MINUTES
BOARD OF FINANCE
OCTOBER 21, 2003
A REGULAR MEETING of the Board of Finance was held on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 in the Council Chambers.
Those present included Mayor Owen J. Quinn, Jr., members of the Board of Finance Theodore Miasek, James Zeller, Michael Nejaime (arrived at 4:15 p.m.), Diane Libby, Roger Dickinson, and Bruce Cornish. Also present was Corp. Counsel Albert Vasko, Comptroller Alice Proulx, Fire Chief John Field, Deputy Fire Chief Jaye Giampaolo, the Board of Education’s Director of Business Services James Gaskins, and Board of Public Safety Commissioner James Potter.
Mayor Quinn called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m.
MINUTES #030
On a motion by Mrs. Libby, seconded by Mr. Dickinson, the board voted, with the exception of Mr. Miasek who abstained, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 25, 2003.
MOVE NUMBER 13 #050
On a motion by Mr. Dickinson, seconded by Mr. Zeller, the board voted to move Item #13, a discussion / vote on making the adjustment for the underfunded teachers’ liability.
Comptroller Alice Proulx introduced John Schyler from the city’s auditing firm of Centerprise Advisors to explain the request. He stated that the recommendation was to take the existing liability and record it appropriately as a liability in going forward, taking advantage of the change to GASB34. The underfunded teachers’ liability is the amount that has been earned and paid over the summer, but owed as of June 30. This is for reporting purposes only, and the board may continue to budget on a cash flow basis if they wish to do so. There are no down sides to making the adjustment. Technically, although it would lower the city’s reported fund balance because it is a liability that would be recorded and recognized as of June 30, it is a liability that exists and the bond
agencies already make that adjustment. It was Mr. Schyler’s opinion that it would be an appropriate time to make the adjustment since the basis for accounting is changing this year.
Mrs. Libby asked Mr. Schyler whether he had discussed the adjustment with any bonding companies to make certain it wouldn’t negatively affect our bond rating.
Mr. Schyler stated that they had talked to bonding agencies. Basically, bonding agencies take a look at the opinion, note that there is a qualification opinion for the unfunded liability, and adjust the fund balance by that amount.
Mr. Cornish reiterated what Mr. Schyler had stated, that they could continue to budget on a cash flow basis.
Mr. Schyler indicated that they could budget on any basis that makes sense for the city.
There are other cities that remain on a closer basis to the cash outflow basis for their budgeting and there clearly would be a reconciling item, but we could budget on whatever basis makes sense for the citizenry.
Mr. Dickinson said he was glad they were finally going to deal with this matter because it had always been a topic of discussion and he hoped they would never see this issue again.
Mr. Miasek inquired whether the adjustment would be made as of 6/30/03.
Mr. Schyler indicated that was correct.
Mrs. Libby said, although it was a Board of Finance decision to make, she had previously suggested meeting jointly with the City Council prior to making any motion so the Council would clearly understand what the Board of Finance was trying to accomplish, and to reassure them that it was truly a recording issue and would have no impact on our bond rating. She asked if the matter had ever been raised during a Council meeting.
Mayor Quinn reported that the matter had not been raised and he was uncertain that all members of the Council understood the issue. He thought it would be educational for them to meet jointly with the Board of Finance so everyone could understand the issue.
Mrs. Libby said she would like to meet jointly with the City Council just prior to a special Board of Finance meeting, at which time they could vote to make the adjustment and move forward so as not to hold up the auditors for another month.
Mayor Quinn thought that was a good suggestion, therefore no action was necessary on this item at this time.
Mr. Miasek felt they also needed to have discussion with the Board of Education about the matter.
Mayor Quinn thought that was an excellent suggestion. He suggested having all three boards meet to straighten out the matter once and for all.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC #250
On a motion by Mrs. Libby, seconded by Mr. Nejaime, the board voted to open the meeting to the public.
