Legislative Council

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 3 PRIMROSE STREET, NEWTOWN, CT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2020 MINUTES PRESENT: Phil Carroll, Judit DeStefano, Paul Lundquist, Dan Wiedemann PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE: Jordana Bloom, Alison Plante, Chris Smith, Ryan Knapp, Chris Eide, Cathy Reiss, Andy Clure, Dan Honan ALSO PRESENT: First Selectman Dan Rosenthal, Finance Director Bob Tait, 2 public (via teleconference), 0 press. CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Lundquist called the meeting to order with the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:32 pm. VOTER COMMENT: Ned Simpson, 42 Watkins Drive, Sandy Hook – Mr. Simpson read his correspondence regarding the Fairfield Hills referendum. (ATTACHMENT A) MINUTES: Mr. Honan moved to accept the minutes of the March 4, 2020 Legislative Council meeting. Seconded by Mr. Wiedemann. All in favor. Motion passes (12-0). COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Lundquist received several questions via email regarding the budget, one about the proposed referendum question on Fairfield Hills, and one regarding tax benefits. (ATTACHMENT A) COMMITTEE REPORTS: Education Committee – Mr. Wiedemann had one meeting on March 3rd which included questions and answers that had been submitted at the time. He reiterated that if anyone has any other questions to please get them to him asap before the next meeting which is scheduled for March 23 rd. Finance Committee – Mr. Eide stated that they haven't met since their last meeting in February and will schedule one in the coming weeks. Municipal Operations Committee – Mr. Carroll reported that the MOC has not met yet but had put out a call for questions to submit to the First Selectman which he has received answers from. He is awaiting to distribute them until he can schedule a meeting. Ordinance Committee – None FIRST SELECTMAN’S REPORT: First Selectman Dan Rosenthal reported that the S&P AAA was reaffirmed last week. Backdrop of the report was solid, was set to issue debt this week but given the volatility of the market currently we opted not to make the debt issuance, and will reevaluate at a later date. (ATTACHMENT B) Regarding the issue of Corona Virus, the First Selectman commended the staff, and has spent a lot of time working with Dr. Rodrigue who put in a lot of time preparing, having distant learning approved, and was able to get free and reduced lunches for working families. Social distancing is imperative in helping not to spread this. He acknowledged that is is very difficult in having children at home and not have many daycare options, and so Human Services has been working aggressively to come up with plans and what programs can help. We spent a lot of time reducing then ending programs progressively such as closing the Senior Center, Community Center, Edmond Town Hall, library, etc. At the municipal center, we continue to service the public by appointment only. The police department has eliminated all white glove services such as car seat installations, finger print programming, etc. only to minimize that building to emergency personnel only. We want to maintain our force and make sure they remain healthy. There certainly will be some impacts regarding some revenue lost to the town. Cleaning costs have gone up and we've had to secure protective gear. There will be short term money losses, but at the moment it is manageable. Ms. DeStefano asked what our maintenance budget was like currently and could any of that help offset these unexpected costs. First Selectman replied that it could if needed. For example, our winter maintenance costs were low this year – we were only around $266,000 this year but were budgeted around $800,000. The First Selectman continued that the police project continues to go well. The construction manager has reduced the crew to have limited site access. He warned that it is conceivable that as we go forward, there could be some disruption to the project brought on by the effects of the shut down, but for now, the schedule remains on track. NEW BUSINESS Discussion Only  2020-2021 Municipal and Education Budget Mr. Lundquist stated that the overall plan is for the committees to continue meeting and make their recommendations to the Council on April 1st and will take final action on April 8th. Ms. Reiss asked how the budget item of emergency communications may or may not be affected based on if the emergency radio system upgrade gets voted down. The First Selectman feels the budget as presented is adequate and is not dependent on that passing but doesn't think there will be a big budgetary impact. He will confirm with the communications director and does not believe one is tied to the other. The First Selectman stated that in terms of budget timing, the budget vote set by charter is April 28 th. While on a call with the Secretary of State, she was inclined to keep primary voting for April 28th. If they do move the primary, we would reconvene the Council to a later date. This is to be rediscussed if the primary is moved. Mr. Wiedemann asked what is the positive motive in keeping the primary voting and referendum on the same date since they are being held at separate locations anyways. The First Selectman stated that there would be an increase in cost to staff at two different times. Trying to get poll workers in the middle of a pandemic for two different dates would be tough. Ms. Bloom agreed to put the voting off and keeping it to one day and asked whether extending an absentee or mail-in voting is being discussed in CT. The First Selectman replied that this is not something that is being discussed. All the work that goes in to a primary happens in the next 2-2.5 weeks - we will know a lot more in 30 days than we do now. Mr. Honan asked about the town collaboration on the budget. Mr. Lundquist confirmed that committees will be meeting starting now. Recommendations will come to Council from the committees themselves on April 1 st and Council to take final action on April 8th. Ms. Reiss asked the First Selectman why we continue to provide funding to the Children's Adventure Center. The First Selectman responded that they're on our employee benefits program. They are our dedicated subcontractor for child care services. They recently occupied the old Senior Center space which they now pay rent for and took on handling inside maintenance while the town is responsible for outdoor upkeep, snow removal, etc. Discussion and Possible Action  State of Connecticut Acquisition of Town Owned Property at 12 Berkshire Rd and 117 Wasserman Way for Exit 11 Improvements Ms. DeStefano moved that in pursuant to Section 8-10 (D-1) of the Newtown Town Charter that the town of Newtown be and hereby is authorized to sell to the State of Connecticut the property at 12 Berkshire Road and 117 Wasserman Way for exit 11 improvements for the maps provided and authorize the First Selectman to sign any involved documentation. Seconded by Mr. Eide. All in favor. Motion passes (12-0). (ATTACHMENT C) Mr. Lundquist started out by asking why would we do this voluntarily, why would we do this at all. The First Selectman clarified that there is a parcel being taken from in front of the High School – nothing that would impact their parking lot; as well as a parcel on the corner of Oakview and Wasserman Way. Park and Rec has reviewed the impact of this and some of the greenery will have to be relocated. He would like to talk to the state regarding the underground chambers that are presently underneath this area – they are supposed to process runoff from the Pootatuck and he would like to know whether the state is responsible for their upkeep. He also spoke to the Pootatuck Club about this. This will have a public benefit to it – because there was a budget of less than $10,000 on it. Mr. Clure asked if we'd consider negotiating for a higher payout at this stage – he feels we could get more money for the amount of square footage. The First Selectman responded that getting someone to appraise the land now would not be worth spending the money. He stated these particular plots of land are not buildable. Mr. Wiedemann noticed they started taking down some of the homes along Berkshire Road. The project is slated to begin a year from now. Ms. Reiss asked for clarification on the layout of the road shoulders. First Selectman Rosenthal encouraged everyone to review the plan and maps attached to help visualize the project. Ms. Reiss asked if this would impact any of the sporting fields or stadium space at the high school. The First Selectman confirmed that neither project would impact any of that area, nor would it impact any of the soccer fields on Oakview.  A RESOLUTION AMENDING A RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE AUTHORIZATION, ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT EXCEEDING $20,000,000 TOWN OF NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS Ms. DeStefano moved the resolution amending a resolution with respect to the authorization, issuance and sale of not exceeding $20,000,000 Town of Newtown, Connecticut general obligation refunding bonds. Seconded by Mr. Wiedemann. All in favor. Motion passes (12-0). (ATTACHMENT D) Ms. DeStefano moved to waive the reading of the resolution. Seconded by Mr. Wiedemann. All in favor. Motion passes (12-0). Mr. Tait commented that the refunding should happen by this Tuesday. Mr. Wiedemann asked Mr. Tait what our savings looks like. Mr. Tait stated that we would have a better view of what we have this Monday and we will know whether to go through with the deal or not.  Discussion of potential referendum question to consider allowing housing within existing buildings at the Fairfield Hills campus as part of Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee recommendation (ATTACHMENT E) The First Selectman has canceled this week's BOS meeting with the potential developers. He has asked developers to make a video for submittal that would give a backdrop of their portfolio and tell us what their ideas for Fairfield Hills would be. He does not have that yet, might have it all by next week. He is re-evaluating whether to move this to the November ballot given the circumstances surrounding us with the virus. Ms. Reiss expressed concern with moving this to the Fall - that we'd be taking a risk on developers potentially losing interest or if buildings will be too far gone by November. First Selectman Rosenthal just doesn't feel that he can get the full public's attention and focus on this because of the current pandemic situation and the town essentially shutting down. His focus for the time being will need to be to keep our town safe and running. Mr. Lundquist's opinion is to hold off as well – he doesn't feel it's fair to throw this final question out there if we're not able to finalize it at this point. Mr. Wiedemann commented that given the current climate, he doesn't feel we'll have the full representation of the town if we continue with this now. Ms. Plante agrees also. This topic is too important to the town to make a rushed or rash decision. Ms. DeStefano agrees this is not the right time. However, part of her is disinclined to send the question to referendum because of the wording. The results of the survey were very ambivalent. Voters are very capable but there's no way to ask this very complicated question on the referendum while relaying the depth of the matter. She feels that the Selectman and the town could potentially make this decision on their own and asked him to reconsider doing it that way. The First Selectman stated that although it is complex and appreciates Ms. DeStefano's thought, he does not feel comfortable moving it forward without bringing it to the public first. Ms. Bloom is inclined to agree with Ms. DeStefano and feels we should wait until we have the appropriate focus. Mr. Lundquist suggests taking a look at the drafted proposed wording, as well as, the emailed commentary from Mr. Simpson to have that perspective also, and encourages everyone to come back with suggestions for different wording. Mr. Knapp asked the First Selectman whether this question would be subject to the same restrictions as other non-advocacy materials. The First Selectman stated that he would have to check with Attorney Grogins but does not believe that it would. Mr. Lundquist concluded that we do not need to take action tonight and by our next meeting, we will likely know more about the timing of our own referendum. As a Council we can then make a decision on the timing of placement for this question on the ballot. He stressed that we focus more on ideas, perspectives and thoughts on wording for the question itself, which will be the next step within the next discussion to have a motion on wording.  Transfer $261,000 from Public Works Salaries & Wages – Full Time to Various Public Works Accounts Ms. DeStefano moved to transfer $261,000 from Public Works salaries & wages – full time to various public works accounts. Seconded by Mr. Wiedemann. All in favor. Motion passes (12-0). This is an inter-departmental transfer and a detailed narrative is included in the attachment (ATTACHMENT F). Mr. Wiedemann commented that contractual services is up there with retirement, maintainer of the police dept; and asked if we have hired someone or will this stay as a contract? The First Selectman had this particular discussion with Fred Hurley, and until the new Police Department opens there will be some moving parts. For example, we are supposed to share the maintainer with the Community Center. Mr. Hurley did propose to hire someone else for our building. From a supervisory standpoint, it was not something we wanted to take on right now and therefore, it was not allowed in the budget this time. It is something we will have to start looking closely at in the future. Ms. Reiss asked if this will cost any more money or is it basically moving money from one bucket to another. The First Selectman replied that is correct, and Mr. Tait confirmed that it is not actual money that we are moving, but budget appropriations. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discussion and Possible Action  FEMA Reimbursement Allocation - The First Selectman reported that it was confirmed that our dollar amount matched everything that they had and it sounded like they are ready to release the funds. The message that they had given us is that they pay every week. VOTER COMMENT: None ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Lundquist reiterated that all future council meetings will be held remotely on the teleconference line until further notice. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Mr. Lundquist made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:54 pm. Seconded by Ms. DeStefano and Mr. Wiedemann. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, Rina Quijano, Clerk THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AT THE NEXT MEETING. Attachment A Submitted on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 12:17pm Your name: Sean Morris Your e-mail address: mr.sean.morris@gmail.com Subject: Proposed Changes to Newtown Elementary School Class Sizes Message: Hello, I am writing to you to share my strong disagreement with your proposed changes to the class sizes at the elementary schools in Newtown, especially your recommendation to make the class size 26 students for fourth grade at Head O' Meadow school. HOM 3rd grade just had another student join, making what was already an extremely large class size even larger. What if this were to happen again next year? Do you think 27 students in a 4th grade class would be acceptable? How about 28? Even if it is "one-year situation" as your proposal states, this is unacceptably large, and has a noticeable impact on the learning environment. Dedication to quality education has always been a hallmark of Newtown. I know many parents (myself included!) who bought homes in Newtown specifically because of the smaller class sizes, and the quality of the educational system. It's very disappointing to see this trend of pinching pennies at the expense of our young students. Please reconsider your support for this, do the right thing, and fund the proper number of teachers to avoid these insanely large class sizes. Sincerely, Sean C. Morris HOM School District Submitted on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 12:44pm Your name: Kelly Ann Rothen-Morris Your e-mail address: ROTHEN.KELLY@GMAIL.COM Subject: HOM 4th Grade Class Size Message: Dear Legislative Council, As a parent of a current 3rd grader I am concerned over over increase the class size for next years forth grade class. This year her class size was already high at 25, and now just had a new student increasing it to 26. This class size does not help with our children's learning or teachers being able to spend more time teaching. I rather my taxes go up a bit to have additional staff so my child can have a quality education and that teachers have the time and resources to provide that as well. Thank you, Kelly Rothen-Morris Submitted on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 5:09pm Your name: Lindsay Knauf Your e-mail address: Lindsay.Knauf@gmail.com Subject: Class Sizes at HOM Message: Good Afternoon- My name is Lindsay Knauf and I am a parent to a 3rd grader at Head O Meadow. I have an incoming Kindergartner next year and another child entering the school system the year after that. The summer before the start of this school year, I had a conversation with the administration staff at the school voicing concern over the size of the classrooms for the coming year. At the time of the conversation, the classrooms were set at 25 students. My understanding is that 25 is the cap as to how many children are allowed in a classroom with only one teacher. Now we stand at 26 and my concerns have gotten more serious. While I am of course concerned for all the children receiving adequate time and attention from the teacher, my other concerns range from safety to burn out of the wonderful teachers that we are so fortunate to have. My son has Mrs. Murphy and she is wonderful and amazingly capable. She balances fun and seriousness in her classroom like the professional she is. But how exhausted must she be at the end of each day trying to give all of her students the time that they need? Making sure that the students who need more help get it. Making sure the ones that are doing well on their own aren't ignored. All while being judged against standardized test scores for their students. I can't even begin to imagine how stressful that must be. If you keep asking these teachers to perform at this level without help I fear that you will lose them altogether. Now, that being said, if the projections for rising students is much lower in the upcoming years, then I can see the reasoning behind not hiring another teacher for just one year. Of course that makes no sense. But what can we do to provide assistance to these teachers in the mean time? Can they have a para? Can we offer more enrichment opportunities for those students that are excelling in certain areas so that they can leave the classroom for sessions and give these teacher reprieve? Can we add a specialist who can pull out more kids that are struggling to meet grade level expectations? If these teachers who are class overloaded are performing lunch duty, recess duty or bus duty currently, I believe that they should not have to perform those tasks any longer. I understand that there are no easy answers and that budgets must be taken seriously, but I went through the Newtown school system and I know first hand how top notch it is. I moved my family back here to make sure they received the same public education I was blessed to have. I want our teachers taken care of as well as our students. I fear that you will see a decline in the level of excellence in the Newtown public school system if you do not take your teachers well being into more serious consideration. If the level of excellence falls, so will the number of families that want to move to our beautiful town. Please look to support these teachers in every way possible. They deserve it. Thank you for you time- Lindsay Knauf lindsay.knauf@gmail.com 203-304-9818 Submitted on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 7:56pm Your name: Erin