Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget Ad Hoc Committee unanimously recommends Danbury Public Works budget
Summary
The Budget Ad Hoc: Public Works committee met April 15 and voted unanimously to recommend the Public Works budget as presented. Committee members discussed recreation revenues, museum maintenance needs, Tarrywile Park funding, a proposed 5% sewer rate increase and contingency funds for water-main breaks.
Get email alerts on the Public Works Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Budget Ad Hoc: Public Works committee voted unanimously April 15 to recommend the city’s Public Works budget as presented, forwarding the proposal for approval after a two-hour review of departmental needs and funding sources. Council member Ryan Hawley moved the recommendation and Council member Diane LaPine seconded; Chair Peter Buzaid announced the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting reviewed program-level details across a range of Public Works responsibilities. Mr. Ratchford, the Recreation Director, told the committee his unit operates with three employees (one part-time), seasonal staff for lake and camp operations and that recreation generates revenue “bringing in about $400,000” from the lake, boat ramp, banquet hall, pavilion and summer camp. He said the department is seeking additional funds for nonessential projects and more seasonal staffing as camp enrollment increases. Council member Ryan Hawley asked about a proposed dog park behind the PAL building; Mr. Ratchford said the location would better serve current softball-field users.
Geoffrey Herald, chair of the Danbury Museum and Historical Society Authority, said the mayor’s proposed $225,000 allocation is inadequate to address maintenance and renovation needs for museum buildings and that as a municipally associated entity the museum does not qualify for some external grants. Taylor O’Brien, Chief of Staff in the Mayor’s Office, noted additional funding opportunities the museum could pursue; Mayor Roberto Alves told the committee past budget increases have helped balance museum allocations.
Susan Nolan, treasurer of the Tarrywile Park Authority, said Danbury City funding covers about 65% of the Authority’s budget, cited engineering needs, salaries and additional snow removal as cost drivers, and reported $68,000 in revenue last year with an $80,000 target. Duane Perkins, chair of the Tarrywile Park Authority, said 107 volunteers supported property maintenance last year and praised the Authority’s grant writer for pursuing outside funds.
Public Works Director and City Engineer Antonio Iadarola described how capital improvement funds, bonds and the operating budget are used for building maintenance and named increased school-related work as a pressure point; he said on-call contractors handle routine repairs and additional contractors are hired for larger projects. Mr. Iadarola told the committee the biodiesel processing plant project relied on EPA grants that were later canceled and that the front of the plant is in use while the city seeks new funding. Lou Giordano raised a question about salaries (line 516101); Mr. Iadarola attributed increases to union contracts and the need for an additional mechanic.
Highway and engineering topics included using grant funds to restock winter salt supplies, sidewalk ADA upgrades, and re-bidding the Kennedy Street Bridge work as a capital project. Taylor O’Brien described reallocations and additional grant funds to support sidewalk repairs and said coordination with utilities is routine for road-opening permits.
Public Utilities Superintendent David Day confirmed a proposed 5% sewer rate increase intended to maintain operations; O’Brien said the new proposed rate is lower than the rate approved in 2022. Mr. Iadarola said a $975,000 contingency has risen because of recent water-main breaks tied to rapid temperature changes and that the choice between in-house and contracted repairs depends on break severity.
The committee completed its review and unanimously moved the budget recommendation forward. No committee vote on final adoption was recorded at the meeting; the recommendation will proceed to the next step in the city’s budgeting process.
