'Town lease proposal' for Region 12 elementary schools seen as "prudent".
News-Times Staff
Article Last Updated: 12/06/2007 04:48:20 PM EST
To the Editor:
Here is why the Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington town lease proposal for the three elementary schools is the prudent and reasonable thing to do.
1. We have had 20 years of a delayed maintenance program that has left our schools in poor condition.
2. The town proposal is for annual payments by the region to a "Capital Repairs Fund" in each town dedicated for the region to use on elementary school repairs. This will ensure that the money will be available for ongoing repairs when they are needed.
3. The repair fund payments -- Bridgewater ($38,000), Roxbury ($48,000) and Washington ($69,000) -- are based on the number of students in the schools and as such would be funded by the towns as part of the total region operating budget.
4. The proposal states the region maintains the schools, as is the current practice. The region also performs all the day-to-day maintenance as it does now. The towns do no maintenance.
5. The region will have a town fund to draw on when there are capital repair items that need to be paid for, such as roofs, boilers, air conditioning units and mechanical things. Each town fund will be used exclusively for that town's schools. That fund will be added to each year by depositing the payments into the fund and allowing the money to accumulate until it is needed. A committee with region and town representatives will decide what has to be done and when.
The Board of Education will vote on the recommendations of the committee (the region has full control).
The key concept is each town will have a fund for its school and only the region can spend money from that fund. Each fund will be dedicated to a specific town school.
This plan will not solve all problems, but it makes sure that money is there to fix a roof or a septic system or a well or the heating system when it needs to be done.
There should be no waiting for five years to fix a roof when the next 20-year renovation cycle comes around. No more deferring maintenance that costs more.
Roof leaks cause collateral damage. Things should get fixed on a timely basis. This should also reduce the frequency of asking for bonding to do these things and paying the bond interest on top of the repair costs.
The total annual fund payments proposed for elementary schools is $155,000 each year. This is less than eight-tenths of 1 percent of the budget.
How can anyone oppose allocating less than eight-tenths of 1 percent to keep the elementary schools in good repair?
The December 2007 referendum proposes a $1.55 million bond to maintain equipment and replace the track on the Shepaug campus.
On average this will cost $250,000 in bond servicing for the next seven years.
This fixed-cost represents 1.25 percent of the current budget and must be paid each year.
Ed Wainwright
Mardie Ford
Region 12 Board of
Education members
Bridgewater
Friday, December 7, 2007
Region 12 School Leases - Opinion by Specrum
Lease Renewals:
School lease committee needed shake-up
News-Times Staff
Article Last Updated: 12/06/2007 04:48:27 PM EST
Region 12 School Board Chairman Matthew Franjola showed strong leadership this week in readjusting the board's lease committee, which has the delicate task of finding agreement among Washington, Bridgewater and Roxbury.
Mr. Franjola reduced the size of the committee from seven to three members and in so doing removed two who have been at loggerheads -- Irene Allan and Ed Wainwright.
Ms. Allan has been intractable in her dealings with Bridgewater, the town Mr. Wainwright represents. Last month she sent a mass e-mail urging people, in essence, to annoy Bridgewater First Selectman Bill Stuart by encouraging an attorney who is suing that town about a non-education matter.
In the e-mail that she had asked recipients to pass along, she called Mr. Stuart a "bully."
Clearly she could not be effective in negotiating a lease with Mr. Stuart for the district's use of Burnham School in Bridgewater.
Mr. Wainwright is not as contentious as Ms. Allan, but he realistically acknowledged that it is for the better to remove both polarizing members.
The previous lease committee was "unworkable" with the seven members, Mr. Franjola said. Now whittled down to three, the committee can focus on the task at hand -- negotiating fair leases for the Region 12 district to use the elementary schools in the three towns.
The new lease committee has a member representing each of the three towns, plus Mr. Franjola and Superintendent of Schools Bruce Storm as ex-officio members.
Leases proposed by Bridgewater and Roxbury have been wildly apart from the district's expectation of $1 a year, so the first step is to find a compromise.
Time is critical here. A lease agreement is needed by the end of the month to enable the district to receive state reimbursement for renovations already completed at Burnham School.
Mr. Franjola became the district's school board chairman in July with a coin toss. He needed, therefore, to unify the board; his forceful handling of the lease issue indicates he is up to the challenge.
With the choice of whether to continue maintaining three separate elementary schools -- one in each town -- or construct a consolidated school likely going to referendum before June, strong, consensus-building leadership as exhibited by Mr. Franjola is required, and appreciated.
School lease committee needed shake-up
News-Times Staff
Article Last Updated: 12/06/2007 04:48:27 PM EST
Region 12 School Board Chairman Matthew Franjola showed strong leadership this week in readjusting the board's lease committee, which has the delicate task of finding agreement among Washington, Bridgewater and Roxbury.
Mr. Franjola reduced the size of the committee from seven to three members and in so doing removed two who have been at loggerheads -- Irene Allan and Ed Wainwright.
Ms. Allan has been intractable in her dealings with Bridgewater, the town Mr. Wainwright represents. Last month she sent a mass e-mail urging people, in essence, to annoy Bridgewater First Selectman Bill Stuart by encouraging an attorney who is suing that town about a non-education matter.
In the e-mail that she had asked recipients to pass along, she called Mr. Stuart a "bully."
Clearly she could not be effective in negotiating a lease with Mr. Stuart for the district's use of Burnham School in Bridgewater.
Mr. Wainwright is not as contentious as Ms. Allan, but he realistically acknowledged that it is for the better to remove both polarizing members.
The previous lease committee was "unworkable" with the seven members, Mr. Franjola said. Now whittled down to three, the committee can focus on the task at hand -- negotiating fair leases for the Region 12 district to use the elementary schools in the three towns.
The new lease committee has a member representing each of the three towns, plus Mr. Franjola and Superintendent of Schools Bruce Storm as ex-officio members.
Leases proposed by Bridgewater and Roxbury have been wildly apart from the district's expectation of $1 a year, so the first step is to find a compromise.
Time is critical here. A lease agreement is needed by the end of the month to enable the district to receive state reimbursement for renovations already completed at Burnham School.
Mr. Franjola became the district's school board chairman in July with a coin toss. He needed, therefore, to unify the board; his forceful handling of the lease issue indicates he is up to the challenge.
With the choice of whether to continue maintaining three separate elementary schools -- one in each town -- or construct a consolidated school likely going to referendum before June, strong, consensus-building leadership as exhibited by Mr. Franjola is required, and appreciated.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Booth, Burnham and WPS Renovation Proposals
August 10 , 2007
BTS Editorial Comment:
Roxbury has submitted a renovation proposal to the BOE for the Booth Free School that has a gross cost of $9,000,000. This is $4,700,000 less than the
proposal from 2006. The residents are pleased with the compromises made and support this plan.
Bridgewater has submitted a renovation proposal to the BOE for the Burnham School that has a gross cost of $7,800,000. This is $4,000,000 less than the proposal from 2006. The residents are pleased with the compromises made and support this plan.
Both of these Plans will undoubtedly receive Voter Approval at Referendum!
It appears that the Washinton Building Committee has taken up the challenge and is currently working on a revised plan for renovating the Washington Primary School building. Hopefully they will make reasonable compromises that will be needed for voter approval in a fall referendum.
Ed Wainwright
Bridgewater, CT
BTS Editorial Comment:
Roxbury has submitted a renovation proposal to the BOE for the Booth Free School that has a gross cost of $9,000,000. This is $4,700,000 less than the
proposal from 2006. The residents are pleased with the compromises made and support this plan.
Bridgewater has submitted a renovation proposal to the BOE for the Burnham School that has a gross cost of $7,800,000. This is $4,000,000 less than the proposal from 2006. The residents are pleased with the compromises made and support this plan.
Both of these Plans will undoubtedly receive Voter Approval at Referendum!
It appears that the Washinton Building Committee has taken up the challenge and is currently working on a revised plan for renovating the Washington Primary School building. Hopefully they will make reasonable compromises that will be needed for voter approval in a fall referendum.
Ed Wainwright
Bridgewater, CT
Architect Hired for WPS Renovation Study
08/04/2007 - Voices
Consultant Hired for Washington SchoolBuilding Committee Study
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Board of Selectmen has hired architect Peter Bowman to act as consultant in the Washington Primary School Building Committee study which is currently being developed.
Mr. Bowman, who is a member of the committee presently, will resign if he is retained to complete plans for the project. He has given the selectmen a letter of proposal which the selectmen agreed to accept pending the approval of the building committee.
Mr. Bowman will be charged with the task of developing a preliminary design, along with construction costs, by September, with plans available for discussion with a construction manager early this month. Fees would not exceed $6000, with additional $1500 in consultant costs.
Mr. Bowman has already shared preliminary ideas with committee members, which include a picture of the proposed WPS building and floor plans for the first and second floors.
This plan includes keeping the gym as a gym only, and moving the regional office to the second floor of the "old high school building," with handicapped access to this second floor by the elevator and bridge connector.
The first floor of the "old high school" would be a library and media center, and the cafeteria would move to what is presently the library, where a loading dock and garage already exist. First grade classrooms would replace the area of the current cafeteria.
Mr. Bowman noted existing building security issues. He moved the administration and entryway into the space between the WPS and "old high school" building.
The plan also added roughly 500 square feet to the kindergarten rooms. He noted that the existing glass walls in this area are not insulated; there is no ventilation and heating is an issue there.
Some committee members do not believe any addition should be made to the present school, although it was agreed that this plan appears to contain all the space needed.
First Selectman Dick Sears said he fully supports engaging Mr. Bowman for this project. "His expertise and knowledge have already given us a jump start," he observed.
Selectman Mark Lyon questioned the propriety of hiring Mr. Bowman without opening the procedure to other interested parties. Mr. Sears stressed that this would further delay the process, and time is of the essence if it is to be completed by September.
He noted that an important component of this study is to maximize state reimbursement, and added that Mr. Bowman has had substantial experience in this area working with other schools.
The Building Committee met July 31 and unanimously endorsed Mr. Bowman as consultant for the project.
Consultant Hired for Washington SchoolBuilding Committee Study
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Board of Selectmen has hired architect Peter Bowman to act as consultant in the Washington Primary School Building Committee study which is currently being developed.
Mr. Bowman, who is a member of the committee presently, will resign if he is retained to complete plans for the project. He has given the selectmen a letter of proposal which the selectmen agreed to accept pending the approval of the building committee.
Mr. Bowman will be charged with the task of developing a preliminary design, along with construction costs, by September, with plans available for discussion with a construction manager early this month. Fees would not exceed $6000, with additional $1500 in consultant costs.
Mr. Bowman has already shared preliminary ideas with committee members, which include a picture of the proposed WPS building and floor plans for the first and second floors.
This plan includes keeping the gym as a gym only, and moving the regional office to the second floor of the "old high school building," with handicapped access to this second floor by the elevator and bridge connector.
The first floor of the "old high school" would be a library and media center, and the cafeteria would move to what is presently the library, where a loading dock and garage already exist. First grade classrooms would replace the area of the current cafeteria.
Mr. Bowman noted existing building security issues. He moved the administration and entryway into the space between the WPS and "old high school" building.
The plan also added roughly 500 square feet to the kindergarten rooms. He noted that the existing glass walls in this area are not insulated; there is no ventilation and heating is an issue there.
Some committee members do not believe any addition should be made to the present school, although it was agreed that this plan appears to contain all the space needed.
First Selectman Dick Sears said he fully supports engaging Mr. Bowman for this project. "His expertise and knowledge have already given us a jump start," he observed.
Selectman Mark Lyon questioned the propriety of hiring Mr. Bowman without opening the procedure to other interested parties. Mr. Sears stressed that this would further delay the process, and time is of the essence if it is to be completed by September.
He noted that an important component of this study is to maximize state reimbursement, and added that Mr. Bowman has had substantial experience in this area working with other schools.
The Building Committee met July 31 and unanimously endorsed Mr. Bowman as consultant for the project.
WPS Building Committee Sets Agenda
07/28/2007 - Voices:
Primary School Building CommitteeSets Goals, Dates for Renovation Plan
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Washington Primary School Building Committee is hard at work. With two meetings accomplished and a site walk on July 25 completed, the group has set goals and dates for future meetings to update the two-year-old renovation plan for Washington Primary School.
At the group's first meeting, July 10, First Selectman Richard Sears outlined the committee's objectives.
They include reviewing the 2006 Master Plan renovations for WPS; examining specific concerns about the plan and evaluating alternatives and costs to accommodate those concerns; preparing an alternative town plan that represents what is "best for Washington;" and submitting a final plan to the Region 12 School District after review by the Boards of Selectmen and Finance, as well as the town's legislative body.
Mr. Sears said the goal of the committee is to accomplish these objectives in time for the planned fall referendum at which voters will choose between the best three-school and single-school options.
Committee members, appointed by the Board of Selectmen, include Mr. Sears, Selectman Mark Lyon, John Quist, Peter Bowman, Phil Markert, Roxanne Kraft, Walter Whitney, Wayne Hileman and John Boyer.
Washington Board of Education members have been asked to participate ex-officio.
At the first committee meeting July 10, Board of Education member Irene Allen encouraged the group to look at the physical condition of the building. She believes the teaching space is too small and outdated.
Mr. Sears noted that the building has to house two classrooms per grade, for a total of 12 with kindergarten.
Board of Finance member Jack Field, also in attendance, pointed out that the old package previously presented was the lowest cost option and "cut too thin."
He added that the committee must examine what must be added to be acceptable to people.
When the committee met again July 17, members reviewed the floor plans for square footage and determined that the classroom space is not the problem, but rather the larger rooms including the gym, cafeteria and library, which must be on the ground floor for kindergartners and first graders.
The music room, currently in the basement, must be brought to ground level also.
There was discussion among the committee members regarding gym use. The WPS gym is also used by the regional middle school. The group agreed that its only use should be as a gym and not a combination gym and cafeteria.
Peter Bowman distributed a document that included a picture of the proposed WPS building, with floor plans for the first and second floors.
It includes the gym for single use, moving the regional office to the second floor of the old high school building, making the first floor of the old high school a library and media center, and creating a cafeteria in what is now the library, where a loading dock and garage already exist.
