Approve negotiated leases for Region 12 elementary schools now
Newstimes/Spectrum
Posted: 02/04/2009 09:54:01 PM EST
To the Editor:
Region 12 has been trying to solve the elementary school buildings issue for seven years.
In 2006 a number of referendums failed regarding consolidation and renovation of the town schools.
In 2006 and 2007 the towns brought forth formal town proposals prepared by architects for renovations of the local schools.
In 2007 and 2008, after much deliberation with an independent evaluation of these proposals, the June 2008 deadline for submission to the state of Connecticut was missed.
The lease committee was working with the town selectmen since August 2007 on long-term leases containing a list of prior repairs submitted by the towns.
In November 2008 the lease committee reached agreement in principle and agreement on the lease language. The cost of the town school repairs list is just under $1.8 million.
Assuming a 20-year bond, on average these repairs will cost less that .05 percent of the annual school budget.
After using the current year repair budget of $100,000 and using the 1 percent fund, the bond would be less than $1.4 million.
Here are reasons to approve the negotiated 20-year lease now:
1. It is important capitalize on the low interest rates and the goodwill created by the lease committee. This is first time the town officials and the region are in agreement on this subject.
After all this time and effort, it is prudent and ethical to approve the leases. To shelve the 20-year lease indicates the region was not negotiating in good faith.
2. The annual cost of the elementary school repairs is less than the annual cost of the repairs of the Shepaug Middle School/High School building.
3. It is unlikely there will be a repair and maintenance referendum this spring, if further changes are made and must be vetted, since the budget referendum must take first priority. There will not be enough time between the first week of April and the first week of May (when the first budget referendum is required) to hold a repair and maintenance referendum.
It takes six weeks to go through process of a hearing and the 30-day period. So the repair/maintenance referendum will take place after the budget and the current leases expire on June 30.
Then the 20-year lease renegotiation will occur in the fall of 2009 to adjust the lease language and repairs list to reflect the maintenance referendum.
With the region and towns in agreement now, why open another negotiation cycle later this year?
4. One immediate benefit of approving the negotiated 20-year lease now, is the Burnham school fuel oil tank is eligible for state reimbursement.
This means $20,000 of state aid that the region could receive to assist with the cost of this replacement.
Whereas, if the 20 year lease is shelved, this replacement job at Burnham will be completed before the 20 year lease is in place and therefore there will be no state aid.
Ed Wainwright
Bridgewater
Monday, February 9, 2009
Lease Action Delayed Another Month
Lease action delayed
By Lynda WellmanSTAFF WRITER
Posted: 02/04/2009 07:11:05 PM EST
Proposed primary school leases for town-owned buildings in Region 12 are stalled once again.
Without the 20-year leases, the region can't get state reimbursement for eligible work. It has already forfeited $51,000 for roof work and stands to lose $20,000 for replacing an oil tank.
After more than an hour of debate Monday, the regional Board of Education voted 8-3 to table action on the leases in order to have them reviewed by the board's attorney.
Several members of the regional board that covers Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington appeared ready to vote and were shocked to learn that a legal review had not occurred.
Asked why, Superintendent Bruce Storm said, "I'm too cheap."
Dr. Storm explained he's keeping a close watch on legal billing and noted leases before the board are the seventh draft.
"We let the attorneys for the towns develop [the leases] to save our money," Dr. Storm said.
The issue has been contentious for almost two years, with the towns demanding the region agree to complete lists of maintenance and repair items.
Board member and lease committee chairman Jim Hirschfield said the proposed leases obligate the board "to fund the repairs in five years."
The estimate for the work totals about $1.8 million, but that number is being scrutinized by a working committee established by Dr. Storm, who proposed last month the work be bonded and completed in one project outside of the leases.
The goal of the working committee is to have the cost estimates to Dr. Storm by April for presentation to the board, and if approved, eventually to a referendum vote in the region.
Mr. Hirschfield noted if a referendum on repairs passes, then the lease obligation would be eliminated. If there is a vote for consolidation, the repairs would still have to be completed.
He said residents deserve a chance to weigh in the leases, but he's also concerned that the buildings are old and the proposal would not be economical going forward.
The proposed leases require the board to include a minimum $100,000 annually in the budget for the first five years of the leases for primary school repairs as well as up to 0.75 percent of any operating surplus up to 1 percent of the budget.
Member Tony Bedini, who chairs the working committee, predicted "$100,000 isn't going to begin to do the job" and the board would be looking at a "big number" in five years.
