wtfdnucsailor

Charter Revision Commisson Discusses Personnel Review Board

2009-06-30T16:54:15Z

At its biweekly meeting last night, June 29, 2009, the Waterford Charter Revision Commission (CRC) concentrated on learning about the Personnel Review Board (PRB). Human Resources (HR) Director Barbara Aube briefed the panel on the history of the PRB and its current functions.

According to HR Director Aube she has been asked to discuss the PRB for two previous charter revision commissions. The first time in the mid ninties she told that CRC that she would recommend keeping the PRB because its members were all professional HR persons and provided her with very useful feedback and mentoring. The next commission in 2002 she stated that she could work with or without the PRB. Her feeling is the same today. However she did note that since 2005 the PRB has generally only met once a quarter but that it has yet to meet in 2009 due to lack of issues.

The PRB was established before Waterford hired a professional HR director. Then, it was very active in drafting job descriptions, changing job classifications, and providing for employee incentive programs, and dealing with any employee grievences. With a professional HR director, the PRB only gets involved on job classifications. There are no professional HR persons on the current PRB. Again, Ms. Aube emphasized that, in her expanded role as HR director for both the Town and the Board of Education, she can work with or without the PRB.

After HR Director Dan Steward told the CRC that HR Director Aube is doing all the functions of the PRB. The fact that it has not met in 2009 is indicative of its lack of effectiveness in today’s environment. The CRC will hear from PRB Chairman Ric Wells at its next meeting.

Also attending the meeting was Representative Town Meeting (RTM) Moderator Sharon Palmer. Ms. Palmer was asked about the request from the Waterford Utility Commission to remove the RTM from the approval process for sewer rates. Ms. Palmer, noting she was speaking as an individual, stated she could not support such a request. The review of the rate structure was the only way the RTM could have some control over spending by the Waterforfd Utility Commission.

There was a brief discussion regarding the financing of the Utiity Commission and Chairman of the Board of Finance (BOF), J. W. “Bill” Sheehan, explained that the WUC Enterprise Fund was a business fund, not a general fund of the Town and the BOF and RTM do not have any jurisdiction over the WUC’s Enterprise Fudn.

Ms. Palmer was also asked about extending the term of an RTM member from two to four years. Ms. Palmer stated that it depended upon the circumstances. Good people, you want to keep arond. The not so good, you want to relieve of their duties as soon as possible. Certainly, it cuts down the number of times an incumbent would have to face the voters.

At the next meeting, July 14, 2009, the CRC will hear from PRB Chairman Ric Wells and WUC Chairman Peter Green. Time permitting the CRC will also hear from Fire Administrator Bruce Miller to start the review of the fire services in Waterford.

Charter Revision Commission Holds First Substantive Meeting

2009-06-17T16:39:39Z

The recently formed Waterford Charter Revision Commission (CRC) held its first substantive meeting last night, June 16, 2009 at Waterford Town Hall. Chairman Clifford Grandjean started the meeting with providing his fellow commissioners a list of topics that had been raised for CRC consideration thus far. These topics are:
1. Length of terms of office of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM), Board of Selectmen (BOS), Treasurer, Town Clerk, and Tax Collector. RTM, BOS, and Treasurer terms are currently two years and Town Clerk and Tax Collector are four year terms.
2. Continued need for the Personnel Review Board (PRB).
3. Board of Police Commissioners
4. Board of Fire Commissioners - Fire Administrator
5. Rate Setting by the Utility Commission (Acting as Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA)) subject to ratification by the RTM.
6. Senior Citizens Commission relationship with regional council on aging.
7. Alternative Forms of Overall Government- City Manager/Weak Mayor/Town Council; Strong Mayor/Town Council; Weak Mayor/Town Council
8. Some unapproved changes from 2002 CRC - Appointing Town Clerk, Town Treasurer, Tax Collector; Merging Utility Commission with Department of Public Works (DPW)
9. Expansion of BOS to five members.
10. Initial Departmental/Agency Budget Review by BOS
11. Appeal Process from Budgetary Actions of the BOS.

Chairman Grandjean noted that some of the matters really were issues with Town Ordinances, the perview of the RTM and not the CRC. Specifically, the Senior Citizens Commission request really deal with Town Ordinance 2.72.050, and not a charter article. It was the consensus of the commission that a letter should be sent to the Senior Citizens Commission noting that this was an issue not under the perview of the CRC.
The Request from Waterford Utility Commission (WUC) Chairman Peter Green was also an ordinance issue (Ordinance 13.08.020) but it appeared that Chairman Green’s request was that the CRC include a proviso in the Charter that would prevent the RTM from reviewing the rate actions of the WUC. Town Attorney Nick Kepple agreed with CRC Chairman Grandjean and provided the CRC with some background regarding home rule, town charters, and state statutes. Attorney Kepple also stated that he would prepare a more detailed presentation and provide it to the commission at a later meeting.
At the request of the Chairman, the Town Attorney went into more detail regarding the time line for the CRC to accomplish its task. In order to allow for sufficient BOS and public review of the charter proposals before final acceptance of the report, the Town Attorney recommended that the CRC set a March or April 2010 as the target for completion of commission work. This would also permit the CRC to hold more than one public hearing on its proposals to validate the BOS and the public pulse regarding the Charter Changes before actually submitting the report to the BOS.
Chairman Grandjean then asked if any Commissioner was familar with the Fire Service. Commissioner Paul Goldstein, who is also a member of the RTM, noted that he was a member of the Fire Service’s Long Range Planning Committee and had some familarity with the issues regarding the Fire Commisson and the Fire Service. Chairman Grandjean requested that Commssioner Goldstein take the point on the issues of the Fire Service.
Regarding the Police Commission, First Selectman Dan Steward noted that the current Chief of Police was comfortable with the current arrangement but it may not be serving the best interests of the Town if either the Commission or the Police Chief changed. He asked the CRC to evaluate what would be best for the Town regardless of the personalities that would be filling the positions. The discussion then turned to whether term limits were necessary for all boards and commissions. No conclusions were made regarding this subject.
When asked, First Selectman Dan Steward, provided the CRC with some background on the PRB. This body was formed before the Town had a professional Human Resources Director and deals with Job Classifications and Salaries. It generally has little business and is not really necessary with a professional HR director in place.
The discussion then turned to the Budget process and the role of the BOS in that process. Chairman of the Waterford Board of Finance (BOF), J. W. “Bill” Sheehan, noted that currently no regard to Town priorities compared to Agency priorities is considered until an agency budget reaches the BOF. If the First Selectman and the BOS had initial review, it woud provide the Administration with the capability of setting Town priorities before the BOF weighs in and there would be budget responsibility on the part of the First Selectman. Town Attorney Kepple noted that each Town does its budgets differently but, in general, voters assume that the First Selectman and the BOS are responsible even if they are not.
When asked by Chairman Grandjean, BOF Chairman Sheehan noted the close relationship between the WUC and the DPW that currently exists and whether it would be more cost effective and efficient for the Town to merge those personnel into one department. Chairman Sheehan also noted that there were other departments in Town that might be considered for merger to cut cost of government. The question whether service to the citizen would be impacted by such mergers also needed to be addressed to determine if such mergers were really of benefit to the Town.
A brief discussion regarding the different forms of government in Connecticut Towns insued. Attorney Kepple stated that he would provide the CRC with more information at a later meeting as well as a discussion on the relationship of the Charter to the Town Ordinances.
It was decided that the CRC would meet again at 7:00 PM on Monday, June 29, 2009, and asked that the Human Resources Director and the Chairman of the PRB be invited to discuss the PRB and that the WUC Chairman and the Moderator of the RTM be invited to discuss the RTM review of the Utility Commission rate setting. If possible, the Town Treasurer, Tax Collector, and Town Clerk would be invited to discuss their positions at the July 14, 2009 meeting. Further meetings were scheduled for July 27, August 11, and August 24, 2009.

Waterford Charter Revision Commission Holds First Public Hearing

2009-06-10T16:46:11Z

Last night, June 9, 2009, the newly formed Waterford Charter Revision Commission (WCRC) held its first statutorially required Public Hearing. Unfortunately, no public was in attendence except the DAY Reporter. All other attendees were town officials or employees.

