NewHartfordPlus.com

With the May meeting of the WPCA taking place this evening, we are making available the video of that Board’s April meeting. We apologise for the lateness of this report – the NewHartfordPlus crew has been busy, busy, busy working on community issues (the town budget, the use of town-owned practice spaces by youth sports, etc. etc.) and there are still only 24 hours to each day!

The Water Pollution Control Authority met on April 5, 2012, with the following items on its agenda. We will write a brief summary of each item discussed as time permit. Below the agenda is the video of the April 5WPCA  meeting.

April 5, 2012 7:00 P.M.

Call to Order

Approval of Minutes: No minutes of previous meetings were presented.

Opportunity for Public comment on Agenda items: No comment.

Water Planet Report: Jason, the operator of the town’s waste water treatment plant reported on several items, one of which was the collapse of the parking lot at the waste water treatment plant.  There was a leak in a pipe under the parking lot; the pipe appeared to have been damaged by a backhoe during the construction of the plant and it appeared to have been leaking since then.  Nickerson, the plant’s construction company, was called to remediate the situation and the only thing left to be done was to asphalt the surface which will be done once the asphalt plants reopen.  A rough estimate of the cost is $10,000, which may be covered by the construction company.

United Water Report

Chairman’s report of recent developments

Budget report

Customer requests

Orders to Connect

Delinquent accounts—update

UDSA funds

Any other business to come before the Board.

Adjournment

Video Of WPCA April 5 Meeting

.
Below is the video of the April 5 WPCA meeting. Click on the image to view the video on the NewHartfordPlus YouTube channel.

Technical Problem: While we work to link the image with the video on YouTube, please access the video by clicking on the following link: WPCA April 5 Meeting.

Click on the image above to watch video of the April 5 WPCA meeting on the NewHartfordPlus YouTube channel

The Clean and Waste Water Study Group held its first meeting on March 15 to establish the framework for their study of the future of the town’s water and waste water systems which together form the New Hartford Water Company and is under the direction of the WPCA.  This group will hold its second meeting this afternoon, Thursday, April 12.

Following is the video of the study group’s first meeting.

Click on the image above to watch the video of the Clean and Waste Water Study Group's first meeting on the NewHartfordPlus YouTube channel

Summary Of The Study Group’s First Meeting, March 15

.
Following is a brief summary of the Clean and Waste Water Study Group’s first meeting. Please be sure to watch the video of the meeting (linked to via the image above) for a full account of the meeting.

The study group was formed following a request by the Building Oversight Committee (BOC) to the town’s selectmen to set up a task force to evaluating the future of the town’ water and sewer system; see video of the BOC presentation at the Board of Selectmen Special Meeting on February 13.

The  members of the study group that had assembled in the Sessions Conference Room were the 7 that had been proposed by the BOC during their February presentation, i.e.:

•  2 WPCA members: Bob Kryzs and Steve Hanright;
• 2 BOC members: Roy Litchfield and Denton Butler;
• 2 past First Selectpersons: Kate Rieger and Bill Baxter; and
• the current First Selectman, Dan Jerram, to act as Chairman.

Also attending the 2 p.m. meeting was David Rosengren, another member of the WPCA.

Bill Baxter asked what the reason was for calling the study group/task force together and he was told that financial considerations – the small number of users, the costs associated with the new wastewater treatment plant, etc. were the reasons.

Denton Butler had outlined three possible scenarios in his handout:

• maintaining the status quo
• town ownership and assumption of the operational management
• possible sale/lease of assets to a third party.

Bob Krzys also had brought in a handout with his thoughts on the subject.   He agreed that there were issues and he emphasized that the most important aspect was to look at the data and once they knew what they were dealing with then they could move forward.  He said that in order to expand the user base for the wastewater treatment plant they would have to expand the wastewater collection system and he identified two potential sources of funding to do that: (1) the left-over USDA funding that might be available and (2) the town is on the DEEP priority list for the fiscal year 2012-2013 that would make available $1.2 million in a combination of grants and loans for the expansion of the sewer system to Cottage Street.  Whether they were going to access that money and how the repayment was going to be structured was  something to be considered, he said.

After further discussion the group divided itself into pairs that would work together on gathering specific data to bring back and share with the rest of the group at their next meeting on April 12.

The Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) met in March to continue working on the many fronts their Board is engaged on. With the town’s new waste water treatment plant now in service, the WPCA is responsible for the operation of that plant as well as the infrastructures that deliver waste to the plant and also deliver clean water to the its users. Add to this the financial oversight of both the waste and clean water systems and the pressing need to add more users to share the burden of paying for more than 70% of the cost of the new plant, and it is easy to see why this is the most hard-working Board bar none.

Following is the video of the WPCA’s March 1 meeting. Below the video is a summary of  some of the discussion that took place during this meeting.

Click on the image above to watch the video of the WPCA's March 1 meeting on the NewHartfordPlus channel on YouTube

Summary Of Meeting

.
The first item on the agenda was the report of Water Planet, the operators of the town’s wastewater treatment plant (3 mins. 40 secs. in video). At the end of that report WPCA member Bill Michaud took the opportunity to say how well things were going with Water Planet, that the flow of information was better than it had been in the past and that the company was doing an excellent job.

WPCA Learns Of Waste And Clean Water Task Force Set Up By Selectmen

Chairman Bob Krzys then updated his fellow Board members on a meeting that the Board of Selectmen was looking to set up for March 15 (12 mins. 40 secs. in video). Bob passed out a document, ‘New Hartford’s Clean and Waste Water Future,’ which had been considered by the selectmen at their meeting. Based on that document the selectmen had agreed to convene a task force to consider the future of the town’s clean and waste water operations; the task force was to be made up of two members of the Building Oversight Committee (BOC), two former selectpersons, two members of the WPCA and the First Selectman. Bob said that he had told the First Selectman that he would bring the matter to the WPCA at their meeting for their input and to see who would participate on the task force, and he was informed that the selectmen had already picked who the WPCA representatives were going to be – Bob Krzys and Steve Hanright. Bob said he was free on the evening of the 15th and would go at least to the first meeting. “This is all I know about it – it’s a two-pager,” Bob said, referring to the document from the Board of Selectmen that he had just distributed to the WPCA members.

Looking at the list of issues on the two-page document, Bill Michaud said that the list was one that concentrated on the symptoms, not the causes of the issues they were having. He said the issues were the same as those that other systems in New England were facing. “The reason we haven’t fixed all these things is because we have a very small user base, a lot of fixed costs and we’re really doing the best we can to get ahead of this.” Bill said. A general discussion ensued, with Dave Rosengren commenting that 400 users couldn’t support the whole infrastructure and that it should be approached as a community issue. “The community ought to be involved in supporting the infrastructure through the general tax base,” he said. Regarding a possible sale of the water and/or waste systems, Bill Michaud commented that their Board is one that is focused on fiscal sustainability but also weighs in the interests of the community. “This is a much different Board than a Board that would sit on a utility whose main interest was in making sure that its shareholders were making a good return on their investment… That’s a loss of control in the future of the downtown of New Hartford.”

