The Sullivan Report

 

                    CLAREMONT'S

          AGENCY & TRUST FUNDS 

                                 2001

 

                            2005

  

           SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS

                               2001

                              2005

        CLAREMONT'S DEBT LOAD

                                2001

                              2005

                            UPDATE!

CLAREMONT TAXPAYERS FILLED THE COUNCIL

CHAMBERS ON NOVEMBER 8TH AND TOLD

THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS IN NO UNCERTAIN

TERMS THAT CLAREMONT'S PROPERTY TAX

RATE IS TOO HIGH AND FOR THE COUNCIL TO

MAKE CUTS TO  THE PROPOSED 2007 BUDGET. 

AFTERWARDS THE COUNCIL REVIEWED A

PORTION OF THE BUDGET TOTALLING OVER

$5 MILLION AND ONLY CUT $1,000.

HERE ARE $592,699 WORTH OF BUDGET CUTS.

*DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT IS THE LINE ITEM

FOR THE DONATION TO THE MAIN STREET

ORGANIZATION. SINCE THEY TURNED

OWNERSHIP OF THE BROWN BLOCK BUILDING

OVER TO A KEENE DEVELOPMENT GROUP & ARE

BEING REIMBURSED FOR WHAT THEY SPENT

ON THE BUILDING, DO THEY REALLY NEED ANY

OF OUR TAX MONEY? THIS ORGANIZATION'S

"SPECIAL PRIVILEGED STATUS" OF HAVING

THEIR DONATION BEING AN AUTOMATIC LINE

ITEM IN THE BUDGET SHOULD END. IF MAIN

ST. STILL WANT'S A DONATION THEN THEY CAN

APPLY LIKE EVERY OTHER LOCAL COMMUNITY

SERVICE ORGANIZATION FOR A PORTION OF

THOSE FUNDS.

** LEGAL SERVICES ARE FEES PAID TO OTHER

ATTORNEYS. THE CITY SOLICITOR SHOULD BE

DOING THIS WORK. (THIS $106,000 HAS

NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TWO LAWSUITS

REGARDING THE WASTE PROJECT & THE

INCINERATOR. THAT MONEY COMES FROM

ANOTHER LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET)

*** BANK ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. OVER

$10,000 LAST YEAR. WHAT ARE THESE FEES

AND WHY IS THE CITY PAYING THEM?

SHOULD THE CITY BE LOOKING FOR ANOTHER

BANK TO DO BUSINESS WITH?

* WHY IS THE CITY BUDGETING MORE MONEY

THAN WHAT THEY SPENT LAST YEAR FOR

STREET LIGHTING WHEN THE NEW LIGHT

BULBS THAT WERE INSTALLED ARE SUPPOSED

TO REDUCE LIGHTING COSTS?

** A CITY BOND WAS RETIRED IN 2006 THAT

COST TAXPAYERS $201,000 PER YEAR TO

REPAY. INSTEAD OF RETURNING IT TO THE

TAXPAYERS THE CITY MANAGER PUT IT INTO

THE PAVING BUDGET LINE INSTEAD. (THIS

ADMINISTRATION HAS YET TO RETURN A

SINGLE PENNY TO THE TAXPAYERS.)

* ACCORDING TO THE BUDGET NO TEMP. HELP

WAS USED IN THE CEMETERY DEPARTMENT

DURING 2006. MAKING THESE A NEW HIRE.

      GRAND TOTAL OF PROPOSED SAVINGS

ADDITIONAL COST SAVINGS NOT INCLUDED IN

THE ABOVE BUDGET CUT PROPOSAL THAT THE

CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER:

1) REVIEWING THE NEED FOR CONSULTANTS.

2) IMPLEMENTING A HIRING FREEZE

      BEGINNING WITH THE 2007 BUDGET.

3) DELAYING OR ELIMINATING PURCHASES

        AND PROJECTS.

4) REFINANCE LEASED VEHICLES. (D.P.W.

     VEHICLES REFINANCED THROUGH TATONKA

     WERE DONE AT AN OVERALL HIGHER

     INTEREST RATE FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF

     TIME).

      PROPOSED 2006 MUNICIPAL BUDGET