JULY 17, 2001

Mr. Conroy called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

1. CLAIMS COMMITTEE

Ms. Biagerelli spoke about special requests for this month. The first one was for a clerical error; an adjustment was made for an abatement made where the taxpayer already paid in full. The others were for taxes paid in full and due for reimbursement by the State for Leonard Street, Townhouse Gardens on Monroe Street and Flax Hill Co-op. She also reviewed the tax abatements for year 2000/2001 under Section –216A. There were no refunds for July. Mr. Conroy asked about items 2, 3 and 4 and whether or not it is the normal process. Ms. Biagerelli said yes they pay in full and the money from the State is reimbursed later.

** MR. CONROY MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CLAIMS AGENDA AND SPECIAL REQUESTS

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

2. DELINQUENT TAX REPORT

Mr. Conroy asked if there was only one report for review. Ms. Biagerelli said numbers for June are not completed yet and she should have them available next month. She said they are still having system problems in generating a report. They are still having ordering problems and accounts cannot be linked as required. There is still an item on the report from the City of Norwalk that needs to be deleted. For the personal property accounts a levy will be done that can be published which will allow the office to take the next of trying to seize the assets or cash on-hand for some of the higher personal property accounts.

Mr. Wilms said he liked the format of the report where it breaks out the real estate, personal property, and motor vehicle by year and tabulates the information. He said it is a significantly improved report. Ms. Biagerelli said it functions as a collection tool to allow the Tax Collector’s office to generate it as needed to provide information as requested. It helps in allowing the office to concentrate on keeping things running smoothly at the window, keeping the lines down and processing the mail and posting payments in an expeditious manner as they come in. There have been no complaints regarding the collection process and currently things are running smoothly. There have been no major complaints about the new bills that were processed.

Mr. Wilms spoke about the success of the two tax liens and the others that are pending he asked if it is possible to go to the process of linking the properties together. Ms. Biagerelli said a lien sale could be done or a tax sale which would be more successful in recovering the full value. She the Attorney’s do not need to be involved in this process and this could be implemented at the Tax Collector’s office, which is a question of scheduling. She said it would be a four-month process structured like an auction where thirty properties would be done at once. She said what typically happens by the time you get to the sale of starting with thirty you may end up selling five or six properties because the others were already paid. She stressed if this process is going to be done it is important that everyone is on the same page and committed. There should not be a situation where someone requests a property be taken out for the purpose of being more lenient or allowing more time etc. If a tax sale is going to be conducted criteria needs to be established for how far back or how delinquent the properties should be and then everyone included is in the sale unless they pay in full. If selective choosing is conducted there is a chance that the Finance Director could be sued for selective enforcement because technically the person’s property is being seized and potentially violating their rights under Section –19-83. She said she has been involved with four of these types of suits, which isn’t pleasant. She said the suits turned out well in her case because her criteria was established beforehand and everyone was in agreement as to how to conduct the process and there wasn’t a selective choice process at work. She said before moving ahead with the sale she would like assurance from the Mayor and other parties involved that the sale could be authorized. She said the sales do generate considerable funds and have an ancillary effect. Mr. Conroy said the Mayor would be contacted. Ms. Biagerelli said the collection rate is 98%, which is excellent, the key factor is not to let it get far behind such as the couple of properties that date back to 1995/1996, but these are few and far between and are junk properties. Mr. Conroy said the collection rate is good but he would like to alleviate some of the older stagnant list items.

3. REVIEW MONTHLY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. Miller said there has been some discussion with the Board of Education on exhausting the surplus in the insurance fund. There are reserve cases pending which will increase the fund balance. He said there are still other areas to investigate to control the costs such as:

-Insurance co-pay

-Cobra rate (opt-out choice)

Mr. McCready said he has requested in the past for clarification on the details of the insurance plan specifically when there is a spouse and why both are insured separately. He said he would contact Ms. McCarthy for additional information.

Mr. Miller said when reviewing the Board of Education’s overage he reviewed the per cap insurance cost and surveyed a couple of communities and found that Norwalk is above the other communities in benefit costs.

4. REVIEW CITY FINANCIAL QUARTERLY REPORT

Mr. Darling reported that as of June 30 there is still some activity but the best projection has been reported. He said the excess was evident in the following areas:

-snow removal

-settlement payments

-Board of Education appropriation

He said the fund balance would go up based on the latest projection. This doesn’t include the delinquent properties of $3.5 million.

