Committee Busy Processing School, Municipal Facilities Management Proposal

By John Voket

Legislative Council members who are serving on an ad hoc committee exploring the pros and cons of merging town municipal and school facilities management are at about the midpoint in a series of interviews of local officials and employees, who would eventually be supporting such a department if the proposal put forth by Councilman Daniel Amaral comes to fruition. Ultimately, by statute, the school district cannot be mandated into such a merger locally unless the Board of Education votes to participate.

But even reaching a firm consensus among committee members about whether or not a centralized facilities management department can be efficient and cost-effective is probably several weeks or even months away.

The appointed committee includes Mr Amaral, Councilwoman Jan Lee Brookes, Councilman John Torok — the school district’s former business manager — and Councilwoman Patricia Llodra, who recently declared her candidacy for first selectman. Mr Amaral had been calling for a committee to be formed to explore the possible taxpayer savings and operational advantages of such a merger since late last year.

He told The Bee on several occasions that he and his constituents observed town and school workers in situations where they appeared to either be idling on work sites, or situations where subcontractors were hired to perform work that might be completed by town workers instead. Mr Amaral also questioned publicly why certain practices, especially concerning winter chores like plowing, and warm weather grounds and facility maintenance, were being performed by a combination of school, town Highway Department and Parks & Recreation workers using various departmental vehicles and equipment.

“Maybe there’s a way we can combine some of the jobs to save ‘mister taxpayer’ some money,” Mr Amaral said.

After first circulating a series of questions to the various town and school employees and officials who were expected to be part of the research process, the committee settled down April 22 for its first round of discussion with school district Facilities Director Gino Faiella, Superintendent Janet Robinson, and school board Chair Elaine McClure. The questionnaire includes information like how many people the interviewee supervises; what are his or her department’s job breakdowns; explaining the areas in which interdepartmental sharing of workers and/or equipment occurs; and what responsibilities department members have.

Additional questions on departmental budgets, overtime, purchasing, and communications practices were also included. Early on during the first meeting, Mr Faiella told the committee that he supervises 55.5 positions — head custodians, custodians, maintenance technicians, and couriers who deliver mail to the schools, Parks and Rec, Edmund Town Hall, Fairfield Hills, Town Hall South, Booth Library, board mailings, supply orders, and food distribution. His current budget is $8.4 million.

He explained that between the school and town maintenance workers, snow plowing is done by the Parks and Rec and Highway Departments, and by school custodians, who do the detail work like school walkways. He said heavy work like excavation is done by the Park and Rec or Highway Departments, while electrical, plumbing, and carpentry services all performed by certified tradespeople employed by the Board of Education.

The school facilities manager replied to the concern about contracting out work, saying subcontracting is the last option and only done if the job is too big or his staff does not have the expertise, or if the job is time-sensitive and other problems would be caused by taking staff away from scheduled work. If a subcontract is chosen for something that is not an emergency, he assured the committee that every such project receives a cost analysis, comparing how expensive it would be to pay his staff overtime versus the cost of the subcontracting.

Mr Faiella said when he, Park and Rec grounds supervisor Carl Samuelson, and Fred Hurley, director of Public Works, need work done that may tap the expertise of a worker in another department, they simply call each other and make those requests. He echoed what Mr Samuelson and Mr Hurley would in future meetings — that there is no formal documentation of the exchange of work.

Therein lies the problem, Ms Llodra pointed out. She said while committee members do not want to add burdensome paperwork to personnel who are already stretched to the limit, the committee urged Mr Faiella and Dr Robinson to create a way to document any exchanges of work among the various school and town departments so there is evidence of both the scope and true costs of work.

And also, to illustrate formally to taxpayers and town officials who may inquire that there is a system of cost-saving collaboration among town departments.

Ms Llodra said the informal calling around among town supervisors provides no outward oversight. “It doesn’t meet the vetting out requirement,” she said. “I understand the pool of resources is shrinking, and providing documentation goes against a 40-year relationship.”

Mr Torok concurred.

“In tight times things change,” he said. “I’d hate to see this ruin relationships, but we need some footnotes in the budget. In good times nobody cares, but in tough times we should all know the costs involved.”

Ms Brookes said it is important to make the information available so residents could see that such a system of cooperative sharing of resources is working.

“They have to see the bigger picture, and that the system works,” she said. “The system is being criticized and there are calls for major reform. Maybe we just need to make it more visible.”

This is the first of a multipart series covering an ad hoc council committee exploring the possible merger of school and town facilities management.