YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: Kimmel Updates His Compromise


by turfgrrl


April 9th, 2007 · 38 Comments

The latest from Bruce Kimmel, from the BOE (sort of) blog.

Note that he’s only asking for an extra million now. For some reason he wants to raise the cap by a million. But then the Common Council could raise the CAP by a billion, but its the BET that divvies up the CAP to various departments. As in, most of the pie goes to the BOE and slim since goes to the city.

But here’s Kimmel in his own words:

There is a solution to the budget crisis

There is a way out of Norwalk’s current budget crisis. But it will take some compromising and not everyone will be completely satisfied. Below is a proposal that I hope can become the framework for productive discussions.

When Tom Hamilton, Norwalk’s finance director, made his original budget recommendation several weeks ago, everyone noticed that it would require roughly a 5.5% increase in property taxes. Common Council and Board of Estimate members said they were not pleased with so hefty a tax hike and would work to establish a final budget that kept the tax increase below 5%. I think that can be achieved. And I also think the Board of Education’s budget can be increased from 3.8% to 6.23%, which is what the BOE needs to avoid program cuts. Here’s how:

The Council would need to increase its cap by one million dollars; that would still keep the tax increase below 5%. The Council would also recommend to the BET that the extra million be earmarked for the BOE.

The BET would need to withdraw from the undesignated fund balance an additional million, again with the money earmarked for the BOE. This fund balance withdrawal – added to the projected withdrawals for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 budgets – would still enable Norwalk to project an undesignated fund balance for the 2009-10 fiscal year that was roughly 6.7% to 6.8% of total revenue. Hamilton has indicated that he would be comfortable if Norwalk matched the median percent fund balance for Norwalk towns and cities with AAA ratings, which is 6.9%. The additional draw down would leave us close to that goal.

The increased cap and the additional draw down from the undesignated fund balance would leave the BOE about $1.3 million short of what it needs to avoid cuts in the school system. The BOE would have to assume that the remaining funds would come from Hartford. With the governor’s educational proposals, it’s a safe bet that the city would receive at least that amount. Moreover, should the BOE received funds in excess of $1.3 million, those funds would be returned to the fund balance. (If there is a shortfall of funds from Hartford, the BOE would have time before next August to make emergency cuts.)

This can be done. We can keep the tax increase below 5%. We can maintain a healthy rainy day fund. And we can properly fund our school system.

Bruce Kimmel

Posted by Norwalk Board of Education at 2:54 PM

Tags: Local · Norwalk

38 Responses so far “Norwalk: Kimmel Updates His Compromise”



  • 1 ENrwlker // Apr 9, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    I can’t help but note that Kimmel isn’t suggestion ANY savings by the Board of Education on the spending side at all. He’s just looking for the money from the State and the City’s reserve fund (i.e., last year’s property taxes) rather than from this year’s property taxes. That will leave the BoE base spending higher, and just post-pones the day of reckoning to next year. This is smoke and mirrors budgeting, and reflects the continued refusal of the BoE to face the reality that the days of spending without serious constraint are coming to an end.

  • 2 Bobble Bobblers // Apr 9, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    I think “bobble bobble” that this is Corda speaking via his “bobble bobble” puppet. The point is Corda wants ALL the money and he is fighting and convincing his “bobble bobble” mouthpieces to get it.

    Bobble bobble parents, bobble bobble administrators, bobble bobble Board of Ed.

    Sal’s own little stable of bobblers.

    Does anyone think here? If half the effort spent on trying to support Sal’s budget demand was spent on trying to find ways to accomplish MORE with LESS then we have a discussion and some THINKING, not bobbling.

  • 3 anon // Apr 9, 2007 at 7:52 pm

    This site has become a one subject place. I know the budget is a big issue, but isn’t there anything else to discuss? How about that historical district? What’s going on now that Moccia has gutted commissions? Is everything else a big secret?

  • 4 anonymous // Apr 10, 2007 at 6:23 am

    Disappointing.

