Written Statement

From: Rudy Gole

To: Poolesville Town Commissioners

Date: March 23, 2009

RE: Proposed Budget Hearing

First, I want to support the salary increases for the town staff. Your employees are the life-blood of the community. Pay them good wages and it may reduce turnover and encourage the best workers to make a career here in Poolesville.

In addition, and I won’t belabor my point, but I’ll repeat the suggestion that I made last year. I believe you should remove the town Manager position from the regular pay chart and treat that position independently. His outstanding performance and many varied responsibilities to the town warrant an adequate compensation and not restricted to a pre-determined scale.

Secondly, as you know, the one cent decrease in the tax rate does not lower the amount of the homeowners’ actual taxes because of the property reassessment. Also your water rate increase, which averages out approximately to $84.00 per household per year will more than offset the one cent tax rate decease and that each homeowner in Poolesville will pay more to live here.

Now one item in the General Fund Revenue summary called attention to me. I believe you are under estimating the revenue from the income taxes, account #360 by a large amount. You show an actual amount of $954,000 for FY08, but you are only estimating $836,000 for FY10. I checked the last three previous years, where the estimate was under anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000. There seems to be a pattern there of underestimating this revenue. I don’t know of any reason why the income tax receipt for Poolesville should go down. It appears to me that FY10) estimate could be $100,000 too low.

Now, the rest of my testimony will refer to the $600,000 that was set aside three years ago for the remediation, if necessary, of the alpha emitter connection. As you all know, I have been closely following this matter for three years. You’ve rolled your eyes, and shaken your head at times when I’ve commented on it.

In 2006 your unrestricted surplus was much too large as determined by the town commissioners. At that time you decided to transfer $700,000 of that large surplus to other accounts. Namely, $100,000 to the new town hall construction and $600,000 put aside to be used, if necessary, for the aforesaid alpha emission remediation.

I’ve trusted you to live up to the Resolution adopting the FY07 budget with the amendment that specifically stated that you would return the excess surplus to the Poolesville taxpayers if it were not expended by June 30, 2008 for proposed stated purposes in that resolution. I consider that Resolution #005-06, adopted on April 17, 2006, a commitment on your part. Not something you can just ignore. You’ve approved every budget since then with references regarding the return of these funds. You’ve been deceiving us.

When a commissioner makes a formal motion at a meeting, it gets buried in your minutes. But, resolutions have life. It’s a pledge, a commitment, a promise. It is assigned a number specific to itself. It records the relative dates and actions and is filed in a binder and readily available to be retrieved.

But in this proposal, it’s as if you’re adding extra capital projects just to absorb the $600,000 without any explanation relating to the refund referred to in the resolution and prior budgets. Maybe you thought it wouldn’t be noticed. I don’t know. It just seems to me in your determination not to return those funds to its rightful owners, the taxpayers, as per your resolution that you’ve substituted projects, not so coincidentally, totaling $600,000. My guess is that you probably don’t have a clear idea of the costs of those three projects. Only that they had to add up to $600,000.

It seems as though you are determined not to honor the pledge of the Resolution. It’s not as if you are desperate for funds. You have a very large surplus which the current fiscal year projects to be $2.25 million dollars and that amount doesn’t even include the $600,000 which is technically also surplus. You have such a large surplus that it appears that you have had to find ways to spend it. Like adding $223,000 for debt service that wasn’t budgeted or even due. And, adding $402,000 for sidewalks and swales that had not been previously planned for this FY10 budget. And, after adding those expenditures you still have $1.6 million projected surplus in FY10. Almost twice as much as you repeatedly state that you want to carry.

And, in the coming year you may be getting funds from a share of the traffic camera revenue and also, from the state’s share of the federal stimulus package to fund capital projects indentified and already funded in this budget. If these happen, you will have a duplication of funds resulting in additional surplus.

Commissioner Hoewing previously stated that he was not happy keeping the $600,000 and using it for something else in the future. Which you are doing.

Commissioner Klobukowski responded to him that he agreed because the temptation is too great to go off and spend it. Again, which you are doing.

At one time, lo and behold, even Commissioner Kuhlman said that the money should be five back as per the resolution.

Where is the commitment now? Not in the budget.

You have so much money coming in or already available that you shouldn’t be denying the return of the $600,000 to the taxpayers of Poolesville.

The budget also shows that you intend to connect wells 7, 9, and 10 and include some sort of treatment there. Well, you hired and paid a professional consultant for advice and who told you all three of those wells were within MDE and EPA compliance. Yes, she indicated that #10 was high but still ok. She also told you that because of #9, which is one of your highest producers, and was nearby, that the reasonable solution was to blend #9 and #10 together and that would be fine. No treatment necessary. But, this budget indicates that you would rather spend $500,000 unnecessarily.

Well #10 is barely within your guidelines of 50 GPM and Well #7 is one of your lowest producers at 30 GPM making it way below your standard of 50 GPM. So, you could let it remain alone or abandon it without hurting your needs and thus saving the $100,000 for the extension. By abandoning #9 and #10 you will save another $400,000. In total, I believe you are wasting $500,000 on this project. $500,000! We are talking a half of million dollars. That is no small amount. To put it into perspective, it represents 28% of the General Fund operating expenses. Over one fourth!

Isn’t the Congress wasting enough of our taxes at this time without you adding to it?

You need to take another look at this before you finalize the budget. You need to get together with Wade, all of you, not just Commissioner Kuhlman. It’s a matter of fiscal responsibility.

And after all is said and done, I want to remind you that you are bringing the Rabanales well on line next year. I’m not suggesting that you forego any treatment in the future that may be necessary, but that should be with new funding at that time.

Here is my take on the whole matter. I’ve been attending commission meetings for many years on a regular basis. You don’t get many, if any, residents to attend the meetings. I sort of felt that I represent the residents so these would be someone here from the town to comment or offer opinions and present testimonies. And, I have certainly done that. Commissioner Kuhlman during his time as president has always been courteous to me and gives me the opportunity to speak. And, I appreciate that.

Finally, I’ll finish up with my testimony. This proposed budget indicates that the surplus will be too large and that you re are reneging on your commitment to return the $600,000 to the Poolesville taxpayers. Personally, I’m disappointed in you concerning this matter. I believe integrity counts. I believe honesty counts. I don’t understand how you can deal with this matter the way you have in the proposed budget. I just hope you give some serious consideration to all of what I’ve spoken to and correct it before you adopt the budget.