Lots of ideas, not so much consensus. The new Charter Revision Commission is starting work with a grab bag of sometimes conflicting ideas to consider.
The selectmen want the authority to set a tax and spending ceiling that would limit annual increases in the combined town and school budget — something done now by the finance board.
“There’s absolutely no control over what the spending in this town can be,” said Selectman Andy Bodner.
The Board of Education, meanwhile, said the selectmen’s current “non-binding recommendation” on the school budget might be, well, dropped from the charter.
“There’s an inherent conflict of interest because both boards are competing for the same pot of money,” said School Board Chairman Austin Drukker.
And when citizens had their chance, four of the eight people who spoke at the Charter Revision Commission’s public hearing wanted the regulation of wetlands taken away from what is today a combined Planning and Zoning Commission and Inland Wetlands Board.
“Our Planning and Zoning Commission is so busy with the everyday work of zoning they don’t have time to devote to the important business of planning,” said Dave Goldenberg.
Another citizen suggestion was to preclude midyear appropriations outside the annual budget vote in May, two recent examples being $7 million to buy Schlumberger and $5 million for the library’s building project.
“It provides the possibility of disenfranchising certain voters,” said Gene Waradzin of Marcardon Avenue, pointing out that a midwinter vote would occur when many older people are in Florida.
He also suggested a charter rule prohibiting voice votes at Town Meeting.
Paul Jasinski, who was elected chairman by his fellow charter commissioners after the Jan. 9 public hearing, said later that the group would have plenty of fodder for its coming work sessions — the first of which was scheduled for Jan. 22.
“We’re just trying to hit the ground running at the next meeting, and I’m sure everyone will have a lot of ideas as to how to proceed,” Mr. Jasinski said.
Eight people spoke at the hearing, mostly citizens but also a few public officials. The commission also received emailed ideas collected from boards and commissions by the first selectman’s office.
While the separation of wetlands regulation from planning and zoning duties got the most attention at the hearing, some of the most dramatic changes were proposed for the town’s fiscal procedures.
The Board of Selectmen’s proposal that it be given authority to set a budget and tax increase level essentially reallocates a power now held by the Board of Finance. The board also sought authority over school capital requests.
The selectmen’s memo to the Charter Commission says:
“Board of Selectmen establish a maximum budget expenditure figure to be presented to the Board of Finance.
“All Board of Education capital appropriation requests, whether budgetary or additional, should be submitted through the Board of Selectmen for approval.”
It was the “maximum budget expenditure figure” that had gotten the most discussion from the selectmen the night before the charter hearing.
“We should be able to set a limit,” said Selectman Bodner, who proposed the idea.
“Would that be changing the role of the Board of Finance?” asked Selectwoman Maureen Kozlark. “That gets back to limiting the Board of Education.”
But other board members argued that the idea was that the selectmen would set an overall limit, not dictate specifics of the school budget.
“I think Andy’s concern is, How do we better control the mill rate increase to the people, as a Board of Selectmen, the policy-making board of town?” said First Selectman Rudy Marconi.
He said many people who aren’t that involved in town government can’t believe that the selectmen don’t really control the amount of the budget, or the tax increase. They don’t realize that two-thirds of it is education spending, and the selectmen can do no more than offer the finance board a “nonbinding recommendation” on school budget.
Mr. Marconi and Mr. Bodner said many different municipalities — from Danbury and Trumbull to New York City — give town officials a larger role in school budgets.
Ms. Kozlark wasn’t convinced, but she was alone.
“I think the checks and balances that are currently in place have probably served the town well,” she said.
Board members did concede that the idea probably should be reviewed by the town’s attorneys, to make sure it doesn’t conflict with state statutes.
The selectmen offered a few other suggestions — such as appointing rather than electing the town treasurer, and requiring environmental studies for open space donations.
The school board, discussing charter issues Jan. 13, wanted to get rid of the selectmen’s nonbinding recommendation on the school budget.
“Every time we go to the Board of Selectmen, there’s a line-by-line breakdown of the numbers we’re submitting,” school board Chairman Drukker said later. “But if they’re going to be doing a review of our budget, they should be at every meeting and hear the issues being discussed.”
Mr. Waradzin offered the fiscal control idea that got the most discussion at the hearing. He wanted to get rid of — or greatly limit — non-emergency appropriations outside the budget process.
Voters have no financial context to reasonably judge spending proposals if they’re presented in isolation, according to Mr. Waradzin.
“You don’t know what you’re going to be asked to cough up in May, when all the big money comes,” he said.
Margorie Tippet, the Zoning Board of Appeals administrator, suggested that the charter commission not entertain ideas, studied in past charter revisions, of changing the length of the appeals board’s election terms from the current five years to four. It could lead to more turnover after an election.
“The ZBA is an appeals board, not a legislative body,” she said. “When it makes a decision, by law it cannot reverse that decision at a future date. Thus stability and some degree of consistency are expected.”
The idea of separating wetlands from planning and zoning was discussed by five speakers at the charter commission’s hearing — four of them in favor of it.
“The work of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Inland Wetlands Board is probably enough work for three commissions,” said Mr. Goldenberg, a member of the town’s Affordable Housing Committee.
Ellen Burns of the Ridgefield Open Space Association, Dave Cronin of the Conservation Commission, and Helen Dimos of the Architectural Advisory Committee also spoke in favor of separating the wetlands work from planning and zoning functions.
“I really feel it’s too much for one commission,” Ms. Dimos said. “They can’t effectively do all the zoning, any planning, and inland wetlands as well.”
The speaker on the other side of the issue was Patrick Walsh, vice chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Inland Wetlands Board.
He noted that the last two Charter Revision Commissions had looked into the idea, but hadn’t recommended it.
“I strongly disagree with this suggestion,” wrote Town Planner Betty Brosius, who recalled that Ridgefield’s commission had opposed a 2007 state proposal on separating wetlands from planning and zoning roles.
“There may be a ‘substantial fiscal impact’ for communities that decide to separate these agencies because of the need to hire additional staff, create additional files (which need space and supporting budgets), and find room and time for scheduling additional meetings,” Ms. Brosius said.
Mr. Walsh added that he felt the agency functions better than critics suggest. “It works quite efficiently, quite effectively,” Mr. Walsh said.