These minutes are for informational purposes only. For official minutes please contact the Town Clerk's Office.

JANUARY 18, 2000

SPECIAL MEETING

1. CALL TO ORDER

Paul Henault, Chairman, called the Special Meeting of the Board of Finance to order at 5:04 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: James Belfiore, Peter Askham, Candace Fitzpatrick and Michael Wade. Mary Glassman arrived at 5:37 p.m. Also present was Kevin Kane, Finance Director, Anita Mielert, First Selectman, Joseph Townsley, Superintendent of Schools, David Holden, Business Manager, Gerard Toner, Culture, Parks and Recreation Director, Richard Sawitzke, Town Engineer and other interested parties.

2. APPROVE MINUTES

Regular Meeting of November 16, 1999

Ms. Fitzpatrick moved to approve the minutes of the November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wade and carried unanimously.

Special Meeting of December 13, 1999

Mr. Wade moved to approve the minutes of the December 13, 1999 Special Meeting, The motion was seconded by Ms. Fitzpatrick and carried unanimously.

Regular Meeting of December 21, 1999

Ms. Fitzpatrick moved to approve the amended minutes of the December 21, 1999 Regular Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wade and carried unanimously.

3. SIMSBURY FARMS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND

Mr. Toner distributed a budget summary of the Simsbury Farms Special Revenue Fund (Addendum 1). He stated that the intent of the Special Revenue Fund is to remove the Town subsidy in 5 years. Mr. Toner noted that in the first year the budgeted subsidy was $92,174 and the actual needed was $30,865. He stated that in the second year the budgeted subsidy is $65,070 and they expect to reduce the actual amount through increased fees this summer. Mr. Toner stated that the debt payment to the ice rink begins in 2000/2001. Mr. Askham pointed out that the difference between $92,174 and $30,.865 went into the Special Revenue Fund.

Mr. Toner stated that the increased fees will help to defray the capital improvement costs at the golf course. He stated that the rink operations are unknown until a full year has passed, but to date the utility costs are down. Mr. Askham noted that they are projecting a $280,000 revenue increase in the ice rink and he questioned whether they can reduce expenses if the projected revenue is not generated. Mr. Toner stated that none of the $55,000 will be expended without revenue to offset it. Mr. Kane confirmed that the Simsbury Farms Special Revenue Fund will make a $135,000 debt payment to the Town, for the ice rink, which will be included in CNR.

4. RESPONSE FROM RICK BAZZANO IN REGARD TO AUDITOR'S MANAGEMENT LETTER

Chairman Henault noted receipt of Mr. Bazzano's letter (Addendum 2). The board reviewed the letter and found it acceptable as a reply to the Auditor's Management Letter.

5. REQUEST FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR PRELIMINARY HIGH SCHOOL ANALYSIS

Dr. Townsley distributed his request for $85,000 for the new high school construction project. He stated that the Public Building Committee has contracted with Friar Associates for the design phase of the new high school. He stated that the $85,000 includes funding for the 2 appraisals required by the State, the architectural design of the high school on the chosen site, test borings and an impact study of the actual site. In response to Mr. Belfiore, Dr. Townsley stated that Fletcher Thompson did drawings of a footprint on Town owned property. Mr. Holden explained that Fletcher Thompson did this work as part of an appropriation last year for Tootin' Hills, Henry James and the high school.

Mr. Askham questioned how the numbers included in the capital plan were derived. Dr. Townsley stated that the modernization cost was estimated at $125 per square foot and they included the cost to acquire the site. Ms. Fitzpatrick questioned whether the $85,000 is necessary before the BOF and the BOS endorse the BOE plan for a new high school. Dr. Townsley stated that if they delay this project then they will not have a design for this Spring and they want the site location on the May referendum. He noted that Fletcher Thompson will continue to look at the modernization of the existing high school to accommodate 1,850 students. Dr. Townsley stated that if they do not build a new high school then they need to discuss a new elementary or middle school. He stated that the $85,000 would be an appropriation toward a new high school project.

Mr. Askham questioned how much has been spent on a study to modernize the existing high school. Mr. Holden stated that approximately $72,000 was spent on program space requirements and specifications. Chairman Henault questioned the BOE's plan if a new high school project is not approved. Dr. Townsley stated that the original architect would need to go forward with the design phase of a modernization. He stated that an expansion of the existing high school would not meet the needs of the community, particularly if the Meadowood project is built.

Chairman Henault suggested that the BOF determine an amount that the town can afford and then the BOE decide how to spend those funds. Dr. Townsley stated that it has been done that way in the past, but the problem was trying to cram items within that number. He suggested that now it is better to have an actual pre-referendurn number. Dr. Townsley pointed out that it will cost $8-$9 million to bring the high school to code, without the addition of classrooms. He stated that the core facility is not large enough to support 1,850-2,000 students.

Ms. Fitzpatrick expressed her concern with approving $85,000 when the town might not be able to afford $49 million. Dr. Townsley questioned whether the town can afford $40-$50 million for a new elementary or middle school. Ms. Glassman suggested putting the appropriation for the new high school on the referendum in May in order to get an indication from taxpayers as to what they're willing to spend. Dr. Townsley stated that if they receive approval to go forward with the design phase they won't have the plan before late March and there would not be enough time for public education. Ms. Glassman questioned whether they can wait until May to approve the $85,000 appropriation. Dr. Townsley expressed his concern that the completion date has already been changed from 2004 to 2005 and a delay would push it out even further.

