Wednesday, December 19, 2007


The Greenburgh Town Board approved the 2008 budget by a vote of 3-2 on Wednesday night. Voting for the budget: Supervisor Paul Feiner, Council members Francis Sheehan, Diana Juettner. Voting against the budget: Council members Steve Bass, Eddie Mae Barnes.
The proposed tax hike of 23% for residents of unincorporated Greenburgh was decreased to 19.4%. The town has an A budget (which is paid for by residents of unincorporated Greenburgh and the villages). There will be a 34.4% TAX REDUCTION IN THAT BUDGET. The A budget is very small –there have been major shifts in percentages in the past. Some years there have been big tax hikes –other years tax cuts. The percentages are big. The dollar amount is very small.
A property owner in unincorporated Greenburgh will see an increase of $348.66 equating to $2140.82 based upon a 15,000 dollar assessed value. REMEMBER: The town portion of your taxes is less than 20% of your entire tax bill.
A property owner in the villages will see a decrease of $31.93 in their tax bill. The average resident of a village will be paying the town $60.83 (sixty dollars and eighty three cents) based upon a $15,000 assessed value. The town provides very few services to the villages –villages have their own municipal governments.
1) We need to rely less on fund balance. The goal: Revenues should be closer to expenses.
2) We need to conduct a very comprehensive analysis & management review of all departments. A citizens budget committee and management review committee will be formed in early January to help oversee this review. The first meeting: Thursday, January 10th at 7:15 PM at Greenburgh Town Hall. We need to be open to new ideas re: restructuring the way government operates. I am very pleased that the town and Village of Dobbs Ferry have signed on to a study on sharing some police services.
3) Our budget needs to be more transparent. I believe that much more info about spending and programs should be posted on our web site. Comprehensive information about every program (costs, number of participants, revenues) should also be released to the public and posted on the web site.
4) Before we fund new programs – we should find equivalent cuts to offset the additional costs.
5) We need to look for ways to increase revenues. I am planning to schedule a land use summit on Tuesday January 15th at 7:30 PM at Greenburgh Town Hall.
6) We will aggressively seek additional grants to keep taxes down.
7) We had two consecutive zero percent tax hikes in unincorporated Greenburgh (2006 and 2007). Voters want stability and predictability. In retrospect, we should have had gradual tax hikes each year rather than two years of no tax hikes.


call your broker today said...

so this is christmas, and what have you done? a tax cut for the villages while unincoporated has no fun.

this budget shows the farce that goes by the problem solver approach to government. true leaders anticipate problem. what we have is a group of careerist second tier no nothings who create problems and high tax solutions to the problems they create.

get out of greenburgh if you can.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that the swimming fees are low.
They should be paying more.
Why are we running an charitable instition at tax payers expense.
And another thing how many use the facility that live outside the unincorporated area.
You cannot run a business with charity in mind.
The tax payers have been paying for all the services at this center for years,but now is the time to raise all fees.or CLOSE the center.
You seem to have things going at a bargain rate at other peoples expense.
Now the book was opened last night as to what was being charged just for swimming now you have to tell the residents what are the charges for the other services.
Either this center carries the burden to bring in funds or it must be shut down.
If they need a good business person to check into their services so be it HIRE ONE.
Stop stealing our hard earned money to run this CHARITY.
How many people oversee this center,without ever being investigated.
Freebees in this town have got to STOP.
Paul do you understand this.
This center is another form of welfare and affordable housing.
You did not lower our taxes enough .

Anonymous said...