 

5. REVIEW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING N.E.O.N.

Mr. Miller gave an update on N.E.O.N. schedules. H said he met with the officer at N.E.O.N. to review the operations; it became clear from this meeting that another meeting will be required to conduct an analysis. They are behind on their year 2000 audit and requested an extension. Mr. Conroy commented that they were late last year. Mr. Miller said that this was due to their financial system that is still experiencing problems. Mr. Conroy asked if he would be visiting N.E.O.N. in the near future. Mr. Miller said he would be early next week and he would report on their progress at the next meeting scheduled on August 21, 2001. Mr. Conroy said he would like the extension to not go beyond 90-days.

6. AUTHORIZE THE REDUCTION OF THE CAPITAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE ROOSEVELT SCHOOL (NORWALK SENIOR CENTER) – ACCOUNT NO. 09016030-5777-C0181-REDUCTION: $78,000.00
7. AUTHORIZE THE SPECIAL CAPITAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE ROOSEVELT SCHOOL – PARKING IMPROVEMENTS (NORWALK SENIOR CENTER) PROJECT-ACCOUNT NO. 09016030-5777-C0238-SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS: $78,000.00

Mr. Conroy suggested both the above items discussed together. He briefly recapped the nature of this project, which is regarding the parking to be constructed in the back of the site. The project has been coordinated through the Recreation & Parks Department. There has been a public discussion and public meeting concerning this matter.

** MR. CONROY MOVED THE ITEMS FOR APPROVAL

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

8. REVIEW BOARD OF EDUCATION AUDIT PROPOSAL

Mr. Conroy asked Mr. Miller if he received two additional proposals. Mr. Miller said yes he received a proposal from Price Waterhouse Coopers and talked to them indicating interest to use their scope of services. He also received a proposal from Deloit & Touche who has extensive experience in the auditing area. A proposal was also received from O’Connell Lanier that has done a lot of work in Texas, Florida and Tennessee and whom have extensive experience as well. Their price estimates range between $93k-$300k. Price Waterhouse Coopers price estimate ranges up to $475k. Mr. Miller said he has indicated to all the firms that the Board of Education would meet and review the scope of services for any feedback or alterations. All three firms have been made aware that there may be some revisions to determine a final cost for the services. References have been verified and all three firms are found to be very competent in the auditing field and have also demonstrated their expertise in assisting various communities improve their operations. Mr. Conroy asked Mr. Miller if the highest estimate was received from Price Waterhouse Coopers. Mr. Miller said yes marginally over Deloit & Touche whose price ranges between $350k-$450k. Mr. Conroy asked if this price is the same scope as Price Waterhouse Coopers. Mr. Miller said yes.

Mr. Conroy said the Committee has been pushing for some months to get a handle on the Board of Education expenses, Mr. Miller was asked to become pro-active in reviewing their expenses and it was concluded that outside assistance was required. The assistance has been initiated and Mr. Wilms has been instrumental in devoting his time as well to move the process forward so the next budget cycle could take advantage of the analysis. He therefore, indicated that the Committee could authorize up to $475k to contract the auditing services and choose a vendor for approval to be added to the Common Council agenda. Mr. Miller said in discussion with the three firms authorization could be forthcoming by the end of August and the findings and recommendations could be completed in time to submit to the person coordinating the budget as there is some urgency in moving forward.

Mr. Miller said and audit was done in 1996 for custodial services and all the City facilities including the Board of Education, this audit produced excellent results and based on these results it was therefore recommended to contract out the services. As a result of the audit there were two years where custodians did not receive any increases, for the last three years the increases have been modest so the audit resulted in significant savings to the City and the Board of Education.

Mr. Bowers stated that any one of the proposals should be instrumental in assisting the City and Board of Education on how to implement a budget in future years. He said it should act as a tool for both parties wherein the information becomes a useful and viable to obtain a better understanding of what is truly needed.

Mr. Wilms agreed with Mr. Bowers and said he views it as a joint blueprint that everyone could work on. He stated that audits are key in identifying deficiencies and could be used for constructive suggestions for budgeting purposes.

