This Weeks Property Transfers

7 Stone Manor Dr, Alana K. Montano to Lynn A. Connie, $1,100,000.

219 Anderson Ave, Jeffrey D. and Carolyn S. Kennedy to Daniel Harris, $272,900.

42 Barbara Dr, Tuthill Finance to Stephen Johnson, $250,000.

42 Barbara Dr, Deborah B. Yeisley and Khalid M. Ali to Tuthill Finance, $250,000.

50 Berwyn St, David E. and Linda S. Wilson to Erica Dineson, $210,000.

55 Carriage Dr Unit 55, Kacy D. Fardy to Laureen E. Austin and Liam C. Crocker-Mcclellan, $161,000.

96 Cornflower Dr, Shannon MB Mayville to Deryl and Kristen Wells, $298,000.

67 Greer Cir, Walter C. Geer to Lucas A. Valentine and Meghan Rynch, $280,000.

254 High St, Harry G. Tashlein to H Ryan&Son Builders LLC, $302,500.

100 Hillside Ave, PNC Bk to Dorothy Pfau, $185,500.

40 Lincoln Ave, Leo J. Dunn to Alan Anderson, $250,000.

110 Mayflower Pl, Nancy Kingsbury to William Douglas and Kate Cotto, $272,950.

42 Meadows End Rd, BAMF Homes Ltd to Miguel J. Bravo, $326,000.

33 North St, Prisco Panza and Gina A. Falcone-Panza to Adam L. and Kathleen G. Klug, $685,000.

9 Sentinel Hill Rd, Richard Nylen and Nicole C. Wayne to Michael J. Moreno, $335,000.

407 Swanson Cres Unit 407, Celia M. Young to Joan Sagrosse, $181,000.

60 Wildwood Ave, Wells Fargo Bk and Option One Mtg Loan T to Robert Walker Heagney and Abigail B. Off, $325,000.

84 William St, Susan M. Mozdzer to Paul M. and Smita Chawia Rirchberg, $330,000.

FOR ASSESSORS DATABASE CLICK HERE

Spalthoff Challenges Mayor's Commitment To Jonathan Law's Students

Mayor Richetelli’s sense of priorities and judgment continue to frustrate and confound me. I spent July 6Th at the Milford Aldermanic meeting along with other fellow tax payers. We were all there to speak up in favor of moving forward with the existing plan and proposed bonding for completing important and long needed renovations on Jonathan Law High School. This is a project that was previously approved and committed to by the Mayor. To date, tens of thousands of dollars have been spent. I, along with other Milford taxpayers at the meeting, spoke out in favor of completing the project, and adamantly objected to leaving important renovations to this school unfinished at a time when our community needs the investment most.

The contractor has decreased the project’s cost by nearly 25%, which will, if we move forward, save the City almost $750,000.00. In addition, the current interest rate on the bonds are likely lower now than they will be in the future, and completing the project now would most certainly bring a larger reimbursement from the State as a high priority infrastructure project. But, all the numbers and logical arguments aside, Mayor Richetelli made a commitment to the citizens of Milford, and to the students and faculty at Jonathan Law. A commitment that he is now not ready to follow up on.

Sure, these are difficult economic times-and some projects, even important ones, will have to go on the back burner. But just a few days after the Aldermanic meeting, the Mayor got word from Governor Rell that she was standing by her commitment to the Silver Sands boardwalk project. Ironically, Governor Rell noted that “the State should honor its promise to extend the boardwalk. “Not surprisingly, Mayor Richetelli agreed with her, calling her decision “wise” because construction costs are low and significant money has already been spent. Sound familiar?

Fortunately, by the end of the July 6th meeting, the Aldermen did pass the resolution to raise the bond money and finish the Jonathan Law renovations-despite the five republicans voting against it, and Mayor Richetelli’s personal recommendation to vote against it as well.

