Local leaders talk taxes and more

I asked a number of people in politics yesterday. from both parties, about their thoughts on the proposed property tax hike. Here are their answers, which I'll keep updating as I hear from more of them:
Former Republican city Councilor Mike Rimcoski:
THE ANNUAL3  ACT PLAY HAS STARTED.
ACT 1   THROW OUT A RIDICULOUS NUMBER OF A 6 PER CENT INCREASE WITH ALL DEPT HEADS SCREENING THIS IS THE MINIMUM NEEDED TO RUN THE CITY,  \
ACT TWO   DIRECT ALL DEPT HEADS  TO CUT THEIR REQUESTS,     THE B,O,E, WILL SCREAM THE LOUDEST SAYING THE CHILDREN WILL BE HURT THE MOST(  HOLDING THE KIDS AS HOSTAGE)
ACT 3   THE  INCREASE WILL BE SHAVED IN HALF AND THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WILL LOOK AROUND AND SAY WHAT A GOOD JOB THEIR DOING.  I KNOW FROM 6 YRS  ON THE COUNCIL..  I NEVER VOTED  FOR A TAX HIKE, BECAUSE I KNEW THERE WERE OTHER CUTS THAT COULD BE MADE  TO   REDUCE A TAX HIKE.
SENIORS ARE SCRAPING BY   YOUNG FAMILIES ARE STRUGGLING TO STAY AFLOAT BUT THE HIKES GO  ON.SURROUNDING TOWNS  ARE CUTTING SERVICES TO HOLD THE TAX HIKE DOWN.  
ONE PROBLEM IS WITH THE  NUMBER OF OUT OF TOWNES WHO  HEAD DEPARTMENTS  AND ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY HAVE THE SAME F FEELINGS FOR BRISTOL THAT A LOCAL PERSON WOULD SHOULD CONTACT ME AS  I HAVE OCEANFRONT PROPERTY IN ARIZONA ID LIKE TO SELL THEM.
MARK  TWAIN WROTE THE FOLLOWING WHICH APPLIES TO ALL POLITICIANS LOCAL STATE  AND NATIONAL THE  WRITER INCLUDED  :  "ONE OF THE MOST STRIKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CAT AND A LIE IS THE CAT HAS ONLY NINE LIVES "
GOP city Chair Tom Barnes, Jr:
As the budget season comes to an end it looks like the taxpayers in the City of Bristol are going to see a tax hike that could be as high as 7 percent for the coming fiscal year.   Last year the argument was people are really hurting and can’t accept ANY increase in their taxes, so the Mayor, City Council and the Board of Finance worked for a zero percent increase. Through hard work they were able to meet this goal, but it used many one-time revenue sources that made it even harder to balance the books this year.  The rainy day fund is spent, the City Roads are the worst I have seen them in years and we still have a budget deficit.  Why is this year SO different than last year?  Could it have anything to do with it not being an election year?

Taxpayers are still struggling to make ends meet, unemployment is still high locally and nationally and the city infrastructure is still in decline. So why sock the taxpayer with a large increase this year?  Because we did not see a small increase last year and we used all our one-time resources to make that happen. Now (in a non-election year) we are seeing a large increase in taxes, no early retirement incentives, no layoffs, and no concessions from the city unions. Why is that? 

We had some discussion about using some of the over funding in the City Pensions to help us meet our retiree medical benefit costs. Where has that issue gone?  I have personally spent many evenings at meetings to discuss this issue to see if it made sense, but in the end it was a waste of my time and my committee members’ time.

Is this issue going to be the one that gets discussed and passed next year to keep the mill  rate down?  Next year is an election year after all.

Republican city Councilor Ken Cockayne:

I will not support any increases at all.  Tough decisions need to be made and in my mind increasing taxes is not an option.  We need to find alternatives to this.  Unfortunately that could include cuts.  I don't know what those cuts are, but I fear it will not only be a loss of services, but a loss of jobs as well.  This is the proverbial Gorilla in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.  I feel this is avoidable, but without everyone on board recognizing the urgency of this situation we may be in trouble.

