Sewers, Education and the Charter

Residents dwelled on toilet matters at a public forum at the on Saturday: sewers, that is.

One of its hosts, Town Council member Rob Pescatore, Jr., R-2, said, “each household could have to pay a sewer assessment as high as $30,000” once it connects to the north Nichols Sewer Project.

He and Council Minority Leader Mary Beth Thornton, D-2, hosted event, which updated at a sparse crowd about the education budget, Charter revision and the sewer project that includes some 900 homes in the district.

After the meeting one observer noted that that may make it more costly to get water out of your house than in it.

Fred Mascia, Project Manager with Tighe & Bond, a Consulting Engineering firm retained by First Selectman Tim Herbst to oversee the project, told the audience what the firm is doing, explained why costs have risen and answered questions about individual concerns and problems. The Town Council is poised to vote tonight to approve adding $4.5 million to the bonding owing to an increased amount of rock, among other causes.

The project began in September 2009 and is now 78 percent complete. All the main and lateral lines are scheduled to be completed by November 2011. Repaving will be started when asphalt plants open in spring and should be finished by July 2012.

Pescatore said council approval of the $4.5 million will bring the the total bonding authority to $34.5 million.

A District two resident asked how costs that began with a low bid of $24.9 million were about to rise to $34.5 million.

Mascia responded that the largest single element was that someone – someone unknown – “halved the amount of stone that had to be moved when the pipe trenches are dug.” When Tighe & Bond recalculated, the “new” amount resulted in an additional $2.4 million.

That, plus “change orders, a pavement restoration program” and a complementary project folded into this one raised the estimate to $29.8 million, he said.

Tighe & Bond are on the job every day, managing the project, raising the level of independent oversight and performing value engineering services that have thus far saved almost $1 million – against a cost of $1.1 million for T&B for the current fiscal year.

Mascia told the audience “they will remain on the job until June 2012 at an additional cost of $785,000.” Three-quarters of this cost will be borne by the people whose homes are a part of the sewer project, the remainder by the town.

One of their objectives, Mascia also said, is to assure the work is done as per the contract. “Tighe & Bond runs three tests before acceptance, one uses air pressure to test joints for leaks, the second, a mandrel to assure the pipes are of the size required by the contract, and, third, using a closed circuit TV camera to check the length of all the runs for leaks.”

He said they “found a couple of hundred problems that had to be dug up and repaired.”

First Selectman Tim Herbst said “correcting such problems is done by the contractor, Mark IV, at its expense.”

When Pescatore mentioned the prospective cost of $30,000 per home, people asked whether there might be town relief. Herbst said the project is “getting to the point where we may well require town relief in some form. I will make that request of the Board of Finance and the Town Council.”

The meeting had opened with Pescatore introducing member Tom Kelly, to “provide an update of the Board of Education.”

Kelly stated that “budget aside, we had a successful year.” Trumbull’s CMT and CAPT scores “far exceed state medians, even for districts whose cost per student is greater than ours.”

“Over 90 percent of THS graduates pursue higher education,” he said.

Kelly reviewed the budget process so far, starting with the Board of Education approval of a budget 5.38 percent more than last year’s. He reiterated his opinion that the prior year’s 1.08 percent increase “is far below what is needed to maintain the breadth and quality of Trumbull’s schools.”

He recalled that Herbst cut $2.55 million out of the budget and the Board of Finance deadlocked on it, moving the first selectman’s proposal unchanged to the Town Council. The council then approved it with a slight increase.

The council then moved $1.02 million to a townside account for healthcare costs and then gave the board full access. In between those two events, the Board of Education hired an attorney who said the move was unlawful because the town cannot tell the school board how to spend its money.

Kelly said that the board was then faced with implementing the “deep cuts forced on them.”

The curriculum will be altered, 28 positions were cut, including eight teachers; freshman athletics were eliminated and the pay to participate fees – for athletics, elementary strings and for the high school musical – were raised.

One attendee noted that Trumbull seems to be doing well in the three Rs, not so for the three As – athletics, arts and activities.

Kelly restated his intent to make a motion at the June 22 Board of Education meeting to seek supplemental funding from the Board of Finance to add cut athletics back to the curriculum.

In response to a question, about how Trumbull’s costs compare to other systems, Kelly said “among the 20 other districts the state placed in the same District Reference Group as Trumbull - communities that are demographically similar, we are 11th, right in the middle in cost per pupil, and among the 21 communities in Fairfield County, our costs are 17th.”

Representative Pescatore used a brief PowerPoint presentation to summarize the status of the Charter Revision that has been ongoing for almost 15 months.

After two work sessions with Town Council legislation and Administration Committee and the Charter Revision Commission discussing the revision document, it moves to the Town Council.  The council has the responsibility for approving and drafting the document that is scheduled to be presented to voters on the November ballot.

Pescatore said “There are still issues that need to be addressed.” He continued “voters will ultimately decide, by a referendum, on the proposals.”

The ballot will allow separate votes on some of the more “controversial issues,” though questions and “the way the questions will be on the ballot has still not been determined.”

In the PowerPoint presentation, he identified the issues the first selectman identified as most important and presented the positions of the four person majority and the two person minority:

• Extend terms of first selectman, Town Clerk, and Town Treasurer from two years to four years: The majority offers the view that a longer term increases continuity and administrative efficiencies, while the minority believes four years may be too long “should the incumbent not be what the people voted for.”
• Expand Board of Education from seven to nine members: The majority view is that six of the seven members are appointed by political party to 4 year terms. The seventh, a two-year seat violates state statute and needs to be changed. They recommend expanding to go to nine members, with either with a 6-3 or 5-4 split required. The most recent Charter commentary states that each party will nominate six candidates, with the top nine vote getters elected to two years seats. The minority report states that the current structure should be left alone and to make all seats competitive at four years (“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”).

• Changes in Town Council from today’s seven districts with three council people voted on from each, to one in which one seat in each district becomes at-large and is voted for town-wide: The majority position is that the council deals with many town-wide issues, so it should have some members with that broad constituency. The minority cites the potential for a 19-2 majority under the new system, as well as nine members from the same district, either of which severely diminishes minority representation, and could give one political party too much power.
• Budget Referendum thresholds added – The proposal is that if the budget exceeds an inflation plus one percent formula that will be made a part of the charter, citizens have the right to petition for a one time referendum (not a potential multi-round as Monroe has). The majority view is that this makes people think about spending and allows voters to have a more direct say. The minority believes this should be a policy change, not a charter change.  Both are open to discussion of specific thresholds.
• Capital Expenditure thresholds added - The proposal included in the current draft is that citizens may petition for a referendum for any capital expenditure greater than $15 million. The majority wants an easier path to a referendum than the minority.
• Various language changes – The commission introduced a long list of small changes that are not individually material (but that together dramatically alter the balance of power, it was noted).

Download the movie

Download the movie

Download the movie