This plan adds 500 square feet to the kindergarten rooms. Some committee members believe no addition to the present school should be made, although it was agreed that this plan appears to contain all the space needed.
Mr. Sears asked the group to keep three plans in mind - the existing conditions at WPS; the SLAM plan containing the first and second floor plans; and a new plan.
Mr. Sears has set up several committees to research specific areas: the floor plan, the flood plain, state reimbursement, current gym use and the second floor of the "old high school."
Additional meetings of the committee are scheduled on August 14, August 21, August 28, September 11 and September 18. All meetings take place at 7 p.m. in the Land Use Room at Town Hall.
Primary School Building CommitteeSets Goals, Dates for Renovation Plan
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Washington Primary School Building Committee is hard at work. With two meetings accomplished and a site walk on July 25 completed, the group has set goals and dates for future meetings to update the two-year-old renovation plan for Washington Primary School.
At the group's first meeting, July 10, First Selectman Richard Sears outlined the committee's objectives.
They include reviewing the 2006 Master Plan renovations for WPS; examining specific concerns about the plan and evaluating alternatives and costs to accommodate those concerns; preparing an alternative town plan that represents what is "best for Washington;" and submitting a final plan to the Region 12 School District after review by the Boards of Selectmen and Finance, as well as the town's legislative body.
Mr. Sears said the goal of the committee is to accomplish these objectives in time for the planned fall referendum at which voters will choose between the best three-school and single-school options.
Committee members, appointed by the Board of Selectmen, include Mr. Sears, Selectman Mark Lyon, John Quist, Peter Bowman, Phil Markert, Roxanne Kraft, Walter Whitney, Wayne Hileman and John Boyer.
Washington Board of Education members have been asked to participate ex-officio.
At the first committee meeting July 10, Board of Education member Irene Allen encouraged the group to look at the physical condition of the building. She believes the teaching space is too small and outdated.
Mr. Sears noted that the building has to house two classrooms per grade, for a total of 12 with kindergarten.
Board of Finance member Jack Field, also in attendance, pointed out that the old package previously presented was the lowest cost option and "cut too thin."
He added that the committee must examine what must be added to be acceptable to people.
When the committee met again July 17, members reviewed the floor plans for square footage and determined that the classroom space is not the problem, but rather the larger rooms including the gym, cafeteria and library, which must be on the ground floor for kindergartners and first graders.
The music room, currently in the basement, must be brought to ground level also.
There was discussion among the committee members regarding gym use. The WPS gym is also used by the regional middle school. The group agreed that its only use should be as a gym and not a combination gym and cafeteria.
Peter Bowman distributed a document that included a picture of the proposed WPS building, with floor plans for the first and second floors.
It includes the gym for single use, moving the regional office to the second floor of the old high school building, making the first floor of the old high school a library and media center, and creating a cafeteria in what is now the library, where a loading dock and garage already exist.
This plan adds 500 square feet to the kindergarten rooms. Some committee members believe no addition to the present school should be made, although it was agreed that this plan appears to contain all the space needed.
Mr. Sears asked the group to keep three plans in mind - the existing conditions at WPS; the SLAM plan containing the first and second floor plans; and a new plan.
Mr. Sears has set up several committees to research specific areas: the floor plan, the flood plain, state reimbursement, current gym use and the second floor of the "old high school."
Additional meetings of the committee are scheduled on August 14, August 21, August 28, September 11 and September 18. All meetings take place at 7 p.m. in the Land Use Room at Town Hall.
WPS School Plan to be Re-Evaluated
07/11/2007
Washington to Update Single School Plan
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Board of Selectmen agreed at its June 28 meeting that it's time for Washington to update its single school plan.
In a conversation with Board of Finance member Jack Field, the board decided to appoint a task force to update the town's two-year-old single school plan, a process that has already taken place in Region 12's Bridgewater and Roxbury.
"The way it's looking, we will wind up in a three-school mode rather than with a consolidated school," observed Mr. Field. "There are many things we need to address: an all-purpose gym, curb appeal, the effects of affordable housing and the flood plain.
"It may make more sense to build a new school rather than fixing the old one," he said, referring to the town's Washington Primary School.
The three Region 12 towns have been embroiled in a tussle for months over the consolidated school issue, with no sign of resolution on the horizon.
"We have to have the best plan possible for a single school," stressed Mr. Field. "It may take a lot of time with all the legal entanglements to get this sorted out and people could become impatient to have an individual school here."
A June referendum set to take place in the three towns on the issue of a consolidated school was abandoned and continuing legal action has put any direction on hold for the three towns.
The Washington Board of Selectmen moved to reinstate the task force which developed the school plan two years ago, to include new and former members along with Washington members of the Region 12 Board of Education, selectmen, members of the Building Committee and others.
First Selectman Richard Sears planned to have the group in place by last week. The new group's first task is to formulate a request for proposals to be issued as soon as possible.
The group plans to meet weekly through the summer in order to present ideas to the town in the next few months.
Mr. Field reported that the Board of Finance agreed at its last meeting that it would support an allocation of $15,000 for professional consulting help with this work.
"This will reopen the conversation about what we want," said Mr. Sears, who suggested that the board also consider hiring an architectural engineer to perform a feasibility study. The selectmen agreed to pursue that plan.
"Roxbury and Bridgewater have both come up with their own plans," said Mr. Field.
"This issue is complicated because the makeup of the Board of Education is different; the consolidation concept has been challenged and the courts will have to decide on it. It's time to revisit our own school plan."
Washington to Update Single School Plan
By: Ann Compton
WASHINGTON - The Board of Selectmen agreed at its June 28 meeting that it's time for Washington to update its single school plan.
In a conversation with Board of Finance member Jack Field, the board decided to appoint a task force to update the town's two-year-old single school plan, a process that has already taken place in Region 12's Bridgewater and Roxbury.
"The way it's looking, we will wind up in a three-school mode rather than with a consolidated school," observed Mr. Field. "There are many things we need to address: an all-purpose gym, curb appeal, the effects of affordable housing and the flood plain.
"It may make more sense to build a new school rather than fixing the old one," he said, referring to the town's Washington Primary School.
The three Region 12 towns have been embroiled in a tussle for months over the consolidated school issue, with no sign of resolution on the horizon.
"We have to have the best plan possible for a single school," stressed Mr. Field. "It may take a lot of time with all the legal entanglements to get this sorted out and people could become impatient to have an individual school here."
A June referendum set to take place in the three towns on the issue of a consolidated school was abandoned and continuing legal action has put any direction on hold for the three towns.
The Washington Board of Selectmen moved to reinstate the task force which developed the school plan two years ago, to include new and former members along with Washington members of the Region 12 Board of Education, selectmen, members of the Building Committee and others.
First Selectman Richard Sears planned to have the group in place by last week. The new group's first task is to formulate a request for proposals to be issued as soon as possible.
The group plans to meet weekly through the summer in order to present ideas to the town in the next few months.
Mr. Field reported that the Board of Finance agreed at its last meeting that it would support an allocation of $15,000 for professional consulting help with this work.
"This will reopen the conversation about what we want," said Mr. Sears, who suggested that the board also consider hiring an architectural engineer to perform a feasibility study. The selectmen agreed to pursue that plan.
"Roxbury and Bridgewater have both come up with their own plans," said Mr. Field.
"This issue is complicated because the makeup of the Board of Education is different; the consolidation concept has been challenged and the courts will have to decide on it. It's time to revisit our own school plan."
Monday, July 23, 2007
BOE Questions and Answers 7-18-07
Meeting of Board of Education on the Burnham School Town Proposal
July 18, 2007
Questions and Answers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Matt Franjola - Drainage: New roof flowing onto new structure. How will this flow from the gym roof be handled?
Answer- Peter described the flow from the top roof through the four current downspouts to the lower areas and ultimately to the ground drains.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Gary Steinman - Concerns over additional storm water load on the existing drainage systems.
Answer – Bill Stuart stated that the two storm drains between the school and the Burnham library have been recently replaced with larger drains and larger pipes. If a larger pipe were needed to go under route 133, this would be state of CT responsibility. Bill said it has not been a problem in the last 23 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gary Steinman – He was concerned that 1920s building where Art and special education does not have ground level egress to grade for kindergarten to 2nd graders. SLAM and Friar expressed this concern.
Answer – There seems to be a disagreement regarding understanding the egress building code. This “Life Safety Code” issue was fully explained by Peter that proper egress from the 1920’s building is within code. The floor above the basement of 1920’s building is considered the level of exit discharge, since it is not a two-story building. Ed Wainwright stated if necessary, changes could be made to the south end of the building. An exterior ramp could be built and there are only two steps inside the building between the floor level and the exterior door.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Gary Steinman – Expressed concern over traffic flow (bus and car routes, parking and safety). He was concerned about the size of the curb cuts. He was concerned about parent traffic exiting through the entrance curb cut (entry for buses and parent autos).
Answer – Peter stated the southern single curb cut was wide enough because the buses stop and queue up in the loop. There is sufficient room for 3 large and two small buses in the loop.
(Additional information: The buses queue up to wait on the 8:45 unloading time. The buses exit via a separate northern curb cut. The vast majority of parent drop off occurs between 8:45 and 9 am after the buses have gone.)
There was consideration to having the parent drop off exit behind the old firehouse so that exit auto traffic would use the fire department parking area. However this idea has not been fully explored with the fire department. It would be discussed with the firemen during the detail design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Irene Allen – Student overflow is an issue. Does the plan provide for adding a 7th classroom if it is needed in the next 20 years?
Answer – In the event of a need for a 7th classroom, it is possible to use one of the proposed special education rooms in the 1920’s building. However Peter suggested it might be possible to add three classrooms in the front of the 1950’s depending on the set back requirements. If this is a requirement, it can be investigated during the detail design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Irene Allen: Wants to renovate 1920s building to new. It has been 20 years since the 100 year- old building has been renovated. The region should take this opportunity to renovate everything to new.
Answer – The Bridgewater building committee was sensitive to the need to get a referendum passed by the taxpayers where previous referendums failed due to high costs. The building committee preferred to spend the money on new classrooms and the media center where the children spend most of their time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Irene Allen - was adamant about making certain all education specs were met versus CT state specs (she emphasized there are differences).
Answer – There are many areas where the proposal exceeds the specification, such as classrooms, Art, Music and Special education. The gym is smaller than recommended but is appropriately sized for 120 to 140 students. The health area while smaller than recommended is expanded by 80% and provides room for two cots, examination/office space and a separate toilet. In general there is 6% more space than requested and much of this is due to the added space for storage in the basement and in the lobby area. The Ed Spec Square footage could be completely met, except the Gym, by placing functions in undesirable locations. This would be an Administrative decision during the detail design phase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. A/C question – Will the entire building old and new be air-conditioned? Will the current ductwork handle the air conditioning in the old buildings?
Answer – Jack McKenney who’s firm supports the current heating equipment in the region 12 elementary schools responded to this question. He said there are two types of A/C that could be used in this situation. There was plenty of room for ductwork in the 1920’s building to feed the classrooms (either in the attic or the basement). We many need additional ductwork for the 1950’s building. The cost estimate provides for A/C for both old and new buildings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Septic system – will the septic need to DEP approved?
Answer - DEP will not be involved since the flows are well below volumes required for DEP approval. The septic system will be moved to a building lot on Becket Lane. This lot is owned by the town and abuts the school property in the back. The septic tank will be in the current location and the fluid will pumped up to the new location for the septic fields. In the last 7 years the fire department installed a similar system on the same ridge close to the proposed lot. We have monitored the lot with 5-foot pipes to measure the ground water flow in late April and May this year. The location looks good for the pump up system that is proposed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Valerie Andersen – Will the building be LEEDS certifiable?
Answer – The building is not presently designed for LEED certification, however new lighting and occupancy sensors will reduce the electricity consumption. There will be all new energy efficient windows and doors. The 1950’s building will be wrapped with new construction and the Gym will be surrounded with rooms that are energy efficient. The new insulation has just been installed in the new gym roof in the spring of 2007. New roofs are proposed for the areas that were not done at that time. The 1920’s building has good insulation in the attic. The building will be much more energy efficient after the renovation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: LEED Certification can be achieved with a slight budget increase. A preliminary review of the LEED for Schools checklist shows that the project could exceed the 29-point required for certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Valerie Andersen - Wanted to know how much would be covered by the state reimbursement
Answer – Peter said some things would be covered by state aid. Examples of items eligible for aid are: new classroom space, renovating things to code, new roofs on the 1950’s and 1920’s buildings and some egress windows. However the state aid of 35% calculation would be reduced because Burnham will be much larger than the size that the state accepts. Peter’s estimate is that we might get 12-14% state aid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Fred Stern – He is concerned that the gym unsafe because of it’s small size. This is specifically true for older children (5th grade). Also the town residents play basketball each week during the winter and find it is difficult to avoid bumping into the walls.
Answer – Jerry said that normal size of a Gym is 5,600 Sq Ft. An Elementary School Gym is acceptable at half-size which is 2,800 Sq Ft. Our plan calls for a new sports floor and padding on the walls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matt Franjola – suggested the repairs section is underestimated and could be increased.
Answer – Peter stated that some repair estimates may be too low and some may be too high. The reason for the 5% design contingency ($275,000) is to cover the estimates that might be too low. His record for overall proposal price vs. project cost is very good. He has NEVER had a project cost more than his proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dave Baron – What kind of wall materials will be used of the new construction?
Answer – Peter said the external walls would be concrete block and brick. The internal walls will be concrete block.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Is an A2 survey available for the BOE to review?
Answer: - Peter stated that no A2 survey was found when looking through all the drawings on file.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Gary Steinman asked why $234 per square foot is an acceptable cost for new construction when $250 was suggested at the Consolidated School presentation.
Answer – Rory stated that it was the $185 per square foot cost for the consolidated school that was questioned. David Hawley recommended $225 to $250 per square foot for new construction on multiple occasions at the building committee meetings for the consolidated school.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 18, 2007
Questions and Answers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Matt Franjola - Drainage: New roof flowing onto new structure. How will this flow from the gym roof be handled?
