Click above to View Action History

SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2007

ATTENDANCE: Carvin Hilliard, Chairman; Gwen Briggs.

STAFF: Tom Hamilton, Finance Director; Fred Gilden, Comptroller.

OTHERS: Councilman Bill Krummel; Hal Alvord, Director of Public Works; Fred Wilms, Chairman, Board of Estimate & Taxation.

The meeting was called to order at 6:20 p.m. by the Chairman, who noted that there was not a quorum present.

DISCUSSION ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 OPERATING BUDGET

Mr. Hamilton said he was waiting for a per square foot cost of Board of Education buildings, which Mr. Gorian will provide. He reviewed his exhibits as follows:

EXHIBIT 1 – COST OF ADDITIONAL MASON POSITION

Mr. Hamilton said this position has a base salary of $45,578 plus benefits, raising the cost to $76,802. The role of the Council is to set an appropriations cap (total expenditures less governmental grants). The cap would be $248,367 according to his recommendation. The Council can change this cap. Adding the cost of an additional mason would increase the cap. The Board of Estimate has line item control.

The Chairman said that as a Council, they should express their opinions. He is concerned about improving the infrastructure. They should work with Mr. Alvord and give him more of what he is asking for. The Chairman said that was the opinion of this Committee. This will affect their AAA bond rating.

Ms. Briggs agreed with the Chairman. She said they need to maintain the systems they have. They would like to hopefully approve this additional position. They should look at what is going on in the school budget. There are people being damaged by the city’s past neglect. It is their committee’s consensus that the Board of Education budget needs to be looked at again.

The Chairman said they support public education, but the balance has shifted to the Board of Education. They need to do more to support the infrastructure, but they have not had the funding, much of which is due to the amount of the Board of Education budgets in the past. It is time to balance this out.

Mr. Hamilton reviewed the 9 exhibits:

Exhibit 1 - Cost of Additional Mason position - DPW

Exhibit 2 - Consumer Price Index (New York Metro Area) -1996 to 2006

Exhibit 3 - Municipal Salary Increases - State of Connecticut Comparisons

Exhibit 4- Per Square Foot Cost to Operate City Buildings

Exhibit 5 - History of Appropriations to Board of Education and Student Enrollment

Exhibit 6 - 7 Year History of Norwalk's Per Pupil Expenditures as Reported by the State Department of Education

..
Exhibit 7 - History of Board of Education Electricity Usage (KwH)

Exhibit 8 - History of Board of Education Heating Oil Usage (gallons)

Exhibit 9 - Teacher and Bd of Ed Administrator Salary Increases - State of CT Comparisons

Regarding Exhibit #5, Mr. Hamilton said that student enrollment is declining.

Mr. Krummel asked Mr. Hamilton why maintenance of storm drains has been cut back from $500,000 to $250,000. There should be intensive effort to try to relieve the flooding problems. The request to add a layer of the storm sewer system to the GIS system: They don’t know where a lot of the storm sewers, easements, etc. are located. They need this on their GIS map to address problems as they come up. They are being penny wise and pound foolish on the infrastructure, such as the Fort Point Street sewer line into the water pollution control, where they did back up, a problem that would have shut down sewer service to East Norwalk. People have suffered from flooding problems. Protecting the homes of their residents should be their paramount job.

The Chairman said he understands that the infrastructure was neglected in prior years; they need to start now.

Mr. Hamilton said it was clear that the City under-invested in infrastructure for a long time, but it involves all types of infrastructure, not just sewers. The school building program instituted a few years ago was needed. They have to set priorities and balance how much people can and are willing to pay, and there will always be more wants and needs than the ability to pay. What was projected in last year’s Capital budget for five years for budgets was not more than $500,000 per year, in contrast to what is in this year’s Capital budget, which is much more. The City has to do something about the flooding situation, and they are taking significant steps to address the most serious drainage problems.

Regarding the Operating budget, Mr. Hamilton said that the $250,000 allocated in 2006-07 was shepherded by the Board of Estimate. Mr. Alvord has asked for an additional $250,000, but the recommendation is to keep it at $250,000. The Council needs to be clear in its guidance. Its role is to set the cap, but the danger is thinking they can set a lower cap while adding money to the Board of Education. If the Council wants to add money to Public Works, they either need to set a higher cap or decide where the money should be taken from.