Member Irene Allan said it's unacceptable for the board to agree to leases that obligate the board to complete repairs at the expense of educational priorities.
"If we have repairs in the budget, who is going to guarantee those budgets will pass?" she asked. "I think this entire document is misguided."
"I'm not against doing the repairs," Ms. Allan said. "I am against codifying them in a lease."
"We are mixing two really separate issues," said Valerie Andersen. "Where are the dollars coming from to do this in five years with no bond?"
She urged tabling the leases until the board could complete repair estimates, know the results of a bonding referendum for repairs, and know what impact a new Washington Primary School or consolidation in the future would have if 20-year leases are in place.
In years six through 20 of the leases, the region is to guarantee $150,000 in budgets for ongoing maintenance.
Dave Baron, the board's facilities committee chairman and a lease committee member, said the board has averaged more than $150,000 annually in past years on maintenance and repairs.
"It's goofy to say we are tying ourselves up," he said. "We are overdue for this folks. Get on board"¦ it's time to just face this and move forward."
Board chairman Matt Franjola argued lease approval should come before any bond referendum. He said not approving the leases would engender ill will in the towns and there would be no leases in the foreseeable future.
"We have to take care of what has not been done," Mr. Franjola said, adding, in this economy "I think consolidation is doubly dead and renovation is slightly dead."
Others said they support a bond referendum for repairs, but agreed the leases need to go forward as well, that the two issues were not mutually exclusive.
"We can't duck the lease issue," said Mardie Ford, who along with Ed Wainwright and Kelly Lott opposed tabling a vote on the leases.
Mr. Wainwright said shelving the leases when there is agreement with the towns would be seen by the public as not negotiating in good faith. He fears with a budget referendum coming there won't be time for a bonding referendum for repairs.
If the board approves the leases, then they will go to town meetings in the three towns for approval and then to the state for approval.
By Lynda WellmanSTAFF WRITER
Posted: 02/04/2009 07:11:05 PM EST
Proposed primary school leases for town-owned buildings in Region 12 are stalled once again.
Without the 20-year leases, the region can't get state reimbursement for eligible work. It has already forfeited $51,000 for roof work and stands to lose $20,000 for replacing an oil tank.
After more than an hour of debate Monday, the regional Board of Education voted 8-3 to table action on the leases in order to have them reviewed by the board's attorney.
Several members of the regional board that covers Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington appeared ready to vote and were shocked to learn that a legal review had not occurred.
Asked why, Superintendent Bruce Storm said, "I'm too cheap."
Dr. Storm explained he's keeping a close watch on legal billing and noted leases before the board are the seventh draft.
"We let the attorneys for the towns develop [the leases] to save our money," Dr. Storm said.
The issue has been contentious for almost two years, with the towns demanding the region agree to complete lists of maintenance and repair items.
Board member and lease committee chairman Jim Hirschfield said the proposed leases obligate the board "to fund the repairs in five years."
The estimate for the work totals about $1.8 million, but that number is being scrutinized by a working committee established by Dr. Storm, who proposed last month the work be bonded and completed in one project outside of the leases.
The goal of the working committee is to have the cost estimates to Dr. Storm by April for presentation to the board, and if approved, eventually to a referendum vote in the region.
Mr. Hirschfield noted if a referendum on repairs passes, then the lease obligation would be eliminated. If there is a vote for consolidation, the repairs would still have to be completed.
He said residents deserve a chance to weigh in the leases, but he's also concerned that the buildings are old and the proposal would not be economical going forward.
The proposed leases require the board to include a minimum $100,000 annually in the budget for the first five years of the leases for primary school repairs as well as up to 0.75 percent of any operating surplus up to 1 percent of the budget.
Member Tony Bedini, who chairs the working committee, predicted "$100,000 isn't going to begin to do the job" and the board would be looking at a "big number" in five years.
Member Irene Allan said it's unacceptable for the board to agree to leases that obligate the board to complete repairs at the expense of educational priorities.
"If we have repairs in the budget, who is going to guarantee those budgets will pass?" she asked. "I think this entire document is misguided."
"I'm not against doing the repairs," Ms. Allan said. "I am against codifying them in a lease."
"We are mixing two really separate issues," said Valerie Andersen. "Where are the dollars coming from to do this in five years with no bond?"
She urged tabling the leases until the board could complete repair estimates, know the results of a bonding referendum for repairs, and know what impact a new Washington Primary School or consolidation in the future would have if 20-year leases are in place.
In years six through 20 of the leases, the region is to guarantee $150,000 in budgets for ongoing maintenance.