What cuts did you make in every department if any.
This is what residents are interested.
What programs were eliminated.
We want all this listed so any layperson will understand.
With the tax increase that was voted on I just think that you did nothing to help in cutting the budget more.
Were you afraid to hurt peoples feelings well you did a dam good job of hurting our pockets today and boy we know what to expect for the future years because we have children running this town.
What we need is people to stand up to say NO.
So we know for the next two years we will be looking at high tax hikes and who knows how much will follow.
We cannot say thank you because you did not do the job that was your duty to lower the taxes to a reasonale rate.
We have to say we have gutless people on this board who are afraid to do the right thing for those who elected them.
Your political ploy JUettner and Sheehan in voting for this budget together with the supervisors yes was so obvious it was sickening.
One had to be deaf dumb and blind not to see the way how the voting took place.
Bass and Eddie mae did a good job politically leaving the door opened for the future by voting no,but I wonder if they had not been defeated in November would they have voted for the budget.
ONe will never know.
Bass and Barnes we thank you for your help throughout the years. Whether you were right or wrong you did your best to help the Whole town.

Anonymous said...

Cutting Village taxes by more than one third while raising TOV taxes by more than one fifth - what a coup!
Villages first - just as you promised!

doomed said...

the case for term limits could not be stronger - we have lifers like feiner, juettner and barnes on the board and we get a 23% tax increase with more to follow.

these careerists are in bed with their programs and government is the solution to every problem or non problem approach.

greenburgh is bankrupt. feiner and juettner are brain dead. and the new members of the board are mediocre on their best days.

ladies and gentlemen of greenburgh - you are witnessing political suicide of a town.

call you broker indeed!

Anonymous said...

Enough of the misstatements.

The A budget is not the budget for the villages. 55% of the A budget is paid by unincorporated Greenburgh. That is why activists like Ella Preiser demanded that the A budget tax hike be lowered by using the A budget fund balance, and the Town Council approved that gimmick over the Supervisor's objection. Not smart. That fund balance wil be needed when the town has to start funding the future health costs for retired employees.

Anonymous said...

Samis please check in to defend Feiner. We're waiting.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 11:52 has a few misstatements of his or her own.

First of all, the 2008 budget was approved not by the Town Council. It was approved Feiner, Juettner and Sheehan.

If you think they took too much out of the townwide accumulated fund balance to give village residents a 34% tax decrease, and unincorporated area residents a 4% tax decrease, the responsibility rests of the shoulders of Feiner, Juettner and Sheehan.

Second, if you think Feiner, Juettner and Sheehan made a mistake by raiding the townwide accumulated fund balance, because you think that money should be set aside for future health care costs for retirees, you may want to consider that, unlike some states, New York does not require municipalities to hold such funds in reserve and the town's bonding agencies, like Moody's, seems to be satisfied as long as the town continues to fully fund whatever post-employment benefits are due in a given year, which it does.

Anonymous said...

Hey Feiner -
Put 100% of your 2008 salary in escrow and then make your list of things you need accomplish really short - in fact limit it to a single item: complying fully with the opinions issued by the Comptroller of the State of New York.

Anonymous said...

Ella thank you for assisting in the budget hike.
I wish you would keep your advice to yourself from now on.
You also suggested that there be reassessment of our homes.
After this tax hike
you have the nerve to tell the town that reassessmnt is the way to go.
Have you lost your mind completly.

Anonymous said...

19+ percent .SHAME SHAME

ed krauss said...

To anonymous 12:51:
Sticks and stones may break your bones, but BONEHEAD votes have a more deleterious effect.

you're correct, there is no law governing retention of fud balance. But there is a view among people who rate municipal bond percentages, that municipalities that engage in gimmicky balancing of budgets are less than prudent and not very financially oriented. You can draw your own conclusion on how Greenburgh will be rated.

Asto your "as longas municipalities fund benefit expenditures annually it's OK with them. However,what happens when those expenditures reach 7 or 8 figures and there's no sinking fund to offset the spike.

The answer is to daunting to think about.

When you "go to the hole" once too often, you get your hand slapped. And when you borrow to pay for operating expenses, you dig a hole not only fr yourself, but for future generations.

This is a budget from HELL and there are no firehydrants in sight.

And people like you drean up rationales. So how can we win.

I would love to debate you face to face but I have as much chance of that as I have of seeing an intelligent approach to putting a proper budget on the table.