Merrifield Your e-mail address: erinokeeffe10@yahoo.com Subject: Class size grade 3 and grade 4 for 20-21 Message: Hello. I am surprised to see that the current situation of 26 students in 3rd grade is being looked at as an option for these students to continue to 4th grade with this class size. I am an elementary teacher in Weston and can say first hand that that number of students is outrageous. The curriculum demands at that level make an enormous jump as do the individual needs of the students. I know there are many classes in the district with 14 students during this current year...Making them below guidelines. I’m uncertain how this originally was approved. The entire district needs to be looked at. Ask any teacher and they will say the “guidelines” are even pushing the envelope with the behavioral and academic challenges in our classrooms. Starting at the cap is absurd. Thank you, Erin Merrifield Submitted on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 9:17pm Your name: CHRISTINA M LYE Your e-mail address: cgonzalez24@hotmail.com Subject: Class Size at Head O Meadow Message: I am a parent to a third grader at Head O Meadow school and I am contacting you in reference to your questions regarding enrollment and staffing for the 2020-2021 school year. From the minutes dated 3/5/20, the LC Education Subcommittee suggested that there be two fourth grade classrooms at Head O Meadow with 26 students each, in an effort to save the cost of hiring of a full time educator. I urge you to reconsider this thinking, as a class this large negatively impacts instruction and learning. Currently, the two third grades at Head O Meadow each have 26 students. In classes that large, teachers are unable to provide the intensity of high-quality differentiated instruction that is necessary for academic success. Additionally, that number of children make it challenging for teachers to build the authentic supportive relationships that are the foundation for social emotional competence. Creating classes this large undermines the district's ongoing commitment to social and emotional learning for all students. It was stated in the original suggestion from the Subcommittee that this would be a "one-year situation." That is not the case for the children in these classes, as they have already spent third grade in classes of 26. And, while one year might seem manageable by our adult standards, it is important to remember that beginning in fourth grade, students are making the shift from "learning to read" to "reading to learn." Children who are struggling in third grade (and whose challenges are exacerbated by these large class sizes), will fall further behind in fourth. Choosing to intentionally maintain a class this size willfully ignores what we know is good for teaching and learning. While I appreciate that cost saving measures need to be considered, I urge you to seek solutions that will not be to the detriment to instruction and learning. From: Steve Hinden <steve.hinden@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:30 PM Subject: Re: Form submission from: Contact the Legislative Council To: Paul Lundquist <plundquist.newtown@gmail.com>, Dan Wiedemann <dgw0315@yahoo.com>, <alisonplante.newtown@gmail.com>, Dan Honan <danielthonan@gmail.com> And since these meetings can be held remotely, I assume the public will be told affirmatively not to attend in person? I ask this because there is still an education committee meeting scheduled for March 23. Cc’s, apologies if I left any committee members off this email. -- Steve On Mar 17, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Paul Lundquist <plundquist.newtown@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Steve, We have a dial-in conference line available for all members of the public to use for the Public Hearing and the Regular Meeting that follows. I've also now suggested that LC members dial-in for these meetings. I noted this on the meeting agendas, and tried to put word out via The Bee. The town was also going to post something on the website. I will be at the meeting to initiate the call and make sure it all works as planned. No one else will need to be there. After tomorrow, all LC and committee meetings can be held via dial-in conference. It's all very fluid, and we're doing the best we can, while recognizing that our function is not 'non-essential.' The governor did grant a 30 day extension for budget making. The problem is unless CT also moves the Primary date we can’t delay the referendum because our budget vote is the same day (4/28). It's not practical to expect the community to vote twice over what would likely be a matter of weeks (and would be extremely difficult to fully staff poll workers for two separate events). The Gov is meeting today regarding the possibility of delaying the CT Primary. If that happens (it seems fairly likely), we will absolutely cancel our meetings tomorrow. Take care, Paul On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 10:58 AM Steve Hinden via Newtown CT <cmsmailer@civicplus.com> wrote: Submitted on Tuesday, March 17, 2020 - 10:58am Your name: Steve Hinden Your e-mail address: steve.hinden@gmail.com Subject: Cancel your meetings Message: How can you still be planning to hold in person meetings? Submitted on Wednesday, March 18, 2020 - 9:44am Your name: Kelly McLean Your e-mail address: pepper.doodle@aol.com Subject: Head o meadow and the third grad only having two teachers Message: My daughter is in the third grade at Head O’Meadow. Her class has always had about 14-15 kids in it. This year, There is only two third grade teachers in the whole third grade. That’s 25 kids per teacher. Totaling 50 kids. Since she has 25 kids in her class, I feel that is way to many kids per one teacher. They need to allow for another 3rd grade teacher. My daughter has autism and gets extra help outside her class but if she needs help when doing things within the class I feel she won’t be able to get the attention she needs. She does not need an aid within the class because her autism is on the lower spectrum side.But At this age they still need attention even with kids who don’t have any disabilities. Please consider funding for another third grade teacher. This issue needs to be addressed. Thank you Kelly McLean. Submitted on Wednesday, March 18, 2020 - 4:12pm Your name: Kathryn Burke Your e-mail address: kburke0905@gmail.com Subject: Education Budget Message: Dear Legislative Council, My name is Kathryn Burke. I reside at 48 Taunton Hill Road, Newtown, CT. I am writing in regards to the proposed education budget for 2020-2021. It is my understanding that the Board of Finance elected to cut $100,000 from the education budget. After reviewing the minutes of this meeting, my understanding is the funds were cut based on the Board of