MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF FINANCE
JUNE 8, 2004
A SPECIAL MEETING of the Board of Finance was held on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, in the Council Chambers, to adopt the City and Board of Education budgets and to set the mill rate.
Those in attendance included Mayor Owen J. Quinn, Jr., members of the Board of Finance Daniel Farley, James Zeller, Joseph Nader, James Nichol, Roger Dickinson, and Bruce Cornish, also Corp. Counsel Albert Vasko, Comptroller Alice Proulx and Public Works Director Gerald Rollett.
Mayor Quinn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MOTION TO ADOPT BOARD OF EDUCATION BUDGET #100
Mr. Cornish made a motion to adopt the Board of Education Budget. Mr. Dickinson seconded the motion.
During a discussion, Mr. Cornish said he was supporting the Board of Education budget as submitted. He thought the Board of Education had gone through a great deal of effort to bring in a responsible budget at just about 4% that meets their needs and includes multiple goals.
Mr. Dickinson agreed. He commended the Board of Education’s efforts and Mr. Cornish for acting as the liaison for the Board of Finance through the budget process.
The Board of Education’s Capital Budget was $1,155,300.00 and their Operating Budget was $48,312,357.00.
The motion was withdrawn, since the Board of Finance had to vote separately for each, the Operating Budget and the Capital Budget.
BOARD OF EDUCATION - CAPITAL BUDGET #184
Mr. Cornish made a motion to adopt the Board of Education’s Capital Budget in the amount of $1,155,300.00. Mr. Dickinson seconded the motion. On a roll call vote, Mr. Cornish, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Nichol, Mr. Farley, Mr. Zeller, and Mr. Nader voted in favor of the motion. On a 6-0 vote, the motion carried.
BOARD OF EDUCATION - OPERATING BUDGET #220
Mr. Cornish made a motion to adopt the Board of Education’s Operating Budget in the amount of $48,312,357.00. Mr. Dickinson seconded the motion. On a roll call vote, Mr. Cornish, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Nichol, Mr. Farley, Mr. Zeller, and Mr. Nader voted in favor of the motion. On a 6-0 vote, the motion carried.
CITY BUDGET #250
Mr. Cornish made a motion to adopt the City Budget. Mr. Dickinson seconded the motion.
During a discussion, Mr. Dickinson said he felt the City Budget was also very responsible. He thought the direction of coming in with a zero base budget, except for contractual increases, was appropriate and consistent with the 4 X 4 Plan that the Board of Finance had undertaken over the past eighteen months. He stated that the request from the Street Department for a new position to help with the snow plowing was a small exception. After reading the justification for the request, he didn’t agree with the need for a year round person to handle snow plowing events that occur only occasionally.
MOTION TO REDUCE THE CITY BUDGET #310
Mr. Dickinson made a motion to reduce the city budget by $32,838.00, the amount for the additional person in the Street Department. The city budget would be reduced to $44,328,234.00. There was no second to the motion.
Mr. Cornish said he also thought the city had submitted a responsible budget, coming in with an approximate increase of 2 1/4% when capital improvements, insurance / benefit issues and debt service are taken out of the equation.
Ms. Proulx stated that Mr. Dickinson’s request to eliminate a new Street Department position from the budget would bring the mill rate down to 32.75.
Mr. Farley inquired whether they could hear from Mr. Rollett in regard to the matter.
Mr. Rollett stated that the Council had requested further information on the hiring of an additional person for the Street Department. His memo concentrated on the need during winter time operations for snow removal, however, that was merely a small portion of the work load. He explained that the Street Department can’t keep up with their work load during spring, summer and fall and are getting further behind every year with basic maintenance projects, such as cleaning roadside ditches, roadside mowing, sweeping operations, re-paving roads, etc. He stated that, although the request for the additional position wasn’t strictly due to a need for snow plowing operations, it was a critical winter time use of the employee.
Mr. Rollett explained that the city had budgeted funds for the past three years to start maintaining our numerous detention ponds and we haven’t even started because we don’t have the manpower to do the basic maintenance throughout the year.
Mr. Dickinson inquired as to why the justification for the additional position was based on snow plowing.
Mr. Rollett said he was asked to furnish additional information on the hours for snow plowing and that was the reason he submitted a second memo that referred solely to snow plowing. The request for the additional employee was included in his original budget.
Mr. Nader inquired whether any overtime for the current work force could be eliminated if the request for the additional position was granted.
Mr. Rollett said there’s a limit as to what the Street Department can do with overtime. They work forty hours for nine or ten months of the year, and up to forty three hours a week during the road construction season. An additional employee won’t cut down on any of the overtime because of the amount of work that needs to be done.
