The BOE continues to slog through budget season, and soon it will shift over to the Common Council. Despite the drama of where to cut the budget, and it appears that at least this year there are cuts, of some magnitude, but not cuts to the overall budget. The real issue at hand is how much can the City of Norwalk reduced the budget cap. If premliminary signs are indicators, but with this council who really knows, the idea of offsetting expenses with user based fees is a non starter. Which leaves taxes.
For some Norwalk residents, particularly Harbor View and South Norwalk mixed gentrified neighbourhoods, the answer of raising taxes is outrageous. Council people had better play close attention to where the tax burden has become unbearable. For instance, Harborview, had great interest in the topic of how the city was going to handle its solid waste disposal, trashgate to the rest of the us. They opposed the contract that would have Meadow Street become a City of Norwalk exclusive transfer station. The City of Norwalk, had that contract been approved, would have saved $1 million dollars, a figure that while disputed here, is a solid number based on what the City of Norwalk will have to pay as a result of special allocations coming up this year. Ironically Harborview does not get the city service of garbage pick up, they contract it privately, with City Carting.
In the meanwhile, the City had also been banking on real estate conveyance taxes and building permit fees. Both of which have declined enough to cause revenue shortfalls of a significant nature. Add to the mix less interest earned off money invested, and you have a this year very real revenue shortfall that is causing city departments to make cuts. The weather certainly hasn’t helped either. The snow storms that fall on the weekends are driving up snow removal expenses.
Norwalk hasn’t suffered real estate declines that much of the overbuilt parts of the nation have seen. But the average selling price of homes in Norwalk has gone down some. There is also a larger stock of homes for sale, a sign of the times as well. Since December 15th, according to the Hour, 450 hearings have been held between homeowners and the revaluation firm of Ryan & Associates.
On Tuesday the Common Council will hold a discussion on the proposed $20 beach sticker fee. Last year, the discussion centered on opposition to raising fees on overtaxed residents. Now there’s some hard numbers out there. Corda is submitting a budget that requests $5 million more than last year’s budget, with items like portable classrooms being added, instead of redistricting, and additional professional development funding.
The school board is making progress in cutting back parts of its budget, but cutting also means no increase, and Corda must be told that that there will be no increase to his budget of last year. Further the Common Council must figure out a way to continue city services, Norwalk has notoriously and historically failed to deliver services and maintain the ones that they have. That means looking at ways other than property taxes, and it means an honest discussion of how to accomplish that, instead of just voting no on user fees. It would be nice of we could get some creative thinking on the Common Council, instead of reactionary thinking that overlooks long term impacts.
Turfgrrl, I see no way that Corda will have no increase over last year’s budget. He and the BOE still haven’t taken their jobs seriously because, as has been said in a few other postings here, there is still the issue of his executive assistant and some overstaffing at NHS. Do we need as assistant superintendent AND an executive assistant to the superintendent? Please.
How will we ever be able to stop this ever expanding drain on the taypayers of Norwalk. The time to REALLY REDUCE Spending & Services is NOW.
NO more 11-12% salary increases for city employees. The city needs to cut back just as the rest of us do.
But you are talking about a superintendent who has absolutely no understanding of the financial hardships the taxpayers are suffering. He has no understanding of the struggle families have sending children to college. He has no understanding of the family that is struggling to provide housing, food and medical care for themselves. He has no understanding of the family that is in danger of losing their homes and who have no idea where they will go if that happens. How would he know? He has demanded and received an exorbitant salary and benefits package from the same board of education that is supposed to represent Norwalk taxpayers. I could better understand this if he had been doing a great job of providing leadership, but I won’t go there. On top of that, he already had a pension from his earlier career in New York.
Can anyone rely upon such a man to make decisions that are in the interests of the taxpayers? Can the taxpayers rely upon the board of education? Apparently, they cannot.
Now we have to hope that the taxpayers of this city can rely upon the common council.
