Douglas Sutton, Joseph Mann (7:50 p.m.), Matthew
Miklave (8:30 p.m.)
STAFF: Jack Miller, Finance Director; Richard
Darling,
Director Budgets & Systems; Lisa Biagarelli,
Tax Collector; External Auditors
Mr. Kimmel called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. and moved
the discussion on the Elderly Tax Relief Program up on the agenda for the
benefit of the citizens wishing to comment.APPROVE
MINUTESOne correction was noted: Page 4, Ms.
McCarthy said Mr. Kimmel’s understanding was correct should have read
incorrect.** MR. KIMMEL MOVED TO ACCEPT
THE MINUTES OF
DECEMBER 5, 2001 AS CORRECTED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.CLAIMS
COMMITTEE AGENDAMr. Mann arrived at 7:50 p.m.Ms.
Biagiarelli summarized the claims report. She pointed out that an approval
was needed with regard to the last page on which Nissan made a special request
in the amount of $6,021.62. ** MR. KIMMEL MOVED
TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL
REQUEST FOR NISSAN MOTORS.
** MOTION PASSED WITH FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR, ONE
ABSTENTION (MR. MANN).
DELINQUENT TAX REPORTMs.
Biagiarelli summarized the delinquent taxpayers report showing the highest
outstanding dollar amounts. Delinquent collection is in process on City and
Board of Education employees who owe taxes. December was spent on collecting
personal property taxes that were delinquent.Mr. Kimmel
stated that it seems to be an overwhelming task of sending out attorneys to
collect taxes. He inquired whether there are other options for collecting
the taxes. Ms. Biagiarelli stated that the tax collection is in better condition
than it has been in past years. Lien assignments have been imposed and another
option is tax auctions. This option would include all properties regardless
of the position of the individual, i.e., elderly, disabled. She stated that
the current system works well now. Once an account goes to attorney, the control
is in the attorney’s hands, not the Tax Office. Mr.
Kimmel asked whether the City functions as neighboring towns. Ms. Biagiarelli
stated that accounts are turned over after two years and the accounts are
reported on by the attorneys regularly to the Tax Office. Mr. Kimmel asked
to have some ideas that might streamline the process and collect the taxes
more quickly and efficiently. Ms. Biagiarelli will present options that she
had presented to the previous Committee which she feels reflects the weak
point being personal property. Ms. Biagiarelli reported
verbally on the December collections. There is a high collection rate going
on for current taxes, but the delinquent collections are low.Mr.
Miller commented that Norwalk’s collection rate exceeds that of Stamford.Mr.
Miklave arrived at 8:30 p.m.PRESENTATION BY EXTERNAL
AUDITTORSMr. Miller stated that a presentation
of the outside audit of the accounts and operations would be made. The auditors
distributed the communications that are mandated for the client by the Government
and the State (A-133 and State Signle Audit). This is an annual process. Mr.
Miller commented that things that come out of the report may require actions
by the department involved. He suggested that Mr. Kimmel inquire what actions
would be taken to correct the ED001findings from the Board of Education. The
auditor stated that the five pages of information were submitted by December
31, 2001 as required. Mr. Kimmel asked that the information be ready for presentation
at the next meeting for review.He also inquired about
the two audits headlined on the written report. The auditors explained the
reports related to grants and financial reporting standards. Mr.
Kimmel inquired whether there is a comment made when the dollars shown differ
greatly from the budget at year-end. The auditors stated that if it is extreme,
a notation is made. Mr. Miller commented that there is a conservate amount
projected so there may be a difference. All the submitted
data from the audit will be available in written format at the next meeting.DISCUSSION
OF ELDERLY TAX RELIEF PROGRAMMr. Kimmel stated
that this item was added due to the household provision that was added last
year to the Ordinance and budget planning process that is going on at this
time.Mr. Whitman was asked to address the Committee
as members are new and unfamiliar with the Ordinance. He gave an overview
of the provision for the elderly. He stated that the State of Connecticut
has two programs for the elderly, a "Freeze Program", which applies
only to those who applied when it was instituted, and the Homeowner Tax Credit
Program. The City programs are reimbused by the State and at no cost to the
City. There are currently approximately 1,050 people on the program at a cost
of $550,000 to $575,000.Mr. Kimmel read the provisions
and the requirements to obtain the tax relief. Mr. Whitman explained the application
period which is a two year cycle to put citizens into the program. Mr. Kimmel
stated that he did not feel he wanted to have the listing of those receiving
the assistance. This was approved in Ordinance to be distributed to the Council
members. The list has not been issued as yet according to Mr. Whitman.Mr.
