On FFH & Contracts—

A Marathon Council Meeting

By John Voket

Perhaps it was appropriate, as the clock neared 1 am Thursday, that two of the most contentious issues facing the community in recent years had generated the most lengthy and spirited debates since the current membership of the Legislative Council took office just over a year ago.

An issue related to the cost of education in the form of a new administrators’ contract, along with a request to further tap taxpayers for an underestimated project at Fairfield Hills dominated the agenda December 15.

In the end, the council narrowly wound up supporting the three-year school administrators’ contract, and a $425,000 bond amendment that could see its ultimate fate decided by taxpayers at a town meeting.

The plan to amend an already approved bonding resolution has been winding its way through local deliberations. And not without its own process-related challenges.

That issue, which resulted in a two-part motion approved by the council, involves a stalled demolition project at Litchfield Hall. Ongoing work to raze the unusable dorm-style structure ceased after asbestos-laden materials were discovered in the top and bottom supports of 220 masonry windows earlier this year.

The original demolition budget of about $600,000 — built into a $1 million bond resolution that also included the design costs for a combined rec/senior center — would likely have covered the project if the hazardous material was not a factor. But now that highly strategic hazmat applications will be required to eliminate the asbestos, costs have ballooned.

Public Works Director Fred Hurley on Monday before the Board of Finance, and again on Wednesday to the council, recounted details of negotiating to complete the project and rid the town of the half demolished and dangerous liability.

Starting with an initial estimate that topped $600,000, Mr Hurley and other officials negotiated completing the hazmat work for $225,000. And they struck a deal to complete the remediation while preserving the original demolition estimates, further containing project costs.

But time was of the essence, Mr Hurley warned. The hazmat end of the deal, with its additional costs approved, had to be contracted by mid-January.

This is also where, from a political standpoint, the issue turned even more complicated. Council Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob pointed out that while the additional $425,000 was under the charter-stipulated cap on council spending authorizations, adding that amount to the already approved bonding resolution raised the overall project cost to a level requiring town meeting authorization.

The idea to bring the added spending proposal to a public vote was similarly justified by First Selectman Pat Llodra and finance board Chairman John Kortze. Mr Kortze was responsible for halting his board’s decision on the added spending recommendation two days earlier because he said the public notice lacked sufficient detail to warn that his board was considering adding taxpayer cost to the already approved project.

His board reconvened in a special meeting just before the council session Wednesday after a more thorough warning was published including the specifics on the added spending. And the finance board recommended the bond amendment move forward in a 4-0 vote, with Mr Kortze’s assertion that the public should have the final say if permissible.

No Charter Provision

Council debate on the issue was initiated by Benjamin Spragg, who pointed out that the charter provides for the council to approve spending under $500,000. But Mr Spragg was concerned because the charter does not provide for arbitrarily deciding to send proposals under the half-million-dollar mark to a town meeting.

Council Chairman Jeff Capeci said he discussed the ramifications with the town attorney earlier that day, and was told the town meeting was permissible even for an item that falls under the half-million threshold. But the council had to agree to send the issue to a town meeting.

Discussion went on with most of the council representatives in attendance agreeing in theory, that they would support holding a binding town meeting on the extra spending if it were legal. At the same time, everyone was fully aware of the time sensitivity outlined by Mr Hurley.

The final voting process, which came with the assistance of finance board Vice Chairman James Gaston who was in the audience, started with an amendment to send the issue to a town meeting if a written legal advisory permitted it. Otherwise the council’s main vote on the spending would stand as binding.

This passed 8-3 with Councilmen Robert Merola, Richard Woycik, and Mr Spragg opposing (James Belden was absent). The main motion to approve the spending then passed 10-1 with Councilman Gary Davis opposing.

The council’s action regarding a school administrators’ contract came just before 1 am, after a lengthy “nonmeeting” was conducted in private. During that hourlong break, council observers promised to discuss and answer questions about proprietary negotiations they witnessed between the school district and its administrators, who were represented by a mediator in the final stage of the process.

The final negotiated contact gives no pay increases in 2011, along with providing some savings in new negotiated health benefits. A two percent increase was agreed upon for the 2012-2013 year, and a 2.5 percent increase was agreed on for the 2013-2014 budget year.

Vote To Reject

Earlier in the evening, the council’s Finance Committee voted to recommend rejecting the contract, despite the fact that it had already been negotiated in good faith between the parties involved. But during later full council discussion, Finance Committee members Jan Andras and Kevin Fitzgerald indicated they appreciated hearing more debate on the matter, which eventually swayed both to support the contract.

Points of concern among those council members supporting the rejection of the contract included the 2.5 increase in year three, which some, including Mr Woycik, believed could put the town in financial jeopardy if national economic trends and state aid to the town continue to decline.

Others, including Daniel Amaral and Mr Spragg, were displeased that the council essentially was provided an already negotiated spending mandate, while having no say in the negotiation itself.

In the end, Mr Capeci said the final vote passed, 6-4, with Messrs Merola, Woycik, Amaral, and Ferguson unsuccessfully voting to reject the contract, and Ms Jacob abstaining because she holds a part-time position as a library assistant in the district.

During preliminary discussions earlier in the meeting, council member Kathryn Fetchick, who was vice chair the Board of Education when the contract was negotiated, expressed frustration that nobody from the school board was in attendance to answer questions about specifics in the contract.

Ms Fetchick, while eventually voting against the motion to reject the contract, said she had a number of issues that included an apparent disparity between raises won by administrators and an earlier contract negotiated by teachers.