MINUTES
WATERTOWN TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
WATERTOWN HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2003
Immediately following Budget Public Hearing
PRESENT:Elaine Adams
Lee Archer, Chairman
Raymond Hebert, Jr., Vice Chairman
Robert Kane
Jean King
Raymond Primini
Paul Rinaldi
Paul Valenti
ABSENT:Richard Wick
OTHERS PRESENT:Frank Nardelli, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director
Meredith Robson, Town Manager
1.Convene Special Meeting
Mr. Hebert, Vice Chairman, Called the Special Meeting to Order at 8:26 p.m.
2.Roll Call
Ms. LaForme, Clerk, executed the Roll Call.
3.Executive Session
A.Personnel – Contracts
B.Land Acquisition
Mr. Hebert: I have been told there is no need for an Executive Session.
Watertown Town Council
Special Meeting
April 23, 2003
Page 2
4.Consider Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Budgets
MOTION:(Mr. Kane, sec. Mr. Primini) to approve the following budgets, to be sent to Referendum:
Town General Fund$19,167,249
School General Fund$28,604,026
General Fund Total$47,771,275
Town Road Aid$ 74,670
Water Operations$ 1,270,507
Water Capital$ 224,000
Water Extension$ 101,500
Sewer Operations$ 2,114,239
Sewer Capital$ 67,300
Sewer Extension$ 164,500
Water and Sewer Debt$ 141,450
Crestbrook Golf Operations$ 883,003
Crestbrook Improvement Trust$ 68,790
Local Capital Improvement$ 161,071
Discussion:Mr. Rinaldi: Last year I had a few personal problems with some things in the budget; I still do, they haven’t been correct, it’s not worth the discussion. I think some of you, one of them anyway, cause I got a letter form Park and Rec giving me reasons why she couldn’t do something that I wanted done. That’s the downside. The upside is I don’t plan to work or campaign against this budget either so, so be it (inaudible).
In Favor:Ms. Adams, Mr. Archer, Mr. Hebert, Mr. Kane, Ms. King, Mr. Primini
Opposed:Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Valenti
Abstained:None
MOTION CARRIED (6-2-0)
Watertown Town Council
Special Meeting
April 23, 2003
Page 3
5.Consider Setting Budget Town Meeting Date, Time, and Place for Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Budgets
MOTION(Mr. Kane, sec. Ms. Adams) that we consider setting the budget date, time, place for Wednesday May 7, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the Watertown High School Auditorium for fiscal year 2003/2004 budget.
Discussion:Ms. Adams: I was just wondering, based on last year’s Budget Town Meeting, I think there were 5 of us plus Chuck Frigon at Swift Junior High School and it lasted a total of 6 minutes. Can we do it the same night as our next Council meeting, do it earlier?
Mr. Nardelli: With the legal timeframes we have to do it that night.
Ms. Adams: We can’t move it 2 days?
Mr. Nardelli: No.
Ms. King: Why are we having it at the High School Auditorium? (Inaudible) referendum is that correct? If that is true then there is really no reason to have this in a large place.
Ms. Robson: We actually tried to change it just for that reason, but apparently the other rooms are taken.
Mr. Rinaldi: If we don’t provide a big enough room it could be interpreted as we are trying to undermine the Town Meeting.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
6.Consider Setting Date for Machine Vote on Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Budgets
MOTION:(Mr. Kane, sec. Ms. Adams) to approve the Referendum Notice for the machine vote on 2003/2004 budget as follows:
A Referendum of electors and citizens qualified to vote in Town Meetings of the Town of Watertown will be held on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. to vote for the approval or disapproval of fiscal year 2003/2004 budgets. Voting will be at the following polling places:
Watertown Town Council
Special Meeting
April 23, 2003
Page 4
Heminway Park School, Heminway Park Road, Watertown
Judson School, Hamilton Lane, Watertown
Swift Junior High School, Colonial Street, Oakville
Polk School, Buckingham Street, Oakville
Persons qualified to vote in Town Meetings who are not electors shall vote at any of the above mentioned polling places. Absentee ballots may be obtained at the Town Clerk’s Office.
Discussion:None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
7.Consider Setting Ballot for Machine Vote for Fiscal Year 2003/2004 Budgets
MOTION:(Mr. Kane, sec. Mr. Primini) for the purposes of discussion I make a Motion that the budget question be placed on the voting machines as follows:
Shall the fiscal year 2003/2004 budgets be approved.