Answer- Peter described the flow from the top roof through the four current downspouts to the lower areas and ultimately to the ground drains.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Gary Steinman - Concerns over additional storm water load on the existing drainage systems.
Answer – Bill Stuart stated that the two storm drains between the school and the Burnham library have been recently replaced with larger drains and larger pipes. If a larger pipe were needed to go under route 133, this would be state of CT responsibility. Bill said it has not been a problem in the last 23 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Gary Steinman – He was concerned that 1920s building where Art and special education does not have ground level egress to grade for kindergarten to 2nd graders. SLAM and Friar expressed this concern.
Answer – There seems to be a disagreement regarding understanding the egress building code. This “Life Safety Code” issue was fully explained by Peter that proper egress from the 1920’s building is within code. The floor above the basement of 1920’s building is considered the level of exit discharge, since it is not a two-story building. Ed Wainwright stated if necessary, changes could be made to the south end of the building. An exterior ramp could be built and there are only two steps inside the building between the floor level and the exterior door.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Gary Steinman – Expressed concern over traffic flow (bus and car routes, parking and safety). He was concerned about the size of the curb cuts. He was concerned about parent traffic exiting through the entrance curb cut (entry for buses and parent autos).
Answer – Peter stated the southern single curb cut was wide enough because the buses stop and queue up in the loop. There is sufficient room for 3 large and two small buses in the loop.
(Additional information: The buses queue up to wait on the 8:45 unloading time. The buses exit via a separate northern curb cut. The vast majority of parent drop off occurs between 8:45 and 9 am after the buses have gone.)
There was consideration to having the parent drop off exit behind the old firehouse so that exit auto traffic would use the fire department parking area. However this idea has not been fully explored with the fire department. It would be discussed with the firemen during the detail design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Irene Allen – Student overflow is an issue. Does the plan provide for adding a 7th classroom if it is needed in the next 20 years?
Answer – In the event of a need for a 7th classroom, it is possible to use one of the proposed special education rooms in the 1920’s building. However Peter suggested it might be possible to add three classrooms in the front of the 1950’s depending on the set back requirements. If this is a requirement, it can be investigated during the detail design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Irene Allen: Wants to renovate 1920s building to new. It has been 20 years since the 100 year- old building has been renovated. The region should take this opportunity to renovate everything to new.
Answer – The Bridgewater building committee was sensitive to the need to get a referendum passed by the taxpayers where previous referendums failed due to high costs. The building committee preferred to spend the money on new classrooms and the media center where the children spend most of their time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Irene Allen - was adamant about making certain all education specs were met versus CT state specs (she emphasized there are differences).
Answer – There are many areas where the proposal exceeds the specification, such as classrooms, Art, Music and Special education. The gym is smaller than recommended but is appropriately sized for 120 to 140 students. The health area while smaller than recommended is expanded by 80% and provides room for two cots, examination/office space and a separate toilet. In general there is 6% more space than requested and much of this is due to the added space for storage in the basement and in the lobby area. The Ed Spec Square footage could be completely met, except the Gym, by placing functions in undesirable locations. This would be an Administrative decision during the detail design phase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. A/C question – Will the entire building old and new be air-conditioned? Will the current ductwork handle the air conditioning in the old buildings?
Answer – Jack McKenney who’s firm supports the current heating equipment in the region 12 elementary schools responded to this question. He said there are two types of A/C that could be used in this situation. There was plenty of room for ductwork in the 1920’s building to feed the classrooms (either in the attic or the basement). We many need additional ductwork for the 1950’s building. The cost estimate provides for A/C for both old and new buildings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Septic system – will the septic need to DEP approved?
Answer - DEP will not be involved since the flows are well below volumes required for DEP approval. The septic system will be moved to a building lot on Becket Lane. This lot is owned by the town and abuts the school property in the back. The septic tank will be in the current location and the fluid will pumped up to the new location for the septic fields. In the last 7 years the fire department installed a similar system on the same ridge close to the proposed lot. We have monitored the lot with 5-foot pipes to measure the ground water flow in late April and May this year. The location looks good for the pump up system that is proposed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Valerie Andersen – Will the building be LEEDS certifiable?
Answer – The building is not presently designed for LEED certification, however new lighting and occupancy sensors will reduce the electricity consumption. There will be all new energy efficient windows and doors. The 1950’s building will be wrapped with new construction and the Gym will be surrounded with rooms that are energy efficient. The new insulation has just been installed in the new gym roof in the spring of 2007. New roofs are proposed for the areas that were not done at that time. The 1920’s building has good insulation in the attic. The building will be much more energy efficient after the renovation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: LEED Certification can be achieved with a slight budget increase. A preliminary review of the LEED for Schools checklist shows that the project could exceed the 29-point required for certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Valerie Andersen - Wanted to know how much would be covered by the state reimbursement
Answer – Peter said some things would be covered by state aid. Examples of items eligible for aid are: new classroom space, renovating things to code, new roofs on the 1950’s and 1920’s buildings and some egress windows. However the state aid of 35% calculation would be reduced because Burnham will be much larger than the size that the state accepts. Peter’s estimate is that we might get 12-14% state aid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Fred Stern – He is concerned that the gym unsafe because of it’s small size. This is specifically true for older children (5th grade). Also the town residents play basketball each week during the winter and find it is difficult to avoid bumping into the walls.
Answer – Jerry said that normal size of a Gym is 5,600 Sq Ft. An Elementary School Gym is acceptable at half-size which is 2,800 Sq Ft. Our plan calls for a new sports floor and padding on the walls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matt Franjola – suggested the repairs section is underestimated and could be increased.
Answer – Peter stated that some repair estimates may be too low and some may be too high. The reason for the 5% design contingency ($275,000) is to cover the estimates that might be too low. His record for overall proposal price vs. project cost is very good. He has NEVER had a project cost more than his proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dave Baron – What kind of wall materials will be used of the new construction?
Answer – Peter said the external walls would be concrete block and brick. The internal walls will be concrete block.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Is an A2 survey available for the BOE to review?
Answer: - Peter stated that no A2 survey was found when looking through all the drawings on file.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Gary Steinman asked why $234 per square foot is an acceptable cost for new construction when $250 was suggested at the Consolidated School presentation.
Answer – Rory stated that it was the $185 per square foot cost for the consolidated school that was questioned. David Hawley recommended $225 to $250 per square foot for new construction on multiple occasions at the building committee meetings for the consolidated school.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OakPark Comparison to Turner Plan
New construction for the OakPark plan calls for six new classrooms and a large Media Center. Renovation of the existing Administrative, Gym and Support services is more economical than building a new building for these functions. There has been completed in 2007 the replacement of the Gym roof and wall for a project savings of $174,000. The Turner plan called for new construction of areas for Administration, Health Services, Art, Gym, Kitchen and Special Education, and six new classrooms. This would cost $1,807,000 more than renovating and modifying these areas
The OakPark proposal for the 1920’s building adds a new electrical service, air conditioning, windows, sprinklers and re-furbishing, while Turner would only renovate to code the whole building. This would cost $139,000 less than the OakPark plan.
Site costs are lower for OakPark mainly because there is no demolition and carting away cost. The Turner excavation cost is significantly higher for the large addition that includes removal of the 1950’s building and construction of a large new building. The Turner plan put the playground equipment on the hill in the back of the school.
The Turner proposal provided no detail for soft costs, only that they were calculated at 27%. One item is described as an additional Project Contingency @ 7.5% or $623,000. Without this item the percent would have been 19.5%. OakPark soft costs are 17.7% of a lower construction cost.
The escalation amount for Turner is 9.8% over a two year period at the higher project cost while the OakPark escalation is 8% for one year at the lower project cost and the accelerated time line for completion of the project. Since the construction bids become fixed after the first year, the Turner escalation amount is overstated by $372,000 for the second year.
This comparison is to the Turner proposal presented one week before the final report. The new Addition was then reduced to 21,000 Sq ft by removing the Media Center and putting it in the 1920’s building. The Media Center would have been the combination of the 3 classrooms on the first floor. The renovating to new of the whole building for an increased cost of $900,000 became necessary. Support service space is gone and there is no school during re-construction.
OakPark Compared to Slam Master Plan
New construction for the OakPark plan calls for six new classrooms and a large Media Center. Renovation of the existing Administrative, Gym and Support services is more economical than building a new building for these functions. There has been completed in 2007 the replacement of the Gym roof and wall for a project savings of $174,000. The Slam plan called for new construction of increased sized areas for Administration, Health Services, Art, Gym, Kitchen and Special Education, but only three new classrooms. This would cost $2,678,000 more than renovating and modifying these areas. The 1920 building would continue to house three classrooms that would be created from four old classrooms.
The OakPark proposal for the 1920’s building adds a new electrical service, air conditioning, windows, sprinklers and re-furbishing, while Slam would renovate to new the whole building. This would include $670,000 for the three classrooms and $762,000 for the basement. Moving interior walls to change room sizes is very costly.
Site costs are lower for OakPark mainly because there is no demolition and carting away cost. The Slam excavation cost is significantly higher for the large addition that includes massive removal of the hillside behind the school and the building of a retaining wall for over $160,000. There is also no cost for a new road in the OakPark plan. The Slam plan put the playground equipment budgeted at $100,000 in the front of the school. This is a significant safety issue with the parents.
OakPark provided $235,000 for furniture and equipment while Slam had $271,000. The Architect/Engineering fee for Slam is $258,000 higher because of the higher projected costs. Computers are not included in the OakPark plan since the District has a replacement plan in effect for them. There appears to be a list of items in the Slam plan that may be over budgeted under soft costs.
The escalation amount for Slam is 6% for two years at the higher project cost while the OakPark escalation is 8% for one year at the lower project cost and the accelerated time line for completion of the project. Since the construction bids become fixed after the first year, the Slam escalation amount is overstated by $689,000 for the second year.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Roxbury Voter Message
NEWS TIMES LIVE:
Opinion Column
Jun 03 2007 12:00 AM
Region 12
Roxbury sends message, as turmoil continues
Gary Steinman, the vice chairman of the Region 12 Board of Education, lost his bid for re-election last week, a casualty of the dispute over what to do with the region's elementary schools.
Steinman, a Roxbury representative on the board, has been a supporter of building one "consolidated" elementary school to replace the three elementary schools in the Region 12 towns -- Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington. He has served as chairman of the board's building committee.
Roxbury and Bridgewater residents have tended to support maintaining an elementary school in each town, while Washington residents have been supportive of the consolidated school idea.
So Steinman's support of a consolidated school didn't mesh with the views of many Roxbury residents, and they voted him out of office.
The Region 12 board had been planning a June 19 referendum to ask voter approval of a plan to build a consolidated school on property in Roxbury.
The referendum was ill-advised. There is no consensus on a consolidated school and the board has refused to review new plans that have been put together to maintain an elementary school in each town.
But now the June 19 referendum has been canceled. The board failed to follow the law on giving full public notice of a public hearing on the consolidated proposal. A notice of the hearing was properly published, but not posted in each town. It was an accidental, technical error.
Irene Allan, the board chairman, said "it is preferable that we make certain all action the board takes is proper and appropriate, something that will definitely be our focus as we go forward to locate a new date for the referendum."
Making certain the law is followed is important, yet the board has not done that with questions raised by Roxbury and Bridgewater about changing the structure of elementary education in the region. They say each town, individually, has to approve such a change under state law.
The Region 12 board has dismissed that notion out of hand, the way Roxbury and Bridgewater concerns are typically treated these days by the Region 12 board.
Bridgewater has decided to reduce its payment to the Region 12 board by $15,000 because its three board members were excluded from a meeting of the board's litigation committee. Allan said the three Bridgewater representatives "do not support the basic positions of the Board of Education related to this particular issue."
So much for democracy. So much for neighborliness. Disagree on a consolidated school and you can't come to a meeting?
An elected board should be able to conduct itself and its business in a more positive manner. The forced cancellation of the referendum gives the Region 12 board a chance to regroup.
Why not take time to review the plans to maintain the local schools? Why not study the obvious problems with the site proposed for the consolidated school? Pushing for a new date for a referendum on a consolidated school will only cause more divisions.
Region 12 board needs change
News Times Live Editorial
Editors note:
Region 14 may follow the Statute Section 10-47c and have a referenda on the change of their original "Plan" from 1968. Woodbury is voting on sending that message to the board on June 12, 2007. District 12 is ignoring this required procedure before going to referendum on bonding a Consolidated School. Rules are made to be followed in a democracy.
Opinion Column
Jun 03 2007 12:00 AM
Region 12
Roxbury sends message, as turmoil continues
Gary Steinman, the vice chairman of the Region 12 Board of Education, lost his bid for re-election last week, a casualty of the dispute over what to do with the region's elementary schools.
Steinman, a Roxbury representative on the board, has been a supporter of building one "consolidated" elementary school to replace the three elementary schools in the Region 12 towns -- Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington. He has served as chairman of the board's building committee.
Roxbury and Bridgewater residents have tended to support maintaining an elementary school in each town, while Washington residents have been supportive of the consolidated school idea.
So Steinman's support of a consolidated school didn't mesh with the views of many Roxbury residents, and they voted him out of office.
The Region 12 board had been planning a June 19 referendum to ask voter approval of a plan to build a consolidated school on property in Roxbury.
The referendum was ill-advised. There is no consensus on a consolidated school and the board has refused to review new plans that have been put together to maintain an elementary school in each town.
But now the June 19 referendum has been canceled. The board failed to follow the law on giving full public notice of a public hearing on the consolidated proposal. A notice of the hearing was properly published, but not posted in each town. It was an accidental, technical error.
Irene Allan, the board chairman, said "it is preferable that we make certain all action the board takes is proper and appropriate, something that will definitely be our focus as we go forward to locate a new date for the referendum."
Making certain the law is followed is important, yet the board has not done that with questions raised by Roxbury and Bridgewater about changing the structure of elementary education in the region. They say each town, individually, has to approve such a change under state law.
The Region 12 board has dismissed that notion out of hand, the way Roxbury and Bridgewater concerns are typically treated these days by the Region 12 board.