Senior Services Director Sally Ritchie, speaking for the Senior Citizens Commission, requested that the Senior Citizens Commission be permitted to apply for grants from state agencies when such grants are available. The initial request submitted to the Waterford Board of Selectmen (BOS) was more narrowly construed to requesting grants from the State Department of Aging, a department which may or may not be funded in the current state budget crisis.

One of the Charges to the WCRC from the BOS was to consider merging the Fire Commission and the Police Commission into a Public Safety Commission. The Fire Administrator and the Police Chief provided a different take on this charge.

Fire Administrator Bruce Miller requested that the WCRC look at streamlining the Fire Commission and simplifying the chain of command for the fire services. He provided an ordinance from the Town of Farmington as a model for the commission’s consideration.

Police Chief Murray “Bud” Pendleton provided a brief history of the police commission in Waterford and stated that the current commission represented a cross section of Waterford, did not have any police on the commission He felt that a member of the Waterford Representative Town Meeting’s (RTM) Public Protection and Safety Committee should be a member of the Police Commission.

Waterford Utiity Commission (WUC) Chairman Peter Green asked that the commission consider not requiring the approval of the RTM for Sewer system rate increases. This requirement is in the Waterford Code of Ordinances 13.08.020. Chairman Green did not object to presenting the approved charges to the RTM for information but felt that state statute provided sufficient requirements for the setting of sewer rates.

Waterford Board of Finance (BOF) Chairman J. W. “Bill” Sheehan presented some reasons why the WCRC should review the current Waterford form of government to determine if a more efficient form could be introduced. Chairman Sheehan had provided a detailed breakdown of three possible alternative forms of government to the BOS in March which had been provided to the WCRC. He also pointed out that currently the First Selectman and the BOS do not approve all of the department, board and agency budgets before submittal to the BOF. In fact, only $12.8 milllion in operating budget, and around $5 million for capital projects and debt service are considered by the BOS prior to consideration by the BOF out of a nearly $70 million budget. If the WCRC would not consider a complete overhaul of the Town government, Chairman Sheehan recommended that the following two steps be accomplished - 1) Increasing the size of the BOS from the current three members to five members and 2) that all budgets, including the Waterford Board of Education (BOE) be considered by the Board of Selectmen.

Chairman Sheehan encouraged the WCRC to keep the charter language clear and simple, leaving the details to Town Ordinances. He also asked that the WCRC provide recommended ordinance changes to match their charter changes as an appendix to the Commission’s report to the BOS to speed and assist the RTM in updating the Town Ordinances after the Charter Revision is approved by the voters in November 2010.

Concluding his testimony, Chairman Sheehan thanked the Commission for taking on this task which would occupy much of their time in the next year.

At the end of the public hearing, the WCRC decided to meet again on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 to discuss the various items that have been presented to them for consideration.

First Selectman Proposes A Charter Revision Commission Public Hearing

2009-03-04T16:09:30Z

During the “Other Business” portion of yesterday’s, March 3, 2009 Board of Selectman (BOS) meeting, First Selectman Dan Steward announced that he was proposing to form a Charter Revision Commission in the next month or so.

As a first step, he planned that the next BOS meeting (currently scheduled for March17, 2009) would include a hearing period to obtain comments from citizens regarding what should be considered by the Charter Revision Commission when it was formed, probably in April 2009. First Selectman Steward expects the Charter Revision Commission to take at least a year to form its proposed revisions and is targeting the November 2010 elections as the time that the proposals would appear on the ballot.

When asked by Selectman Paul Suprin what items he was considering for the Charter Revision Commission, First Selectman Steward noted that he had letters regarding the actions of the Fire Commission and the Police Commission. Possibly they could be merged to a Public Safety Commission with revised duties. Also, the Board of Assessment Appeal needs five members vice three members to handle all of the activity during a revaluation. He is also concerned that the two year terms of the Selectmen and the Representative Town Meeting members may be too short and a more lengthy term should be considered.

First Selectman Steward is very interested in getting more community input before he drafts the charge to the Charter Revision Commission, hence the public hearing planned for the next BOS meeting. He hopes that all Waterford residents that have ideas or concerns have an opportunity to express them before he charges the commission.

FY2010 Budget Season is Upon Us - All are Invited

2009-02-10T21:49:38Z

Commencing on March 2, 2009, the Waterford Board of Finance (BOF) meets every Monday and Wednesday until March 25, 2009 at 7:00PM in the Waterford Town Hall RTM Meeting Room to consider the Waterford Town Budget for Fiscal Year 2010(July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010). Although the public is encouraged to attend any these budget hearings, the BOF will make its final recommendation to the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) on March 25, 2009 after a public hearing. The RTM will hold its FY2010 budget deliberations May 4 to 6, 2009. After the budget is approved by the RTM, the BOF will set the tax mill rate. The current mill rate (FY2009) is 16.86 down from 21.07 in FY2007. Due to revaluation, although the mill rate decreased for FY2009 taxes for residents increased due to the increased assessed value of their property.

Since the various Town Departments, Boards, and Agencies have been working on their submissions to the Board of Finance in January and early February, it is possible to preview highlights of some of the budgets that will be considered for approval from March to May.

The Grand total of General Government, Capital and Debt Service and Board of Education budget requests for FY2010 is $71,547,244. This is an increase of $1,183,213 or 1.68% from the current year budget of $70,364,031.

The total requested General Government Operating budget in $25,629,540. This is an increase of $701,365 or 2.81% increase from the current year budget of $24,928,175.

The Board of Selectmen (BOS) is recommending a Public Works Department budget of $4,928,971. This is a $75,479 or 1.56% increase from the current year budget of $4,853,492. It is also recommending $1,291,748 for the Current Year Capital Improvement budget (an increase of $440,192 from the current year $851,556) and $2,725,363 for the Transfer to Capital & Non Recurring Fund Account. This is a $323,189 or 10.60% decrease from current year budget of $3,048,552. Some of the major expenditures planned or recommended from the Current Year Capital Fund include $1.2 million for the Fleet Management Fund, $26,748 for Information Technology Network Improvements, $15,000 for lights and camera at the Police Impound Area, and $50,000 for remodeling at the Eugene O’Neill Theater Center. The recommended expenditures from the Capital Non Recurring Expenditure fund include Schools Construction, Lights for the Spera Soccer Field, a follow on contribution to the Town Playground, revaluation, road reclamation projects such as Slope Stabilization along Niantic River Road to prevent the road from going into the Niantic River, and partial upgrade of the Mago Point Sewer Pump Station. Of note, the Capital Non Recurring Expenditure Fund had an undesignated balance of $6,703,230.60 as of January 31, 2009, a designated balance of $9,332,465.93 and an appropriated balance of $2,061,412.82 for a total balance of $18,097,109.35. The Audited balance of the Fund as of June 30, 2008 was $18,180,548. The Capital plan submitted by the First Selectman plans to use $330,000 of the designated and undesignated balances for projects in FY2010. The planned projects include Road Reconstruction, Sewer projects, and Water System Projects.

In FY2010 the Fleet Management Plan Fund is expected by the plan to purchase 5 Public Works vehicles, 1 vehicle for Fire Service, and 1 vehicle for the Senior Citizen Commission. As of January 31, 2009, the Fleet Management Fund Balance was $1,463,003.

The BOF Hearings for the Public Works, Capital, and Capital Non Recurring Funds are on March 23, 2009.

Other Large Ticket budgets to be reviewed include the Police Commission Budget proposal of $4,804,078 and Emergency Management budget of $858,985 increases of $356,206 or 8.01% and $98,490 or 12.95%, respectively over the current year budgets of $4,447,872 and $760,495. The Police Commission and Emergency Management BOF hearings will be held on March 2, 2009.

The Fire Commission and Fire Companies combined budget request for FY2010 is $2,488,521. This is $80,023 or 3.32% over the current year combined budget of $2,408,498. The Fire Commission and Fire Companies BOF hearings will be March 9, 2009.

The Waterford Public Library is requesting $1,014,328. This is $5,901or 0.58% below the current year budget of $1,020,229.

Recreation and Parks is requesting $1,784,870 in FY2010. This is $45,562 or 2.62% increase over the current year budget of $1,739,308.

The FY2010 Insurance request is $2,683,954. This is $35,036 or 1.32% increase over the current year’s $2,648,918.

The FY2010 Retirement budget is $2,343,309. This is $52,912 or 2.31% over the current year’s $2,290,397.