Bob said that he and Steve Hanright would attend the meeting and report back to the WPCA Board members.

More will be added to this summary as time permits; please view the video to watch the meeting.

The town’s Board of Selectmen held a Special Meeting on Tuesday, December 20, moving their meeting forward a week to avoid having to hold their regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, December 27, a day when Town Hall was scheduled to be closed as an employee Discretionary Day.

NewHartfordPlus previously reported on one of the agenda items of the December 20  Special Meeting of the Board of Selectmen (see our article ‘A Slew Of Appointments Made To Town’s Commissions By BOS’ ). Below is a link to the complete video recording of that meeting.

In order to make the meeting easier for readers to navigate, we’ve included the full list of Agenda items along with a link to the point in the video where each Agenda item begins.  Just click on the Agenda item number below to begin playing the video at that point.  Click on the large screenshot below to hear the entire video from the beginning.

Meeting Agenda

(click the link at the beginning of each item to go to that section of the video)

1. Meeting Minutes (Editors Note: Minutes of the previous meeting were not reviewed)

2. Grants Update/BOC update re: Main Street sewer/downtown revitalization;

An update on the two currently ongoing STEAP grant programs.  Denton began by providing a background briefing on the activities of the BOC (Building oversight Commitee), beginning with  the sewer plant expansion.  That project was completed five months  ahead of schedule and underbudget.  There is a current $453,000.00 cash on hand balance.  Denton went on to discuss the Brook Street sewer project and the Main Street Sewer Line Repair and Reconstruction Project.  The Main Street repair was temporarily interrupted by the need for an emergency sewer line repair extending from 557 to 551 Main Street.  The BOC had explored the possible use of grant money to fund the emergency repair but that was not permitted, so the WPCA took the money from their active funds.  Surveying for sewer work in the downtown area has determined that there are two sewer manholes located in Route 44 that have been paved over.  The engineering design for this work has been completed and the project  will probably be going  out to bid in February.  The Brook Street sewer project had come in $50,800.00 under budget and the State allowed that money to be carried forward and added the $150,000.00 FY ’11 STEAP grant.     The BOC is also working on the Central Avenue and Bridge Street project, which will address traffic management and expanded parking options.  Their engineer is developing a conceptual drawing that will be discussed with property owners in the project area.  The BOC is looking to fund the project through the DECD (Department of Economic and Community Development) using money left over from the relocation of the Town salt shed.

Future plans include the Industrial Park/Cottage Street Line Extension.  It is hoped that the cash on hand balance from the sewer plant expansion can be applied to this project.  Denton ended his address by noting that the BOC plans to come back to the Selectmen at their January meeting to discuss the future of clean and waste water operations and to provide some recommendations for future projects.

related documents: BOC Briefing Document (31)

3. Operations Update

The majority of work continues to be post-storm cleanup.

4. Route 219 – Johnnycake Lane DOT project update

5. Litchfield Hills Business Energy Efficiency Program. The program requirements have been made less stringent in order to encourage more businesses to apply – see our upcoming BIZ NOTES.

6. Discussion and action of Regional Performance Incentive Program Applications

• Regional Animal Control Facility
• Public Works Equipment Coopererative
• Regional Composting Facility

7. Appointments to Boards and Commissions

8. Set Meeting Schedule for 2012 Calendar Year

9. Approval of Town Hall Holiday Schedule for 2012 Calendar Year

10. Request for Tax Refunds

11. Public Comment on Agenda Items ONLY

12. Correspondence

[Summary of the discussion of agenda items to be completed; thanks for your understanding of our efforts]

UPDATE: First Selectman Dan Jerram did discuss the letter from Conservation Chairperson Alison Murdock and noted that no trees have been cut at Brodie Park South and that any changes made at Brodie Park South are “miniscule and don’t have any impact.” [...]

____________________

At the same time that the Conservation Commission members sent a letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission members regarding their concerns about this past season’s use by a regional football program of Brodie Park South (see our November 21 article which included that letter), they had also submitted a letter to the Board of Selectmen.

With the Board of Selectmen’s Meeting set for this evening at 7 p.m. and no agenda for that meeting having been mailed to us through this morning, our reporter made two trips down to the First Selectman’s office, one at 8:10 a.m. and one at 1:15 p.m., to request a copy of the agenda, a copy of the Conservation Commission letter and also to ask whether that letter would be discussed at this evening’s meeting. Both times our reporter was told that only the First Selectman knew what he would be addressing under Correspondence at this evening’s meeting. Our reporter said that there were residents who would want to come to the meeting if the Conservation letter was to be discussed and the response was: “Let them come to the meeting and they’ll know if it’s going to be discussed!”

That is the message for the 20 or so concerned residents who showed up for the Planning and Zoning meeting yesterday evening and who would plan to attend this evening’s Selectmen’s meeting if they knew for sure that their issue, as represented by the Conservation Commission members, would be discussed.

So, when in doubt, we’ll post it: Below is the letter from the Conservation Commission members to the First Selectman which he may or may not include for discussion by the Board at this evening’s meeting:

Reporter’s Note: “Unbelievable” someone exclaimed at Town Hall as our reporter left the building. And she couldn’t agree more: Absolutely unbelievable to think that residents have nothing better to do than to go to meetings on the off-chance that their issue would be discussed. That’s why there are agendas for meetings.

A member of the town's Highway Department cutting the meadow area on September 28. Photo: Maria Moore

This evening’s Planning & Zoning Special Meeting will be attended by both the Town Planner, Marty Connor, and the Town’s Land Use Attorney, Mark Branse. Both experts will be on hand to help the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission members as they review the final draft of the town’s zoning regulations before those revised regulations come into effect.

Both experts will also be on hand to participate in the discussion of the letter submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission by the Conservation Commission regarding their concerns about the on-going, non-conforming use of Brodie Park South.  Download a copy of the Conservation Commission letter: Conservation Commission letter re. Brodie Park South, Oct. 28 2011 (107).

Specifically, the members of the Conservation Commission expressed the following concerns in their letter:

1. The unpermitted use of the field area by a regional football program, i.e. no Special Exception was obtained to erect goal-posts, store equipment lockers, lights and tires on the property, and occupy the park after dusk;
2. The activity described in (1) above was against the recommendations of the natural resources study done last year for the ad hoc Brodie Park Study Comittee;
3. Safety and liability issues that the used described in (1) above has given rise to, e.g., the risk of injury by having an overflow of cars on a winding, back road and occupying the park after dark in violation of posted rules;
4. Complaints and inquiries filed by residents with the Zoning Enforcement Officer, which according to those residents have been ignored, or answered with unofficial verbal reassurances rather than a written response.