Bridgewater has decided to reduce its payment to the Region 12 board by $15,000 because its three board members were excluded from a meeting of the board's litigation committee. Allan said the three Bridgewater representatives "do not support the basic positions of the Board of Education related to this particular issue."
So much for democracy. So much for neighborliness. Disagree on a consolidated school and you can't come to a meeting?
An elected board should be able to conduct itself and its business in a more positive manner. The forced cancellation of the referendum gives the Region 12 board a chance to regroup.
Why not take time to review the plans to maintain the local schools? Why not study the obvious problems with the site proposed for the consolidated school? Pushing for a new date for a referendum on a consolidated school will only cause more divisions.
Region 12 board needs change
News Times Live Editorial
Editors note:
Region 14 may follow the Statute Section 10-47c and have a referenda on the change of their original "Plan" from 1968. Woodbury is voting on sending that message to the board on June 12, 2007. District 12 is ignoring this required procedure before going to referendum on bonding a Consolidated School. Rules are made to be followed in a democracy.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
1967 Agreement Requires Local Schools in Towns
Board Does Not Respect Voters Rights!
I was amazed as I sat through my first Region 12 Board Of Education meeting on Tuesday evening. It is perplexing that the majority of the board members have no appreciation or understanding of the rights of the voters in the districts towns.
The Educational Plan for Region 12 that was written in 1967 clearly spells out that each town within the district have a school and that the primary schools remain in their respective home towns.
Edith Kinney then chairperson of Bridgewater’s School Board and a member of the Regional Planning Committee told me exactly what happened. “When we first put the plan out to voters at a town meeting it didn’t fly because there was no stipulation that the elementary grades would stay in their home town. It didn’t occur to us to spell that out in the plan even though we had no intention of ever sending our little ones out of town. So we rewrote the plan to be sure that it specifically said the elementary schools would remain in the towns. Once we put that in writing, the plan passed easily, first in Bridgewater then in the other two towns.
We never wanted the board to change that or have the authority to change that.” The records in town hall verify Mrs. Kinney’s statement. This 1967 plan, is the plan that the Board has been operating under for 40 years, but the majority of the board does not think they are bound by the plan. They don’t believe that taking away a town’s elementary school is considered a fundamental change to the plan.
The state of CT in its statute 10-47(c) has clearly stated that a fundamental change in the regional educational plan would have to be approved by the majority of the voters in each town. Doesn’t it make common sense that a small town within a region shouldn’t be forced to close its local school because another town within the region has more voters? Bridgewater voters should and do have the right to decide whether or not we keep our school!
Keeping the elementary schools in the local towns is repeated three times in the regions educational plan, but it does not site specific reasons why each town felt so strongly about keeping its elementary school.
As a mother of two in the Burnham School and an alumni of that school, I can site just a few. We have binders full of research from nationally accredited educational associations that prove the educational advantages of small, hometown schools.
Our CMT scores are higher than the state averages and in many areas significantly higher. At Burnham School every teacher knows every child and every child knows every teacher – not just their own – but all of them. Its not about economy of scale for kids in school, it’s about individual attention, personalized plans and small class sizes.
The bus rides would be too long for our youngest residents.
The school is the hub of our town, and the kids feel a strong bond and connection to our community. We (Bridgewater) would be the only town in the State of Connecticut without a school.
Our PTO raises tens of thousands of dollars each year to provide outstanding enrichment programs for our kids at no cost to taxpayers. I think the great people of our towns can figure out a way to keep our kids in their local schools without spending a fortune.
The towns of Roxbury and Bridgewater have build to suit plans on the table that will do that. As for the Board of Ed’s plan for consolidation - I can think of over 1,800,000 better ways to spend our tax dollars than on a piece of swamp land on a dangerous curve in which the Board of Ed. has already agreed in writing to allow hunting just outside of the perimeter!
Our kids deserve better.
Julie Stuart
Bridgewater, CT
I was amazed as I sat through my first Region 12 Board Of Education meeting on Tuesday evening. It is perplexing that the majority of the board members have no appreciation or understanding of the rights of the voters in the districts towns.
The Educational Plan for Region 12 that was written in 1967 clearly spells out that each town within the district have a school and that the primary schools remain in their respective home towns.
Edith Kinney then chairperson of Bridgewater’s School Board and a member of the Regional Planning Committee told me exactly what happened. “When we first put the plan out to voters at a town meeting it didn’t fly because there was no stipulation that the elementary grades would stay in their home town. It didn’t occur to us to spell that out in the plan even though we had no intention of ever sending our little ones out of town. So we rewrote the plan to be sure that it specifically said the elementary schools would remain in the towns. Once we put that in writing, the plan passed easily, first in Bridgewater then in the other two towns.
We never wanted the board to change that or have the authority to change that.” The records in town hall verify Mrs. Kinney’s statement. This 1967 plan, is the plan that the Board has been operating under for 40 years, but the majority of the board does not think they are bound by the plan. They don’t believe that taking away a town’s elementary school is considered a fundamental change to the plan.
The state of CT in its statute 10-47(c) has clearly stated that a fundamental change in the regional educational plan would have to be approved by the majority of the voters in each town. Doesn’t it make common sense that a small town within a region shouldn’t be forced to close its local school because another town within the region has more voters? Bridgewater voters should and do have the right to decide whether or not we keep our school!
Keeping the elementary schools in the local towns is repeated three times in the regions educational plan, but it does not site specific reasons why each town felt so strongly about keeping its elementary school.
As a mother of two in the Burnham School and an alumni of that school, I can site just a few. We have binders full of research from nationally accredited educational associations that prove the educational advantages of small, hometown schools.
Our CMT scores are higher than the state averages and in many areas significantly higher. At Burnham School every teacher knows every child and every child knows every teacher – not just their own – but all of them. Its not about economy of scale for kids in school, it’s about individual attention, personalized plans and small class sizes.
The bus rides would be too long for our youngest residents.
The school is the hub of our town, and the kids feel a strong bond and connection to our community. We (Bridgewater) would be the only town in the State of Connecticut without a school.
Our PTO raises tens of thousands of dollars each year to provide outstanding enrichment programs for our kids at no cost to taxpayers. I think the great people of our towns can figure out a way to keep our kids in their local schools without spending a fortune.
The towns of Roxbury and Bridgewater have build to suit plans on the table that will do that. As for the Board of Ed’s plan for consolidation - I can think of over 1,800,000 better ways to spend our tax dollars than on a piece of swamp land on a dangerous curve in which the Board of Ed. has already agreed in writing to allow hunting just outside of the perimeter!
Our kids deserve better.
Julie Stuart
Bridgewater, CT
Region 12 Needs Approval to Close Local Schools
05/05/2007
Bridgewater Board Will Seek Okay to Ask School Board to Amend Education Plan
By: John Addyman
BRIDGEWATER - At Tuesday night's town hearing, the Board of Selectmen will seek approval to make a formal request to the Region 12 school board to amend the educational plan of the district to allow for a consolidated school, rather than the three-town-school set that now exists.
That request would force referenda in all three towns and if one or more towns decide against a consolidated school, the issue may be dead.
Region 12 already has a referendum planned for June 19 to bond a consolidated-school project; Bridgewater's selectmen argue that neither the project nor the referendum can move forward without the region's educational plan first being amended to allow for a consolidated school.
"What we're doing, according to the statutes of the state of Connecticut, is requesting that the educational plan be amended," said First Selectman Bill Stuart.
"A legislative body has to request that the Board of Education to amend its plan and that's what we plan to do.
"The region wants to put a consolidated vote up. We believe, before they can put that vote up, they must amend the plan - with referenda in each town. They're going to tell you they don't have to do that. That doesn't make any difference to us; the statute says when a town's legislative body requests an amendment to the plan, 'the school district shall file a report with the state board of education and have a referendum.'
"The school board has to have an approval in each town to proceed. If they don't have each town's concurrence, they can't change the plan."
Mr. Stuart said the Atwood et al case from 1975 ruled that minutes of meetings that led to the formation of the region also constitute the educational plan.
"What was filed with the state is the regional plan and the school district is bound by it. Also, we have in our possession a document filed with the state board of education in 1967 that states right out that the three schools stay in their towns."
Bridgewater Board Will Seek Okay to Ask School Board to Amend Education Plan
By: John Addyman
BRIDGEWATER - At Tuesday night's town hearing, the Board of Selectmen will seek approval to make a formal request to the Region 12 school board to amend the educational plan of the district to allow for a consolidated school, rather than the three-town-school set that now exists.
That request would force referenda in all three towns and if one or more towns decide against a consolidated school, the issue may be dead.
Region 12 already has a referendum planned for June 19 to bond a consolidated-school project; Bridgewater's selectmen argue that neither the project nor the referendum can move forward without the region's educational plan first being amended to allow for a consolidated school.
"What we're doing, according to the statutes of the state of Connecticut, is requesting that the educational plan be amended," said First Selectman Bill Stuart.
"A legislative body has to request that the Board of Education to amend its plan and that's what we plan to do.
"The region wants to put a consolidated vote up. We believe, before they can put that vote up, they must amend the plan - with referenda in each town. They're going to tell you they don't have to do that. That doesn't make any difference to us; the statute says when a town's legislative body requests an amendment to the plan, 'the school district shall file a report with the state board of education and have a referendum.'
"The school board has to have an approval in each town to proceed. If they don't have each town's concurrence, they can't change the plan."
Mr. Stuart said the Atwood et al case from 1975 ruled that minutes of meetings that led to the formation of the region also constitute the educational plan.
"What was filed with the state is the regional plan and the school district is bound by it. Also, we have in our possession a document filed with the state board of education in 1967 that states right out that the three schools stay in their towns."
McKenney Wants Democracy in District 12
Mothers For Democracy
Apr 27 2007 2:00 PM
Reminds Region 12 Board of Ed: 'In a democracy, majority rules'
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to a letter last week from Jane Boyer of Washington.
However, even though I reference her letter, my rebuttal isn't specifically to Ms. Boyer, but to all who shockingly still think there should be a consolidated elementary school in Region 12.
My thoughts here have nothing to do with the pros and cons of consolidation versus retaining our three schools.
The time for that debate is over. The time for singing the praises of a consolidated school are over.
I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. So let's just agree to disagree and focus on the real issue at hand.
Ms. Boyer speaks of how we've been going "round and round" on the consolidation/three schools issue and that the issue should be "put to bed."
I couldn't agree more. Except that the only ones leading us round and round have been the leadership of the Region 12 Board of Education and the only issue that should be put to bed is that of consolidation.
The public has been given the information, the numbers and a hard sell from all sides ad nauseum. We have been given the opportunity to vote (twice? three times? I've lost count) and the results were clear and commanding.
Region 12 does not want a consolidated school. I regret that some don't agree with that, but in a democratic society, majority rules.
Somehow, though, these clear and commanding results were not quite as clear and commanding to the leadership of our Board of Education. Apparently, they did not like the results of these referenda and so they crumpled them up and tossed them in the trash.
And promptly continued to pursue a consolidated project 'behind closed doors'.
In one fell swoop, they managed to disenfranchise and enrage a large majority of voters in Region 12, as well as make a mockery of the democratic process.
Nice work.
Building committees in Bridgewater and Roxbury have been working for months on comprehensive, realistic, fiscally-sound plans that would enlarge/improve our schools.
These 'Build To Suit' plans have been given outrageously short shrift by the Board of Ed.
If the Board of Ed had put half as much energy and money into a plan to retain our three schools as they have put into the folly of consolidation (especially this swampy hunting ground otherwise known as the Mundy property), we might be well on our way to a project we could all be proud of.
But, alas"� we are nowhere. And we have the leadership of the Board of Education to thank for that.
Some think that those of us who are willing to pay more to keep our small schools are fiscally irresponsible.
How about a Board of Ed that continues to blow through taxpayers' money, in a brazen and malfeasant way, on an idea that voters have voted down more than once?
Now that's what I call fiscally irresponsible.
Ms. Boyer invokes the name of Abraham Lincoln and paraphrases him as saying "you can't satisfy all of the people all of the time." Of course you can't.
But here's an idea: How about satisfying a majority of the voters in Region 12?
It's ironic to me that Ms. Boyer brings up Abraham Lincoln, one of the most intelligent, wise and honorable men in our nation's history. He is a real "rock star" in the pantheon of democracy (and so, I am loath to say the words "Abraham Lincoln" and "the Region 12 Board of Education" in the same sentence).
However, as I write, I am looking at his biography on my bookshelf and I am reminded of something else he once said: "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed."
Foolish is the person (or Board of Ed member) who deigns to fly in the face of this simple truth.
"Public sentiment" wishes to retain their three schools. The current leadership of the Board of Education somehow fails to acknowledge this, act on this, or even care about this.
Perhaps it's time to get some 'new blood' on the board, people who are willing to serve, rather than patronize, the public.
The latest chapter in this merry-go-round we are on is that the board would like to have yet another referendum in June.
And you'll never guess what the question is. That's right. "Do you want a consolidated school in Region 12?"
Wow. Talk about going round and round.
If this referendum happens (and that's a big if), I predict the notion of consolidation will fail just as miserably as it has before.
But before we vote it down again, I would like the board to assure the public that this referendum would actually mean something.
That the board would actually respect the voters and accept the results, that, if consolidation is voted down, the idea would be dropped once and for all.
And I don't just mean dropped publicly, but behind the board's 'closed doors' as well.
Continuing to pursue the idea of consolidation when a vast majority of your constituents don't want it would be indescribably irresponsible, not to mention baffling.
Bridget McKenney is a resident of Bridgewater.
Apr 27 2007 2:00 PM
Reminds Region 12 Board of Ed: 'In a democracy, majority rules'
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to a letter last week from Jane Boyer of Washington.
However, even though I reference her letter, my rebuttal isn't specifically to Ms. Boyer, but to all who shockingly still think there should be a consolidated elementary school in Region 12.
My thoughts here have nothing to do with the pros and cons of consolidation versus retaining our three schools.
The time for that debate is over. The time for singing the praises of a consolidated school are over.
I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. So let's just agree to disagree and focus on the real issue at hand.
Ms. Boyer speaks of how we've been going "round and round" on the consolidation/three schools issue and that the issue should be "put to bed."