Library, Recreation and Parks, Insurance, and Retirement budgets will be heard on March 16, 2009.

The Board of Finance only has bottom line approval of the FY2010 Board of Education Budget of $40,482,280. This is a $751,001 or 1.89% increase over the current year budget of $39,731,279. The FY2010 Board of Education Budget hearing by the BOF will be March 18, 2009.

The General Fund Unreserved Balance as of November 30, 2008 was $22,432,924 or 31.88% of the FY2009 budget. A review of the last audit (FY2008 ending June 30, 2008) shows that the Town’s General Fund Balance steadily decreased until last year by about $2 million a year. Uncollected taxes for FY2008 were essentially zero. This figure is the immediate impact of the Millstone (DNC, Inc.) tax appeal resolution.

All of the budget figures for FY2010 noted above are proposals that may be decreased but not increased by the BOF and the RTM. The total of the FY2010budget minus the expected revenues for FY2010 will determine the amount of dollars needed to be raised by property taxes. The dollars needed, plus the expected percentage of collections will determine your taxes in July 2009 and January 2010. The Town is benefiting from the ‘soft landing’ provided by the System Benefit Charge that was written into the Electrical Deregulation Bill in 1998. The current FY2009 System Benefit Charge Revenue is $2,962,370. It is expected to drop to around $2 million for FY2010.

The BOF and the RTM have their work cut out for them to see if there are any reductions possible. To lower the proposed budgets, it may be necessary to reduce services. Public input always makes for a more intelligent decision.

Come to the Board of Finance and RTM budget hearings and make your voices heard. The members of the BOF and the RTM are very interested in your inputs.

FY2010 Full Budget Listing:

Department	FY2009	FY2010Req	Chg $ Valu	% Chg	BOF RvwDte
Registrar of Voters	48,577	52,052	3,475	7.15%	03/02/2009-1
Ethics Commission	1,323	1,323	-	0.00%	03/02/2009-2
Youth Services	197,561	197,270	(291)	-0.15%	03/02/2009-3
Harbor Management	1,392	1	(1,391)	-99.93%	03/02/2009-4
RTM	19,102	19,057	(45)	-0.24%	03/02/2009-5
Town Clerk	240,475	236,934	(3,541)	-1.47%	03/02/2009-6
Board of Finance	63,664	63,664	-	0.00%	03/02/2009-7
Emergency Management	760,495	858,985	98,490	12.95%	03/02/2009-8
Police	4,447,872	4,804,078	356,206	8.01%	03/02/2009-9
Senior Citizens	506,196	519,166	12,970	2.56%	03/04/2009-1
Flood &Erosion Control	1,627	1,687	60	3.69%	03/04/2009-2
Economic Development	11,668	11,668	-	0.00%	03/04/2009-3
Conservation Commission	36,900	16,900	(20,000)	-54.20%	03/04/2009-4
P&Z	495,869	493,975	(1,894)	-0.38%	03/04/2009-5
ZBA	6,856	7,077	221	3.22%	03/04/2009-6
Building Maintenance	112,598	135,586	22,988	20.42%	03/04/2009-7
Building Department	249,511	243,401	(6,110)	-2.45%	03/04/2009-8
Fire Commission	1,761,371	1,841,606	80,235	4.56%	03/09/2009-1
Jordan Fire	137,330	137,300	(30)	-0.02%	03/09/2009-2
Quaker Hill Fire	123,800	123,636	(164)	-0.13%	03/09/2009-3
Goshen Fire	102,635	102,635	-	0.00%	03/09/2009-4
Oswegatchie Fire	145,262	145,262	-	0.00%	03/09/2009-5
Cohanzie Fire	138,100	138,082	(18)	-0.01%	03/09/2009-6
Tax Collector	202,503	198,020	(4,483)	-2.21%	03/11/2009-1
Assessor	255,787	264,826	9,039	3.53%	03/11/2009-2
Board of Assessment Appeals	1,569	1,542	(27)	-1.72%	03/11/2009-3
Board of Selectmen	219,829	210,511	(9,318)	-4.24%	03/11/2009-4
Utility Commission	50,196	50,850	654	1.30%	03/11/2009-5
Social Service Grants	122,753	111,020	(11,733)	-9.56%	03/16/2009-1
Public Library	1,020,229	1,014,328	(5,901)	-0.58%	03/16/2009-2
Rec & Parks	1,739,308	1,784,870	45,562	2.62%	03/16/2009-3
Finance Department	973,800	1,017,470	43,670	4.48%	03/16/2009-4
Insurance	2,648,918	2,683,954	35,036	1.32%	03/16/2009-5
Legal	355,100	332,142	(22,958)	-6.47%	03/16/2009-6
Retirement	2,290,397	2,343,309	52,912	2.31%	03/16/2009-7
Contingency	350,000	300,000	(50,000)	-14.29%	03/16/2009-8
Debt Service	1,804,469	1,418,313	(386,156)	100.00%	03/16/2009-9
Public Health Nursing	91,633	91,960	327	0.36%	03/18/2009-1
Conservation of Health	142,477	144,422	1,945	1.37%	03/18/2009-2
Board of Education	39,731,279	40,482,280	751,001	1.89%	03/18/2009-3
Public Works	4,853,492	4,928,971	75,479	1.56%	03/23/2009-1
Current Yr Capital	851,556	1,291,748	440,192	51.69%	03/23/2009-2
Transfer to Capital & Nonrecurring	3,048,552	2,725,363	(323,189)	-10.60%	03/23/2009-3
Total Gen Gov Operations	24,928,175	25,629,540	701,365	2.81%

Total BOE Operations	39,731,279	40,482,280	751,001	1.89%

Total Capital & Debt Svc	5,704,577	5,435,424	(269,153)	-4.72%

Total Gen Gov Ops, Cap, Debt	30,632,752	31,064,964	432,212	1.41%

Total General Fund	70,364,031	71,547,244	1,183,213	1.68%


Sum Mar 2 2009	5,780,461	6,233,364	452,903	7.84%
Sum Mar 4 2009	1,421,225	1,429,460	8,235	0.58%
Sum Mar 9 2009	2,408,498	2,488,521	80,023	3.32%
Sum Mar 11 2009	729,884	725,749	(4,135)	-0.57%
Sum Mar 16 2009	11,304,974	11,005,406	(299,568)	-2.65%
Sum Mar 18 2009	39,965,389	40,718,662	753,273	1.88%
Sum Mar 23 2009	8,753,600	8,946,082	192,482	2.20%

edited on February 12, 2009 to update to January 31, 2009 figures where noted.

O'Neill Theater Center Proposes $20 Million expansion, Neighbors Worried

2008-11-22T18:15:30Z

Last night, November 21, 2008, the Eugene O’Neill Theater Center made the first formal presentation to the Town of its proposed $20 million expansion project. There is a good summary of the presentation in this morning’s New London DAY, http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=06694f88-a0ea-40f6-88c1-565e034f692e. This is the beginning of a two to three year journey for the O’ Neill Center to complete this project. It could stumble for lack of support and/or dollars at any stage.

Since this writer has the benefit of relatively unlimited space, I will give a more detailed account of the meeting last night.

The meeting started with a presentation by the O’Neill Executive Director, Preston Whiteway, providing a brief history of Theater Center. The O’Neill was founded in 1964 by George White on property owned by the Town of Waterford and leased to The O’Neill for $1 per year. The purpose of the Center is to help nurture American stageart and writers before they go public and develop new plays for the American Stage. In 1969, the Critics’ conference was added to the program. In 1970, the National Theater Institute, an educational endeavor was established to provide an intensive seven days a week, 7AM to 10PM program of study for fourteen weeks of a year. In1978 the National Music Theater Conference was convened as an annual program. This year there are three plays on Broadway that got their start at this conference. IN 1988 a summer caberet program was instituted and in 1990 Puppetry was added to the list of offerings in honor of the Rose family and that famous puppet, “Howdy Doody.” Those of us of a certain age remember that early TV program. In 2007 the O’Neill added a Young Playwrites conference geared to High School and Middle School students.

The O’ Neill Center also manages and maintains the O’Neill family home, Monte Cristo, on Pequot Avenue in New London which receives visitors from around the world to see the setting for the O’Neill Play “Long Day’s Journey Into Night.”