Also attending this evening’s meeting will be a newly-formed group of town residents, the Friends of Brodie Park South, which will be supporting the Conservation Commission’s letter.

Also see our editor’s November 13 editorial When A Storage Structure Appears In A Neighborhood Park… which addresses some of the same concerns raised by the members of the Conservation Commission.

This will be the first meeting at which the Planning and Zoning Commission members will be hearing the concerns of a fellow Commission’s members and those of a residents’ group regarding the use of Brodie Park South by an active recreation group that has not not gone through the permitting process that other active recreation groups have had to follow to conduct their activities at other town parks.

Cars parked along Niles Road at Brodie Park South as dusk begins to fall during football practice on August 18. Photo: Maria Moore

______________________

The agenda for this evening’s Planning & Zoning Special Meeting is as follows:

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2011
NEW HARTFORD TOWN HALL – 530 MAIN STREET

Agenda

1.Review of Draft Regulations with Town Land Use Attorney and Town Planner.
2.Review proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations to be in compliance with Public Act 11-79 Bonding
3.Review proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations to incorporate low impact development.
4.Discuss and review letter dated October 28, 2011 from the New Hartford Conservation Commission regarding Brodie Park South/football.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rista Malanca, CZEO
Zoning Enforcement Officer

By: Maria Moore

The towns of New Hartford and Barkhamsted are blessed to have one of the most beautiful lakes in the state within their borders: West Hill Lake. This article introduces the West Hill Pond Association, a group whose mission is to tend the Lake and its environs. The WHPA will be holding a presentation for the public later this week of the results of its Storm Water Runoff Survey which documents the discharges into the lake.

“Possibly The Cleanest Lake In Connecticut”

Sailing on the lake.

That is how Camp Workcoeman describes the lake and it is not far from the truth. The water of West Hill Lake – or more properly, West Hill Pond – is classified as being of the highest quality in a March 2011 map created by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Achieving this distinction is not something that has happened by chance. For many years it has been the goal of the members of the Lake Shore Property Owners Association; most recently, it has become the goal of the Trustees of the West Hill Pond Association(WHPA).

What Is The West Hill Pond Association?

Ask this question of Skip Sly, President of the West Hill Pond Association (WHPA), and he will tell you: “The Association is an association of associations.” That is, the members of the WHPA represent different groups of shore property owners.

The WHPA was originally formed in 1964 by a group of shore property owners to purchase the dam on the lake from the Collins Ax Company of Collinsville. In 2008 the WHPA was granted Public Non-Profit status by the IRS and it has since begun to take on a more active role in assuring the long-term quality of the lake.

Establishing A Baseline: The Drainage Area And The Discharges Into The Lake

In 2009 the WHPA applied for and was awarded a grant by the Connecticut Federation of Lakes to conduct a Storm Water Runoff Survey documenting the drainage area and the discharges into the lake. This is the first time such a study had been done. The survey was conducted by Lenard Engineering, which undertook a study “to locate inflows into West Hill Pond, delineate their corresponding drainage areas, document existing conditions, create conceptual plans for improvements and prepare a preliminary priority for storm water improvements to maintain or improve existing water quality within the lake” (quoted from the survey). The WHPA will present the survey’s findings to the public this Thursday, August 11. Once the information becomes publicly available, the Association hopes to interest community members to help it establish an action plan that minimizes the damage to the lake from the storm water flows into the lake.

Plan To Attend:

The results of the West Hill Pond Storm Water Survey will be presented at 7 p.m. on Thursday, August 11, at Berkshire Hall, Brodie Park, West Hill Road, New Hartford. An abbreviated copy of the survey will be made available at that time. There will also be a sign-up sheet for individuals or groups interested in working with the WHPA in helping it maintain the quality of the lake.

A view of West Hill Lake from Brodie Park. Photo: Maria Moore

By: Maria Moore

A Public Hearing will be held by the Planning & Zoning Commission tomorrow evening, Wednesday, June 8 at 7:00 p.m. to continue the moratorium on outdoor woodburning furnaces (OWFs) for one year and also to amend the town’s Zoning regulations to add OWFs under Article V, Section 14 – Prohibited Uses.

The following legal notice regarding the Public Hearing was published in the Hartford Courant on May 25, 2011 and June 1, 2011:

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD

The Planning & Zoning Commission will meet on Wednesday, June 8, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. in New Hartford Town Hall, 530 Main Street, New Hartford, CT to conduct the following public hearing:

Continue Moratorium on Outdoor Wood Burning Furnaces – Article V, Section 14.2 – a one (1) year moratorium on Outdoor Wood Burning Furnaces

Amend Regulations – Article V, Section 14 –Prohibited Uses – Add new Paragraph n. Outdoor Wood Burning Furnaces.

At these public hearings, interested persons may appear and be heard and written communications received. Copies of the applications are on file and are available for inspection in the Land Use/Planning Office in New Hartford Town Hall, 530 Main Street, New Hartford, CT.
Dated this 13th day of May 2011
Planning & Zoning Commission
Chairman James Steadman

Discussion Of OWFs At P&Z Commission Meeting

At their May 11 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) members were able to discuss outdoor woodburning furnaces (OWFs) with their Land Use Attorney, Mark Branse. Jim Steadman, P&Z Chairman, recapped where they were with the issue by saying that the selectmen had sent P&Z a letter asking them to act to regulate OWFs. Jim said: “I’d like to ban them – wait for some further regulation – something to hang our hats on.” Ted Stoutenberg added: “That’s why we sent it to the selectmen so that they can do an ordinance to regulate those (OWFs) that are here.” Gil Pratt agreed: “The ones that exist, there’s nothing that we can do here.” It was apparent that the commission members felt that the selectmen had abrogated their responsibility by not taking action themselves on the issue.

P&Z members were told their options were: A, do nothing; B, put in some sort of regulation; and C, ban future installations. Attorney Branse pointed out that the EPA already has standards for wood stoves and they are considering similar regulations for OWFs. The commission members continued discussing OWFs, with Dan LaPlante saying that we already have regs now with setbacks, etc.; Ted Stoutenberg said that OWFs cost beween $20,000 to $30,000, that people who have them have to cut wood and they have to keep them stoked. In his opinion, he said: “We’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.”

Commission member Gil Pratt said: “Why not extend the moratorium?” To which fellow commisision member Ken Heisey agreed, saying:”We could watch what happens with the regs.” Attorney Branse said that they would still need a public hearing. Commission member David Krimmel agreed they should have a public hearing, saying: “There’s a valid reason for banning them.” Attorney Branse said that they should present their case to the town, why they want to ban them. “Let’s hear what the town has to say – it’s supposed to be participatory government.” The attorney said.

With the present six-month moratorium expiring on June 15, the P&Z commission members discussed how long to extend the moratorium: 18 months, a year or 6 months. They settled on a one-year extension of the moratorium.