Dave Baron, the board's facilities committee chairman and a lease committee member, said the board has averaged more than $150,000 annually in past years on maintenance and repairs.
"It's goofy to say we are tying ourselves up," he said. "We are overdue for this folks. Get on board"¦ it's time to just face this and move forward."
Board chairman Matt Franjola argued lease approval should come before any bond referendum. He said not approving the leases would engender ill will in the towns and there would be no leases in the foreseeable future.
"We have to take care of what has not been done," Mr. Franjola said, adding, in this economy "I think consolidation is doubly dead and renovation is slightly dead."
Others said they support a bond referendum for repairs, but agreed the leases need to go forward as well, that the two issues were not mutually exclusive.
"We can't duck the lease issue," said Mardie Ford, who along with Ed Wainwright and Kelly Lott opposed tabling a vote on the leases.
Mr. Wainwright said shelving the leases when there is agreement with the towns would be seen by the public as not negotiating in good faith. He fears with a budget referendum coming there won't be time for a bonding referendum for repairs.
If the board approves the leases, then they will go to town meetings in the three towns for approval and then to the state for approval.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Bridgewater Voter Rights Letter by J Ronan
Bridgewater residents should have voters rights
Newstimes
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:44:31 PM EST
To the Editor:
This is why Judge Pickard's decision on the Region 12 vs. Bridgewater should be reversed on appeal.
It is a "Voters Rights" issue not a "Replacement of Buildings" issue.
The first referendum to form Region 12 in 1967 failed. The towns did not approve the temporary regional school study committee plan.
The committee went back to work and addressed the concerns of the residents by adding the following to the plan:
"Elementary grades K-5 to remain in their present home town schools." The original 1967 approved plan is posted on the District 12 Web site.
The second referendum was worded:
"Shall the town of Bridgewater join with the following named towns of Roxbury, Washington, in the establishment of a regional school district with schools located in the towns of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington, for the purpose of providing the necessary facilities and administering grades K through 12 of public schools."
This referendum was approved by the voters in each of the towns as required and Region 12 was established by the state Board of Education.
If the voters in Bridgewater in 1967 knew that a judge could override their vote in 2008 and rule that Region 12 could "Close their local school" or have "No school" in Bridgewater, then they would have voted no.
Judge Pickard used the 1975 legal action brought against District 15 as the basis of his decision.
In this case, District 15 replaced its high school in Southbury with a new building at another site in Southbury.
The old high school became the Middle School and no schools were closed in Southbury or Middlebury.
This is obviously a "Replacement of Buildings" issue and does not fit the situation in Region 12.
Region 12 is a "Voters Rights" issue.
The residents of the town of Bridgewater must have the right to approve the closing of their local school and approve having no school in Bridgewater, as outlined in section 10-47c of the state education department statutes.
Jerry Ronan
Bridgewater
Newstimes
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:44:31 PM EST
To the Editor:
This is why Judge Pickard's decision on the Region 12 vs. Bridgewater should be reversed on appeal.
It is a "Voters Rights" issue not a "Replacement of Buildings" issue.
The first referendum to form Region 12 in 1967 failed. The towns did not approve the temporary regional school study committee plan.
The committee went back to work and addressed the concerns of the residents by adding the following to the plan:
"Elementary grades K-5 to remain in their present home town schools." The original 1967 approved plan is posted on the District 12 Web site.
The second referendum was worded:
"Shall the town of Bridgewater join with the following named towns of Roxbury, Washington, in the establishment of a regional school district with schools located in the towns of Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington, for the purpose of providing the necessary facilities and administering grades K through 12 of public schools."
This referendum was approved by the voters in each of the towns as required and Region 12 was established by the state Board of Education.
If the voters in Bridgewater in 1967 knew that a judge could override their vote in 2008 and rule that Region 12 could "Close their local school" or have "No school" in Bridgewater, then they would have voted no.
Judge Pickard used the 1975 legal action brought against District 15 as the basis of his decision.
In this case, District 15 replaced its high school in Southbury with a new building at another site in Southbury.
The old high school became the Middle School and no schools were closed in Southbury or Middlebury.
This is obviously a "Replacement of Buildings" issue and does not fit the situation in Region 12.
Region 12 is a "Voters Rights" issue.
The residents of the town of Bridgewater must have the right to approve the closing of their local school and approve having no school in Bridgewater, as outlined in section 10-47c of the state education department statutes.