I couldn't agree more. Except that the only ones leading us round and round have been the leadership of the Region 12 Board of Education and the only issue that should be put to bed is that of consolidation.
The public has been given the information, the numbers and a hard sell from all sides ad nauseum. We have been given the opportunity to vote (twice? three times? I've lost count) and the results were clear and commanding.
Region 12 does not want a consolidated school. I regret that some don't agree with that, but in a democratic society, majority rules.
Somehow, though, these clear and commanding results were not quite as clear and commanding to the leadership of our Board of Education. Apparently, they did not like the results of these referenda and so they crumpled them up and tossed them in the trash.
And promptly continued to pursue a consolidated project 'behind closed doors'.
In one fell swoop, they managed to disenfranchise and enrage a large majority of voters in Region 12, as well as make a mockery of the democratic process.
Nice work.
Building committees in Bridgewater and Roxbury have been working for months on comprehensive, realistic, fiscally-sound plans that would enlarge/improve our schools.
These 'Build To Suit' plans have been given outrageously short shrift by the Board of Ed.
If the Board of Ed had put half as much energy and money into a plan to retain our three schools as they have put into the folly of consolidation (especially this swampy hunting ground otherwise known as the Mundy property), we might be well on our way to a project we could all be proud of.
But, alas"� we are nowhere. And we have the leadership of the Board of Education to thank for that.
Some think that those of us who are willing to pay more to keep our small schools are fiscally irresponsible.
How about a Board of Ed that continues to blow through taxpayers' money, in a brazen and malfeasant way, on an idea that voters have voted down more than once?
Now that's what I call fiscally irresponsible.
Ms. Boyer invokes the name of Abraham Lincoln and paraphrases him as saying "you can't satisfy all of the people all of the time." Of course you can't.
But here's an idea: How about satisfying a majority of the voters in Region 12?
It's ironic to me that Ms. Boyer brings up Abraham Lincoln, one of the most intelligent, wise and honorable men in our nation's history. He is a real "rock star" in the pantheon of democracy (and so, I am loath to say the words "Abraham Lincoln" and "the Region 12 Board of Education" in the same sentence).
However, as I write, I am looking at his biography on my bookshelf and I am reminded of something else he once said: "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed."
Foolish is the person (or Board of Ed member) who deigns to fly in the face of this simple truth.
"Public sentiment" wishes to retain their three schools. The current leadership of the Board of Education somehow fails to acknowledge this, act on this, or even care about this.
Perhaps it's time to get some 'new blood' on the board, people who are willing to serve, rather than patronize, the public.
The latest chapter in this merry-go-round we are on is that the board would like to have yet another referendum in June.
And you'll never guess what the question is. That's right. "Do you want a consolidated school in Region 12?"
Wow. Talk about going round and round.
If this referendum happens (and that's a big if), I predict the notion of consolidation will fail just as miserably as it has before.
But before we vote it down again, I would like the board to assure the public that this referendum would actually mean something.
That the board would actually respect the voters and accept the results, that, if consolidation is voted down, the idea would be dropped once and for all.
And I don't just mean dropped publicly, but behind the board's 'closed doors' as well.
Continuing to pursue the idea of consolidation when a vast majority of your constituents don't want it would be indescribably irresponsible, not to mention baffling.
Bridget McKenney is a resident of Bridgewater.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Press Conference Letter April 18, 2007
Towns of Bridgewater and Roxbury
Note: Read the "District Plan" following this letter!
April 18, 2007
Letter to the Region 12 Board of Education and the Press:
Forty years ago, the towns of Washington, Roxbury and Bridgewater, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, Section 10-39 et. seq., formed a Temporary Regional School Study Committee (Committee) which supported the feasibility and desirability of establishing a Regional School District, and in accordance with the statute, in its findings stated that "the lower elementary grades, K through 5, will remain in their respective home town schools".
As required by statute, the Committee's written report and findings (Educational Plan) was submitted to and approved by the State Board of Education. Again, as required by statute, the Certified Educational Plan was sent to the three towns, public hearings held, and then adopted by a majority vote in each of the towns by referendum. For passage and creation of the Regional School District, the statute, section 10-45, required the affirmative vote of each of the three towns.
The presentation of the proposal on the voting machines for the referendum read
"Shall the Town of join with the following named towns ,
, in the establishment of a Regional School District with the schools located in the towns of Bridgewater, Roxbury, and Washington, (emphasis supplied), for the purpose of providing the necessary facilities and administering grades K through 12 of the public schools."
The Committee report explicitly acknowledged that the "Regional Board is bound ... by the broad provisions outlined in the referendum proposal..."
Continuing lower elementary grade schools in each town was a real, substantive, essential and fundamental element of the Committee's report and findings, and was embodied in the provisions of the referendum proposal. The towns' voters relied on that fundamental condition in approving the creation of the Regional School District.
In order for the Educational Plan for the creation of the Regional School District adopted pursuant to Connecticut General Statute, section 10-45, to be changed, the Educational Plan must be formally amended in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes, Section 10-47(c). For your ease of reference, we have enclosed a copy of Connecticut General Statutes, section 10-47(c).
In order for an educational plan to be amended, section 10-47(c) requires that the Board of Education submit a request and report on the proposed amendment to the State Board of Education, including the question to be presented to the voters, with copies to the towns, which must then hold a public hearing. Subsequently, the proposed amendment must be submitted to referenda, and to pass, must be approved by a majority vote in each of the three towns.
Replacing the elementary schools located in each of the three towns since the formation of the Regional School District some forty years ago, with one (1) consolidated elementary school in one of the towns, is such a material, substantial, profound and fundamental change to the original approved Educational Plan, that, before any other funds are expended on the consolidation concept, the Educational Plan must be amended in accordance with section 10-47(c). This position is squarely and solidly supported by the State Supreme Court Decision of Atwood vs. Regional School District No.15 et al, 169 Conn. 613. (1975) Also, for your ease of reference, we have enclosed a copy of the Atwood case.
Section 10-47 (c), up to now, has not been part of the public dialogue. Now, all of us, the public, are aware of section 10-47(c), and its applicability, and we will ensure that all of its requirements and provisions are followed and adhered to. The Towns of Bridgewater and Roxbury, pursuant to the authority granted to them by Section 10-47(c), formally and hereby do, request amendment of the Educational Plan and expect the Board of Education to immediately perform the actions set forth in that Statute.
Further the Towns of Bridgewater and Roxbury inform you that they will respectfully refuse to notice a referendum on your consolidation of elementary schools proposal as requested, unless and until you follow the mandates of Section 10-47(c), and each of the three towns has agreed by a plurality of those voting in a referendum to amend the existing Educational Plan by replacing the three existing elementary schools with one consolidated elementary school. Good conscience, fairness and the law requires no less. Such a profound change screams out for the approval of each and every town member of the school district. Bridgewater and Roxbury are protecting the rights of the citizens of the three towns of the district by imploring you to follow the dictates of Section 10-47(c).
The fact that you, the Board of Education, has expended tens of thousands of tax dollars over several years on a consolidation project before following the requirements of Section 10-47(c) and amending the Educational Plan will be the subject of future debate.
Respectfully signing for the Board of Selectmen,
William T. Stuart ..................Barbara Henry
Bridgewater...........................Roxbury
District 12 Plan - (Incorporated from the original Regional School Study Committee)
The recommendation • • •
The Temporary Regional School Study Committee recommends
a Regional School District consi sting of :
* The towns of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington
* To i nclude grades K through 12
* Organized on an elementary, middle school and high school
basis
* Elementary grades K-5 to remain in their present home
town schools
* Middle school for grades 6- 8 to be housed initially in
the present Washington High School facility
* Construction of a 9-12 high school in a central locati on
within the distri ct.
******
The three-town Temporary Regional School Study Committee
was appointed at town meetings held in Bridgewater , Roxbury and
Washington on Apri l 28 , 1967. A negative vote by the town of
Sherman at the referendum held April 14 on the regional proposal
of the previous five-town Temporary Regional School Study Com-
mittee necessitated the formation of the new study group. The
other three towns voted overwhelmingly in favor of the previou s
regional proposal .
The new committee 's recommendation to form a K-12 regional
school district consisting of the t owns of Bridgewater, Roxbury
and Washington was the original recommendation of the five-t own
Temporary Regional School Study Committee, as voted and announced
at a meeting held in Bridgewater last September. This committee
also prepared an outline of the suggested program and facilities
for a three-town district, as well as estimates of enrollments
and costs. Then, at the urgent request of the committee members
from Sherman, the committee changed its recommendation to include
that town in the proposed region.
The new three-town committee has availed itself of the
research developed by the previous study group. This material
has been updated and revised, of course, in keeping with developments
which have occurred since the completion of the previous study.
........................................- 2 -...................................
Note: Read the "District Plan" following this letter!
April 18, 2007
Letter to the Region 12 Board of Education and the Press:
Forty years ago, the towns of Washington, Roxbury and Bridgewater, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, Section 10-39 et. seq., formed a Temporary Regional School Study Committee (Committee) which supported the feasibility and desirability of establishing a Regional School District, and in accordance with the statute, in its findings stated that "the lower elementary grades, K through 5, will remain in their respective home town schools".
As required by statute, the Committee's written report and findings (Educational Plan) was submitted to and approved by the State Board of Education. Again, as required by statute, the Certified Educational Plan was sent to the three towns, public hearings held, and then adopted by a majority vote in each of the towns by referendum. For passage and creation of the Regional School District, the statute, section 10-45, required the affirmative vote of each of the three towns.
The presentation of the proposal on the voting machines for the referendum read
"Shall the Town of join with the following named towns ,
, in the establishment of a Regional School District with the schools located in the towns of Bridgewater, Roxbury, and Washington, (emphasis supplied), for the purpose of providing the necessary facilities and administering grades K through 12 of the public schools."
The Committee report explicitly acknowledged that the "Regional Board is bound ... by the broad provisions outlined in the referendum proposal..."
Continuing lower elementary grade schools in each town was a real, substantive, essential and fundamental element of the Committee's report and findings, and was embodied in the provisions of the referendum proposal. The towns' voters relied on that fundamental condition in approving the creation of the Regional School District.
In order for the Educational Plan for the creation of the Regional School District adopted pursuant to Connecticut General Statute, section 10-45, to be changed, the Educational Plan must be formally amended in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes, Section 10-47(c). For your ease of reference, we have enclosed a copy of Connecticut General Statutes, section 10-47(c).
In order for an educational plan to be amended, section 10-47(c) requires that the Board of Education submit a request and report on the proposed amendment to the State Board of Education, including the question to be presented to the voters, with copies to the towns, which must then hold a public hearing. Subsequently, the proposed amendment must be submitted to referenda, and to pass, must be approved by a majority vote in each of the three towns.
Replacing the elementary schools located in each of the three towns since the formation of the Regional School District some forty years ago, with one (1) consolidated elementary school in one of the towns, is such a material, substantial, profound and fundamental change to the original approved Educational Plan, that, before any other funds are expended on the consolidation concept, the Educational Plan must be amended in accordance with section 10-47(c). This position is squarely and solidly supported by the State Supreme Court Decision of Atwood vs. Regional School District No.15 et al, 169 Conn. 613. (1975) Also, for your ease of reference, we have enclosed a copy of the Atwood case.
Section 10-47 (c), up to now, has not been part of the public dialogue. Now, all of us, the public, are aware of section 10-47(c), and its applicability, and we will ensure that all of its requirements and provisions are followed and adhered to. The Towns of Bridgewater and Roxbury, pursuant to the authority granted to them by Section 10-47(c), formally and hereby do, request amendment of the Educational Plan and expect the Board of Education to immediately perform the actions set forth in that Statute.
Further the Towns of Bridgewater and Roxbury inform you that they will respectfully refuse to notice a referendum on your consolidation of elementary schools proposal as requested, unless and until you follow the mandates of Section 10-47(c), and each of the three towns has agreed by a plurality of those voting in a referendum to amend the existing Educational Plan by replacing the three existing elementary schools with one consolidated elementary school. Good conscience, fairness and the law requires no less. Such a profound change screams out for the approval of each and every town member of the school district. Bridgewater and Roxbury are protecting the rights of the citizens of the three towns of the district by imploring you to follow the dictates of Section 10-47(c).
The fact that you, the Board of Education, has expended tens of thousands of tax dollars over several years on a consolidation project before following the requirements of Section 10-47(c) and amending the Educational Plan will be the subject of future debate.
Respectfully signing for the Board of Selectmen,
William T. Stuart ..................Barbara Henry
Bridgewater...........................Roxbury
District 12 Plan - (Incorporated from the original Regional School Study Committee)
The recommendation • • •
The Temporary Regional School Study Committee recommends
a Regional School District consi sting of :
* The towns of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington
* To i nclude grades K through 12
* Organized on an elementary, middle school and high school
basis
* Elementary grades K-5 to remain in their present home
town schools
* Middle school for grades 6- 8 to be housed initially in
the present Washington High School facility
* Construction of a 9-12 high school in a central locati on
within the distri ct.
******
The three-town Temporary Regional School Study Committee
was appointed at town meetings held in Bridgewater , Roxbury and
Washington on Apri l 28 , 1967. A negative vote by the town of
Sherman at the referendum held April 14 on the regional proposal
of the previous five-town Temporary Regional School Study Com-
mittee necessitated the formation of the new study group. The
other three towns voted overwhelmingly in favor of the previou s
regional proposal .
The new committee 's recommendation to form a K-12 regional
school district consisting of the t owns of Bridgewater, Roxbury
and Washington was the original recommendation of the five-t own
Temporary Regional School Study Committee, as voted and announced
at a meeting held in Bridgewater last September. This committee
also prepared an outline of the suggested program and facilities
for a three-town district, as well as estimates of enrollments
and costs. Then, at the urgent request of the committee members
from Sherman, the committee changed its recommendation to include
that town in the proposed region.
The new three-town committee has availed itself of the
research developed by the previous study group. This material
has been updated and revised, of course, in keeping with developments
which have occurred since the completion of the previous study.
........................................- 2 -...................................
