Norwalk council debates splitting budget caps for BOE and city and giving council direct role in BET; no consensus reached

Council members reviewed proposed changes to the municipal budget process and the role of the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET). Nora and others proposed two related changes: (1) require the BET to review and present a cap‑compliant budget separately for the Board of Education and for the remainder of city functions, and (2) create a designated council representative to sit on the BET to increase council involvement in budget review. On caps, Nora proposed language that would set two ceilings — one for the Board of Education and one for the rest of the city — and require the BET to work from budget proposals that do not exceed each cap. Legal counsel pointed out the draft wording should reflect that the BET may approve amounts up to (not necessarily equal to) the cap; staff agreed to update the language. On council representation, the council debated whether the council’s designee to the BET should be a voting or nonvoting member. Some members argued a voting seat would be necessary given the time commitment required and the desire for meaningful voice; others said a nonvoting seat would avoid upsetting institutional balances and could be preferable because the council representative would otherwise be representing a majority council view rather than the whole body. Attorney Steve said models vary across Connecticut: some municipalities permit full voting council representatives on boards and commissions; others provide nonvoting representation. The council also discussed changes to the post‑BET review process. Nora proposed that if the council overrides BET allocations by the existing two‑thirds procedure, the council’s override should become binding on the BET’s final appropriation and that the council be able to specify how any override is allocated at the line‑item level. Supporters said this gives elected officials an eventual check when the BET and council disagree; opponents warned that allowing line‑item overrides could disrupt revenue projections and the traditional checks between elected legislative bodies and the fiscal board. No formal votes were taken. Leadership placed the BET‑related proposals and the cap‑split language on the list for further debate; the council indicated the items likely require further drafting and public discussion before any final recommendation to the Charter Revision Commission.