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 -...................................
Thursday, April 19, 2007
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.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
District 12 Board Action 4/9/07 Wrong Direction
More District 12 BOE Action
Pursuit of the Wrong Direction on April 9, 2007
Last night, April 9, the Region 12 Board of Education voted to exclude the option of keeping separate elementary schools in the three Towns comprising the Region. In a referendum scheduled for June 19, voters will have only a yes/no option on a consolidated school in Roxbury. Some background: Last spring, the Board sponsored two referenda. In the first, the voters favored the concept of renovating the existing three schools over building a new consolidated school by 1725 to 1,022. If that were a Presidential election, we’d call it a landslide. The second referendum for $37.4 million to fund those renovations failed, with 1485 voters against and 1317 for. These results suggest the voters want town schools, but not at any price.
Since then, in a concept called build to suit, each town worked to produce their own school renovation plans (I am a member of the Roxbury build to suit committee, but speak here as a private citizen). One way these plans could have been instituted was through an inter-municipal agreement between the three towns and the Board. As drafted, the towns would have paid for their own renovations, and leased the buildings to the Region, as is now done. This agreement is dead, killed by legal potholes, Washington’s withdrawal, and the Board’s vote last night not to participate.
Bridgewater’s and Roxbury’s build to suit committees have each developed fresh, viable renovation plans for their schools that are smaller and far less costly than the Board’s renovation plans that failed last year. (Washington elected to stick with essentially the same plans that failed at referendum.) Bridgewater’s plans are far enough advanced for an estimator to price construction at $7.7 million. Roxbury’s will be sent to an estimator shortly. That cost is expected to be somewhat higher than Bridgewater’s, but far less than Roxbury’s portion of the failed Board sponsored renovation. And most of what Roxbury plans to do would be eligible for the same level of state reimbursement as the consolidated school option.
These plans could and should be put to referendum by the Board, just as they intend to do with the consolidation option, but considering them was a non-starter at last night’s Board meeting. The Board considered only whether to put a consolidated school on property in Roxbury up against a rehash of the Board’s failed three-school renovation plans, or to present the consolidated school as the sole option at referendum.
The reason given for not considering the Towns’ plans is that there is insufficient time to review and hold a referendum on them. To be eligible for State reimbursement (of approximately 30%) in a given year, school building projects must have passed local referendum and been submitted to the State prior to June 30. The sense is that the rate of reimbursement will be lower next year, due to State budget reapportionment. There is also concern that construction costs will escalate. While the former is a legitimate concern, escalating costs are less worrisome than many think. We tend to forget the up side of inflation – as costs rise, so too does income. The real difference in construction costs in constant dollars is far smaller than it appears by simply viewing the cost increase.
The Board is so concerned with the State deadline, that the plan that they intend to bring to the voters in June is not fully developed. It is a “strategic number”. They would proceed with that number, presumably continuing to work with their current architects on a no-bid basis to do what’s possible within that budget. In fact, it appears that the consolidated school’s plans aren’t even as far along as the Towns’ plans.
To fully represent the interests of the voters, the Board needs to actively consider the renovation plans that have been developed by Bridgewater’s and Roxbury’s build to suit committees, and they need to look at Washington Primary through the same lens. The cost estimates that Bridgewater and Roxbury have developed represent a huge savings over the plans that failed at referendum last year, and these savings are considerably more than what we stand to lose by missing this year’s State deadline. Missing the deadline would buy us time to fully investigate the options, both of a consolidated school in Roxbury and of fresh renovation plans that would keep a school in each town.
Despite what the voters expressed in past referenda, last night’s meeting showed that a majority of the Board so favors the idea of a consolidated school that they want to shut down debate on the idea of keeping a school in each town.
It’s time the Region 12 Board of Education paid attention to the voters. I urge those who’d like to have a three school option considered to contact their Board members. It’s not too late to ask them to drop the idea of rushing an ill considered plan to referendum. I further urge supporters of three schools to attend their town meetings and vote out those Board members who supported the current referendum. Those Board members are Irene Allen, Valerie Anderson, David Baron, Michelle Gorra, Sheila Gross, and Jim Hirschfield, with Gary Steinmann abstaining. Opposing the current referendum were Ed Wainwright, Mardie Ford, Matt Franjola, Alan Brown, and Larry O’Toole. And if the referendum goes to vote as currently planned, I urge everyone to vote no, if only to foster a thoughtful debate of our options.