The Chapfields, a couple from Town Hill Road, were at the meeting and they said that since they’d installed an OWF, they’d reduced their fuel costs by two-thirds. “The DEP is watchdogging OWFs big time!” They told the commission members. They said that over the past three years, the DEP had found no violations with their OWF. Attorney Branse told them: “The current regulations don’t allow testing for opacity.” Philip Chapfield came back saying that the DEP had been there 45 times for 4 hours each time. “No wonder our taxes are going up!” He said. Jim Steadman told him: “In a public hearing, you would be able to say that!”

The commission members then discussed what to advertise as the subject of the public hearing. Attorney Branse advised them: “You can always adopt a regulation that’s lesser than what you advertised.” The commission members agreed to this, and they voted 3-to-2 to hold a public hearing on June 8 to ban OWFs.

Smoke from an outdoor woodburning furnace on Cottage Street drifts across Route 219 in this late-winter scene. Photo: NewHartfordPlus archives

This report is the second of our two reports on the Board of Selectmen meeting held this past Tuesday, May 24. For Part I of the reports, see our May 27 report, Selectmen Endorse Cottage Street Sewer Line Extensions...

Recreation Commission member Dan Eddy sat quietly through the Board of Selectmen meeting this past Tuesday, waiting for the opportunity to address the selectmen under item # 11, Opportunity for Public Comment, scheduled at the end of the public portion of the meeting.

Dan Eddy thanked the Board of Selectmen for the work it’s undertaking with the roof (of the Brodie Park Field House) and with the potential work on the septic system (at Berkshire Hall at Brodie Park). He noted that the Rec Commission has done a considerable amount of work on both those items and he asked the selectmen to communicate better with the Rec Commission so that they (Rec) could coordinate the efforts of both.

Dan Eddy laid out the current situation as follows: “In terms of funding (for the coming year) there is altogether $140,000 for Rec which is great – normally we get $50,000, but it appears that the $140,000 has already been allocated for specific uses ($90,000 for Brown’s Corner and $50,000 for the Field House Roof by the selectmen). This leaves Rec with no money for improvements or repairs. Callahan Park has been overlooked for an extended period of time. We (the Rec Commission members) feel uncomfortable with this situation.”

First Selectman Dan Jerram responded by saying: “There are rollover funds available to you. There’s $20,000 (in your account) that’s untouched for your use.” “That’s money from previous years.” Dan Eddy pointed out.

“The selectmen pitched the septic (to the Board of Finance) but they didn’t approve it. The BOF is willing to consider it on an individual basis but you’ll have to provide a lot more information.” Dan Jerram said.

“That’s what I’m talking about, the lack of communication. We get things second-hand. If it’s appropriate, we’ll send a Rec Commission member to the meetings. We need to get it first-hand and be part of the decision process.” Dan Eddy responded.

“I had a discussion with Dennis (Minor, Rec Department Director) and the communication should get better. He should be here on a daily basis if there’s a problem.” Dan Jerram responded, adding: “When this fall we put a bow on Brown’s Corner, you’ll see how great it is!”

Dan Jerram then went on: “Dennis has come to me and said that the Field House is the salvation of the Rec Department, that it will generate all the funds they need to operate. Those are his words.”

Dan Eddy did not agree with this characterization of the situation, saying: “The Field House has been studied (by the Rec Commission). As a Field House it has limited use – the turnbuckles that were installed a few years ago interfere with overhead sports like basketball. We feel the overall pricing from Lenard (Engineering, the town’s consulting engineers) doesn’t represent the full extent of the work needed.” Dan Eddy continued: “The Rec Commission doesn’t know what you’re doing… We have been looking at it for several years and the only reason it hasn’t been taken down is that other groups in town (the Friends of Brodie) have wanted to take it on.” The bottom line on the Field House, according to the Rec Commission, Dan Eddy said, is: “It’s a complete reconstruction – it’s a shed. It makes sense to look at an overall budget to service that building.”

Dan Jerram turned the conversation to the septic system, and Dan Eddy said: “Don’t change the subject on me, Dan.” But the the subject was changed to the septic.

Dan Eddy’s input on the septic was: “The septic design was designed for us by Farmington Health free of cost and the work can be extended for several years.”

“Perhaps the Rec Commission hasn’t had so much money put into it in the past. Maybe you’ve been living hand to mouth for so long and without resources to do things with!” Dan Jerram came back.

Dan Eddy’s said: “Yes, there’s been a lot of money allocated but at the same time 100% of the resources have been put into two projects and they have ignored other projects.” He added: “This is turning into a discussion and is not the proper place to get into a debate.”

Dan Jerram continued: “Are you disputing that you have $20,000 available?” “That money was allocated in prior years.” Said Dan Eddy.

“There’s $20,000 you can use. In the meantime, Brown’s Corner is being completed.” To which Dan Eddy responded: “That’s not a Rec project and never was.”

The discussion came to an end, with Dan Eddy repeating what he had said at the beginning of his comments: “Hopefully, the selectmen will communicate better in the future with the Rec Commission.”

The sandbox at Callahan Park, a small neighborhood park located between the Farmington River and Cottage Street. Photo: Maria Moore

Rec Commission Meeting Minutes Echo Concerns

.
In their May 5 meeting, the Rec Commission members echoed the concerns expressed by Dan Eddy to the town’s selectmen at their May 24 meeting. Their minutes, in part, say: “$90K was allocated to Brown’s Corner and $50K for the field house roof which members of Recreation Commission think is questionable at best and $90K is much more than needed for Brown’s. Over the years, the Recreation Department was awarded anywhere from $25K to $50K in order to handle Capital Improvements for the parks but was awarded $0 in the upcoming budget. The money for Brown’s Corner and Field House are allocated to the town’s improvement fund. Although there’s $20K left in the Capital account, it’s not nearly enough to cover the septic and Callahan Park improvements. It was strongly suggested that monies from the Brown’s and Field House projects be used for the septic at Brodie and an upgrade to Callahan Park.” [words in bold reflect the presentation of the words in the minutes].

Download a complete copy of the May 5 Rec minutes which are available in the Town Clerk’s office: New Hartford Park and Recreation Minutes, May 5, 2011 (94)

The professionally landscaped parking lot at Brown's Corner where $90,000 was spent in upgrades by the town in the current fiscal year. Rec is questioning an additional $90,000 that has been allocated to this sports facility by the town's selectmen while no funds were made available for other Rec-proposed projects. Photo: Maria Moore

The fill remaining in one corner of the parking lot at Brown's Corner which should be completely gone this summer, allowing more parking to be added to the town's sports facility. Photo: Maria Moore

The Annual Budget Meeting was held yesterday evening at 7:00 p.m. The meeting followed the procedure that has evolved in New Hartford since 1990, when the town’s budget began to be automatically sent to referendum by the town’s Selectmen, and by so doing removing the voters ability to discuss and make changes to the budget before voting on the budget at the meeting or at referendum.

