I cannot use my name because of my relationship with the City of Stamford.
If you need to disregard this message for that reason alone, so be it.

I see a problem here;

I stopped at the Shippan fire station after noticing that they were almost always out on calls during the day.
After speaking with a few of the firemen about how busy the station had become I learned that they are routinely (daily basis) re-assigned to work in other areas, leaving our closest fire truck to come from a different station.

This could result in serious delays when you desperately need help.

I also learned that the Shippan area is the largest neighborhood that is covered by a single fire truck.

My question is simply why take away our protection to send it elsewhere and leave us to wait?

Are we not paying enough in taxes to afford adequate service?

Thank you in advance for addressing this.

Hi Everyone,

Please watch the enclosed video on you tube and know that Stamford is not alone in this battle…

…then click on the video to the right that say’s Question of Ingestion and this will give you an idea of what these fields are truly made of…

I can tell you one thing, when you start clumping projects together and if you don’t track this stuff very carefully it is easy to over appropriate funds at the expense of other projects or just plain lose sight of sources and uses. This is a huge blow to a system designed for the purpose of keeping our City accounting transparent. This is a problem and I hope our elected officials stop it cold. The fact that it has been done before and was overlooked should not be the basis for Cassone’s legal opinion. Should the Democrats on either the BOR or the BOF, who are the majority, condone this behavior by the Mayor, the City will have taken a step back and once again side stepped its responsibility to up hold the law. The United States of America can only truly be strong when men and women in authority protect our democracy and stand for what is right.

Malloy defends budget moves

By Stephen P. Clark
Staff Writer
Stamford Advocate

Article Launched:04/07/2008 01:00:00 AM EDT

STAMFORD - In his proposed capital budget for next fiscal year, Mayor Dannel Malloy bundled smaller projects into larger ones, raising concerns that he violated the city Charter and undermined the authority of elected boards.

By combining certain capital projects, Malloy has, perhaps inadvertently, stripped the boards of their power to determine how much funding each one gets, some elected officials said.

“I think it’s disgraceful the powers of the citizens are being eroded by a mayor who doesn’t have respect for the Charter, nor do the people whom he appointed,” Republican finance board member Joseph Tarzia said.

Board of Representatives President David Martin, D-19, wrote in a memo to elected and administration officials that Malloy’s actions challenged the Charter but didn’t violate it.

“While this may provide administrative convenience, it is arguably counter to the Charter requirement that each project should be submitted separately, and infringes upon the powers of the Planning Board, the Board of Finance and Board of Representatives to act on specific capital projects,” the memo read.

Malloy said he made the change to complete projects faster and to make capital spending more flexible after getting caught between the Planning Board’s $50 million request and the Board of Finance’s $40 million spending limit.

“I had to accommodate all of the work that the Planning Board had done and the demands of the Board of Finance,” Malloy said last month at an editorial board meeting with The Advocate. “I think I found the right way to do it.”

The Board of Finance votes on Malloy’s $447.8 million city and school operating budget, and his $72.6 million capital budget, tomorrow. Malloy’s proposal would increase property taxes by at least 9.38 percent.

The $72.6 million that Malloy is requesting for projects would be funded by $40 million in tax-supported general obligation bonds; $19.4 million in state and federal grants; and $13.2 million in other funding resources and self-supporting debt.

Malloy’s capital budget now groups projects by category. For example, he requested $5.3 million for 19 projects renovating parks and fields, including synthetic turf fields that have drawn fierce opposition from Shippan residents.

He also requested $1.6 million for 12 renovation projects covering leased facilities and outside agencies, including the Bartlett Arboretum, Stamford Historical Society and Yerwood Center.

“These are the projects that I believe need to move along,” Malloy said last month. “That’s how they’re grouped. But in the engineering and execution side, certain projects can move forward more rapidly than others. I want to be in a position to have the money necessary to move those projects along.”

It also will reduce the need for departments to go back to the finance board with requests for supplemental appropriations as the construction market changes, Malloy said.

Tarzia said he doesn’t accept Malloy’s reasons.

“He must think we’re all stupid,” Tarzia said. “If we lived under his reasoning, I guess we wouldn’t have a Board of Finance and a Board of Representatives. I think he’s obviously talking about a one-man rule. If citizens think that is the way to go, fine.”

But if elected boards want to divvy up the capital projects, they can reduce or eliminate Malloy’s proposal, forcing him to request funding separately later.