Education having a surplus in prior years and that if the BOE needed additional funds during the year they could always approach the BOF and LC. There were also many concerning comments about loading up class sizes over the recommended BOE limits in certain schools/grades. I completely disagree with this idea. Many times, kids move into our district and class sizes end up being larger than projected. Cramming kids into a classroom to save a few dollars is not a good practice. Our teachers do so much for our kids, as we have seen over the past week. They also dedicate so much of their time to each individual student. The class sizes recommended by the BOE are in place for a reason. Going above the recommended levels to save money is not the appropriate solution. As a tax payer, I have reviewed the original education budget, as well as attended and listened to the meetings where the budget has been presented and questioned. The original proposed BOE budget in my opinion was fair. I don't think it is necessary to cut the budget for appearances. If there is a particular area of the budget identified where there are excess funds, I can understand it. But as I see it, the original proposed budget appears fair. I would appreciate your consideration in adding the $100,000 back to the budget. Thank you for your consideration and all your hard work, especially during these uncharted times. Kathryn Burke Submitted on Wednesday, March 18, 2020 - 4:23pm Your name: Ned Simpson Your e-mail address: neds2124@gmail.com Subject: Fairfield Hills Referendum Question Message: Housing is a priority issue for the Friends of Newtown Seniors (FONS) and the Age-Friendly Livable Community Initiative. We have been closely following the Fairfield Hills housing question as it seems there are many positive benefits. At the March 4, 2020 meeting Legislative Council started discussion on the Fairfield Hills referendum question with the following hypothetical question: Should the Town of Newtown allow commercial development proposals at the Fairfield Hills campus that include a housing component, provided that any given proposal is for no more than two existing buildings and that any development is consistent with the vision for the property? (Y or N) In the council’s discussion it was noted that the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee conducted a survey of Newtown residents. A key point was that an approximately equal number of respondents apposed housing at Fairfield Hills and apposed the town spending more money on Fairfield Hills. An infeasible pair of alternatives. The Hypothetical Question the council discussed has the same structural flaw as the survey in that it asks whether something (housing at FFH) is desirable or not without presenting the inescapable link to the consequences of saying no (tax increase.) It is researched and widely accepted that a) there is a low voter turnout for local referendums and b) most voters only read ballot wording once in the voting booth. We strongly urge Legislative Council to word the FFH question reflecting the actual choice: Higher taxes to demolish all buildings or housing. For example: Shall the town approve the restoration of some buildings at FFH for apartment dwelling at no cost to the town and avoid the cost of demolition of all vacant buildings, estimated to be $26 million in new taxes? (Y or N) Submitted on Wednesday, March 18, 2020 - 5:14pm Your name: Barbara Wojcik Your e-mail address: barbara.m.wojcik@gmail.com Subject: BOE Budget Feedback Message: LC Members, Given our public health emergency, there is no need to prolong deliberations over an education budget which has already been unreasonably reduced by BOF despite being set at a lowly 1.4 increase initially. Please approve the now lowlier 1.2 proposed BOE budget without further reduction. As demonstrated by the quality of BOE answers from minutes and video, this budget is as thoughtful, responsible and justified as when it was intact at 1.4. The LC/BOF’s ”we’re stewards of taxpayers dollars” presumes school officials don’t share the same conviction as they craft their budget. They do. There is a view that school officials can be poor long-term planners. Yet aren’t they only as successful as LC/BOF authority permits? BOF objected to the BOE non-lapsing cushion prompting the removal of 100k. If you have forgotten why this matters, I haven’t. Please revisit #3&#8 on 3/5 Response to LC Education Subcommittee in your minutes. I’ve wondered, with the annual profusion of questions posed to school officials, is there really an interest in substantive answers when these discussions boil down to a predetermined number be it a percent increase palatable to voters or this year’s mill rate concern. And more squeezing of school funding is the only way to achieve it even as the town sits on funds that could equally satisfy a gesture of voter giveback. I’m not a fan of dribbling income back to voters for optic’s sake but I expect political minds may have different goals. If a budget is carefully justified, which I believe is the case for both school and town, then refrain from cuts and please let the voters decide. We are facing much more pressing priorities. Please move these budgets through. Thank you for the time and effort you devote to this board. Barbara Wojcik 25 Horseshoe Ridge Rd, SH Submitted on Wednesday, March 18, 2020 - 6:10pm Your name: Rick Lye Your e-mail address: ricklye@hotmail.com Subject: Cutting Education Budget Message: I am a parent to a third grader at Head O Meadow school and I am contacting you in reference to your questions regarding enrollment and staffing for the 2020-2021 school year. From the minutes dated 3/5/20, the LC Education Subcommittee suggested that there be two fourth grade classrooms at Head O Meadow with 26 students each, in an effort to save the cost of hiring of a full time educator. I urge you to reconsider this thinking, as a class this large negatively impacts instruction and learning. Currently, the two third grades at Head O Meadow each have 26 students. In classes that large, teachers are unable to provide the intensity of high-quality differentiated instruction that is necessary for academic success. Additionally, that number of children make it challenging for teachers to build the authentic supportive relationships that are the foundation for social emotional competence. Creating classes this large undermines the district's ongoing commitment to social and emotional learning for all students. It was stated in the original suggestion from the Subcommittee that this would be a "one-year situation." That is not the case for the children in these classes, as they have already spent third grade in classes of 26. And, while one year might seem manageable by our adult standards, it is important