How does the Naugatuck budget process work?

Each year, department heads begin formulating budget requests, sometimes as early as November or December.  Sometime in the beginning of the calendar year, usually January or February, the Board of Finance starts meeting on Monday evenings to entertain various budget proposals and make initial recommendations.  Burgesses are invited to attend and participate in the budget hearings.  The Board of Education does the same for the education, and ultimately submits a budget to the Board of Finance.  After the last hearing, the Board of Finance will approve a preliminary budget which will be presented to the Joint Boards of Finance and Mayor and Burgesses (“Joint Boards”).  After review, the Joint Boards presents a budget for public hearing.  Residents and taxpayers may comment on all aspects of the proposed budget at the public hearing.  Shortly thereafter, the Joint Boards will adopt a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, which runs from July 1, to June 30.  Residents have the opportunity to petition for a referendum on both the municipal and board of education budgets.  If either budget is voted as too high or too low, the Joint Boards will reconvene and amend the budget accordingly.  The referendum process can repeat itself three (3) times, after which the budget becomes adopted.

What is a mill?

A mill is the unit of local taxation in Connecticut that assesses ONE and 00/100THS ($1.00) DOLLAR of tax for every ONE THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($1,000.00) DOLLARS of taxable property.  A simple example is a resident owning a car assessed at ONE THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($1,000.00) DOLLARS in value would pay ONE and 00/100THS ($1.00) DOLLAR in taxes if the mill rate was one (1).

What is a mill rate?

The mill rate is the amount a municipality assesses taxpayers for every ONE THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($1,000.00) DOLLARS of property owned within the town.

How do I calculate my taxes based on the mill rate?

First, a taxpayer must know the assessed value of the property which is to be taxed.  If a home is assessed at ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($150,000.00) DOLLARS, and the mill rate is thirty five (35) mills, the taxpayer would multiple 150,000 by .035.  The taxes due would be FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY and 00/100THS ($5,250.00) DOLLARS under this example.

What is assessed value?

Assessed value is the amount used to determine taxation in Connecticut, and is different than market value.  Real property and motor vehicles in Connecticut are assessed at seventy (70%) percent of market value.  For example, a home valued in the marketplace at TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($225,000.00) DOLLARS would be assessed for tax purposes at ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and 00/100THS ($157,500.00) DOLLARS ($225,000.00 x .70 = $157,500.00).

What kind of property is taxed in a municipality in Connecticut?

Real property (land and the structures/improvements on them) and personal property (motor vehicles, equipment, machinery, etc) are subject to local property taxes in Connecticut.

Who pays local property taxes in Connecticut?

Individuals who own residential dwellings, undeveloped land and/or motor vehicles pay local property taxes.  Corporate entities (businesses) or individuals operating as a business also pay real property taxes on land and/or buildings; and personal property taxes on motor vehicles, machinery, equipment, furniture, etc.  Inventory (items that a business sells) is generally not subject to local taxation.

Do renters pay local property tax?

Individuals and/or families who rent residential dwellings from private owners/landlords do not directly pay real property taxes, but would be taxed on motor vehicles.  The cost of local real property taxes is often incorporated by landlords into monthly rental payments owed by tenants.  Businesses that rent space are not taxed directly on real property, but are assessed taxes on motor vehicles, machinery, equipment and other items of personal property used by the business.  The cost of real property taxes for commercial properties is often incorporated into the lease agreement between the landlord and the business tenant.

Does a municipality receive other revenue?

Yes.  Municipalities receive other revenues from a variety of other sources including but not limited to state and federal funds (the largest of which is state educational cost sharing funding), fees generated by various departments (examples:  golf course fees, town clerk recording and license fees, various permits), contractual agreements with other parties and/or towns, and designated fund balance revenue.

What is the “Fund Balance”?

A fund balance is essentially a municipality’s savings account, sometimes referred to as a “rainy day fund”.  Such dollars are categorized as “undesignated fund balance”.  Municipal bond rating agencies recommend that towns hold at least five (5%) percent but preferably closer to ten (10%) percent of the total budget in its fund balance.  Bond rating agencies are contemplating an increase in this recommended amount closer to fifteen (15%) percent of total budget.

What is Naugatuck’s current fund balance?

Naugatuck’s current fund balance is approximately eight (8%) percent to nine (9%) percent of its total budget.  At one point in the early 1990′s, Naugatuck’s fund balance was essentially negative.

Why is a fund balance important?

The total amount of dollars in a fund balance effects a municipality’s bond rating (which is similar to someone’s personal credit score), which determines the amount of interest a town pays when borrowing funds.

What is the source of dollars for a fund balance?

Typically, a municipality applies any surplus dollars to its fund balance.

Can a fund balance be used as revenue?

Under certain conditions, a portion of a fund balance, or designated fund balance, can be used as revenue within any one budget.  The generally accepted principle for the responsible use of fund balance revenue within a particular budget is ensure that such dollars are used for one-time, non-recurring expenses.  The rationale for this concept is that surplus revenue is “one-time revenue”, which is not guaranteed to be available in subsequent years.  If fund balance revenue is used for recurring and/or operating expenses (i.e. salaries, utilities, etc), the obligations to pay will continue into subsequent budgets without certainty that the revenue amount will repeat in coming years.

Does Naugatuck use designated fund balance revenue?