Following is the video of that 2011 Annual Budget Meeting which lasted less than 10 minutes. Below the video is a written account of that meeting, with our reporter’s attempt to introduce the budget for discussion at that meeting and Daria Hart’s introduction into the proceedings of a 1992 letter from then-Town Attorney Pickard which specified the steps to follow at the Annual Budget Meeting, one of which is the consideration of the budget during the meeting.

Video of 2011 Annual Budget Meeting

.

Report on the 2011 Annual Budget Meeting

.
The Annual Budget Meeting, which now lasts between 5-10 minutes, was sandwiched between the Board of Selectmen’s meeting last night. First Selectman Dan Jerram opened the selectmen’s meeting and then adjourned it for the Annual Budget Meeting. At the end of Annual Budget Meeting, the First Selectman again opened the Selectmen’s meeting.

For the most part, the Annual Budget Meeting followed what has become established as its normal path:

• Reggie Smith Jr. was elected the Moderator of the meeting.
• Reggie read the legal Notice of the Annual Budget Meeting (see a copy of the Notice below).
• Reggie then announced that in accordance with State Statute 7-7, the selectmen had removed Item # 1 from the agenda of the meeting; that is, the selectmen removed from the meeting the consideration of the budget, and with it, the ability of taxpayers present to directly cut or remove specific line items from the budget.

At this point, the normal procedure was interrupted by Maria Moore, a taxpayer in New Hartford and NHPlus’ editor/reporter, who made a point of order motion asking for the floor to be opened to discussion.  Reggie asked on what basis and our reporter answered to discuss the budget, as provided under State Statute 7-344.  Reggie responded: “While I as a citizen may or may not agree with you – and actually I do –  according to State Statute the Selectmen also have the authority to remove this item from the agenda therefore this item does not exist on this day and any questions on the item do not exist therefore we must move on to Item # 2.”  Our reporter then asked: “Even though by removing it you are breaking a state statute?” Reggie responded: “In accordance with this issue of 7-7, the Selectmen are not violating the law and I’m not going to discuss this further.”

At this point Daria Hart, Registrar of Voters and the unofficial Parliamentarian of our town meetings, said: “Point of Information.” At which Reggie said: “Sure.”  ”I thought that, based on a letter received in 1992, a letter received from then Town Attorney John Pickard, we have the option to discuss and vote, and to discuss and move the discussion to…”  Reggie cut Daria off at this point saying: “Returning to what the Selectmen have done, according to 7-7, they have the legal authority to remove that item  from the agenda, therefore at this time we are not going to take any more questions.  This item is closed as far as this Moderator is concerned.  Thank you for your time.”

With that, the meeting returned to its  normal procedure.  Reggie proposed the motion to move item # 2, the budget, to referendum.  Jamie Hall made the motion, Sue Lundin seconded the motion and hearing no discussion, Reggie called a vote and a strong “Aye” came back in response; the only one opposed to the motion was our reporter, Maria Moore.

The Board of Finance’s proposed budget, which was not submitted to consideration by taxpayers at the Annual Budget Meeting, is the budget that will be voted on by the taxpayers at the referendum on May 3.

Roll Call of the 2011 Annual Budget Meeting

As we did with last year’s Annual Budget Meeting, see our report of April 27, 20 10, we are including the roll call of those in attendance at this year’s Annual Budget Meeting.  Please note that the Annual Budget Meeting was to be immediately followed by a Board of Selectmen Meeting at which State Senator Kevin Witkos (Republican) was to given a presentation on the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year; this may have influenced the attendance of those at the Annual Budget Meeting.

Officials at the meeting:

• First Selectman Dan Jerram (R)
• Selectman Tom Klebart (D)
• Absent: Selectman Bruce Gresczyk (R)
• Town Clerk Donna LaPlante (D)

Moderator:

• Reggie Smith, Jr. (R), Board of Finance member

Taxpayers (from the left):

First row:

• Christine Hayward (not a New Hartford resident), administrative Assistant to the First Selectman
• Alesia Kennerson (Republican), Board of Finance member

Second row:

• Sue Lundin (party?), New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed Chair
• Jim Jerram (party?), father of First Selectman
• Maureen Jerram (party?), mother of First Selectman
• Jamie Hall (Republican)
• Anne Hall (party?)

Second row:

• Maria Moore (Unaffiliated), editor/reporter NHPlus
• Daria Hart (Democrat), Registrar of Voters, unofficial Parlimentarian of town meetings
• Katie Fisk Natale (Democrat), New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed member
• Unidentified taxpayer
• Unidentified taxpayer
• Noel Gauthier (Republican), Northwestern Regional # 7 Board of Ed member

Back row:

• Dan LaPlante (Republican)
• Elaine Carmelich (Democrat), New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed member
• Penny Miller (Republican)
• Steve Tuxbury (Republican), New Hartford Public Schools Board of Ed member
• Denton Butler (Republican)

Standing at the back of the Senior Center:

• Rob Jerram (Republican), Northwestern Regional # 7 Board of Ed member, brother of First Selectman
• Carleen Jerram (Republican), wife of First Selectman
• Ben Witte (Republican), Board of Finance Chairman
• Annie Witte (Republican), town bookkeeper
• Lila Tuxbury (Republican) Registrar of Voters
• Gordon Ross (Republican), Town Treasurer
• Steve Nadeau (party?), Principal of New Hartford Elementary and Bakerville Schools

Note: Cameraman Bob Moore, (Democrat) NHPlus techie and husband of our reporter Maria Moore, was at the meeting as the cameraman and did not participate in the meeting or the voting.

Future Updates:

We will continue to report on the issue of the procedure being followed by the town’s Selectmen to bring the town budget to a vote.

1992 Letter from then-Town Attorney John (Jack) Pickard

.
The point of interruption made by Daria Hart was to officially introduce into the proceedings the May 1, 1992, letter from then Town Attorney John Pickard to then First Selectman Bruce Gresczyk.  The letter says:

“The steps which should be taken to remove the decision on the annual budget from the town meeting to a separate vote are as follows:

1.  Give notice of the Town Meeting at least five (5) days before and include in the call an item: “To consider and act upon the Town Budget recommended by the Board of Finance for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992.”

2. Hold a Selectmen’s meeting at least five (5) days prior to the date of the Town meeting and vote to remove the above item on the call for submission to the voters in the manner provided in C.G.S. Sectin 7-7.

3.  At the Town Meeting the budget can be discussed, but no vote is taken.

The vote should be scheduled not less than seven (7) nor more than fourteen (14) days after the Town Meeting.  The question could be phrased as folows:

Shall that (stet) the Town appropriate the sum of $__________ as its budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992?

If you have any further questions, please call me.”

Below is a copy of that letter:

By: Maria & Bob Moore

Tomorrow evening’s Annual Budget Meeting is still on track to take place at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 26. However, if you do decide to go to that meeting, don’t be surprised if the proceedings don’t reflect the published Notice.

According to the published Notice of the Annual Budget Meeting, a copy of which was emailed by the First Selectman’s Office this afternoon (see copy below), the Notice includes the same two items that were approved by the Selectmen at their April 18 Special Board of Selectmen Meeting, even though at that same Special BOS Meeting, they immediately removed Item # 1 from the agenda of the Annual Budget Meeting. Since no other agenda or Notice for this meeting has been publicized, the only way you would know that the agenda had been changed is by reading NewHartfordPlus or by going to the Town Clerk’s Office and asking specifically about the agenda for tomorrow’s Annual Budget Meeting.

Tomorrow’s meeting will not include Item # 1, the consideration of the town budget as proposed by the Board of Finance, and Item # 2 moves that proposed budget, not the budget acted upon by the voters, directly to referendum. We have been questioning the legality of moving the BOF’s proposed budget directly to referendum without it having been considered at the Annual Budget Meeting before being moved to a vote, as required by State Statute 7-344. This same question was asked 20 years ago by then-First Selectman Reggie Smith Jr. to the then-town attorney, Jack Pickard who had put together the town ordinance which allows this to happen. Attorney Pickard was of the opinion that the ordinance is not valid and that if challenged in court it would be held to be invalid. In his opinion letter dated July 24, 1990, he said:

“In my opinion, the ordinance is not valid. I do not believe the town meeting had the authority to enact an ordinance which conflicts with the statutory procedures for bringing matters to referendum…. In my opinion, the ordinance is in conflict with State Statute…”

This is what the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance base the current procedure of passing a budget in our town on, a procedure which is not reflected in the published Notice of the Annual Budget Meeting. We are continuing to challenge the validity of the ordinance and the departure by the Board of Selectmen from the process for passing a budget that is clearly outlined by State Statute. We will update this item as events develop.

Notice of Annual Budget Meeting mailed on April 25, 2011 by First Selectman's Office.

Note: We did not continue with a petition to present at the Annual Budget Meeting to follow the procedure as set out in the published Notice of Annual Budget Meeting because we were informed by the Town Clerk that she did not believe that State Statutes allow such a petition.

The following is a letter to New Hartford Taxpayers from Bob and Maria Moore:

When we, the town’s taxpayers go to the Annual Budget meeting this coming Tuesday, April 26, the official call to the meeting includes these two items:

1. To consider and act upon the town budget recommended by the Board of Finance for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2011.
2. Pursuant to Section 7-7 of the general statutes of Connecticut, Revision of 1958, as amended, to adjourn said budget meeting at its conclusion and to submit item # 1 on the call of this meeting to be voted upon using voting tabulators on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Electors residing in the Voting District #1 shall vote at the New Hartford Town Hall, 530 Main Street in New Hartford. Electors residing in the Voting District #2 shall vote at the South End Fire House, 20 Antolini Road in New Hartford. Voters qualified to vote at town meeting who are not electors shall vote at their respective polling places. Absentee ballots will be available from the Town Clerk, 530 Main Street, New Hartford, CT and will be counted at their respective polling places. The question to be voted upon shall be placed on the ballots as:

“Shall the Budget of the Town of New Hartford including General Government, New Hartford Board of Education and Capital Expenditures, recommended by the Board of Finance for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2011, be accepted?”

Voters approving the question will vote “Yes” and those opposing the question will vote “No.”

So, why is it that when we go to the Town Budget Meeting there will be no budget for us to consider, as there always was prior to 1990?

Because the town’s Selectmen, in a Special Meeting, have voted to remove Item # 1, “To consider and act upon the town budget recommended by the Board of Finance for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2011″, from the agenda of the Annual Budget Meeting.

At their Special Meeting on Monday morning, April 18, the Selectmen also adjourned the budget to referendum, another action reserved for the taxpayers under state statute.

Both these actions have been taken by the town’s Selectmen since the passing of an ordinance in 1990, even while the legality of that ordinance was questioned by then-town attorney, Pickard.

Can the town’s Selectmen vote to take away taxpayers’ rights given to them by State Statute?

At the recent Selectmen’s Special Meeting, Selectman Bruce Gresczyk said that he feels that the way the town is handling the budget (removing the ability of taxpayers to make changes to the budget at the Annual Budget Meeting and sending the budget directly to referendum) is illegal and that the ordinance should be done away with.

Item # 1 reflects the right of the voters to consider the budget as provided by State Statute; removing that item diminishes our rights as provided by State Statute.

We want the Annual Budget meeting to follow the legal format set out in the Notice of the meeting, that is, to have both items # 1 and # 2 included in the agenda of that meeting. We, as taxpayers, can petition to include items to be discussed at Town Meeting. In this case, the petition is to have included in the agenda of the Annual Budget Meeting the same items as those on the legal Notice of  that Meeting.  This will allow us, the town’s taxpayers, to consider the proposed budget for the local schools and the town administration line item by line item and to reduce any line items which we feel are too high as long as the majority of the taxpayers at the meeting agree.

This is the legal process set out by State Statute for us to arrive at a budget acceptable to taxpayers after the Board of Finance has submitted a proposed budget for the taxpayers’ consideration.  This is the process we want to have  restored to us and the mechanism by which we can do this is by petition.

We are putting together a petition to keep the legal agenda of the Annual Budget Meeting intact and we are asking you, as a town taxpayer, to sign this petition. In the next few days we will be calling on you to sign the petition to keep the agenda for the Annual Budget Meeting the same as that of the legal Notice for that meeting.

In the meantime, please let us know if you would like to sign the petition, if you have any questions, or if you would like to help gather signatures. Call us at 860-309-7526 or email us at newhartfordplus@gmail.com.

By: Bob & Maria Moore

The Board of Finance held a Special Meeting on Tuesday evening, March 22, with a twofold purpose: the first, to hear public comments on the budget process so far, and the second, to discuss the Town Budget for the upcoming fiscal year 2011-12. The meeting was held at Ann Antolini in the Multi-Purpose room to accommodate any number of residents who might turn out for the meeting.

Bob Moore, NewHartfordPlus techie, videotaped the Public Comment section of the meeting and is making that video available below.

Altogether, about two dozen residents attended the meeting and of those 8 or so gave their input on the budget. Most of those who spoke addressed the high cost of education in the budget and asked for those costs to be brought under control.

A much greater number of residents had chosen to communicate in writing with the BOF members, and of those the overwhelming majority were in support of a zero-increase budget. They, most likely, had written in response to an email that circulated among taxpayers alerting them of the 5.69% increase in property taxes that would result from the proposed budgets that had been presented at the Saturday morning Budget Workshop.see the copy of the email posted on NewHartfordPlus.

