Finance Board Approves $5 Million

For Hawley School HVAC

By John Voket

The Board of Finance added a measure of generosity to a voter-approved $3.3 million Hawley School heating and air conditioning renovation by authorizing a $5 million expenditure for the project.

Arguing that most of the work at the town’s oldest school needs to be done, the Board of Finance voted Monday to adjust the meeting agenda while in progress, changing “discussion” on the Hawley School matter to “possible action.”

Then in a quick succession of maneuvers the board turned down an upgraded $5.2 million request. A compromise motion was then made to fund every aspect of the project except $440,000 for air conditioning equipment and an additional $50,000 the finance board apparently expects the Board of Education to develop from energy efficiency rebates or from a ten percent contingency built into the overall project budget.

The finance board’s reversal on discussions and an earlier vote to reject a 60 percent increase to the voter-endorsed project funding, which has already caused the school board to seek extensions from the low bidder, came as a surprise to several town officials as well as Board of Finance chairman John Kortze.

None of the half-dozen local officials informally polled on the matter could recall when any board with the power to do so had so significantly changed such a costly voter mandate.

Mr Kortze, who voted against Hawley funding increases at every opportunity, continuously stressed it was the voters’ expectation that the school district should expend no more than the originally budgeted $3.3 million for the project. Finance board member Michael Portnoy also voted against both the $5.2 million and $4.97 million adjustments Monday evening.

The Legislative Council was expected to take action on the issue at a special meeting set for Thursday evening. During Thursday’s meeting the council, including several members who will be replaced by newly elected council members in December, can choose among no less than five options on the matter.

According to First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, the council members can either endorse the Board of Finance’s vote, adjust and approve a higher amount, adjust and approve less, take no action, or table the issue until the next meeting when newly elected council members can consider the matter. (While this week’s edition of The Bee is already in print, the outcome of that special council meeting will be posted on the newspaper’s website, www.newtownbee.com)

Following Monday’s finance board vote, Mr Kortze admitted disappointment, but conceded that the town should take an important lesson from the process. Mr Kortze said despite information developed early on before the Hawley bid request was prepared indicating costs for the heating and air conditioning system were skyrocketing, school administrators opted to keep the Board of Education in the dark until after debt service on the $3.3 million was approved in the 2005 budget.

“Things may have played out differently if the board of ed knew before the budget vote that they would have to come back and negotiate for almost double the amount originally requested once the taxpayers spoke,” Mr Kortze said.

The finance board chairman said despite being convinced that installing new boilers and heating equipment was vitally important for the students and faculty at the school, he ultimately maintained his opposition to budgeting more money, instead adhering to the voters’ mandate.

Mr Kortze remained concerned that the increased Hawley School funding combined with the likelihood of a major request for funds for a high school expansion, or a new high school, would surely push Newtown’s debt service to budget ratio over its mandated ten percent cap.

Bond professionals from Moody’s Investment Service, the organization that sets the town’s bond rating, indicated on numerous occasions that Newtown’s rating may be downgraded eventually if the ten percent debt service cap was exceeded for more than a short increment of time. If the funding of any municipal and/or school project pushed the cap above ten percent for too long, a resulting rating downgrade could force taxpayers to pay millions more in charges and interest for borrowing on those projects.

During Monday’s meeting, other finance board members including James Gaston maintained that while firm discussions and potential funding requests for a high school project were more than a year away, the work at Hawley School was critical and prioritized as the top item for funding on the school board’s revised Capital Improvement Plan.

Finance board member Paul Giarratano said during Monday’s meeting that he was also supporting enough money to get the heating system renovated, but agreed with a motion tendered by fellow board member Joseph Kearney that hardware to permit the system to deliver air conditioning could either be funded independently through the school board’s approved operations budget, or phased in at a later date.

“I never had air conditioning at any of the schools that I went to and I turned out alright,” Mr Giarratono told fellow board members.

Departing the meeting after the Hawley vote, Legislative Council member Dan Amaral said he felt the finance board vote was short-sighted and would end up costing taxpayers more in the end. Mr Amaral, who operates a local auto repair and sales franchise, likened the plan to someone buying a car and having air conditioning installed several years later.

“It’s going to cost a lot more if they wait and do it down the road,” Mr Amaral said. “And if it doesn’t get done as part of the original job, you know it’s never going to work right.”