Yes.  if a surplus results in a previous year’s budget, Naugatuck will often use a portion of it for designated fund balance revenue.  The general rule of the Joint Boards is to offset the use of designated fund balance revenue for one-time, capital expenses.  There have been multiple occasions in Naugatuck’s past, however, when fund balance revenue was used for operating expenses and/or to lower the mill rate.

Why is the pension line item so large?

For many years, municipal employees earned pensions that were based on a combination of salary earned and years of service.  Such pensions are described as defined benefit pensions.  Fiscally responsible budgeting requires that a municipality contribute amounts recommended by actuaries each year to meet pension obligations.  For many years, Naugatuck underfunded its pension obligations to prevent increases in taxes.  In the early 2000′s, Naugatuck’s unfunded pension liability was so great, that the leaders of the Joint Boards choose to bond, or borrow money, to pay for the shortfall.  Under the terms of the bond, Naugatuck must meet required contributions on a yearly basis.

Why does not the Borough change its pension system if it is so expensive?

The Borough has implemented significant pension reform in the past three (3) years, but such changes mostly apply to new employees (some bargaining units have agreed to modest increases in employee pension payments for existing employees).  All new hires in six (6) of the municipality’s seven (7) collective bargaining units (“CBU”) have defined contribution pension plans, which are similar to 401(k) plans in the private sector.  This will significantly reduce the Borough’s pension obligations in future years, but will take time to yield savings.  In some cases, the Borough offered early retirement packages to certain CBU’s to entice the changes to defined contribution pension plans.  Early retirements cause a spike in required pension contributions as employees become eligible prior to previously anticipated dates.

Why can not the Borough unilaterally impose such changes?

The overwhelming majority of municipal and school district employees in Connecticut are members of CBU’s (unions).  The employment of such individuals is governed by collective bargaining laws.  Municipalities and/or school boards can not unilaterally impose wages, health benefits, pensions, working conditions and/or other terms of employment which have been determined to be subject to collective bargaining.  If a CBU and municipality and/or school board can not agree, disputes are resolved through the arbitration process.  Most aspects of employment between a municipality and/or school board and employees who are members of CBU’s are governed by collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”).

Does collective bargaining prevent layoffs of municipal and/or school employees?

No.   Municipalities and/or school boards (together as “Management”) have the right to layoff employees.  The work previously performed by employees who are laid-off can not be performed by members of other CBU’s, non-union employees or contracted to third parties.  If this is done, a CBU can generally claim a violation of collective bargaining laws.

Does Naugatuck layoff workers?

Management always retains the right to do so.  There have been multiple reductions in force by the Naugatuck Board of Education during the past few years that have involved layoffs.  Most have been the result of a decline in enrollment and budget constraints.  Certain CBA’s have no-layoff clauses, and various public safety departments having minimum staffing requirements.  Layoffs generally do not provide as much savings as many believe, as is discussed in the next questions and answer.

What happens to an employee who is laid-off?

Employees who experience a layoff are usually entitled to unemployment compensation.  Many private companies pay into an unemployment insurance fund, but many municipalities like Naugatuck are self-funded for unemployment compensation.  Naugatuck pays the full amount of unemployment benefits to workers that are laid-off until alternative employment is obtained by the employee.  Unemployment benefits can sometimes be upwards of sixty (60%) percent of salary.  This means that the Borough and/or Board of Education must pay a laid-off employee a significant portion of the individual’s salary and receive no benefit in terms of work.

Why does not the Borough get wage freezes from employees?

Management can obtain wage concessions from CBU’s, but any change to wages, benefits, pensions, etc. must be negotiated.  Under the collective bargaining process, such concessions are usually obtained in exchange for other provisions that benefit the members of the CBU.  If Management wants a wage freeze for one (1) year, a CBU usually will expect something in return.  This could result in deferring wage increases to future years, or agreements to refrain from asking employees to pay more for health insurance benefits and/or changing pension benefits.

Who pays for employee health insurance?

For many years, Management incurred the overwhelming portion of the cost to provide health insurance for municipal employees.  In recent years, Management has negotiated CBA’s that require employees to pay a greater percentage of the cost of health care.  The Board of Education started focusing negotiations on health care earlier than the municipal government, and receives a greater percentage from employees.  In recent years, both the Borough and Naugatuck Board of Education have offered employees high deductible health plans (“HDHP”) in the form of health savings accounts (“HSA”) in an effort to reduce costs.

Why can not Management get more competitive health care rates from providers?

It has.  Both the municipal government and Board of Education changed health care providers in 2010, and are doing so again in 2012.  This has resulted in savings to taxpayers and employees.  Given the volatility of the national health care debate, it is difficult to predict long term changes that could result.  In addition, Management has negotiated more favorably terms in certain CBA’s that require employees to contribute a greater portion of their health care benefits.

Why can not the Borough and the Board of Education work together to get better health care rates?

They do.  Both the Borough and the Board of Education are combined into one (1) bid that is resulting in the pending change of carriers.  The Borough and the Board of Education also share the same health care insurance consultant, labor attorney, comptroller/business manager and will soon share the same human resource director.

Why does education account for more than half of the entire Naugatuck budget?

Funding for education usually encompasses more than half of the total cost of any Connecticut municipality’s budget.  Given the amount of students in each school district and the significant cost associated with providing educational services, education historically accounts for the majority of expenditures in Naugatuck and other communities throughout the state.  A copy of the current, Board of Education, 2012-2013 fiscal year budget proposal can be viewed here.

Can additional cuts be made to the proposed education budget?