“I received 30 emails, and only one was in favor of the budgets that were proposed (at the Board of Finance’s Saturday morning Budget Workshop).” Ben Witte, BOF Chairman said. He then read aloud portions of several of the emails he had received to give a sense of residents’ input: to hold the line on spending, especially on education. “Looking at the names on these emails – they’re not the kinds of people you usually hear from.” He commented. Other BOF members agreed, saying that they too had received similar emails.

With the Public Comment portion of the meeting closed, the BOF members then turned their attention to a discussion of the Town budget for the upcoming fiscal year; see our companion report After Taxpayers Give Their Input, Board Of Finance Considers Budget, Eyes 1.8% Tax Increase.

Following is the video of the Public Comment section of the March 22 Board of Finance meeting:

UPDATED: To correct who voted for Reggie’s motion of position and to add the second motion regarding Regional’s budget; Mar. 29, 2011.

By: Maria Moore

The Board of Finance held a Special Meeting on Tuesday evening, March 22, with a twofold purpose: first, to hear public comments on the Town Budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and second, to discuss the Town Budget and its tax ramifications for taxpayers. The meeting was held at Ann Antolini in the Multi-Purpose room to accommodate any number of residents who might turn out for the meeting.

The Special Meeting started at 7 p.m. and the Board of Finance (BOF) members devoted the first hour to listening to taxpayers’ input on the budget. Most of the 8 or so taxpayers who spoke made the case for containing the ever-increasing cost of education and for a no-tax increase budget. Many more taxpayers had chosen to submit their comments in writing to the various members of the Board of Finance; their written comments also strongly supported a zero percent tax increase in the Town Budget for the upcoming fiscal year. BOF Chairman Ben Witte read a few lines from the 30 emails he had received all of which, except one, overwhelmingly supported a budget which would result in no increase in the tax rate.  He added the communications to the record of the Special Meeting.

A video of the Public Comments section of the Special Meeting has been posted in a separate report by Bob Moore, NewHarfordPlus techie.

The Public Comment section of the meeting ended, the Board of Finance members turned their attention to considering the proposed budget. That discussion lasted until 10 p.m. and by its end the BOF members settled provisionally on a 1.8% tax increase for the upcoming fiscal year – assuming, that is, that Regional #7 comes back with a revised budget with a zero percent increase which would reduce Regional’s assessment to the town by $70,000.  Following is our report of the two-hour discussion.

2011-12 Proposed Budget, Issued 3/22/11

A copy of the 2011-12 Proposed Budget, dated 3/22/11 – the date of the Special Meeting – was made available to the press. Download a copy of that proposed budget: 2011-12 Proposed Budget, 3/22/11 (184)

Discussion of the Revenue side of the Proposed Budget

The Board of Finance members discussed the revenue side of the budget at different points in the meeting.  They went over the Projected Revenue sheet (the second to the last page in the Proposed Budget dated 3-22-11), stopping at several of the items to fine-tune the amounts listed for those items.  For ease of use, download the Projected Revenue sheet individually: Projected Revenues - FY 2011-12, dated 3/22/11 (134)

The first item discussed was the FEMA Reimbursement (for a winter storm that FEMA is reimbursing the additional costs), a $45,000 item that had not been included in the previous draft dated 3-7 which was discussed at the Saturday morning Budget Workshop on March 12.  The BOE members asked the First Selectman, Dan Jerram, if that was a reasonable amount to expect to be reimbursed.  Dan said that the town had put in for $83,000 and that had been approved.  The BOF members changed the $45,000 figure to $60,000.  They then touched on the Manufacturers’ taxes reimbursement which is being eliminated by the state.  They decided to show that as a $135,938 loss of revenue, although they did add $12,000 for the Retail Tax reimbursement.  They also had added to the Projected Budget the state reimbursement of $112,903 for the windows and doors replacements at Antolini School, one of the projects on the proposed Capital Expenditures  part of the budget. The last credit amount to the Projected Revenues is $144,979, the Surplus projected from the current fiscal year; this Surplus amount is always added to the following year’s revenues.

The Projected Revenues sheet still showed the town projected revenues before taxes to be $4,854,683, which is a $73,225.39 shortfall compared to this year’s (2010-11) total revenues before taxes of $4,927,908.  The $73,225.39 shortfall is a lot less than the $194,649.39 shortfall on the Projected Revenues sheet that had been presented at the March 12 Budget Workshop.

Tax Collection Rate And Drawdown Of Town Reserve Fund

Two other factors also impacted the revenue side of the equation.   When the BOF members were later balancing revenues with expenses to calculate the amount of taxes needed to fund the Town budget, they agreed to adjust the tax collection rate from 96% to 96.5% in recognition of the fact that the actual collection rate has been over 98% for the past dozen years or so.  BOF members also agreed to draw down the town’s reserve fund from the 15% level at which it now stands; the town’s advisor has told the town that the reserve number could be brought down to 11% without affecting the town’s bond rating.

While discussing the New Hartford Schools’ Capital Expenditures Requests (much later in this report), Ben Witte, BOF Chairman, said that taking $160,000 from the town’s reserves would reduce the percentage of the Reserve Fund from 15% to 13% [ or 14% - to be verified with Ben ].  Rather than adding this reserve drawdown to the town’s revenues for the upcoming fiscal year, which would then create a  deficit in the following year’s (2012-13) budget, the BOF members discussed using this approximately $160,000 (if they were to draw down the Reserve Fund by 1%) to fund capital projects for the local schools’ buildings.

Expenditures Side of the Proposed Budget

The New Hartford Board of Ed had submitted a revised budget dated Tuesday, March 15, showing the cuts that the Board of Ed had approved in their meeting of March 15.  That budget showed a 1.71% increase due to the unforseen high Special Ed costs.  Download a copy of the latest New Hartford Schools Board of Ed Budget: New Hartford Schools Board of Ed Budget, March 15 (132).

The only unknown element in the budget was the Regional # 7 revised budget which the Regional Board of Ed was to approve on Wednesday evening, the day after the Special Meeting (that meeting was subsequently cancelled due to the snow forecast, and the Regional Board of Ed met on Thursday evening, March 24 after their budget presentation in Norfolk).  The Board of Finance members had asked for a zero percent increase from Regional but they didn’t have any additional information on Regional’s revised budget at the time of their Special Meeting.

Without a revised budget number from Regional available to them at their Tuesday evening Special Meeting, the BOF members based their discussions on the assumption that Regional # 7 would revise their budget down to a zero percent increase, making the assessment to New Hartford $7,830,914.  This reflected a $70,000 reduction in the assessment of $7,901,580 to the town in Regional’s proposed budget presented at the BOF’s Saturday morning Budget Workshop on March 12.

Town Administration Proposed Budget And Capital Expenditures

The Town Administration proposed budget reflected a zero percent increase and the BOF members did not discuss that budget, focusing briefly only on the proposed Capital Expenditures sheet of the town budget.  For ease of reference, download that Capital Expenditures sheet:  Town Administration Proposed Capital Expenditures with 3/22/11 budget (134).

