Stamford Planning Board Special Meeting – Capital Budget Review – December 19, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Stamford Planning Board Special Meeting – Capital Budget Review – December 19, 2024
The Stamford Planning Board held a special meeting on December 19, 2024 (9:00 a.m. to 10:42 a.m.) to continue the review of the Capital Budget submissions for the upcoming fiscal year. The board aimed to finalize a draft budget within the safe debt limit of approximately $43 million, building on a subcommittee’s work. The meeting included department-by-department discussion, adjustments based on existing balances and project feasibility, and a decision to publish the draft for a public hearing on January 7, 2025.
Discussion Items
Subcommittee Report and Overall Approach
- Vice Chair Jennifer Gazeno and Board Member Chet Salat presented a draft capital budget totaling $42 million in city bonds after reviewing all requests against criteria including regulatory mandates, grant leverage, return on investment, and department capacity.
- The board agreed to aim for a draft slightly over the safe debt limit (allowing the mayor to decide on marginal items) and to incorporate public and agency feedback before finalizing.
Board of Education Capital
- Safety & Security: Recommended $150,000 (down from $700,000) because the city has allocated ARPA funds for security. Board Member Ravi noted the reduction, but the subcommittee explained the offset.
- Strawberry Hill Long-Term Facilities Plan: Proposed $2.2 million (requested $4.3 million), citing possible state historic preservation grants and phasing. Ravi expressed concern about meaningful use; Chet noted phasing is feasible.
- Other Items: Most Board of Education capital items were kept intact. The board approved the overall package unanimously.
Town Clerk & Office of Administration
- Digitization: Funded $125,000 (request $150,000) – spread over multiple years.
- Town Clerk Office Renovation: Funded $250,000 (request $595,000) – prioritized for privacy improvements. Ravi questioned the partial amount; Jennifer noted agencies can provide feedback.
Outside Agencies (Arboretum, Child Care Learning Center, Ferguson Library, etc.)
- Arboretum: $50,000 for pavilion (completing a prior project) and $100,000 for greenhouse (Ravi wanted full $300k for greenhouse; subcommittee noted $1.1M already authorized and suggested revisiting later).
- Child Care Learning Center: Full $3 million funded – mandatory relocation due to school construction, deemed a high priority.
- Ferguson Library: Partial allocations for digitization and PC replacement; full funding for self-checkout system ($100k).
- Future Five: Full $257,000 funded (first request, for moving to new office). No reduction despite earlier email confusion.
- Schofield Manor: Full funding for interior renovations (safety/ADA). Stamford Center for the Arts: Partial for HVAC and interior finishes due to unclear scopes and existing balances.
- Stamford Historical Society: Full allocation. Stamford Museum: Zero – high existing balance; board agreed to revisit if agency clarifies.
Director of Administration – Affordable Housing & Wayfinding
- Affordable Housing Trust Fund: $3 million (up from $2M in some proposals) – recognizes high demand and leverage of $3.75M in ready requests.
- Wayfinding Signage: $250,000 – Jennifer argued for its value for pedestrians; Ravi was skeptical but accepted.
Operations – Engineering, Fleet, Facilities, Parks
- Commons Marina Restoration: $500,000 – Ravi opposed, calling it a low priority. Jen noted it leverages grants. Marked as item to revisit after full review.
- Fleet Management: Electric refuse trucks funded for two (partial). Vehicle maintenance equipment partially funded; department may clarify if partial is meaningful.
- GIS: Increased to $200,000 from initial $75,000 – high yield investment.
- Citywide Facilities: Reduced some line items due to high existing balances (e.g., heating system, roof replacement). Board agreed to seek department clarification.
- Parks: Scalzi Park reduced to $965,000 (unfunded balance $1.2M), other parks given small amounts for design. Total parks $3.6M (versus $4.25M requested).
Traffic, Road Maintenance & Engineering
- Significant reductions from prior year ($14M to $6M) justified by high existing balances ($4.1M authorized but unspent) and ARPA funding. Ravi noted potential public pushback; Jen explained staff shortages and typical supplemental requests later in the year. Board accepted as draft.
Public Safety (Police, Fire, Emergency Communications)
- Fire Apparatus: Full $3.05 million – critical due to cost escalation and long lead times.
- Public Safety Complex Assessment: $150,000 (request $500k) – fuzzy scope; board wants more info before committing.
- Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus: Increased to $65,000 from $50,000 per Ravi’s request.
- Short-Term Financing: Public safety equipment (drones, camera) partially funded due to existing balances; Ravi wanted more but board agreed to revisit after public hearing.