  • 5 Concerned Citizen // Apr 10, 2007 at 11:13 am

    Hey #3 “Moccia gutted commisions” you say. Getting something straight Anony #3. Moccia is the Mayor and it’s HIS perogative to put whom ever he wants on the commision. Just like Knopp the weasel did. Since when does he have to ask YOUR permission to put those who he feels are best for the commision. You didn’t have a damm thing to say when Knopp the weasel let go of Esposito’s appointee’s, did you? NOW all of a sudden, because its Moccia and not ANOTHER dopey Dem, you feel it your RIGHT to dicate who he appoints. WELL ITS NOT! SO SHUT UP & SIT DOWN! These are the rule as they are - THE MAYOR APPOINTS THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, NOT PUBLIC CONCENSUS. They were OK when Knopp was in, but not now. Well too bad, if you don’t like it, then run for mayor, and if we are all unfortunate enough to have you for mayor , THEN we’ll see if you apoint who you want or if you’ll ask the republicans or anyone else who they feel they’d like to have appointed. Since when do you feel it NOW ypour right to tell who to appoint or not. You people are disgusting.

  • 6 turfgrrl // Apr 10, 2007 at 11:30 am

    I am not pleased with the tone of your post concerned citizen. Please refrain form attacking other posters. “Shut up and Sit down” does not foster discussion.
  • 7 indiga // Apr 10, 2007 at 11:45 am

    Concerned Citizen should make sure his meds have kicked in before posting….

  • 8 Concerned Citizen // Apr 10, 2007 at 12:02 pm

    NO offense to you turfgirl, but I’m Sick & Tired of these people who feel THEY must be answered to when this mayor makes a decission that is HIS right to make. The riddiculous remarks about the mayor’s “gutting of the historical commision” angers me. Why is it ok to not question Knopp’s replacements of Espositos appointees, yet a different rule aplies when Moccia appoints his selections? This double standard the left likes to embrace is sickening. And indiga - it’s remarks from people you that would prompt me to WANT to take meds.

  • 9 ENrwlker // Apr 10, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    Concerned Citizen — don’t get so worked up. Double standards among the leftists? You can’t be surprised by it, its in their DNA. Clinton fired ALL of the U.S. attorneys (as was his right), for instance, and the press didn’t say a word. Bush fires a handful of U.S. attorneys (as was his right), and rightgeous indignation fills the airwaves.

    Knopp systematically removed almost all leftover Esposito appointees from the City’s boards and commissions, and there were no complaints (even from the appointees, who, being Republicans, understood the rules and didn’t question the right of Mayor Knopp to appoint whom he chose to the commissions).

    Now, Moccia replaces some commissioners in the same way Knopp did and, right on cue, rightgeous indignation fills the air. There is a reason people for many years have called this particular body the “Hysterical Commission”.

  • 10 Concerned Citizen // Apr 10, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    Thank you ENrwlker. It amazes me how the lib left proclaims they are for the free speech, pro-constitution, pro-bill of rights, etc. EXCEPT when one takes issuue with what they say. Then they do all they can to circumvent that person. Another fine example of lib flip-flop for you: When clinton brought the US into Kosovo(he didn’t even do before the UN) he used Haliburton religiously. Most people didn’t even know who “Haliburton” was. George Bush uses Haliburton and just listen to all the crapola that drools out of the lefts mouth.

  • 11 indiga // Apr 10, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    OK..I’ll buy that it’s the Mayor’s perogative to shape Commissions through appointments. But I don’t believe Knopp (or Esposito, for that matter) ever replaced 8 out of 11 Comissioners in a period of a few months, made the Commission top heavy with his own party members, had his Corporation Council issue numerous opinions to restrict the legitimate actions of the Commission and did it at a time that the Commission was taking a position not popular with one of the Mayor’s staunchest supporters. Sounds to me mighty like an abuse of the public process for private interests…

  • 12 indiga // Apr 10, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Forgot to mention that 7 out of the 8 Moccia apointess were men. Obviously, in our Mayor’s mind, this was the most obvious fix. No “hyster”; no “hysteria”.

