Counting Ballots

The number of minivans in the school parking lot was a giveaway.  The budget passed 181 Yea, to 50 Nay (or something close to that).

No drama, no questions.  Just the check in and voting.

This was the third budget vote and essentially the same budget tax increase and spending wise.  The bottom line was the same for all three votes.

The 1st and 2nd differed by a line item providing legal fee relief to residents in the Sewer District.  And I’ll not explain that, it would take a book to fully explain the ins and outs.  The 2nd and 3rd budget “essentially” in Bill Black’s words, were the same.

A exit survey was prepared in the event the budget failed.

Your July 1st tax bill will show a 2.35% tax increase over last year.

There is a no jobs recovery in sight. Assuming national growth trails off from the unsustainable 5.7% of the fourth quarter, Connecticut continues to lose jobs through 2011; the rate of loss simply slows from the predicted rate in the previous CCEA Outlook.

The state’s economy has undergone a critical structural change as the degree of outsourcing—whether to other states or abroad—has grown quickly for more than a decade; the result is that even strong growth in total output may not translate into rapid improvement in employment. The effect shows in a pattern of progressively slowed jobs recovery.

Before 1990, Connecticut’s economy recovered jobs lost in recessions in ten months or less; recovery took 23 months and then 39 months in the last two recessions. Unless the state adopts policies and makes strategic investments to change this progressively deteriorating pattern, a jobs recovery may never arrive.

A longer term perspective—looking at the last decade—on the state’s economic performance underlines the depth of the challenge. Connecticut (CT) seasonally adjusted (SA) employment at 1,619 thousand is now 55,700 lower than at the dawn of the millennium. Construction permits for 2009Q4 at 897 were down 1,516 compared to a decade earlier. Not only has total employment declined, but the state has lost large numbers of high skill, high wage jobs in manufacturing and financial services, and seen vigorous growth in mostly low skill, low wage jobs in accommodations, food service, and health care.

Due to productivity gains, Connecticut’s total economic output (real gross domestic product, or CTRGDP) did grow over the decade, by $23.1 billion—but it was a weak performance, delivering growth just three quarters of the national rate of almost 20% for the decade.

The current fiscal crisis—a cumulative deficit of $1.2 billion in the current biennium—threatens to pull Connecticut’s economy down even more. And if this economic malaise continues beyond 2011, the state’s deficit only grows. To change this pattern, government investments must be more than countercyclical band aids, they should frame a facilitating business environment and create forward looking infrastructure to generate long term job growth, productivity gains, and a transition to the increasingly electricity dependent and knowledge economy.

The Charter Oak

Regarding the Charter Revision issue, it will be interesting to see who Bill Black decides to appoint. The last time we had a Charter Revision Commission (CRC) back in 2002 the First Selectman largely ignored the people put forth by the Republican Town Committee and instead stacked the committee with people of the First Selectman’s choosing as well as engaging the services of a consultant who spoon fed the committee members and aimed them in the direction that the First Selectman preferred. The result was a package that the First Selectman presented in a single “take it or leave it” vote, which the public rejected.

There also needs to be a budget for the CRC to pay for the consultant as well as for other expenses. This could cost between $20,000 and $30,000. If we are to see a CRC formed prior to the next budget season, then where will this money come from? It certainly is not included in this year’s budget. Will the BOS ask for a special appropriation?

Marlborough Water Pollution Control Authority

Attn: Jack Murray
Town Hall
Marlborough, CT 06447

Dear Mr. Murray,

I request that this letter be read aloud and attached to the minutes of the November 4th MWPCA meeting. I have skimmed the October 22nd version of the regulations you plan on adopting this evening, and must point out several remaining issues.

Section 7.4 states, “The minimum base assessment to be levied against all properties is to recover capital expenditures in an equitable manner based on the value of having the benefit of Public Sewers.”