Mr. Askham questioned when additional space at the high school would be available if a renovation plan were approved in May. Dr. Townsley stated that they would proceed with Phase 1, the addition of a science wing, which would create enough classrooms to start to meet the enrollment needs. Mr. Askham pointed out that the needs can be met more quickly with a renovation. He suggested that they go to the voters with 3 options: (1) a new high school, (2) renovating the existing high school, or (3) a scaled-down renovation of the existing high school. Mr. Belfiore stated that if there is no sentiment to build a new high school for $50 million, there won't be any sentiment to renovate the high school for $50 million. Ms. Fitzpatrick requested that the Town Clerk be asked if a referendum question with 3 options is possible.

Ms. Fitzpatrick questioned whether the existing high school could be used as a middle school in its current state. Dr. Townsley stated that they could utilize the existing high school as a middle school, but they would want to spend some money on it. Ms. Fitzpatrick pointed out that if taxpayers approve a new high school they may not be willing to pay for converting the existing high school 2 years later.

Dr. Townsley noted that modernization of the existing high school does not include the cost to build an athletic complex. He stated that a modernization of the high school doesn't meet the needs of the high school into the future. He suggested that the cost difference between renovating and building a new high school are probably not significantly different. Mr. Askham pointed out that Simsbury would have the highest debt load in the State if they went forward with the new high school project.

Ms. Glassman questioned where the $85,000 would come from. Mr. Kane confirmed that the $85,000 would come from Reserves and to date $40,000 has been spent from this area of Reserves. Mr. Askham questioned whether the $85,000 needs to be spent in order to go to referendum. Dr. Townsley stated that some funds need to be spent for the architect to create a design. He noted that they need a design and cost in order to answer questions about the project for the public. Ms. Glassman recommended that they focus on getting a referendum before the voters in May as to whether they want a new high school.

Mr. Askham expressed his concern that they have a backup plan for a less expensive modernization. Dr. Townsley stated that the backup plan is to do only Phase I of the modernization plan. Mr. Sawitzke stated that it is unlikely that they would have the complete information by the end of March. He stated that the site investigation and selection requires an appropriation of $30,000. He suggested that they have a workable site, and cost to purchase the site, for the May referendum.

Ms. Fitzpatrick moved to table agenda items 4-7, to be discussed at a Special Meeting scheduled at the earliest time a quorum can be present. The motion was seconded by Ms Glassman and carried unanimously.

Ms. Fitzpatrick moved to arnend the agenda to address item 9. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wade and carried unanimously.

6. OPERATING BUDGET SPENDING GUIDELINES FOR THE 2000/01 BUDGET

Chairman Henault reviewed the economic factors: COLA - 2.4%, CPI - 3%, Hartford County wage increase - 3%, Connecticut unemployment - 3%, Simsbury unemployment - 1.5% and Grand List growth - 2%. He noted that the BOE has presented an estimated budget increase of 6.8%-8.6% and the BOS has estimated a 4.8% increase. Chairman Henault stated that in the past, the BOF had a single guideline for the BOS and the BOE, based on economic factors. He noted that this approach doesn't consider budget factors. Chairman Henault stated that the BOF needs to consider the tax impact, the 5%-7% debt policy, and the high school modernization issue. He noted that they budgeted $400,000 of surplus use last year.

Mr. Askham questioned whether the cost for re-evaluation will be included in someone's budget. Mr. Kane stated that the Tax Assessor estimates a cost up to $400,000, utilizing $150,000 in the first year, $200,000 in the second and third years, and $50,000 in the fourth year. He stated that the discussion has been to use surplus and Reserves to fund the re-evaluation. Mr. Askham expressed his concern that they make sure there is a plan to make these funds available.

Ms. Fitzpatrick noted that there is a large difference between the economic indicators and the proposed budgets. Chairman Henault stated that over the last 4 years the guideline has been between 2% and 3.5%. Ms. Glassman suggested that they consider averaging the budget figures and the economic indicators. Ms. Mielert pointed out that double digit increases in health care, and salaries, are driving the BOS' budget. Mr. Holden stated that a 10%- 14% increase in health care costs is being quoted by the employee benefits provider.

Mr. Kane distributed the projected mill rate if the BOS guideline were 3.9% and the BOE guideline were 5.8%. Chairman Henault noted that the mill rate increase last year was 3.85%. Mr. Wade suggested that a split guideline gives a number based on the budgets and not on a guideline. Mr. Askham noted that if they have 1 guideline, the boards would need to provide a compelling reason to go above it. He suggested that it may be difficult to go back to 1 guideline in the future if they split it now. Ms. Glassman questioned what the board feels is an acceptable mill rate increase. Ms. Fitzpatrick stated that she feels 4.32%-5.25%, with a varying use of Reserves, is acceptable.

Ms. Fitzpatrick moved to approve a budget guideline of 5.8% for the BOE and 3.9% for the BOS. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wade.

Chairman Henault noted that the BOF would still reserve the right, when more information is available on the effect on the taxpayer, to request that the budgets be reduced. Ms. Glassman pointed out that the BOS has been reducing their budget over the past few years and they will reach a point where they can't reduce it any further. She suggested that they need to tell the BOE and the BOS whether they will approve their budgets if they fall within these guidelines.

Ms. Fitzpatrick withdrew her motion. Mr. Wade withdrew his second.

Mr. Askham recommended that they have 1 budget guideline and if there is a compelling reason to go above it, the boards must prove that to the BOF.

Mr. Askham moved to approve a 4% budget guideline. The motion was seconded by Ms. Glassman.

Chairman Henault stated that as they go through the process they may need to change the guideline, noting that it is 1 point above last year's guideline.

The vote was unanimous. The motion carried.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Ms. Fitzpatrick moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:14 p.m, The motion was seconded by Mr. Wade and carried unanimously.