Pursuit of the Wrong Direction on April 9, 2007
Last night, April 9, the Region 12 Board of Education voted to exclude the option of keeping separate elementary schools in the three Towns comprising the Region. In a referendum scheduled for June 19, voters will have only a yes/no option on a consolidated school in Roxbury. Some background: Last spring, the Board sponsored two referenda. In the first, the voters favored the concept of renovating the existing three schools over building a new consolidated school by 1725 to 1,022. If that were a Presidential election, we’d call it a landslide. The second referendum for $37.4 million to fund those renovations failed, with 1485 voters against and 1317 for. These results suggest the voters want town schools, but not at any price.
Since then, in a concept called build to suit, each town worked to produce their own school renovation plans (I am a member of the Roxbury build to suit committee, but speak here as a private citizen). One way these plans could have been instituted was through an inter-municipal agreement between the three towns and the Board. As drafted, the towns would have paid for their own renovations, and leased the buildings to the Region, as is now done. This agreement is dead, killed by legal potholes, Washington’s withdrawal, and the Board’s vote last night not to participate.
Bridgewater’s and Roxbury’s build to suit committees have each developed fresh, viable renovation plans for their schools that are smaller and far less costly than the Board’s renovation plans that failed last year. (Washington elected to stick with essentially the same plans that failed at referendum.) Bridgewater’s plans are far enough advanced for an estimator to price construction at $7.7 million. Roxbury’s will be sent to an estimator shortly. That cost is expected to be somewhat higher than Bridgewater’s, but far less than Roxbury’s portion of the failed Board sponsored renovation. And most of what Roxbury plans to do would be eligible for the same level of state reimbursement as the consolidated school option.
These plans could and should be put to referendum by the Board, just as they intend to do with the consolidation option, but considering them was a non-starter at last night’s Board meeting. The Board considered only whether to put a consolidated school on property in Roxbury up against a rehash of the Board’s failed three-school renovation plans, or to present the consolidated school as the sole option at referendum.
The reason given for not considering the Towns’ plans is that there is insufficient time to review and hold a referendum on them. To be eligible for State reimbursement (of approximately 30%) in a given year, school building projects must have passed local referendum and been submitted to the State prior to June 30. The sense is that the rate of reimbursement will be lower next year, due to State budget reapportionment. There is also concern that construction costs will escalate. While the former is a legitimate concern, escalating costs are less worrisome than many think. We tend to forget the up side of inflation – as costs rise, so too does income. The real difference in construction costs in constant dollars is far smaller than it appears by simply viewing the cost increase.
The Board is so concerned with the State deadline, that the plan that they intend to bring to the voters in June is not fully developed. It is a “strategic number”. They would proceed with that number, presumably continuing to work with their current architects on a no-bid basis to do what’s possible within that budget. In fact, it appears that the consolidated school’s plans aren’t even as far along as the Towns’ plans.
To fully represent the interests of the voters, the Board needs to actively consider the renovation plans that have been developed by Bridgewater’s and Roxbury’s build to suit committees, and they need to look at Washington Primary through the same lens. The cost estimates that Bridgewater and Roxbury have developed represent a huge savings over the plans that failed at referendum last year, and these savings are considerably more than what we stand to lose by missing this year’s State deadline. Missing the deadline would buy us time to fully investigate the options, both of a consolidated school in Roxbury and of fresh renovation plans that would keep a school in each town.
Despite what the voters expressed in past referenda, last night’s meeting showed that a majority of the Board so favors the idea of a consolidated school that they want to shut down debate on the idea of keeping a school in each town.
It’s time the Region 12 Board of Education paid attention to the voters. I urge those who’d like to have a three school option considered to contact their Board members. It’s not too late to ask them to drop the idea of rushing an ill considered plan to referendum. I further urge supporters of three schools to attend their town meetings and vote out those Board members who supported the current referendum. Those Board members are Irene Allen, Valerie Anderson, David Baron, Michelle Gorra, Sheila Gross, and Jim Hirschfield, with Gary Steinmann abstaining. Opposing the current referendum were Ed Wainwright, Mardie Ford, Matt Franjola, Alan Brown, and Larry O’Toole. And if the referendum goes to vote as currently planned, I urge everyone to vote no, if only to foster a thoughtful debate of our options.
Andy Engel
Roxbury, CT
Monday, April 16, 2007
Unbelievable District 12 Actions April 9, 2007
District 12 Board Meeting April 9, 2007
Subject: Unbelievable
Please read the vision of the Building Committee following this report.
