3 more bite the dust 2 on pleasanty st 1 on maple ave lets dump mote money in there so we can build up that area good job mcnutt
Jim Sullivan(Wednesday, May 23 18 03:05 pm EDT)
Unlike the Sawtooth Building, the JSL Building is not in the Historic District. This means the Historic District Commission has no authority regarding the JSL Building.
ssspoiler snake(Wednesday, May 23 18 08:06 am EDT)
I hope that the Historical Society can find something very special about the JSL Building,much like they did the Sawtooth.They should be given very strict(expensive)parameters for the restoration of the building.Should cost millions!
Industrial Property Owner(Wednesday, May 23 18 06:06 am EDT)
Fantastic exposé of the JSL building condition discrepancies. Our new city manager believes that the building is in good condition, which flies in the face of everything his predecessor and his administrative staff described. I agree with the contention of Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Maranville that a third-party inspection of the property is necessary to determine its true condition and the cost to renovate the building back into service. All of Mr. McNutt’s administrative staff is compromised because it is unlikely that they will wish to reverse their original assessment and face public scrutiny and the ruination of their reputation if they intentionally misled the public in the year 2014. It will not matter if they were following orders or the acting out of some misplaced loyalty, lying to the public is unforgivable. At this point, none of their opinions or conclusions can be trusted. Mr. Burr and Mrs. Merrill have the most to lose in all of this, as they are the highest-ranking members of the prior administration who possibly gave fraudulent information to close the building. The roller-skating rink gave many young children in Claremont great pleasure and if the building was closed for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda their actions are reprehensible and worthy of job termination. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Maranville raise an excellent point regarding the similarities between the saga of the JSL Building and the sad tale of the municipal outdoor swimming pool. The city administration wanted both facilities closed to concentrate all resources on the Claremont Savings Bank Community Center to make that a success. Now several years later we all know that the new community center is a grandiose financial failure as is every other project initiated by the prior municipal administration. Unfortunately, it is the same administration today with a new city manager, who is unwilling to terminate the many staff members under his supervision with a dismal job performance record. Until he is willing to make some difficult choices and change key positions at the top of his administration Mr. McNutt will continue to do what he has done thus far ramble along affecting only minor changes while accomplishing nothing of importance.
Tom(Tuesday, May 22 18 07:51 pm EDT)
It looks like the old city administration with the help of the new Fire Chief pulled a fast one on the City Council to close up the JSL because the Parks and Rec Director did not want to manage the building. You guys raised a good point about the outdoor pool. They may have done the same thing to close that by lying about the bad condition of the pool. It may not have been as bad as they said. Jeff Barrett may have been right all along. Rotten SOB's. The kids lose the outdoor pool and the rollerskating rink so the adults can have a taxpayer subsidized adult health club. Sometimes I really hate this community. I don't hate the working class citizens I hate the elite A holes that take what they want on the taxpayers dime and they take advantage of everyone in the process. What really gets me mad is the councilors let them get away with it time and time again. They're either that dumb or they are in collusion with them.
Jim Sullivan(Tuesday, May 22 18 04:46 pm EDT)
New article just published regarding the JSL Building. For full information go to the News Flashes page of this website.
Tony(Tuesday, May 22 18 04:30 pm EDT)
Glad to hear you are Packing up to move. We need people who can pay the taxes, not deadbeats.
Packing(Tuesday, May 22 18 09:03 am EDT)
$5,000 surge in interest revenue the city received this last year paints a pretty grim picture for Claremont.It is indicative that people are falling behind in property tax payments.In the land that boom forgot incomes are stagnant.There is 0 room for property tax increases without running more people out of their houses.Why don't these people get it?