“We still have the authority and ability not to appropriate anything we choose not in the best interests of the city,” Board of Finance Chairman Michael Pollard said. “So to that end, it really leaves the Board of Finance power intact.”

Even so, Pollard requested a legal opinion to make sure the change does not violate the Charter.

According to the Charter, the capital budget must include a detailed estimate of the cost of each proposed project, and a report summarizing the status of each previously approved project, noting those that have been completed.

In a legal opinion issued this week, city attorney Thomas Cassone said the city frequently has combined several parts of a project into one, including the upgrade of vehicles, major bridge repairs or street resurfacing. Elected boards approved them, Cassone said.

“I do not believe that there is any qualitative difference in the current submission, except that existing capital project accounts are listed for informational purposes in the new submission,” Cassone wrote.

Tarzia dismissed the opinion because Cassone works for Malloy.

“It’s an opinion of the guy whose job is at the discretion of the mayor. Now give me a break,” he said. “The guy who works for me is going to do what I tell him to do. He’s not interested in protecting the Charter or the rights of the board.”

Pollard said the legal opinion reassured him that Malloy did not violate the Charter.

“I personally think you do need to have some degree of flexibility as to managing the city’s budget,” Pollard said. “I understand why he’s doing it and how he’s doing it and it’s not against the Charter.”

City Rep. Randall Skigen, D-19, chairman of the Fiscal Committee, said he still is concerned because the only way the boards can stop a project is to vote against an entire group of them. For example, the boards would have to vote against all 19 park and field improvement projects if they wanted to stop the city from installing two synthetic turf soccer fields at West Beach.

He also is concerned that the 12 renovation projects for the leased facilities and outside agencies would create competition among them to be the first to start construction or risk not having the project completed, Skigen said.

“I think there has been an unanticipated consequence of trying to create more efficiencies in the capital budget and that consequence is reducing the powers that the elected boards have and their oversight and approval of capital projects,” he said.

Skigen asked Director of Administration Sandra Dennies for a list of all the projects in each category. The Fiscal Committee, which is reviewing the budget until the end of the month, may vote on each project separately, Skigen said.

Malloy said that if the boards reduce or eliminate his request for certain projects, he may seek other funding sources, which would stall the work.

The changes he made this year are not different from what he did in the past, Malloy said. He’s trying to give Stamford residents the services they want by using a system that has proven it moves projects forward, he said.

“I tried to give the people of Stamford the biggest bang for their dollar,” the mayor said.

Whether you agree or disagree with the proposed synthetic astro-turf fields, we can all agree that no group should be railroaded by any administration when acting within the City Charter.

What follows is a summary of the status of the appeal Karen, a City of Stamford resident, made to the Health Commission regarding Dr. Lee’s opinion, dated February 21, 2008, on the safety of tire crumb fields.

In a letter to Lou Casolo, dated February 21, 2008, Dr. Lee opined that, “Since there is no documented health risk associated with the installation and use of the fields, and since the health benefits of exercise are clearly documented, it is my professional opinion that the City should move forward with the installation of the artificial turf fields.”

The Parks and Recreation Committee of the Board of Representatives and the public first learned of Dr. Lee’s decision on February 26, 2008, at the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting, and the opinion was subsequently presented to the full Board of Representatives on March 3, 2008.

On March 3, 2008, within a week of learning of the decision, Karen appealed the findings in Dr. Lee’s letter to the Health Commission (HC). She requested that the HC, whose duty is to hear appeals and determine the health policies for the City, to include in its findings and recommendations the appropriate and inappropriate use of tire crumb turf fields in the City of Stamford. Once the appeal is accepted by the HC, a stay on the installation of these fields would be in effect.

On March 21st Karen received a letter from the HC, dated March 18th, stating that the “request for an appeal was not properly filed and has no standing.”

On March 22nd, Karen asked for an explanation of why her filing was in error.

On March 24th, the HC responded that, “(s)ince Dr. Lee’s letter was written on February 21st, (plaintiff’s) request for appeal dated March 3rd was not filed in the seven day time period allowed.” Karen answered that the public did not learn of the letter until February 26th, the day of the Parks and Recreation Committee meeting.

On March 27th, Karen received an email that her appeal was properly filed and the hearing was scheduled for April 3rd.