Mr. Conroy stated his personal opinion regarding audits. He said of and by themselves audits are not purposeful as his past experience has been that they are not overly helpful in always producing good results (he relayed a personal experience story as an example). He said in his experience the outcome of a successful audit is contingent upon how astute the financial head is in determining how to achieve the business or organization’s goals. He ended in saying that he felt Mr. Miller is the right person to achieve this goal.

Mr. Miller suggested a meeting with the representatives from the three companies the week of July 23 to conduct an interview with each firm to make a selection based on the responses and information presented to report back to the Common Council for authorization. Mr. Conroy said that he would be unable to commit to an interview schedule. He asked for availability from the other board members. He stated that Mr. Wilms has been dedicated and involved in the process to-date but said if he needed additional members present he should make the request. Mr. Wilms said he would continue with the process of choosing an auditor and would welcome any help if it were forthcoming.

Mr. Miller said that Dr. Corda would be attending the BOE meeting July 17 and that this issue is on the agenda as indicated in the newspaper. Mr. Miller asked about a commitment that was initiated by Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Wilms said there was a meeting at the Mayor’s office that included Dr. Corda, Ms. McCarthy, Mr. Miller and himself. He said they all had the opportunity to speak as individuals. He said at the last Land Use Building meeting Dr. Corda stated that he supports the school construction audit and also in favor of the entire school construction scope. He said Dr. Corda and Ms. McCarthy support the food service, transportation and insurance categories, beyond this there was no particular agreement on the specific items of the PWC scope. Ms. McCarthy agreed this issue would be addressed at the BOE meeting tonight. Mr. Wilms said he suggested that the PWC proposal be used as a base-negotiating document to report back on any areas that need to be altered and presented in a constructive and concrete manner.

Mr. Miller said there might be some disagreement in what is included in the scope that will be discussed in the final analysis at the Common Council to determine who will be contracted for the work. Mr. Wilms said he would recommend to the Common Council that they move forward. A subsequent e-mail has been forwarded to Ms. McCarthy where special education and maintenance areas were highlighted; these are the areas that he felt were critical to any kind of audit. He said it is understood that a 100% agreement may not be forthcoming but the intention is to give these areas some merit when the audit is conducted.

9. SPECIAL APPROPRIATION (action item added per Mr. Conroy)

Mr. Conroy designated Item 9 for discussion.

To authorize the Mayor to execute a contract rather than having to come back to Common Council for further authorization. Based on the sub-committee that will interview the three auditing firm vendors.

Mr. Bowers asked if a timeline would be established for the sub-committee to complete their interviewing process. He said he felt it was necessary to meet the budget cycle and would be a good idea to have the selection completed soon. Mr. Wilms said the process needs to start by the end of August at the latest.

Mr. Nolin asked if the Common Council should approve the selection. He said the Common Council normally approves the party to the contract. He said traditionally the Common Council approves the selected entity to a contract and it is rare for them to approve the contract with an entity to be determined by a sub-committee. Mr. Bowers replied that the entity, that is being chosen has already been selected by the Common Council and he agreed with the viewpoint that ultimately it is the Common Council that will make the final determination but a sub-committee to make the recommendation is acceptable as it has been done before.

Mr. Wilms said a firm date should be determined by the Board of Education to make a decision. Mr. Bowers suggested by August 9, 2001 so the decision is available to be included in the next Common Council meeting packet on August 14, 2001.

Mr. McCready entered the meeting at 8:15 p.m.

OTHER DISCUSSION

Mr. Nolin asked about the refund to taxpayers. Mr. Miller said the Mayor is waiting for the outbreak report in regards the distribution of the funds. He said distribution will be geared primarily to residents and for the distribution of excess funds a cap will be initiated.

Mr. McCready stated his personal opinion that the distribution should go to the Board of Education for school renovations and the elderly that are on a fixed income.

Mr. Bowers felt the distribution should go back to the residents provided there is no delinquent tax due.

Mr. Conroy’s opinion was that the taxpayers’ should receive the distribution back to keep in line with the fairness concept in that if more tax was collected via the mill rate then it should be filtered back to the residents.

Mr. McCready asked Mr. Miller if the excess could be used to reduce the tax rate across the board for the following year. Mr. Miller said implementing this policy would require other parties to determine, as it was not his sole decision.

Mr. Torrano stated his opinion was that if the money is not given back to the residents that have paid taxes for the year it is intended, it would not be fair.

ADJOURNMENT

As there was no further business to discuss, Mr. Conroy adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Diane Graham
Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page