Kimmel stated his concern about the consideration of household income due
to additional relatives in the house causing some elderly to become ineligible.
He stated that looking at the income of other individuals in the home that
may put the elderly over, is unfair.Mr. Whitman commented
that there are a few towns doing this and he did not know about any others
with household provisions in their ordinance. A survey was conducted and 58%
did not approve of the provision. People had mentioned that the citizens had
brought this up for review since they submitted the information and it made
them ineligible. It was also questioned by some that a loop hole was created
because people might put the property in the name of someone who was eligible
although they were not.Mr. Kimmel said he did not think
it was fair that if someone had some complex family issues that were involved,
returning children due to divorce or illness, that the City could not just
assume that the people were not eligible.Mr. Whitman
stated it is a lot of work to assess this process. He stated that it was brought
to his office by angry citizens and those who don’t qualify because of people
in the home making them being over income. Mr. Mann
stated that he did not recall hearing the explanation given this evening by
Mr. Whitman. He felt that the household provision be repealed in light of
the comments by Mr. Whitman and Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller stated that there is
no extra time being expended and the departments are not policing peoples’
homes. Mr. Perone inquired how the amount of relief
was developed. Mr. Whitman stated that the Council set the amount. He stated
that it is balanced to what the State sets and the City uses a percentage
of that number to determine the amount annually.Mr.
Miller commented that the Ordinance that provided the relief had not been
changed since 1983. This was an extremely modest relief. The projection is
approximately $575,00 that would have to be retrieve from others. Mr.
Perone asked what does the department do if a complaint is filed about a neighbor.
Mr. Whitman stated that there was no answer at this time as there have been
no incidences of this activity. He stated the procedure is being written up
to handle such calls. The relief was requested by individuals, it was not
put into place because neighbors called on others. Mr.
Perone stated that if an individual is at $33,500 and it goes up to $33,600
on the odd year, how does the department handle it. Mr. Whitman stated that
if the income goes up or down, the individual is to notify the Tax Assessor’s
office, but they do not police this and hopefully people will contact the
office. Mr. Baker inquired what triggered the survey.
Mr. Whitman stated it was to find out what people were seeking and those who
might qualify for a relief, how they felt about it.Mr.
Mann commented that the elderly were given an Ordinance that shorted them.
However, they are law abiding and they will comply now that it is law. He
requested a copy of the survey to review for this Committee.Mr.
Kimmel suggested a joint public hearing of this Committee and the Ordinance
committee to gather further information. The Council members present said
they would relay this back to the Ordinance Committee for arranging the joint
meeting.Mr. Miklave asked to see the paperwork that
has to be filled out for the relief. He also asked if there was a count of
households turned down due to household finances being over limit. Mr. Whitman
stated there may be none as 2000 was an off year. There is no tracking at
this point. Timing is critical as the new applications must go out by law
on February 1, 2002. ** MR. KIMMEL MOVED TO HAVE
A JOINT MEETING WITH
THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE, ON A DATE THAT IS CONVENIENT
FOR THEM, TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ELDERLY TAX RELIEF PROGRAM ORDINANCE
FOR FURTHER PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND INFORMATION GATHERING.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.Ms.
Sullivan stated that some of the citizens are unhappy people and were not
pleased to have their names on a list. She further stated that two younger
people living with an elderly person would not be on it just to collect $500
off their taxes. She stated some are together due to illness, broken marriages
and the City should not judge the individuals. She stated that there are just
about 1,000 asking for relief for themselves, including elderly and the disabled/handicapped.
She further stated that the State guidelines are for
the entire State. Norwalk sits in Fairfield County, the highest in the Union.