Director Whiteway then explained the current Business Plan for the Center. He explained the the National Theater Institute with a Student tuition of $18,000 per student for the program just supported the rest of the Center’s programs. There are thirty students currently enrolled with a total income of $540,000 this year. Part of the expansion plan is to improve this college level program which is 45to 50 percent of Center Revenues.

The O’Neill does have an economic impact on the community. It has an annual payroll of $1.6 million. Over 6,000 people pass through the O’Neill in a year and nearly all stop for at least a dinner at a local restaurant. In return for the $1 per year lease, the O’Neill maintains the town owned buildings on the property and provides Waterford with 15 percent of gate receipts. This has been around $8,000 in the past two years. (According to reports from the Town of Waterford, the gate receipt was $9,543 in FY2007 and $8,848 in FY2008. The Town also donated $1,750 to the O’Neill each year making the net &7793 for FY2007 and $7098 in FY2008).

Director Whiteway also noted that residents of Waterford are automatically members of the O’Neill Theater Center, entitled to discount tickets to offerings at the Theater and other merchandise discounts. He emphasized that after some years of economic turmoil, the Center has been in the black for the past two years and desires to secure its future with the planned expansion.

The O’Neill Center Board Chairman Tom Viertel, then proceeded to explain the program expansion planned. He pointed out that in the summer, the Center rents dorm rooms from Connecticut College for NTI programs but in the winter, these facilities are not available. The current programs are limited by the buildings available for lodging, rehearsal, and other related activities. With on site lodging facilities, a better dining hall, a new theater, and more rehearsal area, the Center could expand programs, permit more interaction between working playwrites and college and high school students.

At this point in the presentation, a citizen interrupted Mr. Viertel, asking him to get to the facts of the changes, and stop the ‘BS’. After a brief exchange with this resident, Mr. Viertel continued his pitch to improve the O’Neill programs, especially at the high school level. He then introduced the architect, Mr. Chad Floyd, to explain the changes planned for the theater center.

Using an overhead shot of the center, Mr. Floyd outlined the current status of the Center and the planned additions: Ten small cottages, a rehearsal shed, a dining hall, and a 200 seat theater next to the Barn (where the meeting was being held). The plan also included renovation and maintenance of some existing buildings currently used by the Center.

He pointed out that the current size of the O’Neill property was not big enough for the expansion and that it was proposed to ask the Town of Waterford to extend the lease property to include approximately 2.9 acres of wooded area just north of the theater center and south of the Town owned and maintained Tennis Courts off of Great Neck Road. This would permit more parking and reconfiguring of the internal roadway to limit vehicle access and encourage foot traffic.

Now the citizens weighed in with their concerns.

Q. Would the new theater encroach on the water course between their home and the Center? Ans. No, the planned theater must be inside the required setbacks and away from the wetlands. The new theater building will also serve as a buffer for noise from the theater center.

Q. Have you looked into acoustic barriers to shield the neighbors from the noise of the theater center? Ans. No, but have looked at designing the theater so that neighbors would not hear the performance.

Q. Will the new parking lot be asphalt? Ans. The plans a for a permiable gravel. We want to keep the site as natural as possible.

Q. Are you gong to acquire any new property? Ans. We are asking for the 2.82 acres just north of the theater.

Q. What would the back of the Theater look like? Will I see a blockhouse from my back yard? Ans. It will not be like a block house.

Q. Will the new cottages destroy the wooded area? Ans. The plan is to build the cottages between the trees, saving as many as possible. These 2.82 acres will secure the future of the O’Neill.

Q. Will the theater area be handicapped accessible? Ans. Yes

Q. Can you create a water area to elminate the swampy area that breeds mosquitos? Where will the students gather? Can their noise be buffered? Ans. The students will gather in the production shed and the ‘Pub’ that is more in the center of the center or in the dining hall that will be on the Western edge of the property against Camp Harkness.

Q. Why don’t you use the Open Lawn area instead of the current wooded area? Ans. We don’t want to destroy the open space view It also would place the cottages further away from the theater center.

Q. You will be destroying a natural habit vice an open lawn, doesn’t make sense. What type of trees will replace the current woods? Will it be evergreens for permanent blocking and screening from neighbors? Ans. Do not plan to plant evergreens, want a natural mix of trees such as is currently on the site.

Q. How big are the cottages? Will there be any changes at the ‘Pub’? Ans. Cottages will sleep three to five persons, depending on the size with a total of thirty five new beds. There are no changes planned for the ‘Pub’.

Q. What are the next steps? Ans. I defer to First Selectman Dan Steward - First Selectman Steward explained that there would be a number of hearings before the Recreation and Parks Commission on the change to the lease and the recommendation would then be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen. (First Selectman Steward neglected to say that the lease would then have to be presented to the Representative Town Meeting for the final approval).

Q. Do you have any resident director for the students? How much do you pay Connecticut College for lodging space? Ans. Yes, the are older adults to monitor the students, usually recent graduates that are close in age to the students. Conn College gets $100 per student.

Q. What is the benefit to the Town of Waterford if the expansion is approved? Ans. At the end of the lease period, the town will own the additional buildings constructed by the O’Neill. There are intangible benefits to Waterford by being the host of the Eugene O’Neill Theater Center that cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Waterford is known the world over as the home of the O’Neill. It provides a worldwide cachet for the Town. Currently, Waterford High School is benefiting from O’Neill programs and we want to make Waterford High School the model school for the new Young Playwrite initiative.

Q. How Long is the current lease? Ans. The lease has a thirty year term. Writer’s note - The current thirty year lease was signed in August of 1994. So there are sixteen years left on the current lease. It took the RTM six months to approve the last version of the O’Neill lease.

Q. What is the value of the O’Neill to the Town? Ans. There is agreement that there is not enough involvement with the Town by the O’Neill and this needs improvement. It is something we will work on.

Q. When is the parking lot full? Ans. The parking lot is full about twelve nights in a year when the summer performances are in full swing.

Citizen Comment - The O’Neill should pay more to Waterford. The taxpayer does not see the ‘bargain’

Q. Does the O’Neill have a liquor permit? Ans. Yes, for the Pub. It is a limited use permit and the ‘Pub’ is not open when students are in resident on the site. Citizen Comment - I don’t see how it is legal to have a liquor permit on town owned property that is used as an educational institution.

Q. How much of the 2.8 acres is wetlands? Ans. A survey has not been done to outline the wetlands since the O’Neill does not yet lease the parcel.

Q. Is the O’Neill inside the Coastal Management Area? Ans. We believe that it is not.

Q. What are the needs of the existing buildings? Ans. There is a great deal of deferred maintenance that needs to be accomplished, especially roofs and some internal damage. When the new cottages and dining hall are built, the interior of some of the buildings will be renovated but the building footprint will be unchanged.

Q. Will the new buildings be ‘Green?” Ans. The will be of sustainable design but do not know if they will be LEED compliant. The cottages are of different sizes (2000 square feet, 1500 squeare feet, and 1300 square feet) so they will not look the same.

Q. What is project cost? Ans. $20 million. $15 million for construction and $5 million fro a maintenance and scholarship fund. The plan is to have all funds raised by private contributors. There will be no taxpayer dollars involved.

Citizen Comment - Don’t like the use of the wooded open space. Cottages should be on the current open lawn. Keep the trees as a buffer with the neighbors and an undisturbed habitat. Don’t destroy an existing woods.

Citizen comment - After years of avoiding the O’Neill, I have become involved in the past five years. The O’Neill does life changing work for its students. Now it needs to work with the neighbors and energize local support for this program that is truly worthwhile.

So what are the next steps for the O’Neill - First it will have hearings on the lease change before the Recreation and Parks Commission. If the Commission approves the changes, the proposed change will go the the Board of Selectman and, finally, to the Representative Town Meeting for approval.

When the new additional property has been identified, then The O’Neill must go before the Town Conservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission for project approval.

In the meantime, The O’Neill must commence a vigorous fund raising program to raise the $20 million necessary to complete this project. There are still a number of steps where the project could die for lack of approval Citizens should pay attention to the followup meetings to voice their support or non support for this project and assist Town officials in making the proper decision in this matter. This project is at least a year from any shovels in the ground and three years from completion if placed on a fast track.