Board of Public Safety Commissioner James Potter had two issues to address. The first dealt with Mr. Dickinson’s meetings with the Fire Department to discuss their operations and policies. It was his understanding that they were learning a lot about Mr. Dickinson’s program, however, for months the Board of Safety had asked that Mr. Dickinson attend one of their meetings and give them the courtesy of understanding what he and the Fire Department were attempting to do. That request had continuously fallen on deaf ears and he felt it was just another way of people sidestepping the authority of the Board of Public Safety.
Secondly, Commissioner Potter asked to reserve the right to speak on Item #12, “Discussion on the revised Apparatus Replacement Plan and the purchase of a new rescue vehicle.”
Mr. Miasek said important issues will be addressed that may involve the Board of Safety, and others regarding the Fire Department in terms of their vehicle replacement.
Mrs. Libby indicated that they didn’t have the information in their packets.
Mayor Quinn stated that was perfectly consistent with what the Chief was going to do. He was bringing information to the board. Even though the item indicated that they may “vote,” he didn’t think there was any pressure to do so today.
Chief Field indicated that he was making a presentation.
Mayor Quinn said the matter of the rescue vehicle was merely following a process and that it had already gone before the Board of Public Safety and the City Council.
Commissioner Potter would be allowed to speak at the appropriate time.
STATUS OF SCULLY & WOLF #350
Comptroller Alice Proulx reported that the time table was being followed as scheduled. However, they may have experienced a small setback with the change in Business Manager and his Assistant, Jacqueline Ramos.
She pointed out that a training session for payroll had taken place. They were going to run parallel on payroll beginning November 17 and be on line with the payroll as of January 1. Ms. Proulx had offered her assistance to the Board of Education if the need arose, in order to keep with the schedule of January 1.
Mr. Miasek inquired whether the apprehension of the new system was still a consideration.
Ms. Proulx indicated that reluctance should be expected no matter what system was used. They were working with the Board of Education and making requests for service from New World to make amendments to the program to make it more suitable to their needs. It was merely a matter of establishing and streamlining their procedures.
Mayor Quinn reported that James Gaskins, the new Director of Business Services, came from a school district that used shared services and believed in it. He had instilled in Mr. Gaskins that shared services was the way to go and believed Mr. Gaskins understood the message that was given to him verbally. In addition, Mayor Quinn sent Mr. Gaskins a memo reinforcing the point that shared services was a priority for the City of Torrington and that he wanted New World to be given enough time to work out the bugs. The city wasn’t about to discard a new system that had been heavily invested in. They would have to work out the bugs and our staff was available to help them if needed.
Mrs. Libby added that the Board of Finance had hired Scully & Wolf to make certain the system worked well. This board would want to be notified if dissatisfaction occurred on either the city, or the Board of Education side. It was her opinion that Scully & Wolf would be responsible for making the final decision on whether or not it’s going to work.
Mr. Miasek agreed.
Mayor Quinn said he thought that was the consensus of this board.
TORRINGTON POLICE DEPT. BLOCK GRANT #600
On a motion by Mrs. Libby, seconded by Mr. Dickinson, the board voted to accept the Council’s request for the payment of $1,351.00 from Contingency as the matching portion for a Torrington Police Department Block Grant in the amount of $12,163.00.
STERLING LAND SURVEYING #610
On a motion by Mrs. Libby, seconded by Mr. Dickinson, the board voted to accept the Councils’ request for the payment of $350.00 from the Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Fund #490 to Sterling Land Surveying, LLC for services performed on the Tara Drive Pump Station Removal Project.
MURDOCK CLAIM MGMT #620
On a motion by Mrs. Libby, seconded by Mr. Dickinson, the board voted to accept the Councils’ request for the payment of $2,337.12 from Contingency to Murdock Claim Management Co. F/B/O The Hanover Insurance Company for the City’s deductible in the Williams matter.
BUSINESS IN SECTION B: #640
On a motion by Mrs. Libby, seconded by Mr. Nejaime, the board voted to consider business in Section B.