Last nights’ meeting for the BOE in the Shepaug library was unbelievable!
It showed clearly how Gary Steinman operates as Vice Chair of the Board and Chairman of the Building Committee. It also demonstrates how he pushes the Consolidated agenda ahead at all costs. Let me summarize:
A. The BOE voted to not to accept the IMA. Washington withdrew from the IMA late last week and it was presented for the first time at the BOE meeting. The BOE lawyer presented his position that the IMA was illegal which was distributed in the packet over the weekend to board members. It was the same position that was solicited by Dr. Carmelich in December 2006.
B. The second action was to vote on a motion to bring the Consolidated School on the Roxbury property to a June 19, 2007 referendum. Gary Steinman presented some strategic numbers which he had prepared (not vetted) hours before the meeting.
These numbers compared two alternatives:
1. The “3 school renovate to new plan” that was presented to the voters in March 2006. The numbers were adjusted upward for an additional 5% scenario contingency and 1 year of escalation at 6%.
2. The “Consolidated school brand new school on the Roxbury property” using the SLAM's numbers from the phase 2 of the recent feasibility study.
Gary Steinman reviewed his numbers (cost analysis) prepared on 4/9/07 (which he had not revealed to the board until the topic was presented at the meeting).
He stated that SLAM will be brought in to update the numbers and there would be no bidding process since this is an extension of the process started with SLAM.
The region would go to referendum with strategic numbers and no floor plan.
It is assumed by observers of the meeting there will be no detailed specifications, no zoning approval, no wetlands approval, no health department approval, no conservation approval, and no state DOT approval, prior to the referendum. This is because the time is too short. The primary objective for BOE is to get something to referendum by June.
The second piece of information was a schedule of events or a time line to reach the June referendum date.
Only two board members (Irene Allan and Gary Steinman) had copies of this two page document which was prepared on 4/4/07 at 10AM.
Mrs. Allan or Mr. Steinman stated that it was prepared by the bonding lawyer at the request of Bob Giesen.
Here are the key dates:
4/20/07 - Notice/agenda of board meeting posted
4/23/07 - Regular board meeting to recommend appropriation and borrowing
5/02/07 - Notice of pubic hearing posted and published
5/04/07 - Notice/agenda of meeting to the board posted and distributed
5/07/07 - Public hearing
- Regular BOE meeting to adopt Bond resolution
5/18/07 - Notice of referendum delivered to town clerks
6/04/07 - Earliest date for notice of referendum published and posted
6/13/07 - Latest date for notice of referendum published and posted
6/19/07 - Referendum
This certainly shows how the leadership of the Board of Education functions.
1. Information is withheld until the last minute, keeping many members in the dark.
2. Before the building committee met on 4/4/07, the schedule was formulated and held as a secret.
3. The building committee voted on and recommended delaying the referendum until November 2007 so that a complete job could be done with all alternatives. Their recommendation was ignored by the BC chairman. Gary Steinman presented the alternative that was abandoned by the BC as not feasible.
4. Finally, it was stated by the leadership of the BOE that build-to-suit would not be considered for the June referendum since there was not time to bring in an architect and a construction manager to review the Bridgewater and Roxbury plans.
This crisis approach has worked well for the current BOE leadership. Create a crisis by waiting to the last minute when a vote is needed to avert a significant cost. Then limit the information and time the BOE members and the public have for deliberation.
Ed Wainwright
Bridgewater, CT
Reaction by a Roxbury Resident
Thanks Ed,
In other parts of the world this is called Communism. Certain Board members are acting like Fidel Castro & his puppets. Maybe we should have a referendum to let the public decide whether we should get these BOE member’s tickets to Cuba for a permanent stay.
I’ll offer to pay to get rid of offending BOE members who are not serving the public (children especially) but rather their own ‘politically’ separatist plans to keep a BOE in power over three small communities.
And why do we think they would want to do this? The answer is simple.
“They want unquestionable power as to defining budgets and use of the money that voters approve for them to use each year. Further they want to be allowed to shift monies without question for their operations. They want to give themselves a ‘fiefdom’ that will be untouchable by the small communities that feed them this wonderful thing called educational and operational tax monies from the communities.”
I wonder what these people are getting on the ‘backside’ as I’ve seen this before in other Towns and Cities. Gee, let’s start by looking at $1.85 million for a piece of property that isn’t worth more than one single building lot at best market rate of $600,000. Where does everybody think the rest of the money is going?
