Minutes

Connecticut River Valley Council of Elected Officials

January 27, 2010

Attendance: Please see attached list

1. Call to Order:

The CRVCEO meeting was called to order by Chairman Marsh at 8:40 a.m. in Essex at the Town Hall. Chairman Marsh thanked First Selectman Miller for hosting the breakfast meeting. A roll call was taken.

2. Approval of December Minutes:

Motion to approve the Minutes of October was made by Phil Miller. The motion was seconded by Paul DeStefano. All were in favor.

3. Speakers: Area Legislators

Sen. Eileen Daily: Sen. Daily said there will be no change in the adopted budget for current fiscal year. However, there will be less money for the towns for the next fiscal year. She said that there would be no changes in the prevailing wage or binding arbitration issues. 1993 was the last time we did anything on prevailing wage. Tom Marsh asked if there would be a willingness to bond. Eileen did not believe this issue to be a viable one. She did feel that regionalization would be a beneficial venue for all towns. She suggested the selectmen look to COST and CCM for direction. The selectmen were deeply concerned about cuts in education and asked for insight on the subject.

Brian O’Connor: Rep. O’Connor said he believed that the towns should count on a 15% cut as a guide. He said this percentage is not written in granite but should be used as a guideline. Mark Walter asked is these cuts would be in education, especially special education. Brian said cuts could be in Medicaid Fund and Municipal aid. Sue Bransfield noted that a 20% cut in State would equate to 1 mill in Portland. Brian noted that the State’s problems are the towns’ problems.

Noel Bishop asked if Brian was saying the towns will receive 15% less from the State. Should this 15% therefore be spread out across the towns’ budgets?

Paul DeStefano asked about cutting back on special education and suggested there must be a broader look at the intended cuts. Phil Miller said there is an increase in special education costs. How can we continue to help these children. Tom noted we do not have the ability to create a “minus situation” budget.

The selectmen asked for more detail regarding cuts in education. 15% state aid = 15% cuts in education. Would there be cost sharing? It appears that the people who deserve the aid are the one who will suffer the most. The selectmen must be able to be honest with their constituents. It’s not the selectmen who have created the 15% reduction in services.

Ralph Eno asked if we should look at the Governor’s proposed numbers as the worst case scenario for the coming fiscal year. Sen. Daily said not to count on that.

Are there new mandates proposed of which the towns should be aware? There is a huge amount of inertia in making any progress in this area. Eileen suggested the selectmen focus their energy on things that can be changed, instead of items that will not be changed.

The property storage issue was discussed. The statute, according to Jamie, goes back to the 19^th century. He said it became law to make certain an honest broker was involved in the eviction process so that nothing was stolen in the process. The proposal to regionalize this issue clearly did not make sense to the selectmen.

Linda suggested that regional storage of eviction materials will in the long run cost more money. She asked what the legislators mean by regionalism. Do they think this is a way to save money?

Jamie said the Commission on Enhancing Agency Outcomes is addressing this issue. A task force is focused on regional incentives.

Brian said one of the efforts Sharkey are working on is “regionalism”, and he believes his approach is balanced. Sharkey’s level of support is good. He believes regional efforts would be effective right now.

John Flanders said that he has a horrifying sense that the legislators had no clue what regionalization would mean to the municipalities. He would strongly recommend that we have a voice. A bigger administration would be required for regionalization and would ultimately mean a tax increase to sustain this effort.

Eileen said to focus on areas that are going to change. Laura said it’s not a matter of “focusing”. It’s a matter of the big things that the State says “can’t be done.”

Dick Smith explained the duplicity in the State government. It’s indirect costs of new mandates that hit a town that have not been planned for: for example: special education children that the town must pay for. The State should pay, not the town. Jamie agreed that the State needs to make sure that special education needs children are taken care of. This issue must be addressed.

Tom asked if there a way of tiering the costs. Tiered laws might be the answer.

Susan Bransfield asked about the ARRA energy money. Why the delay? Where is the money? Laura Francis clarified the ARRA funding issue stating we needed an exemption for from Feds and now that that hurdle is passed, she is hopeful the money will be forthcoming.

Ralph said history has shown that the revenue stream comes from the municipalities and not from the State. Property is the primary source. Regionalization would remove the accountability from the towns.

Laura asked where and what is the leadership in Hartford. She said the local level is not so partisan politically.

Brian said that two years from now there will be a $2-4 billion deficit. Jamie said the reality is that we have a divided Government and noted the dynamics within the legislature is an altogether different issue.

Mark Walter noted that the State government mimes General Electric. The pension issue is insurmountable. The pension process must be addressed.