She stated that the guidelines do not fit Norwalk, the guidelines should be
regional. She said that the elderly comprised and accepted the higher number
and the Council added the household headcount "behind closed doors"
after the elderly agreed to the Ordinance. The average owner has lived in
their homes for 35 plus years and they have paid taxes all those years. She
submitted an article from Time Magazine. She said the elderly will
not break the law, but they will complain and still pay the tax.APPROVE
RESOLUTIONMr. Miller introduced the need for
the special appropriation for a roofing replacement project.Mr.
Kimmel resolved to:** APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE
OF $3,915,000.00 BONDS OF THE CITY TO MEET THE APPROPRIATION
OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND THE MAKING OF TEMPORARY
BORROWINGS FOR SUCH PURPOSE. THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SPECIAL CAPITAL
BUDGET APPROPRIATION OF $3,915,000.00 FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION ROOF
REPLACEMENT PROJECT-ACCOUNT NO. 09025010-5777-C0242 WHICH WAS APPROVED
BY THE COMMON COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 11, 2001.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.UPDATE
ON FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 OPERATING BUDGETMr. Kimmel
asked Mr. Miller to briefly describe the Norwalk districts.Mr.
Miller distributed a summary of the departmental requests, projected mill
rate based on these requests, distribution of the Tax Levy and a copy of the
Mayor’s letter to the departments. The Mayor has requested that the department
heads review their requests and reduce the amounts to lower the operating
budget for 2002-2003. PriceWaterhouseCoopers has been asked to look at the
Board of Education requests. Mr. Miller presented a proforma, which means
the numbers were as requested with no changes.The profoma
is the number the Finance Department would have expected. Mr.
Kimmel asked questions of Mr. Miller which he addressed individually regarding
the proforma budget items.Mr. Miklave noted some additional
items under Less Non-Tax Revenues. He inquired whether there would be reductions.
Mr. Miller commented the number is reasonably safe. Mr. Miklave further inquired
about the fund balance transfers. Mr. Miller responded that a lower that number
opens the City up for problems. Flexibility is needed and interest is earned
on the money in the fund balance account. The Fire Department has duplication
in their budget numbers due to anticipated vacancies and staffing changes.
Regarding the Board of Education staffing requests and additional teachers
the question was raised whether there was a priority that is followed by Mr.
Miklave. Mr. Miller stated it is the efficiency and delivery of each department
versus priority of one department over another. Mr.
Mann questioned the combination of personnel and other options as to whether
they have been looked into in order to reduce the proposed budget increase.
Mr. Miller discussed this issue referencing the report.Ms.
Rivas stated she agreed with Mr. Miller and that some departments will have
to reduce services.Mr. Sutton inquired about the revaluation
increases. Mr. Miller referenced the bar chart that was distributed.Mr.
Perrone asked what is the budget number the City is seeking. Mr. Miller stated
that a percent reduction across the board would not work..Mr.
Miklave stated there would be pain in cutting this year’s budget with all
that is going on in the City and in the economy.Mr.
Kimmel stated that he wished to hold a special meeting to discuss the cap
and hold a public hearing on budget.** MR. KIMMEL
MOVED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON
JANUARY 15, 2002 AT 8 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AND HOLD A SPECIAL FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.DISCUSSION
- CREATION OF A PARKING AUTHORITYMr. Miller
stated that there are parking structures coming up soon which must have money
set aside. In light of other projects in the City, a parking authority is
recommended so that the dollars do not erode the ability of the City for school
buildings. Mr. Mann expressed that there is only a short
period of time to do this. Mr. Miller replied that there is much to be done
for an authority to issue bonds for the parking facilities. An ordinance and
a number of people will have to be appointed. Mr. Miller asked that there
be a joint meeting with the Ordinance Committee to have a public hearing to
create the authority. Ms. Rivas suggested getting the
draft ordinance to the committee so that the process could move forward. Mr.
Miklave asked whether there is a figure for the deficit that the City would
carry for the revenue bonds. Mr. Miller said he is trying to obtain a forecast
from the underwriters. The employees would be on City payroll, but the parking
authority would handle all the expenses. Mr. Miklave’s concern was the reduction
of the deficit for the City and any profits to be gained.** MR.
KIMMEL MOVED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CREATE A PARKING AUTHORITY.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.** MR.
BAKER MOVED TO ADJOURN.** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.Mr.
Kimmel adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,Alvina
L. Richardson Decker Telesco Secretarial Services