You have yet to, despite repeated requests, define what “having the benefit of Public Sewers” means. If “having” means connected and using, then please explain how an unconnected resident benefits from the sewer. In fact, that has been your contention all along, claiming that the rest of the town doesn’t benefit, stating it’s “your sewer”, and “why should other people in town pay for you to flush your toilet?”

If you truly believe that people who are not connected to the sewer do not benefit, then you must apply that logical equally, and equitably. An unconnected sewer district resident does not benefit from the sewer any more so than any other unconnected resident. You cannot claim that it is equitable to assess someone who isn’t connected to the sewer, simply because of their geographical location, unless you assess everyone in town who isn’t connected to the sewer. I firmly believe a court will find logic to the contrary, laughable, should the residents proceed with challenging this point in a court of law.

Section 4.1 of the regulations states, “The Owner of any property abutting a street, alley or right of way in which a Public Sewer is located Shall connect by means of a Building Sewer.”

Please explain how the residents of Washington Rd, who abut the Public Sewer “Shall” connect without grinder pumps? That will be a neat trick.

Section 4.1 goes on to state, “Failure to make a connection within ninety (90) days without the granting of a time extension from the MWPCA will result in removal of the Grinder Pump core and reinstallation at a later date at the Owners cost.”

Firstly, the word “will” is not defined in the regulations. It should either read, “…Shall result in removal…”, or , “…May result in removal…” Please, make up your minds and use the correct word. The MWPCA has had over a year to get these regulations right, and “will” has no place in this section.

And, please do explain how gravity fed system property owners, who fail to connect, will have their grinder pumps removed. That would be a neat trick, too.

Lastly, regarding this section, there is no financial penalty defined for not connecting, other than, “at the Owners cost.” May one then assume that you have no intention of fining and causing even more financial harm to Marlborough’s sewer district residents if they simply cannot afford to connect? In fact, when I asked your board at the February 26th, 2009 WPCA meeting, “What financial penalty will there be if I don’t hook up?”, Peter Hughes responded, “None, but you will not be able to expand your home, you would have to pay for your own grinder pump when you do decide to hookup, and it will cost more later.” I am not recalling this from memory – it’s in the meeting minutes.

How a court would side with your board, if you attempted to levy administrative fines against people who do not connect, after your board and this town’s planning department have repeateldy stated otherwise, and those statements are recorded in your meetings minutes, is truly beyond me.

In fact, I believe a judge would find this mess intolerable. Sewer lines laid down where pumps were supposed to go, but not enough money to install the pumps; 50% failure rate on the installed pump housings; 60% of a project at 100% the cost; dismissed petitions on bogus legal opinions; a board consisting of mostly people who won’t share this financial burden, and those that will, benefit from building new homes or expanding existing ones; and, an exemption clause for people with septic systems of a certain age. I cannot see the MWPCA justifying that one in court. Do you actually believe saying, “Mr. Doe is exempted because his septic works and he has room for another septic, but Mr. Durel isn’t exempted because he’s the same as Mr. Doe but his septic is a little older”, will hold water in a court of law?

Instead, I implore you, one last time, to take a step back from the monotony of managing the project, and think about the residents.

There is no reason to force people to connect. There is nothing to prove. Be heroes to the community instead of villains. The people who want to connect, will connect. The rest of us will pick up the bill in our taxes. We all were allowed to vote this project into existence, and we should all be expecting to pay. However, forcing an additional financial burden on to people in the form of a benefit assessment charge, when they’re not connected to the sewer is simply unfair. You cannot force someone to have more money than they do, threatening them with administrative fines and foreclosures, for something they just don’t need right now.

You must be compassionate in your serving of the community, and understand that times are very difficult. Do not force people to connect. Let them do so as they’re able and as the need presents itself. Assess them the benefit charge then, if you must, but not beforehand. In all reality, an unconnected sewer resident is no different than vacant land, which you don’t assess. If you don’t use the thing, you just don’t “have the benefit of Public Sewers.” Or, you must assess the entire town equally, where connection is irrelevent, as that is your claim for sewer district residents.