Yes.  The Joint Boards will not formally adopt the 2012-2013 budget on Thursday, May 24, 2012, which is subject to the referendum process.

Why does the Board of Education budget include a proposed increase of three and 54/10oths (3.54%) percent?

The cost to provide the same level of education services provided during this current fiscal year during the coming 2012 – 2013 fiscal year would require an increase of approximately nine (9%) percent.  Federal funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA” or “stimulus funds”) in the approximate amount of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($1,400,000.00) DOLLARS will be eliminated in the 2012-2013 fiscal year.  In response, the Board of Education has reduced staffing, made significant changes to health benefit plans and closed an elementary school.  The current proposed increase (3.54%) attempts to maintain existing services and respond to mandates that are expected to increase graduation requirements in coming years.

Why will not teachers take a pay freeze?

The Board of Education and Naugatuck Teachers League recently approved a new collective bargaining agreement.  Teachers agreed to significant concessions on health benefits that will significantly offset the modest wage and step increases over the coming three (3) years.

Why can not the Board of Education simply impose wage freezes or other concessions on school employees?

The collective bargaining rules discussed above apply to Board of Education employees in CBU’s.

Are Board of Education pensions included in the Board of Education budget?

No.  The pensions of almost all certified educators (teachers and administrators) are funded through the state Teachers Retirement Board (“TRB”).  Pension allocations for non-certified staff are located in the municipal portion of the budget under pensions.

Are debt service payments for the Board of Education included in the Board of Education budget?

No.  Debt service for school projects is located in the municipal portion of the budget under debt service.

What is debt service?

Debt service is the interest the Borough pays to borrow money for various projects and purchases.  For households, debt service most closely compares to interest paid on a mortgage, car loan and/or credit card.

Why is debt service increasing significantly in the proposed 2012-2013 budget?

There are two (2) significant explanations for the increases in debt service payments in the proposed 2012-2013 budget.  Prior to the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the Joint Boards agreed to refinance bond repayments.  It was anticipated at that time that debt service payments for the year 2012-2013 would increase.  The required repayment on bond redemption for 2012-2013 represents an increase of THREE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY and 00/100THS ($322,890.00) DOLLARS above the 2011-2012 required payment.  Also, lease purchase financing payments have increased by THREE HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN and 00/100THS ($313,218.00) DOLLARS for the 2012-2013 fiscal year.  The Borough has financed the purchase of several public safety and public works vehicles in recent years as well as certain school repairs.

Can the Borough choose not to pay the full amounts required for debt service payments?

Not without negatively effecting the Borough’s bond rating.

How has the Naugatuck High School Renovation effected the increase in debt service payments?

The renovation of Naugatuck High School has had almost no impact on debt service payments in the proposed 2012-2013 budget.  The project is currently in the engineering and design phase.  During the construction phase, the renovation will be financed by bond anticipation notes (similar to a construction mortgage) that require only interest payments.

Some communities have flat budgets.  Why can not Naugatuck?

It is certainly possible to approve a flat budget that does not raise taxes in any given year.  If there is strong growth in the grand list (particularly in business property) and/or a significant increase in state aid, a budget-making authority (like the Joint Boards) can maintain or even reduce rates of taxation provided expenditures do not exceed the increased revenue.  Without an increase in revenue, a budget-making authority can defray costs to future years, ignore costs or use fund balance revenue as referenced above.  Common examples of this in budget-making are failing to fund pension obligations to actuarial recommendations; under-fund health care and other insurance accounts (particularly when such accounts are self-funded); over-estimate revenues; underestimate utility costs; use designated fund balance revenue for recurring expenses; reduce certain line items based on a one (1) year anomaly rather than a three (3) year average; and push debt payments to future years.  Another common measure to hold taxes flat is to seek wage concessions from employees.  The risk in doing this is there is usually only a one (1) year benefit that has a negative impact on future budgets.  For many years (particularly during the 1990′s), Naugatuck’s mill rate remained the same or was even reduced (see a history of Naugatuck budgets from 1987-1988 through 2011-2012).  Some of the budgetary tactics were utilized over many years.  Ultimately, such practices cause problems in future years.  The 2009-2010 budget contained wage freezes for every bargaining unit on the municipal side of the budget.  All of the wages had to be negotiated, however, and focus was diverted from requiring greater employee contributions for costly health care benefits.  Many of the costly defined benefit pension plans were negotiated many years ago in exchange for single year, wage concessions.

When my household income drops, I stop spending.  Why does not the Borough do the same?

The basic function of government is to provide various services to its citizens.  Some are discretionary, but most are the very reason why government exists.  When a family decides to skip a vacation, a choice can be made to do so.  Local governments can not choose not to educate students, police the streets and/or plow the roads.  Terms of employment are subject to the collective bargaining process currently in place in Connecticut.  Most of the municipal departments and the Board of Education budgets are not profit driven.  Many of the services provided, particularly with regard to education, are mandated by state and/or federal authorities.

Businesses cut costs, why can not the Borough?

When a private business determines that a product and/or service line is unprofitable, its leaders can choose to discontinue a particular focus of the company.  Municipalities do not have such an option.  Snow plowing is certainly not a profitable “business” for Naugatuck, but it must be done.  Education, which encompasses over half of Naugatuck’s budget, needs to be provided.  If Naugatuck was a private company driven by profit, it would not offer many services that it currently does.  In addition, most businesses in Connecticut are not governed by collective bargaining rules.  Even for those private businesses whose employees are members of CBU’s, the rules for public sector collective bargaining are different than those for private sector collective bargaining.