SNOW PLOWS BID #640
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Dickinson, the board, after a brief discussion, voted to accept the Council’s request to purchase three “One Way Hydraulic Reversing Snow Plows” from the lowest bidder meeting the technical specifications, C.N. Wood of Milford, Ct., at a total cost of $15,525.00 with funds from the Vehicle Replacement Contingency Account.
KOZLAK’S LANDSCAPE MGMT #750
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Dickinson, the board, after a brief discussion, voted to accept the Council’s request to authorize $1,800.00 from Contingency to Kozlak’s Landscape Management for supplying two trees and 12 shrubs to Southwest School.
During a discussion, Corp. Counsel Vasko stated that the landscaping was required by Planning & Zoning in order for the school to get its final CO.
SCOTTSDALE INS. CO. #
On a motion by Mrs. Libby, seconded by Mr. Zeller, the board voted to accept the Councils’ request for the payment of $314.75 from Contingency to Scottsdale Insurance Company for the deductible in the Zavatkay matter.
Corp. Counsel Vasko reported that the matter had been resolved in favor of the city.
MURDOCK CLAIM MGMT #930
On a motion by Mrs. Libby, seconded by Mr. Dickinson, the board voted to accept the Councils’ request for the payment of $5,703.04 from Contingency to Murdock Claim Management Company F/B/O the Hanover Insurance Company for the deductible in the Hepburn matter.
Corp. Counsel Vasko reported that the city had filed a motion for summary judgement and was waiting for a court ruling.
APPARATUS REPLACEMENT PLAN #950
Mr. Dickinson responded to Commissioner Potter’s comment in regard to his ongoing activity with the Fire Department. He pointed out that the Board of Finance had a record of all fire calls at their disposal during the budget process, and in reviewing them were surprised to see the reasoning behind some of the responses. As a result, the opportunity arose to find ways to reduce costs caused by over servicing. That was pretty well publicized. Since then, Mr. Dickinson and the Chiefs had been meeting on a biweekly basis at Chief Field’s office, and talking through the issues more thoroughly. Mr. Dickinson had been communicating with Mayor Quinn and the Board of Finance relative to those activities, and assured the Board of Public Safety that they were holding nothing back. The process wasn’t for the Board of Finance to manage the Fire Department, but rather for them to look at the whole process of what the Fire Department was doing, and see if they could come up strategically
with a different plan. He made that point almost every time he met with Chief Field. That plan is going to be presented to the Board of Safety in their normal course of how they do their job, and in no way was he dictating to the Fire Department what to do. It was simply a consultant type of an effort with the thought that the financial side of the equation might be something worth looking at. It was not intended to keep the Board of Safety out of the loop whatsoever. Mr. Dickinson stated that he hadn’t received a phone call from anyone on the Board of Public Safety. He was willing to talk about it and invited Commissioner Potter to spend some time with him after this meeting to review it.
Commissioner Potter said the Board of Safety had repeatedly requested Mr. Dickinson to attend one of their meetings to explain the entire program, or that perhaps he and Chief Field could include one or two Commissioners in their meetings so they could feel like they were part of the process.
Mr. Dickinson indicated that Mayor Quinn, Chairman of the Board of Public Safety, had attended one of their meetings.
Chief Field made the same presentation concerning the Apparatus Replacement Plan that was approved by the Board of Public Safety on June 11 and approved by the City Council on October 6, 2003.
PRESENTATION:
Chief Field stated that the Vehicle Replacement Plan entailed the financial breakdown for replacing fire apparatus. The plan was revised due to speculation that the original plan was never voted on. The purpose of the plan is to provide detailed information regarding the apparatus replacement as well as the inclusion of a rescue vehicle to replace the current vehicle they had in-house.
