The Derby tax board is mulling a budget that would raise taxes by about 1.2 percent.
The 11-person board 10-person board is scheduled to adopt a preliminary budget for 2014-2015 at a meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. Tuesday, May 6 in the Aldermanic Chambers on Derby City Hall’s second floor.
A public hearing will then be scheduled.
At a meeting of the tax board Tuesday, elected officials reviewed a proposed spending plan totaling $38,315,422. That total dollar amount is roughly a $1 million increase in spending over the $37.2 million budget adopted last May.
If the tax board adopted the budget it reviewed Tuesday, the mill rate would increase by .43 mills, to 35.77.
The current mill rate is 35.34.
A single-family house assessed at $105,000 would see a property tax increase of roughly $45.
Mayor Anita Dugatto is recommending a $38.2 million budget with a slightly lower tax rate increase of .39 mills.
(To calculate your possible tax increase, take the latest assessment of your house, multiply the dollar amount by the current mill rate of 35.34 and divide by 1,000. That will give you your current tax bill. Repeat the process using the proposed mill rate of 35.77 to get your new tax bill. Subtract the two numbers to see the increase.)
Readers should note the numbers are not final and could change in the next few days — but they are taken directly from the documents distributed to the tax board at Tuesday’s meeting.
Article continues after a summary of the proposal.
Questions
The tax board has been working on a proposed budget since February.
On Tuesday, tax board member Sam Pollastro questioned why the budget included a raise for the city’s new director of public works and the town clerk, saying such decisions should be approved first by the Derby Board of Aldermen.
Pollastro and tax board member Carlo Malerba also questioned a $29,000 line item Dugatto wants to use to pay a “community engagement” employee in her office. The position is still under review by the Aldermen and various subcommittees, Malerba pointed out.
The money for the raises and the community engagement employee were put aside in the budget under the city’s “special working balance.”
The tax board is considering allocating $16,583,315 for Derby Public Schools — an approximate 2.6 increase over the district’s current budget.
The school board requested $16.6 million, or a 2.9 percent increase. Click here for a previous story detailing the school district’s funding request.
However, the tax board allocation could change by Tuesday, as school and city officials are discussing how to assign workers’ compensation costs in the budget.
Is This Transparent?
No members of the public attended Tuesday’s meeting.
Just before the meeting started, tax board member Judy Szewczyk gave a reporter from the Valley Indy a copy of the documents being reviewed in order to follow the conversation during the meeting. It was an extra copy, since one tax board member is on vacation.
However, Tom Thompson, Derby’s finance director, said the documents would have to be returned because he only made enough copies for members of the tax board.
Thompson declined to make an additional copy, telling a reporter copies could be made available the day after the meeting.
Thompson said the reporter should have told him he was coming to the meeting, as a professional courtesy, and an additional copy would have been prepared.
The documents were not returned.
Thompson’s conditions on civic engagement are curious, in an era of government “transparency,” as the documents were offered by an elected official.
The state’s Freedom of Information Act gives the public the right to prompt access to inspect or copy public records.
The Freedom of Information Act states requests for copies should be made in writing.
The state’s Freedom of Information Act prohibits anyone from placing any conditions on anyone seeking to attend a public meeting.
Meanwhile, Pollastro, a tax board member, questioned whether Tuesday’s meeting was legally noticed.
The tax board was initially scheduled to adopt a 2014-2015 budget at Tuesday’s meeting. The agenda changed at some point prior to Tuesday.
Pollastro asked whether the new agenda was legally noticed for the public. Both Thompson and tax board chairman Jim Butler said it was.
The Valley Indy confirmed this Wednesday. A stamp on the meeting’s agenda in Derby City Hall showed the meeting was posted in Derby City Hall at 10:38 a.m. Monday.
No Minutes Filed
However, there were no meeting minutes of any kind available at the Derby Town Clerk’s office as of 11 a.m. Wednesday (April 30) for any of the tax board budget meetings dating back to February.
The minutes were missing for at least five public meetings.
According to the state’s Freedom of Information Act, the minutes should have been filed within seven days of each meeting.
No one appeared to be taking minutes at Tuesday’s meeting, and the meeting was not recorded because there was no more room on cassette tapes city officials often use to tape meetings.
Minutes were available in the Derby Town Clerk’s Office for the tax board’s regularly scheduled monthly meetings, but not for any of the budget “workshops.”