Lastly, the town gets paid back anyway so there is absolutely no logical reason to enforce mandatory connection. In fact, flow rates would be lower resulting in less of a bill from East Hampton.

Be compassionate, and leave people alone who don’t need to connect, and assess and charge them only when they do. It is the fair and honest thing to do, and will put an end to much of the “sewer controversy” in this town. The whole premise of this project was to protect the lake. If someone’s septic isn’t failing, then you’re still protecting the lake by leaving them alone. Plus, it will shut me up, and make me go away, if that’s any inspiration.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
David J. Durel

1st Selectman Bill Black

If you serve in public office, what clues might you gather indicating that you may be doing a poor job? Suppose you fire someone without following proper protocol, and that person then sues the town, where you waste taxpayers dollars in a legal battle. Suppose you call in OSHA to get new carpeting for the town hall, bypassing the established Board of Finance to fund the expenditure. Suppose you lease an office for five years to move the probate court out of town hall, then subsequently work to move the probate court out of the town completely, leaving the taxpayers on the hook for the lease payments.

Suppose you’re in office during the most expensive town project ever undertaken, like a sewer, and appoint people to a managing board who don’t accurately represent the people their decisions affect. Suppose you never attend either of the two public hearings on that project’s regulations, where outraged residents express their substantial concerns. Suppose those residents become so upset that they mobilize and submit not one, but two petitions, to let their fellow residents weigh in on the issues. Suppose you then spend $15,541.00 of the taxpayers dollars on a directed legal opinion, to squash those petitions.

Suppose a disabled veteran is entitled to tax relief, and the people you serve are in support of that relief, but you prefer to distort the how the relief is applied so much so that you attract another lawsuit, costing taxpayers even more money.

Lastly, suppose that through all of this, you think now is the time to revise the town’s charter, as you have the power to populate a charter revision committee with whomever will bow to your wishes.

Those may all be clues that you’re not doing such a great job. One might think that such an official works for a town located solely in a taxpayer’s nightmare.

You can call it a nightmare, but we call it Marlborough. If you’ve had enough, come by on Halloween and sign the petition asking Bill Black to resign from office.

David Durel

Marlborough

Town of Marlborough 26 North Main Street
P.O. Box 29 Marlborough, CT 06447

Client: 388749 Marlborough, Town of
Matter: 388749-0001

FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED through August 31,2009 in connection with petitions submitted to replace benefit assessments with Town wide tax levy to pay for project, including research of law, confer with Town officials, and rendering legal opinion regarding same, consisting of 59.9 hours.

Legal Fees: $ 15,441.00
Total Amount Due: $ 15,441.00

Murtha Cullina UP I Attorneys at Law

(editors note: That is $257 per hour)

The two petitions:

1) Allow a town mtg to vote on a regulation whereby anybody with a working septic could apply for a waiver NOT to be connected to the sewer.

2) Allow a town mtg to vote on whether to spread sewer benefit assessment equally throughout town.

The legal opinion denied the petitions, even though they were lawful and accepted by the town clerk on the grounds, 1) It was too late, the vote on the Sewers was 7 years ago. 2) The WPCA is the town body that should have been petitioned.

The petitioners felt they were forced to take the drastic step since the BOS was not addressing their concerns, the Sewer Plan has changed considerably since approved over 7 years ago, and that the WPCA has stated they (the WPCA) are not the town body to address these issues.

The town charter allows for citizens to seek redress via the petition. After denial of the petitions the only recourse for the petitioners would be to file a lawsuit.

The regulations for the WPCA and the Sewer were just released in the month prior to the petitions being served. The regulations detailed how assessments are to be obtained, who is required to connect and other details.

The 15K$ bill seems relevant in light of the 2nd budget defeat over 20K$.