The Town Council proposes:
Town General Fund$19,167,249
School General Fund$28,604,026
General Fund Total$47,771,275
Town Road Aid$ 74,670
Water Operations$ 1,270,507
Water Capital$ 224,000
Water Extension$ 101,500
Sewer Operations$ 2,114,239
Sewer Capital$ 67,300
Sewer Extension$ 164,500
Water and Sewer Debt$ 141,450
Crestbrook Golf Operations$ 883,003
Crestbrook Improvement Trust$ 68,790
Local Capital Improvement$ 161,071
Voters approving the question will vote yes, and those opposing the question will vote no.
Watertown Town Council
Special Meeting
April 23, 2003
Page 5
Discussion:Ms. King: Clarification? You are proposing a one question ballot, is that correct?
Mr. Kane: Yes, that is the Motion on the floor. The legal opinion of the Town Attorney is that we have to have one question, based on some pending litigation regarding other towns. I don’t know if Frank or Meredith wants to speak to this.
Ms. King: We have a legal opinion on this already? Based on the Naugatuck case?
Mr. Hebert: Yes.
Mr. Kane: This is a letter to Meredith Robson, the Town Manager, from Randy McHugh, the Town Attorney. If you like I can read you the full letter.
Ms. King: (Inaudible) concluding sentence.
Mr. Kane: The opening sentence:
“You’ve asked me whether the Watertown can present a budget separately from that of the Board of Education so that voters could vote on budgets separately.” The short answer is no. I intended on reading the whole letter but someone asked me not to read the whole thing.
Ms. Adams: I’d like to hear the whole letter. Do you have copies for us?
Ms. King: Is it based different in the litigation from last year? Did something happen differently from last year? I just remember something in the newspaper that there was something going on that could very well be. Last year we had 2 questions and now we have an opinion that says we can’t, so I’m just curious as to when this changed, so maybe I was being too flippant when I just said only read me the first part of the letter.
Mr. Kane: Well let me read you the whole letter into the record:
Watertown Town Council
Special Meeting
April 23, 2003
Page 6
“In a case decided June 11, 2002 the Connecticut Appellate Court has ruled that the State Statutes do not allow for separate votes on a Town’s operating budget and a Board of Education budget, see Board of Education of the Town and Borough of Naugatuck versus Town and Borough of Naugatuck and (inaudible). Under the facts of the Naugatuck case, the Town amended its Charter to allow the electors to petition for separate votes on the Town’s operating budget, via non Board of Education and/or Board of Education budget. Under the Charter prior to the amendment, the electors could vote only on the Town’s budget as a unit, including the Board’s budget. After the amendment the electors could petition for a vote separately on each of the two budgets, the operating budget, the Board budget, or only one of them. The Appellate Court found that the Connecticut General Statute, 7-344 controlled and did not allow for piece meal votes on what should be submitted as one budget. We discern from the language used by the Legislature in 7-344, its intent, that a proposed municipal budget, once assembled by the Board of Finance, via the specified process, be voted on by the electorate as a whole, not through peace meal approval or its component parts. The Appellate Court went on to state in this case the budget amendment upsets the balance between the Board of Finance and the Board of Education by allowing the electorate to veto only the education portion of the budget, in effect subjecting it to isolating scrutiny by voters who may or may not be aware of the Board of Education’s statutory mandates or have a broad understanding of the Town’s financial resources and priorities as a whole, as does the Board of Finance. As the Court stated, the budget amendment permits the voters to do what the Board of Finance cannot, that is simply to reject the Board of Education’s budget without regard for whether the expenditures included in the Board’s budget are for purposes which the State Statutes make it the duty of the Board to effectuate, providing pupil transportation and special education, i.e., meeting the minimum expenditure requirement to whether they are for purposes within the Board’s discretion under State Statutes”.
He goes on to mention the exact . . . .
“In view of the recent Appellate Court decision it is my opinion that the budget may only be submitted as one question. I trust this will adequately address your issue of concern. Should you need anything further, feel free to contact me.
