Norwalk: The Budget Cap
Last night’s council debate on the budget cap was interesting enough that this morning I was still thinking about it and the ramifications or lack thereof of what was said. The simplistic analysis was that the council voted in a party line vote to raise the budget cap by $400k from Finance Director Tom Hamilton’s recommended cap. The party in favor being the Democrats and the party in opposition being the Republicans. Yet, it really wasn’t all that simple, each council member had nuanced positions that didn’t quite make it evident what their position was on some essential issues.
Take for example the issue of raising taxes. Republicans, post council meeting, were adamant that the Democrats were wholly for raising taxes. I disagreed on a number of counts. Firstly, because the council doesn’t set the final budget, the BET does, and secondarily because what individual Democratic council members were saying was specific to positions that delivered services to Norwalk that they viewed would be harmed if labor positions were unfunded.
I think it is entirely reasonable to hold a position that says don’t cut city employees and don’t raise taxes. And even some Republicans said the same thing in the debate, when they referred to the BET already having wiggle room under the Hamilton recommended cap anyways.
So, for me at least, its unclear on many Democratic council members part, what position they actually hold on raising taxes. The Republicans provided greater clarity. I think it’s safe to say that Straniti and Kydes stated unequivocally that they were opposed to raising taxes for any reason. Conroy and Bonenfant said many things about the need to keep tax increases from happening, but I think it’s also safe to say that they are opposed to raising taxes. Hempstead and McQuaid presented more expansive views, opposed to raising taxes because there were too many Norwalkers who can’t absorb more expenses.
The issue of which positions should be cut, or what city services should be reduced is a very important one for the council members to have. I hope that they had those discussions in committee meetings, but it was difficult to figure out, except for Serasis, why they advocated for certain positions over others. Serasis stated his reasons clearly, he’s the chairman of the After school alliance, he’s concerned about the administrative duties of the programs that the alliance over sees, and doesn’t want to lose administrative staff. Yet, later I found out that the position in question was only funded part time originally and for a budget of $5k. This issue then, raises the concept of zero based budgeting.
Zero based budgeting is a philosophy that requires all budget line items to be reviewed for funding regardless of previous funding. Which means that if the position for the after school alliance was only funded to the degree of $5k, then was another line item increased to accommodate the work load, and is the focus on the position perhaps the wrong issue? Without the whole view of program funding its hard to judge where a position falls in the importance of operating a city service. But there was a position discussed last night where I do happen to know a few more details.
As part of state mandate, the council had created a new commission last year called the Aquifer Protection Agency. Zoning commission members are the appointees to the commission, and thus I chair the APA. Two years ago, when the legislation kicked in, a staff member was hired in the conservation department to work on the implementation of the APA program. What the legislation essentially requires is that any business that is part of a regulated industry that can impact aquifers, must be registered with the municipality it operates in. That registration entails inspections and determination of compliance with the environmental regulations specific to the aquifer protection act.
Norwalk is unique in the fact that we have an industrial and commercial zone atop one of our aquifers. As a result, two years ago, the conservation department estimated that hundreds of businesses may be affected and therefor a staff person would be needed in order to perform the mandated work associated with the legislation. As it turned out, the number of affected businesses was much lower than the original estimates. In addition, the APA commission, alerted our state delegation (State Senator Bob Duff, State Rep Chris Perone, State Rep Larry Cafero, and then State Rep Toni Boucher– State Rep Bruce Morris never responded) to the fact that not only was the legislation an unfunded mandate, but that the legislation was ambiguous in how it addressed businesses and property owners of industrial condos. Duff, Perone, Cafero and Boucher all reviewed the legislation, spoke to staff and began work with the DEP to clarify the language and deal with the financial impact that was adversely affecting Norwalk. Unfortunately, the state budget has loomed as even a larger issue, and the likelihood of getting relief for an unfunded mandate is not high. The APA is currently deliberating what the fee schedule will be for permit applications and renewals. Part of detail in determining the fee schedule will be determining the financial impact administrating the program will have. Yet the balance of that impact can’t be onerous on a handful of businesses.
The point in describing this conservation position, is that the details of what the position was created for, what the workload actually was, never made it to the council floor. When some members of the public spoke in favor of keeping the department at a staffing level of two people, I was a bit surprised to hear that there was a perception that the position was needed for other conservation enforcement activities. Herein lies the dilemma that all council members should be wary of. What justification is being relied upon to determine workload as budget recommendations are put forth? When Geake stated that the fair rent investigator investigated 250 incidents, the Mayor was quick to point out that the number referred to maybe complaints that were received, not actual investigations. There’s a difference in workload of fielding a complaint, and investigating it.
When Krummel pointed out that the national policy making impetus is to put people to work, he was right. But putting people to work, means figuring out what work needs to be performed. I don’t think the council adequately addressed the assessment of what work or level of services need to be maintained or increased last night. It’s too simplistic to say that taxes shouldn’t be raised no matter what, and all positions must be saved no matter what. The old paradigm of expanding government or contracting it, is the politics of the 20th century. What we should be talking about is how to make government better. That means maybe, getting away from reflexive positions and looking at the details more thoroughly.