  • 13 Concerned Citizen // Apr 10, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    indiga..You & I have gone at it several times on this blog. I’ll try to be more civil. Commisions are based on time periods. If 8 of 11 positions were at end of service, then I would have to assume that they were all commensed at the same time. Which means a different Mayor appointed them at once. Actually, I remember 4 positions being re-appointed at once when the opposition voiced their disappoval. Corporation Council DID NOT act illegally. If you feel they did, then you have every right to challange their decission. The Mayor is not foolish to “bend” the law for anyone, friend or not. Believe it or not indiga, not everyone is an advocate for the historial commissioners whose terms just ended. I didn’t agree with them on this issue either. From what I know is the owner of that building was willing to give several concessions but it wasn’t good enough. To me, this is America and if you buy a piece of land, then it’s YOURS. if the building had such historical significance, then an offer to purchase or move that building should of been done. It wasn’t.

  • 14 anonymous // Apr 10, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    I’m another Dem who is concerned that there are those in our party that choose to support a budget without question. I don’t support Corda’s budget as its been presented.

  • 15 anon // Apr 10, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Another Dem contact your council members and let them know how you feel.

  • 16 Anonymous // Apr 10, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Indigna, once again you pick and choose. Another induendo, you ahve challenged in teh past to find one public statment made since he has been Mayor or anything the city has done to aid in the demolition of the house. Nothing! Whether his meeting with the Inn and neigbors did not work, is not his fault at least he tried. Also if we want to get into the quota system about women. The mayor appointed the first woman Fire Commisoner, appointed 2 to the HR commission, 3 to the Library Board includuing Bill Krummel’s wife, 3 on the Martime Authoriy in including the Fomer Dem Chairperson Donna King, and nominated her for Vice Chair of the Authority. 1 to the Redevlopment agency. Also let us not forget Mary Roman, a minority woman that Alex callously dumped to put Pam Stark in so she could get on the medical plan and then went in for Kidney transplant and was not at work for about 6 months. And was give almost twice the Salary that Mary had received when she was clerk. I guess no deals were made by Alex with his friends? Yeah sure. Also I guess the mayor made deals with Donna King and Krummel to secure there Support. Come on, you have been challenged before on your facts and you always resort to name calling, or inuendo. Everyone asks again to give facts and you alwasy fail because of your own personal bias and lack of intellectual honestly. As asked before, identify yourself and challenge the Mayor to a public debate over the subject.

  • 17 indiga // Apr 10, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    Thanks for being civil, CC — but you’re still wrong.

    It was an anomoly that all 8 positons opened in the span of a few months — the result of terms ending, resignations, appointments to fill unexpired terms, etc. So, no precedent.

    Nolin’s opinions were just “opinions”; another lawyer could have had another “opinion”.

    93 East Avenue never went on the market originally; Norwalk Inn approached owner to buy. 3-4 solid alternatives to demolition have been presented to Inn’s owners. All pooh-poohed. There are people who have committed (in court) that they would buy the house and rehab it if the Inn would sell. Inn refuses to sell.

    Moving the house not a great idea. The historic value is it’s position as part of the Green historic distrct, contributing to the Village District of East Ave, and the fact that it was part of the most significant Revolutionary War battle in Norwalk’s history — the burning by Tryon in 1779. Private interests obliterated Gurmman Hill and the Inn is now trying to obliterate the Grumman house.

    Your “a man can do what he wants with his land” position is also weak. That would mean you don’t support zoning, conservation, and other land use restrictions. But I’ll bet you’d scream if your neighbor did something with his property that it wasn’t zoned for. You do see that hsoric presrvation issues draw on the same principles of balancing the community’s best interests with those of private owners as zoning. Or maybe you don’t…the Inn’s owner’s certainly don’t. All they see is “me…me….mine”.