Chris(Monday, May 21 18 02:36 pm EDT)
I love the latest article. It was very well written and informative. The ticker, Eagle Times and Valley News just cannot compete when it comes to in-depth investigative journalism. Quite frankly I do not believe any of them knows the meaning of the word journalism as they continue not to engage in the practice of their own profession. Slanting news in favor of government entities and duping the public believing that what they write is the truth is not journalism but propaganda. The Sullivan Report is the public's only source of true journalism. I learned more about the city manager's budget submission by reading this article on the Sullivan Report then I did watching most of that Saturday meeting. I will say I am extremely disappointed with our city councilors as none of them are trying to make any substantial cuts to the budget. The taxpayers are not well represented.
SNL(Monday, May 21 18 10:51 am EDT)
That's cute, This entire blog is the work of bitter, small minded voted out ex officials! Apparently you can't see the nose on your face.
and with the protection of this blog, I can be anyone, and say anything.
Laura(Monday, May 21 18 10:02 am EDT)
Somebody is upset about the exposure and criticism of city official's spending proclivities. Belittling commentary is the work of angry, small minded people.
SNL(Monday, May 21 18 09:00 am EDT)
(Sunday, May 20 18 03:04 pm EDT)
Donald Trumps performance is a very big disappointment. I spoke with him several times during his election campaign. He stayed on his message of balancing true needs with the public’s ability to pay. He represented himself as committed to holding spending down and intending to reduce the size of government spending. His attitude during this budget review is the complete opposite of her campaign promises. He goes out of his way to ask each department director if he or she would like more money to operate his or her department with a clear desire to increase budget spending wherever he can. It is upsetting to find out that some citizens will say or do anything to get elected. He will never receive my support again.
You just met Populist Politics.
Jennifer(Sunday, May 20 18 03:04 pm EDT)
Abigail Kier’s performance on the city council is a very big disappointment. I spoke with her several times during her reelection campaign. She stayed on her message of balancing true needs with the public’s ability to pay. She represented herself as committed to holding spending down and intending to reduce the size of government spending. Her attitude during this budget review is the complete opposite of her campaign promises. She goes out of her way to ask each department director if he or she would like more money to operate his or her department with a clear desire to increase budget spending wherever she can. It is upsetting to find out that some citizens will say or do anything to keep a seat on the city council. She will never receive my support again.
Terry(Sunday, May 20 18 08:40 am EDT)
Claremont's tax rate is too high as it is and the clods at City Hall and on the City Council are all chomping at the bit to spend $5 million on a dying downtown. They have no idea if this project is going to help but they want to do it anyway. Sullivan and Maranville have got it right when they asked the question what will the taxpayers get in return for that investment. Their answer is the correct nothing of real value. A little more parking downtown perhaps but at one heck of a high price. A few new mom-and-pop junk shops that hire minimum wage help if they employ any help at all. Then there are all of the apartments for the welfare families to migrate to Claremont and live-in. The kids will fill our schools, raising the taxes for the schools because the schools will need more teachers, maybe more classrooms, etc. A police presence might be needed if crime in the downtown area increases. As far as I'm concerned it is all negatives and no positives. It would be wiser to spend the $5 million elsewhere like may be on the roads. But that would be far too intelligent of an idea for the idiots managing Claremont's city government to understand.
David(Saturday, May 19 18 04:30 pm EDT)
I watched the long budget review on CCTV last Saturday. I was very disappointed with the city councilors. Mrs. Kier only seemed interested in adding more spending to the budget asking the directors if they needed more money to operate. Mrs. Lovett tried to find nickels and dimes in the budget that would not amount to any big budget cuts because she wants to put any savings she found into road paving. Looking to cut one thousand dollars or less only a few times in the entire budget review amounts to practically nothing. She suggested only a few minor cuts that the councilors agreed to that will not come close to pay to pave a small parking lot let alone any road in Claremont. Mr. Zullo asked a few questions about spending but he made no recommendations for budget cuts. The rest of the councilors all seemed happy with the managers spending plan that adds almost $1 million to the budget. The voters screwed up again electing the wrong people to represent us.