Next year when we have another double digit tax increase. it won't be ameliorated by all the politicospeak between now and then.

hal samis said...

To anonymous 11:52 who writes as "we",

OK I'm here and I'm checking in. And in so doing I'm going to put forward still another way to reduce the budget: eliminate their $30,000 salary plus benefits line for Sheehan and Juettner.

Because obviously if they had nothing to do with the budget and if they weren't also voting for the budget (they voted before Feiner cast the third vote), then why would you think that I would now want to depart from what I've been saying for over a year: just three votes. But if you insist on removing the other Town Council members from being part of the problem, then I equally insist that they should not be paid.

The situation facing Greenburgh for 2008 and 2009 is that the Town Board talked it up as though it sees the light at the end of the tunnel.

Unfortunately the light shining brighter is coming from an approaching train.

Anonymous said...

MR. FEINER: What, if anything, was trimmed from the budget prior to its approval? PLEASE RESPOND.

hal samis said...

As for 5:30,

Hey lay off Ella, she gave her advice to the Town for free.
However, the Town Board already voted to spend over $400,000 on a Comprehensive Plan because it would identify the problem: the Town needs to increase ratables.
Pssst, just between you and me, the only way to do that is to reassess.

If anyone besides you listened, they would save taxpayers the $400,000 expense to hear bad news.

Anonymous said...

The way I see it, Police medic $88,000 civilian medic $48,000
88-48= 40,000 plus the police have better benefits than civilans.
Ask the Chief how many tickets or arrest are made by police medics. Not many, because they are usually tied up on ems calls and at the hospital.
If this was such a good deal why is Greenburgh police, the only dept doing it?????????????????
Can anybody amswer that???

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Krauss:

You warn about what might happen if employee benefits reach "7 or 8 figures" and there's no sinking fund to offset the spike.

I think you'd benefit, Mr. Krauss, if you'd read the budget. The 2008 budget set aside $10,836,940 to cover employee benefits in the "B" budget alone. That includes $2,508,474 for state retirement, $1,536,332 for social security and $5,529,000 for medical insurance.

That's 8 figures right there, and it's no spike. For 2007, the number is estimated to be $10,126,879 -- another 8 figure number.

And Moody's, the leading bond rating agency, doesn't seem terribly disturbed about that. The last time it rated Greenburgh's bonds was on October 2, 2007. Moody's had plenty of time to review Greenburgh's books and records to see exactly how much of the fund balance was being drawn down this year -- and the year before.

Yet Moody's continued to rate the town AA1. Here's what it had to say about retirement obligations. "The town continues to fully fund the annual pension requirement." Why isn't Moody's concerned? Because New York doesn't require municipalities to reserve for contingent pension liabilities because if it did, most municipalities would be bankrupt.

That is not to say, however, that Feiner's 19% tax increase is defensible because it's not.

There are plenty of areas in the town budget involving millions of tax dollars where town leaders -- here, Feiner, Sheehan and Juettner, simply did not have the will to do the right thing.

And don't think bond rating agencies like Moody's won't be able to figure that out. They will. A key factor in retaining the bond rating is the town's ability to collect 99% of its taxes. But the town hasn't had a 19% increase in taxes in decades.

A drop in percentage of taxes collected by one or two points will almost certainly lead to an immediate decline in the bond rating. And whose fault would that be? Feiner, Sheehan & Juettner.

Moody's also had this to say about Greenburgh in October 2007: "While Moody's believes that the performance of sales tax revenues for the remainder of the year [which go to the B budget], combined with a slowing of mortgage tax revenue growth [which goes to the A budget] present vulnerability, the current fund balance levels are expected to remain sufficient. Future credit considerations will factor the management of these pressures and maintenance of currently solid financial reserve levels."

So what did our town leaders do in response to Moody's warning?