Waterford BOF Looking Forward to FY2010 Budget

2008-07-22T18:08:35Z

Fiscal Year 2009 is in its first month, but Waterford Board of Finance (BOF) Chairman J. W. "Bill" Sheehan has sent a memo to all Department Heads and Chairpersons of Boards and Agencies to look at FY2010 budget and report back the impact of a zero increase (Budget same as FY2009) and the impact if the only allowed increase is for personnel contractual obligations. The amount of that increase is also requested.

The Chairpersons and Department Heads have a deadline of September 30, 2008 for their response so that the BOF will have the information available when they draft the FY2010 budget guidelines at the October BOF meeting.

Waterford BOF Critiques FY2009 Budget Approval Process

2008-06-12T16:28:23Z

The Waterford Board of Finance (BOF) concluded the FY2009 Budget approval process last night, June 11, 2009 with a critique of their own efforts and proposing some ideas to make the next year's budget approval process more effective.

BOF member Ron Fedor started out the discussion by questioning how to set the budget targets for various departments, boards, and agencies. A simple percentage limit (such as don't increase budget by more than 3%) may no longer be effective in the current 'tough' budget times. The budget may have to be more frugal. Member Alan Wilensky followed up by proposing that the departments be asked what their budget increase would be if only the contractural increases were permitted. This was followed up with discussion of other 'costs beyond the control of the departments' and a more stringent target of no budget increase. In the end, the Board concluded that two questions should be asked: 1) What would the budget increase be if only 'uncontrollable costs' were permitted to increase? and 2) What services, programs, or personnel would have to be cut if a zero budget increase was mandated for FY2010?

Member Cheryl Larder stated her dissatisfaction with the Fleet Management Plan. It was necessary for the BOF to make severe cuts this year. The Plan has not attempted to determine what 'rollling stock' was really needed by the Town. There was much discussion on the history of why the original consultants (Mercury Consultants) did not make this part of their initial report to the Town. Member George Peteros proposed that an Ad Hoc Committee be established to draft a Request for Proposal (RFP) to examine the Waterford rolling stock needs and recommend changes to the current inventory. The Board unanamously agreed to the proposal and Members Larder, Fedor, and Peteros were appointed from the Board of Finance and Finance Director Rudie Beers was appointed from Town Staff. First Selectman Dan Steward agreed to serve as a representative of The Board of Selectman and to place this proposal in the Capital Plan. Chairman J. W. "Bill" Sheehan will send a letter to the Moderator of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) to ask if the RTM was interested in having representation on the Ad Hoc Committee.

There were numerous complaints regarding the long budget session after the regular March Meeting and it was agreed that a different set of budgets would be heard on the night of the regular meeting in the future.

Member Alan Wilensky was concerned about the various fire department budgets. He also felt that each department should defend their own budget, not the entire group of Chiefs for all budgets. Finance Director Beers reported that three of the five departments will have their budgets managed by the Finance Department. Only Quaker Hill and Oswegatchie Departments will manage their own budgets. Director Beers also reported that all of the Fire Department phone lines would be under the Town billing schedule as of July 1, 2008. Chairman J. W. "Bill" Sheehan noted that many of the budget review problems with the fire companies would be resolved if the Fire Commission responded to the letter sent by former Chairman Ken Brown asking the Commission to update their 'budget template' to the latest BOF guidelines. This template has not be changed in five years.

Member Cheryl Larder expressed her 'disappointment' that the Recreation and Parks Commission had manipulated town procedures and services to complete a Dog Park that had not been approved by any governing body of the Town. Member Larder is concerned that the actual costs of the Dog Park operation were not properly calculated and significant staff and legal time was spent on a project that had not been placed in the capital plan or approved by any fiscal board or agency in the town prior to construction.

Chairman Sheehan asked the Finance Director if there was a written policy regarding reimbursable expenses. When the answer was "No", Chairman Sheehan requested the Finance Director to draft such a policy so it was clearer in everyone's mind just what expenses would be reimbursed by the Town. He also requested that the data presentation for fuel and lubricants be uniform for all departments to permit ease in review and that the lastest advertising rates from the DAY be provided at the beginning of the budget review.

The question of New Programs and Services came up in the discussions but no real decisions were made on how to handle department requests for new programs whether an old program was cancelled or not.

Chairman Sheehan also asked if the Miscellaneous Social Grants Department could be reorganized again to more effectively reflect the various types of agencies requesting funds. Member Fedor proposed that the various social grants by split up into departmental budgets and be subject to the review of that department to determine if the service was more effective than that provided by the department and a necessary Town expense. First Selectman Steward agreed to look at the Miscellaneous Social Grants and get with the Chairman of the BOF to make a more concise presentation of these grants.

Chairman Sheehan also stated the opinion that the previous year's audit report should be reviewed prior to the budget hearings rather than during or after as occurred this year.

Board members again stated the need to have audit reports from foundations and 501(c)3 organizations such as the Waterford Ambulance Association during budget reviews so that the impact and contribution of these agencies to the Town could be properly appreciated and accounted for.

Oil Mill Road Residents Concerned About Planned CL&P Power Substation

2008-06-04T16:18:19Z

At the beginning of last evening’s, June 3, 2008, Board of Selectmen (BOS) meeting, the board listened to an informational presentation by Girish Behal and Marianne Dubuque of Northeast Utilities regarding a planned power substation to be located on CL&P property at the intersection of Waterford Parkway North and Oil Mill Road.

Mr. Behal started the presentation by discussing the reliablity (or lack thereof) in Waterford. Currently Waterford receives its electrical distribution power from the Flanders Substation in East Lyme, the Uncasville Substation in Montville and the Williams Street Substation in New London. Due to growth of both residential and commercial development in Waterford, these sources are stretched thin and there is a need for a separate Waterford Substation to provide the necessary power reliability in Waterford.

He then described the property at the intersection of Oil Mill Road and Waterford Parkway North. The CL&P property is five acres near the High Voltage transmission lines and the lower voltage distribution lines in that part of Waterford. These transmission lines have been in place for over forty years. This site is the most efficient of all sites considered in Waterford since no additional lines will have to be built to tap into the transmission lines or the distribution lines. As an aside, Mr. Behal noted there were 240 substations located throughout Connecticut.

The planned facility will be the size of a residential house on this five acre plot surrounded by a security fence and will consist of taps into the high voltage transmission lines, breakers, and transformers in a small building.

The proposal so far has been approved by the Waterford Conservation Commission with modifications and approval is pending by the Waterford Planning and Zoning Commission. The next step is a hearing by the Connecticut Siting Council and after the Siting Council Approval construction on the power substation will begin.

Oil Mill Road resident Paul Bourque asked the size of the building on the lot. Mr. Behal responded that the building would be ten feet high and about thirty feet square. The highest transmission line tower is eighty five feet. Mr. Bourque continued asking about the potential for light pollution from the site. Mr. Behal stated that the lighting would be pointed to the ground and would generally be off at night except for some security lighting. Mr. Bourque was also concerned about the distance from a creek that runs through the site. Mr. Behal said that the facility would be 97 feet from the creek and the location had been approved by the Conservation Commission. The actual site would not take up all of the five acres but be only the size of an normal residence, including the fenced in area.

Ms. Laurie Bourque asked how close the construction would be to Oil Mill Road. Mr. Behal informed her that it would be set back fifteen feet from the road. Ms. Bourque also asked about concerns that the site was an old burial ground. Ms. Marianne Dubuque responded that the utility had engaged a team of archeologists to investigate the site and historical records. No physical or documented record of a burial ground was found during the investigation. Ms. Bourque asked if the report would be available to citizens. After some research, Ms. Dubuque informed her that the complete report would be in the submission to the Connecticut Siting Council and be available on line as well as in the Waterford Public Library.

Ms. Adil Shalhout of Oil Mill Road asked why the site was on a country road instead of near commercial development. Mr. Behal stated that other sites had been looked at in the vicinity of the high voltage transmission lines, including one near Route 85 but this site was the best location from a conservation and a practical approach. Ms. Shalhout asked for an explanation of how residents could be heard on this proposal. She was told that the Connecticut Siting Council was the proper venue for such concerns and she could contact the First Selectman, Dan Steward, or the Town Planner, Tom Wagner, for assistance in contacting the Siting Council.

Mr. Mike Kokoszka asked about disturbance to the animal habitat on the site. He was informed that there were no protected species on the site and, generally, wild life thrived in electrical right of ways.

