The fly in the soup is complex but the Board of Finance according to statutes are the only ones that can make appropriations and denied the request; when John Hodge launched his newest funding, high wire act with great fanfare and bravado and a packed [stacked] meeting ... So, in a desperate attempt to circumvent the Board of Finance once again, John Hodge dared go where no other First Selection had gone before.
Miraculously a petition, out of thin air appeared in John's hands with 300 plus signatures and more to come. The petition calling for another Town Meeting this time with a different question, certainly more focused on language rather than procedure and policy. The following question was on that petition: "Shall the town approve the expenditure of $15,000 for the Milfoil Weevil Control Project within the borders of New Fairfield and the issuance of bonds in the amount of $15,000 to meet said expenditures."
Miraculously a petition, out of thin air appeared in John's hands with 300 plus signatures and more to come. The petition calling for another Town Meeting this time with a different question, certainly more focused on language rather than procedure and policy. The following question was on that petition: "Shall the town approve the expenditure of $15,000 for the Milfoil Weevil Control Project within the borders of New Fairfield and the issuance of bonds in the amount of $15,000 to meet said expenditures."
WOW!!!, Another, Invasive Aquatic Plant Program [IAPP] [supported by the federal government]. So now we change the name to a weevil science experiment to supplement the ongoing federally supported Sail Harbor IAPP pilot study in New Fairfield.
In the following clip, Hodge explains the weevil science experiment.
Now, expenditures are different than appropriations and bonding is an interesting method of appropriating funds for projects, but experiments or booster shot science, please! Where are the real scientific results and long-term plans from existing pilots?
3) If a municipality was interested in 'sterile grass carp' [read weevil] for invasive weed control in the range of less than $20,000, would such a project be considered a capital project by OPM and suitable for bonding? No, under existing statutory language, we would not be able to authorize the use of LoCIP funds for the purchase of “sterile grass carp”. See CGS section 7-536.
In the following clip, Hodge explains the weevil science experiment.
Now, expenditures are different than appropriations and bonding is an interesting method of appropriating funds for projects, but experiments or booster shot science, please! Where are the real scientific results and long-term plans from existing pilots?
THE RUB: Bonding requires a legal opinion ... John Hodge knowingly called the Town Meeting for June 3rd. without a legal opinion not from Town Counsel but rather from Bond Counsel.
Mr. Wise:
In answer to your questions regarding the LoCIP [Local Capitial Improvement Program] Program:
1) Would it be a fair assumption that a capital project can be bonded? Yes, see #11 under our Q & A and Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 7-537.
2) If so is there a minimum amount? No, but note that each town has its own capital bonding policy and it would have to make financial sense, as there are expenses inherent in the process.
3) If a municipality was interested in 'sterile grass carp' [read weevil] for invasive weed control in the range of less than $20,000, would such a project be considered a capital project by OPM and suitable for bonding? No, under existing statutory language, we would not be able to authorize the use of LoCIP funds for the purchase of “sterile grass carp”. See CGS section 7-536.
Sandra Huber
An additional source ... explains from New Fairfield's Audit Report ... and it goes ...
We were unable to find a “New Fairfield” definition/policy but came across the following write up included on page 23 Item G. Capital Assets of the town’s 2007 Audit Report by Blum Shapiro:
“Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks and similar items), are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the government as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 and an estimated useful life in excess of one year (the 2008 Audit by McGladrey says $5,000. and TWO years). Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation. [CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE NUMBERS!]
The cost of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend asset lives are not capitalized.
Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed.
Property, plant and equipment is depreciated using the straight-line method……………”
SIMPLE EXPLANATION: CAPITAL ASSET VALUE WHERE IS IT? WHAT IF THE WEEVILS MOVE TO BROOKFIELD, DANBURY, NEW MILFORD OR PERHAPS TO SHERMAN TO VISIT THE OTHER WEEVILS?