They continued to spend money in the B fund as if the current level of sales tax revenues would still be there to replenish the drawdown in the B fund's accumulated fund balance, when it won't. And as for the townwide fund, they used millions from the A fund balance to reduce the townwide tax (hooray for the villages!), while recognizing that there won't be millions coming in from the mortgage tax to replenish what was taken.

So, will Moody's care? Moody's rates Greenburgh's bonds based not on what's in the B or A fund's accumulated fund balance, but rather based on the combined accumulated fund balance.

So yes, Mr. Krauss, Moody's will see through budget gimmicks, you can be sure of that. But the problem is very different from the one you describe.

But it's fiscal mismangement nonetheless. And the responsibility for the town's fiscal mismanagement in 2008 rests squarely on the shoulders of Feiner, Juettner and Sheehan.

Anonymous said...

The responsiblility for the tax increases must be shared by members of the community.
Feiner and friends are nothing if not responsive to perceived need.
Ask Paul for anything, and he will try to supply it. You want a doggie park? He'll be out soliciting startup money in less time than you can say "Re-elect me." The problem comes when the startup funds are used up - and the program joins the enormous list of Town-funded "quality of life" programs.
If we, as consumers of Town largesse, forced our elected officials to tell us, in advance of beginning a new program, how it will be funded in it's second and subsequent years, we might not choose to initiate a new program.
Instead, like children opening Santa's presents, we greedily accept new toys without thinking about what the batteries will cost next year.
There is no such thing as a free lunch!

Anonymous said...

There are not many smart postings on this blog, but the 9:20 posting is one of the smartest. He (she?) and Samis ought to run the town.

Anonymous said...

I am ashamed to live in the Town of Greenburgh. There is so much waste in every Dept.throughout the entire town. Each dept. should have slashed their budget by 15% and the residents would not have suffered any decrease in services. The board should be taken to task over this. Maybe they want to pay our increase and forfeit their salaries. Wake up and do something because these budgets are out of control. Sell property and get rid of programs that are draining the town. Raise fees for the Veteran pool substanially and also for the Community Center that I am tired of supporting.

Anonymous said...

What ever is written in this blog or any other blog is falling on deaf ears.
This budget was put into place as soon as Sheehan came into the picture.
He knew exactly what he was doing and why.
We could complain all we want but there will be no answers until the end of his time on the board.
But up until that time we will be looking at double diget hikes for his 2 years left plus the following year.
They are afraid to make the cuts that were suggested and because of this we will be paying thru the nose until someone listens to what knowledgeable people are saying.
Cuts should have been made accross the board.
Another idea how about SHeehan and Juettner giving back the stipend they receive for making life miserable here in Greenburgh.
Give back your paychecks and forfiet all benefits.

ed krauss said...

Dear Mr. 10:41 PM:
I do read the budget. Do you know what the $10.8 million set aside covers? Does it cover current employees only? Does it cover current and curent retirees for one year of medical insurance costs? Does it cover...well we don't know from the budget, which for years was the most obfuscating documents since the ink ran on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Please don't put me down so cavalierly, and glibly, unless you have answers not based on the simple numbers you presented.We need actuaries to tell us what the damage is and will be, and financial minds to tell us how to fix the problem. And, believe me there is a problem...a major problem which if left to the devices of our untrained board members can get us into a deeper hole from which cranes won't be able to extract us.

Based on my reading, there's too little, too late and the most recent vote proves without a doubt there is no one on that board with courage enough to think outside the box and maybe step on some toes to do the right thing for all of us.

