|
|
|
|
FINANCE / CLAIMS
COMMITTEE ACTIONS
|
JANUARY 22, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING & SPECIAL MEETINGApproved FJG 06/12/03
ATTENDANCE: Bruce Kimmel, Chairman; Matt Miklave; Ken Baker; Doug Sutton; Betsy Bain; Barbara Hudgins.
PUBLIC HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2003-4 OPERATING BUDGET
Mr. Kimmel opened the public hearing at 7:40PM. He began the hearing by introducing the Council members and recognizing Mr. Miller, the Director of Finance. Mr. Miller spoke briefly about the budget process. He said that the conditions were the worse they have been in years. He attributed the fact that the city must now contribute to its pension fund unlike in past years, as one of the primary reasons for such a strain on the budget process. In an effort to save on expenses, the department budgets have been rejected and sent back with instructions to find ways to cut spending.
Mr. Kimmel stated for the record that the proposed budget cuts by Governor Rowland would not be made known until February. Without that knowledge, the process has been very difficult to execute effectively and reasonably.
Mr. Nightingale, a resident of South Beach Drive, supported a zero tax increase budget. He stated that the rising unemployment rate and revenue losses have caused a state of economic hardship for Norwalk. He said that the budget as it was presented so far would result in a 15.7% increase in taxes from last year. He suggested that the budget be set at $199 million instead of the $207 million last year, in order to achieve a zero percent increase. He pointed out that even if last year's budget numbers were used, there would still be a gap which would require an increase of 4.9% to fill it. Rowayton, he believed, would see a lot higher increase. One option he gave in order to achieve the zero percent increase was to decline some of the requests that were being made by the different agencies in city government, for new employees, new vehicles. He proposed that the Council adopt an overall hard-line about spending.
Mr. Silverstein, a resident of Gillies Lane, said that he had made a budget proposal to the Committee less than a year ago, regarding the tax deferral program for seniors. The primary purpose was to help low income seniors stay in their homes. He blamed the timing of his proposal as the reason for the lack of use by the seniors. He said that the average senior citizen was retired and living on an income of 20,000 or less. 17% of which went towards property taxes. He gave his strong support to a zero increase in tax budget and passing the tax deferral ordinance for seniors.
Mr. Burrows, a resident f Taylor Avenue, voiced his concern over the large increase in the mill rate for Norwalk. He stated that he did not see the reason for the increase especially since Taylor Avenue has remained in a state of disrepair for years. He said that at most, the increase should be on average earned income and asked the Committee members for some explanation for the large increase. Mr. Kimmel asked Mr. Miller to address the question. Mr. Miller responded that the primary reason for the increase was that the poor performance of the stock market which in turn had negative effect on the city's pension plan. Accordingly, no funds could be borrowed and a contribution had to be made for the first time in years.
Mayor Knopp spoke briefly on the city budget. He handed out a memorandum for the record and stated that it was very difficult to plan a budget with only half of the information. He stated that Norwalk lost over 1 million in state aid and that educational funding was subsequently cut. He made it clear that he had sent back all the budget proposals to the respective departments and requested that a better plan to cut cost be developed. He reiterated Mr. Miller's statement about the poor performance of the stock market being the cause for the contribution to the pension fund. He also stated that more aggressive action would be taken against delinquent tax payers in order to improve the state of the city revenues. He pointed out that the severe cuts by the state was a cause for concern and that he had made an agreement with the unions to negotiate in private for obvious reasons. He added that the city of Norwalk had joined in a lawsuit against the State because the state was still holding funds that had be promised to it in the form of grants totaling over 1.2 million dollars.
Ms. Lauricella, a resident of Chestnut Hill, voiced her opinion on many of the proposed budget issues. She stated that the public was not given reasonable time to review the budget in order to contribute cost saving ideas in time. She suggested that the public be more involved in the process and called for an aggressive re-evaluation of city agencies and personnel therein. She stated that the legislative arm of cit government was severely under-funded and that there was not sufficient administrative staff to support the overload of work. She suggested that city clerk assist in more areas such as processing and typing services. She also suggested that the Personnel Department in particular adopt a performance evaluation system that might help eliminate unnecessary and ineffective staff members. She made it clear that the DPW department should not be awarded any more funds until an investigation was conducted regarding the severe cost over-runs and expressed her dismay at not being able to give her input on cost cutting measures in past meetings. She closed by stating that the time frame for reviewing the budget was insufficient.