Atwood Et Al v Regional School District 15 - 1975
Argued October 8---decision released November 25, 1975
Action for a declaratory judgment determining
the validity of a referendum for the appropriation
of funds for the construction of a new regional
high school and "for other purposes, and for an
injunction, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury
and tried to the court, David M. Shea, J.; judgment in favor of the
and appeal by the plaintiffs. No error.
The plaintiffs, taxpayers and residents of the towns of Middlebury
and Southbury , appealed from a declaratory judgment which
determined that a referendum held in those towns for, inter
alia, the appropriation of funds for the construction of a new
regional high school and the authorization to issue bonds and
notes to defray that appropriation was valid . Middlebury had
approved the proposal by a plurality of 434 votes. South·
bury had rejected it by a plurality of 283 votes. The combined
votes resulted in a plurality of 151 votes in favor of the
proposal. The controlling issue here turned on whether the
construction of the new high school constituted an amendment
to the original plan for the establishment of th e regional school
district encompassing the two towns and thus, under the statute
( § 10-47c) dealing generally with amendments to such plans,
required approval by a majority of the votes cast in each town,
or whether the proposal to issue bonds for the construction of
the new high school fell into the category of "bond issues," and
needed , under the statute ( § 10-56) dealin g specifically with
bond issues, the approval of only a majori ty of the votes cast
in the district as a whole. Since it is a well-established principle
of statutory construction that specific terms governing a given
subject prevail over general language and since an amendment
to § 10-56 removed the exercise of the powers set forth in ~ 10-56
from the coverage of § 10-47c, § 10-47c must be construed to
apply only to fundamental amendments to the terms of the
regional school district plan and not, as here, to the Issuance
of bonds for the construction of new facilities. Accordingly
since the issuance of the bonds for the construction of th e new
high school required only a plurality of the votes cast in th e district,
the referendum was valid.
Standing of the plaintiffs as taxpayers, discussed.
NOVEMBER, 1975 613
Atwood v, Regional School District No. 15
MARY ATWOOD ET AL. V. REGIONAL S CHOOL
DISTRICT No. 15 ET AL.
HOUSE, C. J ., LOISELLE, BODANSKI, LONGO a n d BARBER, JS.
The appellants filed a motion for reargument
which was denied.
Judicial district of Waterbury and tried to the court,
David M. Shea, J .; judgment in favor of the defendants
and appeal by the plaintiffs. No error.
Kenneth H. Murray, for the appellants (plaintiffs)
Thomas L. Brayton, with whom was J ohn J.
Cotter, for the appellee (named defendant).
BARBER, J . The plaintiffs, taxpayers of the towns
of Middlebury and Southbury, brought this action
in the Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment
to determine whether a referendum held in
those towns resulted in an authorization for the
appropriation of funds for the purchase of land ,
for the construction of a new regional high school,
and for alterations to the present high school, and in
an authorization to issue bonds and notes to defray
that appropriation. The plaintiffs also sought incidental
injunctive relief. The court overruled a
claim that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary
standing as taxpayers to maintain the action and
decided that the referendum resulted in a valid
appropriation and authorization.
The plaintiffs have appealed, raising the issue of
whether th e referendum requir ed a majority vote
of the regional school district as a whole, pursuant
to General Statutes § 10-56, or a majority of each
town, pursuant to General Statutes § 10-47c. The
parties submitted the ease to the trial court upon
a written stipulation of facts .
On December 18, 1968, the voters of Middlebury
and Southbury by referenda approved a proposal
to join their school systems into (kindergarten
through grade 12) regional school system, to be
known as Regional School District No. 15. Prior
to the referenda a temporary regional school study
committee had been established pursuant to General
Statutes § 10-39, as in effect at that time. The
temporary regional school study committee performed
its designated function, holding meetings and
submitting a report to the participating towns of
Middlebury and Southbury and the state board of
education, al as required by General Statutes
§ 10-43, as in effect at the time. The report of the
study committee recommended, amoung other things,
that grades 9-12 be housed in the existing Southbury
high school. Subsequent to the referenda, Regional
School District No. 15 became operative in the two
towns, its affairs being administered by a regional
board of education pursuant to the provisions of
General Statutes 10-46.
In October, 1973. the regional board of education
submitted a report recommending the purchase,
building and equipping of a new school complex for
Regional School District No. 15 to be located in the
town of Southbury and to be known as Pomperaug
Regional High School. After informational public
meetings were held in both towns to explain the pro-
posal, a referendum was held December 11, 1973,
presenting the question: "Shall Regional School
District No.15 appropriate eleven million seven
hundred thirtenn thousand dollars, $11,713,000,
for purchase of land, construction of a new regional
high school, and alterations to the present high
school, and issue bonds and notes to defray such
appropriation?" Middlebury approved the proposal
by a plurality of 434 votes, and Southbury rejected
it by a plurality of 283 votes. The combined votes
resulted in a plurality of 151 votes in favor of the
proposal. Regional School District No. 15 maintains
that a majority vote in the regional school district
as a whole was sufficient to approve the proposal
pursuant to General Statutes § 10-56. Subsequent
to the referendum but prior to the bringing of this
action, Regional School District No. 15 actually
issued tax anticipation notes, purchased real estate,
and paid certain items of expense under the construction
agreements for said building.
It appears from the stipulation of facts that the
plaintiffs are residents, electors owning real estate,
and taxpayers of the towns of Middlebury and
Southbury who have an interest in all the expenditures
made by Regional School District No. 15.
It is further stipulated that total reimbursable
funds to th e regional school district as a result of
the bond issue will he $9,178,000. The balance
required to be made up by th e participating towns
will amount to $2,535,000, which will be required to
be paid from general funds of the towns to which
th e plaintiffs pay their taxes.
The plaintiffs' right to seek a declaratory judgment
involv es the jurisdiction of the cour t. Rothkopf
v. Danbury, 156 Conn. 347, 352, 242 A.2d 771;
Riley v. Liquor Control Commission, 153 Conn. 242,
248, 215 A.2d 402. A question of jurisdiction once
raised must be considered on appeal. C.8.E.A., Inc.
v. Connecticut Personnel Policy Board, 165 Conn.
448, 452, 334 A.2d 909. The defendants raised the
question of jurisdiction before the trial court and
have pursued it before this court.
An action for a declaratory judgment is a special
proceeding. General Statutes § 52-29. Practice
616 NOVEMBER, 1975 169 Conn 613
Atwood v, Regional School Distriet No. 15
Now we turn to the principal issue, which involves
consideration of several sections of part III of
chapter 164 of the General Statutes, pertaining to
the establishment and operation of regional school
districts. A brief preliminary discussion of portions
of the statutory scheme set out in part III
will aid in understanding the conflicting claims of
the parties.
The procedure for establishing a regional school
district is as follows : First, a temporary study
committee is appointed by the legislative bodies
of the towns involved to study the advisability of
Book § 309 provides that no declaratory judgment
may be rendered upon the complaint of any person
"unless he has an interest , legal or equitable, by
reason of danger of loss or of uncertainty as to his
rights or other jural relations." A plaintiff seeking
a declaratory judgment must allege and prove more
than that he is a taxpayer and has an interest in
the expenditures involved. Gannon v , S anders, 157
Conn. 1, 7, 244 A.2d 397; Goyle v, Housing
Authority, 151 Conn. 421, 424, 198 A.2d 709. To
have standing, a taxpayer must prove that he is
directly affected in a pecuniary manner . Bassett
v, Desmond, 140 Conn. 426, 432, 101 A.2d 294;
74 Am. Jur. 2d, Taxpayers' Actions, § 20. Compare
Rothkopf v, Danbury, supra, 354, where the plaintiffs
claimed to have standing "in view of their
direct voice in the affairs of town government,"
and this was held to be insufficient. It is clear, given
the stipulated facts in this case, that the proposed
bond issue would increase the plaintiffs' taxes to
some extent. The trial court correctly ruled that
the plaintiffs have the requisite interest to maintain
this action.
The basic conflict between the parties involves
two statutes restricting the powers of the regional
board. Seetion 10-56 permits the board to issue
bonds to raise funds for the building of schools,
but requires a referendum beforehand with a
plurality of the dis trict as a whole approving th e
issuance.' Section 1O-47c provides that, with certain
exceptions, " the terms of the plan approved through
establishing a regional school district. General
Statutes §§ 10-39, 10-40. The temporary study
committee prepares a final report which contains
its findings and recommendations concerning the
towns to be included, the grade levels to be provided,
the facilities to be provided, the size of the board
and the number of representatives from each town,
estimates of th e cost, and similar matters.
§ 10·43 (a) . The state board of education examines
the report, determines whether " the proposed plan"
complies with the pertinent state regulations, and
either accepts or rejects "the recommendations of
the committee." § 10-43 (b). If the recommendations
are accepted by the state board, the towns
involved then hold referenda, the question presented
being whether a regional school district shall be
established "in accordance with the plan approved
by the state board." § 10·45. Once established, a
regional board "may build, add to or equip schools
for the benefit of the towns comprising the district."
Referenda pursuant to section 10-45" may be
amended only after referenda in each town in the
district, with a plurality in each town approving
the amendment. '
The plaintiffs point out that the report of the
study committee prior to the establishment of
Regional School District No, 15 made no mention
of the construction of a new high school, and, in
erect buildings and equip the same/for school purposes, if 80 authorized
b)' referendum. Such referendum shall be conducted in accordance
with the procedure provided in section 10-41c except that any
person entitled to vote under section 7·6 may vote and the question
shall be determined by the majority of those persons -voting in the
regional school district as a whole. . . • " (Emphasis added.)
~ II[General Statutes ] Sec. 1O·47c. AMENDMENT OF PLAN.
With the
exception of the terms which pertain to the capital contribution of
member towns, the transfer of property to the regional school dis-
trict, the grades included and the towns to be served by the regional
school district, the terms of the plan approved through referenda.
pursuant to section 10-45 may be amended as follows: If a regional
board of education finds it advisable to amend the plan or if the
legislative body of a town served by the regional board of education
requests amendment of such plan, th e regional board of education
shall prepare a report on the proposed amendment, including the
question to be presented, file a copy with the state board of education
and the clerk of each member town and make copies of such
report available to the public at a district meeting called to present
the plan . After such public hearing, the board shall set the date
for referenda which shall be held simultaneously in each member
town between the hours of six a.m. and eight p.m. At least thirty
days before the date of the referenda, the regional board of education
shall notify the town clerk in each member town to call the
referendum on the specified date to vote on the specified question.
The warning of such referenda shall be published, the vote taken
and the results thereof canvassed and declared in the same manner
as is provided for the election of officers of a town, except that
absentee voting shall not be permitted in other than a special or
regular election. The town clerk of each town shall certify the vote
of his town to the regional board of education. If the majority vote
in each town of the diltrict is in favor of the proposed amendment
to the plan, such amendment shall take effect immediately."
(Emphasis added.)
NOVEMBER, 1975 619
Atwood 11. Regional School District No. I:i
The plaintiffs point out that the report of the
study committee prior to the establishment of
Regional School District No. 15 made no mention
of the construction of a new high school, and in
fact, recommended that the existing Southbury
high school serve as the regional high school.
Therefore, plaintiffs contend, the proposal to construct
a new high school constitutes an amendment
to the plan approved by the referenda of December
18, 1968, and may be approved only by a plurality
in each town. The school district, on the other hand,
contends that the proposal to issue bonds for the
construction of the new high school falls into the
category of "bond issues," and need only be
approved by a majority in the district as a whole,
pursuant to ~ 10-56.
The defendant contends that the provisions of
~ 10-47c do not apply to it, basing its argument upon
the history of part III. Sections 10-56 and 10-47c
originated as two of the twenty-eight sections of
the Public Acts 1969, No. 698, which repealed the
prior statutes concerning the establishment and
operation of regional school distri cts, and substituted
what is now all of part III. Public Act No. 698
introduced the concept of a "plan" for the regional
district. Since the referenda establishing Regional
School District No. 15 were held prior to the enactment
of Public Act No. 698, the question presented
was not whether the "proposed plan approved by
the state board of education" should be adopted,
but whether "a regional school distriet . . . for the
purpose of providing the necessary facilities and
administering grades K through 12" should be
established. Public Acts 1965, No. 411, ~ 3.
Although ~ 10-47c provides for the amendment of
the "terms of the plan approved through referenda,"
the fact that the December 18, 1968 referenda did
not mention a "plan" does not, despite the defendant's
argument to the contrary, automatically
exempt Regional School District No. 15 from the
620 NOVEMBER, 1975 169 Conn 613
Atwood e. Regional School Dist rict No. 15
Provisions of that section. Although Public Act
No. 698 contains no definition of the term "plan, "
the language of §§ 10-43 and 10-45 compels the con-
clusion that the "plan" consists of the recommendations
found in the final report of the studycommittee.
The recommendations of the study committee for
Regional School District No. 15,
including those concerning the use of then existent
high school facilities, constitute " terms of the plan"
for the district as that phrase is used in § 10-47c.
The defendant also argues that the provisions of
Public Act No. 698 should not be applied retroactively
to previously existing districts, but in so
arguing it has apparently overlooked § 10-63h
which specifically applies Public Act No. 698 to
existing districts .
Merely determining that the provisions of § 10-47c
literally apply to the proposal to construct a new
high school in Regional School District No. 15 does
not conclude the issue. The provisions of § 10-56
also literally apply to th e issuing of the bonds necessary
to build the high school. Both sections cannot
be construed as governing the procedure for
approving the proposed project. Such a construc-
tion would require first a plurality in each town
to approve the construction of the school, and then
a plurality in th e district as a whole to approve the
issuance of the necessary bonds. The second
approval, though explicitly required by § 10-56,
would be reduced to a meaningless formality.
Separate parts of an act should, so far as possible,
be reconciled and given a reasonable construction.
Hutchison v, Board of Zoning Appeals, 140 Conn.
381, 385, 100 A.2d 839. Courts should not adopt
a construction of a statute leading to "difficult and
possibly bizarre results." City Savings Bank v,
169 Conn 613 NOVEMBER, 1975
Atwood e. Regional School Distri ct No. 15
621
Lawler, 163 Conn. 149, 159, 302 A.2d 252; Muller v.