The most confusing and frustrating part of Mayor Richetelli’s inconsistent opinions is that it would appear our Mayor is more strongly in support of extending a boardwalk than investing in our schools. This, my friends, is completely unacceptable.

I do want to thank Governor Rell for standing by her commitments to Milford's infrastructure projects, and to the Aldermen who made thoughtful and logical judgments in favor of the Jonathan Law bonding proposal. And, an extra-special thank you to all of you who took time out of your day to make your voices heard at the Aldermanic meeting. It is largely your voices that moved the project forward and gained the Aldermen’s support.

Peter L. Spalthoff

Independent Party Candidate for Mayor 2009

Richetelli's Re-Election Would Cost Taxpayers Extra.

Amid these difficult times, and the already unprecedented jubilee over the "once in a lifetime tax decrease" more concern over a "bait and switch" sales tactic surfaces among my colleagues who are "in the know" of local Milford politics. Our current mayor, who now seeks yet another term appears to be "going for broke." Richetelli is seeking a fifth term that will qualify him for a life long pension at a substantial cost to the taxpayers.

While I do not not know the exact details of his personal pension related future monetary entitlements, I do know that it will cost our city extra money over the course of his lifetime, beginning upon his retirement. While many like myself supported Jim in the last election with a sign on my lawn, this time around I do not plan to because I am of the opinion that the cost of retaining him is going to add too much future debt to our city.

This opinion of mine is not because I think Jim is a bad person or did a terrible job, its actually to the contrary I think Jim was simply the best choice of the candidates Running last go around. This year is different, we have three other choices besides Jim including my personal favorite Peter Spalthoff who believes in the fundamental fairness of "people and not politics." He is also a selfless individual who has lived in Milford many years and has been a part of many of our local clubs and organizations and traditions. Peter is the only person I ever met who personally invested his own money in our community. I cannot really say that about any of the other candidates.

This year I simply urge all voters to make the best choice for our city and with tax increases and out of control spending being the current theme we may want to think twice about voting for a person who will add additional pension obligations to the city's already over burdened treasury. Jim, in my opinion is a great person who will qualify for a very high paying corporate job after his retirement from the city. We need not worry about him or his future should he fail in his bid for re-election.

*********************************************************
6/14/09 Correction and an addendum to this Post.

The previous title of this post alleged millions, perhaps that is true or perhaps its not I did have the opportunity to get some more imput about this opinion of mine of which is changed a bit due to some new updates.

As it was explained to me the Mayor Recieves 2.25% in pension benefits for each year he holds office. Jim, should he get re-elected to his fifth term would qualify for 10 Times the 2.25% or 22.5% of his $93,000.00 a year estimated salary. This amount would be due and payable upon his 60Th birthday and would be subject to the review of the Pension and Retirement board. This board, at their discretion, could agree to give him Cost of living adjustments to compensate for inflation or like scenarios that could diminish the purchasing power of his pension check.

Should the mayor collect his pension from 60-90 or 30 years, this sum would total Apx. $21,000.00 Times 30 or $630,000.00 without cost of living adjustments by the board. How much this figure grows is entirely up to the Pension and Retirement board and their willingness to increase his benefits in the future.

The ultimate amount could be a million or more, but this is really contingent on how many years the Mayor collects, how many increases he gets along the way, and any other unforseen additional expenses (such as continued health coverage)related to this debt obligation. This figure is pure speculation.

Update 6/27/2009

Quote from Brian McCredy NH Register

"The combined city and schools proposed budget is $170.8 million, compared to this year's $160.1 million, representing a 6.69 percent increase. The proposed budget basically keeps services at the same level. Fixed costs such as health insurance, electricity, contractual wages, pension contributions and workers compensation make up 91.2 percent of the increase."

LINK to full article

City Officials Seek Pay Raises

Milford city officials, mainly the mayor, city clerk and registrar of voters, are up for pay raises tonight. The Milford city board of alderman will vote on these pay raises. Mayor Richetelli indicated that he is underpaid compared to other mayors and the Democratically controlled board of alderman are biting their nails.

