At yesterdays budget meeting councilors were in an all day Saturday marathon of budget meetings with a full slate of budget discussions that had us meeting from 8:30Am until 3:00pm.
At the end of the meeting, councilors came out with a reduction of only $21,000!or to translate a penny per $1000 of home value
I made a motion on 2 items that could of saved this town an additional $145,000 but it failed to gain support. The biggest problem was that these two items are not what I would call critical( must haves) in a budget year that is as tight as tight can be!
The first item was $62,000 for sidewalk construction from the Upperroom to Barkland Dr. While this project has merit, I would not say this is something that we must spend on to do this year. In fact, If this is the route that 4A will be taking, They may have to widened this road eventually and the sidewalk may have to be torn up and re-done. Also, If it were a sidewalk to be used for children walking to school, then I could see a critical need.
The second, is a road being proposed to be paved on Manning Street( not to be confused with the already established Manning street the next road over) between the courthouse and connecting to Rollins St directly across the Street from Hood Park. Again this is not critical and is in fact being used as "political payback". Why do I say this? Because some people believe that when I spoke up about this a few years back, they claimed that I was against this because it was in my back yard- You know the old NIMBY claim. NOT IN MY BACK YARD!. Well it simply was because neighbors had a complaint and ask for me to speak on the issue for them. And I did and I was successful in delaying this project.
By not doing this project this year-we could have a Savings of $ 80,000- This council choose to keep it alive with discussion to come later.
Now lets look at the issues on this subject. It was mentioned that by paving the Manning St it would help traffic flow for Trucks. It was then mentioned by Kevin Coyle that it would open up commercial land ( Bensons Lumber property ) This is his way of increasing commercial base?? It's already there! With a fence looking at a lumberyard.
Here is why I'm against it at least for now.
1) This part of the road was never officially laid-out by the planning board according to state law.
2) Bike path is designated in the exact same location
3) Railroad right-away runs smack down the middle of this road
4) Town's engineering company CLD did a traffic study on this and the study itself said that this project is a waste of money. In fact I challenged all councilors to do the research themselves and see this report. Will they take the recommendation ( I doubt it! ) because then the taxpayers will see what a waste this project is.
The study itself said that because the DMC is so close to the Londonderry line Most people traveling to the DMC come from the East and would not use this road to navigate. Some like Janet say to alleviate traffic from West Broadway ( Is she kidding) people use maple street already they are not using this to navigate from West Broadway it does not make sense.
5) This area is used by lots of kids and families as recreation and we have a tennis court that will be so close to the "new road" that tennis balls could come into traffic
6) Sight distance will make it very tricky for cars turning left or right from this new road-
Anyway, Wasting taxpayers money is a pet peeve of mine and you the taxpayers must know about these issues. So if you want to spend money for the two businesses that have trucks going to them so be it ( One company already send its fleet of trucks through to rollins every morning) the other company wants it for their trucks to have an easier time.
Don't get me wrong here. I do understand that I am one block from the downtown but to spend money on something paid engineers are saying is a waste is another thing.
What are your thoughts??
8 comments:
I didn't catch the session but noted in the Union Leader that the Council approved $113,000 for an Economic Development person. As such I might have missed some detail, but putting in $113,000 for an Economic Developemnt person BEFORE (!) approval of what that person will be doing (job description first, please!) is also a waste of money.
A job description first would lead to a more precise $ figure and would also get everyone on the same page on how we would be addressing this critical challenge.
Economic Development, YES - definately. Throwing money at a problem in the face of political pressure even if that pressure is justified - NO.
12:16,
Just an FYI, the 113,000 is already in the budget. The numbers are coming from the 60K- DEDC and the $50K for economic dev. No additional tax revenues are being raised by creating this position.
You could make the point that we could of cut this same amount of money for tax relief though by doing such, the town would could be considered to be doing nothing for economic development.
Me again,
As you note, it is the taxpayers money, not the town's money. Zero based budgeting, please.
I readily acknowledge that the type of person you are looking for might be required to develop the specific plan of attack. But that requirement could be spelled out as part of the job description.
Plus, I'm sure you know that you could hire a very wide range of professionals for an Economic Development position.
Let's also face it, the 7 Councilors might very well have considerable different views on the position. That should also be aired and a consensus approved for proper long term support.
I believe a job description should have been developed first, then the appropriate salary/bennies applied to that position. You guys seem to have it backwards - appropriate the money first, then fit the money to a position?!
BC, How are you dealing with with the spend happies.Like I stated in other topics,the crooked wheels of Derry are turning again.
Just when I thought there was some hope for this town , some bozo has to open up the town's billfold and spend foolishly.
The next question is what councilman , councilwomen or town hall relative is going to get this cushy position at the cost to taxpayers.Holly Crap , I hope it isn't the same guy already getting a retirement and 350.00 Dollars a day from the town of Derry.
BC, You can't fight city hall.
Brian,
What is up with Counselor Fairbanks 'passing' when it comes time to vote? Then she votes after seeing what the others do. It makes her look indecisive.
Counselor Fairbanks waits to see what Counselor Coyle does. She takes her cue from him.
One suggestion to Chair Bulkley: perhaps he should start every other vote at the other end of the table, making the order fair.
well brian, if you respect the opinions of paid professional consultants so much why don't you explain the towns and your utter disregard for the comments of wes adams during the east derry fire grab?
8:04,
Where do i begin? First Wes Adam and the East Derry Fire stuff was before my time as a councilor. Second- The people of East Derry Fire Dist decided to abolish the East Derry Fire district of which I had no role in what-so-ever. ( i belive I was newly elected at the time but it was the previous Councilor in Dist 4 that dealt with moving fire districts.
If you take a very careful look at what the town is proposing to do with the so called paving of Manning street is a smoke screen. The original Manning street was split when town decided to put the court house right smack dab in the middle of that street back in 96-97. Then some-one decided on snaking around the the courthouse to the railroad corridor and decided that now the railroad corridor would become a road. Problem is that the portion of road they want to pave is not a LEGAL road- No planning board approved the layout- hence it is a waste to spend 80K on paving an illegal exit way ( rail road corridor) It was never never a road to begin with! People are confusing this fact with the old Manning street which still exists only now it is a dead end road because town released public servitude on the middle of Manning to accomadate courthouse.
Post a Comment