Mr. Kimmel closed the public hearing at 8:35PM.
SPECIAL FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
1. FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 OPERATING BUDGET
Mr. Kimmel made it clear that it was not the role of the Common Council to determine how the budget was spent, but rather to propose a cap to the Board of Estimate and Taxation. He pointed out that the process was very ineffective in that though the Council has the right to make suggestions on the cap, they lack the right to make sure the suggestions are executed. He stated that another hitch in the process was the time frame. The departments submit their respective budget proposals as early as November, but the after holiday rush to get the budget done makes it difficult. He suggested that based on the current level of spending, a place holder be set based on the current $207.4 million dollar budget.
Mr. Miklave commented on the level of detail that each speaker gave to the budget. He stated however, that many of the comments by the speakers were addressed to the wrong body of city government. He added that the budget process was completely unmanageable and unworkable because it did not give staff the chance to set a real budget. He pointed out that though the Council had the ability to set a cap, they had no control over how the budget was allotted or over what personnel member gets let go. He recommended that there be a place holder set at 207.4 million dollars with a cap at 180 million.
Mr. Baker asked if there was anything else that the Council could do. Mr. Kimmel said that apart from the cap, it was up to the Board of Estimate and Taxation to make final line item decisions. The Council has the right to send them back for changes, but the allocation decisions were ultimately the Board of Estimate and Taxation. Ms. Bain said that she had a problem with the charter in that the Council had the ability to set the cap but no responsibility to determine how the money was extended to under the cap. She stated that she would prefer to abstain in order to take a principal stand, but wondered if the majority of the Council agreed. Mr. Kimmel said that a decision could not be made to violate the charter. Mr. Miklave asked how many votes were needed to make a change once a cap had been set. Mr. Miller responded that 2/3 was the necessary votes needed. Mr. Miklave said that it was politically irresponsible to set a place holder or a cap if it could be overturned. He added that the vote was meaningless because the time table was not sufficient. Ms. Bain pointed that the Council set a cap on the operating budget not on tax increase. Ms. Bain inquired about what would happen if the Council voted on zero percent cap. Mr. Miller said he would get some numbers together.
** MR. KIMMEL MOVED TO HAVE THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT DRAFT
A CAP RESOLUTION BASED ON CURRENT YEAR'S BUDGET OF 207 MILLION DOLLARS
** THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR ELDERLY TAX DEFERRAL PROGRAM
** MR. KIMMEL MADE A MOTION TO MOVE THE PROPOSED CHANGES
TO COUNCIL
** THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3. PROPOSED VETERAN PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ORDINANCE
** MR. KIMMEL MADE A MOTION TO MOVE THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO COUNCIL
Mr. Whitman added that he had researched the 1985 resolution regarding the income limits, and found that they were based on 1985 average income. Mr. Kimmel said it was his understanding that the current ordinance superceded the 1985 resolution and that current income limits applied.
** THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4. PROPOSED ROWAYTON VOLUNTEER TAX CREDIT ORDINANCE
Ms. Bain voiced her concern with some of the wording in the ordinance that was unclear regarding mil rate, real property versus personal property and other such ambiguous language. Mr. Miller responded that he would have the legal department review and make changes. Mr. Miklave then inquired if a vote should be taken on the current ordinance as it stood. Council along with the assistance of Mr. Miller attempted to make changes. Ms. Bain then suggested that she would prefer to have Corporation Council review the document. The Council members expressed agreement.
** MR. KIMMEL MOVED TO HAVE THE ORDINANCE GO TO COUNCIL WITH
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT CORPORATION COUNCIL WOULD REVIEW AND AMEND THE WORDING
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
5. PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ORDINANCE FOR AMBULANCE-TYPE VEHICLES
Mr. Miklave expressed his strong approval on passing this item to Council. He spoke briefly of a family he met during his campaign that would benefit directly from this ordinance. Ms. Bain asked if the ordinance granted abatement on the entire vehicle or on adjustments that would be made to the vehicle. Mr. Miklave responded that the vehicle was completely tax exempt.
** MR. MIKLAVE MADE A MOTION TO MOVE THE PROPOSED CHANGES
TO COUNCIL
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Mr. Kimmel adjourned the meeting at 9:25PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Michele Montgomery
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |