Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
AMENIA — The town’s supervisor was ready to vote, but the other Amenia Town Board members wanted to wait to make a decision on the 2011 preliminary budget. At the Nov. 10 meeting, which followed a public hearing, the board scheduled a final budget workshop for Monday, Nov. 15.
There was no presentation or summary of the budget before the public hearing opened, but at the Nov. 10 meeting the preliminary budget represented an estimated 7.5 percent tax levy increase, due in most part, according to Supervisor Wayne Euvrard, to severely decreased revenue and mortgage tax revenue.
In addition, pension costs have skyrocketed from $34,000 to $75,000, the supervisor made a point of noting. In a budget where every $10,000 represents roughly 1 percent, that alone could attribute for 4 percent of the increase. The general fund budget is actually lower than last year by more than $50,000, Euvrard said, also noting that two years ago he had managed to find an additional $100,000 to cut.
It was a sparse public turnout, especially considering the Nov. 10 meeting was both the public hearing on the budget as well as the first Town Board meeting in the new Town Hall. Several residents spoke, all in favor of the board cutting more from the budget. Leedsville resident Sharon Kroeger expressed concerns that the move into a new Town Hall was going to end up being too costly for taxpayers in hard times.
Kroeger complimented the board on the new Town Hall, saying there was “no question it is an amenity� to the town, but said the timing was “out of joint� and that she felt that the increased costs of being in the building would put the town in a tough financial situation.
Kroeger also said she felt that in these economic times there should be no salary increases for positions where the workload is essentially the same, a sentiment that was consequently shared by resident and former town Supervisor Arlene Iuliano. Iuliano, as was noted by Kroeger, did not take pay increases during her tenure as supervisor.
“That’s the way I wanted it,� Iuliano said.
Euvrard’s supervisor’s salary will increase to $22,400, a raise of $400 or a little less than 2 percent. In 2009 Euvrard received a roughly 15 percent raise. He was also set to receive a raise as acting director of finance, but declined the $140 raise to $7,140 after the Town Board unanimously decided to forgo their own salary increases for the second year in a row at the Nov. 15 budget workshop, staying at $5,700 each.
The rest of the elected town officials and town employees are set to receive about a 2 percent raise across the board.
At the Nov. 15 workshop meeting, Euvrard said that the budget was essentially “bare bones� already and he didn’t see where much more could be cut.
Councilwoman Vicki Doyle wanted to go through the budget line by line, questioning every area where there was a proposed increase. She also wanted to see departments taking advantage of the new facilities, using the gymnasium and auditorium instead of paying transportation costs for trips.
Councilwoman Darlene Riemer agreed with the line of thinking, but admitted that she had tried the same thing herself and was not able to find much to cut.
In the end, the board was able to find an additional $2,096 to cut from the budget, through the aforementioned salary line adjustments, removing a $1,000 increase from the summer recreation program line budgeted for trips and cutting back the community beautification line by $500, from $2,000 to $1,500.
Euvrard then made a motion to accept the budget. Doyle voted no, but the remainder of the board agreed. The savings found at the Nov. 15 meeting will bring down the tax levy increase very slightly, settling at about 7 percent.
“I’ve been working with the budget right from the beginning,� Euvrard said. “We started with a 20 percent increase, and we knew that was unacceptable. Then we got it to 14, and now we’re around 7-and-a-half, and I’m very comfortable with this budget.�
The final public comment from the Nov. 10 meeting, from resident Tonia Shoumatoff, asked why Amenia was anticipating a 7.5 percent tax levy increase when surrounding towns were lower. She specifically mentioned the town of Washington at 2 percent and Dover at 3 percent.
“It seems that Amenia is inordinately going up,� she said. “It doesn’t look good for our town. We’re not wealthy.�
Euvrard said that there were many towns in Dutchess County that were looking at a double-digit increase. He added that he had spoken with the supervisor in Dover and that they were able to use $500,000 in fund balance they had saved to offset the tax levy.
“I guarantee you, you won’t see the same thing in Dover next year,� he said.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.