|
|
Vote NO in NOvember If You Care About HOW Things Are Done In Fairfield
The Town Charter codifies the basic rules by which we agree to govern our Town. These rules should
be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they allow us to govern ourselves as well as possible.
Because nothing is more important than how we govern ourselves, any review should be conducted
by knowledgeable and impartial citizens who are able to analyze all of the costs, benefits, tradeoffs
and risks associated with any possible governance changes, and to explain clearly the basis for any
changes they recommend.
Unfortunately, the recent Charter review process was flawed in many ways:
• Months before any formal announcement that the Town would be reviewing its Charter, outside
counsel was retained for that purpose and briefed by the First Selectperson (FS) and Town
Attorney without consulting other members of the Board of Selectmen (BOS), which is the Town
body responsible for the Charter review process.
• Then, the First Selectperson nominated a full slate of seven members for the Charter Revision
Commission (CRC), a majority of whom appear to have been chosen because they were in favor of
major changes in the structure of our government (e.g., replacing the three-person BOS with a
Mayor, replacing the RTM with a Town Council, and hiring a Town Manager to run our Town), all
seven of whom were subsequently approved by the BOS, not unanimously, but on a party-line
vote (two R’s in favor, one D opposed).
• And, without informing the BOS that a much longer timeframe was possible, the schedule for
Charter revision was drastically shortened to about one year from the almost three years allowed
by State statute, a critical decision with important negative consequences:
➢ critical issues were deliberated by the CRC during the summer months when many
citizens were away and unable to participate;
➢ the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) was denied its important role under State
statute of forming an independent, bi-partisan committee to advise voters on any
proposed Charter revisions; and
➢ the CRC was not able to do its job, stating in its final report that it did not have “sufficient
time to carefully study whether there are disadvantages in the current structure, decide
on what changes would improve the town, and then gain the support for the changes
from the Town political leadership and citizens.”
• The CRC did not merely run out of time, it was never able or willing to analyze fully and explain
clearly the full implications of potential governance changes that either were or should have been
considered within the context of Fairfield’s unique history and civic culture.
➢ Instead of thoughtful analysis, the CRC merely deferred to “expert opinion” about how
other towns are governed and asserted that Fairfield would somehow be “more efficient,”
“more streamlined” and “more accountable” if, like them, it concentrated power in fewer
hands with fewer checks and balances.
➢ Instead of thoughtful analysis, the CRC spent its time trying to reach agreement among its
members, flipflopping on some of its major decisions for reasons that were never
explained in public, making some recommendations that we are being asked to approve
without any rationale whatsoever (e.g., reducing the maximum size of the RTM and
stripping its authority to manage its own size), and never debating critical issues like
whether the proposed new, expanded Chief Administrative Officer position should report
only to the First Selectperson or to the BOS.
• When the CRC was eventually forced by a huge public outcry to abandon any major structural
changes, its remaining recommendations were hurriedly lumped together in one “omnibus” ballot
question that denied the public our right to vote separately on certain significant changes, and
which failed to explain clearly several significant changes.
• Last but not least, all these process failures have imposed on Fairfield a substantial “opportunity
cost” by denying us the potential benefits of what could and should have been a far more open,
impartial, thoughtful, rigorous and unhurried review of possible changes in our Charter.
If you agree that we should all care deeply about HOW things are done in our Town, and that Fairfield
deserves a second chance to do the job right by appointing a new CRC, please “Vote NO in NOvember”
on ballot question #2.
Bud Morten
October 18, 2022
be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they allow us to govern ourselves as well as possible.
Because nothing is more important than how we govern ourselves, any review should be conducted
by knowledgeable and impartial citizens who are able to analyze all of the costs, benefits, tradeoffs
and risks associated with any possible governance changes, and to explain clearly the basis for any
changes they recommend.
Unfortunately, the recent Charter review process was flawed in many ways:
• Months before any formal announcement that the Town would be reviewing its Charter, outside
counsel was retained for that purpose and briefed by the First Selectperson (FS) and Town
Attorney without consulting other members of the Board of Selectmen (BOS), which is the Town
body responsible for the Charter review process.
• Then, the First Selectperson nominated a full slate of seven members for the Charter Revision
Commission (CRC), a majority of whom appear to have been chosen because they were in favor of
major changes in the structure of our government (e.g., replacing the three-person BOS with a
Mayor, replacing the RTM with a Town Council, and hiring a Town Manager to run our Town), all
seven of whom were subsequently approved by the BOS, not unanimously, but on a party-line
vote (two R’s in favor, one D opposed).
• And, without informing the BOS that a much longer timeframe was possible, the schedule for
Charter revision was drastically shortened to about one year from the almost three years allowed
by State statute, a critical decision with important negative consequences:
➢ critical issues were deliberated by the CRC during the summer months when many
citizens were away and unable to participate;
➢ the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) was denied its important role under State
statute of forming an independent, bi-partisan committee to advise voters on any
proposed Charter revisions; and
➢ the CRC was not able to do its job, stating in its final report that it did not have “sufficient
time to carefully study whether there are disadvantages in the current structure, decide
on what changes would improve the town, and then gain the support for the changes
from the Town political leadership and citizens.”
• The CRC did not merely run out of time, it was never able or willing to analyze fully and explain
clearly the full implications of potential governance changes that either were or should have been
considered within the context of Fairfield’s unique history and civic culture.
➢ Instead of thoughtful analysis, the CRC merely deferred to “expert opinion” about how
other towns are governed and asserted that Fairfield would somehow be “more efficient,”
“more streamlined” and “more accountable” if, like them, it concentrated power in fewer
hands with fewer checks and balances.
➢ Instead of thoughtful analysis, the CRC spent its time trying to reach agreement among its
members, flipflopping on some of its major decisions for reasons that were never
explained in public, making some recommendations that we are being asked to approve
without any rationale whatsoever (e.g., reducing the maximum size of the RTM and
stripping its authority to manage its own size), and never debating critical issues like
whether the proposed new, expanded Chief Administrative Officer position should report
only to the First Selectperson or to the BOS.
• When the CRC was eventually forced by a huge public outcry to abandon any major structural
changes, its remaining recommendations were hurriedly lumped together in one “omnibus” ballot
question that denied the public our right to vote separately on certain significant changes, and
which failed to explain clearly several significant changes.
• Last but not least, all these process failures have imposed on Fairfield a substantial “opportunity
cost” by denying us the potential benefits of what could and should have been a far more open,
impartial, thoughtful, rigorous and unhurried review of possible changes in our Charter.
If you agree that we should all care deeply about HOW things are done in our Town, and that Fairfield
deserves a second chance to do the job right by appointing a new CRC, please “Vote NO in NOvember”
on ballot question #2.
Bud Morten
October 18, 2022
| vote_no_in_november.pdf |
BECAUSE YOU SAY SO . . . REALLY?
This letter was sent by one of FT’s close associates, Bud Morten, to a number of elected officials recently. We thought it was worthy of sharing.
In case you haven’t been paying close attention, here is my personal summary of what Fairfield’s Charter Revision Commission (CRC) seems to be saying to the public after nine months of work.
_________________________
Listen up people!
We are the Charter Revision Commission, chosen by the First Selectwoman and approved by the Board of Selectpersons (BOS).
Here’s what you need to know:
We worked really hard.
We held lots of meetings.
We talked with governance experts.
We talked with current and past local and regional public officials.
We talked with our Completely Impartial legal counselor.
We talked with the Town Attorney.
We talked with one another.
We read lots of emails.
We listened to lots of public comments.
We were Completely Open and Transparent . . . uh, even though you may not understand how we were sometimes able to completely change our minds from one meeting to the next with no further public discussion, and even though one of our seven commissioners completely vanished without explanation.
Here’s what we decided:
1. You only need 30, not 40, representatives on the Representative Town Meeting (RTM). We are so sure of this that we refused at our final meeting to even discuss the possibility of leaving it at 40. Thirty is actually way more than you need. If we could, we would cut it further or, better yet, replace both the RTM and the BOS with a Town Council and a Mayor and/or Manager. Also, you really shouldn’t get to elect all your RTM reps — some reps should get a seat simply because they represent a different political “party” than the others in your districts — but we had to drop that idea after certain acrimonious people unfairly distorted and politicized it at our last public hearing.
2. In the future, a Town Administrator (TA) should run the Town’s operations and s/he should be appointed by and report to the First Selectperson (FS).
3. The BOS and the Board of Finance (BOF) should be required to hold some joint budget hearings.
4. There are also a bunch of less important changes about things like Constables and the Tree Warden.
That’s it.
We six experts have unanimously agreed on all this, so you don’t need any analysis or explanation of the expected benefits, costs, risks and tradeoffs associated with any of our major changes.
After the BOS approves our decisions, you should vote in favor of them in November.
Trust us. Everything will be better, modernized, streamlined, more efficient, more transparent, more accountable, more accessible. Nothing will go wrong. There will be no unintended consequences. We know best. Because we say so.
_________________________
The most important flaw in the CRC’s proceedings has been their presumption that if the six of them agree and if they think they can get public approval, there is no need for any analysis of all the expected benefits, costs, risks and tradeoffs associated with their recommendations.
However, the purpose of the CRC was not to get these six people to agree on what should be changed; the purpose was to have them analyze whether any changes in our governance system would be beneficial and if so, to explain clearly to us the rationale for any recommendations.
Here are some examples of important issues the CRC failed to analyze and explain to the public.
Size of RTM: Why will a smaller RTM be better for Fairfield; why and how will it be “more accountable” rather than less accountable, and “better able” to address the Town’s many issues? What exactly are the problems being solved and how significant are they? Are any of these problems more likely attributable to a lack of adequate staff and legal support for the RTM? How should we evaluate the performance of the RTM? What bad things have happened or will happen to Fairfield because its RTM is too big, even though some highly successful towns like Greenwich and Darien have much larger RTMs? What benefits do we obtain from a larger RTM that will be lost? For example, would a smaller RTM adversely affect the Civic Culture of our community? How should we weigh the relative importance of all these and other benefits, costs and risks? Subject to learning more, I personally believe the RTM should remain at 40 members.
Town Administrator: The objective of this change is to provide more professional operating management for our Town and allow the FS to focus more on strategic matters. The question is whether the TA should be appointed by and report to the FS, which is how things work today with the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Fiscal Officer. The FS is our Town’s CEO, and both private- and public-sector CEOs (e.g., Governors and Presidents) are almost always allowed to appoint their own executive teams and cabinets. And, over time, different FS will bring different skill sets, experience, personalities and strategic priorities to the job, so they should presumably have the flexibility to choose a TA that will best complement and support their agenda rather than, in the worst case, obstruct it. On the other hand, maybe the TA should be appointed by and report to the BOS? Indeed, in other towns, the Town Manager usually reports to a Town Council rather than to the Mayor or FS. And our Superintendent of Schools is appointed by and reports to the BOE, which seems to work pretty well. Reporting to the FS definitely makes the TA role more political and would limit the candidate pool to those willing to accept what could be only a four-year term. Frequent TA turnover would also mean that we never get the full benefit of long-term professional management based on long-term institutional knowledge and relationships. I personally can’t decide yet which is best and want to learn more.
Budget Process: Why should we mandate that the BOS and the BOF must hold some joint budget hearings? Why not simply encourage them to continue to adopt by mutual agreement whatever budget hearing process they feel is most constructive? Subject to learning more, I personally believe the Charter should not dictate what the BOS and BOF must do with regard to their budget hearings.
In conclusion, the CRC’s recommendations will soon be voted on by the BOS, and I urge you to tell them what you think, whether you agree with me or not: bos@fairfieldct.org. This is your 383-year-old town.
Bud Morten
June 21, 2022
In case you haven’t been paying close attention, here is my personal summary of what Fairfield’s Charter Revision Commission (CRC) seems to be saying to the public after nine months of work.
_________________________
Listen up people!
We are the Charter Revision Commission, chosen by the First Selectwoman and approved by the Board of Selectpersons (BOS).
Here’s what you need to know:
We worked really hard.
We held lots of meetings.
We talked with governance experts.
We talked with current and past local and regional public officials.
We talked with our Completely Impartial legal counselor.
We talked with the Town Attorney.
We talked with one another.
We read lots of emails.
We listened to lots of public comments.
We were Completely Open and Transparent . . . uh, even though you may not understand how we were sometimes able to completely change our minds from one meeting to the next with no further public discussion, and even though one of our seven commissioners completely vanished without explanation.
Here’s what we decided:
1. You only need 30, not 40, representatives on the Representative Town Meeting (RTM). We are so sure of this that we refused at our final meeting to even discuss the possibility of leaving it at 40. Thirty is actually way more than you need. If we could, we would cut it further or, better yet, replace both the RTM and the BOS with a Town Council and a Mayor and/or Manager. Also, you really shouldn’t get to elect all your RTM reps — some reps should get a seat simply because they represent a different political “party” than the others in your districts — but we had to drop that idea after certain acrimonious people unfairly distorted and politicized it at our last public hearing.
2. In the future, a Town Administrator (TA) should run the Town’s operations and s/he should be appointed by and report to the First Selectperson (FS).
3. The BOS and the Board of Finance (BOF) should be required to hold some joint budget hearings.
4. There are also a bunch of less important changes about things like Constables and the Tree Warden.
That’s it.
We six experts have unanimously agreed on all this, so you don’t need any analysis or explanation of the expected benefits, costs, risks and tradeoffs associated with any of our major changes.
After the BOS approves our decisions, you should vote in favor of them in November.
Trust us. Everything will be better, modernized, streamlined, more efficient, more transparent, more accountable, more accessible. Nothing will go wrong. There will be no unintended consequences. We know best. Because we say so.
_________________________
The most important flaw in the CRC’s proceedings has been their presumption that if the six of them agree and if they think they can get public approval, there is no need for any analysis of all the expected benefits, costs, risks and tradeoffs associated with their recommendations.
However, the purpose of the CRC was not to get these six people to agree on what should be changed; the purpose was to have them analyze whether any changes in our governance system would be beneficial and if so, to explain clearly to us the rationale for any recommendations.
Here are some examples of important issues the CRC failed to analyze and explain to the public.
Size of RTM: Why will a smaller RTM be better for Fairfield; why and how will it be “more accountable” rather than less accountable, and “better able” to address the Town’s many issues? What exactly are the problems being solved and how significant are they? Are any of these problems more likely attributable to a lack of adequate staff and legal support for the RTM? How should we evaluate the performance of the RTM? What bad things have happened or will happen to Fairfield because its RTM is too big, even though some highly successful towns like Greenwich and Darien have much larger RTMs? What benefits do we obtain from a larger RTM that will be lost? For example, would a smaller RTM adversely affect the Civic Culture of our community? How should we weigh the relative importance of all these and other benefits, costs and risks? Subject to learning more, I personally believe the RTM should remain at 40 members.
Town Administrator: The objective of this change is to provide more professional operating management for our Town and allow the FS to focus more on strategic matters. The question is whether the TA should be appointed by and report to the FS, which is how things work today with the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Fiscal Officer. The FS is our Town’s CEO, and both private- and public-sector CEOs (e.g., Governors and Presidents) are almost always allowed to appoint their own executive teams and cabinets. And, over time, different FS will bring different skill sets, experience, personalities and strategic priorities to the job, so they should presumably have the flexibility to choose a TA that will best complement and support their agenda rather than, in the worst case, obstruct it. On the other hand, maybe the TA should be appointed by and report to the BOS? Indeed, in other towns, the Town Manager usually reports to a Town Council rather than to the Mayor or FS. And our Superintendent of Schools is appointed by and reports to the BOE, which seems to work pretty well. Reporting to the FS definitely makes the TA role more political and would limit the candidate pool to those willing to accept what could be only a four-year term. Frequent TA turnover would also mean that we never get the full benefit of long-term professional management based on long-term institutional knowledge and relationships. I personally can’t decide yet which is best and want to learn more.
Budget Process: Why should we mandate that the BOS and the BOF must hold some joint budget hearings? Why not simply encourage them to continue to adopt by mutual agreement whatever budget hearing process they feel is most constructive? Subject to learning more, I personally believe the Charter should not dictate what the BOS and BOF must do with regard to their budget hearings.
In conclusion, the CRC’s recommendations will soon be voted on by the BOS, and I urge you to tell them what you think, whether you agree with me or not: bos@fairfieldct.org. This is your 383-year-old town.
Bud Morten
June 21, 2022
| because_you_say_so...really_6.21.22.pdf |
Fairfield Finance Board Restores School Budget, Cuts Town Request
The finance board approved a $345.1 million budget request for 2022-23 in a split vote along party lines. The budget proposal includes a controversial move to fully restore the Board of Education’s budget request.
Next year’s budget now includes nearly $202.5 million for the schools, which is about $10.4 million, or 5.42 percent, more than the current budget.
It also includes about $142.6 for the town, which is about $2.4 million more than the current year. Both figures include the shared expenses between the schools and the town. CT Insider 4.4.22
Next year’s budget now includes nearly $202.5 million for the schools, which is about $10.4 million, or 5.42 percent, more than the current budget.
It also includes about $142.6 for the town, which is about $2.4 million more than the current year. Both figures include the shared expenses between the schools and the town. CT Insider 4.4.22
Budget Update from BOF Chairwoman Lori Charlton
Last night, with my wholehearted support, Fairfield's Board of Finance (BOF) voted 5-4 to approve an amended Town budget, which will now go the RTM for review and a vote. I am thankful to my colleagues and proud of the result.
Here's the bottom line of budget dollars and changes from last year:
Here's the bottom line of budget dollars and changes from last year:
- Education spending: $202.5 million, + 5.4%
- Town spending: $116.9 mm, +4.3%
- Shared Education/Town: $25.7mm, -(8.9%)
- Non-tax revenue: $28.9, +6.4%
- Increase in grand list: 2.1%
- Mill rate: 27.32, +1.29% Patch 4.1.22
Tempers Flare, $2.5M In School Funding Restored At BOF Budget Meeting
Tempers flared Thursday at a nearly-six-hour meeting of the Fairfield Board of Finance, during which members voted by a narrow margin to restore $2.5 million in education funding that was cut earlier in the town's annual budget process.
Republican members called the restoration "astronomical" and "wasteful," while Democrats argued it wasn't the right time to deny the school board the full amount it requested.
The money was restored before the Board of Finance approved the 2023 town budget, increasing expenses by $2.3 million compared to the spending plan greenlit last month by the Board of Selectmen. The altered budget, which will next go to the Representative Town Meeting, totals $345.1 million, after school spending was increased by 1.25 percent and town spending was cut by 0.15 percent. Patch 4.1.22
Republican members called the restoration "astronomical" and "wasteful," while Democrats argued it wasn't the right time to deny the school board the full amount it requested.
The money was restored before the Board of Finance approved the 2023 town budget, increasing expenses by $2.3 million compared to the spending plan greenlit last month by the Board of Selectmen. The altered budget, which will next go to the Representative Town Meeting, totals $345.1 million, after school spending was increased by 1.25 percent and town spending was cut by 0.15 percent. Patch 4.1.22
Bud Morten’s Comments to the Board of Finance 3/26/22
The cost of our public schools – now two-thirds of total spending – is rapidly eclipsing all other public services, which I believe is likely to have serious negative long-term consequences.
- Based on the BOE’s budget request ($202.5m), spending will rise 5.4% from last year ($192.1m), and compared to where we were nine years ago ($151.2m), when BOE budget growth began to accelerate, spending will be up 34%, even though enrollment is down 9% (9,297 vs. 10,250). So, Spending Per Pupil will be up 48% ($21,781 vs. $14,751), despite only an 18% increase in inflation (CPI-W: 268.2 vs. 226.9) and a Grand List that is still 2% below its peak twelve years ago ($11.87b vs. $12.06b in FY11, before the collapse of the last housing bubble was reflected in our assessments). Each Group of 20 students (an average class size) will cost almost $500,000 per year ($202.5m plus $26.5m [for other school expenses that are not included in the BOE budget] = $229m / 9,297 students = $24,632 per student x 20 = $492,640).
- Education spending is being driven by increases in labor and facility costs and by an expanding scope of educational services that require more resources per student, particularly Special Education (14.9% of total students this year, up from 10.8% seven years ago). These upward pressures continue to more than offset any savings from declining enrollment, which is down 10% from its FY11 peak (10,287), and for years the BOE has resisted making any major structural changes (e.g., consolidating schools, reducing elective course offerings, increasing class sizes) that would provide some relief.
- More rapid growth in our tax base would help, but growing our Grand List will continue to be quite challenging because: (1) we live in the failing State of CT (e.g., stagnant and aging population, high costs of living and of doing business, no job growth in more than 30 years); (2) our regional economic engine, NYC, is facing major pressures[i] (e.g., office buildings that are still more than half empty, rising crime rates, increasing outmigration); (3) our currently strong home values are likely to weaken (e.g., as mortgage rates rise and Covid-related demand subsides); and (4) commercial property values and development are likely to remain weak (e.g., due to continued eCommerce inroads on traditional retailers, and changing work habits that are reducing demand for office space [according to C&W,[ii] the office vacancy rate in Fairfield County is ~33% and there is virtually no new construction]).
- Support for education spending comes from a strong, well-organized, resourceful, and vocal coalition of unions, parents, teachers, administrators, regulators, consultants and contractors.
- Public-education households represent ~35% of total Fairfield households, but they pay a significantly lower percentage of total education costs;[iii] they represent ~40% of registered voters; and they are often a majority of those who vote in municipal elections, for which overall turnout is sometimes below 30%.
- Advocates will argue that some Fairfield County towns spend even more per student,[iv] and they may argue that the proposed $2.5m reduction (in the BOE’s requested $10.4m increase) amounts to only about 30 cents per day for each of Fairfield’s ~21,000 households, all of whom benefit from higher property values because people move to Fairfield for our great schools.[v]
- According to the BOE: (1) every dollar in their budget is necessary to pay for the instructional and social-emotional “needs” of students; (2) structural cost reductions are just too difficult; and (3) there is no need for any performance analysis in their budget presentation.
- The BOE candidly disclaims any responsibility for determining whether the rapid growth in its spending is affordable or might result in serious negative long-term consequences.
- Thus, the Board of Finance must provide the essential long-term perspective and judgment regarding how much we can afford to spend in order to keep Fairfield both desirable and affordable – and this year it must do so in a climate of heightened economic risk in the wake of recent unprecedented and unsustainable monetary and fiscal policies.
- As I do every year, I respectfully urge you to consider carefully the long-term consequences of continued rapid growth in Fairfield’s education spending.
[i] https://www.wsj.com/articles/midtown-manhattan-with-fewer-office-workers-imagining-the-unthinkable-11647941402
[ii] Fairfield-County_Americas_MarketBeat_Office_Q4-2021.pdf
[iii] Most of the cost of our schools is paid by non-public-school households and commercial/industrial taxpayers.
[iv] The BOE never explains that the Fairfield County towns with even higher per-pupil expenditures that it picks to compare to Fairfield every year are all much wealthier than Fairfield and, with the exception of Greenwich, they are all much smaller in terms of enrollment, and thus do not enjoy the same economies of scale as Fairfield, which is one of the largest districts in the State. In FY21 (the data used in the BOE’s latest bar graph), average enrollment for Darien, New Canaan, Weston, Westport and Wilton was less than half (4,021) the size of Fairfield (9,441).
[v] Fairfield Taxpayer agrees emphatically with education advocates that good schools support property values in a town. However, we also know that, as with most things in life (e.g., sun, chocolate, apple pie and ice cream), we can also have too much of a good thing. This means that, at some point, spending too much on education, or on any other government service, also hurts property values by raising taxes to levels that are not affordable or competitive. The corollary to the oft-repeated observation that “people move into Fairfield because of our schools” is that “people will move out of Fairfield if our taxes are too high and/or if our other public services are inferior.” Fairfield Taxpayer believes that we should spend as much on education as we can afford in order to provide the best education we can for our children. Spending more than we can afford is not sustainable because either our tax rates will be too high or we will be forced to cut our spending on other public services too low (e.g., public safety, recreational facilities, roads). Either way, fewer people will choose to live here, and residential property values will suffer. Unless (improbably) there is an offsetting increase in new residential construction and/or in the value of commercial property, our tax base will decline. If our tax base declines, we will eventually have to cut spending on all our public services, including education.
Excerpted from: is_fairfield_spending_enough_on_education_final_11.14.21.pdf (fairfieldtaxpayer.com)
Charter Revision Could Bring Noticeable Changes To Fairfield
With charter revision on the ballot in November, residents might see some noticeable changes — or maybe they won’t.
As promised by First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick when she took office, a Charter Revision Commission has been working since last fall to examine the town’s guiding document and see what can be freshened up and changed to bring it more into line with the world it exists in. CT Insider 3.20.22
As promised by First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick when she took office, a Charter Revision Commission has been working since last fall to examine the town’s guiding document and see what can be freshened up and changed to bring it more into line with the world it exists in. CT Insider 3.20.22
Two Fundamental Questions the CRC Has Not Addressed
| two_fundamental_questions_the_crc_has_not_addressed_3.10.22.pdf |
- How should we evaluate the performance of our existing governance system?
- How should we decide whether any major changes are warranted?
Fairfield Taxpayer believes that our existing governance system has served the Town quite well and that, although it can be updated and tweaked in a number of constructive ways, any major changes in its basic structure should be made only if the expected benefits will significantly outweigh any costs and risks. It is easy to argue, as some have done, that certain major changes would be beneficial by associating them with words like “efficiency,” “transparency,” “accountability,” “competency,” “best practice” and “modernize.” It is easy to assert that one or more recent problems in Town could and would have been avoided under a different structure. It is easy to claim that times have changed and Fairfield should therefore adopt the same structure as other towns of its size, or should do whatever some “subject-matter experts” and/or the “Model City Charter” recommends. However, all these simplistic arguments ignore the overarching facts that: (a) Fairfield has prospered for many years under the existing structure because far more good things than bad things have happened; (b) bad things regularly happen to other towns and cities under every conceivable governance structure; and (c) it is perilously easy to overlook unintended adverse consequences of major governance changes.
The Charter Revision Commission
With the overarching goal of facilitating Fairfield’s ability to continue to prosper, the seven-member Charter Revision Commission (CRC) has been asked to determine if there are any ways in which we can improve our Town Charter — which is the document that sets out the rules by which our community chooses to govern itself — either by fixing any practical and administrative problems or by making more fundamental structural changes that will allow us to better address future challenges and opportunities.
Putting aside the need for any “administrative fixes,” the really important question is whether the CRC should recommend any major changes in a basic governance structure that has served the Town so well for so many years. After meeting for several months, and having listened to several “experts” on municipal government who have opined on various structural alternatives, the CRC is now considering some major structural changes (e.g., adopting a Town Manager/Town Council form of government, eliminating the Board of Selectmen, shrinking the size of the Representative Town Meeting), some of which were included in a “Framework for Deliberations” (see Appendix A) for its February 24th meeting.[1]
Two really important questions are missing from both this framework and from the CRC’s deliberations to date:
- How should we evaluate the performance of our existing Governance System; and
- How should we decide whether any major changes are warranted?
Fairfield’s Existing Governance Structure
- A First Selectperson (FS) who serves a four-year term (with no term limits) and acts as the Town’s full-time senior executive — in effect, the Town’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) — who is paid ~$150,000/yr. (plus the cost of healthcare and retirement benefits) and who is supported, among other staff, by a Chief Administrative Officer who is selected by and reports to the FS and is paid ~$125,000/yr. All Town-service department heads report to the FS (e.g., Police, Fire, Public Works, Parks & Recreation), as do the Town-administrative department heads (e.g., Chief Fiscal Officer, Town Attorney, Director of Human Resources, Tax Assessor, Conservation Director). In total, there are ~500 municipal employees, including ~16 service and administrative “town officers” who report to the FS.
- A three-person Board of Selectmen (BOS) — including the First Selectperson — all the members of which serve concurrent four-year terms (with no term limits), and no more than two members of which can represent the same political party. The second and third Selectpersons are paid $12,000/yr.
- A nine-person Board of Finance (BOF), which provides comprehensive financial oversight of the Town’s affairs, all the unpaid volunteer members of which serve staggered six-year terms (with no term limits), and no more than six of the nine members of which can represent the same political party.
- A Representative Town Meeting (RTM), the Town’s legislative body, composed of no more than 56 members (currently there are 40), with an equal number elected from each of the Town’s ten political districts (i.e., from each of its ten neighborhoods), all the unpaid volunteer members of which serve concurrent two-year terms (with no term limits), and all of whom can be members of the same party.
- A nine-person Board of Education (BOE), which is responsible for oversight of the Fairfield Public School system (FPS), all the unpaid volunteer members of which serve staggered four-year terms (with no term limits), and no more than five of the nine members of which can represent the same political party. A Superintendent of Schools, who is hired by and reports to the BOE and who is paid $232,000/yr., is responsible for managing FPS. To a much greater extent than any other Town body, the BOE is subject to State oversight, regulations and mandates. Spending on our schools now represents ~66% of the Town’s total spending and an even larger percentage of total capital outlays (primarily for 17 school buildings). Collectively, there are ~1,500 FPS employees.
- A seven-person Town Plan and Zoning Commission (TPZ), which both enacts and administers the Town’s land-use regulations, all of the unpaid volunteer members of which (plus three alternates who serve as needed in the event of absences and recusals) serve either two- or four-year staggered terms (with no term limits).
In addition to these six key governance “entities,“ there are ~44 other boards, commissions and committees (See Appendix B) that provide direction and oversight of specific public affairs (e.g., Parks & Recreation, Golf, Marina). Though some are elected (i.e., the Board of Assessment Appeals and the Zoning Board of Appeals), most of the unpaid volunteer members of these bodies are appointed by the FS or the BOS (in some cases subject to the approval of the RTM), and their decisions are subject in most cases to the oversight and consent of one or more of the FS, the BOS, the BOF and the RTM. In total, at any given time, there are more than 400 people (representing ~1% of the Town’s ~40,000 adult residents) serving in various elected or appointed governance positions.
Beyond this basic description, it is important to consider the intangible effects of our governance system on our community. For example, the fact that Fairfield has many residents who have served on one or more of these many boards, bodies, commissions and committees means that we have many residents who have some familiarity with our governance system and how it works, and who by virtue of their service know personally many past and present elected and appointed officials and public employees. As a guess, there are probably ~1,000 people who have served on one or more public bodies. Though it is impossible to quantify the value of this collective community engagement, the resulting knowledge and experience is arguably quite important to our Civic Culture. Among other benefits, there are many people in Fairfield who are able and willing to defy the old adage, “You can’t fight City Hall.”
With this background, we now return to the two questions posed earlier.
How should the CRC evaluate the performance of our existing Governance System?
Evaluating a governance system is not easy because the performance “outcomes” of any political entity (town, state, nation) are subject to myriad influences over time, and thus whatever measures of success and failure are adopted, they are subject to many, many confounding variables. Thus, it is not usually possible to determine if outcomes are primarily the result of the system or of the leadership at any given time. Accordingly, it is very important when evaluating performance, whether good or bad, and whether broadly or narrowly, to distinguish between structural influences and management influences. In general, there is no perfect governance system that avoids all problems (e.g., negligence, malfeasance, corruption) and always optimizes performance. The three most important determinants of getting good results and avoiding problems are: (a) electing and/or appointing good, honest, diligent, competent people; (b) following good oversight and control processes and procedures; and (c) a Senior Executive who establishes a “Tone at the Top” that fosters a culture of high performance and high integrity.
How should the CRC decide whether any significant changes are warranted?
As Fairfield Taxpayer has stated previously, “any proposal to alter a governance system that has served Fairfield well for so many years should be subject to a very high standard of conviction that the expected benefits will significantly outweigh any costs and risks — direct and indirect, tangible and intangible.”[2]
Any serious analysis of the costs, benefits and risks associated with any major structural changes should begin with agreement on the core values and principles that should apply. Some examples are as follows.
- Flexibility is good.
- Checks and balances are good.
- Ballot-box accountability is good.
- Minority party representation is good.
- Neighborhood legislative representation is good.
- Concentration of power is bad.
- Efficient government is good; efficient governance can be very bad.
- Incremental change is good; radical change can be very bad.
- Having many citizens involved in Town government is good.
- Institutional governance knowledge in a community is good.
Another set of core principles applies to the standards and criteria that should be applied to justify any major structural changes, some examples of which are as follows:
- If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
- Beware of unintended consequences.
- Don’t change structure if there is an easier way to accomplish the same objective. For example, if more professional management of municipal services seems desirable (i.e., a Town Manager), instead of permanently altering our governance structure we could simply authorize the FS to retain a highly competent Chief Administrative Officer (or Chief Operating Officer) and then hold the FS responsible at the ballot box for the performance of his/her selection, in the same way that presidents and governors are held responsible on Election Day for their staff and cabinet selections.
- The experience of other towns with different governance structures may or may not be applicable to Fairfield, irrespective of any similarities (e.g., in size or location).