And still, does everybody forget that the BOE stated to the Towns, “… that the existing schools are in dilapidated condition.” We (Roxbury, Bridgewater and Washington) gave the regional BOE educational, operational and maintenance tax monies every year so that the buildings would be properly maintained.
So, BOE, where did you spend the money that was supposed to take care of our community schools? Gee, maybe if you had taken care of them we wouldn’t need anything except for small additions to what space we’ve already got.
Again, I say, we need to take our school buildings back and control the maintenance and upgrades ourselves because, really, BOE is not experienced in maintaining buildings. They have proven this by asking/ begging for a new school, and on a new piece of property. AND, still the requirement for the three communities to fund, whatever the reuse of the existing buildings would become, hasn’t been entered into the monetary equations by BOE. Why? Because, like Washington who has a Cultural Arts end user who is interested in their building, Roxbury and Bridgewater should be forced by the BOE to go find similar alternative users. They (the BOE) are users, abusers, takers, liars, and cheaters. When are we going to smarten up, revolt, and get rid of these people? If we don’t who will? And what are we setting ourselves up for next if their power is wielded and unchallenged? Does anyone really believe that by giving in to the BOE’s biased and incomplete Proforma evaluations that they’ll be ‘off our backs’ for a while. No way, how about the fact that they want to spend $750,000. +/- on the High School Track Upgrades when it should really only cost about $250,000. (I got the quote on this one from a professional Track Upgrades company) or when they say that the ‘backside only’ roof replacement of the front section of the existing Booth School is going to cost over $100,000. This is insanity at its worst. For $100,000, I could take off the entire roof, buy new roof trusses, install them, sheath and shingle the roof and put new gutters and leaders on. Who do they think they are kidding???!!!
“A vote of ‘NO CONFIDENCE’ is overdue for the BOE Leadership!”
Warren H. Peter, Roxbury Resident
Thanks for letting me vent. WHP
Web Site District 12
April 16, 2007
Welcome to the web pages of the Region #12 Elementary School Building Committee.
We reconvene at this time to develop elementary school renewal plans in an atmosphere that has become quite politically charged. People have strong feelings about our schools and about what kind of school project should prevail. The Committee’s job, however, is to accomplish its technical planning assignments as proficiently and efficiently as possible, in compliance with the Board’s Educational Specifications. It is not our role, and the Committee would not be the proper forum, to engage in the ongoing political debates pitting Region-based elementary school projects against Town-based build-to-suit projects or a three school strategy against a single school strategy. The Building Committee will not decide which strategy will prevail. Accordingly, we will be developing the best plans we can both for the renovation and expansion of our three Town-based Schools and for the construction of a new regional elementary school. We also may be working with Town-based groups in connection with any plans that the Towns, themselves, may choose to submit to the Board of Education for its consideration. Our work will be done in public, it will be submitted in due course to the Board of Education for its consideration and the Board ultimately will present it to the Region’s voters for approval. It is also our job to communicate our work to the public. We will strive to be as transparent as possible and to provide the public with as much information as possible on which to base its ultimate choice for housing elementary education in Region #12. These web pages will be one of the tools we use in that endeavor. We will post our agendas, minutes and other documents to these pages and I will take the opportunity from time to time to comment on what is going on. We would expect, also, to hold public information meetings at key points in the process and, of course, we invite the public to attend any of our working meetings and to provide input and feedback. Please remember, as we display our work in progress here, that the planning and design of educational facilities is a step-by-step process. We may see many problematic alternatives and troublesome cost estimates before we converge on better ones. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude as Chair to the members of the Building Committee who have been willing to take our job on one more time. It is the professionalism of its past work and its experience of having worked well together in the past that make me optimistic about meeting the challenges before us..
Gary SteinmanChair Elementary School Building Committee
Vice Chair, Board of Education
Subject: Unbelievable
Please read the vision of the Building Committee following this report.
Last nights’ meeting for the BOE in the Shepaug library was unbelievable!
It showed clearly how Gary Steinman operates as Vice Chair of the Board and Chairman of the Building Committee. It also demonstrates how he pushes the Consolidated agenda ahead at all costs. Let me summarize:
A. The BOE voted to not to accept the IMA. Washington withdrew from the IMA late last week and it was presented for the first time at the BOE meeting. The BOE lawyer presented his position that the IMA was illegal which was distributed in the packet over the weekend to board members. It was the same position that was solicited by Dr. Carmelich in December 2006.
B. The second action was to vote on a motion to bring the Consolidated School on the Roxbury property to a June 19, 2007 referendum. Gary Steinman presented some strategic numbers which he had prepared (not vetted) hours before the meeting.
These numbers compared two alternatives:
1. The “3 school renovate to new plan” that was presented to the voters in March 2006. The numbers were adjusted upward for an additional 5% scenario contingency and 1 year of escalation at 6%.
2. The “Consolidated school brand new school on the Roxbury property” using the SLAM's numbers from the phase 2 of the recent feasibility study.
Gary Steinman reviewed his numbers (cost analysis) prepared on 4/9/07 (which he had not revealed to the board until the topic was presented at the meeting).
He stated that SLAM will be brought in to update the numbers and there would be no bidding process since this is an extension of the process started with SLAM.
The region would go to referendum with strategic numbers and no floor plan.
It is assumed by observers of the meeting there will be no detailed specifications, no zoning approval, no wetlands approval, no health department approval, no conservation approval, and no state DOT approval, prior to the referendum. This is because the time is too short. The primary objective for BOE is to get something to referendum by June.
The second piece of information was a schedule of events or a time line to reach the June referendum date.
Only two board members (Irene Allan and Gary Steinman) had copies of this two page document which was prepared on 4/4/07 at 10AM.
Mrs. Allan or Mr. Steinman stated that it was prepared by the bonding lawyer at the request of Bob Giesen.
Here are the key dates:
4/20/07 - Notice/agenda of board meeting posted
4/23/07 - Regular board meeting to recommend appropriation and borrowing
5/02/07 - Notice of pubic hearing posted and published
5/04/07 - Notice/agenda of meeting to the board posted and distributed
5/07/07 - Public hearing
- Regular BOE meeting to adopt Bond resolution
5/18/07 - Notice of referendum delivered to town clerks
6/04/07 - Earliest date for notice of referendum published and posted
6/13/07 - Latest date for notice of referendum published and posted
6/19/07 - Referendum
This certainly shows how the leadership of the Board of Education functions.
1. Information is withheld until the last minute, keeping many members in the dark.
2. Before the building committee met on 4/4/07, the schedule was formulated and held as a secret.
3. The building committee voted on and recommended delaying the referendum until November 2007 so that a complete job could be done with all alternatives. Their recommendation was ignored by the BC chairman. Gary Steinman presented the alternative that was abandoned by the BC as not feasible.
4. Finally, it was stated by the leadership of the BOE that build-to-suit would not be considered for the June referendum since there was not time to bring in an architect and a construction manager to review the Bridgewater and Roxbury plans.
This crisis approach has worked well for the current BOE leadership. Create a crisis by waiting to the last minute when a vote is needed to avert a significant cost. Then limit the information and time the BOE members and the public have for deliberation.
Ed Wainwright
Bridgewater, CT
Reaction by a Roxbury Resident
Thanks Ed,
In other parts of the world this is called Communism. Certain Board members are acting like Fidel Castro & his puppets. Maybe we should have a referendum to let the public decide whether we should get these BOE member’s tickets to Cuba for a permanent stay.
I’ll offer to pay to get rid of offending BOE members who are not serving the public (children especially) but rather their own ‘politically’ separatist plans to keep a BOE in power over three small communities.
And why do we think they would want to do this? The answer is simple.
“They want unquestionable power as to defining budgets and use of the money that voters approve for them to use each year. Further they want to be allowed to shift monies without question for their operations. They want to give themselves a ‘fiefdom’ that will be untouchable by the small communities that feed them this wonderful thing called educational and operational tax monies from the communities.”
I wonder what these people are getting on the ‘backside’ as I’ve seen this before in other Towns and Cities. Gee, let’s start by looking at $1.85 million for a piece of property that isn’t worth more than one single building lot at best market rate of $600,000. Where does everybody think the rest of the money is going?
And still, does everybody forget that the BOE stated to the Towns, “… that the existing schools are in dilapidated condition.” We (Roxbury, Bridgewater and Washington) gave the regional BOE educational, operational and maintenance tax monies every year so that the buildings would be properly maintained.
So, BOE, where did you spend the money that was supposed to take care of our community schools? Gee, maybe if you had taken care of them we wouldn’t need anything except for small additions to what space we’ve already got.
Again, I say, we need to take our school buildings back and control the maintenance and upgrades ourselves because, really, BOE is not experienced in maintaining buildings. They have proven this by asking/ begging for a new school, and on a new piece of property. AND, still the requirement for the three communities to fund, whatever the reuse of the existing buildings would become, hasn’t been entered into the monetary equations by BOE. Why? Because, like Washington who has a Cultural Arts end user who is interested in their building, Roxbury and Bridgewater should be forced by the BOE to go find similar alternative users. They (the BOE) are users, abusers, takers, liars, and cheaters. When are we going to smarten up, revolt, and get rid of these people? If we don’t who will? And what are we setting ourselves up for next if their power is wielded and unchallenged? Does anyone really believe that by giving in to the BOE’s biased and incomplete Proforma evaluations that they’ll be ‘off our backs’ for a while. No way, how about the fact that they want to spend $750,000. +/- on the High School Track Upgrades when it should really only cost about $250,000. (I got the quote on this one from a professional Track Upgrades company) or when they say that the ‘backside only’ roof replacement of the front section of the existing Booth School is going to cost over $100,000. This is insanity at its worst. For $100,000, I could take off the entire roof, buy new roof trusses, install them, sheath and shingle the roof and put new gutters and leaders on. Who do they think they are kidding???!!!
“A vote of ‘NO CONFIDENCE’ is overdue for the BOE Leadership!”
Warren H. Peter, Roxbury Resident
Thanks for letting me vent. WHP
Web Site District 12
April 16, 2007
Welcome to the web pages of the Region #12 Elementary School Building Committee.
We reconvene at this time to develop elementary school renewal plans in an atmosphere that has become quite politically charged. People have strong feelings about our schools and about what kind of school project should prevail. The Committee’s job, however, is to accomplish its technical planning assignments as proficiently and efficiently as possible, in compliance with the Board’s Educational Specifications. It is not our role, and the Committee would not be the proper forum, to engage in the ongoing political debates pitting Region-based elementary school projects against Town-based build-to-suit projects or a three school strategy against a single school strategy. The Building Committee will not decide which strategy will prevail. Accordingly, we will be developing the best plans we can both for the renovation and expansion of our three Town-based Schools and for the construction of a new regional elementary school. We also may be working with Town-based groups in connection with any plans that the Towns, themselves, may choose to submit to the Board of Education for its consideration. Our work will be done in public, it will be submitted in due course to the Board of Education for its consideration and the Board ultimately will present it to the Region’s voters for approval. It is also our job to communicate our work to the public. We will strive to be as transparent as possible and to provide the public with as much information as possible on which to base its ultimate choice for housing elementary education in Region #12. These web pages will be one of the tools we use in that endeavor. We will post our agendas, minutes and other documents to these pages and I will take the opportunity from time to time to comment on what is going on. We would expect, also, to hold public information meetings at key points in the process and, of course, we invite the public to attend any of our working meetings and to provide input and feedback. Please remember, as we display our work in progress here, that the planning and design of educational facilities is a step-by-step process. We may see many problematic alternatives and troublesome cost estimates before we converge on better ones. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude as Chair to the members of the Building Committee who have been willing to take our job on one more time. It is the professionalism of its past work and its experience of having worked well together in the past that make me optimistic about meeting the challenges before us..
Gary SteinmanChair Elementary School Building Committee
Vice Chair, Board of Education
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Roxbury Land Trust Has 7 Environmental Concerns
VOICES
04/11/2007
Land Trust Seeks Evaluation of New School Impact on Site
By: John Addyman
ROXBURY - In an April 2 letter to the Conservation Commission, the Roxbury Land Trust has asked the commission to "review and evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed consolidated school site...and advise the Board of Selectmen and the Region 12 school board of its findings as soon as possible."
The letter, written by Land Trust President Barbara Ungeheuer, details seven areas of concern.
The property in question, 20 acres off Route 199, belongs to Jack Mundy. The school board has an option to purchase it for potential use as a regional elementary school.
First, the Land Trust notes that the Mundy property was designated as part of the ring of "desirable open space" in the 1999 Roxbury Plan of Conservation and Development.
Ms. Ungeheuer notes that much has been done to convert that "desirable" open space into protected areas, "and the Land Trust continues to seek opportunities for further protection with that ring."
Second, the Mundy property abuts Battleswamp Brook and the Land Trust's 24-acre Battleswamp Preserve and a 16-acre Weantinoge Heritage Preserve.