to remember that beginning in fourth grade, students are making the shift from "learning to read" to "reading to learn." Children who are struggling in third grade (and whose challenges are exacerbated by these large class sizes), will fall further behind in fourth. Choosing to intentionally maintain a class this size willfully ignores what we know is good for teaching and learning. While I appreciate that cost saving measures need to be considered, I urge you to seek solutions that will not be to the detriment to instruction and learning. Submitted on Wednesday, March 18, 2020 - 6:20pm Your name: JANICE BUTLER Your e-mail address: jbutler@janicebutlercpa.com Subject: Recommended 2020-2021 Annual Budget Message: In lieu of being able to attend the meeting under the current circumstances, I am submitting a concern I have regarding the Board of Finance Recommended 2020 - 2021 Annual Budget. I serve as the Treasurer of the Board of Directors of The Children's Adventure Center. On page 206, it states "the represent a rent free building." The pre-existing location of CAC is rent free and CAC is paying rent for the former Senior Center portion of the building. Custodial services have been and continue to be paid by CAC since the Senior Center vacated the building. The in-kind services of $65,000 have been allocated completely to CAC even when the Senior Center occupied the space. The $65,000 amount per Public Works has not changed although the usage of the building has significantly changed and less services (i.e. custodial) are being supplied by the town. Attachment B Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation Credit Profile US$16.24 mil GO rfdg bnds (federally taxable) ser 2020C due 07/01/2033 Long Term Rating AAA/Stable New US$11.5 mil GO bnds ser 2020A due 03/15/2040 Long Term Rating AAA/Stable New US$3.505 mil GO rfdg bnds ser 2020B due 07/01/2031 Long Term Rating AAA/Stable New Rating Action S&P Global Ratings assigned its 'AAA' long-term rating to Newtown, Conn.'s approximately $11.5 million 2020 series A general obligation (GO) bonds, $3.505 million 2020 series B GO refunding bonds, and $16.24 million 2020 series C taxable GO refunding, and affirmed its 'AAA' rating on the town's existing GO debt. The outlook is stable. Newtown's full-faith-and-credit pledge and agreement to levy ad valorem property taxes, without limitation as to rate or amount, secure the bonds. Officials intend to use series A bond proceeds to fund various capital and infrastructure projects in line with the town's capital improvement plan (CIP) and series 2020B and 2020C bond proceeds to refund existing GO bonds for interest savings with no extension of maturities. Credit overview The rating and outlook reflects the town's very strong socioeconomic demographics, high wealth factors, and a low fixed-cost burden consistent with our highest rating. While economic growth has been slow regionally, management's conservative budgeting practices have led to consistently strong financial performance and improving reserves over several years. We believe a strong reserve position, coupled with limited fixed-cost pressures, provide ongoing rating stability despite below-average tax base growth prospects. In our opinion, management will likely continue to adjust the budget to remain balanced while seeking to expand the local property tax base through ongoing development initiatives. We rate Newtown higher than the nation because we believe the town can maintain better credit characteristics than the nation in a stress scenario based on its predominantly locally derived revenue base and our view that pledged revenue supporting debt service on the bonds is at limited risk of negative sovereign intervention. (For further information, please see our criteria, titled "Ratings Above The Sovereign: Corporate And Government Ratings—Methodology And Assumptions," published Nov. 19, 2013, on RatingsDirect.) In 2020, local property taxes generated 81% of general fund revenue on a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) basis, demonstrating a lack of dependence on central government funding. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT MARCH 11, 2020 2  Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation Additional factors considered in the rating include Newtown's: • Very strong economy, with access to a broad and diverse metropolitan statistical area (MSA); • Very strong management environment, with strong financial policies and practices under our Financial Management Assessment (FMA) methodology; • Strong budgetary performance, with operating surpluses in the general fund and at the total governmental fund level in fiscal 2019; • Strong budgetary flexibility, with an available fund balance in fiscal 2019 of 12.7% of operating expenditures; • Very strong liquidity, with total government available cash at 16.4% of total governmental fund expenditures and 2.4x governmental debt service, and access to external liquidity we consider positive; • Very strong debt and contingent liability position, with debt service carrying charges at 6.8% of expenditures and net direct debt that is 58.2% of total governmental fund revenue, as well as low overall net debt at less than 3% of market value and rapid amortization, with 67.0% of debt scheduled to be retired in 10 years; and • Strong institutional framework score. Stable Two-Year Outlook Downside scenario While unlikely, if Newtown were to experience budgetary pressure, resulting in negative operations, leading to significantly deteriorated available reserves, we could lower the rating. Credit Opinion Very strong economy Newtown, with an estimated population of 28,030, is in Fairfield County in the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk MSA, which we consider broad and diverse. The town has a projected per capita effective buying income of 164% of the national level and per capita market value of $162,579. Overall, market value was stable over the past year at $4.6 billion in 2020. Interstate 84 and U.S. routes 6 and 302 traverse Newtown, providing residents access to employment centers in the county and New York City. Most residents commute into other parts of the county and neighboring Westchester County, N.Y. for employment. While the town is largely residential, management is working actively to expand the commercial base. To that end, infrastructure investments, including sewer and road improvements, allow Newtown to support development in its seven business districts. Recently completed projects include Hawleyville Business District, including infrastructure improvements to generate residential and commercial development. The town also expects additional commercial development in its borough business district, including several medical offices. An assisted-living facility is another residential project currently underway; management expects this facility will grow the tax base and provide additional employment opportunities. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT MARCH 11, 2020 3  Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation Despite some ongoing initiatives, we believe tax base growth will remain slow as is the case statewide. The town's grand list has grown on average 0.8% annually since 2013, which is below average compared nationally. Nevertheless, management has been able to incorporate this into its budgeting and forecasts, and budgetary performance has been steady over many years. Very strong management We view the town's management as very strong, with strong financial policies and practices under our FMA methodology, indicating financial practices are strong, well embedded, and likely sustainable. Specifically, management uses 10 years of historical data to inform conservative revenue and expenditure assumptions and conducts regular budget forecasting to determine whether revenue or expenditures will deviate from long-term trends. In addition, it regularly monitors budgetary performance, ensuring timely adjustments. It provides monthly reports on budget-to-actual results to the town council. Newtown also maintains a comprehensive, 10-year financial plan and a rolling five-year CIP with all funding sources identified. The town has its own formally adopted investment policy, with review on holdings and returns done monthly and with annual reports provided to the first selectman and council. Newtown recently reviewed and updated its debt-management policy and reduced its debt-service limit to 9% of general fund expenditures from 9.8%. The policy also sets affordability and refunding targets. Finally, the reserve policy calls for an unassigned fund balance of 8%-12% of total general fund expenditures based on cash-flow needs. Historically, management adheres to its debt-management and reserve policies. Management has also taken significant steps to mitigate exposure to cyber-related risks and other emerging risks through the adoption of stronger internal control procedures. Strong budgetary performance Newtown's budgetary performance is strong, in our opinion. The town had slight surplus operating results in the general fund of 0.6% of expenditures, and surplus results across all governmental funds of 0.8% in fiscal 2019. General fund operating results of the town have been similar over the last three years, with results of 0.6% in 2018 and 0.8% in 2017. In our calculations, we adjust for recurring transfers out of the general fund supporting capital outlay, and for other nonrecurring revenues or expenses when calculating results. In particular, in 2019, we adjusted for a roughly $1.7 million one-time FEMA grant out of revenues. Newtown has a long history of surplus results due partially to its very strong financial management and ability to adapt to fiscal issues. Management attributed the fiscal 2019 surplus to positive variances, particularly in budgeting for state revenues and across expenditures. It notes it received the receipt of a one-time FEMA grant in fiscal 2019, which reimbursed the town for prior-year unexpected storm-cleanup-related costs. With fiscal 2020 more than halfway over, management reports the budget, up 2.7% from the prior year, is proceeding well with projections showing an overall surplus. The effective tax increase was 1.56%. The town conservatively budgeted for educational support (state aid) and is currently projecting significant savings from winter maintenance due to the mild winter. In all, we anticipate based on these projections that fiscal year-end 2020 results will remain positive. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT MARCH 11, 2020 4  Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation The fiscal 2021 budget process is underway, and management plans to hold state aid estimates below current state projections once again. The board of finance-recommended budget is up a modest 1.7 % over the fiscal 2020 budget with a proposed effective tax increase of 0.6%. Due to Newtown's strong financial management and record of balanced operations, we expect budgetary performance will remain steady, as has been the case over several years. We do not believe there are any immediate cost pressures and the revenue environment is stable. Property taxes generated 81% of general fund revenue in fiscal 2019 while intergovernmental revenue accounted for 13.3%. Strong budgetary flexibility Newtown's budgetary flexibility is strong, in our view, with an available fund balance in fiscal 2019 of 12.7% of operating expenditures, or $16.4 million. The town does not use reserves to balance the budget. With at least balanced results projected for fiscal 2019, we expect reserves will likely remain strong. Newtown's formal reserve policy, which seeks to maintain general fund balance at no less than 8% of total operating general fund expenditures, further strengthens flexibility. Due to this, we expect budgetary flexibility will likely remain strong. Very strong liquidity In our opinion, Newtown's liquidity is very strong, with total government available cash at 16.4% of total governmental fund expenditures and 2.4x governmental debt service in 2019. In our view, the town has strong access to external liquidity if necessary. Newtown has demonstrated strong access to external liquidity through frequent GO debt and note issuance. The town largely invests cash in highly rated money-market funds and certificates of deposit. Newtown does not have any exposure to variable-rate or privately placed debt. Very strong debt and contingent liability profile In our view, Newtown's debt and contingent liability profile is very strong. Total governmental fund debt service is 6.8% of total governmental fund expenditures, and net direct debt is 58.2% of total governmental fund revenue. Overall net debt is low at 1.8% of market value, and approximately 67.0% of the direct debt is scheduled to be repaid within 10 years, which are, in our view, positive credit factors. During the next two years, the CIP identifies $21.4 million of debt for the proposed funding of various capital improvements through 2022. Due to debt policies the town follows, and the aggressive amortization of existing debt, we do not expect upcoming debt offerings will significantly weaken its debt profile. Currently, the town has $83.2 million of debt outstanding after this issuance. Pension and other postemployment benefits • We do not view pension and other postemployment benefit (OPEB) liabilities as a source of credit pressure for Newtown despite our expectation that costs may increase with market volatility. • While the use of an actuarially determined contribution (ADC) is positive, we believe some of the assumptions used to build the pension ADC reflect what we view as slightly aggressive, which we believe increases the risk of unexpected contribution escalations. Newtown participates in the pension plans as of June 30, 2019: WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT MARCH 11, 2020 5  Summary: Newtown, Connecticut; General Obligation • Newtown Employees' Pension Plan and Newtown Police Officers' Pension Plan, referred to collectively as "the town plan," with net pension liability equal to $15.5 million. Newtown's combined required pension and actual OPEB contributions totaled 2.0% of total governmental fund expenditures in 2019, which we consider very low. The town made its full annual required pension contribution in 2019. It contributes 100% of its ADC. The pension plans underlying assumptions were made more-conservative over the past few years, including lowering the discount rate to 7% from 7.5% and changing the calculation method to entry age normal from a projected unit of credit. We note that in the most recent year, the pension plan met neither our static nor our minimum funding progress calculation, indicating that it may not be fully addressing current costs or making headway addressing its unfunded liabilities. Nevertheless, these costs do not represent a sizable portion of the town's budget and the overall size of the liability is not large. Newtown also offers OPEBs to some retirees in the form of a health care plan. Eligible retirees receive benefits until Medicare age. The town contributes $200,000 to its OPEB trust, as well as annual retiree medical costs. At June 30, 2019, Newtown's net OPEB liability was $5.1 million with a funded ratio of 35%. Due to management's commitment to funding long-term liabilities, we do not view these obligations as a credit stress. Strong institutional framework The institutional framework score for Connecticut municipalities is strong. Related Research • S&P Public Finance Local GO Criteria: How We Adjust Data For Analytic Consistency, Sept. 12, 2013 • Criteria Guidance: Assessing U.S. Public Finance Pension And Other Postemployment Obligations For GO Debt, Local Government GO Ratings, And State Ratings Ratings Detail (As Of March 11, 2020) Newtown GO Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Newtown GO rfdg Long Term Rating AAA/Stable Affirmed Certain terms used in this report, particularly certain adjectives used to express our view on rating relevant factors, have specific meanings ascribed to them in our criteria, and should therefore be read in conjunction with such criteria. Please see Ratings Criteria at www.standardandpoors.com for further information. Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect at www.capitaliq.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on S&P Global Ratings' public website at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT MARCH 11, 2020 6 Copyright © 2020 by Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating- related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses. To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees. STANDARD & POOR’S, S&P and RATINGSDIRECT are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC. WWW.STANDARDANDPOORS.COM/RATINGSDIRECT MARCH 11, 2020 7 Attachment C Attachment D A RESOLUTION AMENDING A RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE AUTHORIZATION, ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT EXCEEDING $20,000,000 TOWN OF NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS RESOLVED: Section 1. The first sentence of Section 1 of the resolution entitled “Resolution With Respect To The Authorization, Issuance And Sale Of Not Exceeding $20,000,000 Town Of Newtown, Connecticut General Obligation Refunding Bonds”, approved at a meeting of the Legislative Council held February 19, 2020 (the “Resolution”) is hereby amended by increasing the amount of refunding bonds authorized therein from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000, thereby making said Section 1 read as follows: “Section 1. Not exceeding $25,000,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds (the "Refunding Bonds") of the Town of Newtown, Connecticut (the "Town") may be issued in one or more series and in such principal amounts as the First Selectman and the Financial Director shall determine to be in the best interests of the Town for the purpose of achieving net present value savings and/or to restructure debt service payments of the Town.” Section 2. The remaining provisions of the Resolution shall be applicable to this resolution as of the date of the adoption of this resolution and shall remain in full force and effect. 17698880-v2 Attachment E DRAFT LOCAL QUESTION WORDING FOR REFERENDUM: Should the Town of Newtown consider commercial development proposals at the Fairfield Hills campus that include a housing component, provided that any given proposal is for no more than two existing buildings and that development is consistent with the vision for the property? Yes No Attachment F TOWN OF NEWTOWN APPROPRIATION (BUDGET) TRANSFER REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 2019 - 2020 DEPARTMENT Public Works DATE 2/7/20 Account Amount FROM: 101135000000-5110SALARIES & WAGES - FULL TIME (225,000) USEAMOUNT NEGATIVE 101135150000-5110SALARIES & WAGES - FULL TIME (25,000) 101136500000-5110SALARIES & WAGES - FULL TIME (11,000) . TO: 101135000000-5130SALARIES & WAGES - OVERTIME 4,000 USE POSITIVE AMOUNT 101135000000-5505CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50,000 101135150000-5430REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERVICES 650 101135150000-5505CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30,000 101135150000-5610GENERAL SUPPLIES 850 101136500000-5411WATER / SEWERAGE 20,000 101136500000-5430REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SERVICES 5,000 101136500000-5505CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60,000 101136500000-5615GENERAL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 8,500 101136500000-5622ENERGY - ELECTRICITY 52,000 101136500000-5624ENERGY - OIL 30,000 . . . REASON: Public Words Inter division transfer. Salary amounts available due to vacancies. See detail explanation on required funds attached. AUTHORIZATION: date: (1) DEPARTMENT HEAD (2) FINANCE DIRECTOR (3) SELECTMAN (4) BOARD OF SELECTMEN (5) BOARD OF FINANCE (6) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION SIGN OFF FIRST 335 DAYS >>>>WITH IN A DEPT.>>>>LESS THAN $50,000>>>> (1), (2) & (3) SIGNS OFF; MORE THAN $50,000>>>> (1), (2), (3) & (5) >>>>ONE DEPT TO ANOTHER>>>>LESS THAN $200,000>>>>ALL EXCEPT (6); MORE THAN $200,000>>>>ALL SIGN OFF AFTER 335 DAYS >>>>(1), (2), (3), (5) & (6) ANY AMOUNT FROM CONTINGENCY>>>> ALL SIGN OFF