So, the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton debt analysis has been tabled and uploaded to the Chelsea web site. Warts and all. A quick reading found at least 3 errors, some wrong assumptions and glaring omissions. Junk, disappointed. However, even with their totally wrong projections, outright errors, opaque allocations of subventions it still shows that my point on investment combatting tax and infrastructure deficits is valid and sustainable. The curve on projected revenue is way off and *STILL* it shows that the infrastructure is not only affordable, but positive over the 2013-2018 timeframe. Ive been saying this from the beginning, that the planned development is the way to remain independent of Gatineau and control our tax and infrastructure needs. We either embrace the notion that Chelsea can have a centre for tourism, business, services or we just accept 4% per year and a never ending infrastructure deficit. Or join Aylmer (Gatineau) by hooking up with their system. Hooking up is always full of risk. Barb will no doubt be by here soon with a half empty glass. Mine is half full. Ive already sent my complaints to the DG about this analysis. I am posting a link to it here so that you Chelsea savages can read the document and hopefully engage in a serious discussion about debt and investment. Im not hopeful, but here I am. chelsea.ca/?q=content/report-financial-framework-municipality-2014-2018 PS I dont know what the 9.6M expenditure in 2016 is, I can only guess it is for roads. I have asked the DG by email.
Posted on: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 02:40:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015