- The recommendations of “subject-matter experts” and of publications like the “Model City Charter,” and the opinions they express with regard to what “works best,” may or may not be applicable to Fairfield, which like every other town, is unique (including 383 years of history).
- It is quite possible that some if not many of the towns being used to benchmark “best practice” would do no worse and might do much better if they adopted Fairfield’s governance structure.
- Not being able to find electoral candidates from both major parties for every open seat on every governance body (or in the case of the RTM, in every district) is not a problem unless there are actually empty seats on those bodies.
- Any major changes that are recommended should be linked directly to one or more specific problems or opportunities that cannot be addressed more easily by simply changing either the people we elect or the management processes and procedures to which their actions are subject.
The CRC should obviously develop its own lists of core values, principles, standards and criteria, but these and others will be used by Fairfield Taxpayer to evaluate any recommendations made by the CRC.
In Conclusion
The CRC should consider carefully how we should evaluate our existing governance structure and how we should decide whether any major changes are warranted. It should offer its recommendations of any major changes with clear explanations of why and how they would, on balance, be in the best interests of our Town based on a rigorous analysis of all the related benefits, costs and risks — direct and indirect, tangible and intangible. Any recommendations that are not unanimous should include dissenting opinions from the CRC members who opposed them.
APPENDIX A
The CRC “FRAMEWORK OF DELIBERATIONS” That Was Included In its Backup Materials
What Are Your goals?
- Vibrant accountability structure: Delineation of responsibilities
- Clear administrative operations: A mix of elected officials supplemented by professional management
- Planning tools: Multi-year capital budgeting, collective bargaining approaches and strategic planning mechanisms
- Public access and participation: Robust comment and appointed service opportunities
- Reduce complexity and byzantine organizational structures
- What is a realistic approach for government reform?
First Selectwoman
- Sole Executive Authority? Role of Board of Selectmen?
- Chief Administrative Officer
- Appointment Authority and Relation to Boards and Commissions
- Annual Report
- Legislative recommendations to RTM
- Absence, vacancy and succession
Legislative Authority of RTM
- Investigative and Audit Powers
- No diminution of legislative authority by Ordinance
- Assumption of legislative/historic special act authority of Board of Selectmen
- Adoption of Legislation – Ordinances and Resolutions.
- Approval Functions/Right of Rejection.
Composition of RTM
- Smaller more accountable legislative body: 15 members?
- At-Large, subject to minority party representation or an odd number?
- District representation (one member per district or odd-number multiple member districts, subject to minority party representation?
- Hybrid comprised of an at-large component and district representation
Organization of the RTM
- RTM President/Chair/Moderator as Presiding Officer?
APPENDIX B
OTHER TOWN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, BODIES, COMMITTEES
• Affordable Housing Committee
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
• Board of Assessment Appeals
• Board of Condemnation
• Board of Health
• Board of Library Trustees
• Bond Committee
• Burr Gardens Advisory Committee
• Charter Revision Commission
• Community Emergency Response Team
• Conservation Commission
• Earth Day Committee
• Economic Development Commission
• Employees Retirement Board
• Ethics Commission
• Fairfield Arts Advisory Committee
• Fairfield Cares Community Coalition
• Fairfield Citizen Corps Council
• Fairfield Commission on Disabilities
• FairTV Commission
• Fire Commission
• Fitness Council
• Flood and Erosion Control Board
• Forestry Committee
• Golf Commission
• Harbor Management Commission
• Historic District Commission
• Housing Authority
• Human Services Commission
• Inland Wetlands Agency
• Joint Retirement Investment Board
• Land Acquisition Commission
• Parking Authority
• Parks and Recreation Commission
• Police & Fire Retirement Board
• Police Commission
• Racial Equity and Justice Task Force
• Shellfish Commission
• Solid Waste & Recycling Commission
• Strategic Plan Committee
• Sustainable Fairfield Task Force
• Town Facilities Commission
• Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA)
• Zoning Board of Appeals
[1] See page 5/27: https://www.fairfieldct.org/filestorage/79/110822/114835/02-24-22_Backup_for_CRC_Meeting.pdf This framework listed five main deliberation topics, including: What are your goals; First Selectwoman; Legislative Authority of RTM; Composition of RTM; and Organization of the RTM.
[2] Power - FairfieldTaxpayer.com
War Of The States
In 2009, facing a revenue drop-off from the previous year’s recession, states raised taxes collectively by $29 billion—at the time, the largest annual hike in history. Many of the biggest increases occurred in Democratic-leaning states, including New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, which targeted businesses and upper-income residents especially, even as newly inaugurated president Barack Obama touted a similar agenda in Washington. What seemed like a new taxing trend dissipated, however, after the 2010 midterms, when Republicans captured seven governorships and full control of 23 state governments, up from just ten before Obama’s election. The newly elected governments quickly began cutting taxes and reducing business regulations, setting off an intense, often acerbic, state competition to attract wealthier residents and employers. This battle transformed the American economic map, right up to the Covid-19 pandemic. City Journal Winter 2022
Low Tax Burdens & Economic Dynamism Can Help States Attract New Residents
America is experiencing a “great reordering,” in which individuals have increasing flexibility to choose where they live. One of the most salient factors driving domestic migration—and one that policymakers can most easily manage—is a state’s tax burden.
States with lower taxes tend to attract more migrants than they lose, while the opposite is true for states with high taxes. Indeed, of the ten states with the highest tax burdens, as calculated by the Tax Foundation, all but Rhode Island were net losers of migrants in 2019. While taxation alone is a strong indicator of domestic migration, its true power is revealed when analyzed in combination with the dynamism of a state’s economy. States with dynamic economies and relatively low taxes will attract more residents on net. City Journal 2.2.22
States with lower taxes tend to attract more migrants than they lose, while the opposite is true for states with high taxes. Indeed, of the ten states with the highest tax burdens, as calculated by the Tax Foundation, all but Rhode Island were net losers of migrants in 2019. While taxation alone is a strong indicator of domestic migration, its true power is revealed when analyzed in combination with the dynamism of a state’s economy. States with dynamic economies and relatively low taxes will attract more residents on net. City Journal 2.2.22
$12 Million Budget Increase Proposed For Fairfield Schools
Fairfield's school board reduced the district's 2022-23 budget by about $1.5 million before approving it Thursday, but the spending plan is still roughly $10.4 million more than the one passed last year.
Now that the $202.5 million 2022-23 budget — a 5.4 percent year-over-year increase — has cleared the Board of Education, it will head to town hall for further consideration.
When Superintendent Mike Cummings presented the document earlier in the month, he said the spike was due to factors including increased demand for special education, higher heating and maintenance costs related to the supply chain, contract raises, and cybersecurity investments. Patch 1.28.22
Now that the $202.5 million 2022-23 budget — a 5.4 percent year-over-year increase — has cleared the Board of Education, it will head to town hall for further consideration.
When Superintendent Mike Cummings presented the document earlier in the month, he said the spike was due to factors including increased demand for special education, higher heating and maintenance costs related to the supply chain, contract raises, and cybersecurity investments. Patch 1.28.22
N.Y. Can't Teach Kids To Read on $30,000 a Year
One of the perennial defenses of mediocre public K-12 schools is that they just don't have enough money to work with. Liberal groups like The Center for American Progress routinely put out videos like this one denouncing the "underfunding of K-12 schools" that call for more and more money to be spent.
I don't know about you, but when I hear the phrase the underfunding of schools, my head explodes. Not because I dislike kids or public schools; my two sons exclusively attended public schools. What gets my goat is the demonstrably false idea that schools are being starved for resources. Tax revenue per student in public K-12 schools is up 24 percent nationally over the past two decades, and that takes inflation into account.
In New York, where I live, real per-pupil revenue has increased by a mind-boggling 68 percent between 2002 and 2019. Public schools in the Empire State are now shelling out more than $30,000 per kid. That's more than double the national average, and it doesn't even include the $16 billion extra that New York's system got in combined federal and state COVID-19 relief funding. Reason 1.26.22
I don't know about you, but when I hear the phrase the underfunding of schools, my head explodes. Not because I dislike kids or public schools; my two sons exclusively attended public schools. What gets my goat is the demonstrably false idea that schools are being starved for resources. Tax revenue per student in public K-12 schools is up 24 percent nationally over the past two decades, and that takes inflation into account.
In New York, where I live, real per-pupil revenue has increased by a mind-boggling 68 percent between 2002 and 2019. Public schools in the Empire State are now shelling out more than $30,000 per kid. That's more than double the national average, and it doesn't even include the $16 billion extra that New York's system got in combined federal and state COVID-19 relief funding. Reason 1.26.22
$12 Million Budget Increase Proposed For Fairfield Schools
Fairfield school officials have proposed a nearly $12 million budget increase for the 2022-23 school year.
The 6.22 percent year-over-year spending hike was outlined Tuesday when Superintendent Mike Cummings presented his recommended budget to the Board of Education, which is set to consider the plan and vote on it in the coming weeks, before the proposal goes to town hall.
The roughly $204 million budget is a transitional one, according to Cummings, who noted the coronavirus pandemic has interfered with the district's ability to address long-term issues such as the need for structural change and a multi-year plan. Patch 1.13.22
The 6.22 percent year-over-year spending hike was outlined Tuesday when Superintendent Mike Cummings presented his recommended budget to the Board of Education, which is set to consider the plan and vote on it in the coming weeks, before the proposal goes to town hall.
The roughly $204 million budget is a transitional one, according to Cummings, who noted the coronavirus pandemic has interfered with the district's ability to address long-term issues such as the need for structural change and a multi-year plan. Patch 1.13.22
Fairfield Superintendent’s Budget Calls For 6.2% Increase
Calling it a statement of the district’s values, Superintendent of Schools Mike Cummings presented a $204 million operation budget for the 2022-2023 school year on Tuesday night.
You really are putting your money where your mouth is,” he said. The proposed budget is a 6.2 percent, or approximately $12 million, increase over this current school year’s budget, according to the proposal.
Cummings said the growth primarily comes from increases in the demand for special education services, higher maintenance supplies and fuel costs, contractual increases in staff salaries and benefits and investment in core infrastructure. Fairfield Citizen 1.12.22
You really are putting your money where your mouth is,” he said. The proposed budget is a 6.2 percent, or approximately $12 million, increase over this current school year’s budget, according to the proposal.
Cummings said the growth primarily comes from increases in the demand for special education services, higher maintenance supplies and fuel costs, contractual increases in staff salaries and benefits and investment in core infrastructure. Fairfield Citizen 1.12.22
People Fleeing Hi-Tax States With Poor Gov't Financial Management
Yesterday, United Van Lines (UVL) released its annual “National Movers Study.” UVL is one of the largest moving companies in the US, and has done this survey since 1978. The study calculates the share of outbound moves out of total UVL interstate moves for each of the continental 48 states.
In the latest results, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Connecticut and California were the five states with the highest outmigration. All five of these states rank in the bottom ten states based on Truth in Accounting's "Taxpayer Burden" measure of state government financial condition. Truth in Accounting 1.4.22
In the latest results, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Connecticut and California were the five states with the highest outmigration. All five of these states rank in the bottom ten states based on Truth in Accounting's "Taxpayer Burden" measure of state government financial condition. Truth in Accounting 1.4.22
The Great Pandemic Migration, II
Data keep piling up on where Americans are moving, and the pattern is clear. In the second year of the pandemic, people continued to ditch the coasts and Great Lakes in favor of less dense, more affordable climes.
That’s the finding of the latest National Movers Study, released Monday by moving company United Van Lines. The survey ranks the states that drew large shares of move-ins in 2021, with a corresponding list of the biggest losers. WSJ 1.3.22
That’s the finding of the latest National Movers Study, released Monday by moving company United Van Lines. The survey ranks the states that drew large shares of move-ins in 2021, with a corresponding list of the biggest losers. WSJ 1.3.22
Sound (barrier) arguments? Not so much.
Jim Cameron makes some interesting arguments against sound barriers. It is a shame that most of his assertions are factually wrong, not backed by science nor economically sound.
I will start with his question, “Do you have sympathy for people who move near airports? He does not, so I assume he is deaf to the situation of middle- and lower- income people. People don’t choose to live by noise, most of the time it is an economic necessity. Further, today many of those who now hear noise from the interstate highways like I-95, did not hear this a decade ago. When I-95 cut through the most populated towns in Connecticut in 1958, the traffic was a fraction of today and today’s 150,000 cars that enter from New York on I-95 daily is two and a half times the number two decades ago. CT Mirror 12.23.21
I will start with his question, “Do you have sympathy for people who move near airports? He does not, so I assume he is deaf to the situation of middle- and lower- income people. People don’t choose to live by noise, most of the time it is an economic necessity. Further, today many of those who now hear noise from the interstate highways like I-95, did not hear this a decade ago. When I-95 cut through the most populated towns in Connecticut in 1958, the traffic was a fraction of today and today’s 150,000 cars that enter from New York on I-95 daily is two and a half times the number two decades ago. CT Mirror 12.23.21
Is Fairfield Spending Enough On Education? UPDATED!
1. AN OFT-REPEATED ARGUMENT BY EDUCATION-SPENDING ADVOCATES GOES LIKE THIS:
3. THEREFORE, THE DECLINE IN FAIRFIELD’S PPE RANK OVER THE LAST 21 YEARS DOES NOT MEAN ITS COMMITMENT TO EDUCATION IS DECLINING, AND IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD BE SPENDING EVEN MORE ON EDUCATION.
As we have stated previously, Fairfield Taxpayer believes that we should spend as much on education as we can afford in order to provide the best education we can to our children.
Spending more than we can afford is not sustainable because either our tax rates will be too high or we will be forced to cut our spending on other public services too low (e.g., public safety, recreational facilities, roads). Either way, fewer people will choose to live here, and residential property values will suffer. Unless (improbably) there is an offsetting increase in new residential construction and/or in the value of commercial property, our tax base will decline. If our tax base declines, we will eventually have to cut spending on all our public services, including education.
Fairfield Taxpayer agrees emphatically with education advocates that good schools support property values in a town. However, we also know that, as with most things in life (e.g., sun, chocolate, apple pie and ice cream), we can also have too much of a good thing. This means that, at some point, spending too much on education, or on any other public service, also hurts property values by raising taxes to levels that are not affordable or competitive. The corollary to the oft-repeated observation that “people move into Fairfield because of our schools” is that “people will move out of Fairfield if our taxes are too high and/or if our other public services are inferior.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
POSTSCRIPT – A BRIEF HISTORY OF MISINFORMATION
The bogus argument that the decline in our per-pupil expenditure (PPE) rank should be interpreted as a bad sign has its origins in early 2013 when former Supt. of Schools, David Title, and former (but then newly elected) BOE Chairman, Philip Dwyer, included in the BOE budget presentation for the first time a chart showing Fairfield’s decline in PPE rank as a good sign that Fairfield’s schools were becoming more and more efficient (completely ignoring the real reason PPE was rising much faster in all those small towns with declining enrollments than it was in Fairfield with its much larger and rising enrollment).
In early 2014, they repeated the claim that our decline in PPE rank was a positive sign of increasing efficiency (“FPS has become more efficient. We have moved from 23rd to 62nd in the state in Per Pupil Expenditures.”).[1] However, at this point they decided that our decline in PPE rank relative to our stable wealth rank could also be used rhetorically as a bad sign that Fairfield was falling behind other CT towns in its commitment to education (“Over the past ten years Fairfield’s state ranking in wealth has remained between 16th and 22nd; per pupil expenditures have declined from 23rd to 62nd.).[2]
In early 2015, they doubled down on the claim that our decline in PPE rank was a bad sign (“Over the past ten years, Per Pupil Expenditures statewide increased by 43% while Fairfield’s increased by 26% [and] Fairfield moved from 24th to 69th in the state in Per Pupil Expenditures.).[3] In their oral remarks, they became quite strident, describing the decline in Fairfield’s PPE rank as a “Race to the Bottom.” Dr. Title’s exact words were: “If we keep this up, we will win the race to the bottom.” Chairman Dwyer’s comments were: “Where are we heading in Dr. Title’s so-called Race to the Bottom, if in five years we are below the average of the state?” With reference to the earlier years, he said that “our ability to pay was [then] equal to our PPE.” He then said that "ability to pay is not the same as willingness to pay," clearly implying that Fairfield could and should be spending substantially more on education, and that Fairfield taxpayers were being too tightfisted.
In early 2016, the budget presentation included a graph showing the decline in Fairfield’s PPE rank and noting that: “Of the state’s 169 cities & towns, Fairfield has moved from 20th to 81st in Per Pupil Expenditures over the past 10 years.”[4]
In early 2017, refreshingly, a new superintendent, Toni Jones, took office who did not ascribe to the “PPE Rank Bad” narrative and therefore did not include any references to it in her budget presentations for the two years she served in that role.
In early 2019, however, under a new superintendent, Michael Cummings, and a new BOE Chair, Christine Vitale, a table providing a side-by-side comparison of Fairfield’s PPE and Wealth ranks showed up in the BOE budget presentation, and it has done so ever since.[5]
Fairfield Taxpayer has repeatedly refuted this “PPE Rank Bad” argument in a series of papers, beginning in early 2014, including: “You Can Fool Some of the People . . .”[6]; “A Race to the Bottom? We Don’t Think So” [7] ; and “Here We Go Again . . . More Simplistic Comparisons of Our Education Spending to Selected Southern Fairfield County Towns.”[8] However, like many superficially plausible arguments, it keeps turning up, particularly during the budget season from members of the public and Town boards and bodies. Among others, Robert Smoler, President of the Teachers’ Union, recently invoked it in his endorsement of three candidates for the Board of Finance.[9] It was also cited by one of those BOF candidates, and the graph on the right was posted on Facebook by one of his supporters.[10]
With Fairfield’s enrollment now falling and its PPE rank rising fairly rapidly, perhaps this bogus argument will finally disappear. Over the last eight years, Fairfield’s education spending is up 27%, its enrollment down 9%, and its per-pupil spending is up 40%.
November 13, 2021
_____________________________
[1] See page 32: 2014-15_Budget_PresentationMAR2014.pdf (fairfieldschools.org)
[2] See page 4: 2014-15_Budget_PresentationMAR2014.pdf (fairfieldschools.org)
[3] See page 15: https://boe.fairfieldschools.org/content/uploads/boe-archive/budget/2015-16/2015-16_Supers_Budget_Presentation.pdf
[4] See page 6: https://boe.fairfieldschools.org/content/uploads/boe-archive/budget/2016-17/2016-17_Board_Budget_Presentation04072016.pdf
[5] See, for example, page 15 of the latest BOE Budget Book: https://boe.fairfieldschools.org/content/uploads/2021/01/BOEBUDGETBOOK2-19-2021FinalForWebsiteMV-1.pdf
[6] https://www.fairfieldtaxpayer.com/uploads/1/1/1/8/11185705/you_can_fool_some_of_the_people_final2.pdf
[7] RACE TO THE BOTTOM FINAL4 (fairfieldtaxpayer.com)
[8] here_we_go_again_1.22.18.pdf (fairfieldtaxpayer.com)
[9] (16) Fairfield Education Association | Facebook “For more than a decade, town bodies have reduced the funding requests of the Board of Education over $20 million . . . Those reductions dropped our per pupil spending from 29th in the state in 2007/2008 to 66th out of 169 towns today. The practical effect of those reductions are felt every day in our schools.”
[10] https://www.facebook.com/kevinstarkeforfairfieldboardoffinance/posts/193767126214330/
- Fairfield’s wealth rank among CT towns has been stable at ~#20/169 (within a 16-22 range).
- But Fairfield’s per-pupil expenditure (“PPE”) rank since 2000 has declined from #20 to #67.
- Therefore, Fairfield’s commitment to education has declined relative to other CT towns, and Fairfield can and should spend more on education.
- It is true that Fairfield’s state rank in PPE has dropped from #20 to #67 over the last 21 years (2000 to 2021), as 53 towns moved above Fairfield and six dropped below, resulting in a net change in rank of 47. However, this decline in rank did not happen because those 53 towns increased their education spending more than Fairfield.
- It happened because there are significant economies of scale in education spending when fixed costs (e.g., for facilities, administrators, curriculum) are spread over more students, and when more students allow more optimal class sizes. This means that larger districts can provide comparable services at a lower cost per pupil than smaller districts. This also means that when enrollment is rising, PPE does not rise as much. And the reverse is true – when enrollment is declining, there is strong upward pressure on PPE, particularly in small districts with only limited options to downsize their operations.
- Therefore, the real explanation for the decline in Fairfield’s PPE rank is that enrollments declined 28% on average in 53 mostly very small CT towns at a time when enrollments increased 21% in Fairfield (one of the largest school districts in the State with 9,441 students). Excluding the two towns with the largest 2021 enrollments (Milford at 5,426 and Hamden at 6,226), the other 51 towns on average had only 933 students in 2021 (i.e., one-tenth the size of Fairfield), down 23% from their 2000 average of 1,209.
3. THEREFORE, THE DECLINE IN FAIRFIELD’S PPE RANK OVER THE LAST 21 YEARS DOES NOT MEAN ITS COMMITMENT TO EDUCATION IS DECLINING, AND IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD BE SPENDING EVEN MORE ON EDUCATION.
- For confirmation, it is instructive to look at how Fairfield did relative to towns that rank even higher in wealth (thus no major affordability problem), and have reasonably large enrollments that (like Fairfield’s) increased rather than declined over this period, namely Greenwich (8,588, up 3%), Westport (5,275, up 14%), Darien (4,647, up 26%) and New Canaan (4,249, up 19%):
- In 2000, Fairfield’s PPE was 83% of Greenwich’s PPE – in 2021, it is 86%.
- In 2000, Fairfield’s PPE was 87% of Westport’s PPE – in 2021, it is 89%.
- In 2000, Fairfield’s PPE was 98% of Darien’s PPE – in 2021, it is 91%.
- In 2000, Fairfield’s PPE was 93% of New Canaan’s PPE – in 2021, it is 95%.
- In 2000, Fairfield’s PPE was 90% of this group’s average – in 2021, it is 90%.
- Considering that Fairfield is not as wealthy as these other Fairfield County towns and that Fairfield has twice as many students (and thus greater scale economies) than three of them, there is no reason to believe based on these comparisons that Fairfield’s commitment to education has declined or that it should be spending even more on education.
As we have stated previously, Fairfield Taxpayer believes that we should spend as much on education as we can afford in order to provide the best education we can to our children.
Spending more than we can afford is not sustainable because either our tax rates will be too high or we will be forced to cut our spending on other public services too low (e.g., public safety, recreational facilities, roads). Either way, fewer people will choose to live here, and residential property values will suffer. Unless (improbably) there is an offsetting increase in new residential construction and/or in the value of commercial property, our tax base will decline. If our tax base declines, we will eventually have to cut spending on all our public services, including education.
Fairfield Taxpayer agrees emphatically with education advocates that good schools support property values in a town. However, we also know that, as with most things in life (e.g., sun, chocolate, apple pie and ice cream), we can also have too much of a good thing. This means that, at some point, spending too much on education, or on any other public service, also hurts property values by raising taxes to levels that are not affordable or competitive. The corollary to the oft-repeated observation that “people move into Fairfield because of our schools” is that “people will move out of Fairfield if our taxes are too high and/or if our other public services are inferior.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
POSTSCRIPT – A BRIEF HISTORY OF MISINFORMATION
The bogus argument that the decline in our per-pupil expenditure (PPE) rank should be interpreted as a bad sign has its origins in early 2013 when former Supt. of Schools, David Title, and former (but then newly elected) BOE Chairman, Philip Dwyer, included in the BOE budget presentation for the first time a chart showing Fairfield’s decline in PPE rank as a good sign that Fairfield’s schools were becoming more and more efficient (completely ignoring the real reason PPE was rising much faster in all those small towns with declining enrollments than it was in Fairfield with its much larger and rising enrollment).
In early 2014, they repeated the claim that our decline in PPE rank was a positive sign of increasing efficiency (“FPS has become more efficient. We have moved from 23rd to 62nd in the state in Per Pupil Expenditures.”).[1] However, at this point they decided that our decline in PPE rank relative to our stable wealth rank could also be used rhetorically as a bad sign that Fairfield was falling behind other CT towns in its commitment to education (“Over the past ten years Fairfield’s state ranking in wealth has remained between 16th and 22nd; per pupil expenditures have declined from 23rd to 62nd.).[2]
In early 2015, they doubled down on the claim that our decline in PPE rank was a bad sign (“Over the past ten years, Per Pupil Expenditures statewide increased by 43% while Fairfield’s increased by 26% [and] Fairfield moved from 24th to 69th in the state in Per Pupil Expenditures.).[3] In their oral remarks, they became quite strident, describing the decline in Fairfield’s PPE rank as a “Race to the Bottom.” Dr. Title’s exact words were: “If we keep this up, we will win the race to the bottom.” Chairman Dwyer’s comments were: “Where are we heading in Dr. Title’s so-called Race to the Bottom, if in five years we are below the average of the state?” With reference to the earlier years, he said that “our ability to pay was [then] equal to our PPE.” He then said that "ability to pay is not the same as willingness to pay," clearly implying that Fairfield could and should be spending substantially more on education, and that Fairfield taxpayers were being too tightfisted.
In early 2016, the budget presentation included a graph showing the decline in Fairfield’s PPE rank and noting that: “Of the state’s 169 cities & towns, Fairfield has moved from 20th to 81st in Per Pupil Expenditures over the past 10 years.”[4]
In early 2017, refreshingly, a new superintendent, Toni Jones, took office who did not ascribe to the “PPE Rank Bad” narrative and therefore did not include any references to it in her budget presentations for the two years she served in that role.
In early 2019, however, under a new superintendent, Michael Cummings, and a new BOE Chair, Christine Vitale, a table providing a side-by-side comparison of Fairfield’s PPE and Wealth ranks showed up in the BOE budget presentation, and it has done so ever since.[5]
Fairfield Taxpayer has repeatedly refuted this “PPE Rank Bad” argument in a series of papers, beginning in early 2014, including: “You Can Fool Some of the People . . .”[6]; “A Race to the Bottom? We Don’t Think So” [7] ; and “Here We Go Again . . . More Simplistic Comparisons of Our Education Spending to Selected Southern Fairfield County Towns.”[8] However, like many superficially plausible arguments, it keeps turning up, particularly during the budget season from members of the public and Town boards and bodies. Among others, Robert Smoler, President of the Teachers’ Union, recently invoked it in his endorsement of three candidates for the Board of Finance.[9] It was also cited by one of those BOF candidates, and the graph on the right was posted on Facebook by one of his supporters.[10]
With Fairfield’s enrollment now falling and its PPE rank rising fairly rapidly, perhaps this bogus argument will finally disappear. Over the last eight years, Fairfield’s education spending is up 27%, its enrollment down 9%, and its per-pupil spending is up 40%.
November 13, 2021
_____________________________
[1] See page 32: 2014-15_Budget_PresentationMAR2014.pdf (fairfieldschools.org)
[2] See page 4: 2014-15_Budget_PresentationMAR2014.pdf (fairfieldschools.org)
[3] See page 15: https://boe.fairfieldschools.org/content/uploads/boe-archive/budget/2015-16/2015-16_Supers_Budget_Presentation.pdf
[4] See page 6: https://boe.fairfieldschools.org/content/uploads/boe-archive/budget/2016-17/2016-17_Board_Budget_Presentation04072016.pdf
[5] See, for example, page 15 of the latest BOE Budget Book: https://boe.fairfieldschools.org/content/uploads/2021/01/BOEBUDGETBOOK2-19-2021FinalForWebsiteMV-1.pdf
[6] https://www.fairfieldtaxpayer.com/uploads/1/1/1/8/11185705/you_can_fool_some_of_the_people_final2.pdf
[7] RACE TO THE BOTTOM FINAL4 (fairfieldtaxpayer.com)
[8] here_we_go_again_1.22.18.pdf (fairfieldtaxpayer.com)
[9] (16) Fairfield Education Association | Facebook “For more than a decade, town bodies have reduced the funding requests of the Board of Education over $20 million . . . Those reductions dropped our per pupil spending from 29th in the state in 2007/2008 to 66th out of 169 towns today. The practical effect of those reductions are felt every day in our schools.”
[10] https://www.facebook.com/kevinstarkeforfairfieldboardoffinance/posts/193767126214330/
Should the Teachers' Union be Endorsing Local Candidates?
The Teachers’ Union just endorsed three candidates for the Board of Finance.
The Democratic Town Committee calls this “Exciting News,” and says, “Thanks.”
Fairfield Taxpayer agrees that this is “exciting” news, but says, “No Thanks.”
Should the Teachers’ Union be endorsing local candidates?
The Democratic Town Committee calls this “Exciting News,” and says, “Thanks.”
Fairfield Taxpayer agrees that this is “exciting” news, but says, “No Thanks.”
Should the Teachers’ Union be endorsing local candidates?
Fairfield Taxpayer urges everyone to consider carefully whether it is in the best interests of our Town for public-employee unions to try to influence our local elections, and to thereby gain political influence over the elected officials they endorse.
Fairfield Taxpayer believes the Teachers’ Union should advocate strongly for the best interests of its members at the bargaining table, and it should participate actively in our deliberations over public policies and priorities, particularly on education issues.
However, the Teachers’ Union should not get to choose who is sitting on the other side of the bargaining table when their contracts are being negotiated. And they should not get to choose the members of the governing bodies that must decide what Fairfield can afford to tax and spend, and how that money should be allocated in the best long-term interests of the Town.
Some Background
This is not the first time that the Teachers’ Union (a.k.a., Fairfield Education Association) has inserted itself into local politics, and it is not the first time that Fairfield Taxpayer has questioned whether it is constructive for the Union to do so. The Union has previously endorsed candidates for the Board of Education – yes, the same Board with which the Union negotiates the teacher salaries and benefits that determine almost half of Fairfield’s total spending every year. The Union was also very active in the 2016 effort to change political control of the Board of Selectmen by forcing a special election after a Republican resignation (an effort that succeeded until it was subsequently reversed by the Connecticut Supreme Court). At that time, Fairfield Taxpayer said as follows:
“Bob Smoler [president then and now of the FEA] wants us to elect people who are beholden to him who will continue to approve generous wages, benefits and work rules for his Union members and who will spend as much as possible on education.”
“In his own words [from an email Mr. Smoler sent to his members on 12/22/16]: ‘Our new contract will be coming up for a vote this fall . . . The democrats will put up a very pro-education candidate . . . The person [elected] is going to hold tremendous sway over the next two teachers’ contracts and the next three education budgets . . . We need to do whatever we can to help the democrats . . .’
In his latest endorsement of three Board of Finance candidates, Mr. Smoler claims, based on several inaccurate and flawed assertions, that “our schools can no longer be squeezed financially.” Yes, those would be the same Fairfield schools for which spending has risen 27% since 2014 with enrollment down 9%, resulting in a 40% increase in per pupil spending and a 4.3% compound annual rate of increase. Mr. Smoler seems to believe that there is never a valid reason to restrain education spending (currently two-thirds of our total spending), an absurd proposition that none of his endorsed candidates is likely to agree with. Without spending and taxing restraint, it is only a matter of time before everything we love about Fairfield will be at risk, including our great schools.
* * * * * * * * *
Fairfield Taxpayer’s views on this important subject were covered in a 3/31/17 Fairfield Minuteman article, “Controversy Continues Over Special Election,” as follows:
Fairfield resident Bud Morten, co-founder of the local advocacy group Fairfield Taxpayer, is also concerned about the union’s role in Fairfield’s affairs. “I doubt most people in Fairfield realize what the Union has been doing,” and he notes that “Connecticut’s growing fiscal crisis is the strongest possible object lesson about what happens when public employee unions gain political influence over the elected officials who negotiate and approve their contracts.” As examples, Morten says the FEA “endorsed five candidates for the BOE in 2015, all of whom were elected; endorsed two local candidates for the State Assembly in 2016, one of whom was elected; supported the Democratic Town Committee’s recent petition efforts for as special election; operates a PAC that makes contributions to political candidates; regularly packs the room with teachers whenever union contracts and school budgets are up for approval, and at events like Saturday’s Board of Finance public budget forum.” In the recent petition effort, he says, “teachers, only 30 percent of whom are residents of Fairfield, exploited their special relationships with parents to get the necessary signatures.” He notes, “How does a parent say ‘no’ to their child’s teacher/coach when they are approached at a holiday concert and asked to sign a petition to save their job?”
According to Morten, “Whatever high-minded motives Mr. Smoler may claim for his union’s political activities, his recent emails to his members, which have been widely circulated by parents and others, speak for themselves. Quoting these e-mails, Morten says that Mr. Smoler exhorted teachers to get people to sign the petitions “because our new contract will be coming up for a vote this fall,” because “the Democrats will put up a very pro-education candidate,” because “the person (elected) is going to hold tremendous sway over the next two teachers contracts and the next three education budgets,” and therefore “we need to do everything we can to help the Democrats get the signatures they need.” And in his December 22, 2016, message congratulating his members, Morten quotes Mr. Smoler as saying, “I can’t thank you enough for the incredible job you did. We only had six days to take action to make a special election possible, and you, the FEA, pulled it off.”
