Gallery 1 Gallery 2

Do you see one you'd like. Click Here and describe the picture and we'll e-Mail you a copy.

While the funding is in place the controversy continues as to exactly where fire hydrants will be placed in the Greenfield Hill area. Interestingly though some locations are already installed. Mysterious “white statues” have been spotted along Hulls Farm Road while new shinny fire hydrants can be seen at other locations.

However many Greenfield Hill residents are concerned that the placement plan for hydrants did not take into consideration their homes need for protection. A finalized location plan has never been sent to residents and some are concerned that the installation of hydrants may have been modified by the old axiom the “squeaky wheel gets the grease”. The RTM recently appointed a three person liaisons team to monitor the installations and report back to the RTM but the RTM will not meet again before the installations are completed… guess they will report back that it’s a done deal.

In addition the charges for connection to the water lines for personal use seems to be generating a good deal of ill will. Currently no area in Town is charged a connection fee by the Town if they choose to connect to waterlines for personal use. So for instance the developer at the corner of Duck Farm and Mill Plain will pay no fee to the Town for connecting to the water mains. However any resident that wishes to connect to the most recently installed water lines (installed for fire protection) will be charge $9,120 (spread over three annual installments). In addition residents connecting will need to pay for a meter box which will cost approximately $2500 and some additional “tapping fees” to Aquarion. Once that is complete residents will be then be responsible for the cost of running a line from the road to their homes.

Anyone unsure of coverage for their home or unhappy with the town connection fee should contact:

First Selectman Ken Flatto
Phone: 203 256-3030
E-mail: FirstSelectmanFFld@town.fairfield.ct.us

BOF asks just where are those hydrants going … and how much do they cost?

Tuesday, August 2 … Fairfield’s Board of Finance once again had pointed questions regarding the management of the plan to install water lines for fire suppression in the Greenfield Hill area.

While the project has been under review for many years it appears that the Town has yet to release a full accounting of fire hydrant locations or the total cost of the entire project….. even thought many hydrants have already been installed.

Both the RTM and the Board of Finance have repeatedly had serious questions regarding the plan proposed by the First Selectman Ken Flatto. The most recent request from the BOF ask that the First Selectman supply them with a listing of homes to be covered, homes not covered and the rational for proposed charges to a select 125 residents.

Republican Selectman Steve Elworthy’s View Rejected

Aug. 16, 2006 – The Town Charter Revision Committee has recommended changing the terms of the Board of Selectman from 2 years to 4 years. Selectman Elworthy, a Fairfield resident for 36 years, noted “the 2-year term for Board of Selectman had served the Town well for over 47 years.“ Elworthy went on to explain he felt the two year term insured that those elected were able to be held accountable for their actions by the residents.

Steve then made a motion to revise the Charter proposal to continue with the 2-year term for the Selectmen. By refusing to second the motion Democratic First Selectman Ken Flatto and Democratic Selectman Denise Dougiello were able to avoid offering opinions on the proposals from the Charter Revision committee and leave in place the 4-year term recommendation. In what some called a political maneuver, the Board of Selectman then did not discuss the controversial changes to the terms for Board of Selectmen and Board of Education.

The Board of Selectmen then voted on the proposed changes to the Town Charter with the result being two in favor and one, Elworthy, opposed. The proposed changes will now be included on the November ballot where the Town will accept or reject the Charter revisions.

For more detail on these proposed revisions to the Town Charter go to:

The 12 Garbage Can Plan

Ever mindful of our Town’s need for fiscal prudence our First Selectman is once again diving right into the garbage situation. Some of you may remember my first article concerning Ken’s plan to offset our significant tax increase by offering $1 Dollar Garbage fees (see the article). Well it seems that he is at it again making it appear that garbage is his strong suit.

Following the recommendation of his staff, Ken is supporting the removal of garbage cans from Fairfield’s beaches. It appears that we don’t have enough money in the $220 Million Dollar Budget we’re paying for to pick up the 12 garbage cans in question. But to be fair that’s not 100% accurate. The garbage cans will be moved from the sand to the parking lot where they will be picked up.

Now I can understand the logic here. You have all walked in the sand and had that substance find its way into your shoes where it grind, grind, grinds on your metatarsals. Don’t you just hate that! So the risk and commensurate health insurance costs of picking up garbage on the sand will be avoided by picking it up on the parking lot. Thanks Ken for once again putting the Town’s financial position and the garbage situation so high on your list.

However it does seem that this plan has not met with universal acceptance. In an article in today’s (June 2nd) Citizen-News at least one resident questioned the reasoning behind this plan. The resident, in speaking with our First Selectman, said Ken was concerned that people would steal the recycling bins.

Once again he’s right on the money there. I can’t think of many more desirable containers I’d want in my home than those faded blue receptacles …especially those that formerly contained almost empty beer cans, multiple used diapers and KFC boxes with those partially eaten “sides” … side dishes not the sides of the boxes. I understand there is a growing black market for these blue containers so we’re doing our part to avert illicit trafficking.

Ken also stated that it was just an “experiment” to have the garbage cans on the beach itself and no one liked the sight and smell …except those folks that like to take them home with them. I guess there’s just no accounting for taste.

So I applaud Ken’s Second Garbage Initiative and look forward to additional financially prudent plans from “The Man”. Can “do it your-self” garbage compacting (sit on your cans) be far away?