Richard(Saturday, May 19 18 09:02 am EDT)
Payroll is the taxpayer's biggest expense of the city budget. The benefits are too generous and they are bleeding the taxpayers dry. prime examples are health insurance and retirement benefits. City councilors do not care because they are too closely tied to the union employees. Look at today's councilors, two Ex-Claremont police officers, a call firefighter, an ex-assistant superintendent of schools and a Claremont schoolteacher all sympathetic to the unions. Other councilors are also sympathetic to the union employees to the detriment of the taxpayers, a much largest constituency that our city leaders continue to ignore and take advantage of because they are more interested in representing certain special interests. Until true representatives of the people are elected this will never change.
Sarah(Friday, May 18 18 05:27 pm EDT)
The councilors have always been willing accomplices to whatever shenanigans the city administration wants. The taxpayers or the ratepayers always get the short of the stick. Voters are also partially to blame because they elect representatives that only want to represent certain segments of the populace, especially the unionized employees. We had good city councilors several years ago but the voters unwisely did not support them. Now Claremont has the highest tax rate in the state because the intelligent fiscally conservative councilors are no longer representing us as they were replaced with councilors who are in the pockets of the local unions and the special interests. It also seems there is no end in sight to the skyrocketing tax rate because the present day councilors cannot stop themselves from spending oodles of taxpayer’s money whether it’s for something legitimate or something extremely cockamamie it doesn’t really matter to them.
Scott(Friday, May 18 18 03:46 pm EDT)
Assessing isn’t the only swindle. How about the streetlights scam that is not producing the big savings just like the community center and the downtown municipal parking garage electricity usage after LED lighting upgrades and what about the solar panel array it’s only going to pay for about a quarter of the wastewater plants electricity and cost ratepayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for a modest return. Then as Sullivan and Maranville cleverly pointed out the management contractors get one hell of a deal because now they are no longer responsible for rising electric rates at either plant. The ratepayers are being screwed, the company installing the solar array got the job without a legitimate bid process and the management contractor may increase their profit margin on the contract. Everyone wins but the ratepayers, typical Claremont. The councilors once again failed to protect the citizens opting instead to represent the special interests and let them take advantage of us citizens who are ratepayers.
Amanda(Thursday, May 17 18 04:11 pm EDT)
This property revaluation is nothing more than a giant flimflam. I’ll bet the city leaders have a preset number in mind to raise the city’s total assessment to and they are going to divvy out the assessment increase they want on all the properties so they can drop the tax rate to hide the tax burden. It also sets city officials up to spend more money next year because the tax rate will be lower but the tax burden will be a hell of a lot higher. It is an insidious scam that would never be set into motion by honest, ethical government officials. The fact that all the councilors and the city administrators are all willing to move forward with this property revaluation speaks to their lack of character. It is time to clean house and get all new leadership.
Kevin(Thursday, May 17 18 03:07 pm EDT)
Of course they do but the thing is despite their rhetoric Mayor Lovett and the other councilors do not give a damn about anyone but their cronies. Unionized employees and the special interests always get top consideration while the rest of the populace gets none. City and school leaders only see us as a funding source for their political aspirations and spending agenda.
Linda(Thursday, May 17 18 02:55 pm EDT)
Doesn’t the city councilors realize that you cannot keep withdrawing large amounts of funds from the city emergency cash account for everyday bills because eventually the money will be all gone and then the property tax rate will rise up quite a bit to make up the difference? Don’t they care with this is doing to family budgets? The stress and pressure they are putting on family dynamics because of dwindling available cash for other family needs?
Erik(Thursday, May 17 18 01:48 pm EDT)
I am upset about the Community Center losing more and more money and costing the taxpayers more with that annual subsidy. The numbskulls on the city council all seem serene about the whole thing. Maybe they like the taxpayers subsidizing their health club membership because make no mistake the community center is really a health club for Claremont’s elite. The entitled prigs, who run the city like their own fiefdom. City and school unionized employees and certain citizens representing local special interests that all take advantage of the working class citizens of Claremont.