Town Planning &'; Z oning Oommission, 145 Conn.
325, 331, 142 A.2d 524.
By its own terms, § 1O.47~does not provide th e
sole procedure for amendment of the "terms of the
plan;"- in that it excludes from its provision those
terms relating to grade levels to be provided, towns
to be included,. and other specified matters. It is
not unreasonable to suppose that terms of the plan
relating to areas other than those specifically
excluded were also intended to be excepted from
the provisions of ~ 10-47c. This supposition is supported
by th e fact that though ~ 10-47c refers to
amendments of the terms of the plan generally,
~ 10-56 specifically provides a procedure for the
approval of bond issues. "It is a well-settled principle
of construction that specific terms covering
the given subject matter will prevail over general
language of the same or another statute which might
otherwise prove controlling. Charlton. Press, In c.
v. Sullivan, 153 Conn. 103, 110, 214 A.2d 354. Where
there are two provisions in a statute, one of which
is general and desigued to apply to cases generally,
and the other is particular and relates to only one
case or subject within the scope of a general provision,
then th e particular provision must prevail;
and if both cannot apply, the particular provision
will be treated as an exception to the general provision.
K elly v , Dewey, 111 Conn. 281, 292, 149 A.
840." Meriden v , Board of Tax Review, 161 Conn .
396, 401-402, 288 A.2d 435. Further support for
the conclusion that bond issues were intended to be
exempt from ~ 10-47c is found in Public Act
No. 74-239 which inserted into ~ 10-56 th e following
language: "The exercise of any or all of the powers
set forth in this section shall not be construed to
be an amendment of a regional plan pursuant to
. .. section 1O-47c." " [A]n amendment which in
effect construes and clarifies a prior statute must
be accepted as the legislative declaration of the
meaning of the original act." Hartford v, Suffield,
137 Conn. 341, 346, 77 A.2d 760; see also Erlenbau,gh
v. United States, 409 U.S. 239, 243-44, 93 S. Ct. 477,
34 L. Ed. 2d 446, and Brown v. Cato, 147 Conn. 418,
421, 162 A.2d 175.
The removal from the coverage of ~ 1O-47c of
those "terms of the plan" relating to the facilities
to be provided by the region and estimates of their
cost, when combined with the four specific exceptions
found in the statute itself, leaves some question
as to what remains within its coverage. Clearly,
those recommendations of the study committee
which concern the size of the regional board, and
the number of representatives from each town on
the board, can only be altered in accordance with
~ 1O-47c. That the extra ordinary requirement of
approval by a plurality in each town is a prerequisite
to such fundamental changes is not surprising,
since such changes directly affect the voting
rights of each individual elector. Other matters
( of fundamental importance, such as the formation
"or dissolution of a regional district; ~~ 10-45,
1O-63a; the expansion of a district; ~ 10-47b (b);
or the admission of a new town into the district;
~~ 10-39, 10-45; similarly require a plurality
approval by each town involved. We conclude that
~10-47c applies only to fundamental amendments
of the terms of the plan and does not apply to the
issuance of bonds for the construction of new
facilities.
. There is no error .
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Action for a declaratory judgment determining
the validity of a referendum for the appropriation
of funds for the construction of a new regional
high school and "for other purposes, and for an
injunction, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury
and tried to the court, David M. Shea, J.; judgment in favor of the
and appeal by the plaintiffs. No error.
The plaintiffs, taxpayers and residents of the towns of Middlebury
and Southbury , appealed from a declaratory judgment which
determined that a referendum held in those towns for, inter
alia, the appropriation of funds for the construction of a new
regional high school and the authorization to issue bonds and
notes to defray that appropriation was valid . Middlebury had
approved the proposal by a plurality of 434 votes. South·
bury had rejected it by a plurality of 283 votes. The combined
votes resulted in a plurality of 151 votes in favor of the
proposal. The controlling issue here turned on whether the
construction of the new high school constituted an amendment
to the original plan for the establishment of th e regional school
district encompassing the two towns and thus, under the statute
( § 10-47c) dealing generally with amendments to such plans,
required approval by a majority of the votes cast in each town,
or whether the proposal to issue bonds for the construction of
the new high school fell into the category of "bond issues," and
needed , under the statute ( § 10-56) dealin g specifically with
bond issues, the approval of only a majori ty of the votes cast
in the district as a whole. Since it is a well-established principle
of statutory construction that specific terms governing a given
subject prevail over general language and since an amendment
to § 10-56 removed the exercise of the powers set forth in ~ 10-56
from the coverage of § 10-47c, § 10-47c must be construed to
apply only to fundamental amendments to the terms of the
regional school district plan and not, as here, to the Issuance
of bonds for the construction of new facilities. Accordingly
since the issuance of the bonds for the construction of th e new
high school required only a plurality of the votes cast in th e district,
the referendum was valid.
Standing of the plaintiffs as taxpayers, discussed.
NOVEMBER, 1975 613
Atwood v, Regional School District No. 15
MARY ATWOOD ET AL. V. REGIONAL S CHOOL
DISTRICT No. 15 ET AL.
HOUSE, C. J ., LOISELLE, BODANSKI, LONGO a n d BARBER, JS.
The appellants filed a motion for reargument
which was denied.
Judicial district of Waterbury and tried to the court,
David M. Shea, J .; judgment in favor of the defendants
and appeal by the plaintiffs. No error.
Kenneth H. Murray, for the appellants (plaintiffs)
Thomas L. Brayton, with whom was J ohn J.
Cotter, for the appellee (named defendant).
BARBER, J . The plaintiffs, taxpayers of the towns
of Middlebury and Southbury, brought this action
in the Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment
to determine whether a referendum held in
those towns resulted in an authorization for the
appropriation of funds for the purchase of land ,
for the construction of a new regional high school,
and for alterations to the present high school, and in
an authorization to issue bonds and notes to defray
that appropriation. The plaintiffs also sought incidental
injunctive relief. The court overruled a
claim that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary
standing as taxpayers to maintain the action and
decided that the referendum resulted in a valid
appropriation and authorization.
The plaintiffs have appealed, raising the issue of
whether th e referendum requir ed a majority vote
of the regional school district as a whole, pursuant
to General Statutes § 10-56, or a majority of each
town, pursuant to General Statutes § 10-47c. The
parties submitted the ease to the trial court upon
a written stipulation of facts .
On December 18, 1968, the voters of Middlebury
and Southbury by referenda approved a proposal
to join their school systems into (kindergarten
through grade 12) regional school system, to be
known as Regional School District No. 15. Prior
to the referenda a temporary regional school study
committee had been established pursuant to General
Statutes § 10-39, as in effect at that time. The
temporary regional school study committee performed
its designated function, holding meetings and
submitting a report to the participating towns of
Middlebury and Southbury and the state board of
education, al as required by General Statutes
§ 10-43, as in effect at the time. The report of the
study committee recommended, amoung other things,
that grades 9-12 be housed in the existing Southbury
high school. Subsequent to the referenda, Regional
School District No. 15 became operative in the two
towns, its affairs being administered by a regional
board of education pursuant to the provisions of
General Statutes 10-46.
In October, 1973. the regional board of education
submitted a report recommending the purchase,
building and equipping of a new school complex for
Regional School District No. 15 to be located in the
town of Southbury and to be known as Pomperaug
Regional High School. After informational public
meetings were held in both towns to explain the pro-
posal, a referendum was held December 11, 1973,
presenting the question: "Shall Regional School
District No.15 appropriate eleven million seven
hundred thirtenn thousand dollars, $11,713,000,
for purchase of land, construction of a new regional
high school, and alterations to the present high
school, and issue bonds and notes to defray such
appropriation?" Middlebury approved the proposal
by a plurality of 434 votes, and Southbury rejected
it by a plurality of 283 votes. The combined votes
resulted in a plurality of 151 votes in favor of the
proposal. Regional School District No. 15 maintains
that a majority vote in the regional school district
as a whole was sufficient to approve the proposal
pursuant to General Statutes § 10-56. Subsequent
to the referendum but prior to the bringing of this
action, Regional School District No. 15 actually
issued tax anticipation notes, purchased real estate,
and paid certain items of expense under the construction
agreements for said building.
It appears from the stipulation of facts that the
plaintiffs are residents, electors owning real estate,
and taxpayers of the towns of Middlebury and
Southbury who have an interest in all the expenditures
made by Regional School District No. 15.
It is further stipulated that total reimbursable
funds to th e regional school district as a result of
the bond issue will he $9,178,000. The balance
required to be made up by th e participating towns
will amount to $2,535,000, which will be required to
be paid from general funds of the towns to which
th e plaintiffs pay their taxes.
The plaintiffs' right to seek a declaratory judgment
involv es the jurisdiction of the cour t. Rothkopf
v. Danbury, 156 Conn. 347, 352, 242 A.2d 771;
Riley v. Liquor Control Commission, 153 Conn. 242,
248, 215 A.2d 402. A question of jurisdiction once
raised must be considered on appeal. C.8.E.A., Inc.
v. Connecticut Personnel Policy Board, 165 Conn.
448, 452, 334 A.2d 909. The defendants raised the
question of jurisdiction before the trial court and
have pursued it before this court.
An action for a declaratory judgment is a special
proceeding. General Statutes § 52-29. Practice
616 NOVEMBER, 1975 169 Conn 613
Atwood v, Regional School Distriet No. 15
Now we turn to the principal issue, which involves
consideration of several sections of part III of
chapter 164 of the General Statutes, pertaining to
the establishment and operation of regional school
districts. A brief preliminary discussion of portions
of the statutory scheme set out in part III
will aid in understanding the conflicting claims of
the parties.
The procedure for establishing a regional school
district is as follows : First, a temporary study
committee is appointed by the legislative bodies
of the towns involved to study the advisability of
Book § 309 provides that no declaratory judgment
may be rendered upon the complaint of any person
"unless he has an interest , legal or equitable, by
reason of danger of loss or of uncertainty as to his
rights or other jural relations." A plaintiff seeking
a declaratory judgment must allege and prove more
than that he is a taxpayer and has an interest in
the expenditures involved. Gannon v , S anders, 157
Conn. 1, 7, 244 A.2d 397; Goyle v, Housing
Authority, 151 Conn. 421, 424, 198 A.2d 709. To
have standing, a taxpayer must prove that he is
directly affected in a pecuniary manner . Bassett
v, Desmond, 140 Conn. 426, 432, 101 A.2d 294;
74 Am. Jur. 2d, Taxpayers' Actions, § 20. Compare
Rothkopf v, Danbury, supra, 354, where the plaintiffs
claimed to have standing "in view of their
direct voice in the affairs of town government,"
and this was held to be insufficient. It is clear, given
the stipulated facts in this case, that the proposed
bond issue would increase the plaintiffs' taxes to
some extent. The trial court correctly ruled that
the plaintiffs have the requisite interest to maintain
this action.
The basic conflict between the parties involves
two statutes restricting the powers of the regional
board. Seetion 10-56 permits the board to issue
bonds to raise funds for the building of schools,
but requires a referendum beforehand with a
plurality of the dis trict as a whole approving th e
issuance.' Section 1O-47c provides that, with certain
exceptions, " the terms of the plan approved through
establishing a regional school district. General
Statutes §§ 10-39, 10-40. The temporary study
committee prepares a final report which contains
its findings and recommendations concerning the
towns to be included, the grade levels to be provided,
the facilities to be provided, the size of the board
and the number of representatives from each town,
estimates of th e cost, and similar matters.
§ 10·43 (a) . The state board of education examines
the report, determines whether " the proposed plan"
complies with the pertinent state regulations, and
either accepts or rejects "the recommendations of
the committee." § 10-43 (b). If the recommendations
are accepted by the state board, the towns
involved then hold referenda, the question presented
being whether a regional school district shall be
established "in accordance with the plan approved
by the state board." § 10·45. Once established, a
regional board "may build, add to or equip schools
for the benefit of the towns comprising the district."
Referenda pursuant to section 10-45" may be
amended only after referenda in each town in the
district, with a plurality in each town approving
the amendment. '
The plaintiffs point out that the report of the
study committee prior to the establishment of
Regional School District No, 15 made no mention
of the construction of a new high school, and, in
erect buildings and equip the same/for school purposes, if 80 authorized
b)' referendum. Such referendum shall be conducted in accordance
with the procedure provided in section 10-41c except that any
person entitled to vote under section 7·6 may vote and the question
shall be determined by the majority of those persons -voting in the
regional school district as a whole. . . • " (Emphasis added.)
~ II[General Statutes ] Sec. 1O·47c. AMENDMENT OF PLAN.
With the
exception of the terms which pertain to the capital contribution of
member towns, the transfer of property to the regional school dis-
trict, the grades included and the towns to be served by the regional
school district, the terms of the plan approved through referenda.
pursuant to section 10-45 may be amended as follows: If a regional
board of education finds it advisable to amend the plan or if the
legislative body of a town served by the regional board of education
requests amendment of such plan, th e regional board of education
shall prepare a report on the proposed amendment, including the
question to be presented, file a copy with the state board of education
and the clerk of each member town and make copies of such
report available to the public at a district meeting called to present
the plan . After such public hearing, the board shall set the date
for referenda which shall be held simultaneously in each member
town between the hours of six a.m. and eight p.m. At least thirty
days before the date of the referenda, the regional board of education
shall notify the town clerk in each member town to call the
referendum on the specified date to vote on the specified question.
The warning of such referenda shall be published, the vote taken
and the results thereof canvassed and declared in the same manner
as is provided for the election of officers of a town, except that
absentee voting shall not be permitted in other than a special or
regular election. The town clerk of each town shall certify the vote
of his town to the regional board of education. If the majority vote
in each town of the diltrict is in favor of the proposed amendment
to the plan, such amendment shall take effect immediately."
(Emphasis added.)
NOVEMBER, 1975 619
Atwood 11. Regional School District No. I:i
The plaintiffs point out that the report of the
study committee prior to the establishment of
Regional School District No. 15 made no mention
of the construction of a new high school, and in
fact, recommended that the existing Southbury
high school serve as the regional high school.