What is the “POB” line item in the Pension account?

“POB” is an acronym of “Pension Obligation Bonds”.  The current 2012-2013 budget proposal requires THREE MILLION  FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE and 00/100THS  ($3,485,383.00) DOLLARS allocated to this particular line item.  For many years, Naugatuck failed to property fund its pension obligations.  Instead of raising taxes and/or changing the pension structures, Naugatuck simply decided not to fund the system to required and/or appropriate levels.  The unfunded liability became so great, that the Joint Boards decided in 2003 to bond the entire amount.  In accordance with the terms of the bond, Naugatuck agreed to repay the obligation, with interest; and fund all future pensions at the levels recommended by the Borough’s actuaries.

I do not play golf.  Why does the Borough fund this activity?  Why does not the Borough sell the golf course.

The Borough provides various services that not every resident utilizes.  This is true for state and federal government services and programs as well.  Many who support a municipal golf course believe that Hop Brook adds value to the community, similar to other recreational activities.  Changes have been implemented at the golf course which are intended to offset costs with increased revenue.  Selling the golf course is certainly an option.  If a private party purchased the golf course, however, there is no guarantee that it would remain a golf course.

Why do we need item (choose an item) in the capital Reserve Fund section of the budget. 

All items in the Reserve Fund (capital purchase) section of the budget are offset by designated fund balance revenue.  This concept of one time revenue for one time expenditures is discussed above.  Each and every Reserve Fund (capital purchase) item is reviewed in great detail by the Board of Finance.  The total amount of expenditures in the Reserve Fund section of the budget ($1,139,875.00) is equivalent to the amount of designated Fund Balance in the revenue section of the budget ($889,875.00) plus  TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($250,000.00) DOLLARS of state-funded Local Capital Improvement funding portion on the revenue side.  If a project is eliminated from the Reserve Fund (capital purchase) section of the budget, an equivalent amount should be eliminated from the designated Fund Balance section of the revenue side.  There is no impact on the rate of taxation.  This maintains consistency with the fiscally responsible principle of only using one time revenues for one time expenses.

A private company runs the Naugatuck Treatment Plant.  Why does the Borough pay for the Water Pollution Control Authority (“WPCA”)?

The Borough contracts with Veolia Water to operate the Naugatuck Treatment Company.  Under the complex agreement that was negotiated after Uniroyal Chemical ceased operation of the sewage treatment facility, the Borough shares if any profit is made through Veolia’s operation of the facility and contributes to certain operating expenses if there is not.  Complicated factors in the merchant sludge industry have reduced profits at the facility.  While Naugatuck remains one of only a small number of Connecticut municipalities without a sewer usage fee (and is unique in that its treatment facility has a profit component), the Borough must allocate funds in its general budget for the operation of the treatment facility.  The cost for in the WPCA in the proposed 2012-2013 budget increases by TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY ONE and 00/100THS ($276,791.00) DOLLARS.  While the WPCA budget is offset by certain revenue line items associated therewith (most significantly rent from Veolia), there is still a net cost to the Borough.

What are the most significant increases to the proposed 2012-2013 budget on the municipal side?

The most significant areas of increase in the municipal portion of the proposed budget are pensions ($922,131.00), water pollution ($277,920.00) and debt service ($412,639.00).  These three (3) areas alone amount to ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY and 00/100THS ($1,612,690.00) DOLLARS alone in the current proposal.  Increases in lease-purchase ($313,318.00) and bond redemption ($322,890.00) payments comprise the bulk of the increase in debt service.  Without the increases in these three (3) sections of the budget, the rest of the municipal budget would be less than 2011-2012 expenditures.  All of these particular sections of the budget are discussed in greater detail above.

What are the most significant increases to the proposed 2012-2013 budget on the education side.

The most significant areas of increase in the education expenditure portion of the proposed budget originate in the payroll account.  Most of these increases result from the loss of approximately ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED and 00/100THS ($1,400,000.00) DOLLARS of federal ARRA funding that will be eliminated from this coming fiscal year.  The elimination of this funding is not shown in the revenue section of the budget, as the money went directly to the Board of Education.  As a result of the loss of ARRA funding, the Board of Education approved a reduction in force through certain retirements and non-tenures and the closing of an elementary school.

• Elementary School Enrollment and Central Avenue Redistricting by Street
• Central Avenue Redistricting Map

Both documents are in .pdf format.

After the public hearing, the Joint Boards will reconvene on Thursday, May 24, 2012, to adopt the 2012-2013 budget.  All Naugatuck budgets are subject to the budget referendum process as defined in the Borough charter.  Petitions relative to said budget referendum process are available in the office of the Borough Clerk, located on the Fourth (4th) Floor of Town Hall, 229 Church Street, Naugatuck, CT 06770.

The Joint Boards made minor cuts to the budget on Monday (5/14/2012) night, which was presented by the Board of Finance.  Additional cuts were discussed, but the consensus of the Joint Boards was to withhold making certain reductions until more information was obtained on certain line items.  The most significant change made on Monday (5/14/2012) was the addition of SIX HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY NINE and 00/100THS ($635,149.00) DOLLARS of state educational cost sharing funding to the revenue side of the budget.