Robert(Thursday, May 17 18 10:52 am EDT)
What about the property assessments that the city manager is fast tracking? The computerized statistical analysis is a fraud to greatly increase property assessments to greatly decrease the property tax rate. It is a gimmick that we all experienced before under the past manager that added over $100 million to the city’s overall property value during a deep recession. It was total BS and I remember the Sullivan Report saying that it was. Finally, the property assessments became so divorced from reality that the state DRA interceded and forced a revaluation that lowered property values down to reality eliminating that $100 million excess assessment that was cheating practically every property owner in Claremont. This is the $100 million that the city manager, the finance director, Mayor Lovett and the other councilors all mourn the loss of as if it were a close personal friend or relative. The new city manager, also hailing from Taxachusetts, is trying to start the whole process over again with this computerized revaluation to presumably regain those lost millions of inflated property assessments. Unfortunately, the councilors we have our all on board because they want to continue spending lots of money and the only way they can do it is by lowering the tax rate to hide from the public the true cost of all their out-of-control spending. They are ruining the city for the working-class residents who are only seen by the city councilors and administrators as cash cows to be milked mercilessly.
Tom(Thursday, May 17 18 10:40 am EDT)
I am not happy about the CDA getting off the hook by no longer having to pay $20,000 a year for economic development services their organization receives from the city. I know they are city offshoot organization but still they should have to pay their fair share like everyone else. It is more of the ole boy’s club mentality when the taxpaying public is screwed because of backroom dealing at City Hall. I thought a new city manager and some new councilors would change things but it is just different faces at the helm doing more of the same shenanigans behind our backs.
Mark(Thursday, May 17 18 09:08 am EDT)
I don’t like the idea of pulling money out of the rainy day fund to temporarily cut $.55 from the tax hike. So much is being withdrawn from the cash reserve account that this soon will be nothing left except much higher taxes for everyone. I am very disappointed with our city councilors. All they seem to do is spend money for things that give Claremont very little bang for their buck.
Steve(Thursday, May 17 18 08:46 am EDT)
About $1 million of new spending and no new roadwork projects to show for it because none of those million dollars is going for roadwork maintenance and reconstruction. Wrongheaded thinking from lamebrain city councilors, city department directors and a new city manager. People need to speak up before it is too late because McNutt, Lovett, Damren and the rest of the clods do not know what they are doing.
Jennifer(Wednesday, May 16 18 05:27 pm EDT)
The spending preferences are all wrong. The roads in Claremont are horrendous. Hiring more consultants and starting new expensive projects without bidding out the contracts is insane but they have the support of Mayor Lovett and the other eight city councilors. The voters must wake up and begin to elect representatives with more common sense.
Todd(Wednesday, May 16 18 05:08 pm EDT)
McNutt is nuts and so are the city councilors who hired him. He wants to add almost $1 million of new spending to the budget and not one penny of it is going to fixing up the deteriorating roads. He wants a property reassessment so he can hike up all the property assessments. It’s more like a secret tax that lowers the property tax rate but costs everyone a hell of a lot more in the tax bill because their property assessment went up and that means they pay more not only for the city but for the county and the schools too. Then for his next stupid human trick, he wants to sink $5 million of our tax money into the dying downtown. What will we get for it? Minimum wage jobs and more welfare families to take care of, as if we don’t have enough already. The idiots on the council hired a real winner here, but then they all seem to be on board with this cockamamie plan too. I thought the new councilors were going to change things but they seem to be just as bad as the ones they replaced. The Claremont taxpayers are about to get royally screwed.