* Paul Feiner's Solutions For Our Next Budget, (TOO LATE FOR OUR CURRENT BUDGET)
1) Revenues should be closer to expenses (now that's a "revenue revalation.)
2) We need a comprehensive management review( but first we have to know which dopped progam the money to pay for it will come from. See item 4 below.)
3) We need a transparant budget (where and when have I heard that before?)
4) We need equivalent cuts before we fund a new program (does that mean before an idea is presented to the public, the Presenter will know how much it will cost in years 1,2,and 3-at least; whether we can afford it and which program will it replace.)
5) We need to look for ways to increase revenues (wouldn't it be easier to decrease expenses. After all increases in fees for example are only a tax by another name.)
6) We need to aggressively seek new grants ( to date, have we sought new grants PASSIVELY?)
7)Voters need stability (so do elected officials)

Those 7 points were presented by Paul Feiner AFTER he was reelected, and AFTER he, sheehan and Juettner passed one of the most onerous,and largest tax increases in the history of Grenburgh without making obvious and substantive cuts.

Those 7 points are not made by a Monday morning quarterback, but by a Wednesday morning QB.

All of these posturing points were applicable 16 years ago; 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, and 2 years ago. Why weren't they introduced anywhere, any time along the continuum. Feiner and Juettner have been in office for 16 years. Why now? Is this the start of the 2009 supervisor's race? (Se gar nicht helfen)

I'm sick and tired of a town board that plays real life politician. They don't know what they are doing, and if they do, they're doing it wrong. I don't know if this is the worst run municipality in Westchester, but you could fool me.

In a couple of weeks we're going to swear in two new council members, who, ostensively will return the majority to Paul Feiner. I don't know if votere voted for them, or against their opponents. What I do know is they had better hit the ground running...and in the right direction.

We need professionals running the town, and the evidence is overwhelming we are sorely lacking in that discipline.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ed,

You certainly have selective memory, in 1979 the tax increse was 29% in the "b" budget- &
guess what, Tony Veteran was elected in a closely contested &
well-funded contest by the opposition- I know you were involved then so I guess you just "forgot"

There just comes a time when it is necessary to "pay the piper"
There is waste in just about every
Dept., "wish lists" are floated
continually & whatever gets included in the final budget document sticks-
The library & P.D. have been the
biggest culprits--
When someone finally has the guts
to take on the Chief Kapica maybe some headway can be made there-
I'm betting it won't happen until after he retires!!
You were in the forefront of eliminating the "take home" use of vehicles when Paul first ran in 1991-- have you bothered to get a count of Town Vehicles in use then
including the P.D. & what the count
is now?? I think you would be amazed- I'm not necessarily talking about take home vehicles, just "fleet" size.
Don't go after benefits etc., they are adequately funded each & every year, yes they will always account for some type of budget increase in Greenburgh & everywhere
else, unless bargained away by the unions- (ha, ha).


Anonymous said...

12:20 you are so right but you and I know darn well that these two departments will not be discussed.
Why because of Juettner and Sheehan .
Juettner with the library and Sheehan with the PD.
When someone is in office they should not show favorites.
We have another two years of both of them unless they would do us a favor and resign.
So you can rest assured that we will have double diget hikes for the next three or four years,because there is no one to stand up to what is going on that is wrong.
Maybe the only salvation we have if they listen to Samis concerning the library and maybe Morgan can shed some light on the goings on in the PD.

ed krauss said...

Mea culpa, 12:20, I was around in 1979,'69 "59,'49 and sadly, '39. And Yes there was a 29% B budget increase. However, I'm ashamed to say at hat time I lived in Ardsley and was uneffected by the increase. It was bad then but is now worse because we had an opportunity to do something about it and didn't'

You have my sincerest apology.

Have a happy holiday, and a happy and healthy new year. We'll debate some more after "interseason."

Anonymous said...

The Town could cut
14 police officers(1Capt,1 Sgt)from PD
7 Saniatation Men
7 Highway workers
4 Recreation workers(even more part time workers)
6 workers at the community center
6 Town hall workers
2 Bldg maint
3 water dept.employees
Still keep the same services and save Money

Anonymous said...

How many department heads etc do we need in recreation at tdycc. this is ridiculous

Santa Clause said...

Merry Christmas!!!

Anonymous said...