The Chairman said that was a fair point and the responsibility of the Council. Mr. Hamilton said that would give guidance to the Board of Estimate.

Jerry Curti asked Mr. Hamilton why he reduced the $500,000 to $250,000. He said that Mr. Hamilton does not live in a flood-prone area. He does not understand his expertise in making line item cuts – does he have a degree in engineering? Does this committee have recommendations on where money can be cut or added or can they only set a cap? The Chairman said that Mr. Hamilton takes direction from this committee. He further noted that there had been no money in the Operating budget for storm drainage previously. Mr. Hamilton said his recommendation was that there should be money in the budget for the new program at the same funding level. Full funding would lead to a 12% tax increase and the Mayor will not allow an increase of that size. His degrees are in Public Administration and he has worked in several cities in Connecticut on budgets for many years. They are trying to bring the budget to a level that the taxpayers can afford. He looks for areas with duplication in the budget, ways to refinance City debt, reduce pension contributions, other sources of revenue, interest income, increase state aid, tax collection procedures to reduce the amount they have to raise from taxpayers. The number he proposed is one that the Mayor, the Chairman of the Board of Estimate & Taxation and the President of the Common Council are satisfied with. The big driver is Public Works, which is asking for a 15% increase in their budget.

Ms. Briggs said there are many things in the budget mandated by union contracts or State mandates. Mr. Hamilton said most of their costs are in labor, benefits and services and are fixed costs. Ms. Briggs said that the citizens have to decide which direction to go in. Mr. Hamilton said there are not many discretionary services.

Mr. Krummel said this situation is similar to that of six years ago when there was concern about the school system infrastructure. They wanted to take preventative measures.

At 7:05 p.m., Mr. Hempstead arrived at the meeting. There was still not a quorum.

Mr. Krummel continued, saying that these long range major improvements need start-up money now to do the necessary preliminary work. Mr. Hamilton said that the full request for Buckingham and Lockwood is in the budget. Appropriating more money will not accomplish completion of repairs any quicker. With Olmstead, the full amount is in the 07-08 budget as well. Mr. Krummel said they also need more vacuum trucks (4) to clean out the catch basins, etc. Mr. Hamilton said that, as described by DPW staff, the present fleet consists of one truck that will blow out and another that will suck in, and money was placed in next year’s Capital budget and that of the year before to replace on truck. One is due in soon and the other is on order and will arrive later in 2007. This will provide two brand new trucks to replace the two trucks. The department asked for two more trucks and additional staff, which goes hand in hand. He recommended not adding the additional staff. There were other staffing requests that were of a higher priority to the department. They cannot afford to add all of the additional staffing requests.

Diane Cece said they blame the process, not the person. They are not attacking Mr. Hamilton personally, but they feel things are very arbitrary. This enlightens them. They trust the Board of Estimate and the Council to ask the questions they cannot. They believe the money is there but it is a matter of priority as to the infrastructure. They are perpetually understaffed and under funded and they want people to be creative. There is an issue around the fund balance. They will speak before the Board of Estimate and the Council. She requested a copy of the budget exhibits, which she was given.

Dee Arnone, 39 Olmstead Place, asked Mr. Alvord how many storm drains there are in the city; Mr. Alvord responded that there are 9,000. Mr. Arnone asked if having two trucks would make them wear out quicker. He said this would be a lot of strain on two trucks. Mr. Hamilton said these trucks cost $250,000 and it did not make sense to buy equipment without staff.

Mr. Arnone asked if there was anyone who could tell him what he should do when it rains.

The Chairman said that Mr. Alvord had said it was a process. Maybe the residents can tell them. Mr. Hamilton said part of the money for Olmstead is to fund actual improvements. Buckingham and Lockwood will take a while because of permitting issues.

