Some hard questions...

Here’s a tough another hard question that members of City council should be asking the Law Director:

This area of South Main Street has street lights and they are keeping those existing street lights under this new scheme!!!  This makes it clear that the new phony gas lamp posts and lights are nothing more than decorations. Isn’t it ILLEGAL to force those who did not sign the petition to spend thousands of dollars on DECORATIVE items???  They are NOT installing "street lights", they already HAVE "street lights"!  They are "adding decorative lighting"!  (And Les, if you are going to try to say that this is a safety item, then doesn’t the city then have a fiduciary duty to pick the lighting system that will attain a safe lighting level at the least cost rather than the expensive decorative scheme???)

There is NO REASON not to choose the REAL American alternative: Let those who desire to decorate their properties with fake olde tyme lights (that are historically inaccurate) do it themselves, on their own property (outside the right-of-way) and leave government and the rest of us out of it!!!

Some hard questions...about BUDGETS and street lights!!!

Ms. Gilleland herself presented budgets to “Move the cash balance down to a floor of 15% of expenditures over the two year period (2012 to 2013)”.  (Our City’s cash reserve at the beginning of 2012 was 21.4%.)

Total Budgeted Expenditures in 2012 were $126.6 million and grew to $137.8 million in 2013—an increase of over $11 million dollars in just one year!!!

For two years now, we have been spending more than we have been taking in.  Where is Ms. Gilleland finding the money to pay for these decorative lights for a few of her friends???  And why aren’t City Council members asking her where the money is is going to come from when just last October she told them that everything had been cut to the bone and we had to budget money from our RAINY DAY FUND (cash reserves) just to run the city???

From the minutes of the 11/6/2012 City Council meeting:

“Mr. J. Mulligan commented that can support this budget and he will vote for it but that he doesn’t want to be in this same position again a year from now where the General Fund expenditures exceed the General Fund revenues. As a Council we have to tackle some tough long term issues.”

Well, J. Mulligan, $5,000 or so a year ($10,000 or more, if the folks in Highlands get their way) for decorative lights for a handful of residents from now until the end of time sounds like a “long term issue”.  It’s not to tough to tackle, though.  Just tell your colleagues on Council to vote NO!!! (Or were you just politicking when you said that last November and are you really a big TAX-AND-SPEND liberal???)

From the minutes of the 11/6/2012 City Council meeting:

“Ms. Gilleland addressed the issue of equalization of expenditures and revenues. She responded that the 2011 budget was a really tough time with deep cuts with the reduction of 3.7M in expenditures. She thought that the 2014 budget would be an appropriate time to examine additional reductions.”

Well, Ms. Gilleland, the time for the 2014 budget examination is only a couple of months away.  Will you be hand-wringing, and telling everyone how we have “cut everything to the bone” again???  Or, are decorative lights for a handful of friends more important than raises, public safety, upkeep of the cemetery, parks, street repairs, sewer maintenance, and all of the other worthy things that benefit the entire city we keep hearing that we won’t have money for???

And my ears must’ve deceived me  last Tuesday night, because I thought I heard Ms. Gilleland tell Ms. Scott-Jones that residents would NOT be assessed for street light utility or maintenance costs.  But read the following from the minutes of the 10/02/2012 City Council meeting:

“Ms. Gilleland highlighted the goals of the 2012‐2017 Strategic Plan. She also showed visuals of a holistic transformational strategy. She gave some food for thought that included:  Street Light Assessments that could raise $700,000 for the general fund if council is willing to pass this cost along to the residents.” 

Now pay attention Middletonians, and especially you council members who will be voting on the decorative lights for that handful of friends of City Hall on South Main Street:  When Ms. Gilleland suggests “to pass this cost along to the residents”, she is (at best) making a mis-statement of the situation.  The residents ALREADY pay these costs, so they can NOT be “passed along”!!!  We residents pay for the costs of electricity and maintenance for all street lights within our city from all of the myriad of other taxes that the City already collects from us!!!  What she is actually suggesting is that City Council “assess” a NEW TAX—a street light tax-- but not call it a “tax”, call it a “fee” and tack it onto our water and sewage usage bills!!  (Can anyone explain to me what street lights have to do with water or sewage usage???)  Now pay even closer attention:  I believe that this new TAX (disguised as a “fee”) or “assessment” will be ILLEGAL.

Now remember, Council members and all Middletownians, for two years in a row at budget time, Ms. Gilleland has said that everything has been cut to the bone, there was no money to spare ANYWHERE, and she needed big bucks from our cash reserves JUST TO RUN THE CITY!!!  And anytime the common citizen suggest an expenditure, there just IS NO MONEY!!!  Yet, whenever the "right people" want something, big wads of cash are suddenly found!!  Someone must ask "WHERE ARE THESE JACKPOTS COMING FROM???"

Also remember that there IS an easy alternative here:  Let those that want these decorative lights install them a few feet away OUTSIDE the right-of-way on their own property and leave the City (and the rest of the taxpayers) out of it!  That's exactly what the rest of us have to do if we want decorative (or security) lights.  There is absolutely no reason you can't do the same!!!  (Just coordinate through one of the numerous "historic societies" to select a uniform lamp post design!!!)