Unbelievably, on March 28th, the City’s law department advised that the appeal of the letter dated February 21st and first seen on February 26th was not timely filed because Karen did not appeal a very unclear, hearsay discussion that occurred between

Mr. Pollard, a Board of Finance (BOF) Member, and Dr. Lee sometime on or before February 13th. This conversation was reported in the minutes to the BOF meeting as follows:

Chairman Pollard, recognizing that there were trade-offs in

was moving too quickly on this large project.

Even Mr. Casolo did not understand what Dr. Lee’s opinion was following the February 13th BOF meeting. Dr. Lee prepared his February 21, 2008, opinion in order to respond to Mr. Casolo’s, the project manger’s, “question regarding the safety of artificial turf fields.”

Notwithstanding that Karen is appealing Dr. Lee’s opinion dated February 21st, on March 28th, the HC told Karen that the 7-day appeal period began on February 13th, the day she heard

Mr. Pollard summarize a hallway conversation he had with Dr. Lee, which was eight days before Dr. Lee addressed the rubber tire turf fields and health risks associated with these fields.

Karen asserts that she is appealing Dr. Lee’s February 21, 2008, opinion, not a partial hearsay discussion between Mr. Pollard and Dr. Lee. Further, there was nothing to appeal, no record to appeal from and it is unreasonable and premature to appeal what at best can be described as a unclear, partial hearsay discussion. In fact another Board of Finance member wished he had something in writing from Dr. Lee, and Mr. Casolo’s question regarding safety was not answered by the pieces of the hearsay discussion that were disclosed by Mr. Pollard.

Karen has requested that the Health Commission reconsider the unreasonable finding that the 7-day appeal period began on February 13, 2008, not on February 26, 2008, the day she learned of the Director of Health’s opinion that she is appealing.

Stay tuned….

I’m glad Joe Tarzia and Bob Kolenberg took the time to write to the Advocate and highlight the blatant fallacy and misguided attempts by Mayor Dannel Malloy to blame large “tax increases” anticipated for this year on the loss of a $2mm grant reduction from Hartford. The fact of the matter is that the Malloy administration cannot and does not seem to understand how to evaluate operational decisions based on economics. The City Administration claimed that the elimination of a third party contract for recycling would save the tax payers money when in reality the all in costs from the get go were more expensive and was done to save city employee jobs as a results of budget cuts. Why is the City borrowing $6.1mm to build astro-turf fields and only giving our schools $3mm for facility upkeep? Again, the City claims that astro-turf will save the City money. Common! The annual cost of financing alone is higher than the annual cost of maintenance for grass, not to mention the depreciation of the investment over ten years and in the end its replacement cost. The City is playing games with taxpayers through selective and partial analysis and playing off taxpayers trust. Why is the City doing this? It seems the City is always reacting today to the mistakes of yesterday, and yet it continues the madness of being fiscally irresponsible even as we enter uncertain and perilous economic times. The City has experienced two years of operating deficits and continues to borrow even though we have over $400mm in debt today and projected to double in five years. The City most probably has already surpassed its own debt service to expense ratio limit of 10% and is quickly heading toward 15% which would trigger a bond rating downgrade.
Unfortunately our elected officials suffer a little bit from politics, and a little bit from ignorance, while the vast majority of Stamford residents suffer from apathy. In a City of 120,000 residents only 14,000 voted in the last municipal elections. The single largest employer in Stamford is the City of Stamford. I would be willing to bet that the largest voting bloc were City employees. There are no checks and balances at the BOF because it’s controlled by the Democrats. The Mayor negotiates salary increases and benefits with the Unions and gets the votes, which gets approved by the BOF which because we didn’t vote we get to pay the bill.
Now, don’t get me wrong the Republicans are probably less equipped to manage this City but at least Joe’s instincts are right when it comes to spending. Joe wants to retire in Stamford and he knows he can’t do it if we keep paying more on property taxes. Too bad the City didn’t elect the Independent Candidate Kathleen Murphy, the Treasurer for the Town of Greenwich and former CFO of a multi-billion Corporation when we had the chance.
The unfortunate reality is that if we did do things right we could keep property taxes in check, keep City employee jobs and invest in our schools. But when you made bad decisions and spend like a teenager with a new credit card everyone eventually gets hurt.