Mr. Alvord said there is a connection between staffing and the vacuum trucks. One truck is being auctioned as scrap, leaving three trucks. At any given time, all three trucks are broken at the same time. The additional staffing would allow them to implement a comprehensive system on the storm drainage system. Until last year, they were not asking for money for storm drainage because they did not have the data to ask for anything else. Last year, they identified blocked portions of the storm drainage system. Infrastructure is going to fail and they will have to deal with it. The question is whether they do it wisely or not.

Donna Rostocky, 35 Olmstead Place, said this is a good example of why Public Works needs the $250,000 that was cut out of the budget.

Mr. Hempstead asked if the $250,000 was tied into the two trucks; Mr. Alvord said it was not.

Lisa Ravecchio, 33 Buckingham Place, said in the last ten years, Public Works had 151 employees in 1997 and now there are 137. She also cited the increase in Board of Education employees at the same time there is a decrease in enrollment.

Mr. Hempstead asked, if they do nothing, what would the budget increase be? Mr. Hamilton said it is 5.9%. There will be a 6.1% increase in the tax levy. CPI is 3.8%. A 3.8% expenditure increase would be $5,250,000; a 4% increase would be $4,800,000. The Board of Education is asking for an increase of 8.25%; he is recommending 4%. Taking the money from the Board of Education would still allow the Board of Education a 1% increase.

Discussion took place on the per pupil expenditure and the decrease in enrollment. Mr. Hempstead noted that no one has ever cut a Board of Education budget; they have only cut the increase.

Re the additional mason request, Mr. Hempstead asked if it would be better used (the money) in the general drainage account. Mr. Alvord said the answer was no because that person would also do various jobs. If they do work on Buckingham and Lockwood, they have done something but not enough for the infrastructure until he has a comprehensive infrastructure plan.

Ms. Briggs asked about the proposed fund balance. Mr. Hamilton said it does not affect the cap. The recommended draw down on fund balance is $3,000,000 for next year. The budget this year was predicated on a $1,500,000 draw down on fund balance which may be closer to $2,000,000 because of an increase in police overtime. There is an additional $1,000,000 they will need to appropriate to fund the 2008 revaluation, which he recommends be appropriated by a special appropriation for 2007-08, leaving approximately $24,000,000 projected for 2008. The budget for 2008-09 will be as bad or worse than this year’s budget. Debt service levels off in 2009-10.

Ms. Briggs asked about an increase in the grand list with the development going on. Mr. Hamilton said that will help, but even with all of the development proposed, it is still a few years away.

Mr. Hamilton asked what a 3.8% would be to the Board of Education’s current budget. Mr. Hamilton said it would be a decrease of $950,000 from the recommended budget and an increase of $5,183,000. Mr. Hempstead said he would prefer a bigger cut from the Board of Education. He would prefer that money go to other departments, including more police officers.

The Chairman said they have to set their priorities. They have been taking about more money for Public Works to deal with flooding problems.

A 3.8% cut across the board would lead to a budget of $5,250,000. Mr. Hempstead said that is the CPI. Additional money should go for flooding problems and to other departments. Mr. Hamilton said this would result in significant cuts throughout the city. Mr. Hempstead said that the money should come from the Board of Education and be given to Public Works and other departments such as the Police Department. Ms. Briggs agreed. Mr. Hamilton noted that debt service is going up by 13%. Mr. Hempstead said that the cap should be set slightly lower and the decrease should come from the Board of Education side.

The Chairman said they have to be more precise.

Mr. Hempstead asked if debt could be refinanced into different modes. Mr. Hamilton said 20 year debt is the maximum they can do under state law.

Mr. Hamilton said the best option, given that there was not a quorum tonight to make a decision on the cap, is to pass through the number presented and the decision made on the Council floor. The Chairman, however, decided that there would be another Finance Committee meeting on Monday at 6 p.m.

Mr. Hempstead asked Mr. Hamilton what a $100,000 decrease in the Board of Education budget would amount to. He would like to know average salaries of the various unions plus those on the city side.

RECOMMEND OPERATING BUDGET CAP FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 OPERATING BUDGET TO THE COMMON COUNCIL

Due to the lack of a quorum, this item was not discussed.

The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl Telesco
Telesco Secretarial Services