Therefore, plaintiffs contend, the proposal to construct
a new high school constitutes an amendment
to the plan approved by the referenda of December
18, 1968, and may be approved only by a plurality
in each town. The school district, on the other hand,
contends that the proposal to issue bonds for the
construction of the new high school falls into the
category of "bond issues," and need only be
approved by a majority in the district as a whole,
pursuant to ~ 10-56.
The defendant contends that the provisions of
~ 10-47c do not apply to it, basing its argument upon
the history of part III. Sections 10-56 and 10-47c
originated as two of the twenty-eight sections of
the Public Acts 1969, No. 698, which repealed the
prior statutes concerning the establishment and
operation of regional school distri cts, and substituted
what is now all of part III. Public Act No. 698
introduced the concept of a "plan" for the regional
district. Since the referenda establishing Regional
School District No. 15 were held prior to the enactment
of Public Act No. 698, the question presented
was not whether the "proposed plan approved by
the state board of education" should be adopted,
but whether "a regional school distriet . . . for the
purpose of providing the necessary facilities and
administering grades K through 12" should be
established. Public Acts 1965, No. 411, ~ 3.
Although ~ 10-47c provides for the amendment of
the "terms of the plan approved through referenda,"
the fact that the December 18, 1968 referenda did
not mention a "plan" does not, despite the defendant's
argument to the contrary, automatically
exempt Regional School District No. 15 from the
620 NOVEMBER, 1975 169 Conn 613
Atwood e. Regional School Dist rict No. 15
Provisions of that section. Although Public Act
No. 698 contains no definition of the term "plan, "
the language of §§ 10-43 and 10-45 compels the con-
clusion that the "plan" consists of the recommendations
found in the final report of the studycommittee.
The recommendations of the study committee for
Regional School District No. 15,
including those concerning the use of then existent
high school facilities, constitute " terms of the plan"
for the district as that phrase is used in § 10-47c.
The defendant also argues that the provisions of
Public Act No. 698 should not be applied retroactively
to previously existing districts, but in so
arguing it has apparently overlooked § 10-63h
which specifically applies Public Act No. 698 to
existing districts .
Merely determining that the provisions of § 10-47c
literally apply to the proposal to construct a new
high school in Regional School District No. 15 does
not conclude the issue. The provisions of § 10-56
also literally apply to th e issuing of the bonds necessary
to build the high school. Both sections cannot
be construed as governing the procedure for
approving the proposed project. Such a construc-
tion would require first a plurality in each town
to approve the construction of the school, and then
a plurality in th e district as a whole to approve the
issuance of the necessary bonds. The second
approval, though explicitly required by § 10-56,
would be reduced to a meaningless formality.
Separate parts of an act should, so far as possible,
be reconciled and given a reasonable construction.
Hutchison v, Board of Zoning Appeals, 140 Conn.
381, 385, 100 A.2d 839. Courts should not adopt
a construction of a statute leading to "difficult and
possibly bizarre results." City Savings Bank v,
169 Conn 613 NOVEMBER, 1975
Atwood e. Regional School Distri ct No. 15
621
Lawler, 163 Conn. 149, 159, 302 A.2d 252; Muller v.
Town Planning &'; Z oning Oommission, 145 Conn.
325, 331, 142 A.2d 524.
By its own terms, § 1O.47~does not provide th e
sole procedure for amendment of the "terms of the
plan;"- in that it excludes from its provision those
terms relating to grade levels to be provided, towns
to be included,. and other specified matters. It is
not unreasonable to suppose that terms of the plan
relating to areas other than those specifically
excluded were also intended to be excepted from
the provisions of ~ 10-47c. This supposition is supported
by th e fact that though ~ 10-47c refers to
amendments of the terms of the plan generally,
~ 10-56 specifically provides a procedure for the
approval of bond issues. "It is a well-settled principle
of construction that specific terms covering
the given subject matter will prevail over general
language of the same or another statute which might
otherwise prove controlling. Charlton. Press, In c.
v. Sullivan, 153 Conn. 103, 110, 214 A.2d 354. Where
there are two provisions in a statute, one of which
is general and desigued to apply to cases generally,
and the other is particular and relates to only one
case or subject within the scope of a general provision,
then th e particular provision must prevail;
and if both cannot apply, the particular provision
will be treated as an exception to the general provision.
K elly v , Dewey, 111 Conn. 281, 292, 149 A.
840." Meriden v , Board of Tax Review, 161 Conn .
396, 401-402, 288 A.2d 435. Further support for
the conclusion that bond issues were intended to be
exempt from ~ 10-47c is found in Public Act
No. 74-239 which inserted into ~ 10-56 th e following
language: "The exercise of any or all of the powers
set forth in this section shall not be construed to
be an amendment of a regional plan pursuant to
. .. section 1O-47c." " [A]n amendment which in
effect construes and clarifies a prior statute must
be accepted as the legislative declaration of the
meaning of the original act." Hartford v, Suffield,
137 Conn. 341, 346, 77 A.2d 760; see also Erlenbau,gh
v. United States, 409 U.S. 239, 243-44, 93 S. Ct. 477,
34 L. Ed. 2d 446, and Brown v. Cato, 147 Conn. 418,
421, 162 A.2d 175.
The removal from the coverage of ~ 1O-47c of
those "terms of the plan" relating to the facilities
to be provided by the region and estimates of their
cost, when combined with the four specific exceptions
found in the statute itself, leaves some question
as to what remains within its coverage. Clearly,
those recommendations of the study committee
which concern the size of the regional board, and
the number of representatives from each town on
the board, can only be altered in accordance with
~ 1O-47c. That the extra ordinary requirement of
approval by a plurality in each town is a prerequisite
to such fundamental changes is not surprising,
since such changes directly affect the voting
rights of each individual elector. Other matters
( of fundamental importance, such as the formation
"or dissolution of a regional district; ~~ 10-45,
1O-63a; the expansion of a district; ~ 10-47b (b);
or the admission of a new town into the district;
~~ 10-39, 10-45; similarly require a plurality
approval by each town involved. We conclude that
~10-47c applies only to fundamental amendments
of the terms of the plan and does not apply to the
issuance of bonds for the construction of new
facilities.
. There is no error .
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Press Report For April 18, 2007
News Times Live The News-Times Region 12 referendum faces new obstacle
Local NEWS
Apr 19 2007 4:15 AM
Region 12 referendum faces new obstacle
Officials want educational plan amended before vote
By Lynda Wellman STAFF WRITER
Bridgewater and Roxbury officials say before any referendum on a consolidated elementary school takes place, the educational plan that formed the three-town Region 12, which also includes Washington, needs to be amended.
The Region 12 Board of Education had called for a June 19 referendum on a consolidated elementary school to be built in Roxbury.
At a news conference Wednesday in Bridgewater, Barbara Henry, the first selectwoman of Roxbury, and Bill Stuart, the first selectman of Bridgewater, released an open letter that said the two towns want to amend the educational plan on file with the state that the region has been operating under for 40 years.
They also said they "will respectfully refuse to notice a referendum on your (the school board's) consolidation of elementary schools proposal" unless -- as state law requires -- the majority of voters in each town approve an amendment that would replace existing town elementary schools with a consolidated elementary school.
School board chairman Irene Allan could not be reached for comment.
Shepaug Valley Middle/High School in Washington is a regional consolidated school for grades six through 12, but younger students attend elementary schools in their hometowns.
Henry said without the amended educational plan, the June 19 referendum "might be an illegal vote." She believes there is a valid argument that can't be ignored for requiring an amended plan.
She said town officials took an oath to obey state and local laws, and in Roxbury "that oath is taken seriously."
At a special meeting Wednesday morning, the Roxbury Board of Selectmen approved the letter. Bridgewater selectmen also approved the letter.
When the district was formed 40 years ago, the regional school study committee report said "the lower elementary grades K through 5 will remain in their respective hometown schools."
The committee's findings were approved by the state and became part of the educational plan ultimately adopted by majority votes in each of the three Region 12 towns in August 1967.
Henry said the vote in Roxbury was 263-39 to approve the region.
Last year a nonbinding vote on consolidation of elementary schools in the region failed, as have two referenda to renovate existing schools.
Henry and Stuart said in their joint letter that retaining elementary schools in each town "was a real, substantive, essential and fundamental element of the committee's report and findings" supporting regionalization in 1967.
Voters, they said, "relied on that fundamental condition in approving the creation" of Region 12.
The first selectmen said the change to having a consolidated elementary school in just one town is "such a material, substantial, profound and fundamental change to the original approved educational plan" that the plan must be amended before any other funds are expended on the concept of consolidation.
They said four attorneys, including the town attorneys of Bridgewater and Roxbury, have said they are on solid ground with their amendment request.
"The June 19 vote can not happen until they fulfill this section" of the law, Stuart said.
He thinks the drafters of the relevant state statute "protected small towns from being bullied into doing what they don't want to do" by requiring majority votes in each town in the district.
Stuart and Henry said state statutes require the school board to submit a proposed amendment to the educational plan to the state board of education, including a question that would go to voters in each town.
After hearings, each town would vote on the amendment, which would have to pass by a majority vote in each to be approved.
"Good conscience, fairness and the law requires no less," the letter said. "Such a profound change screams out for the approval of each and every town member of the school district."
The two first selectmen said they are "protecting the rights of the citizens of the three towns by imploring" the board to follow the law and amend the plan.
That the board has spent tens of thousand of tax dollars on consolidation before following the requirements of state statutes and amending the plan, they said, is a subject for future debate.
Stuart said Dick Sears, the first selectman of Washington, who favors consolidation, had not been given a copy of the letter, which was sent to state officials and all school board members Wednesday.
Bridgewater resident Bud Wright hailed the efforts of the selectmen.
"It's time for the board of education to be held accountable to the taxpayers," Wright said. "We know what's good for us."
Stuart credited Jen Iannucci of Bridgewater with discovering the applicable state statute, which he alleged had been withheld from the towns by the school board and its attorneys.
Iannucci in turn credited correspondence from Erica Barber of Woodbury in Region 14 for shedding light on the statute requiring an amended plan.
Iannucci has spearheaded Save Our Schools, an PAC formed in an effort "to retain small children in schools in their hometowns" in Region 12.
Local NEWS
Apr 19 2007 4:15 AM
Region 12 referendum faces new obstacle
Officials want educational plan amended before vote
By Lynda Wellman STAFF WRITER
Bridgewater and Roxbury officials say before any referendum on a consolidated elementary school takes place, the educational plan that formed the three-town Region 12, which also includes Washington, needs to be amended.
The Region 12 Board of Education had called for a June 19 referendum on a consolidated elementary school to be built in Roxbury.
At a news conference Wednesday in Bridgewater, Barbara Henry, the first selectwoman of Roxbury, and Bill Stuart, the first selectman of Bridgewater, released an open letter that said the two towns want to amend the educational plan on file with the state that the region has been operating under for 40 years.
They also said they "will respectfully refuse to notice a referendum on your (the school board's) consolidation of elementary schools proposal" unless -- as state law requires -- the majority of voters in each town approve an amendment that would replace existing town elementary schools with a consolidated elementary school.
School board chairman Irene Allan could not be reached for comment.
Shepaug Valley Middle/High School in Washington is a regional consolidated school for grades six through 12, but younger students attend elementary schools in their hometowns.
Henry said without the amended educational plan, the June 19 referendum "might be an illegal vote." She believes there is a valid argument that can't be ignored for requiring an amended plan.
She said town officials took an oath to obey state and local laws, and in Roxbury "that oath is taken seriously."
At a special meeting Wednesday morning, the Roxbury Board of Selectmen approved the letter. Bridgewater selectmen also approved the letter.
When the district was formed 40 years ago, the regional school study committee report said "the lower elementary grades K through 5 will remain in their respective hometown schools."
The committee's findings were approved by the state and became part of the educational plan ultimately adopted by majority votes in each of the three Region 12 towns in August 1967.
Henry said the vote in Roxbury was 263-39 to approve the region.
Last year a nonbinding vote on consolidation of elementary schools in the region failed, as have two referenda to renovate existing schools.
Henry and Stuart said in their joint letter that retaining elementary schools in each town "was a real, substantive, essential and fundamental element of the committee's report and findings" supporting regionalization in 1967.
Voters, they said, "relied on that fundamental condition in approving the creation" of Region 12.
The first selectmen said the change to having a consolidated elementary school in just one town is "such a material, substantial, profound and fundamental change to the original approved educational plan" that the plan must be amended before any other funds are expended on the concept of consolidation.
They said four attorneys, including the town attorneys of Bridgewater and Roxbury, have said they are on solid ground with their amendment request.
"The June 19 vote can not happen until they fulfill this section" of the law, Stuart said.
He thinks the drafters of the relevant state statute "protected small towns from being bullied into doing what they don't want to do" by requiring majority votes in each town in the district.
Stuart and Henry said state statutes require the school board to submit a proposed amendment to the educational plan to the state board of education, including a question that would go to voters in each town.
After hearings, each town would vote on the amendment, which would have to pass by a majority vote in each to be approved.
"Good conscience, fairness and the law requires no less," the letter said. "Such a profound change screams out for the approval of each and every town member of the school district."
The two first selectmen said they are "protecting the rights of the citizens of the three towns by imploring" the board to follow the law and amend the plan.
That the board has spent tens of thousand of tax dollars on consolidation before following the requirements of state statutes and amending the plan, they said, is a subject for future debate.
Stuart said Dick Sears, the first selectman of Washington, who favors consolidation, had not been given a copy of the letter, which was sent to state officials and all school board members Wednesday.
Bridgewater resident Bud Wright hailed the efforts of the selectmen.
"It's time for the board of education to be held accountable to the taxpayers," Wright said. "We know what's good for us."
Stuart credited Jen Iannucci of Bridgewater with discovering the applicable state statute, which he alleged had been withheld from the towns by the school board and its attorneys.
Iannucci in turn credited correspondence from Erica Barber of Woodbury in Region 14 for shedding light on the statute requiring an amended plan.
Iannucci has spearheaded Save Our Schools, an PAC formed in an effort "to retain small children in schools in their hometowns" in Region 12.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)