Chief Field stated that former Mayor Gryniuk appointed the Apparatus Advisory Committee in 1998, which included personnel from the career fire department and representatives from the volunteer departments, the Board of Public Safety and Equipment Maintenance. They were charged with developing a replacement plan for all major apparatus. In 1999, a plan that included a financial allocation and a schedule of when vehicles would be replaced was formulated. In 2000, the plan kicked into motion. In 2001 Engine 3 was purchased, and in 2002, the plan was reviewed to check for validity and to see if it fit the needs of the Fire Department at that time and in the future. As a result, the revision was begun in 2002.
The plan basically consisted of two line items. One that dealt with small vehicles and the other dealt with major apparatus. The only item included in this plan is major apparatus.
As of 8/17/01, the plan that everyone thought had been voted on was formulated to replace all major apparatus at scheduled intervals. An engine was to be purchased every three years. The engine being replaced would be sent to one of the volunteer companies. The first engine was scheduled to rotate to Torringford in 2003. The plan also called to purchase a Ladder in 2012. By 2009 the city would have seven pumpers in its inventory. The city provided $185,000.00 a year to that plan. Even with that financing in place, the city would have been short by some $4 to $500,000.00 in the purchase of the ladder in 2012.
Under the original plan, Engine 1, purchased in the year 2000, would have gone to Torringford, in 2006 Engine 3 would have been replaced sending it to Burrville, and in 2009, the new Engine 1 would have been replaced and sent to Drakeville.
Some of the issues raised by the original plan included falling short in the purchase of the ladder in 2012, and that no funding had been allocated to replace the rescue vehicle.
The revised plan came about when they talked about replacing both HazMat 9 and Rescue 8 with one vehicle instead of two. It made sense to incorporate the needs of both vehicles into one. It was more cost efficient for the city and would still fill the needs of the fire service. A lease purchase option was mentioned and $60,000.00 was budgeted for three years.
Chief Field took the old plan and stretched it to 2015 and fell short by $500,000.00. The total purchases for the pumpers and ladder totaled $3,045,741.00 and the total budgeted amount would be $2,529,588.00. The total cost for Engine #1 was $229,000.00. The following funds were used: $30,000.00 encumbered from 98-99 for the repair of Tower 1, $30,000.00 encumbered funds from 99-00 for Tower 1 repairs, and $2,908.00 accrued through vehicles sales and interest, and the first year’s allotment of $185,000.00. After the purchase of Engine 1 the account had a balance of $18,908.00.
The following year, Engine 3 was purchased at a cost of $249,000.00. State Surplus funds of $242,980.00 added to the current balance of $18,908.00 totaled $261,888.00. After the purchase there was a balance of $12,888.00 in the account.
Since then there have been no further purchases. $185,000.00 was budgeted in 2001-02, and $144,098.00 was budgeted in years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The current balance is $473,196.00.
Chief Field brought a revised plan to the Board of Public Safety in June. Issues evolved in terms of whether the volunteers were included, why the city would need seven pumpers in its inventory by the year 2009, and how we could increase the longevity of the ladder and our engines. Basically, the revised plan took into consideration the fire department’s needs and community expectations with the same allocation of funding. The plan includes the immediate purchase of a rescue vehicle and the replacement of engines every five to seven years. That would give the engines a life expectancy of fifteen years, ten on the front line and the remaining five to ten years on reserve. He pushed the replacement of the ladder to 2015 or even further if possible, and lengthened the life expectancy
of the pumpers by purchasing a rescue vehicle and changing their operational response policy.
According to all records researched, the volunteers were involved in the original plan and were supposed to have had an engine rotated to them already. Chief Field’s recommendation was to give a monetary allotment of $100,000.00 to the volunteers each time one of the companies had to purchase a particular engine at their times. This recommendation was approved by the Board of Public Safety.
Under the new plan a rescue vehicle would be purchased this year or next. The engines would be replaced in 2007 and 2012, and the ladder would be purchased no sooner than 2015, or 2016 or later.
Under the old plan, up to 2015, the city had scheduled six purchases. The total city inventory would include seven pumpers and one ladder. The total purchases equaled $3,045,741.00.