TG:
That million dollars you keep referring to as if it was real money is a very optimistic, but innacurate, projected number, based on anticipated income that might possibly offset the half million annual rent for the transfer station. It is not a real number, and, in this economy, the City was probably saved a lot of money by not signing a ten year lease for that property.
Not to mention that, like all the other 6-figure fat cats on the 3rd floor at City Hall, he doesn’t live in Norwalk and has no interest in our tax bills.
Old Timer: You are overlooking the cost per ton of solid transfer that was budgeted in last year at the lower rate. The Council will have to do a special appropriation of the higher, now contracted, price per ton this year.
No, I am not overlooking that, the cost per ton was budgeted (projected) based on the optimistic, but innaccurate, asumption that it would not change at the first of the year even though the contract expired. Doesn’t take an Economics Phd to figure that was not going to happen and, no matter who got the new contract, a special appriation would be necessary. That special appropriation would have been a lot more money if the City leased the Meadow St. site.
Old Timer: Actaully its worse than what you are assuming. The budged amount for Jan 1 2009 was the contracted amount that was presented last July. In other words a low cost. The current cost is higher, although lower than the CRRA contracted amount.
You are incorrect however, if the Council had approved the City Carting Contract as negotiated in July of 2008, there would be no need for a special appropriation now. This of course should have been front and center in the discussions then, but alas, wasn’t, except for me asking about it then.
Regardless of a council person’s take on the contract, they all managed to not as the basic and fundamental questions about the budget numbers used. Just like they failed to ask for any data regarding the recycling bins, or even now, they have failed to ask about any data concerning the budget and use of the parks.
I’ll keep repeating this, you can’t manage what you don’t know.
There was nothing budgeted for a 10 yr, 4.2 million dollar, lease on the Meadow St transfer station. If the original deal was approved, a special appropriation to pay the rent would have been required, in addition to the one they need now to make up the difference between projected and actual cost of taking our solid waste away. The big money you, and others, talk about the City losing when the original deal got shot down, included very optimistic projections of more recycling income and the tipping fees from other towns garbage at Meadow St. The fees for other town’s garbage may be realistic numbers. The projected recycling income, with City Carting getting all the scrap metal money, was never real numbers, just wishful thinking based on a short term record-breaking spike in recycle material prices. Nobody ever talked about why City Carting wanted the City to operate Meadow St, if it was such a money-maker, but some of us did not believe all the hype. Don’t be amazed to see them sell that property.
If you run the numbers, based on current recycle prices, you will get a much better idea of how much the City either lost, or saved.
The school budget should be increase where it directly impacts students. Better teachers and more supplies go a long way. As a teacher and a norwalk resident i have to work 3 jobs to live in MY town. Raise my salary please!
Old Timer: What analysis did you do or facts do you have? Sounds like your own projected take on the City Carting proposal. What you describe is nothing like what I saw – a documented, fully flushed out deal in writing with all of the facts available. The City would have saved AT LEAST $1M.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-recyclingcost,0,2929791.story
This story, from the Chicago Tribune last week, tells the story of recycling costing money now for the first time, after years of making money. The “documented” deal you saw was based on fantastic, literally unbelievable, projected income from increased recycling and tipping fees for other towns’ garbage. Fantastic enough to cover the rent on the site and generate extra income.
You, and others, believed City Carting Company wanted to give away all that income to the City of Norwalk because they are such nice people and there was no reason for the FBI raid.
Even Tom Hamilton believed there was a million dollars there for the City and accused Diane Lauricella of costing the City that amount.
Old Timer: The contract the City of Norwalk has states that each ton of recycling earns $17 and change. The fact that City Carting won’t be able to resell it, is not the City of Norwalk’s problem to deal with, the contract revenue holds. The environment on the other hand …
Further, the FBI raids, you reference, happened in Danbury to a different trash hauler. Unless you have a link that says otherwise ….
Additionally OT, the Meadow Street transfer station deal had NOTHING TO DO with the City’s recycling contract with City Carting. COMPLETELY SEPARATE contracts.