10:17 you are so right but you know that this will never happen.
Sheehan has made sure that no cuts were to be made,thinking that that the next time arround he has a good shot at running for supervisor.
Boy is he in for a big surprise.
He will be using your blog comments for this platform when he is ready to run.
Your ideas will be implimented into his literature for election time .
I will not be living in this area anymore but many who read this blog will. Just remember what I wrote .

Anonymous said...

The Town could cut
14 police officers(1Capt,1 Sgt)from PD $1.7 million
7 Saniatation Men $700,000
7 Highway workers $700,000
4 Recreation workers(even more part time workers) $500,00 ?
6 at the community center $400,000
6 Town hall workers $400,000
2 Bldg maint $150,000
3 water dept.employees $200,000
That's $4.7 million Dollars or there about. That's just to start. They could probaly cut even more!!!
What do you Think ???
Sell the Police station and court.
put the property on the tax rolls.
build a new one on Frank's nursery.

Still keep the same services and save Money

Anonymous said...

Dear town board,
it is a shame that someone gives you a breakdown as to how to save the taxpayers some money,and you cannot come close to his ways.of doing what is necessary to cut taxes.
Shame on all of you.
You do not have the know how to run a town or produce a budget that residents can live by.
A very bad state of affairs.

Anonymous said...

Where does anonymous 2:43 get his figures from?

It would be nice if they were real, but it sounds like he is just making it up.

Anonymous said...

14 police officers(1Capt,1 Sgt)from PD $1.7 million
7 Saniatation Men $700,000
7 Highway workers $700,000
4 Recreation workers(even more part time workers) $500,00 ?
6 at the community center $400,000
6 Town hall workers $400,000
2 Bldg maint $150,000
3 water dept.employees $200,000
It's a rough estimate 80,000 per police officer plus at least 20,000in benefits maybe more equals 100,00 plus a capt makes about 110,000 plus benefits
sanatation 65,000 plus benefits
and so on. It could be a high estimate, but maybe also a low one.
But I think it's something the new budget committee should look at with an open mind.also the new town board.

Jim Lasser said...

The issue is not tax hikes.
The issue is not which Town services are plagued with excessive costs.
The issue is not allocating costs and revenues to the "A" or "B" budgets.
The issue is not Bernstein's lawsuits nor Sheehan's antics.
The issue IS leadership.
Mr. Feiner has excelled at one-on-one constituient services. His record of care and concern for individuals is second to none - but caring for each and every member of the community is not what a Town Supervisor is elected to do.
A Town Supervisor is elected to LEAD. That means making hard decisions and hard decisions are those which can make one unpopular. It means doing the invisible work of government, like learning how budgets must be constructed and carefully considering what the long-term implications are of each choice.
Leadership means accepting the responsibility for, and consequences of one's choices. Presenting his Supervisor's Budget and then voting against it is not leadership - at best it is grandstanding and playing to the crowd. At worst, it is abandoning one's elected duty with the hope that no one will notice.
Mr. Feiner has thus far failed to lead the Town. Perhaps the new year will bring new resolution on his part to really lead...

Anonymous said...

Great Idea! Lets cut the Police by 14 members and cut all the other town services too. When Crime is at an all time high and residents have no services, prices of homes will surely decrease.I'm sure everyone with these great sugestions will have to take losses on their homes and flee the town. Maybe Feiner and the board should have raises taxes a little the last few yaers instead of one big chunk. The Police and Court need new buildings but with the town finaces is bad shape they will not see new buildings for years to come.

Anonymous said...

Shutting down the Cybermobile is a terrible way to give a tax break. How much could it have cost? There are many in Greenburgh who rely on it since they can not get to the library. I don't care about the details; Bring it back!

hal samis said...

Shutting down the cybermobile and eliminating Library service on Sunday has nothing to do with the Town Board reduction of the Library Budget. It has to do with the mean-spirited members of the Library Board of Trustees who want to punish the Public, their "Patrons", those who depend on these Library services.

It has to do with Howard Jacobs and Susan Wolfert choosing to say screw you to Supervisor Feiner.