The current version of the budget represents an approximate three and 4/10ths (3.4%) percent increase in expenditures over 2011-2012 levels.  This would result in an increase in the current mill rate from thirty two and 81/100ths (32.81) to thirty four and 04/100ths (34.04).  Board of Education funding, which is the largest part of almost every municipal budget in Connecticut, is proposed to increase by three and 1/2 (3.5%) percent over 2011-2012 levels.

The most significant areas of increase in the municipal portion of the proposed budget are pensions ($922,131.00), water pollution ($277,920.00) and debt service ($412,639.00).  These three (3) areas alone amount to ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY and 00/100THS ($1,612,690.00) DOLLARS alone in the current proposal.  Increases in lease-purchase payments ($313,318.00) comprise the bulk of the increases in debt service.  Without the increases in these three (3) sections of the budget, the rest of the municipal budget would be less than 2011-2012 expenditures.

Local budgets are complex entities that require an understanding of decisions made over many years and the impact  that current choices will have on future budgets.  Many of the dynamics involved with municipal finances are counterintuitive to those familiar with household budgets or those in private industry.  The rules are different and the requirements to provide certain services can not be eliminated like a business would.  I urge all residents who can to attend the public hearing on Monday (5/21/2012) night to participate, offer suggestions and ask questions.  I will be publishing a post with answers to common questions shortly, which should provide some basics about our municipal budgeting process.  Please feel free to raise any budgetary questions in the comment section and/or email the same to me at bob@bobmezzo.com.  Anyone can also call me at 203-720-7009 (office) or on my cell (203-217-0876) to discuss in greater detail.

The public hearing on the 2012-2013 budget will take place next Monday, May 21, 2012, at 6:30 PM.  The location will be announced this week.

“On May 9, 2012, after ten months of meetings, research, ride alongs, tours and bid drafting, review and interviews of the bidders, the Naugatuck EMS committee reached a decision of an EMS provider for the Borough of Naugatuck.  After careful review of the two bids received: Naugatuck Ambulance bid at $296,000.00 and Campion Ambulance Service Inc. bid at $96,000.00, Campion was unanimously voted by the Committee as the recommended EMS provider for the period of July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. Dispatch service was not included in the bid, in an attempt to create an equitable and fair bidding environment to all bidders.  It is planned that dispatch services will be bid out separately. The process of interviewing of both bidders was held in open and public session on Thursday, May 3, 2012 in an attempt to keep the process of this decision as open and transparent as possible for the residents of this community and the parties involved.

The Naugatuck EMS Committee first met on July 25, 2011 after Mayor Mezzo appointed myself to Chair an EMS Subcommittee charged with: investigating Naugatuck’s EMS needs and placing this vendor relationship into a bidding process as well as making a proposal for future EMS Servicing for the Borough of Naugatuck.  Appointed to serve on this Committee were the following individuals:  Tamath Rossi, Chair; Julie Sampaio, Diane Scinto, Al Pistarelli, and Matt Katra (all Finance board Members).

During the last ten months, the subcommittee toured both Naugatuck Ambulance facilities and Campion Ambulance facilities in Waterbury with committee members Diane Scinto, Matt Katra and Tamath Rossi participating in ride alongs with Campion Ambulance.  Hours of research was performed regarding EMS service and the structure of the service in this state as well as services provided in other communities.  CCM (Connecticut Conference of Municipalities) was utilized for gathering of research data of EMS services as provided in other communities.  Much thought was placed in striving to create true apples to apples comparison focused not on the usual categories of demographics and population but on call volume.  In addition the committee requested, received and reviewed the Borough’s call volume statistics and data from Northwest CT Public Safety, the Borough’s current dispatch service, in order to truly understand the Borough’s call volume, patterns and needs. In addition, an effort was made to request and obtain an updated report (to a five year old study) performed by the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) of a comprehensive report/ proposal of the cost and requirements for the Naugatuck Fire Department to take over full EMS Service in Naugatuck.

The Committee also obtained and became familiar with the Region Five medical protocols and manual.  (Region Five – of which the Borough of Naugatuck falls under for Emergency Management – is handled out of St. Mary’s Hospital).  From the onset of the committee, the members became familiar with the PSA process.  The PSA is the granting license for first response awarded through the Department of Health, Office of Emergency Management (OEMS).  Naugatuck Ambulance is the current holder of the PSA for the Borough of Naugatuck. Each member received a copy of the statutes and fully reviewed them.  There were multiple discussions regarding the PSA among the membership and borough counsel.   

The property currently occupied by the Naugatuck Ambulance was also examined by the committee and the topic of several discussions.  The property located on 246 Rubber Avenue that the Naugatuck Ambulance currently occupies is currently owned by the Naugatuck Volunteer Ambulance Corp., Inc.  The ownership of the property will revert back to the Borough of Naugatuck no later than September 1, 2013.  Campion Ambulance was aware of this when they bid and their bid includes securing of a site in Naugatuck for their operation.

In anticipation of placing the borough’s EMS service into a business process and formal structure, the committee also worked together to craft a contract framework with oversight and accountability for the future of EMS service in the Borough.  Multiple contracts, currently utilized by other communities, aided in the crafting of the contract and oversight structure. This structure will be utilized by Borough counsel once the negotiation process takes place.

The Committee has done a thorough and comprehensive job at creating a business process where previously there was none, and made a thoughtful and careful decision for the safety and benefit of our community.  Many hours of discussion and debate have taken place that has resulted with the final proposal of Campion Ambulance Service as the Borough of Naugatuck’s EMS Service provider for the period of one year from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.  

