Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fair Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

BET told Norwalk must fund fair‑housing officer position under existing consent decree; new hire to start April 7

2956154 · March 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board members discussed a reduced fair‑housing budget request tied to a new hire and the board was reminded the position remains required by a consent decree unless a court says otherwise.

The Board of Estimate and Taxation on March 19 reviewed a request for funding the city’s fair‑housing office and heard that the commission reduced its operating request modestly because it will fill the vacant position at a lower salary band.

Council member Jalen Seed, who is overseeing the fair‑housing function, told the board the FY26 request dipped from $188,000 to $185,000 because the incoming hire will start at the “lower tier of the pay scale.” Seed announced the new hire by name: “Sabrina Roman will be starting April 7,” he said. He said fringe benefits were temporarily budgeted higher because the hiring outcome was uncertain but that benefit costs will likely decrease now that a specific hire has been made.

Board members asked whether the city still must fund the post given that the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) exists. Seed and board members said the position remains required by a court consent decree. “This budget is a position that is really not an option because it’s by the consent order by the courts,” Seed said. Another board member said any change in the status of the consent decree would require returning to the courts and could not be decided by the BET alone.

Members agreed to keep the fair‑housing line as an open item pending any additional documentation. Questions during the discussion included line‑item clarifications and how the commission’s expenses map to the packet’s subtotal lines; staff offered to return with corrected forms for the board to review.

The discussion made two points clear: the commission plans to fill the post and expects lower operating costs once the hire’s benefits are set, and the BET considers the position mandatory until a court modifies the consent decree.