Under the new plan, up to 2015, the city would schedule four purchases creating an inventory of four pumpers, one ladder, and one rescue, with total purchases equaling $2,243,626.00. The difference between the old plan and the new plan was basically $800,000.00. Under the old plan, the city would have been short by $512,000.00. Under the new plan, the city is expected to have a surplus of approximately $300,000.00.
Chief Field stated that the volunteers would have one purchase for each department prior to the year 2015. Torringford was in the process of purchasing one at this time. Burrville will be purchasing one in 2006, and Drakeville will be purchasing one in 2009.
(These are speculated times at which they requested replacement of their apparatus.)
Mrs. Libby asked Chief Field whether the new plan included the $300,000.00 allotment being recommended for the volunteers.
Chief Field stated that the allotment wasn’t shown in the figures he had in his presentation.
Mrs. Libby stated that he wasn’t comparing apples to apples.
Chief Field said “If we did that, there is $300,000.00 in there, or there should be, because there was a shortfall of $500,000.00 and now we have a surplus of $800,000.00, there’s $300,000.00 there. Basically, because we had a shortfall before, there is a little bit of difference here, but, we’d still be ahead of the game.”
Mrs. Libby pointed out that the volunteers wouldn’t be getting as much in value as they would have received in the old plan.
Chief Field said that was correct, since $100,000.00 didn’t equal the value of a three-year-old engine.
Mr. Nejaime said he didn’t hear any mention of trading in vehicles.
Chief Field said that was an option. He stated that they didn’t want to get to a point where it cost more to repair an engine than it was worth. Engine #1 responds to 1,600 to 1,700 calls a year, and Engine 3, 1,000 calls. They probably had a 15 to 20 year life expectancy. The ladder, in its current status, responds to 700 or 800 calls a year and has a life expectancy of 20 years. Questions were asked about the longevity of the ladder. We were supposed to get 30 years out of it, but Chief Field clearly stated that the city would not get 30 years’ life expectancy from the ladder in the manner that it is presently being used.
Mr. Dickinson stated that equipment allocation was interesting. For instance, the ladder was being sent to many incidents that may not require it. The numbers given in regard to the reduction of activity from the ladder and the increase of activity to a new rescue are probably conservative. They could be much more dramatic.
Chief Field said the purchase of a new rescue vehicle will cause him to change the operational response policy. Equipment now kept on Engines and the ladder will be transferred to the rescue, enabling the rescue to respond to a good majority of their calls. They are hoping to cut back 30% of the response on the ladder, which will add approximately two years to the current seventeen-year life expectancy, and increase the rescue response by 60%. It made more sense to respond to incidents using a $200,000.00 vehicle than to use a million-dollar vehicle. Some of the savings will be possible only with the purchase of a new rescue because they are looking to add longevity to the ladder. The new plan has the replacement of the ladder scheduled for 2015, perhaps later. The ladder will be twenty
years old in 2016.
Approximately $70,000.00 will be saved for every extra year of longevity obtained from the ladder.
Mrs. Libby pointed out that Chief Field’s plan was to allocate $100,000.00 to each volunteer department over the next 12 to 13 years. She inquired whether there had been any further discussion on the role the city wanted to take in the future in regard to this allotment.
Chief Field stated that this was his recommendation. There had been little discussion with the volunteers. Of course the volunteers would have to assume responsibility to the city for accepting the funds. The city will have to make certain there’s security for their money. Understandably, the volunteers were upset that the plan fell apart, but pleased with Chief Field’s recommendation because they weren’t completely left out of the loop. It was a delicate subject at the moment.