  • 18 anon // Apr 10, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    Knopp systematically cleaned house when he became Mayor and replaced long standing members of many commissions(those he didn’t like and those who wouldn’t do his bidding) with his own people and no one could say a word. This is what happens when new people are elected. They want people they can work with them not against them.

  • 19 anonymous // Apr 10, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    For those who have their doubts about term endings on any commission can get all the information they want at city hall. The terms are listed and the information is free. The question of terms was never at question, the decision of the mayor to not reappoint the sitting commisioners was and like Alex, he chose not to. End of conversation! Just because you don’t agree with the decision doesn’t mean it was done properly and why you continuously find fault with Mr. Nolan’s decisions is mind boggling. Mr. Nolan goes by the book. If you ask him to weigh in on a situation he automatically goes to Mason’s rules and looks it up before answering or he goes to his legal books and finds the answers. He never just makes a decision based on heresay. So you might want to get your facts straight before you make accusations. Perhaps all those who question things at city hall and on any commission or board should stop biting and start doing. Boards and commissions are open to anyone who chooses to give of their time to the city and its taxpayers.

  • 20 Anonymous // Apr 10, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    One more follow up, to correct another misstatement. The mayor only made 7 appointments. The other was by the council. Of the 7, 2 were U’s, 4 R’s and 2D’s. so about 40% were not R’s. I believe that is about the same on his other appoinments. Try to remember the people did elect him and usually they want appointments that reflect somewhat of the leader’s phiolosphy.

  • 21 ENrwlker // Apr 10, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    There is no Norwalk Green Historic District; its attempted formation by the City was ruled invalid by the courts years ago. That 93 East Avenue has historic value may be granted (though I suspect not as much as the advocates argue), but it is erroneous to refer to it as part of an historic district that doesn’t legally exist. The legal restrictions on use of properties in historic districts therefore don’t apply to the Inn, and the discussion above about ‘its no different from zoning’ is legally irrelevant, since the prerequisites for such additional controls on property use aren’t in place here. The Inn got its zoning approvals before the Village District regulations went into effect, and is therefore ‘grandfathered’ under State law. So the Inn appears to be within its rights to use 93 East Avenue as it wants to, at least under any applicable local regulations.

    All the hullabaloo about the Historic Commission regarding 93 East Avenue is much ado about nothing; all the Commission could attempt to do (at best) was activate the 90 day delay under the City’s demolition ordinance, and that period expired long ago. Moccia’s changing the membership of the Commission is therefore meaningless as far as 93 East Avenue is concerned; whether or not the Commission acted legally in invoking the 90 day delay (I think they acted legally, by the way) is moot at this point — even if the old members were still serving, there is nothing more that they could do (the demolition delay can only be invoked once).

    The issue will ultimately be resolved in the courts, relating to State issues outside the jurisdiction of Norwalk city agencies.

  • 22 indiga // Apr 10, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    Two points:
    1) Total makeup of HC now — 7 R, 2 D, 2 U. Roughly 64% one party. That’s unbalanced.

    2) anon, 21, here is the link to the National Register of Historic Places and the (current, extant, and legally constituted) Norwalk Green Historic District. Go ahead — tell me that the Federal register documentation is “hearsay”.

    http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ct/Fairfield/state4.html

  • 23 anon // Apr 10, 2007 at 3:39 pm

    Counting Gail Wall as an R is a bit like counting Joe Lieberman as a D. The party registration says one thing but the actions say quite another.

  • 24 indiga // Apr 10, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    Maybe, 23. But it’s not like it’s any great mystery where the current U’s alliances lie either (unless you consider Moccia a historical resource…)

  • 25 ENrwlker // Apr 10, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    Indiga, when you refer to the “current, extant, and legally constituted Norwalk Green Historic District”, what are you actually referring to? I see the 1987 listing on the National Register, but I also see the Connecticut Supreme Court case of “Gentry vs. City of Norwalk” (196 Conn. 596, 1985) ruling that the attempted creation of the State Historic District for the Norwalk Green (see Norwalk Code Chapter 56) was invalid. The Federal listing seems to match the area ruled invalid by the State Supreme Court; perhaps the Federal listing is in error? Or are you claiming that the Feds created some kind of Historic District for the Green after the state/local one was ruled invalid? If the latter, it wouldn’t involve any local government permitting process, so the local permits given to the Inn presumably wouldn’t be affected by it.