One person in particular is the 2Nd District alderwoman who is also running for state representative as a democrat. The feeling on the street is one of economic despair, over taxation, and a struggle with declining wages and business challenges. This economic climate is going to attract some major attention as to the outcome of this vote. The pay raises may end up being a Pyrrhic victory if approved. The taxpayers already overburdened are not particularly happy with the job our city has done in keeping the burdens on homeowners affordable.

This vote tonight will be a true test of courage for our aldermanic leaders who will show Milford who it is their loyalties lie with. No matter how this votes ends up there will be many unhappy people.

Gov. May Suspend The Increase In The Gas Tax

The tax in Connecticut is known as the Gross Receipts tax, and Governor Rell has called its timing "not good." The increase in this tax was proposed some time ago before the current energy crisis and seemed like a good idea. The money was supposed to be used to make improvements to the public transportation system that is now reaching full capacity during peak hours.

The tax was expected to go up from 7% to 7.5%. This would have marked an increase of yet another 3 or 4 cents per gallon. Governor Rell who told the legislature that she cannot control the price of oil or what goes on in the world market, has merely relayed our concerns to federal leaders in Washington.

The problem now becomes what will the state do to address “the Office of Policy and Management who advised Governor Rell that the next fiscal year - which begins July 1 - was projected to face a shortfall of about $150 million." The increase on the gas tax was expected to regain 25 Million of that loss.

There were few critics of the Governors plan, except for one person. According to Christine Stuart a reporter at the state capitol "Jonathan Pelto, a former state legislator turned public relations specialist, said in an email that already the gross receipts tax is bringing millions more into the state than initially anticipated in 2007 when the current state budget was passed.

He said when the legislature passed the budget it expected to bring in $287 million in 2008 and $311 million in 2009 on the gross receipts tax. Because the tax is a percentage of the wholesale price of gasoline, the budget estimates were based on the wholesale price of gas at $2.41. He said today the wholesale price of gas is $3.40, which means it will bring in at least $53 million more than expected this year.

“Even if gas prices don’t increase at all from this point forward—the most basic simplistic assessment reveals that in FY 09, the General Fund will not receive the $311 million (that was projected last June) but will actually receive well over $410 million,” Pelto said in an emailed statement titled, “Reality Check on Gas Tax Issue.”

The people of our state are already burdened with the highest gas prices in America, Connecticut is losing business and trucking companies are going under. The entire recreational boating industry has also been impacted negatively and there appears to be no relief in sight.

The federal government appears to be imposing new energy and greenhouse gas regulations that are only going to impede the price of gas further. The quagmire we are now in is so desperate that analysts at "Goldman Sachs" are expecting oil to reach as high as $150-$200 a barrel.

Congress thus far has threatened a lawsuit against OPEC, ostracized the top executives at the big oil companies, is attempting to bar speculative investors in oil, and in a chilling cliche imposed strict environmental standards that prevent the exploration of oil in our own country. Clearly our country appears to be paralyzed by its own internal strife between consumers and environmentalists.

The question here remains is whether or not our state truly did receive all that extra cash, or did Connecticut just break even due to people driving less? I have no knowledge of Peto's assessment relative to consumer driving habits in this high price environment. If consumers are like the typical people I know, then they have indeed cut back on driving, as many local gas station operators have also suggested has happened. The immutable laws of supply and demand also apply to the state and Connecticut should be aware that raising gas prices will push consumers into energy conservation that will result in even less sales revenue and higher future taxes.

All it takes is for one to look out their own window and see the surge in 30+ MPG cars, and the decline of the SUV now worth less than ever before. Ford has even indicated that their gas guzzlers, like bad mortgages are "upside down" time to pay attention to the big picture, and not "band aid" holes in the budget.

The problem is difficult, but solvable through innovative means in these troubling times, including a serious effort to eliminate government waste and questionable jobs and departments.