Volunteerism within the towns is crucial. Should regionalization occur, the impact on volunteerism in small towns could be devastating. Overall, regionalization within the State is not the answer.

Jon Brayshaw and Laura Francis brought up issues with the DEP. Brian said he has introduced a bill that would replace the DEP duties into the DECD.

Chairman Marsh then asked for suggestions from the selectmen for the legislators to go back to the State with. The suggestions were the following:

o The legislators need to deal with Connecticut rules and regulations and streamline the process.

o A budget policy forum should be established – the $6billion in surplus should be put to the deficit. A budget policy should be established requiring surpluses to be set aside or used to buy down debt.

o The State must be held accountable as everyone else is in Connecticut.

o We need legislators with courage.

o Keep principles in place, equalize legislation, and more money should be funded for special education.

o There is gross inequity in costs and expenses.

o If we work together, we will get out of this.

o Some of the mandates are not real

o “The devil is in the details” – with unintended consequences. State bureaucracy is overwhelming.

o Paying attention: the State elected officials don’t pay attention.

o Selectmen do well with voluntary collaboration. Legislators feel they know what’s best for towns.

o Resident state trooper overtime is a joke and should be addressed immediately. It should be back to the way it was.

o The legislators were thanked for coming to the meeting. Two issues that clearly have not been properly addressed: 1. The Web Page mandate, 2. The Probate Court Issue. Regarding the Probate Court issue, the law says that the formula is a grand list formula. The statute cannot be willfully changed by the Court Administrator. Per capita fund formula would be more appropriate.

o Mail costs for state pension monthly notification should be eliminated. The notification process should be by email.

o The Work Force Alliance transportation program should not be cut. 3,000 people rely on public transportation to get to and from their jobs.

o Regionalization may result in increased cost for towns. It’s difficult to talk about regionalism when funding has been cut.

o Regional administration is not the panacea. In reality, it could be far more expensive. Larger can ultimately mean more expensive.

o How is the State going to make up the money that should be going to the towns?

o Re eviction: the evicted party whose house is in foreclosure must pay $100? How are they expected to do this?

o Special needs children: money should follow the children.

o No more mandates.

o Towns should have the responsibility of running their own Regional school systems.

The Chairman thanked the legislators for attending the meeting. The next meeting of the CRVCEO is in Chester on February 24^th at noon.

4. Other Business:

A. Paul Hughes, Speaker--Middlesex County Revitalization Commission: The MCRC’s mission is to encourage economic development in each of the fifteen towns in Middlesex County. The members are the chief elected official of each town, or an individual designated by the CEO. The Loan Committee reviews loan applications recommended by MCRC’s independent credit analyst for recommendation to the commission. Paul gave a brief summary of the types of loans granted and the process by which a loan may be obtained.

B. Update on Regional Service Bids:

Laura Francis distributed material on the suggested regional service bids process and well as bid sheets and specifications for traffic guide lines, vendor information for individual municipalities, catch basin cleaning-services, chip seal service, as well as sweeping services. Laura explained the bidding process, and said no one is under any obligation to accept a bid. A municipality can pick and choose. Deadline for submission from towns is Wednesday, February 3^rd. Laura will email specifics regarding deadline.

Laura also cautioned the selectmen that they should find out what the CL&P property value declaration is for their towns. She said she met with her assessor and there was a decrease in the grand list this year due to an over declaration of $5million by CL&P.

C. Update on RPOs and Regionalization: Linda Krause, speaker.

Linda said the issue will be discussed at the upcoming February 24^th CRVCEO meeting in Chester. David LeVasseur, Office of Policy Management Undersecretary, would be at that meeting. The 17 town group is not currently enabled to be a COG. It should be approved by OPM. The next step would be to ask Dave how we go about doing this. Regionalism is not the answer to the State’s financial problems. David will share his expertise on how to implement the process. At the February meeting we can talk about a letter of intent and how to proceed.

Linda said David will tell the selectmen what is going on in Hartford regarding this issue. The earlier we get moving towards that objective, the better off we’ll be.

Geoff Colegrove felt that aligning ourselves was an excellent idea and felt we should move forward with the process.

Ralph has reservations about Dave coming to discuss the regional planning agencies. He’s quite satisfied with the present LCVSA and the regional planning agency. However, he is willing to listen and understands why we should position ourselves so that we don’t “get hammered”.

D. Probate Court:

Jamie said he will call Linda when he gets an update on the Probate issue. Tom was asked to resubmit the nine town letter and will do that this week. The selectmen want to know the following: Who is in charge of the decision making? What costs will there be to the towns. When will the towns be apprised? How will costs be affixed -- per capita, grand list?

6. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn was made by Tom Marsh and seconded by Mark Walter. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Pat Anthony, Clerk