    In any event, I note that both the overturned City / State Historic District and the Federal Register say that the district starts at Morgan Avenue and runs north of Morgan. Since 93 East Avenue is SOUTH of Morgan, it isn’t in the historic district (whether the district legally exists or not), and the Inn’s decision to demolish it cannot involve any violation of any applicable Historic District laws.

  • 26 anon // Apr 10, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    That’s how the game is played, but maybe the historical commission shouldn’t be so political and people should look past party affiliation. Maybe the more interesting question to ask is why Booth and Bloom were kicked to the curb? Or here’s another for ya, which political party’s leader attempted to dictate appointments while simultaneously backstabbing recommendations put forth by leading party members?

  • 27 indiga // Apr 10, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    Let me clarify (again)…a LOCAL historic district was the subject of Gentry etc. and does NOT exist. A NATIONAL district (as per the link) was formed in 1987 and DOES EXIST — NOW…TODAY. (See the previous link) The weblink (as it states) is a rough approximation of the area. A map and a detailed description of the Norwalk Green Historic District is available by fax or mail from the National Park Service which establishes the boundaries precisely. It unequivically includes 93 East Avenue.

    Again, let me be absolutely clear, 93 East Avenue is a contribtuing structure to the current and legally constituted National Regsiter District known as the Norwalk Green Historic District.

    Since this is a National Register District, it falls under the provisions of the CT Environmental Protection Act which states, in part, properties on or eligible for the National Regsiter of Historic Places are protected from unreasoanble demoltion if there are economically feasible alternatives (or words to that effect. That was the basis for the recent court case — not local variances or zoning but CT law.

    Interestingly, if this had been designated a local district, it would be under local control and would not be subject to CEPA. So not only does the LOCAL district not exist; it wouldn’t offer any protection if it did. And, to say it once more, the Norwalk Green Historic District has been listed in the NATIONAL REGISTER since 1987 and INCLUDES 93 East Avenue. You don’t have to believe me. Call the National Park Service and get the documents yourself.

    How the judge will rule is, of course, still up to his interpretation of the law and the evidence. But the facts of the EXISTING National Register Historic District are clear as are the facts of the DEFUNCT local historic district. I suggest the CT Trust website for a very clear explanation of the differnce between the two.

  • 28 Anonymous // Apr 10, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    Indiga, once again, it is in the Hostoric registration because of misinfo given to the Feds that the city had voted it as an Historical District, never referred back the Court decison sayiong it was not. Even so the District as indicated on the site your referred to, ends at Morgan Avenue, which means even under your perverted thinking the Inn lies outside the so called district. By the way, zoning tells you limits on the property and dealing with areas that are zoned for different uses, it does not say say that once you get approval you are not allowed to do what you want with it, and your hubris to say that the owners had to sell the house, how would you like someone coming in and telling you have sell your house on Morgan Avenue. Historical Eminent Domain is what it is.

  • 29 indiga // Apr 10, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    Most folks probably don’t care all that much about this issue, so I’ll quit after just one more try at logic and reasonableness.

    Do you really think the State historical commission, the Attorney General, the CT Trust and the National Trust would have gone to court to save the building if it were a flimsy premise? They aren’t idiots and they did their due diligence. The Norwalk Inn had very high-powered attorneys who did their best to find any loophole in the designation — sort of along your lines of reasoning. However, the State made a very clear case that there is no “improperly” in the Register. It either is or it isn’t. And 93 East Avenue is part of the Norwalk Green Historic District which is listed in the National Regsiter of Historic Places. Twist it as you like but them’s the facts…

  • 30 Anonymous // Apr 10, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Some of us care very much about preserving the green and its historical look. We just don’t always say so here.