The New Math ... again.

Do any of you remember “New Math”? That’s when the big deal in mathematics was “Set Theory” … the new math. Well it didn’t fly like it was supposed to. We all drew the little circles and tried to understand how this was going to help us count our change at the store. It soon died from too many intersections. But now it appears that our First Selectman is bringing back New Math … or at least his version.

Flatto’s math can best be seen in his defense of the recent property assessments and the resulting tax increases necessary to pay for his budget. Here’s how he was quoted in the April 28, 2006 Citizen-News:
… Approximately 3,500 of 22,000 homeowners, who mostly live on 2-acre lots, will experience a tax decrease this year because the value of their home is not growing. But that is offset by the 12,000 or so homeowners who will experience the average tax increase of 5.5 percent and the approximately 6,000 homeowners, who mostly live on smaller lots, whose taxes will increase by more than 10 percent. Ken then went on to ask, “If a train leaves Toledo traveling East at 4 miles/hr and one leaves Fairfield at the same time traveling South by Southwest, which one will get to the 3rd train station last?” (Actually I made up the third train station question, but we’ll deal with that question in a future article).

So let’s analyze Ken’s analysis. First of all, how do you “mostly live on a small lot”? I guess if it was small enough you couldn’t “completely live on it”. Now if you look closely at Ken’s numbers you’ll find that there are 500 homeowners missing. I wonder what happened to them? If we could find them maybe they’d pay taxes too.

Plus I wonder just how big is a “more than 10% increase” that 6,000 homeowners will pay. This is ‘kinda like’ that Set Theory that I couldn’t handle back in grade school. We know it’s greater than 10% but what is it less than. It appears it will be less than a big number but nobody is talking except the 920 people that came to complain about their assessments. I know of some folks that are seeing over 30% … but as Ken puts it "that’s greater than 10%".

Here’s some more of Ken’s analysis. “Valuation of those homes prove that small lots have increased in value significantly faster” … explaining that smaller houses are popular as tear downs. So it would appear from Ken’s view that if you live in a small house the best thing to do is to tear it down. After all you only just mostly live in it anyway. Then you could build a big house (with the tax savings you’ll have) since big houses aren’t getting any tax increases.

But wait there’s more … But the profit that could potentially be made off a home with a rapidly increasing value is a “silver lining” for the taxpayers who will experience an increase this year, said Flatto. So we should ignore the grey clouds of double digit tax increases and take comfort in the fact that those people in the big houses aren’t growing their lining as fast as we are. Thanks Ken. I feel a lot better now.

But wait there’s more … in responding to a comment that the revaluation company erred on the high side hoping people wouldn’t challenge the assessment Flatto said, “Absolutely not. They were to do it fairly and accurately”. But later he said he thought the evaluation on his house was too high and that he has to pay a 16% tax increase. Now Ken, remember that lining thing.

Getting back to the new math, I found instructions on the Internet for solving complex problems like this using Venn Diagrams (those are the things with the circles) … so I built a diagram to clarify Ken’s clarification. Here it is:

He Has Found The Answer

Our First Selectman, Ken Flatto, has assured us that the upcoming tax increase will be less of an increase than the last few he’s given us … and now he’s gone a step further. He’s obviously been spending time trying to find ways to offset the pending tax increase and in his “State of the Town” address he unveiled his initiatives. Eureka … he thinks he’s found the answer: $1.00 Garbage.

But before you go running to the dump with those empty pizza boxes … there are some restrictions. As an individual you can’t earn more than $30,000 or have a household earning more than $50,000. Ken says there is a down side to his proposal however … we will lose $50,000 in revenue and the Solid Waste & Recycling Commission has not approved his plan.

So all of you can do your part for $1.00 Garbage by sending cards and letters to the Commission urging them to give up the revenue. The lucky recipients of this fee reduction will save over $9 a month … think what you would do with that kind of savings.

But wait a minute, aren’t we adding to the tax increase if we’re taking away revenue??? Plus let’s look at a couple other statements in Ken’s address. Here’s my favorite. “By transferring a number of maintenance budget lines from the education budget to the town side, we will reduce costs commensurately and save money.” Did I hear him right? We’ll save money by moving stuff around on the books … ?? I know some corporate CFOs that tried that and it didn’t work for them.

Now I know Ken knows better than to shuffle the books so he must have meant something other than what he said. It could be that the town can do some maintenance work that the Education Administration was paying for on the outside. But in order to save money doing that the town would have to have excess capacity in their workforce that could be applied at no cost. A part of me hopes that that is not true. So I guess we’ll have to ask Ken exactly how we’ll save.

Let’s look at one more of Ken’s statements … “As you know, next fiscal year’s budget will be rough…” Well, I don’t know about you but I didn’t know that. I admit that my memory is fading as I age … I sometimes find myself in the pantry wondering whether I came in there to get a can of soup or to wash the car. But I do distinctly remember last November when Ken was running for re-election that he fervently promised us that “the rate of tax increase would slow”.

Being a math major I translated that to mean there would still be a tax increase but it wouldn’t be as big as the last few we’ve had. That message wasn’t exactly what I wanted to hear but it was better than the past. Two months later are we now hearing that the best Ken could do is lower the garbage fee by $2.25 … for some of us. I suggest we ask Ken what’s going on.

Signed

a reTIRED payer OF TAXES