Randall McHugh”
Watertown Town Council
Special Meeting
April 23, 2003
Page 7
Mr. Rinaldi: What that letter says, if you listen to the spirit, the intent of what everything that was said in that letter, is that you cannot, that was the original intent, by the way in the Naugatuck case, is that you cannot isolate the Board of Education from the rest of the budget because that’s discrimination. In Watertown here we have a contingency budget so unless both of them pass we don’t have anything, so it’s (inaudible) what was represented in that letter was if the Town budget passes it’s put aside and the Board of Ed is left out there for scrutiny. Here it is not because unless they both pass we don’t have a budget, so you’re not isolating the Board budget, you’re not scrutinizing it, you’re not discriminating. That’s my opinion.
Mr. Hebert: This is scary because I agree with Mr. Rinaldi.
Mr. Kane: We also have a memo from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities which in on-going appeal right now regarding this very issue, and that C.C.M. is in favor of allowing municipalities to have separate referendum, but this is going on right now and unfortunately we don’t have a decision on this as of yet. But prior to us putting this out, we need to discuss it, and that’s why we offered it this way, not to do it one way or the other, but to put it out for discussion, legal course.
Ms. Adams: Do we have to set the ballot tonight, or can we wait until the night of the Town Meeting?
Mr. Nardelli: We have to get the absentee ballots ready to go, so obviously we need the ballot.
Mr. Valenti: I’ve only been on the Council 3 years no, but during the 3 years I’ve been here, this very issue has been a political football. It’s funny because I’m sure 2 years ago we wanted one question I think it was, last year my colleagues, the majority wanted 2, now we’re looking at 1, I guess what I’m saying it would be nice if we could come to some bipartisan consensus that there is a right way to do it and kind of stick to that. I’m sure it’s not going to happen, but . . . .
Watertown Town Council
Special Meeting
April 23, 2003
Page 8
Mr. Kane: To answer my colleague, I don’t feel this is a partisan issue at all, at least as far as I’m concerned. I can’t speak to previous politics, but this only came up because we have a legal opinion from the Town Attorney that states this, so not Republican, not Democrat, not anything, it’s just a legal opinion and this is as you helped us see in other things, that this is the proper way to look at the whole thing by putting all the information out there, we don’t want to not put this information out there. Secondly what this might do is better improve relationships between the Board and the Town so that we don’t have two separate entities that exist and possibly settle this, or come to municipal, (inaudible) relationship for the two.
Ms. King: Given what you said, I believe when you read it, it would still say the different amounts for each one, there’s a total but it also says the Town operating and the Board, it’s one question, but all the numbers are laid out there, is that correct?
Mr. Kane: Yes.
Mr. Rinaldi: I believe personally we should keep all of our options open to us. I don’t think we should agree on one way or the other, it all depends on what the majority, who is on the Council at that time thinks it’s the right way to do it, so I’m not condemning or anything else, I’m just saying I think the other option is open, that’s all.
Mr. Hebert: I personally like, I’ve always supported the two questions. I believe it’s a good sounding board on what goes on with the budget, but apparently the legal opinion says otherwise, so as of right now, until something changes, I don’t like the one question but . . . . .
Ms. Adams: I agree with what you say. I really think the two questions does give us a better idea of where this is coming from. What’s the date of that legal opinion? Getting this sprung on us tonight, just before we have to make a decision, that is really not in the best interest because we have had no time to question the Town Attorney and he is not here.
Ms. Robson: I apologize for that; it came yesterday. I was so busy getting some of the other stuff done, we just didn’t get it out to you.
Ms. King: When was it asked for?
Ms. Adams: We could ask for it.
Watertown Town Council
Special Meeting
April 23, 2003
Page 9
Ms. Robson: I asked him for it recently, I don’t remember exactly . . . . and frankly I thought it was just duplicative of information you already had.
Mr. Valenti: So under the legal opinion we now have, I mean this vote is (inaudible) because we have to vote this way, is my understanding, is that correct, unless we go against our attorney’s opinion? I mean pretty much he is advising us that this is the way we have to vote.
Mr. Hebert: Correct, and that’s what his recommendation is but . . . . .
In Favor:Mr. Archer, Mr. Kane, Ms. King, Mr. Primini, Mr. Valenti
Opposed:Ms. Adams, Mr. Hebert, Mr. Rinaldi
Abstained:None
MOTION CARRIED (5-3-0)
7.Adjournment
MOTION:(Mr. Kane, sec. Ms. Adams) to Adjourn the Special Meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Discussion:None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Special Meeting Adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Raymond Hebert, Vice Chairman
Watertown Town Council
Approved: ______
Lynn M. LaForme, Clerk