Even if you believe crumb rubber is safe for children’s play fields

Even if you believe that the storm water run off will do no harm to Long Island Sound

Even if you believe that play will be safer and more enjoyable on a surface that is 8 to 10 degrees hotter than asphalt in the summer (there is no shade on the proposed sites)

Even if you believe these fields will improve the “quality of life” for the Youth Soccer league

You should VOTE NO on the DeRosa contract

Given the economic environment we are in and this may last a while since our economy is increasingly tied to the NYC financial centers, we need to keep our powder dry.

Even the mayor admits to the significant tax increase the taxpayers are facing

The City has run an operating deficit two years in a row despite increased taxes

The City enjoyed significant surpluses in FY 2007 from conveyance taxes and building permit fees surplus over $8.0 million – this was all spent and more…ending the year with operating deficits!

Hopefully you recently read the article in the Advocate re the administration’s savings with the taking of recycling. Its about time that our elected Boards start doing the hard work of analyzing the Administration initiatives or at least give some credence to the taxpayer fiscal watch dogs who provide analysis to you. When will you learn not to accept the administration’s data at face value!

I know the board of finance wants to hire a financial expert to help them understand how the wool is being pulled over their eyes – it is embarrassing!

Now some members of the Board of Reps are mentioning the word “gimmicks” – that is what’s going on, please wake up!!

This project will be funded with the bond offering in April. Given the turmoil in the municipal markets it may be difficult to get a favorable transaction done at all, and if we lose our credit rating or are put on a watch list our financing costs will be dramatically higher. No refinancing can be justified in this market because youcan’t show the requisite 2% savings to justify the refinancing.

Annual interest on these funds for the soccer fields will be excess of $250,000 (4.2% interest) Greenwich is not able to raise funds under this rate today. Never mind the maintenance requirements ….there are no savings!

This is solely a quality of life project at a time the city cannot afford it. I’m sure the rating agencies will look at this way as well.

Our issues are not political! Only if you want to make them so.

We all want lower taxes, better schools and transparency.

We need our elected boards to be intellectually honest about what is going on. Don’t pit Republican against Democrat or vice versa. Save that for the election time. When you are holding such duty and responsibility in your hands we expect you to work together for all the taxpayers of Stamford.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen

Dear Stamford Residents:

Stamford’s Board of Finance on February 13, 2008, approved the DeRosa fixed price contract to build four artificial turf fields in Stamford - one at Weshthill High School, two at West Beach Park, and one at Lione Park. Based on what we know today, the Board of Finance was not as informed as they should have been before voting on this Capital Project. The lack of basic information was due to, among other things, failure to read the contract, misrepresentations made by the administration to the Board of Finance and to the public, and the inexplicable manner this Capital Project is being pushed through the legal channels without being challenged and with little, if any, public involvement or input. Contrary to Mr. Casolo’s representation, what has been reported in the newspapers, and what Mr. Waggaman, President of the Stamford Youth Soccer League, stated in his letter to the editor, there was no public hearing on this project. Let’s hope the Parks and Recreation Committee of the Board of Representatives takes their responsibilities seriously. Attend the Tuesday, February 27th meeting at 7 p.m. at the Government Center.

It is simply mind-boggling why the Board of Finance (“BOF”) approved this contract. The six members on the Board of Finance are the City’s fiscal watchdogs. Why would the Board elevate the importance of, and approve spending $6.1 million on, soccer field projects just weeks before the Capital Spending budget is scheduled to be reviewed and debated by this Board? They will also be reviewing and approving the City’s operating budget shortly. Spending on this discretionary contract at this time before reviewing all the capital needs of the City and determining the priorities for projects makes no sense. We know that the City is projecting an operating deficit for this fiscal year. For 2006-07 the City ran an operating deficit as well. Deficits two years in a row! We also now face an economic downturn in the region. This could lead to reduced revenues for fiscal year 2009. There should be a lot of yellow flags on spending and increasing debt levels.