* * * * * * * *
The recent endorsements by the Union and the response by the Democratic Town Committee are copied in full below.[1]
Fairfield Education Association
October 20, 2021
The Fairfield Education Association (FEA) is proud to endorse Craig Curley, Sheila Marmion, and Kevin Starke for election to the Fairfield Board of Finance.
Over the last two years with COVID, many have realized our schools are so much more than educational institutions. They are a safe place where parents can send their children, which in turn allows parents to work. That in turn supports the local economy, enhances our housing values, and ensures the town has the necessary resources. Our schools work hard to make sure Fairfield’s children grow into the best version of themselves, capable of positively contributing to society. Our schools help students build confidence, positive self-esteem, and good decision-making capabilities. Our schools are a public good and not merely an operational expense that should be traded off against current crises, whether it be the fill pile remediation efforts, the need for a new sewage treatment facility, or something else.
For more than a decade, town bodies have reduced the funding requests of the Board of Education over $20 million. While other comparable districts have been increasing their school budgets by 3-5% per year, Fairfield’s yearly increases have averaged under 2.5%. Those reductions dropped our per pupil spending from 29th in the state in 2007/2008 to 66th out of 169 towns today. The practical effect of those reductions are felt every day in our schools.
We’re dealing with:
- A drastic reduction in elementary art instruction as a “trade off” for additional social workers to support our students’ social and emotional needs.
- A paraprofessional shortage, largely due to their embarrassingly low pay. These staff members are essential to running our schools and supporting special needs students.
- Inadequate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in many of our schools.
We are all left to wonder what is next. Trading off music to remediate mold? Cutting back on business, culinary, or gifted-student programs so we can support our struggling learners? These are not the choices schools in a town like Fairfield should have to make.
Electing Sheila Marmion, Craig Curley, and Kevin Starke to the Board of Finance represents a unique opportunity to pivot away from these false choices. For all three, their professional and community experience have provided them with extensive expertise in bonding large capital projects, strategic budgeting, and the institutional memory to know where Fairfield has been and where we are going. More importantly, they see our public schools for what they are, an asset of the community deserving of support and investment.
If you care about the health and well being of our schools and Fairfield’s children, I urge you to join the teachers of Fairfield and support Craig Curley, Sheila Marmion and Kevin Starke for the Board of Finance. Our schools can no longer be squeezed financially.
Bob Smoler
President: Fairfield Education Association
Fairfield Democrats
Exciting news to share! In a first, the Fairfield Education Association (FEA) has endorsed candidates for Board of Finance in Fairfield’s municipal elections. The FEA urges voters to " join the teachers of Fairfield and support Craig Curley for Fairfield Board of Finance, Sheila Marmion - Board of Finance, and Kevin Starke for Fairfield Board of Finance" because "their professional and community experience have provided them with extensive expertise in bonding large capital projects, strategic budgeting, and the institutional memory to know where Fairfield has been and where we are going. More importantly, they see our public schools for what they are, an asset of the community deserving of support and investment.”
Thank you, FEA, for this strong and compelling endorsement for our experienced team for Fairfield’s future!
* * * * * * * *
[1] Exciting news to share! In a first,... - Fairfield Democrats | Facebook
Fairfield Taxpayer believes the Teachers’ Union should advocate strongly for the best interests of its members at the bargaining table, and it should participate actively in our deliberations over public policies and priorities, particularly on education issues.
However, the Teachers’ Union should not get to choose who is sitting on the other side of the bargaining table when their contracts are being negotiated. And they should not get to choose the members of the governing bodies that must decide what Fairfield can afford to tax and spend, and how that money should be allocated in the best long-term interests of the Town.
Some Background
This is not the first time that the Teachers’ Union (a.k.a., Fairfield Education Association) has inserted itself into local politics, and it is not the first time that Fairfield Taxpayer has questioned whether it is constructive for the Union to do so. The Union has previously endorsed candidates for the Board of Education – yes, the same Board with which the Union negotiates the teacher salaries and benefits that determine almost half of Fairfield’s total spending every year. The Union was also very active in the 2016 effort to change political control of the Board of Selectmen by forcing a special election after a Republican resignation (an effort that succeeded until it was subsequently reversed by the Connecticut Supreme Court). At that time, Fairfield Taxpayer said as follows:
“Bob Smoler [president then and now of the FEA] wants us to elect people who are beholden to him who will continue to approve generous wages, benefits and work rules for his Union members and who will spend as much as possible on education.”
“In his own words [from an email Mr. Smoler sent to his members on 12/22/16]: ‘Our new contract will be coming up for a vote this fall . . . The democrats will put up a very pro-education candidate . . . The person [elected] is going to hold tremendous sway over the next two teachers’ contracts and the next three education budgets . . . We need to do whatever we can to help the democrats . . .’
In his latest endorsement of three Board of Finance candidates, Mr. Smoler claims, based on several inaccurate and flawed assertions, that “our schools can no longer be squeezed financially.” Yes, those would be the same Fairfield schools for which spending has risen 27% since 2014 with enrollment down 9%, resulting in a 40% increase in per pupil spending and a 4.3% compound annual rate of increase. Mr. Smoler seems to believe that there is never a valid reason to restrain education spending (currently two-thirds of our total spending), an absurd proposition that none of his endorsed candidates is likely to agree with. Without spending and taxing restraint, it is only a matter of time before everything we love about Fairfield will be at risk, including our great schools.
* * * * * * * * *
Fairfield Taxpayer’s views on this important subject were covered in a 3/31/17 Fairfield Minuteman article, “Controversy Continues Over Special Election,” as follows:
Fairfield resident Bud Morten, co-founder of the local advocacy group Fairfield Taxpayer, is also concerned about the union’s role in Fairfield’s affairs. “I doubt most people in Fairfield realize what the Union has been doing,” and he notes that “Connecticut’s growing fiscal crisis is the strongest possible object lesson about what happens when public employee unions gain political influence over the elected officials who negotiate and approve their contracts.” As examples, Morten says the FEA “endorsed five candidates for the BOE in 2015, all of whom were elected; endorsed two local candidates for the State Assembly in 2016, one of whom was elected; supported the Democratic Town Committee’s recent petition efforts for as special election; operates a PAC that makes contributions to political candidates; regularly packs the room with teachers whenever union contracts and school budgets are up for approval, and at events like Saturday’s Board of Finance public budget forum.” In the recent petition effort, he says, “teachers, only 30 percent of whom are residents of Fairfield, exploited their special relationships with parents to get the necessary signatures.” He notes, “How does a parent say ‘no’ to their child’s teacher/coach when they are approached at a holiday concert and asked to sign a petition to save their job?”
According to Morten, “Whatever high-minded motives Mr. Smoler may claim for his union’s political activities, his recent emails to his members, which have been widely circulated by parents and others, speak for themselves. Quoting these e-mails, Morten says that Mr. Smoler exhorted teachers to get people to sign the petitions “because our new contract will be coming up for a vote this fall,” because “the Democrats will put up a very pro-education candidate,” because “the person (elected) is going to hold tremendous sway over the next two teachers contracts and the next three education budgets,” and therefore “we need to do everything we can to help the Democrats get the signatures they need.” And in his December 22, 2016, message congratulating his members, Morten quotes Mr. Smoler as saying, “I can’t thank you enough for the incredible job you did. We only had six days to take action to make a special election possible, and you, the FEA, pulled it off.”
* * * * * * * *
The recent endorsements by the Union and the response by the Democratic Town Committee are copied in full below.[1]
Fairfield Education Association
October 20, 2021
The Fairfield Education Association (FEA) is proud to endorse Craig Curley, Sheila Marmion, and Kevin Starke for election to the Fairfield Board of Finance.
Over the last two years with COVID, many have realized our schools are so much more than educational institutions. They are a safe place where parents can send their children, which in turn allows parents to work. That in turn supports the local economy, enhances our housing values, and ensures the town has the necessary resources. Our schools work hard to make sure Fairfield’s children grow into the best version of themselves, capable of positively contributing to society. Our schools help students build confidence, positive self-esteem, and good decision-making capabilities. Our schools are a public good and not merely an operational expense that should be traded off against current crises, whether it be the fill pile remediation efforts, the need for a new sewage treatment facility, or something else.
For more than a decade, town bodies have reduced the funding requests of the Board of Education over $20 million. While other comparable districts have been increasing their school budgets by 3-5% per year, Fairfield’s yearly increases have averaged under 2.5%. Those reductions dropped our per pupil spending from 29th in the state in 2007/2008 to 66th out of 169 towns today. The practical effect of those reductions are felt every day in our schools.
We’re dealing with:
- A drastic reduction in elementary art instruction as a “trade off” for additional social workers to support our students’ social and emotional needs.
- A paraprofessional shortage, largely due to their embarrassingly low pay. These staff members are essential to running our schools and supporting special needs students.
- Inadequate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in many of our schools.
We are all left to wonder what is next. Trading off music to remediate mold? Cutting back on business, culinary, or gifted-student programs so we can support our struggling learners? These are not the choices schools in a town like Fairfield should have to make.
Electing Sheila Marmion, Craig Curley, and Kevin Starke to the Board of Finance represents a unique opportunity to pivot away from these false choices. For all three, their professional and community experience have provided them with extensive expertise in bonding large capital projects, strategic budgeting, and the institutional memory to know where Fairfield has been and where we are going. More importantly, they see our public schools for what they are, an asset of the community deserving of support and investment.
If you care about the health and well being of our schools and Fairfield’s children, I urge you to join the teachers of Fairfield and support Craig Curley, Sheila Marmion and Kevin Starke for the Board of Finance. Our schools can no longer be squeezed financially.
Bob Smoler
President: Fairfield Education Association
Fairfield Democrats
Exciting news to share! In a first, the Fairfield Education Association (FEA) has endorsed candidates for Board of Finance in Fairfield’s municipal elections. The FEA urges voters to " join the teachers of Fairfield and support Craig Curley for Fairfield Board of Finance, Sheila Marmion - Board of Finance, and Kevin Starke for Fairfield Board of Finance" because "their professional and community experience have provided them with extensive expertise in bonding large capital projects, strategic budgeting, and the institutional memory to know where Fairfield has been and where we are going. More importantly, they see our public schools for what they are, an asset of the community deserving of support and investment.”
Thank you, FEA, for this strong and compelling endorsement for our experienced team for Fairfield’s future!
* * * * * * * *
[1] Exciting news to share! In a first,... - Fairfield Democrats | Facebook
WHICH DO YOU THINK IS BETTER FOR FAIRFIELD: POWER THAT IS MORE-CONCENTRATED OR LESS-CONCENTRATED?
WHICH DO YOU THINK IS BETTER FOR FAIRFIELD: POWER THAT IS MORE-CONCENTRATED OR LESS-CONCENTRATED?
If and when you are asked to vote on this important question, please do not confuse “efficient government” with “efficient governance.”
The Board of Selectmen has created a “Charter Review Commission” (CRC) that is likely to recommend a major change in Fairfield’s governance structure that would concentrate the power of the Town’s government in fewer hands by replacing the Board of Selectmen (BOS), the Board of Finance (BOF) and the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) with a Mayor, a Town Council and perhaps a Town Manager.
A referendum on this proposal seems likely since three of the seven members of the new CRC are former leaders of the “Strategic Plan Committee” (SPC), which last year issued a 109-page report[1] asserting that Fairfield needs “a streamlined government structure” in order “to manage increasing complexities and risks,” and that we should “transition the Town governance structure from the current Selectmen-Representative Town Meeting style of governance to an alternative form such as a Town Council/Mayor or Town Council/Manager form.” The report claims this new structure would produce: a more effective and efficient form of government; better cross-department and Commission operations; simplified and consolidated control structures; simplified and clarified escalation and risk management; better access for town citizens to their government (one-stop shopping); and improved overall citizen satisfaction.
The overarching rationale for these claims was that: “Fairfield has a dated form of government with highly distributed responsibility for decision-making that exists in very few places, other than New England, and is on the decline even there”; and “It’s very rare to see such highly distributed decision-making processes in towns of its size.”
Sounds great, right? But, let’s look more closely at these claims: (a) the SPC provided no analysis or empirical evidence to support any of these claimed benefits; (b) it gave no consideration to the potential costs and risks of concentrating political power; and (c) it failed to demonstrate that any of the means by which we might be able to improve the performance of our GOVERNMENT is dependent upon changing our basic GOVERNANCE structure. For example, we do not have to eliminate the Board of Finance and the RTM in order to hire a highly qualified and professional Town Manager or to consolidate some of our many committees and commissions.
There is no question that having a three-person BOS, plus a nine-person BOF, plus a nine-person BOE, plus a forty-person RTM – sixty-one citizens in total – all jointly responsible for our spending and taxes – can make life difficult for any elected officials who are convinced they definitely know what is best for our Town and should therefore not have to deal with “obstructionists.” But for many reasons, including the critical importance attached by our nation’s Founders to the need for “checks and balances,” Fairfield Taxpayer urges everyone to remember that efficient GOVERNMENT is always a good thing, but it should never be confused with efficient GOVERNANCE, which can be a very bad thing.
If and when you are asked to vote on eliminating our BOS, BOF and RTM in favor of entrusting power to a much smaller group of people, Fairfield Taxpayer urges you to demand good answers to these questions:
October 6, 2021
[1] DRAFT_2020_Fairfield_Strategic_Plan_LQ_(11-30-20).pdf (fairfieldct.org)
[2] Fairfield Taxpayer takes this opportunity to salute the many people of Fairfield who now and in the past have volunteered so much of their time and energy to the governance of our Town by serving on its various governance bodies. There are so many thoughtful and dedicated people from every part of town, from every demographic background, and from every political persuasion.
If and when you are asked to vote on this important question, please do not confuse “efficient government” with “efficient governance.”
The Board of Selectmen has created a “Charter Review Commission” (CRC) that is likely to recommend a major change in Fairfield’s governance structure that would concentrate the power of the Town’s government in fewer hands by replacing the Board of Selectmen (BOS), the Board of Finance (BOF) and the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) with a Mayor, a Town Council and perhaps a Town Manager.
A referendum on this proposal seems likely since three of the seven members of the new CRC are former leaders of the “Strategic Plan Committee” (SPC), which last year issued a 109-page report[1] asserting that Fairfield needs “a streamlined government structure” in order “to manage increasing complexities and risks,” and that we should “transition the Town governance structure from the current Selectmen-Representative Town Meeting style of governance to an alternative form such as a Town Council/Mayor or Town Council/Manager form.” The report claims this new structure would produce: a more effective and efficient form of government; better cross-department and Commission operations; simplified and consolidated control structures; simplified and clarified escalation and risk management; better access for town citizens to their government (one-stop shopping); and improved overall citizen satisfaction.
The overarching rationale for these claims was that: “Fairfield has a dated form of government with highly distributed responsibility for decision-making that exists in very few places, other than New England, and is on the decline even there”; and “It’s very rare to see such highly distributed decision-making processes in towns of its size.”
Sounds great, right? But, let’s look more closely at these claims: (a) the SPC provided no analysis or empirical evidence to support any of these claimed benefits; (b) it gave no consideration to the potential costs and risks of concentrating political power; and (c) it failed to demonstrate that any of the means by which we might be able to improve the performance of our GOVERNMENT is dependent upon changing our basic GOVERNANCE structure. For example, we do not have to eliminate the Board of Finance and the RTM in order to hire a highly qualified and professional Town Manager or to consolidate some of our many committees and commissions.
There is no question that having a three-person BOS, plus a nine-person BOF, plus a nine-person BOE, plus a forty-person RTM – sixty-one citizens in total – all jointly responsible for our spending and taxes – can make life difficult for any elected officials who are convinced they definitely know what is best for our Town and should therefore not have to deal with “obstructionists.” But for many reasons, including the critical importance attached by our nation’s Founders to the need for “checks and balances,” Fairfield Taxpayer urges everyone to remember that efficient GOVERNMENT is always a good thing, but it should never be confused with efficient GOVERNANCE, which can be a very bad thing.
If and when you are asked to vote on eliminating our BOS, BOF and RTM in favor of entrusting power to a much smaller group of people, Fairfield Taxpayer urges you to demand good answers to these questions:
- When in the past did Fairfield end up with a bad outcome (i.e., demonstrably and materially not in the best interests of the Town) that was directly attributable to our governance structure?
- What future conditions and circumstances would cause our current governance structure to produce a bad outcome?
- What benefits would a change in our governance structure provide that cannot be obtained within our present structure?
- Why would fewer elected leaders be able to “manage increasing complexities and risks” better than our present system does?
- Isn’t it likely that having more rather than fewer elected officials looking over budgets, proposals and plans reduces the probability of serious mistakes?
- Is there any compelling evidence from the experience of other towns that more-concentrated power works better than less-concentrated power?
- What are the potential costs and risks of changing our governance structure and concentrating power in the hands of fewer people, including:
- Culture – Doesn’t the fact that many elected officials are responsible for Fairfield’s spending and taxes mean that there are many more citizens, both currently in office and previously in office, who are empowered and enfranchised by their knowledge of how our Town’s government works to engage in and contribute to public debate on important issues than there would be otherwise?[2]
- Access – Doesn’t having more elected officials provide greater access by all citizens to their government, and wouldn’t having fewer elected officials result in greater general disengagement from issues important to the Town’s future?
- Transparency – Isn’t it easier to restrict public knowledge when there are fewer elected officials rather than when there are more, and isn’t this particularly true at a time when the quality and quantity of local news coverage have been so greatly diminished?
- Corruption – Isn’t it easier when there are fewer elected officials for bad things to happen, including backroom deals and compromises that are not in the best interests of the Town?
- Domination – Isn’t it more likely that one political party or one section of Town could dominate local government and stifle debate if we reduced the number of elected officials per capita?
- Tribalism and Partisanship – What effect would reducing the number of elected officials have on the tendency of some citizens to become overly partisan?
- Home Rule – Would we lose certain valuable rights and local autonomy under State law (e.g., how successors are chosen following resignations) if we abandoned our longstanding governance structure?
October 6, 2021
[1] DRAFT_2020_Fairfield_Strategic_Plan_LQ_(11-30-20).pdf (fairfieldct.org)
[2] Fairfield Taxpayer takes this opportunity to salute the many people of Fairfield who now and in the past have volunteered so much of their time and energy to the governance of our Town by serving on its various governance bodies. There are so many thoughtful and dedicated people from every part of town, from every demographic background, and from every political persuasion.
WOW, A $35-MILLION WINDFALL! STRATEGIC VISION ANYONE?
Fairfield Taxpayer urges the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance, the Board of Education and the Representative Town Meeting to think strategically about how to spend the windfall we are receiving from the federal American Rescue Plan Act (~$25 million Town and ~$3 million BOE) plus another ~$7 million from the payment of delinquent taxes on 1143 Sasco Hill Road, for a total of ~$35 million.
Projects costing ~$25 million in total have been proposed and are under active consideration. The stated criteria used to select the proposed projects were as follows: (a) Complies with federal guidelines; (b) Has an impact on a cross section of our community; and (c) Addresses some long overdue infrastructure project. The 12 biggest proposed projects (totaling ~$21 million) are as follows:
There are, as you might expect, perfectly reasonable arguments in favor of every one of these proposals and many smaller projects on the list. Indeed, some have been waiting patiently in line on the Town’s long-term Capital Improvement Plan (BTW, kudos to the Town for having such a thoughtful plan in place), and they will simply get done sooner and without the need to issue municipal bonds to pay for them. Some are being allowed to jump to the front of the line, which may or may not be a good thing, and the jumpers may or may not be the most deserving to do so. Some were not even in the line, which once again may or may not be a good thing, and these new ideas may or may not be the most beneficial. Meanwhile, other proposals on the list will temporarily lower our future spending either by prepaying certain expenses or by in-sourcing. In all cases, the projects eventually approved will not have to worry about competing for priority in the constructively contentious annual operating and capital budgeting processes, and elected officials and department heads will never have to figure out how to cut any other expenses or projects to pay for them. All this may be good enough, but there is something else to consider – If all we do is find constructive ways to spend the money that meet all the restrictions, life will soon return to normal, everyone will forget that there ever was a windfall, and for better or worse, Fairfield will be essentially the same Fairfield it would otherwise have been.
Like big inheritances and lottery jackpots, it is far better to invest a windfall than to spend it!
In this case, “investing” the Town’s ~$35 million windfall means thinking about it as a rare strategic opportunity to improve Fairfield’s “ability to prosper” by enhancing its future economic prospects with sustainably higher revenues and/or sustainably lower costs than it would otherwise have, and/or by reducing its exposure to serious risks.
Because it is not clear exactly how Fairfield could derive the greatest strategic benefit from a $35 million investment, FT urges everyone to think about strategic options, and if possible, to make “strategic benefit” the primary objective of this exercise. Because money is fungible, it does not matter if the best strategic option (or options) does not meet the restrictions placed on the ARPA funds. We can find ways to spend restricted funds that will free up unrestricted budget and/or debt capacity that we can then spend however we wish. For example, we can prepay operating and recurring capital expenses (e.g., by paving in the next three years all the roads we would otherwise pave over the next six years, and by buying DPW equipment and fire engines that would otherwise be bought in future years), and then, we can earmark an equivalent amount to pay for our chosen strategic initiative(s). This is the exact opposite of creating what is called a “budget cliff”; it is creating a “budget valley.”
In random order, here are some possible strategic initiatives that could be part of the important conversation that the Town should have.
What other and perhaps better ideas would you add to this list?
Give your opinion below - send a 1-Click email to All Elected Officials
Projects costing ~$25 million in total have been proposed and are under active consideration. The stated criteria used to select the proposed projects were as follows: (a) Complies with federal guidelines; (b) Has an impact on a cross section of our community; and (c) Addresses some long overdue infrastructure project. The 12 biggest proposed projects (totaling ~$21 million) are as follows:
- $3.7 million for Police Bodycams, Dashcams and Tasers.
- $3.25 million for Rooster River Flood Control.
- $3.0 million for Paving.
- $2.7 million for a Town and BOE Fiber Optic Network.
- $1.42 million for Permeable Surfacing the RR parking lot.
- $1.0 million for Traffic Lights.
- $1.0 million for HVAC in our schools.
- $1.0 million to replace the Perry’s Green Bulkhead.
- $1.0 million for Fill Pile Remediation.
- $950,000 for Senior Center Improvements.
- $940,000 for Electric Vehicles and Charging Stations.
- $925,000 for Playground Improvements.
There are, as you might expect, perfectly reasonable arguments in favor of every one of these proposals and many smaller projects on the list. Indeed, some have been waiting patiently in line on the Town’s long-term Capital Improvement Plan (BTW, kudos to the Town for having such a thoughtful plan in place), and they will simply get done sooner and without the need to issue municipal bonds to pay for them. Some are being allowed to jump to the front of the line, which may or may not be a good thing, and the jumpers may or may not be the most deserving to do so. Some were not even in the line, which once again may or may not be a good thing, and these new ideas may or may not be the most beneficial. Meanwhile, other proposals on the list will temporarily lower our future spending either by prepaying certain expenses or by in-sourcing. In all cases, the projects eventually approved will not have to worry about competing for priority in the constructively contentious annual operating and capital budgeting processes, and elected officials and department heads will never have to figure out how to cut any other expenses or projects to pay for them. All this may be good enough, but there is something else to consider – If all we do is find constructive ways to spend the money that meet all the restrictions, life will soon return to normal, everyone will forget that there ever was a windfall, and for better or worse, Fairfield will be essentially the same Fairfield it would otherwise have been.
Like big inheritances and lottery jackpots, it is far better to invest a windfall than to spend it!
In this case, “investing” the Town’s ~$35 million windfall means thinking about it as a rare strategic opportunity to improve Fairfield’s “ability to prosper” by enhancing its future economic prospects with sustainably higher revenues and/or sustainably lower costs than it would otherwise have, and/or by reducing its exposure to serious risks.
Because it is not clear exactly how Fairfield could derive the greatest strategic benefit from a $35 million investment, FT urges everyone to think about strategic options, and if possible, to make “strategic benefit” the primary objective of this exercise. Because money is fungible, it does not matter if the best strategic option (or options) does not meet the restrictions placed on the ARPA funds. We can find ways to spend restricted funds that will free up unrestricted budget and/or debt capacity that we can then spend however we wish. For example, we can prepay operating and recurring capital expenses (e.g., by paving in the next three years all the roads we would otherwise pave over the next six years, and by buying DPW equipment and fire engines that would otherwise be bought in future years), and then, we can earmark an equivalent amount to pay for our chosen strategic initiative(s). This is the exact opposite of creating what is called a “budget cliff”; it is creating a “budget valley.”
In random order, here are some possible strategic initiatives that could be part of the important conversation that the Town should have.
- Long-Term Liabilities: Fairfield has a substantial long-term liability for retirement benefits for its public employees. The Town’s pension liabilities are reasonably well funded, but OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) liabilities are not. Funding OPEB liabilities better would sustainably lower Fairfield’s future operating costs.
- Major Recreational Facilities: Imagine a Westport without Longshore investing its windfall to acquire that property. Or imagine a Fairfield without Penfield Pavilion or without Lake Mohegan investing its windfall to provide those amenities. How could South Benson Marina be transformed into a far more valuable strategic asset for Fairfield?
- Traffic Mitigation: Widening the RR underpass on Mill Plain Road would allow traffic to flow much better at this chokepoint. Creating an alternative route for through traffic by repurposing and extending Carter Henry Drive along the RR tracks would greatly reduce the amount of traffic in Fairfield Center. Providing regular, free, hop-on/hop-off “trollies” along route loops connecting Fairfield Center with FU, SHU, Metro Center and the beaches would reduce vehicular traffic.
- Railroad Parking Lot: Instead of spending $1.42 million to create a permeable surface in the RR parking lot, how could we transform the air rights over the parking lot into valuable tax-paying commercial property that would improve both our quality of life and our future tax revenues?
- Communication: What would it cost to provide free broadband access to all Fairfield residents, and would this provide a significant competitive advantage for attracting and retaining residents and for stimulating growth in our tax base?
- Targeted Demographic: What additional services and resources would attract and retain more senior residents, who generate significantly more incremental revenues than costs for the Town?
- Coastal Risks: If a substantial portion of our ~$17 billion tax base in the beach area is at risk to damage from flooding, what could we do to mitigate that risk, perhaps in partnership with residents?
- Metro Center: What could we do with $35 million to attract major investment at Metro Center that would add substantially more to our tax revenues than to the cost of our public services?
What other and perhaps better ideas would you add to this list?
Give your opinion below - send a 1-Click email to All Elected Officials
Updated Budget Graphs
FT Opinion: The two big issues are: (a) that our Tax Base (a.k.a., Grand List) is not growing (still 4% below its 2011 peak); and (b) that Per Pupil spending in our schools (two-thirds of our total budget) is still growing very fast. These two trends are not mutually sustainable. Something has to give, and growing our Tax Base is not going to be easy in a state that has not created any net new jobs for more than 30 years. So, the BOE is going to have to figure out how to lower its costs one way or another.
Opinion: Here's Why The State's Tax Grab Is A Big Loser
Connecticut state lawmakers embarked on the budgetary equivalent of a trip to Foxwoods when they voted to create a new, separate tax on capital gains — and the bets they’re making aren’t the wisest. Capital gains are the profit people make when they sell a good for more than they paid for it. They stem from selling anything from stocks to antiques and collectibles to real estate. Connecticut has taxed capital gains in one form or another since the early 1970s, but since the state income tax was created in 1991, capital gains have been taxed at the same rate as ordinary income, like salaries. But recently, the General Assembly’s Finance, Bonding and Revenue Committee advanced a multipart proposal that would, among other things, tax capital gains at a higher rate in hopes of raising an extra $262 million annually. The modified tax, targeted at individuals making over $500,000 and couples making over $1 million, means residents would pay a marginal rate of 8.99 percent — the state’s highest-ever tax on capital gains. The proposal now awaits votes by the full Senate and House of Representatives. CT Post 5.7.21
Pew Report: CT Still Lagging Most States In Personal Income Growth
“[While] gross domestic product — the value of all goods and services produced — rose nationally by 18.1% over the past decade, it dropped 2.8% in Connecticut."
"The financial market is not the real economy. It is a very small part,” Carstensen said. “It simply disguises our underlying health. A mortician can make you look really good, but you’re still dead.” CT Mirror 5.3.21
"The financial market is not the real economy. It is a very small part,” Carstensen said. “It simply disguises our underlying health. A mortician can make you look really good, but you’re still dead.” CT Mirror 5.3.21
FY22 Budget Questions: Time to Be Even More Cautious than Usual
There are no easy answers and no “right versus wrong” answers to these complex, interrelated questions; there are only trade-offs to be carefully considered based on different risk propensities. FT believes that we should be even more cautious than usual because we are currently subject to significantly heightened risks, and that a substantial increase in our FY22 tax levy to eliminate the budget cliffs we created in FY21 (resulting in only a 1.1% in our mill rate) – however paradoxical it may sound coming from Fairfield Taxpayer – is therefore the most prudent option. Our primary focus remains on our tax base, a “vital organ” for any town, which is still 4% below its FY11 peak, and would be 6% below if commercial property values were flat after the 2020 revaluation instead of up ~23%. Read More
FT Responds to Lori Charlton's Comments on FFLD's FY2022 Budget
On April 2, 2021, Lori Charlton, a member of Fairfield’s Board of Finance, posted comments about the Town’s budget for FY2022. Click to read FT's response
Mill Rate Down, Millions In Cuts As Fairfield BOF Passes Budget
The question Wednesday night wasn't if the Board of Finance would cut the proposed Fairfield budget, but by how much. In the end, the body reduced the 2022 spending plan by about $2.3 million, leaving a total budget of roughly $333.4 million; a mill rate increase of 1.2 percent, down from 1.9 percent; and 5.6 percent gross tax levy growth, instead of 6.4 percent. After the board's adjustments, the levy is set to go up about $16.7 million year-over-year. The budget was approved along party lines, with Democrats Lori Charlton, Sheila Marmion and John Mitola dissenting.
Among the changes the board agreed upon was a $1.2 million reduction in surplus contributions, with the body adjusting the line item from $2.2 million to just above $1 million. Mitola pushed to cut the full $2.2 million. "I think for this year, in an attempt to reduce the tax burden on the taxpayers, it's important that we do this," he said. Patch 4.1.21
Among the changes the board agreed upon was a $1.2 million reduction in surplus contributions, with the body adjusting the line item from $2.2 million to just above $1 million. Mitola pushed to cut the full $2.2 million. "I think for this year, in an attempt to reduce the tax burden on the taxpayers, it's important that we do this," he said. Patch 4.1.21
As Fairfield Budget Vote Nears, Residents Have Their Say
Some residents questioned conservation and education cuts at a recent public forum on Fairfield's proposed budget, while others felt expenses were too high, given the coronavirus pandemic.
"People in Fairfield are still hurting," said Craig Curley, who called the budget "tone-deaf" as well as "audacious and disrespectful."
The $335.5 million spending plan includes an $18.3 million — or 5.8 percent — uptick in year-over-year expenses, a 1.9 percent mill rate increase and a 6.4 percent growth in the assessed tax levy. The budget comes a year after Fairfield officials chose not to raise the tax rate in order to offer residents a financial reprieve during the hardship of the pandemic. Patch 3.30.21
"People in Fairfield are still hurting," said Craig Curley, who called the budget "tone-deaf" as well as "audacious and disrespectful."
The $335.5 million spending plan includes an $18.3 million — or 5.8 percent — uptick in year-over-year expenses, a 1.9 percent mill rate increase and a 6.4 percent growth in the assessed tax levy. The budget comes a year after Fairfield officials chose not to raise the tax rate in order to offer residents a financial reprieve during the hardship of the pandemic. Patch 3.30.21
Shelton Officials Fight To Maintain Zoning 'Home Rule'
Fears about losing control over its local zoning has city and state officials joining the front lines in the fight to keep what are presently proposed legislative bills from being approved. There are nearly a dozen bills — both in the state House and Senate — which call for changes to local zoning, some of which would overrule local zoning authorities and mandate the construction of multi-family and affordable housing, regardless of existing local regulations, city officials say.
Excerpts: “Let me be clear, these statewide property tax proposals and anti-local zoning bills are nothing more than a money and power grab by urban politicians attempting to backtrack on decades of their poor policy decisions,” Perillo added. “These taxes would be in addition to our local property taxes and we would have no control over how that money is spent. We need to fight back on these proposals.”