Industrial Property Owner(Wednesday, May 16 18 03:51 pm EDT)
Articles such as today’s is the reason why the Sullivan Report is so valued by the citizens wishing to be completely informed about local government affairs. There is a wealth of information in the budget exposé that should give residents much for food for thought. I must say I am greatly disappointed with Ryan McNutt. He is turning out to be a younger version of his predecessor, sharing similar views of local governance. Tax-and-spend policies is not what Claremont needs at this present juncture. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Maranville make an excellent point in regards to the ROI (return on investment) for the taxpayers for this proposed $5 million plus downtown revitalization project. A few low wage scale jobs and apartment dwellers producing increase student population in Claremont’s local schools does nothing for economic development but it certainly has many negative ramifications for the local tax rate. Analyzing this proposed investment rationally without bias only arrive at one conclusion, this will be a very bad investment for Claremont taxpayers. Another costly government project with pie-in-the-sky promises that will never materialize such as those that were made with the Downtown TIF District and the Claremont Savings Bank Community Center, that both require ongoing taxpayer cash infusions because cost estimates that were used to sell the taxpaying public on these projects were unrealistic at best and fraudulent at worst. Of course, that would depend upon your point of view. I will review this information in more depth and comment further at another time.
Gail(Wednesday, May 16 18 01:51 pm EDT)
Amazing article. My head is still swimming from all the detailed information in the article. I am going to read it again tonight when I get home so I can absorb all the information. I will comment again later because I have some deep concerns about our new city manager and city council being up to the challenge because all they seem to want to do is spend money and cross their fingers and hope for good results. That is not management that is wishful thinking. Claremont deserves better leadership than what we've got.
unstuck(Wednesday, May 16 18 01:50 pm EDT)
I'm just about at the 1 year mark of not paying Claremont taxes.I haven't heard anything from city hall.i figure on 2 more years.The gras in knee high and the paint falling off the house looks a sight! I'm done caring about Claremont with the greed the civil servants have shown.Looks like this new manager is just as bad as the last.Good luck collecting any more money from the broke folks of Claremont,they are out of gas friend.
Jim Sullivan(Wednesday, May 16 18 12:49 pm EDT)
New article just published on the News Flashes page. An in-depth examination of Claremont City Manager Ryan McNutt's Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal. It is a long article with lots of information, as it took some time to examine these municipal budgets with a fine tooth comb.
Tony(Tuesday, May 15 18 03:29 pm EDT)
Good to see the low turn out and poor community forum input.
Jim Sullivan(Wednesday, May 09 18 05:28 pm EDT)
City Officials postponed the refuse tax deed agenda item until the Council's May 23rd meeting. We will see if Municipal Administration Officials include a list of the properties they will recommend that the Council not take possession of through the tax deeding process in the May 23 Council information packet. We will also see if the building containing Councilor Nick Koloski's bar and other businesses makes that list once again!
Jim Sullivan(Wednesday, May 09 18 12:49 pm EDT)
I received a letter dated today authored by Claremont City Manager Ryan McNutt. This was a response to my NH Right to Know Law Request for Information for a copy of the list of properties that the McNutt Administration was going to recommend that the City Council not take under the tax deeding process.
McNutt's response; "The Refuse Tax Deed item will be removed from the May 9 Council agenda". The City Administration did not release the document listing the properties they do not wish to seize through the tax deeding process. So those properties still remain a secret.
Todd(Monday, May 07 18 05:38 pm EDT)
The councilors really screwed up this time. Both of you have been saying for months how the councilors need to familiarize themselves with correct protocol and procedures and they ignore that good advice and continue to wallow in their ignorance. Now the worm has turned and it is time for them to pay the piper for their arrogance and stupidity. I cannot wait to read about what the councilors really think about the city manager. It might not be flattering.
Jim Sullivan(Monday, May 07 18 04:23 pm EDT)
Gail, the McNutt Administration published the Claremont City Council information packet for Wednesday’s meeting on the City website today. Missing from the information packet was a list of the multiple year tax delinquent properties that the administration is going to recommend that the Council refuse to take under the tax deeding process. As promised we have submitted a request for that information under the NH Right to Know Law to the City Manager, his executive assistant and we also carbon copied Mayor Charlene Lovett.