Jerry Ronan
Bridgewater
Bridgewater Town Appove Added legal Funds
Bridgewater OKs more money for court appeal
By Lynda Wellman
STAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:43:59 PM EST
Bridgewater residents voted unanimously Tuesday night at a town meeting to add $37,360 to the current budget to continue a state Supreme Court appeal.
In an effort to retain control over the fate of its primary school, last spring Bridgewater appealed Litchfield Superior Court Judge John Pickard's decision in favor of the Region 12 School District that includes Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington.
Judge Pickard ruled March 3 that a vote on any proposed consolidated primary school is essentially a facility issue. Bridgewater, however, argues it is a matter of voter rights, not a facility issue.
The town argues primary school consolidation is a fundamental change in the decades-old regionalization agreement that kept K-5 schools in each of the region's towns.
"Each individual town has to be able to vote "yes" to change the plan, that's the key thing," Bridgewater First Selectman Bill Stuart said. "Our votes are important to us."
If Judge Pickard's ruling stands, consolidation could be decided by a majority vote of residents of the region as a whole, even if the majority of Bridgewater residents vote against consolidation.
Members of the political action committee "Save Our Schools" urged the town to spend the additional money to pursue the appeal.
Nancy Hawley, the SOS treasurer, said after the vote she was happy with the result since "we are so close to a decision in this case."
"It's been a long battle preserving a small Town's rights," she said, remarking a larger town, such as Washington, should not have the right to determine if the Burnham School in Bridgewater should be closed.
A "very happy" Mr. Stuart said after Tuesday's town meeting vote that with the current economy the idea of building a new school is on hold, but he expects it will be back in the future.
Mr. Stuart said the law firm handling the Supreme Court appeal, Horton Shields & Knox, has agreed to cap its fees at $50,000 since the firm can use the research and preliminary work done by the town's initial appeal attorney, Charles Bauer.
"This will be the end of it," Mr. Stuart told the four dozen residents who attended Tuesday's 10-minute town meeting.
He said the case is expected to be argued before the state Supreme Court sometime this spring, in March or April.
Jen Iannucci, an SOS member, said she was "extremely pleased with the result" that showed "townspeople are behind the appeal."
The town has spent $61,000 on the case -- $19,600 on the Superior Court lawsuit and $41,400 on the appeal as of Dec. 31.
By Lynda Wellman
STAFF WRITER
Updated: 01/21/2009 10:43:59 PM EST
Bridgewater residents voted unanimously Tuesday night at a town meeting to add $37,360 to the current budget to continue a state Supreme Court appeal.
In an effort to retain control over the fate of its primary school, last spring Bridgewater appealed Litchfield Superior Court Judge John Pickard's decision in favor of the Region 12 School District that includes Bridgewater, Roxbury and Washington.
Judge Pickard ruled March 3 that a vote on any proposed consolidated primary school is essentially a facility issue. Bridgewater, however, argues it is a matter of voter rights, not a facility issue.
The town argues primary school consolidation is a fundamental change in the decades-old regionalization agreement that kept K-5 schools in each of the region's towns.
"Each individual town has to be able to vote "yes" to change the plan, that's the key thing," Bridgewater First Selectman Bill Stuart said. "Our votes are important to us."
If Judge Pickard's ruling stands, consolidation could be decided by a majority vote of residents of the region as a whole, even if the majority of Bridgewater residents vote against consolidation.
Members of the political action committee "Save Our Schools" urged the town to spend the additional money to pursue the appeal.
Nancy Hawley, the SOS treasurer, said after the vote she was happy with the result since "we are so close to a decision in this case."
"It's been a long battle preserving a small Town's rights," she said, remarking a larger town, such as Washington, should not have the right to determine if the Burnham School in Bridgewater should be closed.
A "very happy" Mr. Stuart said after Tuesday's town meeting vote that with the current economy the idea of building a new school is on hold, but he expects it will be back in the future.
Mr. Stuart said the law firm handling the Supreme Court appeal, Horton Shields & Knox, has agreed to cap its fees at $50,000 since the firm can use the research and preliminary work done by the town's initial appeal attorney, Charles Bauer.
"This will be the end of it," Mr. Stuart told the four dozen residents who attended Tuesday's 10-minute town meeting.
He said the case is expected to be argued before the state Supreme Court sometime this spring, in March or April.
Jen Iannucci, an SOS member, said she was "extremely pleased with the result" that showed "townspeople are behind the appeal."
The town has spent $61,000 on the case -- $19,600 on the Superior Court lawsuit and $41,400 on the appeal as of Dec. 31.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)