“Many of the zoning proposals made by CT Democrats this year will allow developers to overdevelop in communities, threaten open space, endanger our environment, and upend local control of land use decisions,” Kelly said. Shelton Herald 3.23.21
Excerpts: “Let me be clear, these statewide property tax proposals and anti-local zoning bills are nothing more than a money and power grab by urban politicians attempting to backtrack on decades of their poor policy decisions,” Perillo added. “These taxes would be in addition to our local property taxes and we would have no control over how that money is spent. We need to fight back on these proposals.”
“Many of the zoning proposals made by CT Democrats this year will allow developers to overdevelop in communities, threaten open space, endanger our environment, and upend local control of land use decisions,” Kelly said. Shelton Herald 3.23.21
WalletHub Finds Tax Burden is Taxing for NY, CT Residents
FT says: It is impossible to avoid an increasingly oppressive per-capita tax burden in a state like CT where there is no population or job growth and yet the cost of government continues to rise faster than the rate of inflation.
A report on the tax burden for residents of the 50 states and District of Columbia released this morning by the financial website WalletHub has some good news and bad news for residents of New York state and Connecticut. First, the good news: Neither state is ranked as the worst in the U.S. when it comes to the amount of state and local taxes residents have to pay. Now the bad news: Connecticut is ranked as next to worst, ranking at number 50 and New York is only slightly better, coming in at 49. Westfair Online 3.9.21
A report on the tax burden for residents of the 50 states and District of Columbia released this morning by the financial website WalletHub has some good news and bad news for residents of New York state and Connecticut. First, the good news: Neither state is ranked as the worst in the U.S. when it comes to the amount of state and local taxes residents have to pay. Now the bad news: Connecticut is ranked as next to worst, ranking at number 50 and New York is only slightly better, coming in at 49. Westfair Online 3.9.21
Job Cuts Stay In Fairfield Budget As Spending Plan Moves Forward
Job cuts planned for the coming fiscal year will remain in the 2021-22 budget after a divided Board of Selectmen voted Monday to approve the spending plan with only minor adjustments. The $335.5 million budget left the board meeting with a slightly lower mill rate increase than was originally presented. Selectmen voted to add about $315,000 in found revenue to the document, decreasing the projected tax rate hike from 1.98 percent to 1.88 percent. Fairfield Patch 3.9.21
Fairfield Budget Up Nearly 6%; Includes Job Cuts, Infrastructure
Fairfield's proposed budget for the coming fiscal year would raise the mill rate and tax levy while reducing town staff and investing in infrastructure. First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick presented her spending plan for 2021-22 on Monday to the town's Board of Selectman. The $335.5 million budget is an $18.3 million — or 5.77 percent — increase over 2020-21, and would see the mill rate rise 1.98 percent and the tax levy go up 6.34 percent. "Due to the impact of revaluation, many people are going to see a much higher increase in their taxes," Selectman Tom Flynn said after the presentation. Fairfield Patch 3.2.21
Nearly 2 Percent Tax Increase Proposed For Fairfield Budget
The town budget season will get underway Monday, when First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick presents the annual budget — including a nearly 2 percent tax increase — to Fairfield's Board of Selectmen, according to a news release from Kupchick's office. "In crafting this budget, I was mindful of all the sacrifices and triumphs we have experienced as a town and as a nation living through the challenges of a pandemic and the economic hardships that came with it," Kupchick said in the news release. "I am saddened by the loss of life in our town and heartened by our community's resilience that makes Fairfield a great place for families, for seniors to retire, and for businesses to grow." Kupchick's 2021-22 budget — which, if adopted unchanged, will result in a 1.98 percent tax increase — uses grand list growth to replenish accounts that subsidized the decision not to increase taxes in 2020-21, according to the news release. The budget also ensures the town's long-term liabilities are once again fully funded. Fairfield Patch 2.27.21
The Best States for Retirement in 2021
The golden years can offer great promise — moments with grandchildren, time for travel and leisure. But they can also be a source of great stress — over money, declining health and decisions about relocation. Where you retire can make all the difference. A recent study by the financial website WalletHub.com offers some guidance, ranking each of the 50 states in terms of their suitability for retirement. A total of 45 metrics across three categories (affordability, quality of life and health care) were weighed to rate every state. The New York Times 2.25.21
To Plug a Pension Gap, This City Rented Its Streets. To Itself.
Cities and states issued at least $6.1 billion in pension bonds last year. Novel ways to do so include renting property they already own under dummy corporations.
The City of Tucson, Ariz., decided last year to pay rent on five golf courses and a zoo — to itself. In California, West Covina agreed to pay rent on its own streets. And in Flagstaff, Ariz., a new lease agreement covers libraries, fire stations and even City Hall. They are risky financial arrangements born of desperation, adopted to fulfill ballooning pension payments that the cities can no longer afford. Starved of cash by the pandemic, cities are essentially using their own property as collateral of sorts to raise money to pay for their workers’ pensions. The New York Times 2.16.21
The City of Tucson, Ariz., decided last year to pay rent on five golf courses and a zoo — to itself. In California, West Covina agreed to pay rent on its own streets. And in Flagstaff, Ariz., a new lease agreement covers libraries, fire stations and even City Hall. They are risky financial arrangements born of desperation, adopted to fulfill ballooning pension payments that the cities can no longer afford. Starved of cash by the pandemic, cities are essentially using their own property as collateral of sorts to raise money to pay for their workers’ pensions. The New York Times 2.16.21
LWV & Fairfield Museum Present 2021 Legislative Forum
Zoning & Land Use Virtual Forum
Fairfielders Protecting Land and Neighborhoods (FairPLAN) will host a forum on Wednesday, Feb 17, 2021 on Zoom from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. to discuss potential changes to the State’s zoning regulations. Zoning and land use issues have been a critical topic in Connecticut (and Fairfield) for the last year, and we aim to shed light on what could be ahead and its affects on our communities. As you may be aware, there are several changes to the State’s zoning regulations on the legislative agenda this year including a sweeping overhaul that could impact local zoning laws.
FairPLAN is a long-time advocacy group in Fairfield which champions smart development in neighborhoods, environmental issues and positive government action to achieve environmental and economic health.
We are very grateful to host a panel of lawmakers and other subject matter experts next week to help us inform the public. The event will feature State Senator Tony Hwang (R-28), State Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (D-133), State Rep. Kimberly Fiorello (R-149), Francis Pickering, executive director of Western Connecticut Council of Governments, Jacqueline Rabe Thomas, housing reporter at the CT Mirror and Melissa Kaplan Macey of the Regional Plan Association. The forum will be moderated by myself, co-president of FairPLAN and Kathryn Braun, an environmental attorney and Fairfield TPZ Commissioner.
If you're interested in attending the event, please RSVP to: Zoning, Land Use Issues & What's Ahead for Connecticut Tickets, Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 6:00 PM | Eventbrite
FairPLAN is a long-time advocacy group in Fairfield which champions smart development in neighborhoods, environmental issues and positive government action to achieve environmental and economic health.
We are very grateful to host a panel of lawmakers and other subject matter experts next week to help us inform the public. The event will feature State Senator Tony Hwang (R-28), State Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (D-133), State Rep. Kimberly Fiorello (R-149), Francis Pickering, executive director of Western Connecticut Council of Governments, Jacqueline Rabe Thomas, housing reporter at the CT Mirror and Melissa Kaplan Macey of the Regional Plan Association. The forum will be moderated by myself, co-president of FairPLAN and Kathryn Braun, an environmental attorney and Fairfield TPZ Commissioner.
If you're interested in attending the event, please RSVP to: Zoning, Land Use Issues & What's Ahead for Connecticut Tickets, Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 6:00 PM | Eventbrite
BOE Increase for FY22
Other Town bodies, notably the BOF, have been telling the BOE for years that we can’t afford the relentless high growth in its spending.
AND YET, THE FIVE BOE MEMBERS WHO JUST VOTED IN FAVOR OF A 5.2% INCREASE FOR FY22 APPARENTLY THINK THE UNSUSTAINABLE TRENDS IN THE GRAPH BELOW ARE STILL NOT THEIR PROBLEM
Over the Fiscal Years 2014-2022:
• Enrollment down 9%
• Spending up 28%
• Per Pupil Spending up 40%
• Inflation up only 12%
“We do not decide what the Town can afford.” (BOE Member 1/29/21)
AND YET, THE FIVE BOE MEMBERS WHO JUST VOTED IN FAVOR OF A 5.2% INCREASE FOR FY22 APPARENTLY THINK THE UNSUSTAINABLE TRENDS IN THE GRAPH BELOW ARE STILL NOT THEIR PROBLEM
Over the Fiscal Years 2014-2022:
• Enrollment down 9%
• Spending up 28%
• Per Pupil Spending up 40%
• Inflation up only 12%
“We do not decide what the Town can afford.” (BOE Member 1/29/21)
| boe_spending_trends_version_2_2.7.21.pdf |
Why Local Zoning Lurks On The CT Ballot
Kimberly Fiorello (opinion):
Zoning and cancel culture are on the ballot this November. Activists and legislators in Hartford have plans to change how we live in our towns. They claim they have “a moment” upon which to capitalize and force the citizens of Greenwich and Stamford to conform to their views. The moment? These racially charged months of protests and riots in parts of our country. Their agenda? To denounce Connecticut as one of the most racially segregated states in the country, geographically and economically. Back their accusation with statistics, studies, and books by thinkers who think like them. Then, demand that the only solution is a statewide takeover of local zoning laws that would result in denser housing and less open space than we now value.
The problem with their logic is that people of all skin tones are moving into Connecticut now to escape the density of New York City and embrace the one comparative advantage our state still offers — open living spaces in cozy bucolic towns. Their proposal would eliminate this advantage to the detriment of us all.
This September, attorneys from the Open Communities Alliance took aim at the local zoning rules of Woodbridge, a quaint New England town listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Their first salvo was an application to Woodbridge’s Planning and Zoning Commission for a four-unit house on a 1.5 acre lot zoned for a single-family home. If the town rejects the project, the applicants say they will go to court to force a complete overhaul of what they call Woodbridge’s “exclusionary” zoning regulations. How the courts might rule could have far-reaching implications for towns across Connecticut. Greenwich Time 10.23.20
Zoning and cancel culture are on the ballot this November. Activists and legislators in Hartford have plans to change how we live in our towns. They claim they have “a moment” upon which to capitalize and force the citizens of Greenwich and Stamford to conform to their views. The moment? These racially charged months of protests and riots in parts of our country. Their agenda? To denounce Connecticut as one of the most racially segregated states in the country, geographically and economically. Back their accusation with statistics, studies, and books by thinkers who think like them. Then, demand that the only solution is a statewide takeover of local zoning laws that would result in denser housing and less open space than we now value.
The problem with their logic is that people of all skin tones are moving into Connecticut now to escape the density of New York City and embrace the one comparative advantage our state still offers — open living spaces in cozy bucolic towns. Their proposal would eliminate this advantage to the detriment of us all.
This September, attorneys from the Open Communities Alliance took aim at the local zoning rules of Woodbridge, a quaint New England town listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Their first salvo was an application to Woodbridge’s Planning and Zoning Commission for a four-unit house on a 1.5 acre lot zoned for a single-family home. If the town rejects the project, the applicants say they will go to court to force a complete overhaul of what they call Woodbridge’s “exclusionary” zoning regulations. How the courts might rule could have far-reaching implications for towns across Connecticut. Greenwich Time 10.23.20
What Can Connecticut Learn From Its Neighbors About Property Tax Limitations?
Key Findings
• Connecticut’s property tax burdens are rising rapidly, with the state’s effective property tax rates on owner-occupied housing now among the highest in the country at 1.7 percent of housing value.
• Property tax burdens in Connecticut continue to increase even as property values decline, whereas other states—including neighboring Massachusetts and New York—have managed to keep the growth of property tax burdens in check. Read more
• Connecticut’s property tax burdens are rising rapidly, with the state’s effective property tax rates on owner-occupied housing now among the highest in the country at 1.7 percent of housing value.
• Property tax burdens in Connecticut continue to increase even as property values decline, whereas other states—including neighboring Massachusetts and New York—have managed to keep the growth of property tax burdens in check. Read more
New Connecticut Residents: Read The Warning Label
And you thought the warning on your new mattress was comprehensive...
Just as homeowners must disclose to buyers any known problems with their properties, just as pharma companies must disclose any known adverse side effects with their drugs, and just as IPO issuers must disclose in their prospectuses all the things they can think of that may go wrong, the State of Connecticut should disclose to new residents and businesses the known risks they will face.
Here is the warning label every new resident should receive upon entering the state:
CT Mirror 6.6.20
Just as homeowners must disclose to buyers any known problems with their properties, just as pharma companies must disclose any known adverse side effects with their drugs, and just as IPO issuers must disclose in their prospectuses all the things they can think of that may go wrong, the State of Connecticut should disclose to new residents and businesses the known risks they will face.
Here is the warning label every new resident should receive upon entering the state:
CT Mirror 6.6.20
No Tax Increase After RTM Cuts An Additional $1.1 Million
Residents will see no tax rate increase after the Representative Town Meeting cut more spending in the final version of the town budget, which passed earlier this week.
The majority of the $1,117,077 in cuts came from $924,924 in savings from school bus contracts in the Board of Education budget and fuel savings in multiple departments. The RTM also eliminated two vacant positions from the department of public works. The final budget totaled $317.2 million, less than a $1 million increase from the year before. According to First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick, the budget is the first in more than three decades to not require a tax rate increase. “There were significant cuts made to the town side of the budget, and these reductions will present significant challenges to managing the town over the next year,” said Kupchick. “I look forward to working over the coming months to identify ways to improve efficiencies in our government while maintaining the services we are able to offer our residents.” Fairfield Citizen 6.4.20
The majority of the $1,117,077 in cuts came from $924,924 in savings from school bus contracts in the Board of Education budget and fuel savings in multiple departments. The RTM also eliminated two vacant positions from the department of public works. The final budget totaled $317.2 million, less than a $1 million increase from the year before. According to First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick, the budget is the first in more than three decades to not require a tax rate increase. “There were significant cuts made to the town side of the budget, and these reductions will present significant challenges to managing the town over the next year,” said Kupchick. “I look forward to working over the coming months to identify ways to improve efficiencies in our government while maintaining the services we are able to offer our residents.” Fairfield Citizen 6.4.20
Virtual Town Hall Meeting Friday, June 5th 12-1pm via Zoom
No Tax Rate Increase For Fairfield After RTM Cuts Budget By $1.1M
Fairfield's tax rate will not increase, after the Representative Town Meeting unanimously approved a budget Monday that included more than $1 million in cuts.
The town's final budget for 2021 came in at $317.2 million, a less than $1 million increase year-over-year. Before Monday's reductions, the proposed budget was $318.3 million, a number the Board of Finance approved after cutting $9.1 million in May. In recent weeks, town officials have had to adjust the budget, written before the coronavirus pandemic, to account for the virus' economic impact.
"This has been an extraordinarily difficult first six months," said First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick, who took office in November, at the end of Monday's meeting, held via teleconference. "… I am proud that we were able to deliver a zero percent tax increase." Patch 6.2.20
The town's final budget for 2021 came in at $317.2 million, a less than $1 million increase year-over-year. Before Monday's reductions, the proposed budget was $318.3 million, a number the Board of Finance approved after cutting $9.1 million in May. In recent weeks, town officials have had to adjust the budget, written before the coronavirus pandemic, to account for the virus' economic impact.
"This has been an extraordinarily difficult first six months," said First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick, who took office in November, at the end of Monday's meeting, held via teleconference. "… I am proud that we were able to deliver a zero percent tax increase." Patch 6.2.20
Millions In Cuts Approved For Fairfield Budget Amid Coronavirus
The so-called “cuts” to Fairfield’s FY21 budget by the Board of Finance last night were certainly constructive, limiting the tax rate increase at this point (we must still wait and see what happens to the final tax-collection-rate assumption on June 4th) to less than half of one percent (down from what started out as a 2.5% proposed increase).
However, the bad news is that most of the “cuts” were merely cost deferrals (like not funding the full ADEC (Actuarially Determined Employer Contribution) for the OPEB (Other Post Employment Benefits) fund, not replacing police, fire and DPW equipment that will still have to be replaced, bonding some paving costs instead of continuing to pay all of them as we go, using part of a projected BOE surplus this year to fund normal operating costs next year), and using (or not maintaining) reserves, all of which creates a huge budget “cliff” that will have to be climbed in FY22. A few proposed additions to staff on the Town side of the budget were eliminated, but no existing jobs were eliminated.
Unfortunately, absolutely nothing could be done about the major problem of continued relentless 4%-5% annual increases in compensation costs for public employees, which represents ~75% of total spending. And unfortunately, nothing could be done about the continued deterioration in CT’s economic condition (e.g., the recent COVID-19-related massive drop in the job numbers after 30+ years with zero job growth). For the State, which was already facing big budget deficits, the implications of COVID-19 are quite negative because of the implications for future tax revenues. Patch 5.12.20
However, the bad news is that most of the “cuts” were merely cost deferrals (like not funding the full ADEC (Actuarially Determined Employer Contribution) for the OPEB (Other Post Employment Benefits) fund, not replacing police, fire and DPW equipment that will still have to be replaced, bonding some paving costs instead of continuing to pay all of them as we go, using part of a projected BOE surplus this year to fund normal operating costs next year), and using (or not maintaining) reserves, all of which creates a huge budget “cliff” that will have to be climbed in FY22. A few proposed additions to staff on the Town side of the budget were eliminated, but no existing jobs were eliminated.
Unfortunately, absolutely nothing could be done about the major problem of continued relentless 4%-5% annual increases in compensation costs for public employees, which represents ~75% of total spending. And unfortunately, nothing could be done about the continued deterioration in CT’s economic condition (e.g., the recent COVID-19-related massive drop in the job numbers after 30+ years with zero job growth). For the State, which was already facing big budget deficits, the implications of COVID-19 are quite negative because of the implications for future tax revenues. Patch 5.12.20
Let’s Scrap Illinois And Build New Illinois
Here is a summary of Richard Porter’s ideas on how states like IL and CT could basically start over without the heavy fiscal burden of their unfunded retirement liabilities (what he calls the “G.M. Solution”). One excerpt: “While the federal government hasn’t yet restructured an overly indebted state, if a state is run by creditors for the benefit of creditors instead of the people, the people of that state have a constitutional basis for seeking federal relief from creditors in order to assure government serves its citizens, instead of squeezing them.” Chicago Tribune 3.11.20
Fairfield Coffee Hour: 3/21 10am at Panera, 2320 Black Rock Tpke
High Street Affordable Housing Plan Approved By Zoning Officials
FT Says: 8-30g is a bad law with good intentions, and it is symptomatic of a much bigger problem. Land-use regulation is the foundation upon which community prosperity in America has been built and sustained. And our right to “just compensation” for any private property taken by the government for public use (or what, in this case, is known as a “regulatory taking”) is explicit in both the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Sec. 11 of the Declaration of Rights in the CT State Constitution. But our property rights in CT have nonetheless been subordinated to the State’s power under 8-30g to override local zoning and land-use regulations in order to achieve whatever the State deems to be a socially appropriate proportion (currently 10%) of affordable dwelling units: (a) irrespective of how many such units actually exist in our community versus the number the State is arbitrarily willing to count; (b) irrespective of how many such units may exist nearby in other communities; and (c) irrespective of any adverse effects on our tax base. This breach of property rights and CT’s stubborn failure to recognize the need to change 8-30g is one of the many reasons why the State has not been able to create any net new jobs for more than 30 years, and why the Law of Supply and Demand is steadily making more and more of CT’s dwelling units affordable as its population declines. As others have noted, the only way to change 8-30g is to elect a Governor and majority of our 36 State Senators and 151 State Representatives who are willing to do so. Some roads to hell are indeed paved with good intentions. Patch 2.26.20
State Rep. Laura Devlin: Update on Newport Academy
Group Home Law Being Exploited to Establish Commercial Transitional Residential Medical Treatment Centers in Fairfield.
In January 2019, Monroe RE, LLC purchased two single-family homes (2495 Redding Road and 3236 Congress Street) on behalf of Newport Academy. That same month Newport Academy applied to the Connecticut Office of Health Strategy (OHS) for a certificate of need (CON) for those properties on the basis they intend to turn those single-family homes into transitional residential treatment facilities for young adults. Before permitted to operate in Connecticut, such facilities must receive a CON from the OHS.
After initiating their application for a CON, Monroe RE LLC, on behalf of Newport Academy, then went to the Town of Fairfield in April 2019 requesting building permits for a change in use for the two properties from single-family homes to R-4 group homes with the intention of establishing six-bed facilities in each home. R-4 classification allows more than five but not more than 16 occupants, excluding staff. Those building permits were granted on the basis of protections afforded to group homes.
The permitting decision was brought to the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals where it was upheld on the basis of group home protections. Subsequently, local residents founded a nonprofit, Neighbors for Neighborhood Preservation Inc. and have taken the issue to Court. Recently the Town of Fairfield has notified the OHS that should Newport Academy be granted certificates of need the Town will not issue certificates of occupancy while there is ongoing litigation. CT House GOP 2.25.20
In January 2019, Monroe RE, LLC purchased two single-family homes (2495 Redding Road and 3236 Congress Street) on behalf of Newport Academy. That same month Newport Academy applied to the Connecticut Office of Health Strategy (OHS) for a certificate of need (CON) for those properties on the basis they intend to turn those single-family homes into transitional residential treatment facilities for young adults. Before permitted to operate in Connecticut, such facilities must receive a CON from the OHS.
After initiating their application for a CON, Monroe RE LLC, on behalf of Newport Academy, then went to the Town of Fairfield in April 2019 requesting building permits for a change in use for the two properties from single-family homes to R-4 group homes with the intention of establishing six-bed facilities in each home. R-4 classification allows more than five but not more than 16 occupants, excluding staff. Those building permits were granted on the basis of protections afforded to group homes.
The permitting decision was brought to the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals where it was upheld on the basis of group home protections. Subsequently, local residents founded a nonprofit, Neighbors for Neighborhood Preservation Inc. and have taken the issue to Court. Recently the Town of Fairfield has notified the OHS that should Newport Academy be granted certificates of need the Town will not issue certificates of occupancy while there is ongoing litigation. CT House GOP 2.25.20
Important Progress Report from Fairfield's Strategic Plan Committee
Click below to read Fairfield Strategic Plan Committee's Subject Matter Expert Summary and view the SME presentation.
Fairfield Grand List Up By About $100 Million, Town Says
FT Says: According to this article (we have not found an official press release from the Town), the Grand List is up 1%, BUT remember that if so, this number values all net additions to our tax base (e.g., new or expanded homes and commercial buildings) at what they would have been worth on October 1, 2015, and does not account for any change in the value of our properties since then. For example, if all property values in Fairfield are declining on average at a 1% annual rate, then our real Grand List as of 10/1/19 is actually flat versus last year, with the value of new additions offsetting depreciation in the value of all other properties. We will not know what has actually happened to our Grand List until the 2020 Revaluation, currently in progress, is completed. (Revaluations in CT towns are done only every five years.)
With no adjustment for any change in overall property values since the 2015 Revaluation, our Grand List as reported in this article at $11.085 billion is down 8.1% from its $12.057 billion peak in 2011 (which was based on what all our properties were worth on 10/1/05). The new budget in progress for FY2021 will be based on the pre-revaluation Grand List number, so it will assume that we can increase spending by 1% with no increase in our tax rate (a.k.a. our “mill rate”), or alternatively that we can increase spending by 3% with only a 2% increase in our tax rate. We will not know what has actually happened to our real tax rate since 2015 until the 2020 Revaluation is completed. Our real tax rate (tax levy/tax base) has increased 57% from FY2007 to FY2012, despite new construction, because overall property values are down. Patch 2.13.20
With no adjustment for any change in overall property values since the 2015 Revaluation, our Grand List as reported in this article at $11.085 billion is down 8.1% from its $12.057 billion peak in 2011 (which was based on what all our properties were worth on 10/1/05). The new budget in progress for FY2021 will be based on the pre-revaluation Grand List number, so it will assume that we can increase spending by 1% with no increase in our tax rate (a.k.a. our “mill rate”), or alternatively that we can increase spending by 3% with only a 2% increase in our tax rate. We will not know what has actually happened to our real tax rate since 2015 until the 2020 Revaluation is completed. Our real tax rate (tax levy/tax base) has increased 57% from FY2007 to FY2012, despite new construction, because overall property values are down. Patch 2.13.20
CT Income Tax Town-By-Town: Who Pays The Most
The top 10 for total income tax paid are:
Patch 2.10.20
- Greenwich $692.98 million (26,427 returns)
- Stamford $309.91 million (61,666 returns)
- Fairfield $220.96 million (24,510 returns)
- Westport $219.78 million (11,394 returns)
- Darien $210.65 million (8,283 returns)
- West Hartford $201.17 million (28,817 returns)
- New Canaan $176.52 million (7,964 returns)
- Norwalk $155.28 million (42,460 returns)
- Wilton $131.14 million (7,475 returns)
- Glastonbury $131.12 million (16,240 returns)
Patch 2.10.20
Ever wonder why the cost of living is so high in CT? This article provides part of the answer.
Three Brief Excerpts:
“Project labor agreements essentially require a construction project to be completed using union labor, rather than non-union companies, but the overall effect, the study found, was to increase the cost of the project by 19 percent.”
Our State “Government-mandated project labor agreements unnecessarily and significantly drive up construction costs, forcing taxpayers to pay more.”
“All state and municipal projects over $1 million in Connecticut are subject to prevailing wage standards that dictate the pay and benefits of employees performing the work.”
One Illustrative Fact Not in the Article:
The current hourly rate (including benefits) mandated by the State for work in Fairfield County by “Laborers (common and general)” on public building projects is $51.59, which represents a $103,180 annual rate (8 hours x 250 work days) with no overtime.
Read the article: Project labor agreements cost Connecticut taxpayers an extra $500 million, according to study | Yankee Institute for Public Policy 2.6.20
“Project labor agreements essentially require a construction project to be completed using union labor, rather than non-union companies, but the overall effect, the study found, was to increase the cost of the project by 19 percent.”
Our State “Government-mandated project labor agreements unnecessarily and significantly drive up construction costs, forcing taxpayers to pay more.”
“All state and municipal projects over $1 million in Connecticut are subject to prevailing wage standards that dictate the pay and benefits of employees performing the work.”
One Illustrative Fact Not in the Article:
The current hourly rate (including benefits) mandated by the State for work in Fairfield County by “Laborers (common and general)” on public building projects is $51.59, which represents a $103,180 annual rate (8 hours x 250 work days) with no overtime.
Read the article: Project labor agreements cost Connecticut taxpayers an extra $500 million, according to study | Yankee Institute for Public Policy 2.6.20
Macy's Inc. To Close 125 Stores, Shed 2,000 Corporate Jobs
FT Commentary: Just another reminder that grand lists across America are at increasing risk as eCommerce continues to disrupt the retailing industry.
Macy's says it is closing 125 of its least productive stores and cutting 2,000 corporate jobs as the struggling department store tries to reinvent itself in the age of online shopping. The store closures represent about one fifth of Macy's current total. The stores, which include about 30 that are in the process of closing, account for $1.4 billion in annual sales. Macy's didn't specify how many jobs would be lost at the shuttered stores. The corporate jobs will be shed as Macy's closes its offices in Cincinnati and San Francisco, leaving New York as its sole corporate headquarters.
Macy's is also testing a new store format that's located at a strip center, instead of a mall. The moves announced Tuesday come ahead of Macy's annual investor meeting where CEO Jeff Gennette is expected to unveil a three-year reinvention plan. Crain's NY 2.4.20
Macy's says it is closing 125 of its least productive stores and cutting 2,000 corporate jobs as the struggling department store tries to reinvent itself in the age of online shopping. The store closures represent about one fifth of Macy's current total. The stores, which include about 30 that are in the process of closing, account for $1.4 billion in annual sales. Macy's didn't specify how many jobs would be lost at the shuttered stores. The corporate jobs will be shed as Macy's closes its offices in Cincinnati and San Francisco, leaving New York as its sole corporate headquarters.
Macy's is also testing a new store format that's located at a strip center, instead of a mall. The moves announced Tuesday come ahead of Macy's annual investor meeting where CEO Jeff Gennette is expected to unveil a three-year reinvention plan. Crain's NY 2.4.20
Mill Hill School Seeks Additional $1.3 Million For Renovation
About six months after the town's controversial decision to approve the smaller and cheaper of two expansion proposals for Mill Hill Elementary School, officials are seeking a funding increase that would see the cost of the project rise above that of its pricier alternative.
The school building committee Monday asked the Board of Selectmen to consider adjusting the bonds issued for the project from the roughly $22 million originally approved to just under $23.3 million.
"This was the fear all along," Selectman Tom Flynn said, as committee Chair Tom Quinn detailed why the additional $1.27 million was needed. Quinn explained the original estimate was made before the project received input from engineers and that a recent, more detailed assessment revealed several unforeseen costs. Piping in the building is not expected to last the lifetime of the renovation, the school won't be able to meet state noise regulations without baffling to quiet the new air conditioning and the three classrooms planned for construction will be at risk of sinking into the soil without extra work, he said. Patch 2.4.20
The school building committee Monday asked the Board of Selectmen to consider adjusting the bonds issued for the project from the roughly $22 million originally approved to just under $23.3 million.
"This was the fear all along," Selectman Tom Flynn said, as committee Chair Tom Quinn detailed why the additional $1.27 million was needed. Quinn explained the original estimate was made before the project received input from engineers and that a recent, more detailed assessment revealed several unforeseen costs. Piping in the building is not expected to last the lifetime of the renovation, the school won't be able to meet state noise regulations without baffling to quiet the new air conditioning and the three classrooms planned for construction will be at risk of sinking into the soil without extra work, he said. Patch 2.4.20
Flexible Planning Key to Shelton’s Continued Success
Local zoners credit the city’s long-term, yet flexible planning as Shelton continues to enjoy a commercial and residential development renaissance — first along Bridgeport Avenue, now in the downtown. Planning starts with the city’s Plan of Conservation & Development, first created in 1992, then redone in 2006, and updated in 2017. But zoning officials say this document simply acts as a guide, and true success comes by being able to adapt to the ever-changing marketplace. “We are excited as a staff,” said interim P&Z Administrator Ken Nappi. “We have 883 projected apartments for the downtown area, Canal Street, Howe Avenue. It’s a change in the 40 years of what the downtown looked like and what it could be.” Shelton Herald 2.3.20
Coffee with State Rep. Brian Farnen Thursday 2/6 6pm
You can ignore reality and you can deny reality, but you can’t escape reality.
On January 19th, State Senator Osten (D-19th District) published an op-ed in which she states: “There is some very good news happening in Connecticut right now,” and goes on to cite two recent reports from the State Office of Fiscal Analysis and the State Comptroller, both of which she claims are “full of good news” about what she calls “Connecticut’s financial rebound.”
Specifically, Senator Osten says:
1. Private-sector job growth in CT “is doing well” while “government jobs have been decimated.”
2. State spending has been increasing at only half the national rate;
3. State savings are at a record high;
4. The number of millionaires in CT is growing; and
5. The bond-rating agencies rank CT highly.
With all due respect, Senator Osten is clearly missing the forest for a few carefully selected trees, and that is a problem for Connecticut because she is the Chair of the Assembly’s powerful Appropriations Committee. We respond below to each of her five claims. (click to read more)
Specifically, Senator Osten says:
1. Private-sector job growth in CT “is doing well” while “government jobs have been decimated.”
2. State spending has been increasing at only half the national rate;
3. State savings are at a record high;
4. The number of millionaires in CT is growing; and
5. The bond-rating agencies rank CT highly.
With all due respect, Senator Osten is clearly missing the forest for a few carefully selected trees, and that is a problem for Connecticut because she is the Chair of the Assembly’s powerful Appropriations Committee. We respond below to each of her five claims. (click to read more)
Fairfield Named Best Place To Live
The Town of Fairfield, Connecticut is located in Fairfield County, along the shoreline of the Long Island Sound, between the cities of Bridgeport and Stamford. Well before European settlers stumbled upon the “fair fields” that Native Americans called Uncoway, the area’s coastal geography and plentiful natural resources supplied several indigenous tribes with game, fish, abundant sweet water, and fertile land to cultivate. The permanent Anglo settlement of Fairfield began in 1639, when Roger Ludlow, an English lawyer, magistrate, military officer, and colonist, laid out four “squares” of land divided by five roadways. This area defined the center of the new settlement, and remains, today, as the Historic Town Green and part of Fairfield’s Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, with town government buildings, churches, and the surrounding neighborhood complete with exceptional examples of Colonial, Victorian, and Federalist architecture.