Never mind that the original submitted Library Budget in September was for $4 million which got cut back to the $3.6 level of the tentative budget which got further reduced to $3.4 million (from memory) of the approved Budget. Ms. Wolfert, who uses her reporter's influence on the Scarsdale Inquirer to plead "her" case, wants to view it as a personal insult and not based on any real world reality. She believes that whatever amount the Library submits should be taken as gospel. Thus had they submitted a Budget request for $6 million, she would be arguing that it got cut by 50%.

The fat in their Budget was trimmed not eliminated. The Library wanted to spend an additional $165,000 over 2007 levels to add more to their collections (to fill up the empty spaces in the yet unfunded bookshelves) but the sad truth is that the new facility will not be open to the Public before October 2008 if not beyond. Thus, in a tough Unincorporated Budget year, the Library could wait until 2009 when the facility is complete and open -- perhaps as long as three months later.
Another item of fat was the $75,000contingency fund which is a "made up" number. Etc. None of the missing $200,000 need have been relegated to the Cybermobile and Sunday operating cost. But that is what the Library Board wants you to think so that residents would pressure the Town Board to restore the lost money.

If the Greenburgh Public Library Foundation asks you to contribute to the Library so that it can buy furniture and technology (once included within the $19.8 million referendum amount), remember how the Library is willing to sacrifice its Patrons' well-being in order to "punish" the Town Board.

Think too, that there should, as a consequence of their brattiness, be mandatory firing of Library personnel because of the cut back in services (no Sunday personnel, no cybermobile staff) and see if the Library still wants to sit at the high stakes table in Town politics.

And when the Library Board once pledged to maintain the hours and use of the cybermobile as an adjunct of its reduced operation due to their own mishandling of the Library relocation effort, think too that instead of merely instilling the wisdom that their existing staff should be retained, what they did was to promote this under-utilized staff during the relocation -- thus adding to the overhead, benefits and taxpayer expense.

Once thing for certain, the Library would be hard pressed to explain new hirings during 2008.

However I am sure that the Scarsdale Inquirer will present a different take on the situation.

Anonymous said...

I'll bet that Howard Jacobs and Susan Wolfert wouldn't object if every other department's budget was slashed. They don't care, as long as they can puff up the library.

Anonymous said...

Hey Juettner How say you on how much money is wanted by your baby the library.
They should hang their head in shame for the way they asked for money for a year that the library is not operating .
Now getting to the police headquarters,why did they do some renovation recently when the chief knew that he would have to come back the next year to ask for a new building,since there are too many police officers working inside and they need more room.
If he was a good administrator he should have not renovated but wait for the opportunity to ask for a new building.
All that money is wasted like everything else at headquarters.

Anonymous said...

According to many comments on the blogs they all refer to waste in all the departments.
What is being done?
Has anyone taken the time to investigate where money can be saved?
Has anyone stood up to town department heads asking them to cut back?
Why is it that all the departments have not cut back?
The answer is because if they do the residents would clearly see how much mismanagement has been going on for some time without anyone looking deeply in their manner of spending.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

We could yell as much as we want but The board will not pay attention to the cuts to be made by some residents.
The only thing we as residents can say that we tried to bring to light mismanagement in many departments but because of favoritism the message has fallen on deaf ears.
We are looking at two more years and then another election,maybe this time arround we will get leaders and not followers.

Anonymous said...

What cuts has the REC>dept.and Dpw made to help with the lowering of taxes.
You have too many people working at the center on Manhattan Ave.
You do not need all that personel.
Enough for freebees.
The people employed there made enough money at tax payers expense.
If it cannot bring in enough revenues it should be closed.
We cannot support a failing business.
This place should have been bringing in some good revenue throughout the years.
Someone is getting fat at tax payers expense.

Anonymous said...

What to Park employees do during the winter months.
Are they collecting unemployment since there is no work for them.

Anonymous said...