Ms. Amy Campbell was concerned about the possible increase of Electrical Magnetic Fields (EMF) due to the site and what effect that would have on her growing daughter. She felt that, although it might be more expensive to build the substation on the Route 85 site near commercial property, that was a more suitable site for the substation rather than in the rural neighborhood proposed.

Mr. Thomas Feeney asked why the all gravel “Harran Lot” at the intersection of I95 and I395 was not considered. Mr. Behal said he believed that property was in the foot print of any Route 11 construction for intersecting with I95 some time in the future and, therefore, not a suitable location for the substation.

First Selectman Dan Steward then stated that he appreciated Northeast Utilities coming to make the presentation and taking the questions of the residents. However, it was necessary to continue the Board of Selectman Meeting. The Oil Mill Road residents were welcome to continue the conversation with the NU representatives in the back of the Town Hall Auditorium while the BOS continued its meeting. The residents continued their discussion with the NU up to the conclusion of the BOS meeting.

Waterford FY2009 Mill Rate set at 16.86

2008-05-22T21:27:08Z

Last night, May 21, 2008, the Waterford Board of Finance (BOF) set the FY2009 Mill Rate at 16.86. This means the average Waterford household (assessed value of $188,000) will pay $3,169.68, up $325.23 or 11.43% from the $2,844.45 that same household paid in FY2008 when the house was assessed at $135,000 with a 21.07 Mill Rate.

To reach this conclusion, the BOF considered a number of scenarios. BOF Chairman J. W. "Bill" Sheehan started the discussion by providing four possible choices (there are obviously many more, but four was certainly enough for the discussion). The first choice was to augment the revenue by taking $205,000 from the unreserved fund balance and use a tax collection rate of 98.5%, all other parameters (Grand List, Millstone value difference for SBC calculation, other revenue) remaining the same. This yielded a Mill Rate of 16.95. The second choice, and the one ultimately accepted, was application of $205,000 of unreserved fund balance and a tax collection rate of 99.1%. This yielded a Mill Rate of 16.86.

Chairman Sheehan then provided another proposal of taking $1,000,000 from the unreserved fund balance and assuming the 99.1% collection rate. This yielded a Mill Rate of 16.64. This Mill Rate would have calculated to a tax of $3128.32, or an increase of $283.87 or 9.98%, on the average $188,000 assessed home. This would have been a tax decrease of $41.36 from the approved Mill Rate.

Board of Finance members George Peteros and Cheryl Larder supported the use of $1,000,000 from fund balance reasoning that these were tax revenues that had already been collected from the tax payer and this would provide an additional assistance in reducing the taxes required from the taxpayer in this revaluation year. The expected increase in unreserved fund balance from the Millstone Tax settlement would make the million dollar reduction insignificent. Member Peteros noted that the CCM experts stated that a reasonable fund balance was between 6 to 8 percent of the Town's budget and the current fund balance of over $8 million was almost 12.5% of the proposed budget and would be 11% if reduced by $1 million.

BOF member Ron Fedor stated that since he could not absorb this new information, he would have to stay with the previously discussed rational of only taking $205,000 from the unreserved fund balance, since this was the amount of the unexpected revenue from the State of Connecticut in the current year's budget. BOF member Alan Wilensky stated that the fund balance should not be used to support operating expenses unless they were of an unexpected or emergency nature. The taxpayer should be expected to pay for the operating services rendered in the year they were rendered.

Finance Director Rudie Beers stated her opposition to using the $1 million of unreserved fund balance because it would upset the financial bonding plan and would not be looked upon favorably by bond issuers since it would appear that the town was living beyond its means. She also pointed out that the use of $1 million in fund balance this year would require the use of $750,000 in FY2010 and $500,000 in FY2011, and $250,000 in FY2012 to keep the mill rate increase in those years less than 7.5%. Effectively the use of $1,000,000 now would be the real use of $3,000,000 over the coming years. From the bond issuer point of view, the Town should take the revaluation tax increase in one step. If the BOF really wanted to reduce the mill rate, they should have reduced more from the operating budgets submitted by the department heads.

BOF Member Fedor stated that since we did not have firm dollar amounts from the Millstone settlement, it was not wise to count on receiving those funds.

Citizen George Kee, a former chairman of the Board of Finance in the seventies and eighties, stated that the use of fund balance would benefit him because he was over ninty and did not expect to be around much longer but that the fund balance was increased to a large amount when Millstone paid most of the taxes and it should remain reserved for real emergencies, not to ease the tax burden since this would have impacts on bonding and ultimately cause increased taxes.

When the vote was finally taken, the motion to take $1,000,000 from the unreserved fund balance with a 99.1% collection rate was defeated 3-4 with Chairman Sheehan, Member Peteros and Member Larder voting in the affirmative and Members Fedor, Wilensky, Ken Brown, and Rosalyn 'Sam' Dupuis voting in the negative.

A motion was then made to use $205,000 from fund balance and a 99.1% collection rate to determine the Mill Rate. This time the Affirmative votes were Chairman Sheehan, Member Fedor, Member Wilensky, and Member Brown. Members Peteros, Larder, and Dupuis opposed. With the parameters set, a vote was taken to set the Mill Rate at 16.86 and passed with the same votes. After the meeting Member Dupuis stated that she opposed the use of the $1,000,000 because she thought it was taking too much from the unreserved fund balance and she opposed the second measure because she felt the 99.1% tax rate was not realistic.

Betsy Ritter Nominated for a Third Term as 38th House District Representative

2008-05-21T15:05:15Z

Last night, May 20, 2008, Waterford and Montville Democrats met in Convention format to nominate incumbent 38th District Representative Betsy Ritter for a third term in the General Assembly. Twentieth District State Senator Andrea Stillman, who had been renominated herself the night before, nominated her colleague. The nomination was seconded by the Democratic Registrar of Voters from Montville and by Mr. Larry Voyer of Waterford. There were no other nominations. So far, there has been no nomination of an opponent for Representative Ritter.

RTM Passes FY2009 Budget with $80,399 Reduction from BOF Recommendation

2008-05-08T19:15:39Z

As reported in the New London DAY today, May 8, 2008, the Waterford Representative Town Meeting (RTM) approved a final budget of $70,364,031.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=f6f7e66c-f4e7-489e-a9ef-ce7f360c35bf

There are a few errors in the DAY article. The reduction to the Police Budget was $5,591 from the vehicle equipment line to give that line a total of $15,777 and a new Police Department Budget Total of $4,447,872. Accompanied with the reduction to the Transfer to the Capital Non Recurring Expenditure fund that occurred on Tuesday of $74,808 due to the advancement of the Old Mill Bridge Project to the current year, the RTM reduced the recommended $70,444,430 budget by $80,399 to $70,364,031. This is a total Waterford budget increase of $1,682,887 or 2.45% from the current FY2008 budget of $68,68,144.

The break down between General Government Operations, Board of Education Operations, and Capital and Debt service is as follows:

General Goverment Operations - $24,928,175 - a $473,426 or 1.94% increase from the FY2008 budget of $24,454,749.

Board of Education Operations - $39,731,279 - a $1,557,194 or 4.08% increase from the FY2008 budget of $38,174,085.

Capital and Debt Service - $5,704,577 - a $347,733 or 5.75% decrease from the FY2008 budget of $6,052,310.

When Capital and Debt Service and General Government Operations are combined, the FY2009 budget is $30,632,752, an increase of $126,693 or 0.41% over the FY2008 budget of $30,507,059.

In most Connecticut Towns, the split between the Board of Education and the General Government (Including Capital and Debt Service) is 60% BOE and 40% General Government. In Waterford, for FY2009, the split is 56.5% Board of Education and 43.5% for General Government.

During the three days of budget hearings, although the RTM asked many questions of the Department Heads and Chairs of the various boards and commissions, the only budget reductions were for easily identified items that would not be FY2009 expenses.

There are rumors that there will be an attempt to have a referendum on the budget action by the RTM but the details of the referendum request are not known. The referendum petition must be filed with the Town Clerk within fifteen days or before May 21, 2008. The petition must have at least five percent of the total number of voters in the town as of the date of the last certification by the registrars of voters. According to reliable sources that number is 715 voters.

At the conclusion of the budget session, the RTM also established the schedule of tax payments for FY2009 as recommended by the Tax Collector, Mark Burnham.