Mr. Miasek focused in on the Vehicle Replacement Policy issued in January, specifically, the mechanism on how to substitute a vehicle for one that was on the inventory list when it was first established, and the justification for the change in the purchase of that listed vehicle. This required a lot of documentation and justification in dollar costs and manpower costs, and Mr. Miasek didn’t see any of that in Chief Field’s presentation. In reading the minutes of the June 11 Board of Safety meeting and the September 15 meeting of the City Council, there was no mention of the policy itself, nor was there any mention that they were required to follow that policy, yet it was voted on and approved. He couldn’t understand why the policy wasn’t followed in order to justify the replacement
of the vehicle.
Mayor Quinn said the Board of Public Safety was in favor of a rescue vehicle and were quick to vote in favor of an item on the agenda that stated “Discuss / vote,” and the City Council was in the same mode. The real question then came about as to how to fund the rescue and what to do in light of the policy in existence. Chief Field’s presentation was a step to get this portion going. This was an opportunity for the Board of Finance to see the Fire Department’s Plan, digest it, and understand where it‘s going. It was his understanding that Chief Field and Mr. Dickinson were still going through a process whereby they will ultimately have further recommendations and justifications in the cost savings that are outlined. He said, “I’m sure the Chief wants
this to be seen now, and when he is ready to purchase they will also have the cost savings information that is required in the plan. I think that’s simply said that this is informational.”
Chief Field assured the Board of Finance that he was not looking to change their manpower at all, but allocate exactly what he had now and revise the plan accordingly. The Board of Safety and City Council had both voted to put the rescue out to bid. He admitted being quite confused and frustrated. The plan went before each of the three boards to get their feeling and their approval. In terms of not following the policy, there was nothing to justify. He was using the same particular funding and utilizing the same manpower. He was merely trying to get it done with the same resources he currently had.
Deputy Fire Chief Giampaolo stated that he was equally confused and frustrated by having to continually justify this rescue vehicle. The plan, as well as the rescue vehicle, were justified and approved by the Board of Public Safety and the City Council. How much more justification did they need, he asked.
Mr. Nejaime thought the Deputy Chief had it backwards. He thought the Board of Finance was the board that first said there was a policy. He said, “We’re the ones who said ‘there’s a policy. Why aren’t we going out and replacing vehicles? When Roger mentioned the rescue vehicle, we all jumped up and said ‘we did this. Why are we doing this again?“ Mr. Nejaime said Mr. Miasek was one of the first to say “Wait a minute, we’re supposed to be doing this. Why haven’t we been doing it?”
Deputy Chief Giampaolo said their frustration was partly due to not being able to follow the old policy. They had pumpers on the old policy that hadn’t gone out to bid. If they were to follow the plan, the old policy was still “policy” and they should have gone out to bid and actually taken delivery of a pumper already. They weren’t following either the old or the new policy.
Mr. Miasek commended Chief Field for his presentation. He explained that the Board of Finance had been trying to get a number of things done in the financial aspect of the city. A policy was established that applied to all departments, and it was his understanding that it had been adhered to. However, this policy wasn’t even discussed at either of the meetings held by the Board of Safety or the City Council. He wasn’t even certain that the members were aware of the policy. Since Commissioner Potter was on the committee, Mr. Miasek was certain he would communicate the fact that there was a policy. He asked if they were aware of the policy.
Deputy Chief Giampaolo stated that they had asked to see the policy. They knew, in order to bring change to the system, they would have to justify the particular change. He was aware the policy was being formulated.
Mayor Quinn said the policy was distributed and that Chief Field was following it.
Chief Field said they were aware there was a policy. He said he thought he was following the policy, and that’s where the confusion came in. He assured the board that his manpower wouldn’t change. Policy will change on how the current manpower will be distributed, but there would be no increase in manpower. He presented the plan to each one of the boards, thinking he was doing the right thing, and now it seemed like he had taken a few steps backwards.
Mayor Quinn stated that the Board of Finance was seeing the plan for the first time. (Asst. City Clerk Joline LeBlanc apologized for not putting the plan in their packets.)