Several interesting things in this information packet but one in particular I wish to mention now. Reviewing the April 11, 2018 meeting minutes, the Council went into a nonpublic meeting session regarding the City Manager’s quarterly evaluation. When the Council exited the meeting, they adjourned without sealing the meeting minutes. According to NH RSA 91 – A: 3 III, unsealed nonpublic meeting minutes are available to the public after 72 hours. The public meeting minutes state that City Councilor Scott Pope took those nonpublic meeting minutes. I have submitted an official request for those meeting minutes with the intent to publish them on this website once we receive them. I included in the request incontrovertible proof of the legality for this document request. The NH RSA stating that unsealed meeting minutes are available to the public after 72 hours and a copy of the public meeting minutes before and after the nonpublic meeting, which irrefutably shows that the Council did not seal the meeting minutes, thus now making those nonpublic meeting minutes a public document subject to public inspection by anyone making a request, which I have officially done. I submitted this official request to the City Manager, his executive assistant and I also, carbon copied Mayor Charlene Lovett.
It will be interesting to see if Claremont City Officials comply with the law and provide a copy of Councilor Scott Pope’s meeting minutes or if they will try to get creative to subvert the law. Several possibilities spring to mind such as trying to retroactively insert a motion to seal the nonpublic meeting minutes into the official record claiming a typographical error or some other cockamamie lame unbelievable excuse. Perhaps Pope, a schoolteacher, will claim his dog ate the meeting minutes, or perhaps claim that he never actually took any meeting minutes, or that he lost them, etc. Of course, they could also foolishly decide to illegally redact the meeting minutes or illegally edit those meeting minutes after the fact.
We hope Claremont City Officials will have the decency and the integrity to comply with the law and provide us with Councilor Scott Pope’s unaltered meeting minutes. Time will tell.
Tony(Monday, May 07 18 03:33 pm EDT)
Glad to see you have kept this no names required. That way the slander and outrageous misinformation can continue with no way for victims to respond. Good thinking to completely revamp your page, but leave the one thing to add truth to you page turned off.
Jim Sullivan(Sunday, May 06 18 02:25 pm EDT)
Excellent question Gail. We may know the answer to that question as soon as Monday when the City Council meeting information packet is published on the City website. It should include an itemized list of all the addresses of the properties that the McNutt Administration is recommending that the Council not take possession of through the tax deeding process for failure to pay property taxes for several years. Rest assured we will file a Right to Know Request if for some reason that document is missing or if it fails to identify each of the parcels not to be seized. City Officials could easily do that for example by identifying the properties by only using map and lot numbers when the capability to search for property ownership via map and lot number has been removed from the City's GIS System. Especially since that method has never been available via the Vision Appraisal website, the only other online source for this material). Gail, do not worry because we want to know the answer to that question ourselves as do our readers and we will make sure that all of you know the truth once that information becomes available.
Gail(Saturday, May 05 18 03:10 pm EDT)
Nice to see you back, we missed you.
The agenda for the next city council meeting has the council scheduled to refuse taking certain property tax delinquent again. Is Council man Nick Koloski's landlord going to get another years free ride from paying his property taxes again continue to keep their building without paying property taxes? This good old boy network is getting old and I am tired of the taxpayers getting stuck with the bill all the time. I had hoped that Mr. McNutt would be different but he is just a dimwitted version of his predecessor. Perhaps because the city councilors we elect want to maintain Claremont's good old boy /one hand washes the other with political favors political system.
Mike(Saturday, May 05 18 02:20 pm EDT)
Good timing with your return. McNutt just doesn't get it. Another Taxachusetts tax-and-spend bureaucrat who can't control his spending urges. Lovett and the other incumbent councilors are all salivating with anticipation at the thought of spending more of the taxpayers money on things that will not bring prosperity to Claremont or lower the insanely high property tax burden.These brain-dead bureaucratic drones only know one thing spend, spend, spend! The newbies on the Council are not showing any signs of intelligence or differences of opinion. I hope that will change with the budget review but I am not holding my breath. I have seen it time and time again when the candidates promise anything and everything to the voters so they can get elected and then once they are there all the false promises that they made a.k.a. lies go right out the window. I am upset with this tax increase the city manager wants but I am more concerned about the councilors adding more spending to the budget to bring the tax increase up even higher. I look forward to reading your articles so I can better educate myself about how our elected officials are stabbing all of their constituents right in the back. At least those constituents who do not have these councilors in their pocket like the city's unionized employees and a few of the nonprofits like the maker space outfit they get the building for practically nothing and tax breaks on top of that and the nonprofit running the bus service that will probably get a nice big handout from the taxpayers again this year. It is just sickening to see how the taxpayers are so shabbily treated by their elected leaders.