State law defines a public meeting as any hearing or proceeding by a public agency to discuss or act on any matter which it has authority. State law does not make exemptions for “budget workshops.”
A “budget workshop” is a meeting.
From state law (emphasis added): “A public meeting is ANY hearing OR OTHER PROCEDURE of a public agency, or gathering of, or communication by or to a quorum . . . TO DISCUSS or act on ANY matter over which it has authority.”
Thomas Hennick, the public information officer for the the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, said minutes must be kept, regardless of what Derby calls its meeting.
Ansonia posts meeting minutes from budget workshops.
Seymour posts meeting minutes from budget workshops.
Shelton posts meeting minutes from budget workshops.
Derby’s budget proposal is posted below.
Elected positions (Town Clerk) should not have raises mid-term (or worse, 6 months into a new term), unless already outlined in the charter. If the aldermen decide the position warrants a raise, it should be outlined and budgeted for the following term. We had these same discussions for the Registrars.
A raise to Town Clerk at this 6-month juncture into his term, appears to be a form of political payola to Mr. Marc Garofalo for his lead contributions to the election of the Mayor Anita Dugatto elected ticket which also gave him a top-paying job in Derby City Hall. I agree with Ken Hughes that it is up to the aldermen to decide if the position warrants a raise — and it should be outlined and budgeted for the following term. Since former Mayor Garofalo never reimbursed Derby taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars for his wanton destruction of city mayoral records — now against the law — to deprive former Mayor Tony Staffieri a smooth transition into office –as a poor loser in defeat at taxpayer expense — I believe Mr. Garofalo should decline a political raise at this early juncture — as the right thing to do.
I don’t understand the Valley Indy’s obsession with the City of Derby’s Budget Workshop process. It would be a shame if the very transparent process as performed and implemented by the volunteers on the Derby Tax Board was gutted due to off-point and picayune complaints about supposed FOIA non-compliance. Make no mistake, keeping a transcript of the trial and error horsetrading that goes on completely out in the open would add significant and unnecessary cost to Derby’s process. It would be one thing if the process wasn’t open and transparent. The Derby budget process commences, is conducted and concludes all in public session. What is evident from comparison with all of the Workshop minutes from the other towns that the VIS so pointedly references in its Derby article is that in those towns some small group prepared and vetted the first run behind closed doors. Only then did the public get to see the process go on. Derby starts in public with a blank slate: last year’s budget, this year’s Dept Requests and possibly a separate Mayor’s proposed budget. Then the cutting, featherbedding, slashing and burning begins.
The other difference in Derby is that they are the board that actually adopts the budget. Their work really means something. In the other towns the budget is adopted by another body (the Board of Aldermen, the Public at Referendum) that does not have to even take the workshop into consideration.
Let’s review the facts:
The Budget “Workshop” is actually one continuous workshop that is adjourned and convened from time to time.
All Workshop sessions are individually noticed and posted to encourage public involvement.
The public is encouraged to attend all of them and watch the sausage being made. All of it, every last link from grinding to casing.
The conversation is informal, loose and is exemplified by an effort to try new things, be innovative and continually shift spending around to get a better budget. The members, city officials and even the public participate in discussion.
There is a duly noticed Special Meeting of the Tax Board to Publish the Preliminary Estimates of the budget. This, by the way, is the first time that hard, confirmed revenue numbers are in the budget projection.
One or more Public Hearings are then scheduled to take unlimited public comment on the budget estimate.
One or more additional Special Meetings of the Tax Board are properly noticed and held following the Public Hearings to refine the budget further based on public comment.
A final meeting is noticed and scheduled to adopt the final budget document.
This is a process that I am proud to have participated in during my terms on the Tax Board and a process that provides for more openness and public involvement than any other town I have seen.
There are no “votes” taken during the Workshop, per se, just discussions and general agreements to try to set certain spending at certain levels. Each level may change only once or may change several times in just one evening.
There are no votes to record. So what are we left with?