They were gathering information not making decisions. Chief Field was following procedures by bringing the plan in front of each and every board. In Mayor Quinn’s interpretation of the policy, Chief Field was attempting to do just that by bringing it to the various boards. Further questions or concerns should be brought to the Mayor or Chief Field’s attention so they can feel secure in making a decision when decision time comes around. Mayor Quinn said Chief Field had followed the policy as drafted to him.
Commissioner Potter said he was included in two meetings that dealt with the fourth or fifth draft of the policy. He had never seen a final draft of the policy, nor had the Board of Public Safety or the City Council ever seen a final draft. He referred to a particular meeting, perhaps the one held in June or July, where he specifically asked Corp. Counsel if this policy was in effect because it hadn’t been voted upon, and according to the City Charter it had to be voted on by the City Council. Atty. Vasko confirmed that it had to be voted on by the City Council. It has never been voted on by the City Council. Department heads had been trying to get this amended Vehicle Replacement Plan into effect, and he didn’t think they had to justify the need of a vehicle to the
Board of Finance. They only had to justify it to the Board of Public Safety and the City Council.
Mayor Quinn said everything Commissioner Potter said was in order, however, they shouldn’t be debating the authority of one board over the other.
Carl Michelet, former Board of Finance member, said he thought Mayor Quinn had put together a committee that was representative of many different departments. When the final draft came about it was agreed that it was the final draft and that it should be implemented. The implementation was to be done by the Mayor, who implements other policies like investment policies, personnel policies, etc. He assumed the policy went into effect that day when they agreed it was a final draft. Additionally, Mayor Quinn had given a grace period where anyone could make suggestions or attempt to alter the policy, and as far as he knew, no one came forward. It would then have to be approved by the three boards. The only flexible items in the policy was interest earned and the amount of money put
into the vehicle replacement plan from items sold at the auction. These funds went into a contingency account that was spent only with the approval of the Board of Finance. It was agreed that the plan should be reviewed in two years. Mr. Michelet thought they had done a very good job in their first attempt of putting some formality into the vehicle replacement policy.
Mrs. Libby said she would like some time to digest all the information that was brought forward. She said “Quite frankly, the way you’re balancing this on the side of the volunteers, and not getting what they thought they were going to get somewhere down the line, and that may be perfectly acceptable from every board’s perspective, and that’s just the way it is based on the finances of the City of Torrington, no different than what it was years ago when they bought their own trucks.” She had come up with some more detailed questions that she wanted to research and call Chief Field about. She didn’t have a problem amending the Vehicle Replacement Plan as long as it wasn’t done every time some new gadget came out or someone wanted something better or different to be
added or deleted. Certainly a long term plan was preferable. It made sense that a rescue truck would add longevity to the ladder. At this time she thought all three boards should decide what the town needs and move forward with it. She asked for a little more time to digest the information.
Mr. Cornish stated that he had seen the plan when it was presented to the City Council and some of the questions he walked away with that evening had been answered in today’s presentation. He thought the plan was well laid out. His only disconnect was not with the Fire Department or Public Safety in putting the plan on the table and endorsing it, but how it fit into the overall Vehicle Replacement Plan and not understanding if the plan is segmented for major equipment for both the Fire and Police Department. It was important for everyone’s individual ideas to be financially sound. He thought the plan was well thought out and well presented.
Mr. Miasek inquired about the $45,000.00 that was encumbered from 2001-02-03,
Ms. Proulx stated, that originally the city-funded $140,000.00 and increased it to $185,000.00 four years ago in order to include the volunteers in the rotation of the pumpers.
Mr. Miasek said they had accrued $135,000.00 into the fund that had not been expended.
Ms. Proulx indicated that was Commissioner Potter’s point that they hadn’t purchased the additional pumper to put into the rotation.
Mr. Cornish asked Ms. Proulx if he was correct in stating that they didn’t get any statements on the Vehicle Replacement Account other than the financial statements that were audited at the end of the year.
Ms. Proulx said that was correct.