Mayor Quinn pointed out that Mr. Rollett had requested an additional employee last year and it was eliminated. Mr. Rollett again made this request in his original budget submission and furnished his justification for it. When the need was discussed with the City Council, the question became specific on snow removal. Mr. Rollett then responded with his second memo on how the additional employee would fit into the snow removal aspect. Therefore, it appeared that the request was isolated, but consistently, Mr. Rollett has been asking for an extra position.
Mr. Rollett added that the Council’s argument historically had been that there was no need for an additional person in the winter, therefore, the memo came about putting more emphasis on the winter work.
MOTION WITHDRAWN #630
Mr. Dickinson withdrew his original motion to reduce the city budget by the amount of the additional person. ($32,838.00)
MOTION TO ADOPT CITY BUDGET #650
Mr. Dickinson made a motion to adopt the City Budget of $44,361,072.00 as submitted. Mr. Farley seconded the motion. The mill rate will be set at 32.76. On a roll call vote, Mr. Cornish, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Nichol, Mr. Farley, Mr. Zeller, and Mr. Nader voted in favor of the motion. On a 6-0 vote, the motion carried.
VOTE TO SET THE MILL RATE #700
Mr. Cornish made a motion to set the mill rate. Mr. Dickinson seconded the motion.
Ms. Proulx reported that the estimated income was $33,380,434.00, that a surplus in Blue Cross of $400,000.00 was incorporated into calculating the mill rate, and that a portion of the Undesignated Fund Balance of $400,000.00 would also impact the mill rate. Total revenue was $34,184,034.00. The Board of Finance could increase the budgeted revenue by $100,000.00, however, Ms. Proulx suggested remaining conservative by not increasing it to $34,380,434.00. She further stated that $273,311.00 from the Anthem funds were transferred into the budget for the purchase of the Machuga property.
Mr. Cornish inquired whether the premium cost share for the Board of Education totaling approximately $70,000.00 or $80,000.00 were built into the numbers that Ms. Proulx had.
Ms. Proulx indicated that they would have been incorporated into the Board of Education revenues.
Mr. Zeller pointed out that the mill rate was previously estimated to be 32.77 and inquired whether the 32.76 was reflecting additional revenue found since that time.
Ms. Proulx explained that it was a matter of “rounding off”.
Mr. Cornish agreed with Ms. Proulx that they should remain conservative.
AMEND THE MOTION TO SET THE MILL RATE #1000
Mr. Cornish amended his motion to set the mill rate at 32.76. Mr. Dickinson amended his second.
Mr. Farley said he found it extremely frustrating dealing with variances between tax decreases in autos and increased assessment values in properties. He stated that he had even asked Ms. Proulx if other municipalities had ever set two different mill rates, one for autos and one for properties.
Mayor Quinn noted that he, as well as other members of the Board of Finance had all experienced the same feeling of frustration with the revaluation that basically switched the entire playing field to residential, whereas in past years, commercial / industrial properties had taken the hit. Ultimately the numbers will speak for themselves. He read an article published in CCM’s Newsletter which stated “That 85% of the cities and towns in Connecticut were forced to increase property taxes for the year 2003 - 2004 in order to meet public service needs of residents and businesses. Overall property rates increased by the average of 5% in 2003 - 2004, which was twice the rate of inflation.”
Mayor Quinn noted that Torrington has been very aggressive in being fiscally conservative yet meeting educational and city goals. The property tax hikes in many of the towns were forced by inadequate state aid. That wasn’t necessarily the case for Torrington, since we did fairly well with state revenue. Unfortunately, Torrington was one of forty one cities and towns that went through the revaluation process and it’s difficult to evaluate last year’s experience to this year’s. Ms Proulx is doing everything she can to come up with an equalized mill rate for comparison.
Mr. Farley pointed out that some people will actually have a tax decrease depending on how many vehicles they own.
Mayor Quinn commended everyone involved in the budget process, especially Ms. Proulx, for a job well done.
VOTE TO SET MILL RATE #1250
On a roll call vote, Mr. Cornish, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Nichol, Mr. Farley, Mr. Zeller, and Mr. Nader voted in favor of the motion to set the mill rate for the fiscal year 2004 - 2005 at 32.76. On a 6-0 vote, the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT #1280
On a motion by Mr. Dickinson, seconded by Mr. Cornish, the board voted unanimously to adjourn at 8:10 p.m.
ATTEST: JOLINE LeBLANC
ASST. CITY CLERK
| 