Another option that appeared to be gaining traction is the GASB 45.  However, with some of the parties refusing to come to the table to negotiate this, combined with what appears to be an unwillingness from the administration to push, it will likely be shelved.  I predict it will be put off until it can offer the most bang for the buck during an election year, which is a shame.  We are playing politics with people's lives and I truely hope voters and taxpayers see through this.  We are going to end up losing jobs in this town and we have a viable alternative right in front of us. 

I hear people's frustration with everything that is happening in this economy everyday.  I so badly wish things were as simple as saying no to everything, but it is not.  We need to progress as a city in a fiscally responsible way and prioritize when and where we are spending our tax dollars.   We must do whatever we can to preserve the jobs we have and increase opportunities at the same time.  That does not necessarily mean more municipal employees.  If we can improve our town with smart investments, then we can attract more families, businesses, jobs and ultimately more tax revenue.  It is very difficult balance to achieve, especially in tough economic times. 

Unsuccessful 2009 Republican City Council candidate Derek Czenczelewski:
A 1.44-mills property tax hike is not something that I would support. It's unbelievable that this is even being considered with the current financial situation many Bristol taxpayers are currently in. Simply raising taxes will not solve our budget crisis. We need responsible, universal cuts across the board. Some people believe that a cut is when a board requests two million dollars more from their previous year's budget, and the city "only" gives them one million more. I'm not sure where these people are from, but where I'm from that's not a cut. That's spending money we don't have. We need to scale back our budget, and only after serious, substantial cuts are made would I even consider a small ( under .5) mill rate increase. Our current situation is somewhat similar to the American auto industry. Most of our financial obligations are tied up in past and present employee salaries. We can either be like Ford, fixing our problems internally and becoming more streamlined and efficient. Or we can be like Chrysler, taking a bailout from the taxpayers and never really correcting our inefficiencies. How about sending this budget to referendum and letting the taxpayers choose which plan makes the most sense?

On a side note, I wanted to say something about the City Council's decision to purchase the property at 268 Park St. I find it troubling that our council, who just a few months ago ran on the "Fiscal Conservative" platform would vote to spend money on a "want." Purchasing this property is not a need, it is a want. Plans to renovate Muzzy Field are still years away from being feasible, so purchasing this property can wait. I'd hate to have to tell 3 or 4 employees they are no longer being employed because we wanted to aesthetically enhance the property in front of Muzzy Field. I couldn't bring myself to telling school children they wont have new textbooks because our elected officials can't tell the difference between a necessity and a nicety. It's fair to say that this decision was a serious lapse in judgment and I sincerely hope our officials realize that before any deal is formally made. My message to our city officials is clear: You were elected to represent the taxpayers and to be fiscally conservative, as you all claimed to be during the campaign season. This decision is not fiscally responsible. While I agree with all of you that opening up Muzzy Field would be aesthetically pleasing, and should happen in time, that time is not now.
Gary Lawton, independent mayoral candidate last year:
 I think it really shows the carelessness on part of our city government.
First I agree that the school budget needs to be looked at very closely. I mean we pay Dr. Striefer almost 200,000 a year. I mean we are a city were the medien income is about 55,000, New Britian, Meridan and Waterbury all pay there Superintendent of schools about 150,000 a year and there populations are greater and medien income is more than ours. I say start at the top and work our way down, dont penalize the people in the trenches make those at the top pay first, work our way down.
 Second, While on the subject of paycuts, when I ran for Mayor i said i would cut my salary down to 60,000 a year, well lets see that done . Once agian start at the top start cutting salaries its time for some at the top  to give a bit more than those at the bottom. We as taxpayers should have the right to take awya pay for poor performance as well as reward  and this would be a good time to do it.
  Third, it is time to make the hard choices, does the library really need to be open every day, can't some departments be combined,  to many duplicates of equipment between all the departments, can some of it be shared so that excess can be sold off. City Hall closes 1 day a week. Departments sharing vehicles instead of each having there own, so on and so forth can all add up to some real savings.
 Finally I was brought up to go  by the rule if you don't have it you don't spend it, yet this current city government , and I blame them all,  just keep spending. It is true every Department does not want to lose its funding,SUCK IT UP PEOPLE, you need  start using some fiscal responsibilty and start just saying no to certain things, because in the end  it will not  matter if  Bristol possibly goes bankrupt or just fade out of existance.
*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com