1. Retain the two payment system, providing for collectgions in July and January.

2. Real Estate bills over $100.00 would be collected in two equal installments, due July 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009.

3. Real Estate bills of $100.00 or less would be due in full July 1, 2008.

4. Personal Property and Motor Vehicle tax bills would be due in full July 1, 2008.

5. Motor vehicle Supplemental tax bills would be due in full January 1, 2009.

Tax bills are not considered delinquent as long as they are paid prior to July 31 and January 31 of the appropriate year.

RTM Budget Hearings to Commence Monday May 5 2008

2008-04-24T15:30:16Z

It is that time of year again, the Waterford Representative Town Meeting (RTM) will commence the final review of the FY2009 $70,444,430 Town Budget on Monday May 5, 2008. This is an increase of $1,763,286 or 2.57% over the current FY2008 budget of $68,681,144. On Wednesday May 7, 2008 the budget will be finally approved by the RTM after three evenings of lengthy hearings. All meetings will start at 7:30 PM in the Waterford Town Hall Auditorium. The RTM may want to go back to the old five day review period after they are finished with the upcoming sessions which are predicted to be lengthy due to the impact of revaluation on residential taxes.

If the voters of the Town are not satisfied with the actions of the RTM, they may submit a petition to the Town Clerk signed by five percent of the total electors in town as of the last certification by the Registrars of Voters within fifteen days of the RTM approval of the budget. The Board of Selectmen (BOS) then must call a referendum to occur not earlier than thirty days nor more than sixty days from the date of the petition filing. For the referendum to succeed, twenty percent or more voters as certified by the Registrars of Voters must approve the measure submitted by the petition. Waterford has not had a budget referendum in more than twenty years.

The RTM Budget Review Schedule is as follows:

Monday, May 5, 2008

Budget FY2008 FY2009 Dollar Change % Change

Social Service Grants $ 124,672 $ 122,753 $ -1,919 -1.54%

Registrar of Voters 51,336 48,577 -2,759 -5.37%

Public Health Nursing 92,734 91,633 -1,101 -1.19%

Conservation of Health 140,762 142,477 1,715 1.22%

Youth Services 193,979 197,561 3,582 1.85%

Flood & Erosion Control 11,127 1,627 -9,500 -85.38%

Harbor Management 4,945 1,392 -3,553 -71.85%

Ethics Commission 1,612 1,323 - 289 -17.93%

Board of Assessment Appeals 3,568 1,569 -1,999 -56.03%

Assessor 246,745 255,787 9,042 3.66%

Tax Collector 196,676 202,503 5,827 2.96%

Public Works 4,743,987 4,853,492 109,505 2.31%

Utility Commission 48,023 50,196 2,173 4.52%

Police 4.348,913 4,453,463 104,550 2.40%

Emergency Management 781,793 760,495 - 21,298 - 2.72%

Fire Commission 1,710,569 1,761,371 50,802 4.52%

Wtfd Engine Co #1(Jordon) 136,831 137,330 499 0.36%

Quaker Hill Fire Co. 122,140 123,800 1,660 1.36%

Goshen Fire Co. 99,001 102,635 3,634 3.67%

Oswegatchie Fire Co. 142,962 145,262 2,300 1.61%

Cohanzie Fire Co. 139,039 138,100 - 939 -0.68%

Town Clerk 227,787 240,475 12,688 5.57%

Board of Selectmen 215,115 219,829 4,714 2.19%

Total 05/05/2008 $13,784,316 $14,053,650 $ 269,334 1.95%

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Senior Citizens $ 491,295 $ 506,196 $ 14,901 3.03%

Public Library 1,006,902 1,020,229 13,327 1.32%

Zoning Board of Appeals 7,000 6,856 - 144 -2.06%

Economic Development 15,315 11,668 - 3,647 -23.81%

Conservation Commission 18,475 36,900 18,425 99.73%

Planning & Zoning 581,846 495,869 -85,977 -14.78%

Building Department 245,548 249,511 3,963 1.61%

Building Maintenance 167,574 112,598 -54,976 -32.81%

Recreation & Parks 1,693,813 1,739,308 45,495 2.69%

Representative Town Mtg 18,094 19,102 1,008 5.57%

Finance Department 959,387 973,800 14,413 1.50%

Current Year Capital 1,489,417 851,556 -637,861 -42.83%

Transfer to Cap NonRecurr 4,562,892 3,123,360 -1,439,532 -31.55%

Total 05/06/2008 $11,257,558 $ 9,146,953 $ - 2,110,605 -18.75%

Wednesday May 7, 2008

Board of Finance $ 63,831 $ 63,664 $ - 167 - 0.26%

Contingency 350,000 350,000 0 0.00%

Debt Service 1 1,804,469 1,804,468 100.00%

Insurance 2,334,806 2,648,919 314,112 13.45%

Legal 552,000 355,100 - 196,900 -35.67%

Retirement Commission 2,164,547 2,290,397 125,850 5.81%

Board of Education 38,174,085 39,731,279 1,557,194 4.08%

Total 05/07/2008 $43,639,270 $47,243,827 $ 3,604,557 8.26%

Total Gen Gov Ops $24,454,749 $24,933,766 $ 479,017 1.96% Total BOE Ops $38,174,085 $39,731,279 $ 1,557,194 4.08% Total Capital & Debt $ 6,052,310 $ 5,779,385 $ - 272,925 -4.51% Total Gen Gov,Cap,Dbt $30,507,059 $30,713,151 $ 206,092 0.68% Total General Fund $68,681,144 $70,444,430 $ 1,763,286 2.57% Budget FY2008 FY2009 Dollar Change % Change

After the budget is passed, the Board of Finance will meet on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 to set the tax rate for FY2009.

WDTC Endorse Ritter, Stillman and Courtney for Reelection

2008-03-29T17:22:06Z

Last Tuesday night was convention delegate selection night for the Waterford Democratic Town Committee. After selecting delegates for the 38th House Seat, the 20th Senate Seat, and the 2nd Congressional Seat, the Committee unanamously endorsed State Representative Elizabeth 'Betsy' Ritter, State Senator Andrea Stillman, and Congressman Joe Courtney for reelection. Senator Stillman confirmed that she would be seeking another term in the State Senate and welcomed the opportunity to run as a team with Betsy Ritter under an outstanding Congressman Courtney and the Democratic Presidential Candidate.

New this year is the "Citizen's Election Program" for candidates for state office. To be eligible for the program each representative must raise a minimum of $5,000 from a minimum of 150 voters in the towns in their district and each senator must raise $15,000 from 300 voters in the towns in their district. After reaching this goal, the State Senate candidate may receive up $85,000 to finance the opposed campaign, $51,000 if the opposition is a petitioning or minor party candidate, or $25,500 if running unopposed. The State Representative candidate is eligible for $25,000 if running opposed, $15,000 if only opposed by a petitioning or minor party candidate, or $7,500 if running unopposed.

Contributions for Senator Stillman may be sent to STILLMAN for SENATE; c/o Joseph Filippetti; 11 Hillcrest Drive; Waterford, CT 06385. Contributions for Representative Ritter may be sent to BETSY RITTER 2008; 24 Old Mill Road; Quaker Hill, CT 06375.

BOF Forwards $70.4 Million Budget to RTM

2008-03-27T19:37:17Z

After an active Public Hearing, the Waterford Board of Finance (BOF) gave final approval to a $70,444,430 FY2009 budget. This is an increase of 2.57% over the FY2008 budget. The Requested Budget had been $73,020,867, an increase of 6.32% over FY2008 levels. Total General Government Operations budget was approved at $24,933,766, an increase of 1.96%. Capital and Debt Services approved budget is $5,779,385, a decrease of 4.51%. This combines for a Total General Government Budget of $30,713,151, an increase of 0.68% over FY2008 levels. The Board of Education (BOE) Operating Budget was approved at $39,731,279, an increase of 4.08%. The BOE had proposed a budget of $40,056,279, an increase of 4.93%.

As noted in today’s New London DAY, March 27, 2008, the Public Hearing portion of the BOF meeting last night concentrated on restoring funds for a proposed Playground at Stenger Farm, across from Clark Lane Middle School. Eight citizens spoke in favor of the playground citing reasons ranging from not being able to use the school playgrounds during the school day to touting that the playground would become a new gathering place for Grandparents, parents, and children to play, talk, and socialize. The DAY story carries some of the quotes.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=7ab5f656-ee60-4853-9bbc-d826312f391e

The only other speakers during the public hearing were the Goshen Fire Chief Neil Wiseman who requested that the board restore funding for the Fire House Window replacement and provided backup material that had been lacking in the original request and a representative of the Oswegatchie Fire Department that concurred in the deletion of the Special Command Vehicle from replacement in the Fleet Management Plan.