Today, Fairfield is a thriving southern New England town of approximately 61,000 residents that is consistently named by Money Magazine as one of the best places to live in the State of Connecticut. “It’s a phenomenal location with two highways, three train stations, and an hour or so drive from five different airports,” says First Selectman, Mike Tetreau. “So, you can’t find a more convenient location from that standpoint.” “Transportation access is key,” adds Mark S. Barnhart, Fairfield’s Director of Community & Economic Development. “You can access five international airports within a two-hour drive of the town. We find a lot of companies with European roots are locating in this area, including Fairfield, because it does provide convenient travel to and from Europe from the airports in the area.” Business View Magazine 12.9.19
Today, Fairfield is a thriving southern New England town of approximately 61,000 residents that is consistently named by Money Magazine as one of the best places to live in the State of Connecticut. “It’s a phenomenal location with two highways, three train stations, and an hour or so drive from five different airports,” says First Selectman, Mike Tetreau. “So, you can’t find a more convenient location from that standpoint.” “Transportation access is key,” adds Mark S. Barnhart, Fairfield’s Director of Community & Economic Development. “You can access five international airports within a two-hour drive of the town. We find a lot of companies with European roots are locating in this area, including Fairfield, because it does provide convenient travel to and from Europe from the airports in the area.” Business View Magazine 12.9.19
Why So Many of America’s Financial Elite have Left Greenwich
It is a small town with a big reputation. Greenwich, Connecticut, with a population of 60,000, has long been home to titans of finance and industry. A century ago Edmund C. Converse, the first president of Bankers Trust, Zalmon Gilbert Simmons, a mattress magnate, and two Rockefellers lived there. Among today’s residents are Ray Dalio of Bridgewater, the world’s most successful hedge fund, and Indra Nooyi, the former boss of Pepsi. It has one of America’s greatest concentrations of wealth. As measured by the income of the top 1% of residents, Connecticut is America’s richest state. The metro area (Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk) and county (Fairfield) containing Greenwich come second and fourth on the same measure.
You might think a decade in which rich Americans became richer would have been kind to Greenwich. Not so. The 2007-08 financial crisis and hedge funds’ fading fortunes depleted the state’s coffers. In response it raised taxes, triggering an exodus that has lessons for the rest of America about the risks of relying on low taxes to lure wealthy residents. And as Americans cool on small-town living, Greenwich is a reminder that even the most privileged enclave is not immune to national trends. The Economist 1.9.20
You might think a decade in which rich Americans became richer would have been kind to Greenwich. Not so. The 2007-08 financial crisis and hedge funds’ fading fortunes depleted the state’s coffers. In response it raised taxes, triggering an exodus that has lessons for the rest of America about the risks of relying on low taxes to lure wealthy residents. And as Americans cool on small-town living, Greenwich is a reminder that even the most privileged enclave is not immune to national trends. The Economist 1.9.20
$7 Million Budget Increase Proposed For Fairfield Schools
Fairfield's superintendent is proposing a budget increase of about $7 million — or 3.9 percent — for the 2020-21 school year. The majority of the additional spending would pay for staffing expenses, according to Superintendent Mike Cummings, who presented the budget Tuesday to the Board of Education. "Ultimately, all of this is about improving the learning experiences for students in the Fairfield Public Schools," Cummings said. Patch 1.9.20
|
|
Proposed Fairfield Schools Budget Includes Nearly 4% Increase
There is a $7.7 million increase in the Fairfield Public Schools 2020-21 budget, according to a presentation given to the Board of Education on Jan. 7.
The budget has grown from the previous year by 3.9 percent, or $7,769,814, to a total of $188,758,852. The two largest increases in spending came from employee benefits and salaries, making up more than half.
Superintendent Mike Cummings described the spending plan as a maintenance budget, adding “every dollar we spend needs to be traced back to supporting student growth.”
“We are at the last year of a five-year district improvement plan,” said Cummings. “This budget carries forth the work that was in the last district improvement plan ... and starts to set the stage for the next one.”
The superintendent said the goal of the district improvement plan and the budget were to “ensure that a rigorous, comprehensive instructional program is consistently delivered across all schools and grade levels.” Fairfield Citizen 1.8.20
The budget has grown from the previous year by 3.9 percent, or $7,769,814, to a total of $188,758,852. The two largest increases in spending came from employee benefits and salaries, making up more than half.
Superintendent Mike Cummings described the spending plan as a maintenance budget, adding “every dollar we spend needs to be traced back to supporting student growth.”
“We are at the last year of a five-year district improvement plan,” said Cummings. “This budget carries forth the work that was in the last district improvement plan ... and starts to set the stage for the next one.”
The superintendent said the goal of the district improvement plan and the budget were to “ensure that a rigorous, comprehensive instructional program is consistently delivered across all schools and grade levels.” Fairfield Citizen 1.8.20
Population Losses & Gains by State
|
|
Connecticut’s Lost Decade — And How To Avoid A Repeat
Think back to the first week of 2010.
The reigning champion UConn women’s basketball team was steaming toward five more rings in the next seven years. A former Stamford mayor who lost the Democratic primary for governor four years earlier was about to win the seat and hold it for most of the decade. Obamacare was adopted but not yet in place. The Sandy Hook tragedy was three years away. And the Great Recession had hammered Connecticut along with the rest of the nation.
As the decade opened, Wall Street had started back upward but Main Street still reeled at rock bottom, facing a tough slog. Exactly ten years later, the nation has recovered heartily and then some, under two presidents.
Connecticut? A lost decade by just about every economic measure.
A lost decade — and worst of all, we’re not in the clear yet. One more decade like the one that just ended and we are basically western New York, a place with some great assets that’s on the way to someplace else, looking to recapture its old glory.
The hopeful news is, we can still avoid another 10-year meltdown. We need some demographic breaks, a solid dose of attitude changes and an embrace of the elusive political middle. The Middletown Press 1.4.20
The reigning champion UConn women’s basketball team was steaming toward five more rings in the next seven years. A former Stamford mayor who lost the Democratic primary for governor four years earlier was about to win the seat and hold it for most of the decade. Obamacare was adopted but not yet in place. The Sandy Hook tragedy was three years away. And the Great Recession had hammered Connecticut along with the rest of the nation.
As the decade opened, Wall Street had started back upward but Main Street still reeled at rock bottom, facing a tough slog. Exactly ten years later, the nation has recovered heartily and then some, under two presidents.
Connecticut? A lost decade by just about every economic measure.
A lost decade — and worst of all, we’re not in the clear yet. One more decade like the one that just ended and we are basically western New York, a place with some great assets that’s on the way to someplace else, looking to recapture its old glory.
The hopeful news is, we can still avoid another 10-year meltdown. We need some demographic breaks, a solid dose of attitude changes and an embrace of the elusive political middle. The Middletown Press 1.4.20
Moody’s Praises Connecticut’s Budget Reserves But Knocks Transportation Infrastructure
FT notes this excerpt: “The hobbled economy places the state at a disadvantage when competing with other states for business and residents.”
With no job growth for 30 years, CT still has not figured out how to grow its economy, and the nice $2.8 billion Rainy Day Fund is now, by coincidence, offset by and equal to the official projected budget deficits for fiscal years ‘22, ‘23 and ‘24 — none of which assumes a national recession, which some think is overdue and likely. CT News Junkie 12.17.19
With no job growth for 30 years, CT still has not figured out how to grow its economy, and the nice $2.8 billion Rainy Day Fund is now, by coincidence, offset by and equal to the official projected budget deficits for fiscal years ‘22, ‘23 and ‘24 — none of which assumes a national recession, which some think is overdue and likely. CT News Junkie 12.17.19
Deficit Forecasts, Economic Concerns Spark New Calls for Spending Reforms
Connecticut faces major budget deficits approaching $3 billion through the next five fiscal years, generating renewed calls for state spending reforms. New reports from the legislature's nonpartisan budget office and the governor's Office of Policy and Management forecast a $29.7 million deficit for the current year, a $183.8 million surplus for fiscal 2021, and then three straight years of red ink.
"One thing's for certain—we cannot afford to tax our way out of another budget crisis," says CBIA's Eric Gjede, noting that the 2011 and 2015 tax hikes - two of the biggest in Connecticut's history - failed to stabilize the state's fiscal situation. CBIA 12.12.19
"One thing's for certain—we cannot afford to tax our way out of another budget crisis," says CBIA's Eric Gjede, noting that the 2011 and 2015 tax hikes - two of the biggest in Connecticut's history - failed to stabilize the state's fiscal situation. CBIA 12.12.19
CT's Legacy of Debt Weighed Heavy on Lamont's First Budget
FT Commentary: It seems clear to us that Governor Lamont is focused on the right objective, which is to generate stronger economic growth after, amazingly, 30 years without any net new job creation (same number of jobs, 1.7 million, today as we had in 1989) and a massive per-capita buildup of unfunded liabilities, bonded debt and deferred infrastructure maintenance and improvements. However, our government continues to be controlled by people who believe that CT is still a rich state suffering from extreme income and wealth inequality, and that the rich should simply pay higher taxes, a governing attitude that will continue to encourage resourceful people and companies to generate economic growth and jobs somewhere else. Creating a pro-growth, pro-business environment in CT will require a very different governing attitude.
CT Mirror: The new governor hoped to avert a $3.7 billion shortfall — ending a decade-long cycle of deficits in the process – deliver property tax relief to the middle class, keep income tax rates stable, preserve the rainy day fund and avoid asking unions for their fourth round of major concessions in 10 years. He also wanted an extensive tolling program on cars and trucks – despite a campaign pledge to steer clear of the former – to finance a major transportation rebuild.
“Let’s fix this damn budget once and for all,” Lamont challenged legislators back on Jan. 9, his first day on the job, saying he wanted a budget as sustainable as it is ambitious. What Lamont found was that fixing Connecticut’s budget meant grappling with the state’s enormous debt — an $85 billion problem amassed over more than seven decades. And that debt would ultimately force him to make as many compromises as would the unruly legislature.
When the smoke cleared, Lamont had closed the shortfall, kept income taxes flat, grown the reserve, spared municipalities and social services from reductions, settled a long-running legal feud with Connecticut’s hospitals, and averted a major nursing home strike. But to do it, there were painful trade-offs. CT Mirror 12.11.19
CT Mirror: The new governor hoped to avert a $3.7 billion shortfall — ending a decade-long cycle of deficits in the process – deliver property tax relief to the middle class, keep income tax rates stable, preserve the rainy day fund and avoid asking unions for their fourth round of major concessions in 10 years. He also wanted an extensive tolling program on cars and trucks – despite a campaign pledge to steer clear of the former – to finance a major transportation rebuild.
“Let’s fix this damn budget once and for all,” Lamont challenged legislators back on Jan. 9, his first day on the job, saying he wanted a budget as sustainable as it is ambitious. What Lamont found was that fixing Connecticut’s budget meant grappling with the state’s enormous debt — an $85 billion problem amassed over more than seven decades. And that debt would ultimately force him to make as many compromises as would the unruly legislature.
When the smoke cleared, Lamont had closed the shortfall, kept income taxes flat, grown the reserve, spared municipalities and social services from reductions, settled a long-running legal feud with Connecticut’s hospitals, and averted a major nursing home strike. But to do it, there were painful trade-offs. CT Mirror 12.11.19
High-Wage Jobs Continue To Leave Connecticut
Connecticut continues to bleed high-salary jobs, regaining just 16% of those lost in the recession, the Lamont administration told the General Assembly Thursday. As of September 2019, Connecticut has recovered 88.2% of jobs lost during the recession, which began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. However, employment growth since the recession “has been skewed toward lower-wage industries,” the state Office of Policy and Management said in its “Fiscal Accountability Report."
Connecticut lost 54,300 jobs in higher-wage industries, but has since gained back 8,900. High-wage industries include management of companies; finance and insurance; professional, science and technical services; and manufacturing. In comparison, Connecticut lost 39,400 jobs in lower-wage industries but regained all and added thousands more for a total of 49,300. Lower wage jobs are classified by economists as administrative and support and waste services; retail; hotel and other accommodations; and food service. Hartford Courant 12.5.19
Connecticut lost 54,300 jobs in higher-wage industries, but has since gained back 8,900. High-wage industries include management of companies; finance and insurance; professional, science and technical services; and manufacturing. In comparison, Connecticut lost 39,400 jobs in lower-wage industries but regained all and added thousands more for a total of 49,300. Lower wage jobs are classified by economists as administrative and support and waste services; retail; hotel and other accommodations; and food service. Hartford Courant 12.5.19
2020 State Business Tax Climate Index
CT (a.k.a., the “Land of Steady Habits”) has been consistent at #47 in this annual ranking for the last seven years. With such a negative tax climate, it is not surprising that there is no job growth. Total jobs today at 1.7 million are the same as they were thirty years ago in 1988. While jobs have been steady, State spending has more than tripled, which explains the negative tax climate. Tax Foundation 10.22.19
Fairfield Neighbors Going To Court Over Newport Academy Plan
Residents in Greenfield Hill are headed to court after their petition to rescind building permits for a planned residential treatment facility in the neighborhood was denied. The group is seeking to overturn the Zoning Board of Appeals decisions that upheld building permits allowing for-profit Newport Academy to open a live-in facility for young adults in two homes at 3236 Congress St. and 2495 Redding Road. "We need boots on the ground," area resident Meghan McCloat said at a recent meeting at St. Timothy's Episcopal Church, where neighbors gathered to discuss next steps and how to create awareness about the issue in the larger Fairfield community. Patch 10.23.19
Fairfield State Legislators Join Fight Against Newport Academy
Land-use regulation is the foundation upon which community prosperity is built and sustained, and a vital component of American property rights. “Group Homes” are a good and necessary thing and like any other “home” with long-term residents, they should be welcomed in our residential neighborhoods. “Medical Treatment Facilities” are also a good and necessary thing, but they are a commercial activity, not a home with long-term residents, and they should not be allowed in our residential neighborhoods. Commercial facilities of any kind should be located where they will have the least negative effect on residential property values, which are the primary component of any town’s tax base (87% in the case of Fairfield). Fairfield Citizen 10.21.19
How Low Will US Births Go?!?
|
Births in America continue to tumble despite a growing child bearing population. The growth among the child bearing population is decelerating and this population will begin outright declines around 2029. US births are likely to continue falling, faster and far deeper, while current Census estimates continue to anticipate growth (continually just around the corner).
This chart is the 20 to 40 year old US population (blue line) and the columns are the annual change in that population (maroon columns). The 1960 to 1990 population surge in the wake of the baby boom is easy to see as is the echo-boom from early 2005 through the 2020's. Econimica 10.9.19
|
|
Fairfield Rotary Club Hosts First Selectman Candidate Forum
Hear from Fairfield's Candidates for First Selectman - Mike Tetreau and Brenda Kupchick - as they participate in a moderated forum. Questions submitted by town residents will be answered by each candidate, and each Candidate will have time for closing statements.
If you have questions you would like to submit for consideration, please email them to fairfieldrotaryforum@gmail.com no later than Noon Sunday, October 27th. All questions will be reviewed by a neutral questions committee. Please be aware that due to time constraints, not all questions received can be asked but all submitted questions will be shared with the candidates after the forum.
https://bit.ly/2qmB0dg
Additional Details:
If you have questions you would like to submit for consideration, please email them to fairfieldrotaryforum@gmail.com no later than Noon Sunday, October 27th. All questions will be reviewed by a neutral questions committee. Please be aware that due to time constraints, not all questions received can be asked but all submitted questions will be shared with the candidates after the forum.
https://bit.ly/2qmB0dg
Additional Details:
- REGISTRATION REQUIRED by October 23rd
- Check-In and Buffet Lunch - 11:30 am
- Forum Begins - Noon
- Closing Comments - 12:45 pm
- $20 Attendee fee required to be paid at the door. (Fee covers lunch and venue rental.)
Home Prices in CT Towns Struggling to Recover from 2008 Recession
Connecticut home prices, which tumbled a dozen years ago into the most prolonged recession in generations, still lack a broad-based recovery in towns and cities, and while overall prices saw some gain in 2018, they were still below the 2007 peak.
An analysis by The Courant of single-family house sale price data from 2007 to 2018 shows the painfully slow pace of recovery in Connecticut. Overall sale prices in all of the state’s eight counties remain below the 2007 peak, with Hartford County making the most progress and Fairfield County in the deepest hole.
The home market is even worse than this article makes it sound because the analysis is based in “median sales price” data, which in a falling market can create the illusion of gains when higher-priced homes finally sell at steep discounts to their expected and appraised values. Make no mistake, CT is serious trouble. “The 2018 median price — in which half the sales are above, half below — is still 13 percent below the most recent peak of $295,000 in 2007.” Hartford Courant 10.10.19
An analysis by The Courant of single-family house sale price data from 2007 to 2018 shows the painfully slow pace of recovery in Connecticut. Overall sale prices in all of the state’s eight counties remain below the 2007 peak, with Hartford County making the most progress and Fairfield County in the deepest hole.
The home market is even worse than this article makes it sound because the analysis is based in “median sales price” data, which in a falling market can create the illusion of gains when higher-priced homes finally sell at steep discounts to their expected and appraised values. Make no mistake, CT is serious trouble. “The 2018 median price — in which half the sales are above, half below — is still 13 percent below the most recent peak of $295,000 in 2007.” Hartford Courant 10.10.19
In Lamont’s Plan, it’s Tweed vs. Sikorsky for Expansion
Connecticut has messed around for years with the idea that the state needs a serious commercial airport on Long Island Sound. Tweed New Haven and Sikorsky Memorial both have powerful backers and detractors. We’ve seen no breakthrough progress, though Tweed is much further along. Now the logjam might end with a state-run competition that will be part of Gov. Ned Lamont’s 10-year, $18 billion transportation plan, set to roll out sometime in the next two weeks.
Yes, travel fans, watchers of economic development, there will be a winner. And a loser. One and only one of these two historic locations, 20 miles apart as the jet flies, will secure the state’s blessing to back up Bradley International as Connecticut’s No. 2 airport. Middletown Press 10.7.19
Yes, travel fans, watchers of economic development, there will be a winner. And a loser. One and only one of these two historic locations, 20 miles apart as the jet flies, will secure the state’s blessing to back up Bradley International as Connecticut’s No. 2 airport. Middletown Press 10.7.19
Yale Overwhelms New Haven with Enormous Endowment
Without Yale University, there might not be much left to New Haven beyond the daily shootings, drug overdoses, indignant demands for nullification of federal immigration law, and good pizza. Even so, Yale may be getting too big not just for New Haven but for Connecticut as well. Indeed, the university seems to be slowly taking over the city, which might be an improvement if it wasn't so undemocratic.
The New Haven Register reported the other day that the university this year converted six buildings from commercial to educational or medical use, thereby rendering them exempt from city property taxes and costing the city $3 million a year. Five months ago the university said it will build a neuroscience research center on the part of the Yale New Haven Hospital campus formerly owned by St. Raphael's Hospital, thereby keeping that prime property off the city tax rolls as well.
Meanwhile Yale's endowment has just broken $30 billion even as the finances of city government and state government remain a mess. Journal Inquirer 10.5.19
The New Haven Register reported the other day that the university this year converted six buildings from commercial to educational or medical use, thereby rendering them exempt from city property taxes and costing the city $3 million a year. Five months ago the university said it will build a neuroscience research center on the part of the Yale New Haven Hospital campus formerly owned by St. Raphael's Hospital, thereby keeping that prime property off the city tax rolls as well.
Meanwhile Yale's endowment has just broken $30 billion even as the finances of city government and state government remain a mess. Journal Inquirer 10.5.19
Connecticut Deemed "Sinkhole State" and Receives "F" Grade
In its Financial State of the States report, Truth In Accounting ranks each state based on its Taxpayer Burden or Taxpayer Surplus. Connecticut ranked #48, is deemed a "Sinkhole State" and received an "F" grade. TIA Sept. 2019
Steep Drop in Violent Crime in Connecticut, FBI Says
The rate of violent crime in Connecticut took a steep drop in 2018, according to a report issued Monday by the FBI.
Overall, violent crime dropped 9.5 percent in the state from 2017 to 2018, more than almost all other states in the region. CT Post 9.30.19
Overall, violent crime dropped 9.5 percent in the state from 2017 to 2018, more than almost all other states in the region. CT Post 9.30.19
Connecticut’s Lost Decade and Your Missing Home Value
Connecticut homeowners should be very unhappy. Years of bad government policy have left us poorer. Literally. Property values in the state are 4% lower than they were in 2009 at the end of the Great Recession.
Since 2009, the national average home price (green line below) gained a whopping 28.4%, while CT prices (red) have dropped 4.1%, a 32.5% difference. Greenwich Free Press 9.15.19
Since 2009, the national average home price (green line below) gained a whopping 28.4%, while CT prices (red) have dropped 4.1%, a 32.5% difference. Greenwich Free Press 9.15.19
Fairfield University & Sacred Heart Buck Trend of Falling College Enrollment
Construction cranes and hard hats dot the landscapes at both Fairfield University and Sacred Heart University this summer. There are new buildings, new residential beds and new types of amenities today’s college-shopping families crave: climbing walls, analytical research labs, skybox-type views and town house-style living. Both private Catholic universities nestled on opposite ends of this suburban community are making room for what they expect will be their biggest freshmen classes ever. CT Post 7.26.19
Pints & Politics July 31st
Solution: Alternative Revenue Sources Could Bolster City Budget, Lower Tax Rate
This article describes some of the likely ways in which CT will increase our taxes in the future by allowing municipalities (in addition to the State) to tax meals, lodging (including AirBNB), and marijuana. Two other possibilities mentioned are: (a) an “employment location” tax, which “would return a share of the income-tax revenue the state collects to municipalities where workers earned those wages . . . [which] would benefit a city like Hartford, which hosts roughly 100,000 Connecticut residents who work in the city but live in the suburbs”; and (b) “a regional tax to pay for quality-of-life and infrastructure improvements.” The article states that “The fear is that future city governments would simply use the extra revenue [from such new ‘local-option taxes’] to increase spending.”
However, the far, far greater fear is that CT will continue to presume that its current citizens are willing to continue to pay more and more taxes. In reality, more and more of CT’s citizens are leaving because State and local taxes are already too high, particularly given the new $10,000 cap on the deductibility of those taxes for federal income-tax purposes. CT’s total population is declining and, shockingly, it has the same number of jobs today (1.7 million) that it had 30 years ago, a period during which NYC added over 1 million jobs and Massachusetts added over 700,000, AND a period during which, despite the lack of job growth, CT’s spending has more than tripled. Raising taxes on a declining tax base (whether measured in incomes, property or transactions) never ends well. Instead, the failing State of CT should be focused on cutting its spending and taxes, and on generating economic growth that will grow its tax base. CT Mirror 7.16.19
However, the far, far greater fear is that CT will continue to presume that its current citizens are willing to continue to pay more and more taxes. In reality, more and more of CT’s citizens are leaving because State and local taxes are already too high, particularly given the new $10,000 cap on the deductibility of those taxes for federal income-tax purposes. CT’s total population is declining and, shockingly, it has the same number of jobs today (1.7 million) that it had 30 years ago, a period during which NYC added over 1 million jobs and Massachusetts added over 700,000, AND a period during which, despite the lack of job growth, CT’s spending has more than tripled. Raising taxes on a declining tax base (whether measured in incomes, property or transactions) never ends well. Instead, the failing State of CT should be focused on cutting its spending and taxes, and on generating economic growth that will grow its tax base. CT Mirror 7.16.19
The BOE Insists that we Must Expand Mill Hill School to what They Call a "504" - They Must be Wrong for Four Reasons
- THE BOE SEEMS TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY OVERSTATING FUTURE ENROLLMENT
- THE BOE SEEMS TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERSTATING CURRENT K-5 SCHOOL CAPACITY.
- THERE IS NO COMPELLING NEED FOR THE BOE TO CLOSE THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER (“ECC”) AT WARDE AND MOVE ITS 137 KIDS INTO OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
- THE ADDITIONAL $1 MILLION THE BOE WANTS TO SPEND ON MILL HILL COULD COST US $6-$7 MILLION IF WE LOSE OUR STATE REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE OF IT.
Greenfield Hill Neighbors to Meet with Town Officials June 10th
First Selectman Michael C. Tetreau will be among nearly a dozen Town of Fairfield officials who will be attending a Greenfield Hill neighborhood meeting on Monday, June 10, 2019 at 6 PM. The meeting will be held at St. Timothy's Episcopal Church at 4670 Congress Street and is free and open to the public. District One Representative Town Meeting (RTM) Members Nancy Lefkowitz, Amy O'Shea, Steve Chessare and David Vogel are expected to attend along with officials from the Police Department, Zoning Office and Town Attorney's Office. The meeting will discuss the recent sale of 3236 Congress Street near Senate Lane.
This is an opportunity for neighbors to ask questions, voice concerns and learn more about the zoning laws for Fairfield. Patch 5.29.19
This is an opportunity for neighbors to ask questions, voice concerns and learn more about the zoning laws for Fairfield. Patch 5.29.19
Fairfield’s Strategic Plan Committee Outreach Report
Fairfield’s Strategic Plan Committee (SPC), which held its first meeting on June 1, 2017, recently posted on its website two reports entitled “Outreach Detailed Report”and “Outreach Summary,” that, “based on the community-wide input” it has gathered, “define the primary topics and significant areas in which to focus further analysis and discussion.” According to the SPC, “the community identified issues and aspirations” . . . “can generally be categorized into the following five key topic areas”: Governance; Financial Stability; Economic Development; Education; and Community Character and Resiliency.
Presumably, the “further analysis and discussion” to which the SPC refers means that the Committee’s next step will be to analyze what is happening in the Town, State, Nation and World, and how what it sees happening is likely to affect Fairfield in order to answer such basic strategic planning questions as:
· How should we assess Fairfield’s current condition and evaluate its future prospects?
· Is the future outlook for Fairfield good, bad or indifferent?
· What are most important determinants of the Town’s future success?
· Can Fairfield continue to prosper with only some minor adjustments to how it has operated in the past, or do we need to consider major changes?
· What major strategic options, if any, should Fairfield be considering?
Once this critical analytical stage is completed, the SPC can address such equally critical questions as:
· What core values, beliefs and priorities should guide our strategy?
· What measures of success (a.k.a., key performance indicators) should we adopt?
· What major strategic goals we should adopt?
· What are the best ways to achieve those goals?
This final stage of making real choices, some of which may well be “tough choices” (e.g., choosing between town character and financial sustainability) will require even more intense community engagement with all interested stakeholders.
We invite anyone who is interested to revisit the “Strategic Plan for Fairfield” that Fairfield Taxpayer created in 2015.
Presumably, the “further analysis and discussion” to which the SPC refers means that the Committee’s next step will be to analyze what is happening in the Town, State, Nation and World, and how what it sees happening is likely to affect Fairfield in order to answer such basic strategic planning questions as:
· How should we assess Fairfield’s current condition and evaluate its future prospects?
· Is the future outlook for Fairfield good, bad or indifferent?
· What are most important determinants of the Town’s future success?
· Can Fairfield continue to prosper with only some minor adjustments to how it has operated in the past, or do we need to consider major changes?
· What major strategic options, if any, should Fairfield be considering?
Once this critical analytical stage is completed, the SPC can address such equally critical questions as:
· What core values, beliefs and priorities should guide our strategy?
· What measures of success (a.k.a., key performance indicators) should we adopt?
· What major strategic goals we should adopt?
· What are the best ways to achieve those goals?
This final stage of making real choices, some of which may well be “tough choices” (e.g., choosing between town character and financial sustainability) will require even more intense community engagement with all interested stakeholders.
We invite anyone who is interested to revisit the “Strategic Plan for Fairfield” that Fairfield Taxpayer created in 2015.
|
| ||||
Connecticut is Migration's Biggest Loser as Florida Profits
Roughly 5 million Americans move from one state to another annually and some states are clearly making out better than others. Florida and South Carolina enjoyed the top economic gains, while Connecticut, New York and New Jersey faced some of the biggest financial drains, according to a Bloomberg analysis of state-to-state moves based on data from the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Census Bureau. Connecticut lost the equivalent of 1.6% of its annual adjusted gross income, as the people who moved out of the Constitution State had an average income of $122,000, which was 26% higher than those migrating in. Moreover, “leavers” outnumbered “stayers” by a five-to-four margin. Bloomberg 5.24.19
RTM Approves Budget with 1.71% Tax Hike
The Representative Town Meeting, in an evening that included various caucuses and votes along party lines, approved the town’s 2019-20 budget with cuts to the Department of Public Works and schools.
After Monday night, the Fiscal Year 2020 budget comes in at $316,416,739 or a 3.68 percent increase in expenses from the current year. According to Chief Finance Officer Bob Mayer, the mill rate would amount to 26.81 mills, representing a 1.71% tax hike. The Board of Finance can still adjust the mill rate at their April 9 meeting, when it’s scheduled to set the final rate. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 5.8.19
After Monday night, the Fiscal Year 2020 budget comes in at $316,416,739 or a 3.68 percent increase in expenses from the current year. According to Chief Finance Officer Bob Mayer, the mill rate would amount to 26.81 mills, representing a 1.71% tax hike. The Board of Finance can still adjust the mill rate at their April 9 meeting, when it’s scheduled to set the final rate. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 5.8.19
BOE To Hold Town Hall Meeting April 30th
The Fairfield Board of Education will host a Town Hall meeting for all residents to share and exchange views with board members on Tuesday, April 30. The meeting will take place at 7:30 p.m. in the second floor Board of Ed. conference room at 501 Kings Highway East.
The meeting will be run by Selectman Ed Bateson and will allow residents to question the board on topics of interest regarding programs, facilities, finances and related policies of Fairfield Public Schools, officials said. FairTV will be taping the meeting. Patch 4/23/19
The meeting will be run by Selectman Ed Bateson and will allow residents to question the board on topics of interest regarding programs, facilities, finances and related policies of Fairfield Public Schools, officials said. FairTV will be taping the meeting. Patch 4/23/19
BOE Seeks Your Input on Hiring New School Superintendent
As has been previously announced, Fairfield Superintendent of Schools Dr. Toni Jones will be leaving Fairfield on June 30, 2019. The Fairfield Board of Education (BoE) has employed the search firm of Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates (HYA) to assist them in finding a new superintendent for the school district.
HYA will hold Public Focus Group Meetings on the following dates:
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm
Place: Central Office Board Room, 501 Kings Highway East
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm
Place: RLMS Auditorium, 689 Unquowa Road
Date: Thursday, April 11, 6:30 pm – 7:30 pm
Place: Central Office Board Room, 501 Kings Highway East
In addition to the in-person meetings, HYA is also using the Superintendent Profile Survey to gather information regarding the characteristics, skills, and abilities that stakeholders view as important in the new superintendent. The BoE is very interested in public input as they seek to hire a new superintendent. The survey – which will be available from April 1-15 -- is designed to gather perceptions on the importance of various characteristics commonly found in effective superintendents. The information will be used by HYA and the BoE to determine the “Desired Characteristics” of the next Superintendent for Fairfield Public Schools.
The link to the survey follows: https://survey2.ecragroup.com/index.php/874327?lang=en
HYA will hold Public Focus Group Meetings on the following dates:
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm
Place: Central Office Board Room, 501 Kings Highway East
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm
Place: RLMS Auditorium, 689 Unquowa Road
Date: Thursday, April 11, 6:30 pm – 7:30 pm
Place: Central Office Board Room, 501 Kings Highway East
In addition to the in-person meetings, HYA is also using the Superintendent Profile Survey to gather information regarding the characteristics, skills, and abilities that stakeholders view as important in the new superintendent. The BoE is very interested in public input as they seek to hire a new superintendent. The survey – which will be available from April 1-15 -- is designed to gather perceptions on the importance of various characteristics commonly found in effective superintendents. The information will be used by HYA and the BoE to determine the “Desired Characteristics” of the next Superintendent for Fairfield Public Schools.
The link to the survey follows: https://survey2.ecragroup.com/index.php/874327?lang=en
Students, Seniors Top Concerns at BOF Public Hearing
The Board of Finance held a public comment session last Saturday, giving residents an opportunity to comment on the recently proposed fiscal year 2019-2020 annual town budget, with student and senior citizens among their top concerns. “Feedback from our residents is a very important part of the budget process,” said First Selectman Michael Tetreau. “The Saturday morning forum by the Board of Finance has become one of our community traditions during budget season.”