Jim Sullivan(Saturday, May 05 18 08:55 am EDT)
I would like to thank everyone for their comments. We will be doing an in-depth article regarding the City Manager's proposed fiscal year 2019 municipal budget. While the Valley News did a superior job over the Eagle Times regarding the reporting of the highlights of the budget proposal, both reporters barely scratched the surface and missed several interesting and / or disturbing items within the budget proposal. We have been perusing the electronic copy of the budget proposal that is available on the city website and on Friday I purchased a hard copy of the budget proposal from the city. We will now closely analyze the material, cross-reference it with other data that we have in our possession and then provide you all with a detailed analysis of our initial findings. We will also need to submit a Right to Know request to the City Manager's Office for information and clarification of several things we found already. Once we receive this information we will publish a follow-up article to keep our readers fully apprised of what is really going on with their tax dollars because we all know from past experience that the local press will neither take the time or initiative to do any legitimate investigative journalism regarding this budget proposal nor will they print a single word that might be construed as critical or harsh in regards to any local government officials or any of their proposals. What passes for conventional journalism in Claremont these days is really public relations style politically correctly worded press releases disguised as news reports. This is why we do what we do, to inform the public about the important things that they should know about that for whatever reason local government officials and the conventional local press choose to either suppress or ignore.
Steve(Friday, May 04 18 08:15 am EDT)
I am happy to see that you are back in business. I missed not getting the truth about city and school affairs. Both of you do a wonderful service for the public. Will you be doing an in-depth article about Mr. McNutt's new budget?
William(Thursday, May 03 18 02:16 pm EDT)
It is so good to see you once again publishing articles. It is important now more than ever with the city manager's new spending budget. I think he is clueless about how to fix the city's financial problems. His answer seems to be spend money and don't stop until things are better. He does not seem to realize that more spending and higher taxes will make matters worse not better. I fear he may get his way because there are few city councilors with any common sense. The incumbents are all gung-ho about spending more and more money for things that do nothing to make Claremont better. I watch the meetings on CCTV and I cannot believe my eyes and ears as to how stupid our elected representatives are. They cannot conduct a proper meeting or act professionally and they are so purposefully ignorant about municipal finance and rules and regulations that it is staggering. It is no wonder that Claremont continues to wither and die because of mismanagement and overspending. Please keep us informed about this new budget because I agree with Todd the reporters in Claremont are all in bed with the city and school leaders. The do not want to rock the boat and they just write whatever they are told without any investigation into what is really true. Please keep up the good work. The Sullivan Report is a local institution of truth that Claremont cannot live without. Thank you.
Todd(Thursday, May 03 18 12:33 pm EDT)
Nice to see you guys back on the job. I suppose you saw the papers today about the big tax hike the city manager wants to shove down our throats after telling how good it is for us. I don't think he has any idea what he is doing and neither do any of the city councilors. The blind leading the blind or should I say the ignorant leading the ignorant. Will you guys be doing a story about this budget proposal too? I doubt the reporters at the Valley News and the Eagle Times told us everything that the taxpayers need to know about this budget proposal. You guys always do a better job of drilling down and getting at the truth.
Sarah(Thursday, May 03 18 08:52 am EDT)
Welcome back. Your readers have missed you. The other reporters for the Claremont beat do not scrutinize government officials as well as you do. In truth, they do not scrutinize government officials at all. This is why the Sullivan Report is so important to the citizens of Claremont.