  • 31 Anonymous // Apr 10, 2007 at 5:50 pm

    One more time the district as per the web site you directed everyone ends at Morgan avenue, the street, you live on. Did the Inn move to Morgan Avenue? A lie is lie no matter how many times you repeat it, it never becomes the truth. But To settle it, why don’t you quote the exact discription of the District off the web site. In quotes as to exactly where it begins and ends. Or perhaps a neutral person would go to that site, and describe exactly what the Federal registry states as to the boundaires of the district.

  • 32 indiga // Apr 10, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    I will be happy to show the “eveidence” if someone can tell me how to drop a scan into a post. I’m technologically inept. The truth is that there is a legally constituted National Register Historic District and that 93 East Avenue is in it. If you know me (as you claim to) then you know that I do not lie.

  • 33 turfgrrl // Apr 10, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    indiga,

    I don’t allow code in the site comments, so you can’t upload files, however you can email me your scan and I will make a top post about it, or if you prefer to maintain anonymity you can fax it from a public fax to my fax number.

    My email is turfgrrl at gmail dot com, replacing the at with @ and the dot with . appropriately.

    My fax number is (928) 484-3805

    Or if you know who I am, I will be at the Common Council Meeting this evening.

    These options are also extended to anymore else who wishes to submit material for the blog. If this proves to be a popular request I will add some section specifically to deal with it in the near future.

    I have a few items on my to-do list, and am always eager to make the site as enjoyable as possible for all.

  • 34 ENrwlker // Apr 10, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    Indiga, #31 is right, you referred us all to the National Register web site and it explicitly states that the Historic District stops at Morgan Avenue. You said (#22) “here is the link to the National Register of Historic Places and the (current, extant, and legally constituted) Norwalk Green Historic District. Go ahead — tell me that the Federal register documentation is “hearsay”.” So we dutifully went to the site, it says the Historic District ends at Morgan, we took it at face value (as you told us to), and then you basically called us idiots for not realizing that (according to you) the National Register web site has erroneous information on it. So first you tell us that the web site is your irrefutable proof, then you tell us the web site is wrong. What other claims regarding this Historic District may be wrong, I wonder.

    So — question: just exactly how DID the Norwalk Green get listed on the National Register? Was the registration, in fact, based on a claim that the City had established a City / State Historic District there?

  • 35 indiga // Apr 11, 2007 at 7:07 am

    The site is not in error. It says “Roughly bounded by Smith & Park Sts., Boston Post Rd., East, & Morgan Aves., Norwalk ” If TG can post the map from the National Register documents, it will show precise bundaries and the buildings included. You will see that it is inclusive of buildings on Park Street, Morgan Avenue, and extends up a portion of East Avenue to include 93 East Ave and a few of thh buildings on the other side.

    A local district — extent or defunct — has no bearing on a National Register District. It is not a prerequisite. Please see the CT Trust site to learn more about the different designations. It also includes some of the tax benefits of having commercial buildings listed in the Natonal Register — something that might be of interest to owners.

  • 36 ENrwlker // Apr 11, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    Well, “bounded” to me means that Morgan was the boundary, not that several lots south of Morgan are also included. But I see the map in the other posting and it does include 93 East Avenue, so you’re correct that its in the National District (though there is no local district). I also agree that one can get a National District designated whether or not there is a local district. But I would like to know — just exactly how did the Norwalk Green get listed on the National Register? Who filed the application?

  • 37 indiga // Apr 11, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    I believe the late Valle Fay was involved. Here’s the link to her obituary in the New York Times. Although it does not mention the Green specifically, it does give an accounting of the terrific preservation work she did.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E7DE1E3AF935A15751C0A961958260

  • 38 ENrwlker // Apr 11, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Thanks. I remember Valle Fay (her husband is Frank Fay, a reporter for The Hour).