Mayor Quinn said “What we’re going to do is distribute the total plan to the Board of Finance members so they can see the overall plan with the inclusion of the existing Fire Department purchase plan and the presentation made by the Chief right now on the amendment that he is looking for to change that plan.”
Commissioner Potter informed the board that the Fire Service Coordination Committee had always expressed a concern with the rotation plan that the trucks purchased by the city wouldn’t fit in their stations and that they would have to spend a lot of money to modify their stations. When they got to the point where they needed to amend the plan, the volunteers were more receptive to getting a monetary donation from the city and to use the line item that gave them $15,000.00 each year for supplies to purchase trucks that would better fit their needs. That’s why the volunteers, especially Torringford, is very receptive to the idea of the city’s contribution of $100,000.00. They’ll use money they’ve been saving, along with monies set aside in the Fire Service Coordination account
to purchase their new truck. By the time Burrville and Drakeville are ready to purchase their trucks, the Fire Service Coordination Account should be built back up enough so there’s an even allotment for each of the three departments.
MOTION #3110
On a motion by Mrs. Libby, seconded by Mr. Nejaime, the board voted to table the discussion on the revised Apparatus Replacement Plan and the purchase of a new rescue as approved by the Board of Public Safety and City Council.
Chief Field invited calls from anyone having questions or concerns on this issue.
REVIEW OF TAX COLLECTOR #3140
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Dickinson, a discussion took place in regard to the review of the Tax Collector.
Corp. Counsel Vasko said this board set out certain criteria that had to be met when they amended the Tax Collector’s Agreement. He supplied the board with that information and asked the board if they had any questions or comments.
Mr. Nejaime requested the Tax Collector’s presence during their next meeting.
BUS: MAYOR AND BOARD #3170
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mrs. Libby, the board voted to consider business presented by Mayor Quinn and Members of the Board of Finance.
Mr. Cornish volunteered to sit on the Board of Education’s budget committee.
Mr. Dickinson indicated that he was speaking with Doug O’Connell, member of the Board of Education, in regard to the 4 X 4 Plan and they agreed that it would be beneficial to present it to the Superintendent and other members of the board in order to get some momentum going.
Mr. Zeller indicated that he was serving on the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and would be happy to address any issues that may come along those line through the Board of Finance’s perspective.
Mr. Nejaime inquired about the Timkin Corporation.
Mayor Quinn stated that he had been in contact with the local management people from the Timkin Corporation and was informed just today that 190 workers will be losing their jobs over the next sixty days and that approximately 100 people will be left working in the facility. The company that will be picking it up in the asset sale is RBC out of Fairfield. As bad as the news was, Timkin had complied with the federal requirement for a lay off of that magnitude. Over the last year, he had been in constant contact with the Department of Economic and Community Development to see if there was any way to salvage those jobs, including planned buyouts, etc. He has called the Governor’s Office and the Department of Labor to explain that a massive lay off would be occurring in the City of
Torrington. He had informed the Workforce Investment Board so they would be ready to handle 198 dislocated individuals, which will exceed the normal funding and an additional grant will be needed to help those dislocated workers. More important, he had called the Department of Labor to issue a rapid response team that will deal with their individual financial needs, such as unemployment compensation, benefit packages, etc.
While he was hoping for the best for those families and the city, he should have assumed bad news was coming when he was continually relegated to the Public Relations Department when he asked to speak directly to the Timkin family.
On a bright note, the President of RBC, Michael Hartnip, had responded to the Mayor’s phone call in three minute’s time, even though he was on the west coast at the time. Mr. Hartnip grew up in Winsted and understood the situation. To date, he had not gone through the plant nor met the workers, however he told Mayor Quinn that they would not have invested in that purchase if they didn’t think there was long term profitability and long term success.
ADJOURNMENT #3690
On a motion by Mrs. Libby, seconded by Mr. Nejaime, the board voted to adjourn at 5:40 p.m.
ATTEST: JOLINE LeBLANC
ASST. CITY CLERK
| 