New this year, the Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance held two separate budget hearings. The Town of Fairfield’s budget process begins in January and ends in May. Held in the Fairfield Ludlowe High School auditorium, dozens of concerned residents lined up to the microphone to have their voices heard; each was allowed a max of two minutes. Several senior citizen advocates spoke of concerns related to the elder population, as did residents with school-children with education concerns, including a fourth grade student speaking about education cuts. “I’m speaking as a representative of Fairfield senior advocates, there are at least 9,000 of us,” said Beverly Silverman. “We live here, we pay taxes and we feel we are being ignored. I ask that we will be in your consideration for next year’s budget.” Read More: Fairfield Citizen 3.31.19
New this year, the Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance held two separate budget hearings. The Town of Fairfield’s budget process begins in January and ends in May. Held in the Fairfield Ludlowe High School auditorium, dozens of concerned residents lined up to the microphone to have their voices heard; each was allowed a max of two minutes. Several senior citizen advocates spoke of concerns related to the elder population, as did residents with school-children with education concerns, including a fourth grade student speaking about education cuts. “I’m speaking as a representative of Fairfield senior advocates, there are at least 9,000 of us,” said Beverly Silverman. “We live here, we pay taxes and we feel we are being ignored. I ask that we will be in your consideration for next year’s budget.” Read More: Fairfield Citizen 3.31.19
Proposed Tax Increase 2.2% -- Real Tax Increase Much Higher
A SEEMINGLY MODERATE 2.2% PROPOSED TAX INCREASE HIDES ANOTHER UNSUSTAINABLE INCREASE IN BOE SPENDING AND PRETENDS THAT OUR TAX BASE IS RISING, NOT FALLING
WE URGE ALL TAXPAYERS TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON SATURDAY MORNING 3/30/19 AT THE BOARD OF FINANCE PUBLIC BUDGET MEETING – 9:30 AM
AT LUDLOWE HS
WE URGE ALL TAXPAYERS TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON SATURDAY MORNING 3/30/19 AT THE BOARD OF FINANCE PUBLIC BUDGET MEETING – 9:30 AM
AT LUDLOWE HS
|
The proposed budget for FY20 includes increases of:
|
|
Unfortunately, that seemingly moderate 2.2% increase in the mill rate hides continued unsustainable growth in spending, and it significantly understates the increase in our real tax rate by ignoring the continued decline in our tax base. In the 2010 and 2015 revaluations, Fairfield’s Grand List declined 10% and 3%, respectively, and home values remain under pressure. For example, New Canaan’s recently completed 2018 revaluation resulted in a ~7% decline in its Grand List, which over the five-year period works out to ~1.4%/year. If Fairfield’s 2020 revaluation produced a similar result, the real tax rate increase proposed for FY2020 would not be 2.2% – it would be 4.5% (2.2% + the nonexistent 0.9% assumed increase in our Grand List + the New Canaan 1.4% average annual decline). The decline in Fairfield’s tax base will probably not be as great (because Fairfield has proportionately fewer higher-end homes, where the weakness is greatest and where the new restriction on the deductibility of state and local taxes will hurt the most), but at least some of the assumed ~1% annual increases in the Grand List that are currently understating our Mill Rate are likely to be reversed.
The continued decline in our tax base because of declining home values and the lack of significant commercial development (e.g., at Metro Center) is a very serious problem about which every taxpayer in Fairfield should be extremely concerned. Indeed, for any political entity – town, city, county, state, nation – there is no more serious problem than a declining tax base. The vicious cycle of raising tax rates on a declining tax base never ends well.
Meanwhile, we should also be extremely concerned that the State of Connecticut continues to struggle, as is perhaps most apparent in the fact that the State has not created any net new jobs in over 30 years – nonfarm jobs of 1.7 million today are the same as they were in 1988 – a period during which our neighbors, New York City and Massachusetts, created ~25% more, rising to ~4.5 million and ~3.7 million, respectively. Instead of cutting its unsustainable spending, the State is planning to raise taxes again to close the projected $1.5-$2.0 billion budget deficits in its ~$20 billion annual budgets for the next two years. Other strong possibilities for bad news from the State include further cuts in municipal aid, and the transfer of some portion of teacher pension costs to “wealthy” towns like Fairfield.
The continued decline in our tax base because of declining home values and the lack of significant commercial development (e.g., at Metro Center) is a very serious problem about which every taxpayer in Fairfield should be extremely concerned. Indeed, for any political entity – town, city, county, state, nation – there is no more serious problem than a declining tax base. The vicious cycle of raising tax rates on a declining tax base never ends well.
Meanwhile, we should also be extremely concerned that the State of Connecticut continues to struggle, as is perhaps most apparent in the fact that the State has not created any net new jobs in over 30 years – nonfarm jobs of 1.7 million today are the same as they were in 1988 – a period during which our neighbors, New York City and Massachusetts, created ~25% more, rising to ~4.5 million and ~3.7 million, respectively. Instead of cutting its unsustainable spending, the State is planning to raise taxes again to close the projected $1.5-$2.0 billion budget deficits in its ~$20 billion annual budgets for the next two years. Other strong possibilities for bad news from the State include further cuts in municipal aid, and the transfer of some portion of teacher pension costs to “wealthy” towns like Fairfield.
|
Within this context, it is extremely difficult to understand how the BOE, which accounts for 65% of our total spending (including $24 million in debt service and other education costs that are in the Town budget), can be so detached from the reality of the serious challenges Fairfield is facing that, even as school enrollment continues to decline from its 2012-13 peak, they can request a 5.0% ($8.7 million) increase in spending. |
|
The standard response from the BOE has been that they are merely informing the Town what the educational programs they recommend for our children will cost, and that it up to the BOS, BOF and the RTM to determine what the Town can afford. The reality is that once they have approved a budget, the BOE launches a strong and usually successful lobbying effort to get their budget approved, whether the Town can afford it or not.
Parents with children in our schools, who represent ~30% of total households, along with teachers and administrators, are always out in force at public budget meetings to advocate passionately for higher education spending, sometimes accompanied by their adorable children and usually repeating slogans like, “we moved here for the schools,” “the children are our future,” and “great schools support property values.” For example, the Fairfield Citizen described the scene at one public budget meeting as follows: “The pro-education budget rally, organized by the PTA Council, drew about 60 people, many wearing tee shirts urging ‘no cuts’ and carrying placards urging support for the full school budget.” Since there is no organization with comparable organizational and communications resources to the PTAs and Teachers Unions urging the other 70% of Fairfield households to speak out and vote, it is easy for this special interest group to become the majority in municipal elections for which, on average, only 30%-50% of registered voters turn out to vote.
However, as we have noted often, even parents who are benefitting most from our public education system must eventually acknowledge the new economic reality and the need to restrain the growth in our spending and taxes, because otherwise it is only a matter of time before everything we love about Fairfield will be at risk, including our schools. It is simply not possible to restrain Fairfield’s overall spending without restraining the cost of our schools, which as noted above represents 65% of the total.
There are two things you can do:
1. Attend and speak out at the annual Board of Finance Public Comment Meeting on Saturday, March 30th at 9:30AM in the Ludlowe HS Auditorium.
2. Send an e-mail to All Elected Officials: Please express your opinions to all Selectmen and all Board of Finance and RTM members, using our "1-Click" E-mail button below.
Parents with children in our schools, who represent ~30% of total households, along with teachers and administrators, are always out in force at public budget meetings to advocate passionately for higher education spending, sometimes accompanied by their adorable children and usually repeating slogans like, “we moved here for the schools,” “the children are our future,” and “great schools support property values.” For example, the Fairfield Citizen described the scene at one public budget meeting as follows: “The pro-education budget rally, organized by the PTA Council, drew about 60 people, many wearing tee shirts urging ‘no cuts’ and carrying placards urging support for the full school budget.” Since there is no organization with comparable organizational and communications resources to the PTAs and Teachers Unions urging the other 70% of Fairfield households to speak out and vote, it is easy for this special interest group to become the majority in municipal elections for which, on average, only 30%-50% of registered voters turn out to vote.
However, as we have noted often, even parents who are benefitting most from our public education system must eventually acknowledge the new economic reality and the need to restrain the growth in our spending and taxes, because otherwise it is only a matter of time before everything we love about Fairfield will be at risk, including our schools. It is simply not possible to restrain Fairfield’s overall spending without restraining the cost of our schools, which as noted above represents 65% of the total.
There are two things you can do:
1. Attend and speak out at the annual Board of Finance Public Comment Meeting on Saturday, March 30th at 9:30AM in the Ludlowe HS Auditorium.
2. Send an e-mail to All Elected Officials: Please express your opinions to all Selectmen and all Board of Finance and RTM members, using our "1-Click" E-mail button below.
|
|
First Selectman’s Budget Comes with 2.24% Tax Hike, $700k Cut to Schools Request
The Board of Education’s proposed budget for the 2019-20 year came in at a 5 percent increase over the current year, for a total of $182.3 million. But it’s $700,000 too high, First Selectman Mike Tetreau outlined in his budget proposal, unveiled Feb. 26. “(The first selectman’s) budget recommendation includes a schools budget of $181.7 million. This represents a 4.6 percent increase over last year,” Tetreau wrote. “The 4.6 percent increase is the largest increase in over a decade and is double the average increase over the past 10 years.” Read More: Fairfield Citizen 2.28.19
Fairfield - Informational Tolls Forum Feb. 21st
What: Informational Forum on Tolls
When: Thursday, Feb. 21 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m
Where: Fairfield Board of Education Administration Building
Info: business.facebook.com/events/380579469441102
When: Thursday, Feb. 21 from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m
Where: Fairfield Board of Education Administration Building
Info: business.facebook.com/events/380579469441102
Governor Ned Lamont Proposes Electronic Tolling in CT
Gov. Ned Lamont on Saturday shared his plan to propose electronic tolling on Connecticut’s major roadways in order to finance upgrades to the state’s transportation infrastructure. In his announcement of the “path forward on tolling,” Lamont called the “crushing congestion” of I-95, I-84 and the Merritt Parkway, in particular, a “real challenge we must address and overcome if we are to maximize our economic development potential.”
Read More: Hartford Courant 2.16.19
Read More: Hartford Courant 2.16.19
League of Women Voters of Fairfield 2019 Legislative Forum
Fairfield BOE Approves Superintendent's $182M Budget
The Board of Education approved the superintendent’s $182.3 million budget for the upcoming fiscal year on Jan. 24 without any major changes. According to Superintendent Toni Jones’ presentation, the budget for fiscal year 2020 is about “focusing on what matters” and the majority of the budget increase is allotted to contract increases, utilities and maintenance projects. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 1.31.19
Fairfield State of the Town Message
Help The Seniors Who Need It Most
Fairfield Taxpayer (FT) continues to believe that the changes to Fairfield’s Senior & Disabled Tax Relief (SDTR) Program proposed by the RTM’s SDTR Committee (the “Committee”) are not in the Town’s best interests because:
• The additional $0.8 million in spending (a 23% increase) will go largely to relatively wealthy seniors (some of them millionaires) who either don’t need tax credits or who will not stay in their homes any longer simply because they get a small tax credit; and
• The likely much greater increase in the number of participants than the 23% increase in funding means that credits to current participants would have to be cut unless provisions are made to protect them, which would mean a two-tier system in which new participants would get much lower credits and current participants would get no increases.
In short, the changes proposed by the Committee would give credits to some seniors who don’t need them, would deny adequate credits to some seniors who do need them, would deny needed increases to some current participants, would be very complicated to understand and administer, would create recurring “proration” problems every year, and may not even be legal if a two-tier system were deemed to be discriminatory. As a result, rather than keeping more seniors in their homes longer than they would otherwise have stayed, it is quite possible that more seniors will sell their homes than would have if we made no changes.
The purpose of this paper, our fourth on the subject, is to present an “Alternative B” proposal, which (like our earlier Alternative A), is expressly not presumed to be optimal, but is instead offered to illustrate how we believe the Committee and others should think about our options, and to provide a framework for informed public debate.
Read: Third, Please, Help The Seniors Who Need It Most
• The additional $0.8 million in spending (a 23% increase) will go largely to relatively wealthy seniors (some of them millionaires) who either don’t need tax credits or who will not stay in their homes any longer simply because they get a small tax credit; and
• The likely much greater increase in the number of participants than the 23% increase in funding means that credits to current participants would have to be cut unless provisions are made to protect them, which would mean a two-tier system in which new participants would get much lower credits and current participants would get no increases.
In short, the changes proposed by the Committee would give credits to some seniors who don’t need them, would deny adequate credits to some seniors who do need them, would deny needed increases to some current participants, would be very complicated to understand and administer, would create recurring “proration” problems every year, and may not even be legal if a two-tier system were deemed to be discriminatory. As a result, rather than keeping more seniors in their homes longer than they would otherwise have stayed, it is quite possible that more seniors will sell their homes than would have if we made no changes.
The purpose of this paper, our fourth on the subject, is to present an “Alternative B” proposal, which (like our earlier Alternative A), is expressly not presumed to be optimal, but is instead offered to illustrate how we believe the Committee and others should think about our options, and to provide a framework for informed public debate.
Read: Third, Please, Help The Seniors Who Need It Most
Ten Reasons To Reconsider The Proposed Changes To The SDTR Ordinance
1. Does it work? We don't know how well the SDTR Program works, and we don't know whether the proposed changes will make it work better. The number of participants is not a valid measure of effectiveness, so increasing the number of participants is not per se a valid public policy objective.
2. How do we know? No provision has been made to establish rational metrics to measure the performance of the SDTR Program or to obtain the data we would need to do so. The claim that obtaining the data we need would take five years is not valid because we could obtain some useful data within a year.
3. Better Options? If the program's stated purpose ("to assist elderly homeowners with a portion of the costs of property taxation") means our objective is to keep seniors in their homes longer than they would otherwise stay, there may be more cost-effective ways to do that than increasing SDTR spending.
4. Rich versus poor? The benefits of the proposed increases in "percentages of taxes due" and "dollar caps" for various income brackets are skewed toward the rich at the expense of the poor. Given the Program's objective, any incremental spending should go to the lower-income seniors who need it most.
5. Credits for millionaires? Raising the income limit to $90,000 and eliminating the $650,000 QTAV limit means we would be providing credits to seniors with considerable financial means instead of those in greater need. Rather than give insignificant credits to higher-income seniors (including some millionaires), any increase in spending should go instead primarily to lower-income seniors who really need help, some of whom must now spend half of their income to pay the taxes on a median-value home.
6. Can we afford it? Replacing the QTAV with an Assessment Limit and raising the income limit means that the number of participants could more than double, which means Program costs could more than double without the proposed reduction in the cap on overall program costs (from 2.5% to 1.6% of taxes levied on real property), but even with this lower cap, total SDTR credits are likely to rise 23% or $0.8 million next year (from $3.4 million to $4.2 million) at a time when such a big increase may not be affordable, but once enacted, the increase cannot be avoided.
7. No proration rules? The likely greater increase in the number of participants than the 23% increase in funding means that credits to current participants would have to be cut unless provisions are made to protect them, which would mean that new participants would get much lower credits. No such "proration language" has yet been proposed, and thus this very material provision has never been reviewed by the SDTR Committee, by the RTM's L&A Committee, by the RTM, by any other Town board, or by the public.
8. Discriminatory? Protecting current participants from cuts by creating a two-tier system that gives new participants much lower credits would not be fair, would probably deny adequate credits to some seniors, would deny needed increases to some current participants, would be very complicated to understand and administer, would create recurring problems every new year, and may not be legal.
9. No easy way back? Once the proposed changes are adopted, it will be very difficult to go back and make changes that would deny or cut credits to some participants.
10. Not legal? Under state law (§12-129n), the RTM cannot adopt or amend a municipal property tax relief program that has not been recommended by the Board of Finance.
2. How do we know? No provision has been made to establish rational metrics to measure the performance of the SDTR Program or to obtain the data we would need to do so. The claim that obtaining the data we need would take five years is not valid because we could obtain some useful data within a year.
3. Better Options? If the program's stated purpose ("to assist elderly homeowners with a portion of the costs of property taxation") means our objective is to keep seniors in their homes longer than they would otherwise stay, there may be more cost-effective ways to do that than increasing SDTR spending.
4. Rich versus poor? The benefits of the proposed increases in "percentages of taxes due" and "dollar caps" for various income brackets are skewed toward the rich at the expense of the poor. Given the Program's objective, any incremental spending should go to the lower-income seniors who need it most.
5. Credits for millionaires? Raising the income limit to $90,000 and eliminating the $650,000 QTAV limit means we would be providing credits to seniors with considerable financial means instead of those in greater need. Rather than give insignificant credits to higher-income seniors (including some millionaires), any increase in spending should go instead primarily to lower-income seniors who really need help, some of whom must now spend half of their income to pay the taxes on a median-value home.
6. Can we afford it? Replacing the QTAV with an Assessment Limit and raising the income limit means that the number of participants could more than double, which means Program costs could more than double without the proposed reduction in the cap on overall program costs (from 2.5% to 1.6% of taxes levied on real property), but even with this lower cap, total SDTR credits are likely to rise 23% or $0.8 million next year (from $3.4 million to $4.2 million) at a time when such a big increase may not be affordable, but once enacted, the increase cannot be avoided.
7. No proration rules? The likely greater increase in the number of participants than the 23% increase in funding means that credits to current participants would have to be cut unless provisions are made to protect them, which would mean that new participants would get much lower credits. No such "proration language" has yet been proposed, and thus this very material provision has never been reviewed by the SDTR Committee, by the RTM's L&A Committee, by the RTM, by any other Town board, or by the public.
8. Discriminatory? Protecting current participants from cuts by creating a two-tier system that gives new participants much lower credits would not be fair, would probably deny adequate credits to some seniors, would deny needed increases to some current participants, would be very complicated to understand and administer, would create recurring problems every new year, and may not be legal.
9. No easy way back? Once the proposed changes are adopted, it will be very difficult to go back and make changes that would deny or cut credits to some participants.
10. Not legal? Under state law (§12-129n), the RTM cannot adopt or amend a municipal property tax relief program that has not been recommended by the Board of Finance.
People Are Fleeing From CT - Here's Why
Can we really say we're surprised by this latest report. A new study published this week names Connecticut as the third highest state residents are fleeing. Undoubtedly there is a lot to love about our home state, but the negatives are well-chronicled, beginning with the fact that taxes are through the roof, and then there is the state's crippling debt and the never-ending talk of tolls being resurrected.
People do come and go for a variety of reasons: Job change. Retirement. A close family member falls ill. In Connecticut, residents most often come for jobs and ironically leave for jobs. That’s according to the 42nd annual “National Movers Study,” conducted by United Van Lines and published this week. The study tracked its customers’ state-to-state migration patterns in 2018.
Here’s what they found for Connecticut:
People do come and go for a variety of reasons: Job change. Retirement. A close family member falls ill. In Connecticut, residents most often come for jobs and ironically leave for jobs. That’s according to the 42nd annual “National Movers Study,” conducted by United Van Lines and published this week. The study tracked its customers’ state-to-state migration patterns in 2018.
Here’s what they found for Connecticut:
- Inbound
- Retirement: 12.63 percent
- Health: 5.26 percent
- Family: 27.37 percent
- Lifestyle: 10.53 percent
- Job: 49.47 percent
- Outbound
- Retirement: 30.77 percent
- Health: 2.56 percent
- Family: 17.44 percent
- Lifestyle: 20.51 percent
- Job: 34.87 percent
The Important Upcoming decision on Senior and Disabled Tax Relief
The proposed changes to Fairfield’s Senior & Disabled Tax Relief (SDTR) Program are a classic example of the old saying, “What gets measured gets done.” Since we can’t measure the effectiveness of the SDTR Program, but we do measure the number of participants, the SDTR Committee wants to add more participants. This means that instead of increasing aid to our most vulnerable seniors (i.e., those with the lowest incomes and assets), the Committee wants to provide credits to seniors with much higher incomes and assets, including some with $90,000 incomes, $1.1 million homes1 and substantially more than $650,000 in retirement savings and other assets. Prima facie, this is not good public policy.
As explained in Fairfield Taxpayer’s (FT) previous paper on this subject (“First, Please, “Do No Harm”),2 the Committee’s proposal to replace the asset test with an assessment limit is likely to result in an increase in participants that is much greater than the proposed 23% increase in SDTR funding. As the Committee belatedly recognized, this could result in a substantial cut in credits for current participants, so it is now proposing to protect current participants from any cuts. If so, new participants will receive much lower credits than current participants, current participants will get no increases, and thus it is quite possible that more seniors will sell their homes than would have if we made no changes.
Accordingly, FT continues to recommend that no changes to the SDTR Program should be approved until the Committee demonstrates that the program works well, that it will work even better as a result of any proposed changes, that rational metrics have been established to assess its effectiveness, and that current participants will not be hurt. Replacing the $650,000 asset test with a $750,000 assessment limit combined with a lower cap on total SDTR spending is likely to result in EITHER substantial cuts for current participants (among whom are probably the people who need tax relief most), OR a very complicated two-tier program that relegates new participants each year (some of whom will have very low incomes) to second-class status with much lower benefits.
Read: First, Please, "Do No Harm"
Read: Second, Please, "Millionaires Don't Need Tax Credits"
As explained in Fairfield Taxpayer’s (FT) previous paper on this subject (“First, Please, “Do No Harm”),2 the Committee’s proposal to replace the asset test with an assessment limit is likely to result in an increase in participants that is much greater than the proposed 23% increase in SDTR funding. As the Committee belatedly recognized, this could result in a substantial cut in credits for current participants, so it is now proposing to protect current participants from any cuts. If so, new participants will receive much lower credits than current participants, current participants will get no increases, and thus it is quite possible that more seniors will sell their homes than would have if we made no changes.
Accordingly, FT continues to recommend that no changes to the SDTR Program should be approved until the Committee demonstrates that the program works well, that it will work even better as a result of any proposed changes, that rational metrics have been established to assess its effectiveness, and that current participants will not be hurt. Replacing the $650,000 asset test with a $750,000 assessment limit combined with a lower cap on total SDTR spending is likely to result in EITHER substantial cuts for current participants (among whom are probably the people who need tax relief most), OR a very complicated two-tier program that relegates new participants each year (some of whom will have very low incomes) to second-class status with much lower benefits.
Read: First, Please, "Do No Harm"
Read: Second, Please, "Millionaires Don't Need Tax Credits"
First, Please, "Do No Harm"
This paper analyzes proposed changes to Fairfield's Senior & Disabled Tax Relief Program that are on the Agenda for the RTM meeting on Monday night.
The paper's recommendation is as follows:
RECOMMENDATION: The SDTR Program assists some homeowners with their property taxes, but it is not clear exactly what we are trying to accomplish, how well it is working, or what the return has been on the $40 million we have invested over the past ten years. If the primary objective is to keep seniors in their homes longer than they would otherwise stay, there may be better, more cost-effective ways to do this, even if that means spending more money. Therefore, beyond making COLA adjustments to program eligibility and benefit limits, no changes to the SDTR Program should be approved until the Committee demonstrates that the program works well, that it will work even better as a result of any proposed changes, that rational metrics have been established to assess its effectiveness, and MOST IMPORTANT, that current participants will not be hurt. Replacing the QTAV Test with an Assessment Limit combined with a lower (1.6%) cap on total SDTR spending is likely to result in substantial cuts for current participants, among whom are probably the people who need it most.
Read full paper
The paper's recommendation is as follows:
RECOMMENDATION: The SDTR Program assists some homeowners with their property taxes, but it is not clear exactly what we are trying to accomplish, how well it is working, or what the return has been on the $40 million we have invested over the past ten years. If the primary objective is to keep seniors in their homes longer than they would otherwise stay, there may be better, more cost-effective ways to do this, even if that means spending more money. Therefore, beyond making COLA adjustments to program eligibility and benefit limits, no changes to the SDTR Program should be approved until the Committee demonstrates that the program works well, that it will work even better as a result of any proposed changes, that rational metrics have been established to assess its effectiveness, and MOST IMPORTANT, that current participants will not be hurt. Replacing the QTAV Test with an Assessment Limit combined with a lower (1.6%) cap on total SDTR spending is likely to result in substantial cuts for current participants, among whom are probably the people who need it most.
Read full paper
Commission on Fiscal Stability & Economic Growth Report 2.0
Report 2.0 focuses on a subset of proposals aimed at the commission's statutory assignment--fiscal stability and economic growth. Without fiscal stability we cannot have economic growth, and without growth we will not generate the state revenues to provide critical government services. The criteria applied in selecting new programs or modifying current arrangements were focused importantly on competitiveness. Are our tax, infrastructure, and business incentives at least as attractive as comparable states, and where can we create competitive advantage? Given Connecticut's fiscal constraints, are our levels of government employee compensation and our service programs appropriate in comparison to the states we compete with? Do the changes we propose set us on a path of fiscal stability and confidence in the eyes of investors and employers? Read Full Report
Fairfield Named Most Business Friendly Town in CT
Connecticut is often ranked low in terms of its business environment, but according to a new study from Yankee Institute, some towns manage to stand out from the rest. The authors of Connecticut’s Top Ten Business-Friendly Towns collected and measured data from Connecticut’s 50 largest municipalities based on community allure, economic vitality, tax burden and transportation infrastructure and found that while the state may be in dire economic straits, some towns are still able to foster a competitive business environment. The Town of Fairfield took top honors as the most business-friendly town or city in the state, followed by Greenwich, Westport, Ridgefield and Simsbury. Read more: Yankee Institute 11.12.18
Who Will You Vote For on November 6th?
"It's ______________, Stupid!"
- Bill Clinton famously filled in the blank with the words, “The Economy.”
- How will you fill in the blank to choose the candidates you will support?
- Whatever issue(s) you consider most important at the national level, you must also decide what matters most to your choices for State offices.
- Fairfield Taxpayer believes that the key issue for all State offices in 2018 is CT’s weak economy – unless CT can generate stronger economic growth, its tax base, both incomes and property values, and the quality of its public services will all continue to decline.
- After 30 years with no job growth and facing daunting fiscal challenges, it will not be easy to generate stronger growth. We will have to cut overall spending, raise some taxes and lower others, reduce the annual cost of unfunded retirement liabilities, and improve our infrastructure (e.g., I-95 congestion and Metro North reliability and travel times).
- Most important, we need different priorities and a different culture in our State Capitol that understands the critical importance of creating a business-friendly environment that can attract, retain and grow businesses and jobs.
- We urge you to vote for the State candidates you think are most likely to reverse CT’s economic decline because as CT goes, so goes the vast majority of its towns, including Fairfield and our property values.
Fairfield's Strategic Plan Committee Community Workshops 11/7 & 11/8
• You think Fairfield is doing just fine, or that our town is in big trouble?
• You think the most important issue for Fairfield is declining home values, or the state’s fiscal and economic problems, or the need to control local spending and taxes, or the quality of our schools, or the lack of senior housing, or all (or none) of these?
• Come to the Strategic Plan Committee’s workshops and share your opinions and learn what others think about Fairfield’s ability to continue to prosper.
Fairfield’s Strategic Plan Committee (SPC) has announced its first two Community Workshops on consecutive days, Wednesday, November 7th (at 7:15 pm at Penfield Pavilion) and Thursday, November 8th(at 10:00 am at Board of Education headquarters).
The stated purpose of these meetings is to explain the planning process and invite public participation in the creation of Fairfield’s first strategic plan. In its own words, the SPC wants to hear our “views on problems, issues, and opportunities within our town.”
These meetings should not be confused with the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) meetings that are also taking place, and which are focused more narrowly on real estate-development opportunities in the areas around the Fairfield Center and the Metro Center railroad stations. The TOD planning is part of an update in progress by the Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (a.k.a., the Master Plan), which is the plan that governs land-use decisions through subdivision and zoning regulations. Hopefully, these separate planning efforts will eventually merge and produce a single, coherent, comprehensive plan that will help Fairfield continue to prosper.
The essential first step in any strategic planning process is to answer the related questions: “Where are we, how did we get here, and where are we headed?” Two hypothetical answers to this question at polar extremes are: “We are doing just fine, and therefore we should just keep doing whatever we have been doing,” and “We are in big trouble and we will have to make a lot of changes if we want to succeed in the future.”
Any such answers must begin with agreement on how the Town’s performance should be measured, and on how various performance measures should be prioritized. For example, for any town, city or state, one likely candidate for a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is its Tax Base. A rising tax base is almost always a good sign, and a declining tax base is almost always a bad sign. And since the tax base provides the revenues to fund all public services, KPIs related to Public Safety and Health, Education, Infrastructure, and Recreation, are directly affected by it, and they in turn affect other KPIs related to such considerations as Town Character and Culture.
Hopefully, after a year of effort, the SPC will share its initial impressions with regard to what KPIs it thinks should be considered, where Fairfield is at present based on those KPIs, how it got where it is, and whether the Town can continue to prosper if we simply stay the course.
For more information, on the initiative, or to enroll for the workshop, please visit the following sites:
Project website: http://www.hlplanning.com/portals/fairfield/ (use the Community Meeting link on this site to enroll using Eventbrite)
Town SPC website: https://www.fairfieldct.org/spc
• You think the most important issue for Fairfield is declining home values, or the state’s fiscal and economic problems, or the need to control local spending and taxes, or the quality of our schools, or the lack of senior housing, or all (or none) of these?
• Come to the Strategic Plan Committee’s workshops and share your opinions and learn what others think about Fairfield’s ability to continue to prosper.
Fairfield’s Strategic Plan Committee (SPC) has announced its first two Community Workshops on consecutive days, Wednesday, November 7th (at 7:15 pm at Penfield Pavilion) and Thursday, November 8th(at 10:00 am at Board of Education headquarters).
The stated purpose of these meetings is to explain the planning process and invite public participation in the creation of Fairfield’s first strategic plan. In its own words, the SPC wants to hear our “views on problems, issues, and opportunities within our town.”
These meetings should not be confused with the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) meetings that are also taking place, and which are focused more narrowly on real estate-development opportunities in the areas around the Fairfield Center and the Metro Center railroad stations. The TOD planning is part of an update in progress by the Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (a.k.a., the Master Plan), which is the plan that governs land-use decisions through subdivision and zoning regulations. Hopefully, these separate planning efforts will eventually merge and produce a single, coherent, comprehensive plan that will help Fairfield continue to prosper.
The essential first step in any strategic planning process is to answer the related questions: “Where are we, how did we get here, and where are we headed?” Two hypothetical answers to this question at polar extremes are: “We are doing just fine, and therefore we should just keep doing whatever we have been doing,” and “We are in big trouble and we will have to make a lot of changes if we want to succeed in the future.”
Any such answers must begin with agreement on how the Town’s performance should be measured, and on how various performance measures should be prioritized. For example, for any town, city or state, one likely candidate for a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is its Tax Base. A rising tax base is almost always a good sign, and a declining tax base is almost always a bad sign. And since the tax base provides the revenues to fund all public services, KPIs related to Public Safety and Health, Education, Infrastructure, and Recreation, are directly affected by it, and they in turn affect other KPIs related to such considerations as Town Character and Culture.
Hopefully, after a year of effort, the SPC will share its initial impressions with regard to what KPIs it thinks should be considered, where Fairfield is at present based on those KPIs, how it got where it is, and whether the Town can continue to prosper if we simply stay the course.
For more information, on the initiative, or to enroll for the workshop, please visit the following sites:
Project website: http://www.hlplanning.com/portals/fairfield/ (use the Community Meeting link on this site to enroll using Eventbrite)
Town SPC website: https://www.fairfieldct.org/spc
| fsp_workshop.pdf |
Connecticut Nearly Last in Fiscal Health
Connecticut is financially in disarray, ranking nearly last in the nation in fiscal health, according to a new report. The free-market-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University says Connecticut's financial condition ranks No. 49th in the nation, as state revenues cover just 92 percent of expenses, which is below the U.S. average. Read More: Hartford Business.com 10.10.18
Candidates Fail To Confront Connecticut's Dire Fiscal Straits
The current state gubernatorial campaign debate is missing the point. The hard truth is that all of the candidates are running for the dubious honor of commanding a ship of state that is on fire and about to sail off a fiscal cliff. They should be terrified and sounding the alarm. But spreading bad news is not how you get elected.
The coming cliff is the $4.6 billion deficit projected for the upcoming biennial budget — 11.6 percent of appropriations for fiscal years 2020 and 2021 starting on July 1, 2019. These deficits will continue and will grow by $500 million per year thereafter. The victorious candidates will arrive in the Capitol in January 2019 only to face a budgetary punch in the gut that will deflate any campaign happy talk of tax cuts or increased spending. By law, the governor and the legislature must pass a balanced biennial budget in the 2019 session. What can they do to close the budget gap? There are limited choices, and none of them are attractive. Read More: Hartford Courant 9.12.18
The coming cliff is the $4.6 billion deficit projected for the upcoming biennial budget — 11.6 percent of appropriations for fiscal years 2020 and 2021 starting on July 1, 2019. These deficits will continue and will grow by $500 million per year thereafter. The victorious candidates will arrive in the Capitol in January 2019 only to face a budgetary punch in the gut that will deflate any campaign happy talk of tax cuts or increased spending. By law, the governor and the legislature must pass a balanced biennial budget in the 2019 session. What can they do to close the budget gap? There are limited choices, and none of them are attractive. Read More: Hartford Courant 9.12.18
WHO SHOULD YOU VOTE FOR ON AUGUST 14TH
(Wait…What…There’s an election in August?)