The proposed school building will overlook the brook and preserves and Ms. Ungeheuer asks, "Can this building site location and configuration allow for zero impact on the brooks, the wetlands and the preserves?"
Third, the Land Trust notes that just nine of the 22 acres of the school site will be developed and asks about future expansion or plan modifications into sloped areas or wetlands.
Fourth, with so much impermeable cover due to the building footprint, driveways and parking area, the Land Trust is concerned about runoff and pollution.
"Where would the storm water be retained on this limited site? Does the site plan and budget allow for adequate systems to deal with it [runoff]?" asks Ms. Ungeheuer.
Fifth, the Land Trust wants to know where septic fields will be and if the site can really accommodate the septic load required of a 450-student school.
Sixth, because one slice of the Mundy property may now be used, what happens to the rest, the Land Trust wondered?
"Has an analysis been made on the potential total impact on the brook from both sides of the property?"
Seventh, the Land Trust surmises that accommodating septic and storm water runoff in an environmentally friendly way may be expensive.
"Will the budget accommodate the necessary preventive measures or necessary oversight?" Ms. Ungeheuer asks. "Will there be guarantees for zero impact on our environmentally valuable adjacent preserve and Battleswamp Brook during the construction period?"
04/11/2007
Land Trust Seeks Evaluation of New School Impact on Site
By: John Addyman
ROXBURY - In an April 2 letter to the Conservation Commission, the Roxbury Land Trust has asked the commission to "review and evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed consolidated school site...and advise the Board of Selectmen and the Region 12 school board of its findings as soon as possible."
The letter, written by Land Trust President Barbara Ungeheuer, details seven areas of concern.
The property in question, 20 acres off Route 199, belongs to Jack Mundy. The school board has an option to purchase it for potential use as a regional elementary school.
First, the Land Trust notes that the Mundy property was designated as part of the ring of "desirable open space" in the 1999 Roxbury Plan of Conservation and Development.
Ms. Ungeheuer notes that much has been done to convert that "desirable" open space into protected areas, "and the Land Trust continues to seek opportunities for further protection with that ring."
Second, the Mundy property abuts Battleswamp Brook and the Land Trust's 24-acre Battleswamp Preserve and a 16-acre Weantinoge Heritage Preserve.
The proposed school building will overlook the brook and preserves and Ms. Ungeheuer asks, "Can this building site location and configuration allow for zero impact on the brooks, the wetlands and the preserves?"
Third, the Land Trust notes that just nine of the 22 acres of the school site will be developed and asks about future expansion or plan modifications into sloped areas or wetlands.
Fourth, with so much impermeable cover due to the building footprint, driveways and parking area, the Land Trust is concerned about runoff and pollution.
"Where would the storm water be retained on this limited site? Does the site plan and budget allow for adequate systems to deal with it [runoff]?" asks Ms. Ungeheuer.
Fifth, the Land Trust wants to know where septic fields will be and if the site can really accommodate the septic load required of a 450-student school.
Sixth, because one slice of the Mundy property may now be used, what happens to the rest, the Land Trust wondered?
"Has an analysis been made on the potential total impact on the brook from both sides of the property?"
Seventh, the Land Trust surmises that accommodating septic and storm water runoff in an environmentally friendly way may be expensive.
"Will the budget accommodate the necessary preventive measures or necessary oversight?" Ms. Ungeheuer asks. "Will there be guarantees for zero impact on our environmentally valuable adjacent preserve and Battleswamp Brook during the construction period?"
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Roxbury Consolidated School Property Value
Subject: Roxbury News Brief
Roxburian questions price of Mundy property
Roxbury resident Holly Flor asked the Region 12 Board of Education’s Building Committee at a March 28 meeting whether the Mundy site in Roxbury is a done deal to be purchased as a site for a consolidated elementary school.
The regional school board had optioned the 20-acre site last month for one year for $18,500. Some residents have argued the Mundy property, which has a $1.85 million price tag, has limitations for development as a school site.
Architects have said, however, the site would be suitable for a school and board chairman Irene Allan said there is no other centrally located site on the market.
“I question the scope of the search,” replied Ms. Flor, who remarked she had paid $605,000 for 20 adjacent acres in Roxbury last year, and also owns an additional, flat, 17-acre site.
Asked if her property is on the market, Ms. Flor replied she, and she’s sure others, would be “willing to sell anything for three times the market value.”