On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM, The formal proposal of the Naugatuck EMS Committee will be presented to the Mayor and Board of Burgesses to decide upon awarding of this bid.  Upon the bid being formally awarded by the Mayor and Board of Burgesses, the contract negotiations are expected to take place immediately in order to formalize the contract with Campion Ambulance Services.  The committee will be preparing a Dispatch bid proposal that will go out as quickly as possible following the Mayor and Board of Burgesses award of the bid, so that this additional component of EMS service in the Borough may be decided upon as well.  The committee will meet upon receipt of the bids and bring Dispatch through the same business process as the EMS service.

I have been honored to serve with such an intelligent and diligent team.  Emergency Medical Services is a service that we hope we never will have a need for but if we do, we want the highest level and quality of care for ourselves and loved ones at our most vulnerable and desperate time of need.  The process of placing this service into a fair, equitable business process, of the highest integrity, has been a long and arduous process but one that the committee has devoted full effort to.  The committee looks forward to making the presentation to the Mayor and Board of Burgesses on May 15^th and the questions and consideration of the Board in their decision making process.”

Five years ago the Borough of Naugatuck and the Naugatuck Economic Development Corporation (“NEDC”) executed a development agreement with Renaissance Place, LLC to build Renaissance Place in Downtown Naugatuck.  After a resounding vote in support of the project at public referendum, hopes were high that the planned, smart-growth, transit-oriented development would soon become a reality in the heart of the Borough’s urban core through an innovative public/private partnership.  It was anticipated that once built, Renaissance Place would bring $707 million dollars worth of mixed-use, “green” development over the proposed, fifteen year life of the project.

May 8, 2012, marks the five year anniversary of the signing of the Development Agreement.  Unfortunately the project has not begun.  For the past five years, the Borough and the NEDC have completed several prerequisites required under the terms of the Development Agreement.  Such accomplishments include the following: approval of a special development district (“SDD”) overlay of the Downtown area; completion of an Environmental Impact Evaluation (“EIE”) and a Municipal Development Plan (“MDP”), both requirements to obtain state and/or federal funding; remediation of the Borough-owned Parcel C at the corner of Maple and Water Street; a comprehensive environmental assessment of Parcels A and B in cooperation with General DataComm, Inc. funded by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”); and a Phase I environmental study of the Borough-owned train station property funded by the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (“DECD”).  In addition, the Borough has secured state Bond Commission funding for the planning and design of a parking structure to support the private development.

During this time we have had the pleasure to work in cooperation with developer Alexius C. Conroy of Renaissance Place, LLC.  After decades of entertaining various project-specific proposals for Parcel C, Mr. Conroy presented a vision for  Downtown Naugatuck that best represented the planned approached to re-development shared by the NEDC and elected leaders of both parties.  Despite multiple attempts to start the project, Mr. Conroy has been unable to fulfill the vision that he originally proposed and was approved by Naugatuck voters.

The Development Agreement provided exclusive rights to Renaissance Place, LLC during the duration of its term.  Such rights terminate, however, on the five year anniversary of the agreement if construction of the project has not begun.  As of today, May 8, 2012, which is the five year anniversary, both the Borough and the NEDC must recognize that the development agreement has expired.  Both of us have articulated that this would be our joint position to Mr. Conroy on numerous occasions leading to this date.

As a community we need to move forward and explore what other options exist in the marketplace to revitalize Downtown Naugatuck.  The exclusivity of the development agreement has prevented us from soliciting and/or entertaining any other proposals not brought forth by Renaissance Place, LLC.  We have honored these terms and restrictions throughout the entire duration of the development agreement.  Throughout this process we have enjoyed working with Mr. Conroy and his staff.  Despite the continued frustration expressed by members of the public regarding the failure of the development to commence, we have worked with Mr. Conroy in good-faith to position the project for success.  While neither the Board of Mayor and Burgesses nor the NEDC is willing to extend the development rights, we have expressed a willingness to work with Mr. Conroy if he brings forth a viable project or portion thereof which is consistent with the original vision.  We cannot, however, recommend any extension of the development agreement which would grant any exclusive rights to Renaissance Place, LLC or any other company affiliated with Conroy Development Company.

Over the coming weeks both the Borough and the NEDC will be working with our legal team to ensure that the relationship between the parties is dissolved in a professional and timely manner.  While it will take time to finalize all the details, it is our goal to resolve any complexities associated with the end of the agreement in a manner that allows us to re-focus efforts on downtown revitalization as soon as possible.  Our accomplishments over the past five years as referenced above provide a strong foundation to renew such efforts.  We remain committed to the concept of planned, smart growth in our downtown, and look forward to working together to ensure a bright and prosperous future for generations to come.

This decision was made after several months of working to draft a budget for the upcoming 2012-2013 school year.  As stated in an earlier post of a statement from Chair David Heller, the BoE faces significant budgetary challenges.  Even with the closure of Central, contractual concessions negotiated with regard to health insurance and a change in our health benefit provider, the BoE will still ask for an approximate three and 4/10ths (3.4%) percent increase over 2011-2012 levels.  Any request for increased educational funding is subject to approval by the Joint Boards of Mayor and Burgesses (“Joint Boards”), and ultimately the voters of Naugatuck if the budget goes to referendum.