Special Revenue Items (Brennan, Terry Connors, Golf, Marina)
- Golf Course: $200,000 (increase from $50k) – self-funded from operating revenue, should not burden general fund.
- Marina: $0 – subcommittee judged marina fund unlikely to repay bonds.
- Board noted these do not count against the safe debt limit.
Key Outcomes
- Draft Budget Approved for Public Hearing: The board unanimously agreed to publish the $42 million bond draft (with about $900k remaining under the safe debt limit) as the basis for the January 7, 2025 public hearing. Agencies and public may submit comments.
- Cover Letter to Accompany Draft: Jennifer Gazeno volunteered to draft a rationale memo, based on previous transmittal letters, explaining key decisions (e.g., reductions due to high balances) to reduce redundant public comments.
- Future Process Improvements: Board Member Ravi agreed to draft a list of recommended improvements for the capital budget process (clearer CPs, department capacity questions) for board review in January.
- Next Meeting: Regular meeting scheduled for January 7, 2025 (public hearing). The board will incorporate feedback and transmit final recommendations to the mayor.
Meeting Transcript
Lindsay, you know that the Jennifer will be taking over as chair. Um so we haven't had the vote yet because we didn't vote last meeting and so it'll be on the agenda for next it'll be on the agenda for the next meeting. Um yeah, but until then you are still the chair. Um you can act like the chair. If it yeah, if that's okay with you, Jennifer. That is fine. Okay. Um all right. So we have the everything is starting. I'm gonna bring Tony up to panelist and Jennifer, you can open the meeting. Um do you want me to send you anything you do want me to email you the agenda? Good morning. I thought I had it um in my bag, but don't worry. Good morning, Tony. Morning, Tony. Hey Tony. Is that a racket over your left shoulder or a noose sending I didn't make the annotated agenda for today? So um that is fine. Okay. Tony, so you know Jennifer will be taking over as chair. Well, you guys got to vote on it first, so the brakes here. I I've got the fix in your vote of confidence. Um I'm I'm glad to um to facilitate today's meeting, um, especially since uh, well, I'll open the meeting first and I can get some context. Um so welcome to the special meeting of the Stanford Planning Board uh December 19th. Um we have uh president with us today. Um our chair, Jay Tupper. Um Secretary Robert Ravi Superman, uh an alternate uh Chet Salat. Um and I am vice chair Jennifer Gazeno. Uh today the special meeting topic is uh continuing conversation of the capital budget uh for the coming fiscal year discussion, which we had started uh at um two meetings ago uh last week. Um so I would like to call your attention to uh actually Tony, are you able to project the um thank you? Um so we'll return to using the same uh spreadsheet that um we had been using previously and um I'm gonna try so um per our discussion um at our meeting uh last Tuesday, the 12th. Um we got about a quarter of the way through um doing this together and decided to delegate uh a full uh walkthrough of the budget um to a subcommittee um which has turned out to be myself and chet in order to um look through and try to get down to the safe debt limit, which we are told should be around 43 million dollars this year. We again use the same criteria that we that were present in our discussion on the 12th, which includes uh prioritizing projects that have some sort of uh map requirement in order to get uh, for example, a federal or state grant uh project uh where um funding it will allow the project to be um completed um and uh projects that present uh opportunities for some sort of uh return on investment or cost savings. Um and then I'll also remind the board that once we get to the end of the capital budget um that there are some special revenue items, and so uh those count a little bit differently against our bonding than uh then the standard capital budget items. Um so I think rather than go line by line, um I'd like to propose that we kind of maybe take it in sections department by department, and uh I can put a walk through the rationale for the proposals so far that Pat and I have put together. Um again, this is just a proposal to react to, and you know, our purpose was just to try to pair this down so that it's more manageable and that it didn't take us, you know, 12 hours to do this all together. Um, but certainly feel free to make um any proposals for amendments. Uh and also a reminder, right? We have the public hearing um, which will be um on January 7th. And so we will have continued opportunity to revise this based on public feedback, um, as well as hopefully some additional information that we get from the departments. Um, and as I as we walk through, I'll also note some of the items where um, you know, we kind of made our best guess, um, but would benefit from some additional information from the departments about either their existing balance or some project detail. Um so starting from the top, um, Board of Education Capital. Um the um Jennifer, uh can I can I request that you sought by agency name and then we vote on each agency kind of stuff, like we did last time. Uh sure, yes. Yes. So I was gonna um I think we I think this sheet is in a slightly different order than our binders. Um I'm glad it uh I think going agency by agency makes a lot of sense. Um Ravi, did you did you want to do this in a slightly different order? Is that what you're proposing? No, no, I just let us instead of going line by line, if you just oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
openpublica.com