On Tuesday, August 14th, registered Democrats and Republicans can vote in the Primary Election to determine which candidates will represent their party in the General Election in November. Unaffiliated voters can vote only if they change their registration to one of the two major parties by August 9th (by mail) or by noon on August 13th (in person at Town Hall). If you do vote – which you can do by absentee ballot if you will not be in town – you will be one of only about 200,000 Democrats and 100,000 Republicans among the State’s 2.1 million registered voters who bother to do so.
The most important office at stake is Governor. There are two Democrat candidates (Ned Lamont and Joe Ganim) and five Republican candidates (Mark Boughton, Tim Herbst, Steve Obsitnik, Bob Stefanowski and David Stemerman). They all claim to have plans to improve the State of CT, but most of their “plans” are simply wish lists of things they claim they will do if elected, with little or no credible explanation of how those things can actually be done. Read More
The most important office at stake is Governor. There are two Democrat candidates (Ned Lamont and Joe Ganim) and five Republican candidates (Mark Boughton, Tim Herbst, Steve Obsitnik, Bob Stefanowski and David Stemerman). They all claim to have plans to improve the State of CT, but most of their “plans” are simply wish lists of things they claim they will do if elected, with little or no credible explanation of how those things can actually be done. Read More
|
|
7 Questions Answered About Connecticut's August Primaries
Republicans and Democrats held nominating conventions to endorse candidates for statewide office earlier this month, but the November ballot is far from set in stone. The next hurdle for the dozens of candidates are August primaries, when voters will have to narrow down the vast field of contenders and pick the ones they want to see advance to the general election. Read More: Hartford Courant 5/28/18
Tax bills go up 2.09%
As reported by the Fairfield Citizen, our tax rate will rise 2.09% next year (2018-19), after a relatively calm budget season, an increase that is roughly in line with the current rate of inflation (e.g., the COLA for social security benefits for 2018 was 2.0% after no increase in 2015 and a near-zero 0.3% increase in 2016). As we have noted previously, the underlying 2.2% increase in overall spending is being driven by another unsustainable 3.0% increase for the Board of Education and a 1.3% increase for all other Town costs and expenses. With its latest 3% increase, BOE spending is up 15% over the last five years despite a 4% decline in enrollments. Read Article 5.18.18
Wall Street firm says federal tax limits could hurt CT towns
A major Wall Street credit-rating agency warned this week that federal tax changes could undermine Connecticut cities and towns’ property tax receipts. Read More: CT Mirror 4.12.18
Report: Connecticut jobs growth losing steam
Connecticut’s job growth rate slowed to a post-recession low in 2017, according to new state data, the latest warning sign in what has long been a lackluster economic recovery.
Eight years after the end of its last downturn, Connecticut has not regained all its lost jobs, and its increases trail those in many neighboring states and the nation as a whole. In 2017, Connecticut gained 1,800 positions, equal to a 0.1 percent increase, according to the state Department of Labor. In comparison, nationwide employment grew by 1.6 percent. Read More:Stamford Advocate 4.2.18
Eight years after the end of its last downturn, Connecticut has not regained all its lost jobs, and its increases trail those in many neighboring states and the nation as a whole. In 2017, Connecticut gained 1,800 positions, equal to a 0.1 percent increase, according to the state Department of Labor. In comparison, nationwide employment grew by 1.6 percent. Read More:Stamford Advocate 4.2.18
That Time Again: Comment to BOF about Proposed Budget
|
What: BOF Public Budget Forum When: Saturday, March 24th 9:30am Where: Ludlowe HS, 785 Unquowa Rd |
|
If you can't attend, send a "1-Click" email
Click below to read full comment
| ft_post_on_bof_public_forum_final.pdf |
|
"SPEND!” . . . “THINK?” . . . “PLAN?”#
WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF EMPTY SEATS IN OUR SCHOOLS, ENROLLMENTS ARE DECLINING, WE MAY END UP CLOSING ONE OR MORE SCHOOLS, AND WE NEED TO SOLVE THE RACIAL IMBALANCE PROBLEM AT MCKINLEY.
WE OBVIOUSLY NEED A COMPREHENSIVE, LONG-TERM PLAN!
BUT THE BOE (AND TWO OF OUR THREE SELECTMEN), WANT TO SPEND AS MUCH AS $25 MILLION ON MILL HILL SCHOOL (ON TOP OF THE $18-$19 MILLION WE ARE SPENDING TO EXPAND HOLLAND HILL SCHOOL) BEFORE THEY DEVELOP A PLAN.
AS SOMEONE WHO MUST PAY THE BILL, DO YOU THINK THAT MAKES SENSE?
Read More
WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF EMPTY SEATS IN OUR SCHOOLS, ENROLLMENTS ARE DECLINING, WE MAY END UP CLOSING ONE OR MORE SCHOOLS, AND WE NEED TO SOLVE THE RACIAL IMBALANCE PROBLEM AT MCKINLEY.
WE OBVIOUSLY NEED A COMPREHENSIVE, LONG-TERM PLAN!
BUT THE BOE (AND TWO OF OUR THREE SELECTMEN), WANT TO SPEND AS MUCH AS $25 MILLION ON MILL HILL SCHOOL (ON TOP OF THE $18-$19 MILLION WE ARE SPENDING TO EXPAND HOLLAND HILL SCHOOL) BEFORE THEY DEVELOP A PLAN.
AS SOMEONE WHO MUST PAY THE BILL, DO YOU THINK THAT MAKES SENSE?
Read More
Connecticut on the Brink - A sad, reasonably comprehensive account of how CT got to where we unfortunately are
The immediate post–Great Recession years were dark times for the Republican Party in Connecticut. Democrats ran up commanding majorities in the state House and Senate in the November 2008 elections, and two years later, Dannel Malloy’s election gave Democrats control of the state’s executive branch for the first time in two decades. In 2010 and 2012, Republican Linda McMahon spent almost $100 million of her personal fortune in campaigns for the U.S. Senate but lost both races by double digits. Read More: City Journal Winter 2018
State Tax Overhaul Key to Plan to Revitalize CT
A state panel was expected Thursday afternoon to recommend a dramatic shift in state tax burden from wealthy income taxpayers onto businesses and consumers as part of a sweeping plan to stabilize government finances and jump-start the economy. (To read the complete document click here)
The Commission on Fiscal Sustainability and Economic Growth would lower all income tax rates — including dropping the top rate from nearly 7 percent to 5.75 percent — and repeal the gift and estate taxes while raising sales and corporation levies. But because the wealthy pay the majority of state income taxes, they also would benefit disproportionately from a rate reduction. Read More: CT Mirror 3/1/18
The Commission on Fiscal Sustainability and Economic Growth would lower all income tax rates — including dropping the top rate from nearly 7 percent to 5.75 percent — and repeal the gift and estate taxes while raising sales and corporation levies. But because the wealthy pay the majority of state income taxes, they also would benefit disproportionately from a rate reduction. Read More: CT Mirror 3/1/18
State and Community Leaders Address Connecticut’s Budget Woes at Fairfield University MPA Summit, Feb. 27
Fairfield Considers Expanding School Capacity - Again?
New K-5 School Enrollment Projections Still Appear Optimistic
BOE Urgency to Add More K-5 Capacity Makes No Sense
Connecticut’s Growing Fiscal Crisis Should Restrain All Local Funding Decisions
*****
• New K-5 enrollment projections are lower, but probably still too optimistic.
• The BOE continues to understate our K-5 school capacity by calling a “576” school a “504,” and then insisting that we can put only “428-454” kids in it – that’s basically 75% of actual capacity.
• Fairfield has more than enough K-5 capacity for the next several years, and perhaps much longer.
• There is no rush to do anything until we see what actually happens with enrollments.
• Connecticut faces a serious and deepening financial crisis that is likely to have significant adverse effects on our Town, including lower, if any, reimbursements for school construction.
BOE Urgency to Add More K-5 Capacity Makes No Sense
Connecticut’s Growing Fiscal Crisis Should Restrain All Local Funding Decisions
*****
• New K-5 enrollment projections are lower, but probably still too optimistic.
• The BOE continues to understate our K-5 school capacity by calling a “576” school a “504,” and then insisting that we can put only “428-454” kids in it – that’s basically 75% of actual capacity.
• Fairfield has more than enough K-5 capacity for the next several years, and perhaps much longer.
• There is no rush to do anything until we see what actually happens with enrollments.
• Connecticut faces a serious and deepening financial crisis that is likely to have significant adverse effects on our Town, including lower, if any, reimbursements for school construction.
Malloy's Proposed Budget Would Cut Fairfield's Education Aid by $3.2 million
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s proposed budget for 2018-19 aims to redistribute education funding more aggressively to the state’s lowest-performing school districts than is currently slated. Malloy wants to send the state’s 33 lowest-performing districts $10.6 million on top of a $16.3 million increase promised by the legislature in the two-year budget it adopted last fall. The new budget proposals represent adjustments for the second year of that plan. The increases for the low-performing districts would be paid for by canceling $15 million in scheduled education increases to the remaining cities and towns and cutting those districts by $62.5 million instead. Read more: CT Mirror 2/5/18
Remarks from Jan 29 RTM Meeting re: Teacher Contracts
We have posted below the remarks by Peter Ambrose, a member of the RTM from District 1, at the RTM meeting on Monday, January 29th, explaining why he would be voting to reject the proposed three-year teachers' contract, which was subsequently approved by the body along strict party lines by a vote of 24 to approve, 11 to reject, 1 abstention and 4 absent. The final paragraph reads as follows:
"In conclusion, I will not be voting in favor of this contract because it is too rich and is not in the best long-term interests of our Town . . . of our great school system . . . and of all our other great public services. Connecticut is in trouble because it has allowed spending to grow faster than what taxpayers were able and willing to pay, including overly generous compensation for state employees. Let’s not make the same mistake here in Fairfield by locking in higher labor costs for the next three years at a time of great economic uncertainty." Read Full Remarks
"In conclusion, I will not be voting in favor of this contract because it is too rich and is not in the best long-term interests of our Town . . . of our great school system . . . and of all our other great public services. Connecticut is in trouble because it has allowed spending to grow faster than what taxpayers were able and willing to pay, including overly generous compensation for state employees. Let’s not make the same mistake here in Fairfield by locking in higher labor costs for the next three years at a time of great economic uncertainty." Read Full Remarks
Fairfield Budget Process Starts To Pick Up Steam
The Board of Education adopted its proposed spending plan for fiscal year 2019 on Thursday, which will be forwarded to the first selectman, who has spent the month of January reviewing his department heads’ budget proposals. As has been the practice, the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance are scheduled to hold seven joint budget hearings in March. Department heads appear before the boards to answer questions and advocate for their individual budget requests. Before switching to joint hearings, department heads had to appear before both boards in separate meetings. Though there are joint hearings, the two boards conduct separate meetings when it comes time to approve a proposed budget. When they adopted their meeting schedule in December, some finance board members questioned whether the joint hearing practice should continue. At that time, Chairman Tom Flynn said he had heard from members about how the Board of Selectmen vote before the Board of Finance does, giving them “credit” for some cuts that may have been brought up by finance board members. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 1/26/18
Your CT Home Could Soon Be Worth Much Less: Here's Why
President Donald Trump's tax plan will soon hit Connecticut homeowners hard - in ways they may not have expected, according to a new report from Moody's.
In a report released this week, Moody's Analytics estimated that Connecticut's average home values are likely to decline 5.6 percent percent this year as a result of the federal tax reform, putting it between neighboring states such as New York (3.6 percent) and New Jersey (7.6 percent). The tax reform plan approved by Congress last month will leave many Connecticut taxpayers with less disposable income and wealth, and less money for a house. That problem will ultimately cause housing prices to drop.
The investor and financial services agency blames changes to the federal property tax deduction for state and local taxes that many Connecticut residents thousands of dollars a year. The plan eliminated personal exemptions to help pay for the tax cut that some estimate could cost more than $1 trillion. The legislation also capped the deduction for state and local taxes at $10,000. Read More: Ridgefield Patch 1/25/18
In a report released this week, Moody's Analytics estimated that Connecticut's average home values are likely to decline 5.6 percent percent this year as a result of the federal tax reform, putting it between neighboring states such as New York (3.6 percent) and New Jersey (7.6 percent). The tax reform plan approved by Congress last month will leave many Connecticut taxpayers with less disposable income and wealth, and less money for a house. That problem will ultimately cause housing prices to drop.
The investor and financial services agency blames changes to the federal property tax deduction for state and local taxes that many Connecticut residents thousands of dollars a year. The plan eliminated personal exemptions to help pay for the tax cut that some estimate could cost more than $1 trillion. The legislation also capped the deduction for state and local taxes at $10,000. Read More: Ridgefield Patch 1/25/18
Coffee & Conversation with Brenda Kupchick & Laura Devlin Saturday, January 27th 10am
HERE WE GO AGAIN . . . MORE SIMPLISTIC COMPARISONS OF OUR EDUCATION SPENDING TO SELECTED “SOUTHERN FAIRFIELD COUNTY” TOWNS
(AND THE PERSISTENT MYTH THAT OUR PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES ARE SOMEHOW LAGGING)
It is not possible to draw any valid conclusions about the adequacy or efficiency of educational spending in Fairfield by simplistically comparing its per pupil expenditures (PPE) to those in other towns without adjusting for at least four important determinants of PPE, which are:
· the number of pupils in each town – because there are significant economies of scale in education;
· the educational needs of the pupils in each town – because it costs more to provide educational services to some students;
· the financial resources available to each town – because some towns are so wealthy they can, if they choose, spend far more than others on any and all public services, and because some towns receive far more of their education funding from the state and federal governments; and
· the cost of land, buildings and equipment, and debt service.
Fairfield Taxpayer believes that we should spend as much on education as we can afford to provide the best education we can to our children. Spending more than we can afford is not sustainable because either our tax rates will be too high or we will be forced to cut the quality of our municipal services too low. Either way, people will choose not to live here, property values will suffer, our tax base will decline, and we will eventually have to cut spending on education along with everything else.” Read More
· the number of pupils in each town – because there are significant economies of scale in education;
· the educational needs of the pupils in each town – because it costs more to provide educational services to some students;
· the financial resources available to each town – because some towns are so wealthy they can, if they choose, spend far more than others on any and all public services, and because some towns receive far more of their education funding from the state and federal governments; and
· the cost of land, buildings and equipment, and debt service.
Fairfield Taxpayer believes that we should spend as much on education as we can afford to provide the best education we can to our children. Spending more than we can afford is not sustainable because either our tax rates will be too high or we will be forced to cut the quality of our municipal services too low. Either way, people will choose not to live here, property values will suffer, our tax base will decline, and we will eventually have to cut spending on education along with everything else.” Read More
Coffee & Conversation with Cristin McCarthy Vahey January 18th
FSA Senior Finances Workshop January 19th
Where: Bigelow Center for Senior Activities, Multipurpose Room, 100 Mona Terrace
When: Friday, January 19th 10am - Noon
When: Friday, January 19th 10am - Noon
Why don’t we (you name it)? Because we don’t have the money.
"Why don’t they build a monorail down the middle of I-95?”
So began the latest in a series of well-intended emails I regularly receive from readers, anxious to offer what seem like smart solutions to our transportation crisis in Connecticut. hy no monorail? Because we don’t have the money.
So let me ask — and answer — a few questions:
Why do we issue 20-year bonds to pay for highway repaving that, at best, will last 15 years?
Why does 40 percent of the state’s Department of Transportation’s annual budget pay for debt service on old bonds instead of buying new trains? Because we don’t have the money.
In China, they spend 10 percent of their GDP on infrastructure. In the U.S., it’s more like 2 percent. Why the under-investment? Because we are paying so much to play catchup on the lack of savings in previous decades for things like pensions for state worker and teachers.
In other words, we don’t have money for new trains — let alone a monorail — because we’re stuck paying the bills passed down to us that our parents didn’t pay. But nobody in Hartford has the guts to tell you that truth. Read More: Viewpoints 11/16/17
So began the latest in a series of well-intended emails I regularly receive from readers, anxious to offer what seem like smart solutions to our transportation crisis in Connecticut. hy no monorail? Because we don’t have the money.
So let me ask — and answer — a few questions:
Why do we issue 20-year bonds to pay for highway repaving that, at best, will last 15 years?
Why does 40 percent of the state’s Department of Transportation’s annual budget pay for debt service on old bonds instead of buying new trains? Because we don’t have the money.
In China, they spend 10 percent of their GDP on infrastructure. In the U.S., it’s more like 2 percent. Why the under-investment? Because we are paying so much to play catchup on the lack of savings in previous decades for things like pensions for state worker and teachers.
In other words, we don’t have money for new trains — let alone a monorail — because we’re stuck paying the bills passed down to us that our parents didn’t pay. But nobody in Hartford has the guts to tell you that truth. Read More: Viewpoints 11/16/17
A Call to Action
Please Vote
Tuesday, November 7th
Please Vote
Tuesday, November 7th
VOTING HAS NEVER BEEN EASIER OR MORE IMPORTANT
In case you haven’t noticed all the lawn signs and mailers, there is a municipal election on Tuesday, November 7th. Fairfield Taxpayer urges you to vote either in person or by absentee ballot (see below), and when you do, to consider the following:
In addition, the new State budget was "balanced" only by relying heavily on one-time revenues like "fund sweeps" (e.g., $175 million from the Energy Conservation Fund), and so there are already predictions of multi-billion-dollar deficits for the next biennium (fiscal years '20 and '21).
For all these reasons, Fairfield Taxpayer urges you to vote for candidates whose only loyalty is to the best long-term interests of our Town as a whole, and who will oppose any increases in our tax rate that is greater than the rate of inflation (currently 1.5%-2.0%). This applies particularly to candidates for the BOF and the RTM because of the critical roles they play in the budget process in holding the line on spending and taxes. The RTM is also responsible for approving all labor contracts.
It is also important to remember that although only 30% of its members are residents of Fairfield, the Teachers’ Union (the “FEA”) spearheaded the petition effort to force a special election for the Board of Selectmen in June, and, at that time, in his own words, the Union president told his members: “we need to do everything we can to help the democrats . . . because our new contract will be coming up for a vote this fall . . . and “the democrats will put up a very pro-education candidate.” FEA-endorsed candidates already control Fairfield’s Board of Education, the body that negotiates and approves teacher and other school salaries, benefits and work rules that determine almost half of Fairfield’s total spending. This is exactly the kind of union influence that has led our State into its growing fiscal crisis.
What Municipal Offices Will You Be Voting For?
There are no seats open on the Board of Selectmen, whose three members are all elected at the same time every four years. The elections this year are for five of the nine seats on the Board of Finance (BOF), four of the nine seats on the Board of Education (BOE), all 40 of the seats on the Representative Town Meeting (RTM), and four of the seven seats on the Town Plan & Zoning Commission (TPZ).
Absentee Voting is Very Easy
If you will not be able to make it to the polls on Election Day, you can vote by “absentee ballot,“ either in person or by mail. The Town of Fairfield website provides easy instructions as to how to do this using the following link:
http://www.fairfieldct.org/absenteevoting
You can also call Betsy Browne, Fairfield Town Clerk, at 203-256-3090.
If You Don’t Know Your Voting District Number or Polling Place
If you don’t know your voting district or polling place, you can find out on the Town’s website using the following link:
http://www.fairfieldct.org/wheredoivote
*An earlier version of this message incorrectly stated that it would have been possible for the Democrats to win control of the Board of Finance if they had nominated five candidates and won all of the open seats. We were wrong. We relied on the “minority-representation” rule in the Town Charter (8.3.A), and overlooked another clause (2.2.B) that says “when an uneven number of members of a board or commission is to be elected, no political party shall nominate . . . more than a bare majority of the number of persons to be elected.” Since there are three BOF six-years seats open in the coming election (along with two additional seats for members who were appointed to fill vacancies), each party can nominate and win only two of those three seats. Thanks to an alert reader for holding us to the highest standards of accuracy.
In case you haven’t noticed all the lawn signs and mailers, there is a municipal election on Tuesday, November 7th. Fairfield Taxpayer urges you to vote either in person or by absentee ballot (see below), and when you do, to consider the following:
- Fairfield is facing the greatest challenge to its future prosperity since British warships appeared off its coast in 1779. Although the State Assembly finally managed to pass a budget for the current fiscal year and did so with veto-proof majorities in both houses, Connecticut still faces a serious and deepening financial crisis that threatens our future. Although the new State budget avoids immediate further cuts in municipal aid and the transfer of any teacher pension costs, it is only a matter of time before these or similar threats to Fairfield return because the new State budget does not address any of the “elephants in the room,” which are:
- Size of Government -- CT still provides more public services than it can afford to pay for with predictable, recurring revenues, in part because it pays its public employees a substantial premium over what they could make in the private sector; see Unequal Pay: Public Vs. Private Sector Compensation in Connecticut, Yankee Institute
- Unfunded Retirement Liabilities -- CT still has huge unfunded retirement liabilities and rising debt service costs (as its debt mounts and its credit rating deteriorates), the cost of which will continue to escalate, resulting in chronic budget crises in coming years; and
- Infrastructure Needs -- CT still faces huge deferred costs to maintain and improve its neglected infrastructure, without which it cannot generate the strong economic growth and job creation (no job growth in 28 years) that it needs to reverse its declining tax base (measured in both incomes and property values).
In addition, the new State budget was "balanced" only by relying heavily on one-time revenues like "fund sweeps" (e.g., $175 million from the Energy Conservation Fund), and so there are already predictions of multi-billion-dollar deficits for the next biennium (fiscal years '20 and '21).
- Meanwhile, at a time when Social Security recipients received no cost-of-living increase in their 2016 benefits and only a 0.3% increase in 2017 (i.e., less than one-third of one percent), the cost of teachers, administrators, police officers, firefighters and other public employees in Fairfield continues to rise 3%-4% annually, driven by 2%-2.5% increases in salaries and so-called “steps” (longevity awards), and ~8% increases in healthcare costs.
- Not surprisingly, our home values remain weak, particularly at the higher end of the market, and Fairfield’s tax base, already down 10% from its 2011 peak (even without accounting for the further erosion in home prices since the last revaluation in 2015), will be essentially flat in FY 2018 and FY 2019 as the benefit from new construction is offset by the sale of the G.E. property to Sacred Heart.
- Finally, the winners in “off-year” municipal elections, when voter turnout has been as low as 28% (2009), can easily be determined by the education lobby, which is by far the most powerful special interest group in Town, led by the Teachers’ Union (the Fairfield Education Association) and benefiting from the natural organization of school PTAs. This powerful lobby appeals to the 30% of voters who have children in our public schools – voters who may not be inclined to challenge as rigorously as they should the appeals from the BOE, from the PTA, and from teachers, administrators and coaches to spend more than Fairfield can afford on our schools given the growing fiscal challenges we face. We all understand the importance of good schools to our children and our property values, but we must also consider the long-term consequences of spending more than we can afford on any of our public services, particularly at a time like this.
For all these reasons, Fairfield Taxpayer urges you to vote for candidates whose only loyalty is to the best long-term interests of our Town as a whole, and who will oppose any increases in our tax rate that is greater than the rate of inflation (currently 1.5%-2.0%). This applies particularly to candidates for the BOF and the RTM because of the critical roles they play in the budget process in holding the line on spending and taxes. The RTM is also responsible for approving all labor contracts.
It is also important to remember that although only 30% of its members are residents of Fairfield, the Teachers’ Union (the “FEA”) spearheaded the petition effort to force a special election for the Board of Selectmen in June, and, at that time, in his own words, the Union president told his members: “we need to do everything we can to help the democrats . . . because our new contract will be coming up for a vote this fall . . . and “the democrats will put up a very pro-education candidate.” FEA-endorsed candidates already control Fairfield’s Board of Education, the body that negotiates and approves teacher and other school salaries, benefits and work rules that determine almost half of Fairfield’s total spending. This is exactly the kind of union influence that has led our State into its growing fiscal crisis.
What Municipal Offices Will You Be Voting For?
There are no seats open on the Board of Selectmen, whose three members are all elected at the same time every four years. The elections this year are for five of the nine seats on the Board of Finance (BOF), four of the nine seats on the Board of Education (BOE), all 40 of the seats on the Representative Town Meeting (RTM), and four of the seven seats on the Town Plan & Zoning Commission (TPZ).
- Board of Finance: Republicans currently hold six of the nine seats (which is the maximum allowed under the Town Charter), four of which are NOT up for election (Becker, Brown, LeClerc and Walsh). With five seats open, one might think control of this board could have changed after this election, but the Town Charter allows each party to run only two candidates for the three 6-year seats that are open, and thus even if all Democrat candidates win, the Republicans would still have a 5/4 majority.*
- Board of Education: Democrats currently hold five of the nine seats, three of which are NOT up for election (Dwyer, Gerber and Maxon-Kennelly). With two Democrat seats and three Republican seats up for election, control of this board could have changed after this election, but under the Town Charter each party is allowed to win only two of the four open four-year seats (the other open seat is a two-year seat because it was filled by appointment after a resignation). Thus, even if the Democrats lose all three of the other open seats, with their guaranteed two seats they will retain a 5/4 majority.
- Representative Town Meeting: Republicans currently hold 21 of the 40 seats, a narrow one-seat majority, and all 40 seats are up for election. The RTM is the last line of defense for restraining the Town’s spending and taxes.
- Town Plan and Zoning: Republicans currently hold five of the seven regular TPZ seats, and two of its three alternate seats. Two of the Republican seats (Francis and Wagner) and one of the Democrat seats (McAleese) are NOT up for election, but with four regular seats open (three Republican and one Democrat), control of the TPZ could change if the Democrats win three of the four open seats. Keep in mind that the TPZ is responsible for balancing the competing demands to increase our tax base and to preserve the character of our Town at a time when major changes will have to be considered if Fairfield wants to continue to prosper in a state that is in perpetual fiscal crisis. In addition to the four open regular seats, all three alternate seats are open because they are for terms of only two years.
Absentee Voting is Very Easy
If you will not be able to make it to the polls on Election Day, you can vote by “absentee ballot,“ either in person or by mail. The Town of Fairfield website provides easy instructions as to how to do this using the following link:
http://www.fairfieldct.org/absenteevoting
You can also call Betsy Browne, Fairfield Town Clerk, at 203-256-3090.
If You Don’t Know Your Voting District Number or Polling Place
If you don’t know your voting district or polling place, you can find out on the Town’s website using the following link:
http://www.fairfieldct.org/wheredoivote
*An earlier version of this message incorrectly stated that it would have been possible for the Democrats to win control of the Board of Finance if they had nominated five candidates and won all of the open seats. We were wrong. We relied on the “minority-representation” rule in the Town Charter (8.3.A), and overlooked another clause (2.2.B) that says “when an uneven number of members of a board or commission is to be elected, no political party shall nominate . . . more than a bare majority of the number of persons to be elected.” Since there are three BOF six-years seats open in the coming election (along with two additional seats for members who were appointed to fill vacancies), each party can nominate and win only two of those three seats. Thanks to an alert reader for holding us to the highest standards of accuracy.
CT Towns To Feel Credit Crunch Even With a New State Budget
Despite legislative approval of a bipartisan state budget, a major Wall Street credit rating agency warned Friday municipalities still will struggle to get affordable credit.
S&P Global Ratings also indicated it would review the state’s faltering bond rating if and when the budget becomes law. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy hasn’t said whether he would sign the deal, though it did pass both the House and Senate on Tuesday with veto-proof margins. Read More (CT Mirror 10.27.17)
S&P Global Ratings also indicated it would review the state’s faltering bond rating if and when the budget becomes law. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy hasn’t said whether he would sign the deal, though it did pass both the House and Senate on Tuesday with veto-proof margins. Read More (CT Mirror 10.27.17)
FT's Initial Thoughts on the New State Budget
The new State budget is definitely a better outcome for Fairfield in the short term than what might have happened, but basically the new budget is just a giant bandaid.
Its headline selling points are as follows: bi-partisan; spending cap; bonding cap; volatility cap; mandatory Assembly approval of future labor contracts; no major (sales or income) tax increases; only modest reductions in municipal aid; some modest tax reductions for a lucky few; some anti-union changes in binding arbitration, prevailing-wage and citizen volunteer laws; teachers' contributions to their pensions to rise from 6% to 7% of their salaries -- it all sounds pretty good, if not great!
However, the new budget does not address the three elephants in the room, which are: (a) Size of Government -- CT still provides more public services than it can afford to pay for with predictable, recurring revenues, in part because it pays public employees a substantial premium over what they could make in the private sector; (b) Unfunded Retirement Liabilities -- CT still has huge unfunded retirement liabilities, the annual cost of which will continue to escalate, which is likely to result in continuing budget deficits and crises in coming years; (c) Infrastructure -- CT still faces huge costs to maintain and improve its neglected infrastructure, without which it is not likely that it can generate the strong economic growth and job creation (no job growth in 28 years) it needs to reverse its declining tax base (measured in both incomes and property values).
Two more important things to remember: (1) however good they sound, spending, bonding and volatility caps are only as good as the current occupants of the State Assembly make them; and (2) the latest budget was "balanced" only with heavy reliance on one-time revenues like "fund sweeps" (e.g., $175 million from an Energy Conservation Fund), and so it will be very interesting to see how big the projected deficit is for the next biennium (fiscal years '20 and '21) -- one preliminary estimate puts the number at $4 billion.
In conclusion, a instructive movie for all CT residents to watch is "Groundhog Day," in which a weatherman gets trapped in a time warp that dooms him to relive the same day over and over again until he gets his weather forecast right.
Its headline selling points are as follows: bi-partisan; spending cap; bonding cap; volatility cap; mandatory Assembly approval of future labor contracts; no major (sales or income) tax increases; only modest reductions in municipal aid; some modest tax reductions for a lucky few; some anti-union changes in binding arbitration, prevailing-wage and citizen volunteer laws; teachers' contributions to their pensions to rise from 6% to 7% of their salaries -- it all sounds pretty good, if not great!
However, the new budget does not address the three elephants in the room, which are: (a) Size of Government -- CT still provides more public services than it can afford to pay for with predictable, recurring revenues, in part because it pays public employees a substantial premium over what they could make in the private sector; (b) Unfunded Retirement Liabilities -- CT still has huge unfunded retirement liabilities, the annual cost of which will continue to escalate, which is likely to result in continuing budget deficits and crises in coming years; (c) Infrastructure -- CT still faces huge costs to maintain and improve its neglected infrastructure, without which it is not likely that it can generate the strong economic growth and job creation (no job growth in 28 years) it needs to reverse its declining tax base (measured in both incomes and property values).
Two more important things to remember: (1) however good they sound, spending, bonding and volatility caps are only as good as the current occupants of the State Assembly make them; and (2) the latest budget was "balanced" only with heavy reliance on one-time revenues like "fund sweeps" (e.g., $175 million from an Energy Conservation Fund), and so it will be very interesting to see how big the projected deficit is for the next biennium (fiscal years '20 and '21) -- one preliminary estimate puts the number at $4 billion.
In conclusion, a instructive movie for all CT residents to watch is "Groundhog Day," in which a weatherman gets trapped in a time warp that dooms him to relive the same day over and over again until he gets his weather forecast right.
After 117-day Marathon, Senate Passes Bipartisan Budget
A newly united Senate took a major step early Thursday toward ending Connecticut’s nearly 17-week budget impasse, overwhelmingly adopting a $41.3 billion, two-year plan that closes huge deficits without raising income or sales tax rates, imposes modest cuts on local aid, and provides emergency assistance to keep Hartford out of bankruptcy.
By a veto-proof margin of 33 to 3, the Senate approved the budget after a collegial and self-congratulary three-hour debate that ended with hugs, fist bumps and hand shakes just before 2 a.m. Seventeen of 18 Democrats and 16 of 18 Republicans voted to send the bill to the House, which is scheduled to debate it later Thursday. Read More: CT Mirror 10/26/17
By a veto-proof margin of 33 to 3, the Senate approved the budget after a collegial and self-congratulary three-hour debate that ended with hugs, fist bumps and hand shakes just before 2 a.m. Seventeen of 18 Democrats and 16 of 18 Republicans voted to send the bill to the House, which is scheduled to debate it later Thursday. Read More: CT Mirror 10/26/17
Municipal Aid: See How Your Town Fares in the Bipartisan Budget
State municipal aid is cut by $33.9 million this fiscal year and by an additional $1.8 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1 – a 1.3 percent cut in state support.
With more than three-quarters of overall state municipal aid currently going to the state’s primary education grant — the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant — it should be no surprise that it took the brunt of that cut this year. Various non-education grants will be cut next year to make up for restoring ECS funding in 2019.
The way the state funds education has faced increased scrutiny in the year since a Superior Court judge ruled it irrational and unconstitutional. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy later called for a massive redistribution of existing state funding to benefit the most impoverished districts. The budget negotiated by Republican and Democratic legislative leaders – and expected to be adopted this week by the General Assembly – would cut ECS grants by $31.4 million this fiscal year. Read More: CT Mirror 10/25/17
With more than three-quarters of overall state municipal aid currently going to the state’s primary education grant — the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant — it should be no surprise that it took the brunt of that cut this year. Various non-education grants will be cut next year to make up for restoring ECS funding in 2019.