Many communities, in the midst of declining enrollment and limited resources, have been forced to close schools.  While such decisions are not unique to Naugatuck, this does not make them any easier.  Central Avenue has served our community well as an educational facility for generations.  I was educated there when it served kindergarten through fifth (5th) grades students.  The decision to close Central Avenue was painful, but one that I supported nonetheless.  Of all the members of BoE, I am the only one to be compensated for my service.  BoE members spend numerous hours every week trying to provide the best education possible to our students in spite of serious obstacles.  Some of the BoE members who supported this decision have children in our district.  I can not speak for my colleagues on the BoE, but I would like to explain in detail the factors that influenced my personal decision and vote.

For many years I have held the position that Naugatuck has too many, small elementary schools, mostly in aging buildings.  From 2000 to 2001, I served on a Joint School Space Committee comprised of BoE members and Burgesses, of which I was one at the time.  The purpose of the committee was to analyze the New England School Development Council (“NESDEC”) school space report that has been produced in 1999.  A report by the Joint Space Committee was drafted with recommendations, sometime around April, 2001.  If my memory serves, the document was presented to the Board of Mayor and Burgesses at the time, or was about to be.  The May elections of that year changed the composition of both boards, however, and much of the focus changed to the budget process that was engulfed by the impact of the long-delayed property revaluation.  Given the taxpayer shock created by the first revaluation in twenty two (22) years, few had the appetite at the time to discuss expensive renovations to our school district.  Redistricting took place the following year in 2002, creating the current elementary (K-4), intermediate (5-6), middle (7-8) and high (9-12) school configuration that currently exists.  I saved what appears to be the final draft report from the Joint School Space Committee, which can be viewed here.

While I understand that neighborhood schools are a New England tradition, I have consistently questioned what that definition means in modern times.  Many communities similar to Naugatuck have elementary schools larger than those in the Borough.  Central, Western, Salem and the former Prospect Street Elementary School are/were all relatively small schools that have been serving the community for many years.  The JCJ Architecture report from March, 2010, stated similar themes.  The age of each of the buildings requires constant repairs, the need for which continues as time passes.  Two (2) years ago, I voted to close Prospect Street and combine Hillside Middle School with City Hill to make one (1) Naugatuck middle school.  My own daughter would be one of the seventh graders entering the new version of City Hill.  I also voted to close Salem twice, after the BoE rescinded an earlier vote to close the school.  Each of these votes was taken after much thought, and ultimately a lot of sadness.

The closing of the schools in 2010 was proposed to save the jobs.  Over fifty (50) teaching positions were eliminated through a combination of early retirements and layoffs.  I have always believed and continue to believe that people and the programs they provide are more important than physical buildings.  Ultimately, education is provided by conveying knowledge to young minds and training our students to be lifelong learners.  This is done overwhelming by educators and support staff, which explains why staff costs consume so much of an education budget.  Many times, particularly for students who struggle in particular subjects, this involves time outside the traditional classroom setting.

This year, a proposal was made by administrative staff to close Central Avenue.  The reasoning behind the choice of Central Avenue over another elementary school was the level of disruption to students.  I realize it is of little consolation to those impacted at Central, but the re-districting of students to other schools is intended to keep students at the accepting schools from having to move as well.  Busing costs will also be minimized by choosing Central over another school.  The Central students re-districted to other schools will still attend schools with those from their respective neighborhoods.   If proposals presented to the BoE indicated another school would have created the least disruption, I would have voted to support the closing of that particular school.  Ten (10) years from now, I do not see a couple of our current educational buildings functioning as active schools if we hope to provide our children with modern learning environments.

As a result of the 2010 re-districting, there was general consensus that Naugatuck needed to take a look at the long-term physical needs of our school district.  In November, 2010, the Long Term School Facility Planning Committee (“LTSFPC”) held its first meeting.  The LTSFPC Mission Statement that was ultimately adopted envisioned a consistent, planned approach to the physical composition and grade configuration for our district by 2025.  This is a process that should have begun long ago, particularly after the first phase of reconfiguration that occurred in 2002.  Last year, the first step in that process was accomplished by authorizing bonds for the renovation of Naugatuck High School, the facility that all Borough students have the opportunity to attend.  Ideas and plans are currently being analyzed for the K-8 portion of our district, but such plans take time and require a plan to intelligently fund.   In a perfect world, the Borough would have unlimited funds to implement recommendations from the LTSFPC immediately, but that is not the reality in which we live.

Elected officials are forced to make tough choices, more so in economic times such as these.  I accept the fact that not all will be happy with every decision I make or vote I cast.  There are plenty of elected officials in this world who will try and appeal to everyone, avoid making difficult choices, think in the short-term, or fail to explain their votes.  I do not subscribe to that philosophy of leadership.  I welcome anyone’s questions, comments or simple yet understandable desire to express their frustration or disapproval.  As always, I can be reached at bob@bobmezzo.com, bmezzo@naugatuck-ct.gov, or on my cell phone at 203-217-0876.

Adjusting to the closure of Central Avenue will take time.  It is certainly understandable if parents, students and staff are upset by the decision.  Our children, however, have an ability to adapt that probably exceeds our own.  Life will undoubtedly be filled with change and obstacles, and one can only hope that the biggest challenge in our children’s life will be the changing of schools.  I applaud the Central Avenue parents, led by Michelle Grella, for voicing their opinions in a very respectful and responsible manner under trying circumstances throughout this process.