— Lynda Wellman
Roxburian questions price of Mundy property
Roxbury resident Holly Flor asked the Region 12 Board of Education’s Building Committee at a March 28 meeting whether the Mundy site in Roxbury is a done deal to be purchased as a site for a consolidated elementary school.
The regional school board had optioned the 20-acre site last month for one year for $18,500. Some residents have argued the Mundy property, which has a $1.85 million price tag, has limitations for development as a school site.
Architects have said, however, the site would be suitable for a school and board chairman Irene Allan said there is no other centrally located site on the market.
“I question the scope of the search,” replied Ms. Flor, who remarked she had paid $605,000 for 20 adjacent acres in Roxbury last year, and also owns an additional, flat, 17-acre site.
Asked if her property is on the market, Ms. Flor replied she, and she’s sure others, would be “willing to sell anything for three times the market value.”
— Lynda Wellman
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Why is There a "Do Over For Consolidation" Again
A do-over coming?
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Copyright © 2007 Republican-American
One of the endearing aspects of professional sports is once the final buzzer sounds or the last out is recorded, the decision stands. There is no talk whatsoever of handing the 1985 World Series trophy to the St. Louis Cardinals because umpire Don Denkinger's bad call in game 6 gave the Kansas City Royals a chance to win. The National Football League is not contemplating awarding the 2006 Super Bowl trophy to the Seattle Seahawks because poor officiating benefited the Pittsburgh Steelers.
In politics and government, however, there are do-overs. How many times did voters in Oxford, and in Beacon Falls and Prospect, reject high-school proposals? Not enough, apparently. Rare is the election result that is more important than the need to accept it in the name of national stability and move on, a point Richard M. Nixon, of all people, understood after massive voter fraud cost him the 1960 presidential election.
Which brings us to Region 12. Whenever voters in Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington have been given a chance to abandon their three elementary schools in favor of a single super-duper school serving all three towns, they've said, "No, thank you. We'll keep our little town schools even if they cost more and don't offer as many programs." But they have been unable to reach agreement on the cost of renovating the three schools.
There always has been a lurking suspicion that one-school advocates on the school board and administration have inflated the cost of preserving the three-school option in the hope of wearing down the majority, thereby getting the outcome they want in some future referendum. They're pushing ahead with a plan to buy 20 acres in Roxbury for $1.85 million for a districtwide elementary school.
On the contrary, the people have spoken. The duty of Region 12 leaders is not to convince the people they were wrong -- they knew going in that the three-school option would come with extra costs and program restrictions -- but to implement their will in the most cost-effective manner possible. Buying land for a project voters manifestly have not authorized is tantamount to malfeasance.
Editor's Note:
Why not a Referendum now on "Consolidation" or "Not"
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Copyright © 2007 Republican-American
One of the endearing aspects of professional sports is once the final buzzer sounds or the last out is recorded, the decision stands. There is no talk whatsoever of handing the 1985 World Series trophy to the St. Louis Cardinals because umpire Don Denkinger's bad call in game 6 gave the Kansas City Royals a chance to win. The National Football League is not contemplating awarding the 2006 Super Bowl trophy to the Seattle Seahawks because poor officiating benefited the Pittsburgh Steelers.
In politics and government, however, there are do-overs. How many times did voters in Oxford, and in Beacon Falls and Prospect, reject high-school proposals? Not enough, apparently. Rare is the election result that is more important than the need to accept it in the name of national stability and move on, a point Richard M. Nixon, of all people, understood after massive voter fraud cost him the 1960 presidential election.
Which brings us to Region 12. Whenever voters in Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington have been given a chance to abandon their three elementary schools in favor of a single super-duper school serving all three towns, they've said, "No, thank you. We'll keep our little town schools even if they cost more and don't offer as many programs." But they have been unable to reach agreement on the cost of renovating the three schools.
There always has been a lurking suspicion that one-school advocates on the school board and administration have inflated the cost of preserving the three-school option in the hope of wearing down the majority, thereby getting the outcome they want in some future referendum. They're pushing ahead with a plan to buy 20 acres in Roxbury for $1.85 million for a districtwide elementary school.
On the contrary, the people have spoken. The duty of Region 12 leaders is not to convince the people they were wrong -- they knew going in that the three-school option would come with extra costs and program restrictions -- but to implement their will in the most cost-effective manner possible. Buying land for a project voters manifestly have not authorized is tantamount to malfeasance.
Editor's Note:
Why not a Referendum now on "Consolidation" or "Not"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)