The minutes that are published and available the very next day after adjournment. That’s right, I said the minutes are available the next day! In this case what constitutes the “minutes” of these meetings? The new budget run that is prepared by the finance office is usually available the day after the workshop, if not, then by the time the workshop reconvenes. It is a running record of all the majority opinion up until that point and exceeds the FOI requirement to make minutes available in 7 days. The composition of “Minutes” are not defined in law unless votes are taken, but there is clearly not a requirement that they be a transcript or synopsis of everything discussed, attributed by individual. They can be a transcript. They can be a synopsis without attribution since there are no votes taken. Or they can simply be a report of the consensus document produced through trial, error and experimentation: the latest budget run.
The VIS’ complaint, and I respect them very much and regard their work very highly, is that there are no “minutes” available in 7 days as required by FOI. The VIS is wrong on this point. Even if the FOI Commission disagrees, the fact that the Workshop is one meeting that adjourns and convenes from time to time without official votes being taken means that the minutes are not even due until 7 days after the final Workshop sessions concludes. This means that the typical minutes published from the Preliminary Estimate meeting prior to the Public Hearing would likely be published and available before those Workshop minutes. The VIS was annoyed because apparently, one foolish city employee tried to take back a budget run that had been passed out and suggested that the VIS come by the next day to pick up an updated run. And then the employee apparently called the reporter a “pain in the ass”. Stupid employee, as all these documents are public, but one who I think was just trying to provide the latest and best version to the press.
I remember the coverage of the Derby process by the old Evening Sentinel and it was reported in context with all the proper qualifiers to convey the sense of what a line item change or a department request meant prior to the publication of the preliminary estimate. They didn’t project tax increases before that formal meeting to present the estimate, which is by the way the first meeting required by the City Charter regarding the budget setting process. Getting to watch the sausage be made in Workshop is a bonus and a unique tradition. VIS, please don’t drive that process into the back room so that the grinding into casing takes place among an elite, out of view of the public. All of the information is available to the public throughout the process and all the results of each Workshop session is available from the Finance office the next day, exceeding the requirement of the FOI. Don’t make the city spend potentially in the thousands to publish minutes of who said what to whom as they moved money in and out of the same line item five times in the same night.
The right of the press and public is never abridged in this budget-setting exercise, the entire town is invited to observe and participate and nothing is hidden from public view at any point.
So I ask you VIS – What is your point?
Rick,
An effective way to promote civic engagement is to highlight road blocks to civic engagement.
If a taxpayer takes the time to go to a budget workshop, don’t try to block access to a few pieces of paper.
If the minutes are the draft budget are the minutes, why weren’t they made available when a member of the public said “Good morning, may I see your minutes?”
Why was the answer “If they give them to me, they would be in that binder?”
Why wasn’t the answer:
“Well,good sir, the minutes that are published and available the very next day after adjournment. That’s right, I said the minutes are available the next day! In this case what constitutes the “minutes” of these meetings? The new budget run that is prepared by the finance office is usually available the day after the workshop, if not, then by the time the workshop reconvenes. It is a running record of all the majority opinion up until that point and exceeds the FOI requirement to make minutes available in 7 days. The composition of “Minutes” are not defined in law unless votes are taken, but there is clearly not a requirement that they be a transcript or synopsis of everything discussed, attributed by individual. They can be a transcript. They can be a synopsis without attribution since there are no votes taken. Or they can simply be a report of the consensus document produced through trial, error and experimentation: the latest budget run.”
Perhaps you are needlessly complicating the issue?
And here’s the common sense answer, stripped of the cloudy verbal gymnastics trying to justify a minor FOI screw up:
Put meeting minutes in the Town Clerk’s office, like you’re supposed to. On the minutes, note there is a full audio recording available. Problem solved.
Put the workshop agendas on a website. Update it.
Put the workshop agenda meeting minutes on a website. Update it.
Use a Google Doc to put the draft budget docs on a website. Change it when it is changed.
Let everyone know the wonderful work BOAT is doing.
(Derby BOAT meetings are, in fact, a joy to cover because of the open dialogue. Saying we’re “obsessed” or “annoyed” or is a cheap shot.)
I don’t think I have needlessly complicated things Eugene. I think you were offended by an ill-informed staffer who asked to take back the earlier draft and asked you to pick up an updated copy from the meeting in the morning.
You suggested that it was an FOI violation and pointedly referenced the minutes from other towns. I pointed out that it’s a different and in fact, more open process.
And,like it or not, your original article and posts has the effect of impugning the members of the Tax Board.
One stupid person should not be an indictment of an entire city.