Danbury faces a quadruple whammy in the coming budget season, Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton told the department heads Thursday.
The state is cutting aid. Federal stimulus money that reached almost $4 million last year for the city and schools combined will be gone next year, and negotiated employee benefits and pay raises may cost the city another $3 million. That could lead to layoffs in the budget that starts July 1, 2011.
Boughton said next year's revenues will be down nearly $8 million and it's expenses if every department budget comes in flat will rise almost $3 million. That is a bad scenario, but it is possible, Boughton said.
[...]
"The state is talking about cutting services and shared pain," Boughton said. "Just tell us straight. What that translates into is they're doing less and they're giving us less money."
He said for Danbury, that means there are no sacred cows in the budget
"Everything is on the table. You'll see layoffs," Boughton said.
And I bet he still thinks not hiring a FULL-TIME Economic Director was a good idea...and lets not started on:
the decline in tax revenue due to the number of large companies (i.e. JOBS) that left Danbury in the last four years, or
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