Hopefully the Board of Representatives will act more responsibly. They have been made aware of what is going on in the state and in other parts of the country and the world – people and medical professionals are raising concerns about the long-term health effects of children playing on these fields. Environmentalist are asking why rubber trees are not acceptable at landfills but can be cut up and used for children’s playing fields. Yes there is an impermeable membrane under the rubber crumbs to protect leaching of the containments into the ground like they use in hazardous landfills, but what about the pieces that go into the children’s eyes and noses and are stuck to their clothes and shoes and hair. There are a lot of open questions. There are a lot of studies and none have been conclusive. No one will say nor has any study concluded that the materials used to construct these fields are not harmful to our children. There is a public hearing in Hartford on Wednesday February 27th for the purpose of understanding the risks of artificial turf. Attorney Blumenthal has asked for $200,000.00 to study the health and environmental risks of artificial turfs. New York has a moratorium on these installations. Ridgefield has a referendum scheduled for its residents to vote on these installations. Fairfield has stopped installations. So although it is true many towns and municipalities rushed in and installed these artificial turf playing fields, now some are seeing the consequences. Remember as Mr. Pollard stated at the BOF meeting, asbestos was once considered a safe material – we know better now after many people became sick and died. Companies who made products with asbestos are now bankrupt from defending themselves in class action lawsuits. Is that a risk we want to take, or expose the City to? It appears that, like Mr. Blumenthal proposal, rigorous scientific studies are planned around the country. Let’s wait and see what the findings are before taking chances with our children and environment. We have that responsibility.

In summary, whether you are for against this capital project, all should agree to delay the approval of this contract for at least three reasons:

1. The environmental and health questions regarding the use of rubber crumbs in artificial turfs are beginning to be seriously addressed by the State of Connecticut and by other states, towns and municipalities. Why not wait and see what comes from these studies?

2. Stamford will be reviewing the Mayor’s Capital spending plans and the operating budget over the next two months. Before the Board of Representatives decides to spend $6.1 million for soccer fields, each Board member should want to understand how the priorities were set for capital spending. With the flooding in the City this past year, closing downs roads and resulting in residents required to abandon their cars in center city, with the state wide focus to make our bridges safe, and schools in need of refurbishment – it is hard to understand the priority the soccer fields are being given. Also there has been no data on the ongoing upkeep and maintenance of these fields. Further the fields have life of 7 to 10 years, so the City will need to budget more than $500,000 annually for their replacement or safe removal at the end of their life.

3. If the City plans to convert a multi-purpose open space park to a single purpose Soccer Stadium, the neighbors and residents of the city should be given appropriate notice and have a forum to express their concerns and ideas. Take the time to listen to the residents. The Mayor is for “transparency!”

The DeRosa Contract raises a number of Charter Issues. The residents of Stamford should not have to bear the expensive litigation costs the City is going to face from residents and non-residents if the Board of Representatives approves the DeRosa Contract. The City officials simply have not done their homework in getting this project approved under the radar screen. The environmental issues will be litigated under state and other statutes. This document addresses some of the City of Stamford’s Charter issues.

First: Violates Parks and Recreation Commission’s Duty

Section C6-120-2(2) of the Charter explicitly provides that the duty of Parks and Recreation Commission is:

To develop such plans as it deems necessary and useful for the preservation and expansion of natural resources and passive recreation areas in the City;

The DeRosa Contract is the antithesis of this duty and obligation of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission’s plan for West Beach, which was never subject to a Public Hearing, is to replace natural grass with synthetic turf, and convert a muti-use park into a Soccer Stadium that will hold almost 600 spectators, with scoreboards, fencing, and no toilet facilities. Clearly not a passive recreation area, nor an expansion of natural resources.

Further the Commission has not met its burden to show, or obtain opinions, that the synthetic turf is safe from Environmental and Health perspectives.

Second: The Health Commission Has Not Complied With Its Duties

Sec. C6-100-2(1) of the Charter provides that the Health Commission duty is to: “Determine the health policies for the City.” Unlike most responsible cities, the Health Commission has issued no opinion on the potential health issues associated with synthetic turf.

The Director of Health had the opportunity to address the Board of Finance (“BOF”) and the public at the February 13, 2008, BOF meeting on the substantial health issues potentially involved with synthetic turf, and elected not to do so.

Sec. C6-100-2.(4) provides that the Health Commission must hear appeals from orders, decisions, actions, failures to act or denials by the Director of Health. Appeals will be filed, especially if this Contract is approved.

Third: Unauthorized Transfer/Gift of Land Used for Park Purposes

The City is in essence transferring/gifting West Beach Park to Soccer Players, who will have exclusive use. Just because there is no sale per se, the conversion of West Beach Park to a soccer Complex is a violation of the intent and purpose of Section C6-120-3 of the Charter and is prohibited except by public referendum. There was not even a public hearing on this transfer/gift of park land.