SPECIAL NOTICE

NAUGATUCK & MIDDLEBURY WATER CUSTOMERS

Starting Monday, April 23, 2012 and continuing through Friday May 4, 2012 water mains will be flushed and hydrants will be tested in the following areas:  West of Route 8 from Beacon Falls to Waterbury.  Areas include Hunters Mountain, Andrew Ave, Rubber Ave, Millville Ave, Field Street, Hillside Ave, Bridge St, Spring St, Highland Ave, Waterbury and The Middlebury System   Flushing will be done daily from 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.

The Downtown Area will be flushed Monday night, April 23, 2012 starting at 7:00 p.m.

Sufficient water for drinking, cooking and washing should be drawn each morning before the flushing begins as the water may be discolored during the day.

Visit our website at www.ctwater.com for an updated flushing schedule.

Thank you for your cooperation.

THE CONNECTICUT WATER COMPANY

Sadly, many students are graduating or simply leaving school without the skills necessary to compete in the global economy.  Those without a strong educational foundation will face bleak opportunities in low-paying service jobs that will limit earning potential throughout a lifetime.  Even worse, many will produce children of their own who will struggle to achieve academic success.

Governor Dannel Malloy has put forth an educational reform package that proposes comprehensive changes to the way our system works in Connecticut.  I have confidence that Governor Malloy, a former mayor and board of education member from Stamford himself, understands the challenges that districts like Naugatuck face when attempting to educate large numbers of students from diverse backgrounds.  Governor Malloy’s financial commitment to the school districts facing the greatest challenges is linked to ensuring that there is accountability to achieve results.  The most controversial proposal in the Governor’s reform package seeks to end the current tenure system for public educators.  Governor Malloy has vowed not to support any educational reform package that does not change teacher tenure in Connecticut.  I wholeheartedly agree with his position.

Money matters.  We all use phrases like “doing more with less” and “improving efficiency”, and almost all local governments and boards of education have put such concepts into practice during this Great Recession.  At the end of the day, however, “increasing programs” and “fostering innovative ideas” to improve academic test scores requires investment.  It would be too simple to believe that such initiatives like before and after school classes and “Saturday Academies”, which have achieved results with students most at risk, can be attained without the funds necessary to support them.  Most boards of education in Connecticut, particularly those in the communities struggling most with academic performance, have been barely meeting expenses over the past few years.  Governor Malloy”s proposes to commit approximately THIRTY NINE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($39,500,000.00) DOLLARS of a FIFTY MILLION and 00/100THS ($50,000,000.00) DOLLAR increase in Educational Cost Sharing (“ECS”) to the thirty (30) districts with the lowest test scores.  This represents an initial commitment to improving the results of our schools in the communities most in need, Naugatuck included.

It is not, however a blank check.  As much as money is part of the equation, it does not solve problems without accountability.  Allocating public dollars for programs that do not achieve their intended results is unacceptable.  That is why the tenure piece must be part of the conversation.  The Governor’s proposal would require communities to use increased funding for new programs specifically designed to improve performance and close the Achievement Gap. (Wikipedia.com).  We must ensure that the professional educators who teach our children on a daily basis and implement such new programs are held to high and fair standards.

The overwhelming majority of educators in Naugatuck and throughout the State of Connecticut do this on a daily basis under trying conditions.  I am a product of Naugatuck Public Schools, and proudly educate two (2) children in our district with a third on the way.  Over the years I have defended Naugatuck teachers, and have always tried to articulate the challenges they face educating students in the twenty-first century.  Those who choose to place the blame for failing schools solely at the feet of teachers are oversimplifying a complex and multi-faceted problem.

As in any profession, however, there are educators who struggle.  A quality education and the use of taxpayer dollars are too important to ignore accountability.  Money alone will not solve the problems that challenge public education in communities like Naugatuck.  There must be measurable benchmarks that show progress toward meeting goals.  Educators are professionals, and in any other profession there are consequences for poor performance or failure to achieve results.  For those educators who struggle at any time throughout their career, there should be a support structure to provide assistance.  Ultimately, however, there should not be a system in place for any well-educated professional that ensures permanent job security after a set number of years.

I understand that public school teachers do not choose their students, some of them who come to school without the necessary foundation for learning and/or a supportive family structure that values education.  It may be unpopular for those in government to speak of the importance of proper parenting, but we as a society need to start having an ongoing conversation on this topic.  Teachers can not control the negligence, dysfunction and poor role-modeling of certain parents, but they can be judged by the progress made over established benchmarks.  As the spouse of an assistant principal, I believe administrators should be held to such standards as well.  To believe otherwise is to essentially admit that some students simply can not learn, and we are essentially wasting our money in trying.

Governor Malloy’s proposal includes approximately TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND and 00/100THS ($2,500,000.00) DOLLARS to train those who evaluate educators.  This will ensure that appropriate benchmarks and achievable goals are established, and that the process will be fair and based on measurable data.  In addition, the Governor’s reform package allocates FIVE MILLION and 00/100THS ($5,000,000.00) DOLLARS for classroom-based, teacher training and professional development.  Evaluating educators will not work unless there is a support structure in place to assist those who are struggling.

I realize that this topic invokes a highly emotional debate, and that many members of the General Assembly are apprehensive about Governor Malloy’s reform package.  Some individuals have used certain proposals to generate fear amongst and between stakeholders, which is usually a major reason why change is never achieved in public government.  This issue, however, is too important to pass along to the next generation of students.  I urge the leaders in our state legislature to reconsider Governor Malloy’s education reform package as originally proposed; not settle for the watered-down version passed in committee that endorses more of the status quo.