost of living raises that are well beyond the rate of inflation, anywhere
between 3 — 3.5 percent. This went on year after year. Each and every year, Mayor Lozeau would say to the
Board of Aldermen, this pension thing is growing and growing. You are going to have to address it. And each
year the Aldermen would say we have to draw the line in the sand. We cannot keep giving out these
increases. Then the next year would come and another one approved well above and beyond the rate of
inflation. We need to draw the line in the sand. We need to cut back but oh, the previous, another contract
approved a year ago, we gave this so we’ve got to do this. Another year, the same thing. If the Board of
Aldermen demonstrated that they took the initiative to cut costs on the major cost drivers that are hurting the
city, and I’m not saying eliminate raises but for crying out loud a cost of living raise at 3 percent when the rate
of inflation is 1.75? A lot of this the Board of Aldermen has been kicking the can down the road for several
years now. And, by the way, even if you did cut the budget in previous years, you’d still have this same issue
today but at least the people who are watching would say maybe they have put forth a good effort. They
should override the Spending Cap. Some of the aldermen who tend not to override the Spending Cap say ya,
we did the best we could. We really cut this thing as far; there’s no more. But you can’t say that.