At the conclusion of the Public Hearing the BOF commenced voting on final approval of all Town Departmental Budgets commencing with the BOE Operating Budget. The results are listed below with comments when increases or decreases in the tentatively approved budget were made.

Board of Education: Tentative Approved - $39,856,279. Final Approved - $39,731.279

As agreed upon during the budget hearings, Dr. Randall Collins and BOE Chairman Don Blevins reported that the BOE expected to return at least $125,000 to the General Fund at the end of the current Fiscal Year (2008). The Board then reduced the BOE budget by that amount. BOF Chairman J. W. “Bill” Sheehan explained to all present that as part of the agreement between the BOF and the BOE, the money returned by the BOE at the end of FY2008 will be transferred to the Health Insurance Fund vice the General Fund. This will offset some of the increase in Health Insurance and permit the BOE budget to be reduced by that amount.

General Government Departments: Tentative Approved -$24,944,576. Final Approved - $24,933,766

Board of Selectmen: Tentative and Final Approved - $219,829

Registrars of Voters: Tentative and Final Approved - $48,577

Board of Finance: Tentative and Final Approved - $63,664

Assessor: Tentative and Final Approved - $255,787

Board of Assessment Appeals: Tentative and Final Approved - $1,569

Tax Collector: Tentative Approved -$205,456. Final Approved - $202,503

Finance Director Rudie Beers reported there was an error in the FICA calculation of $53. BOF Member Alan Wilensky questioned the Security Camera purchase proposed. He proposed that a Security Evaluation be made of all of Town Hall before any system is purchased. BOF Member Cheryl Larder wanted the Tax Collector to put into place the other recommendations of the Security Inspection before purchasing any surveillance equipment. The budget was reduced by the $3000 in the Office Equipment line.

Finance Department: Tentative and Final Approved - $973,800

Legal Department: Tentative and Final Approved - $355,100

Town Clerk: Tentative and Final Approved -$240,475

Planning and Zoning Commission: Tentative and Final Approved - $495,869

Building Maintenance: Tentative and Final Approved - $112,598

Insurance: Tentative and Final Approved - $2,648,918

Economic Development Commission: Tentative and Final Approved - $11,668

Conservation Commission: Tentative and Final Approved - $36,900

Zoning Board of Appeals: Tentative and Final Approved - $6,856

Retirement Commission: Tentative and Final Approved - $2,290,397

Representative Town Meeting: Tentative and Final Approved - $19,102

Building Department: Tentative and Final Approved - $249,511

Social Service Grants: Tentative Approved -$119,753; Final Approved - $122,753

During the original Budget Hearing the BOF tentatively reduced the Camp Harkness Equestrian Program to zero because information had been provided that no Waterford residents were able to use the program. Program Representative Dave Fairman explained that many Waterford residents volunteered to care for the horses and the Program supported the entire working farm at Camp Harkness. After recommending a better presentation next year, the BOF restored the $3000 for the program.

Contingency: Tentative and Final Approved - $350,000

Flood and Erosion Control Board: Tentative and Final Approved - $1,627

Harbor Management Commission: Tentative and Final Approved - $1,392

Ethics Commission: Tentative and Final Approved - $1,323

Emergency Management: Tentative Approved-$761,572; Final Approved - $760,495

BOF Member Wilensky questioned Emergency Management Director Murray “Bud” Pendleton, the Chief of Police, regarding the salaries for Emergency Personnel. The amount requested was excessive when compared to actual expenses in the past. The Emergency Personnel Line was reduced by $1,000 and the accompanying FICA reduced by $77.

Board of Fire Commissioners: Tentative and Final Approved - $1,761,371

Fire Administrator Bruce Miller presented updated call statistics and telephone usage by the various fire departments. Administrator Miller also noted that there was Mutual Assistance to Waterford by the SUBASE HAZMAT Team that did not show up in the statistics. No changes were made to the Fire Commission Budget,

Waterford Fire Engine Company #1 (Jordan): Tentative Approved- $138,792; Final Approved - $137,330

BOF Member Wilensky stated he was attempting to equalize phone service among the companies and reduced the amount of additional phone costs in the budget.

Quaker Hill Fire Company: Tentative Approved-$124,800; Final Approved-$123,800

Similar discussion on phone services led to the reduction.

Goshen Fire Department: Tentative Approved-$103,635; Final Approved-$102,635

Discussion included BOF Member Wilensky highlighting phone usage and BOF Member Larder noting the overstatement of insurance costs led to the $1,000 deduction.

Oswegatchie Fire Company: Tentative Approved-$146,197; Final Approved-$145,262

Continued discussion on communications and other services, including additional costs for cable TV than other companies leading to the $935 deduction.

Cohanzie Fire Company: Tentative and Final Approved - $138,100

Phone discussion continued but board took into account the $3,000 reduction that had already been made, deciding not to make any further cuts.

Police Commission: Tentative Approved-$4,458,846; Final Approved-$4,453,463

Police Chief Murray ‘Bud’ Pendleton provided data from the Police Commission noting the excess charge in training due to miscounting the number of police officers that would participate. Board reduced the Training line by $5,000 and a reflective $383 deduction in the FICA line to reach the final approved amount.

Public Works: Tentative and Final Approved- $4,853,492

Utility Commission: Tentative and Final Approved - $50,196

Youth Services: Tentative and Final Approved - $197,561

Conservation of Health: Tentative and Final Approved -$142,477

Public Health Nursing Service: Tentative and Final Approved - $91,633

Senior Citizens Commission – Tentative and Final Approved - $506,196

Waterford Public Library – Tentative and Final Approved - $1,020,229

Recreation and Parks Commission – Tentative and Final Approved - $1,739,308

Current Year Capital: Tentative Approved: $838,556; Final Approved-$851,556

Superintendent of Schools Collins explained that the Bus Lot Office needed repairs and the thought was to transfer a portable classroom from Oswegatchie School but determined that the requested $35,000 was insufficient. The BOF had tentatively zeroed the project for lack of information. Superintended Collins requested that $10,000 be provided to repair the existing office structure at the Bus Lot. The BOF restored $10,000.

Police Chief Pendleton requested that sufficient funds be restored to the SMART Trailer project to permit shipping of the trailer and to provide operational power. The BOF increased the Tentative Approved SMART trailer line by $3,000.

Each of the Fleet Management deductions was discussed. Chief Pendleton requested that one of the deleted cars be returned to the replacement list. The BOF suggested that the car be sent to the Public Works Garage to see if it could be repaired before authorizing its replacement.

Transfers to Capital Non Recurring Expenditure Fund: Tentative Approved: $3,067,360; Final Approved - $3,123,360

Goshen Fire Chief Neil Wiseman presented his back up material and the BOF restored $21,000 of the originally requested $25,000 based on the estimates provided in the back up to the request.

Recreation and Parks Director Brian Flaherty requested the restoration of the $35,000 for the Playground project. BOF Member Peteros wished that the BOF had seen the Backup material that was presented for the first time this evening. This material showed that the Town was providing a total of $70,000 in two $35,000 increments, the Gardner Family Foundation was providing $30,000 and the Ad Hoc Playground Committee expected to raise $80,000 to build the playground for a total cost of $180,000. The BOF voted to restore the requested funds. Director Flaherty also mentioned that an organization was being formed in Town, the Waterford Recreation and Parks Foundation that would raise outside funds to improve the Town’s Recreation and Parks Facilities without burdening the Town’s Taxpayers. The BOF took note of this information.

Debt Service – Tentative and Final Approved: $1,804,469.

After a month’s deliberations, the BOF was able to make additional reductions of $196,174 to the General Government Operations Budget, $325,000 to the Board of Education Operating Budget, and $1,509,413 to the Capital and Debt Service Budget. This was a total reduction of $2,576,437 from the proposed budget from the Departments, Boards, and Agencies. The Representative Town Meeting will have its work cut out for it to make any further reductions in the budget. The BOF will determine the mill rate after the RTM budget approval in May.