The only change made by the BOF members to the Town Administration’s Capital Expenditures proposed items was to eliminate the $25,000 for the septic system at Brodie Park (item “Park & Rec Capital renamed”).  Reggie Smith proposed the motion, Alesia Kennerson seconded it, and the BOF members approved it unanimously.

New Hartford Public Schools’ Capital Expenditures

The discussion then moved onto the New Hartford Schools’ Capital Expenditures Requests sheet; download that individual sheet for ease of reference:  NH Schools Capital Expenditures Requests, March 15, 2011 (159).

The BOF members discussed the local schools’ capital expenditures items at length.  Most members of the schools’ Board of Ed as well as Superintendent Dr. Philip O’Reilly were still present at the meeting and BOF member Dan Charest asked them: “What do you guys really need?”  To which Sue Lundin, the BOE Chairperson, answered: “The projects are prioritized.”  According to the numbers next to the items on their capital expenditures sheet, the New Hartford Schools prioritized their needs as follows:

1. Roof at Bakerville School: $28,900 (with possible 45% reimbursement)
2. Replacement of the Piping Sump & Supply/Return Fuel Lines at Antolini School: $16,736
3. Windows and Doors at Antolini School: $250,000 (possible reimbursement of 45%)
4. Air Handlers at Antolini School: $80,000

Reggie Smith proposed taking a straw vote on each of the items to see where the BOF members stood on the items – it is unclear from our reporter’s notes whether Reggie was proposing a straw vote on only the items on the schools’ Capital Expenditures sheet or on each of the budget items that had been discussed to that point in the meeting).  Dan Charest intervened, asking Reggie: “What would you do with the (town surplus) money?”  Reggie answered: “I’m trying to get the capital down as much as possible for the taxpayers.”  Dan Charest asked: “Would you use the (reserve) money as revenue?”  Ben Witte said that they could do the same next year: do half a percent (drawdown of the town reserves) over two years, i.e. $70,000 each year.  Ben said that for now he would be in favor of increasing the collection rate (from 96% to 96.5%).  The discussion of alternate uses of the money to be withdrawn from the town’s reserves ended there.  Later in the meeting, the New Harford Schools’ Superintendent was told that $125,000 of additional funding (including money from the Reserve Fund, one presumes) would be made available to fund all the items on the schools’ Capital Expenditures Request sheet.

The discussion about the schools’ projects included whether the replacement of the doors and windows at Antolini schools could be done over two years, whether the air handlers could be replaced over several years.

Reggie Smith asked when the payments on the Bakerville School bonds would end (from renovations done at that school in prior years) and Dan Jerram said the payments would end in September of 2013.  Reggie asked about the payments on the Pine Meadow (New Hartford) Elementary School and he was told that they had a while left to go since those were 20-year bonds.  Reggie then said that he favored putting off doing the windows and doors and the air handlers and do them in a couple of years when the Bakerville bonds had been paid off; with the favorable bond rates, they could pay off some of the old bonds and roll them into a new one.   Dan Jerram said that the selectmen had talked about that last year but had voted to hold off doing that, to do the work  over several years.  Selectman Tom Klebart said that if the last payment for Bakerville is in 2013, and they would need to do planning for the projects, it might be worth looking at (doing what Reggie had suggested).  Jim Fitzgerald said that he’d like to see zero increase in all the budgets and that they needed to bring the Reserve Fund down because they were overtaxing the taxpayers.  Alesia Kennerson said they had $50,000 left over from the boilers (which had cost a lot less than budgeted), and they’d have $30,000 let after paying for the engineering of the windows and doors project.  Ben added that from the town side, there’s $60,000 available from this year’s budget.

Dan Charest asked: “If we’re looking at regionalization, should we be doing capital projects (at the schools)?  Alesia asked: “If we regionalize, which schools would we get rid of?”  It wouldn’t be Antolini, it was generally agreed.  At one point Ben said that $250,000 in Capital Expenditures for the schools would get the capital level (the same amount as last year).

At intermittent points in the discussion, Ben and Alesia crunched numbers to see how the things being discussed would affect the bottom line of the budget.  Various scenarios were discussed and with the time creeping closer to 10 p.m. (or flying – depending on the point of view of those at the meeting) there still seemed to be no clear picture emerging.  Reggie maintained steadfastly that they needed to keep to a budget resulting in a zero percent increase in taxes and at one point Jim said that they couldn’t do it without Regional’s numbers.

Reggie proposed taking a vote to see where the individual Board members stood.  He asked for a number for the budget including capital expenditures.   Ben said: “The numbers we’re at right now are 2.33% tax increase at a 96% collection rate, and 1.8%tax increase at a 96.5% collection rate.”  That was with Regional coming in at zero percent increase resulting in $70,000 less in the town’s assessment, it was clarified.

Reggie asked about raising the collection rate some more since it had been at over 98% for the past 8-12 years.  He asked Ben: “What if you put it in at 97% now?”  Ben did some calculation and said: “At 97% (collection rate) it’s 1.27% (tax increase).”  Ben, however, went back to a 96.5% collection rate.

Reggie proposed a “motion of position” as he termed it: “Motion to approve a budget including everything but Regional # 7 at $13,889,751 with $412,836 of capital expenditures ($250,000 for the town and $262,000 for the local Board of Ed).”

Philip O’Reilly pointed out that the Capital Expenditures for the schools was $375,000.  Ben again said that the schools’ capital was reduced to $262,000.  Alesia said they would draw from the reserves to fund it (the Capital Expenditures on the local schools’ sheet).  Ben told Philip they had another source of funding (other than the Budget).

A vote was taken on Reggie’s motion: “Motion to approve a budget including everything but Regional # 7 at $13,889,751 with $412,836 of capital expenditures ($250,000 for the town and $262,000 for the local Board of Ed).”  These budget numbers in the motion would result in a 1.8% tax increase to the town’s taxpayers at the 96.5% collection rate.  The motion passed 3 to 2. Reggie voted against it as did Laura Sundquist.

There was also another motion that was passed instructing Regional # 7 to come back with a zero percent increase in the assessment to the towns in total.

The meeting ended, with Ben saying that he would put together a presentation based on the discussions they had had in that evening’s meeting.  The presentation will be given at the next step of the budget process: the Public Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 5.

If you have questions regarding the budget process, please contact any of the Board of Finance members whose email addresses were posted in a previous report.

Please Note: Our reporter’s article above is a based on her notes from the meeting; she is not an accountant and makes no claims of having any special knowledge of bookkeeping.  If you have corrections, additions or clarifications to the report above, we welcome your input – especially if it is given in a spirit of goodwill.  Thanks for your understanding of our volunteer efforts.

Board of Finance members (from left to right) are Reggie Smith, Alesia Kennerson, Jim Fitzgerald, Ben Witte, Penny Miller (recording secretary), Dan Charest, Laura Sundquist and Dr. Bill Rieger