MINUTES
BOARD OF FINANCE
SEPTEMBER 26, 2006
A REGULAR MEETING of the Board of Finance, adjourned from September 19, 2006, was held on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 in the Council Chambers.
Those in attendance included Mayor Ryan J. Bingham, members of the Board of Finance Daniel Farley, Bruce Cornish, Mark Bushka, and James Nichol, Corp. Counsel Ernestine Yuille Weaver, Comptroller Alice Proulx, Police Chief Robert Milano, and Administrative Assistant to the Mayor, Steve Nocera. Board of Finance members Joseph Nader and James Zeller were absent.
Mayor Bingham called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m.
MINUTES #020
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Farley, the board, with the exception of Mr. Cornish who abstained, voted unanimously to accept the amended minutes of the meeting held August 15, 2006.
Mr. Farley pointed out that, on page 4, paragraph 10, it was Mr. Joseph Ferrucci from Fletcher Thompson, and not Mr. Brian Holmes, who said “The $1.6 million, or 10%, was the standard fee and added that it included engineering services as well as architectural fees.”
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC #080
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Bushka, the board voted unanimously to open the meeting to the public. There was no public participation.
REFUND: JOB ANNOYTOLLA #090
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Farley, the board voted unanimously to authorize the refund of $11.16 from Contingency to Job Annoytolla of Marshal Lake Road for work not performed on the removal of a deck.
BUDGET TRANSFERS #120
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Farley, the board voted unanimously to authorize the final year-end budget transfers for fiscal year 2005/2006 per the Comptroller’s memo dated September 12, 2006.
CIRMA #160
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Bushka, the board voted unanimously to authorize the following payments to CIRMA from Contingency for reimbursable deductibles in the Becker and Blinkoff claims.
Becker $893.00
Blinkoff $2,670.20
TRANSFER OF FUNDS - SOCIAL SERVICES #175
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Bushka, the board voted unanimously to authorize the transfer of $2,538.58 from Contingency, $300.00 from Social Services - Learn to Earn line item, and $547.07 from Social Services-Neighbors in Need line item ( for a total of $3,385.65) into the Eviction Fund #0228.
YEAR END PURCHASE ORDERS #200
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Farley, the board voted unanimously to authorize the list of year-end “City of Torrington” purchase orders, per the Comptroller’s memo dated September 12, 2006.
BUILDING BRICK WORK AT POLICE DEPT. #210
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Bushka, the board voted unanimously to accept the Board of Safety’s recommendation to authorize the use of $20,000.00 from the Capital Expenditure Account for Roof Replacement and $6,800.00 from the Capital Expenditure Account for Telephone System Upgrades toward the Building Brick Work at the Police Department.
Mr. Farley inquired about a change order from when the building was renovated in 1989 and was later provided with the answers he was looking for.
Mr. Farley pointed out that Chief Milano was quoted two options to make these repairs. Option #1 had a price tag of $263,595.00. It included repairing the brick work where necessary and fixing mortar joints, sills, etc. Option #2 encompassed everything in Option #1, plus they would redo all of the mortar in the entire building. Option #2 had a price tag of $392,790.00 with Architectural and Engineering services of $26,800.00.
Mr. Farley assumed the board was voting for the Architectural and Engineering services of $26,800.00 for Option #2. It was his belief that the Board of Safety had decided that Option #2 was the best way to move forward at this point in time.
Chief Milano said it was his belief that the Board of Safety did not make a concrete conclusion as to which Option they would choose. He didn’t think they were prepared to select Option #2 without being assured that the extensive work had to be done. There was also the issue of financing this project. It was his understanding that part of the $26,800.00 would cover the cost to have someone assist the Purchasing Agent develop bid specs, and be Project Manager.
The board discussed how they could save money with Option #2 because the scaffolding would only need to be installed once.
Mr. Cornish indicated that $26,800.00 would only cover minimal fees. The cost for the kind of oversight that you would obtain from a construction observer/manager would be far greater.
Mr. Farley said he thought it would be in the city’s best interest, if it was going to spend $392,000.00, to obtain another quote from someone like New England Masonry, a large mason contractor in the State of Connecticut since 1947, who has done major restorations on churches, hospitals and the airport. Their website even states that they give free estimates.
Mr. Cornish said the market is going to tell us what the cost is once the bid specs are in and open to the public. We won’t need another contractor to validate the cost estimate from the consultant we already have. Mr. Cornish wasn’t certain they needed another opinion. This consultant was simply going to develop the technical specifications for doing the work, not quote the work. It could be quoted by New England Masonry as well as many other companies in that field.
Mr. Farley asked to change the wording of the motion to: “Vote to accept the Board of Safety’s recommendation to authorize the use of ‘Up to’ $26,800.00" because we didn’t know which option to choose at this time. If we choose Option #1, the entire amount will not be necessary.
Mr. Cornish said he thought the Board of Safety was recommending the full design/scope, and how it’s being separated into Option 1 or 2 for bid purposes, on whichever project will be chosen. It made sense to develop the specs for the entire project rather than do the portion for Option 1 and discover down the road that Option 2 is now a requirement or high priority. He endorsed the full $26,800.00 to prepare the specs for the entire project, even if we have to bid it in phases or supplements in order to do Option 1 or 2 based on what’s available in the capital budget.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLE #1540
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Bushka, the board voted unanimously to accept the Board of Safety’s recommendation to authorize the use of “Up to $42,000.00" from the Vehicle Replacement Contingency for a new emergency response vehicle, which will be reimbursed by Federal Grant monies.
Mr. Cornish expressed his concern over the life span of this vehicle and how it will be replaced in the future because the city went through a reduction in the Vehicle Replacement Program in the last budget cycle. He noted that the plan for the long term vehicle replacement needs has not been drafted, yet this is the second vehicle they have approved this year.
Mayor Bingham indicated that the sub- committee will meet with a consultant who will provide them with a complete audit and recommendations on how to proceed with the policy and how to budget for it. This vehicle will certainly be involved in the Vehicle Replacement Plan, which will be ready by the next budget season.
BUS: MAYOR & MEMBERS #1660
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Farley, the board voted unanimously to consider business presented by Mayor Bingham and members of the board.
Mr. Nichol confirmed his meeting with Mayor Bingham and the Waterbury Housing Fund for Friday morning.
Mr. Farley said he was asked for his opinion as part of the sub-committee on the Tax Freeze, and he recommended that asset limitations be set in addition to the income limit.
Mr. Cornish said it was his belief that the city had considered and rolled our portion of the $33 million from state revenues into our budget, but he didn’t see it as a stand-alone item in the revenue projections.
Comptroller Alice Proulx noted that the funds were under Property Tax Relief.
Corp. Counsel Ernestine Yuille Weaver indicted that the asset limitations for Tax Relief for the elderly were set at $125,000.00.
Mayor Bingham thanked Mr. Farley for his due diligence in researching the Police Department Building Project done in 1989.
ADJOURNMENT #1910
On a motion by Mr. Cornish, seconded by Mr. Farley, the board voted unanimously to adjourn at 5:00 p.m.
ATTEST: JOLINE LeBLANC
ASST. CITY CLERK
| 