The way the state funds education has faced increased scrutiny in the year since a Superior Court judge ruled it irrational and unconstitutional. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy later called for a massive redistribution of existing state funding to benefit the most impoverished districts. The budget negotiated by Republican and Democratic legislative leaders – and expected to be adopted this week by the General Assembly – would cut ECS grants by $31.4 million this fiscal year. Read More: CT Mirror 10/25/17
FSA Senior Housing Workshop
Where: Bigelow Center for Senior Activities, Multipurpose Room, 100 Mona Terrace
When: Friday, October 13th 10am - Noon
When: Friday, October 13th 10am - Noon
For CT, Strides and Stumbles in Quest to Spur Bioscience Industry
When The Jackson Laboratory selected Farmington as the site of its new genomic medicine center nearly six years ago, the biomedical research giant believed it could be a catalyst for something bigger in Connecticut.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy hoped so, too. After all, it took a lot of convincing to win legislative support for the $291 million package the state offered to lure Jackson to Connecticut after the nonprofit’s plans to build the facility in Florida fell through. Read More: CT Mirror 9/13/17
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy hoped so, too. After all, it took a lot of convincing to win legislative support for the $291 million package the state offered to lure Jackson to Connecticut after the nonprofit’s plans to build the facility in Florida fell through. Read More: CT Mirror 9/13/17
Fairfield Told to Fix Schools' Racial Disparity
Nothing Fairfield has done in the past decade has helped lessen the racial divide between its McKinley School and the district’s 10 other elementary schools. Putting a preschool in Greenfield Hill hasn’t worked. Offering empty seats to students in neighboring Bridgeport has thus far failed as well.
So, somewhat grudgingly, the state Board of Education approved a multiyear plan Wednesday that relies on school expansions, turning McKinley into a magnet school and ultimately redistricting some 773 students across the 31-square-mile community.
“If other ideas don’t work by June 2019, we are talking about redistricting as a recommendation to the board,” Fairfield School Board Chairman Philip Dwyer told the state board. The actual remapping could take until 2023. Read More: CT Post 9/6/17
So, somewhat grudgingly, the state Board of Education approved a multiyear plan Wednesday that relies on school expansions, turning McKinley into a magnet school and ultimately redistricting some 773 students across the 31-square-mile community.
“If other ideas don’t work by June 2019, we are talking about redistricting as a recommendation to the board,” Fairfield School Board Chairman Philip Dwyer told the state board. The actual remapping could take until 2023. Read More: CT Post 9/6/17
How Did America's Richest State Become Such a Fiscal Mess?
This is not a Dem or Rep caused problem. It has been caused and perpetuated by BOTH parties and a lethargic citizenry. In November, we need to elect candidates from BOTH parties who recognize this and will do everything possible to address it head-on.
Connecticut may be too rich for its own good. Long blessed with a disproportionate number of high-income residents, the state has entertained lavish spending habits for decades. Lawmakers have acted as if they were on a shopping spree at Christmas, confident that the money to pay off the credit cards would somehow be found in the new year. Meanwhile, they have avoided many of their less glamorous responsibilities -- depositing money into pension accounts and other retirement benefits, and paying for adequate infrastructure maintenance. Now, all those bills are coming due, and the money isn’t there to pay them.
Budget problems have become chronic in Connecticut. This year, they got worse. Faced with a projected $5 billion shortfall over the state’s two-year budget period, the legislature blew well past the July 1 budget deadline. (There was still no agreement on a budget as of mid-August.) “People have come to expect a very high level of services, while keeping taxes low,” says state Rep. William Tong. “That math doesn’t work. People are facing two decades of bad decisions and we’re having to reckon with that new reality.” In May, the three major credit rating agencies all downgraded the state, citing weak revenues. Continuing budget fights and tax increases have driven down business confidence. Read More: Governing 9/17
Connecticut may be too rich for its own good. Long blessed with a disproportionate number of high-income residents, the state has entertained lavish spending habits for decades. Lawmakers have acted as if they were on a shopping spree at Christmas, confident that the money to pay off the credit cards would somehow be found in the new year. Meanwhile, they have avoided many of their less glamorous responsibilities -- depositing money into pension accounts and other retirement benefits, and paying for adequate infrastructure maintenance. Now, all those bills are coming due, and the money isn’t there to pay them.
Budget problems have become chronic in Connecticut. This year, they got worse. Faced with a projected $5 billion shortfall over the state’s two-year budget period, the legislature blew well past the July 1 budget deadline. (There was still no agreement on a budget as of mid-August.) “People have come to expect a very high level of services, while keeping taxes low,” says state Rep. William Tong. “That math doesn’t work. People are facing two decades of bad decisions and we’re having to reckon with that new reality.” In May, the three major credit rating agencies all downgraded the state, citing weak revenues. Continuing budget fights and tax increases have driven down business confidence. Read More: Governing 9/17
Moody's Says Revised Executive Order is 'Credit Negative' for Cities and Towns
A Wall Street rating agency says Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s revised executive order that would reduce municipal aid is “credit negative for Connecticut local governments.”
An analyst for Moody’s Investor Services said the revised order reduces municipal aid by $928 million from 2017 levels. The new revised Aug. 18 executive order, which will go into effect on Oct. 1 if the General Assembly fails to pass a budget, reduces Education Cost Sharing grants by $557 million relative to the fiscal year 2017 disbursement. The largest reduction in Education Cost Sharing grants are to Stratford, Southington, and Enfield. Stratford would lose $21.5 million, Southington $20.3 million, and Enfield $20 million, according to Moody’s.
The revised executive order eliminates ECS funding for 85 Connecticut towns and reduces funding to an additional 54 communities. It restores to 2017 levels funding for Connecticut’s 30 lowest-performing school districts, including Hartford, Bridgeport, Waterbury, and New Haven. The executive order also eliminates $182 million in PILOT funding and reduces smaller municipal revenue-sharing grants by approximately $131 million. Read More: CT News Junkie 8/28/17
An analyst for Moody’s Investor Services said the revised order reduces municipal aid by $928 million from 2017 levels. The new revised Aug. 18 executive order, which will go into effect on Oct. 1 if the General Assembly fails to pass a budget, reduces Education Cost Sharing grants by $557 million relative to the fiscal year 2017 disbursement. The largest reduction in Education Cost Sharing grants are to Stratford, Southington, and Enfield. Stratford would lose $21.5 million, Southington $20.3 million, and Enfield $20 million, according to Moody’s.
The revised executive order eliminates ECS funding for 85 Connecticut towns and reduces funding to an additional 54 communities. It restores to 2017 levels funding for Connecticut’s 30 lowest-performing school districts, including Hartford, Bridgeport, Waterbury, and New Haven. The executive order also eliminates $182 million in PILOT funding and reduces smaller municipal revenue-sharing grants by approximately $131 million. Read More: CT News Junkie 8/28/17
Fairfield Taxpayer Believes it is Time for the BOE to Reconsider its K-5 School Expansion Plans
- Despite declining enrollments, the BOE wants to spend millions of dollars to add more capacity to our eleven elementary schools based on projections of higher future enrollments.
- However, those optimistic projections assumed a rebound in births that is not happening.
- Our K-5 schools are currently operating at only 78% of real capacity, and based on the most optimistic enrollment projections, without adding more seats, they would be operating at only 81% of capacity in 2025-26.
- Based on lower actual births, capacity utilization in 2025-26 may be only 66%, with more empty seats (1,925) than all the seats currently in Dwight, Holland Hill, Jennings and Mill Hill (1,776).
- At a time when we will probably be forced to cut spending on our education programs due primarily to the State’s fiscal crisis, it makes no sense to add more excess capacity in our schools.
Tax Increase Next Year of 1.45%
At its meeting on Thursday, May 4th, the Board of Finance (BOF) set the mill rate for next year (FY18) at 25.82, which represents a 1.45% increase from the current mill rate of 25.45. The Board set the new rate after a long discussion about the budget challenges Fairfield faces the following year (FY19) and the increasing risks for Fairfield associated with the deepening fiscal crisis in the State of Connecticut. This concludes a budget process that began with a proposed 4.5% tax increase by the First Selectman, followed by a proposed 1.3% tax increase by the Board of Selectmen, followed by a proposed 1.8% tax increase by the Board of Finance, and ended with a 1.45% tax increase by the Representative Town Meeting earlier this week to cover total spending of $298.5 million (up 1.7%).
According to the BOF, the challenges in FY19 will come from the absence of certain non-recurring benefits to the Town’s revenues and spending in the FY18 budget just adopted, on top of the normal increase in wages and other costs, which together in FY19 could require a 5%-6% increase in taxes, a comparable cut in spending, or some combination of the two. In order to address this looming challenge, all departments, both municipal (35% of total spending) and education (65% of total spending) will be asked to come up with significant cost-reduction recommendations over the next nine months before the formal budget process even begins for FY19.
In addition, there is also a growing risk that the State will make further reductions in the aid it provides to our town (now around $6 million) and/or that it will shift some of its costs onto CT towns (e.g., in his proposed budget, the Governor wanted to shift one-third of teacher pension costs to CT towns, which at this point does not appear likely to happen, but would have cost Fairfield $9.2 million next year). Within the last week, the projected State budget deficit has increased dramatically due to much lower than expected income tax receipts in April. The projected combined deficit for FY18 and FY19 (NB: the State does its budgets in two-year cycles, known as a biennium) is now $5.1 billion, representing approximately 13% of its combined spending of about $40 billion (i.e., about $20 billion per year) in those two years. Some combination of very substantial spending cuts and higher taxes will be required to balance the State budget.
According to the BOF, the challenges in FY19 will come from the absence of certain non-recurring benefits to the Town’s revenues and spending in the FY18 budget just adopted, on top of the normal increase in wages and other costs, which together in FY19 could require a 5%-6% increase in taxes, a comparable cut in spending, or some combination of the two. In order to address this looming challenge, all departments, both municipal (35% of total spending) and education (65% of total spending) will be asked to come up with significant cost-reduction recommendations over the next nine months before the formal budget process even begins for FY19.
In addition, there is also a growing risk that the State will make further reductions in the aid it provides to our town (now around $6 million) and/or that it will shift some of its costs onto CT towns (e.g., in his proposed budget, the Governor wanted to shift one-third of teacher pension costs to CT towns, which at this point does not appear likely to happen, but would have cost Fairfield $9.2 million next year). Within the last week, the projected State budget deficit has increased dramatically due to much lower than expected income tax receipts in April. The projected combined deficit for FY18 and FY19 (NB: the State does its budgets in two-year cycles, known as a biennium) is now $5.1 billion, representing approximately 13% of its combined spending of about $40 billion (i.e., about $20 billion per year) in those two years. Some combination of very substantial spending cuts and higher taxes will be required to balance the State budget.
RTM Adopts Fairfield's Budget
Ignoring warnings from their Republican colleagues on the finance board, the GOP majority on the Representative Town Meeting Monday adopted a budget that slashed $825,000 from the contingency account. For the most part, votes at the annual budget meeting split cleanly across party lines. The final $298,491,556 spending plan for 2017-18 reflects a 1.45 percent tax increase and translates to a tax rate of 25.82 mills. The final mill rate, however, will be set by the Board of Finance when it meets tonight at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Education conference room.
Board of Finance Chairman Thomas Flynn cautioned the legislative body against cutting any of the $1.2 million his board put into the contingency account. Flynn said the purpose behind that money was three-fold and provided flexibility given the uncertainty of state revenue. If the town loses more under a final state budget, he said, or if the town’s own revenue projections fall short, this account will give them some room to maneuver. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 5/2/17
Board of Finance Chairman Thomas Flynn cautioned the legislative body against cutting any of the $1.2 million his board put into the contingency account. Flynn said the purpose behind that money was three-fold and provided flexibility given the uncertainty of state revenue. If the town loses more under a final state budget, he said, or if the town’s own revenue projections fall short, this account will give them some room to maneuver. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 5/2/17
Teachers Union Wants to Run Fairfield Like the Unions Have Run Our State
Hartford is 60 miles away, but Hartford politics are right here and right now in Fairfield.
Listen to what Bob Smoler, the President of Fairfield’s Teachers Union (the FEA) and a Westport resident, tells his members: we “need to do whatever we can to help elect democrats” . . . because “our new contract will be coming up for a vote this fall” . . . and “the democrats will put up a very pro-education candidate.”
So, Fairfield teachers spearheaded the effort to force a special election on June 6th for the Board of Selectmen, after which Union President Smoler said: “I can’t thank all of you enough for the incredible job you did. We only had six days to take action to make a special election possible, and you, the FEA, pulled it together.”
The next step is likely to be a Union-led get-out-the-vote effort for the special election complete with teachers once again knocking on our doors.
Do we really want more of our Town boards controlled by Union-endorsed members like our Board of Education is after the 2015 election, the same BOE that negotiates and approves teacher and other school salaries, benefits and work rules that determine almost half of Fairfield’s total spending?
Fairfield Taxpayer asks all voters to consider whether it is good for Fairfield to elect public officials who are endorsed and supported by the Teachers Union, only 30% of whose members are Fairfield residents.
More detail in this Fairfield Minuteman article:
Controversy continues over special election
Fairfield Minuteman 3/31/17
Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled on March 10 that a special election must be held to fill a seat on Fairfield’s Board of Selectman that was vacated by Republican Laurie McArdle in December, and set June 6 as the date for that election. The vacancy was initially filled, in accord with past practice, by Republican Ed Bateson, a candidate recommended by the Republican Town Committee, with the bipartisan consent of Democratic First Selectman Mike Tetreau and Republican Selectman Chris Tymniak.
However, citing State law that allows a special election for such a vacancy if at least 5 percent of voters sign a petition in favor of one, the Democratic Town Committee led a successful effort to gather the necessary signatures. The Republican Town Committee maintains that the State statute would apply only if the vacancy had not been filled within 30 days, in accord with the Town Charter, and may appeal the Judge’s decision to the State Supreme Court.
“I believe the judge’s decision was right in line with our Town Attorney’s opinion on how the special election process should proceed,” said Tetreau. “The judge ruled there is no conflict between the Town Charter and the State statutes. She ruled the voters have a right to call for the special election. My two colleagues on the Board of Selectmen have a serious conflict of interest in trying to prevent the vote and deny the special election. It threatens their majority on the board and it threatens Mr. Bateson’s position on the board. I am surprised that they have voted and have taken this action against the obvious rights of the voters, especially the over 3,000 people who signed the petition. I have to question – What are they afraid of? While there is talk of an appeal, I would think that they would consider that continuing to deny the people a right to vote has no legal basis. I would hope they honor the court’s ruling.”
Meanwhile, some observers have raised concerns about how the necessary petition signatures were obtained, and particularly the role of the Fairfield Education Association (FEA), which is the union representing Fairfield’s teachers.
Robert Smoler, President of the FEA, a teacher at Fairfield Warde High School, and a resident of Westport, told the Minuteman, “Speaking as President of the Fairfield Education Association (FEA), the teachers did participate in gathering signatures for the special election. The FEA is a strictly nonpartisan organization and support both Democrats and Republicans for office. We have long felt that you support and elect a person, not a party. Given the amount of time left on Ms. McCardle’s term (three years), we felt it was important and appropriate that the voters of the Town of Fairfield have the ability to select who they want in the selectman’s chair over that period of time. After all, that person is going to vote on the next three town budgets and at least one teacher’s contract.”
Another FWHS teacher and Westport resident, Michael McGarry, told the Minuteman, “The process of gathering signatures demonstrated how positively people felt about the prospect of a special election. People were enthusiastic to both sign the petitions and help gather signatures. We more than met the legal threshold.”
However, James Millington, chairman of the Republican Town Committee, has raised concerns about the teacher union’s role in obtaining signatures. “In the days and weeks following the collection of signatures by the Democrats, I have heard from many people who apologized for signing the petition as they did not realize what they were signing,” he said. According to Millington, in addition to being misinformed that there was a vacancy on the Board of Selectmen when that vacancy had already been filled, “people were also told that if they did not sign the petition, curriculum was going to be cut, teachers would be laid off and that teachers pensions were at risk.” “All of these statements were completely false and not under consideration by the Board of Selectmen.”
Fairfield resident Bud Morten, co-founder of the local advocacy group Fairfield Taxpayer, is also concerned about the union’s role in Fairfield’s affairs. “I doubt most people in Fairfield realize what the Union has been doing,” and he notes that “Connecticut’s growing fiscal crisis is the strongest possible object lesson about what happens when public employee unions gain political influence over the elected officials who negotiate and approve their contracts.” As examples, Morten says the FEA “endorsed five candidates for the BOE in 2015, all of whom were elected; endorsed two local candidates for the State Assembly in 2016, one of whom was elected; supported the Democratic Town Committee’s recent petition efforts for as special election; operates a PAC that makes contributions to political candidates; regularly packs the room with teachers whenever union contracts and school budgets are up for approval, and at events like Saturday’s Board of Finance public budget forum.” In the recent petition effort, he says, “teachers, only 30 percent of whom are residents of Fairfield, exploited their special relationships with parents to get the necessary signatures.” He notes, “How does a parent say ‘no’ to their child’s teacher/coach when they are approached at a holiday concert and asked to sign a petition to save their job?”
In his statement to the Minuteman, Mr. Smoler stated that “Ed Bateson, who is a fine individual that has a distinguished record of service to the Town of Fairfield, was appointed to the selectman’s position by the Republican Party. He was not elected by the voters in town. If we have a special election and Ed wins that seat, so be it. That’s the democratic process and the people will have spoken. The voters should be given that right to speak and that’s why it has been so disappointing that the Republican Party has worked to block the special election. As for the FEA itself, we are very hopeful there will be a special election.”
According to Morten, “Whatever high-minded motives Mr. Smoler may claim for his union’s political activities, his recent emails to his members, which have been widely circulated by parents and others, speak for themselves. Quoting these e-mails, Morten says that Mr. Smoler exhorted teachers to get people to sign the petitions “because our new contract will be coming up for a vote this fall,” because “the Democrats will put up a very pro-education candidate,” because “the person (elected) is going to hold tremendous sway over the next two teachers contracts and the next three education budgets,” and therefore “we need to do everything we can to help the Democrats get the signatures they need.” And in his December 22, 2016, message congratulating his members, Morten quotes Mr. Smoler as saying, “I can’t thank you enough for the incredible job you did. We only had six days to take action to make a special election possible, and you, the FEA, pulled it off.”
The Fairfield Republican Town committee Tuesday unanimously endorsed Ed Bateson as its selectman candidate for the upcoming election while Kevin Kiley, former Republican now Democrat, was unanimously endorsed as a selectman candidate by the Democratic Town Committee. “Fairfield has excellent school systems, and we must maintain our education system through proper and prudent funding,” Kiley said.
-Kendra Wingate
Listen to what Bob Smoler, the President of Fairfield’s Teachers Union (the FEA) and a Westport resident, tells his members: we “need to do whatever we can to help elect democrats” . . . because “our new contract will be coming up for a vote this fall” . . . and “the democrats will put up a very pro-education candidate.”
So, Fairfield teachers spearheaded the effort to force a special election on June 6th for the Board of Selectmen, after which Union President Smoler said: “I can’t thank all of you enough for the incredible job you did. We only had six days to take action to make a special election possible, and you, the FEA, pulled it together.”
The next step is likely to be a Union-led get-out-the-vote effort for the special election complete with teachers once again knocking on our doors.
Do we really want more of our Town boards controlled by Union-endorsed members like our Board of Education is after the 2015 election, the same BOE that negotiates and approves teacher and other school salaries, benefits and work rules that determine almost half of Fairfield’s total spending?
Fairfield Taxpayer asks all voters to consider whether it is good for Fairfield to elect public officials who are endorsed and supported by the Teachers Union, only 30% of whose members are Fairfield residents.
More detail in this Fairfield Minuteman article:
Controversy continues over special election
Fairfield Minuteman 3/31/17
Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled on March 10 that a special election must be held to fill a seat on Fairfield’s Board of Selectman that was vacated by Republican Laurie McArdle in December, and set June 6 as the date for that election. The vacancy was initially filled, in accord with past practice, by Republican Ed Bateson, a candidate recommended by the Republican Town Committee, with the bipartisan consent of Democratic First Selectman Mike Tetreau and Republican Selectman Chris Tymniak.
However, citing State law that allows a special election for such a vacancy if at least 5 percent of voters sign a petition in favor of one, the Democratic Town Committee led a successful effort to gather the necessary signatures. The Republican Town Committee maintains that the State statute would apply only if the vacancy had not been filled within 30 days, in accord with the Town Charter, and may appeal the Judge’s decision to the State Supreme Court.
“I believe the judge’s decision was right in line with our Town Attorney’s opinion on how the special election process should proceed,” said Tetreau. “The judge ruled there is no conflict between the Town Charter and the State statutes. She ruled the voters have a right to call for the special election. My two colleagues on the Board of Selectmen have a serious conflict of interest in trying to prevent the vote and deny the special election. It threatens their majority on the board and it threatens Mr. Bateson’s position on the board. I am surprised that they have voted and have taken this action against the obvious rights of the voters, especially the over 3,000 people who signed the petition. I have to question – What are they afraid of? While there is talk of an appeal, I would think that they would consider that continuing to deny the people a right to vote has no legal basis. I would hope they honor the court’s ruling.”
Meanwhile, some observers have raised concerns about how the necessary petition signatures were obtained, and particularly the role of the Fairfield Education Association (FEA), which is the union representing Fairfield’s teachers.
Robert Smoler, President of the FEA, a teacher at Fairfield Warde High School, and a resident of Westport, told the Minuteman, “Speaking as President of the Fairfield Education Association (FEA), the teachers did participate in gathering signatures for the special election. The FEA is a strictly nonpartisan organization and support both Democrats and Republicans for office. We have long felt that you support and elect a person, not a party. Given the amount of time left on Ms. McCardle’s term (three years), we felt it was important and appropriate that the voters of the Town of Fairfield have the ability to select who they want in the selectman’s chair over that period of time. After all, that person is going to vote on the next three town budgets and at least one teacher’s contract.”
Another FWHS teacher and Westport resident, Michael McGarry, told the Minuteman, “The process of gathering signatures demonstrated how positively people felt about the prospect of a special election. People were enthusiastic to both sign the petitions and help gather signatures. We more than met the legal threshold.”
However, James Millington, chairman of the Republican Town Committee, has raised concerns about the teacher union’s role in obtaining signatures. “In the days and weeks following the collection of signatures by the Democrats, I have heard from many people who apologized for signing the petition as they did not realize what they were signing,” he said. According to Millington, in addition to being misinformed that there was a vacancy on the Board of Selectmen when that vacancy had already been filled, “people were also told that if they did not sign the petition, curriculum was going to be cut, teachers would be laid off and that teachers pensions were at risk.” “All of these statements were completely false and not under consideration by the Board of Selectmen.”
Fairfield resident Bud Morten, co-founder of the local advocacy group Fairfield Taxpayer, is also concerned about the union’s role in Fairfield’s affairs. “I doubt most people in Fairfield realize what the Union has been doing,” and he notes that “Connecticut’s growing fiscal crisis is the strongest possible object lesson about what happens when public employee unions gain political influence over the elected officials who negotiate and approve their contracts.” As examples, Morten says the FEA “endorsed five candidates for the BOE in 2015, all of whom were elected; endorsed two local candidates for the State Assembly in 2016, one of whom was elected; supported the Democratic Town Committee’s recent petition efforts for as special election; operates a PAC that makes contributions to political candidates; regularly packs the room with teachers whenever union contracts and school budgets are up for approval, and at events like Saturday’s Board of Finance public budget forum.” In the recent petition effort, he says, “teachers, only 30 percent of whom are residents of Fairfield, exploited their special relationships with parents to get the necessary signatures.” He notes, “How does a parent say ‘no’ to their child’s teacher/coach when they are approached at a holiday concert and asked to sign a petition to save their job?”
In his statement to the Minuteman, Mr. Smoler stated that “Ed Bateson, who is a fine individual that has a distinguished record of service to the Town of Fairfield, was appointed to the selectman’s position by the Republican Party. He was not elected by the voters in town. If we have a special election and Ed wins that seat, so be it. That’s the democratic process and the people will have spoken. The voters should be given that right to speak and that’s why it has been so disappointing that the Republican Party has worked to block the special election. As for the FEA itself, we are very hopeful there will be a special election.”
According to Morten, “Whatever high-minded motives Mr. Smoler may claim for his union’s political activities, his recent emails to his members, which have been widely circulated by parents and others, speak for themselves. Quoting these e-mails, Morten says that Mr. Smoler exhorted teachers to get people to sign the petitions “because our new contract will be coming up for a vote this fall,” because “the Democrats will put up a very pro-education candidate,” because “the person (elected) is going to hold tremendous sway over the next two teachers contracts and the next three education budgets,” and therefore “we need to do everything we can to help the Democrats get the signatures they need.” And in his December 22, 2016, message congratulating his members, Morten quotes Mr. Smoler as saying, “I can’t thank you enough for the incredible job you did. We only had six days to take action to make a special election possible, and you, the FEA, pulled it off.”
The Fairfield Republican Town committee Tuesday unanimously endorsed Ed Bateson as its selectman candidate for the upcoming election while Kevin Kiley, former Republican now Democrat, was unanimously endorsed as a selectman candidate by the Democratic Town Committee. “Fairfield has excellent school systems, and we must maintain our education system through proper and prudent funding,” Kiley said.
-Kendra Wingate
Fairfield Selectmen Adopt Budget with a 1.3% Tax Increase
With a proposed state teacher pension bill of $9 million no longer the full black cloud it once was hanging over the town, the Board of Selectmen Tuesday adopted a 2017-18 budget of $298,047,150 that calls for a 1.3 percent tax increase. After getting word that Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s pension proposal would not pass the General Assembly, First Selectman Mike Tetreau sought to restore cuts he made to the Board of Education, the Department of Public Works, and the town libraries. Without the $9 million payment to the state, the restoration of those cuts would have meant a tax increase of 2.2 percent, instead of 4.48 percent. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 3/30/17
With a proposed state teacher pension bill of $9 million no longer the full black cloud it once was hanging over the town, the Board of Selectmen Tuesday adopted a 2017-18 budget of $298,047,150 that calls for a 1.3 percent tax increase. After getting word that Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s pension proposal would not pass the General Assembly, First Selectman Mike Tetreau sought to restore cuts he made to the Board of Education, the Department of Public Works, and the town libraries. Without the $9 million payment to the state, the restoration of those cuts would have meant a tax increase of 2.2 percent, instead of 4.48 percent. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 3/30/17
Fairfield residents: Stand up to Hartford on budget
Parents said families won’t move to town if the school system budget is slashed. Seniors said they won’t be staying if taxes go up 4.48 percent.
But one thing both groups seemed to support at Saturday’s public hearing on the proposed $308 million budget is standing up to lawmakers, and the governor, and just saying “no” to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s spending plan that not only cuts revenue, but bills the town $9 million for the underfunded state-managed teacher pension plan. Fairfield Citizen 3.20.17 Read More
Parents said families won’t move to town if the school system budget is slashed. Seniors said they won’t be staying if taxes go up 4.48 percent.
But one thing both groups seemed to support at Saturday’s public hearing on the proposed $308 million budget is standing up to lawmakers, and the governor, and just saying “no” to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s spending plan that not only cuts revenue, but bills the town $9 million for the underfunded state-managed teacher pension plan. Fairfield Citizen 3.20.17 Read More
Impossible to Assess Racial Imbalance Plan without "Open Choice" Cost Information
As part of the need to respond to the State’s request for revisions to Fairfield’s Racial Imbalance Plan, there will be a public hearing on this topic on Tuesday, March 14, beginning at 6:45 pm at BOE headquarters, 501 Kings Highway, 2nd Floor.
Fairfield Taxpayer fully respects the intent of the State law, but believes it is unfortunate that it is being rigidly applied to Fairfield’s McKinley School, where families are apparently so happy with the school itself, with its culture and with its performance, that none of them wants to leave. Read More
As part of the need to respond to the State’s request for revisions to Fairfield’s Racial Imbalance Plan, there will be a public hearing on this topic on Tuesday, March 14, beginning at 6:45 pm at BOE headquarters, 501 Kings Highway, 2nd Floor.
Fairfield Taxpayer fully respects the intent of the State law, but believes it is unfortunate that it is being rigidly applied to Fairfield’s McKinley School, where families are apparently so happy with the school itself, with its culture and with its performance, that none of them wants to leave. Read More
Fairfield Taxpayer Responds to First Selectman Tetreau
A Fairfield resident recently asked First Selectman Tetreau to respond to Fairfield Taxpayer's alternative budget recommendations. We have copied below in its entirety the First Selectman's response.
On the critical issue of how the Town should deal with the possibility that Fairfield might have to pay the State $9.2million next year (representing one-third of our teachers’ pension costs, and 3.3% of our current tax levy), the First Selectman's response makes clear Read More
A Fairfield resident recently asked First Selectman Tetreau to respond to Fairfield Taxpayer's alternative budget recommendations. We have copied below in its entirety the First Selectman's response.
On the critical issue of how the Town should deal with the possibility that Fairfield might have to pay the State $9.2million next year (representing one-third of our teachers’ pension costs, and 3.3% of our current tax levy), the First Selectman's response makes clear Read More
What Goes Up Must Come Down . . . Except Fairfield Taxes
Below is Fairfield Taxpayer's "White Paper" regarding the Fiscal 2018 Budget. Please stay tuned for further messages from Fairfield Taxpayer about what we can do to convince all our elected officials that any tax increase greater than 1.5% is not acceptable.
The State's fiscal crisis is beginning to have a major impact on Fairfield. State municipal aid is being cut, and the Governor also wants towns to pay one-third of the State’s huge overdue bill for teacher pensions. The only options for towns like Fairfield will be to raise taxes or cut spending, (3.5.17) Read More
Below is Fairfield Taxpayer's "White Paper" regarding the Fiscal 2018 Budget. Please stay tuned for further messages from Fairfield Taxpayer about what we can do to convince all our elected officials that any tax increase greater than 1.5% is not acceptable.
The State's fiscal crisis is beginning to have a major impact on Fairfield. State municipal aid is being cut, and the Governor also wants towns to pay one-third of the State’s huge overdue bill for teacher pensions. The only options for towns like Fairfield will be to raise taxes or cut spending, (3.5.17) Read More
THE OSBORN HILL WALKWAY -- TIME TO RECONSIDER
No building project better illustrates the disconnect between what our Town spends versus how any sensible taxpayer would spend his or her own money.
At Osborn Hill school, an existing 700 square-foot covered walkway between two buildings is supposed to be enclosed. The Osborn Hill Building Committee, supported by some members of our Board of Education, wants to spend $767,000 of the taxpayers’ money to do this. That is a lot of money – it is substantially more than the value of most of the homes in Fairfield, which by the way includes the value of their land (see example below). Even a less expensive option that would cost “only” $567,000 is crazy, particularly at a time when our tax base is declining, and the State is cutting its support and shifting major additional costs like teacher pensions to towns like Fairfield.
The attached paper begins with a description of what is happening in our State and our Town, provides background information on the Osborn Hill project, and urges elected officials to cancel this exorbitantly expensive project until we can do it at a sensible cost. Read Our Analysis
No building project better illustrates the disconnect between what our Town spends versus how any sensible taxpayer would spend his or her own money.
At Osborn Hill school, an existing 700 square-foot covered walkway between two buildings is supposed to be enclosed. The Osborn Hill Building Committee, supported by some members of our Board of Education, wants to spend $767,000 of the taxpayers’ money to do this. That is a lot of money – it is substantially more than the value of most of the homes in Fairfield, which by the way includes the value of their land (see example below). Even a less expensive option that would cost “only” $567,000 is crazy, particularly at a time when our tax base is declining, and the State is cutting its support and shifting major additional costs like teacher pensions to towns like Fairfield.
The attached paper begins with a description of what is happening in our State and our Town, provides background information on the Osborn Hill project, and urges elected officials to cancel this exorbitantly expensive project until we can do it at a sensible cost. Read Our Analysis
HOLLAND HILL QUESTIONS AND BACKGROUND
The Holland Hill Building Committee (HHBC) recently announced that the projected cost of the planned renovations and expansion ($21 million)[1] would be more than twice as much as the original estimate ($9 million),[2] and 50% more than the most recent BOE estimate ($13-$14 million). This is the latest in a series of bad news for taxpayers about the cost of public building projects.
We believe taxpayers deserve good answers to the following six questions:
The Holland Hill Building Committee (HHBC) recently announced that the projected cost of the planned renovations and expansion ($21 million)[1] would be more than twice as much as the original estimate ($9 million),[2] and 50% more than the most recent BOE estimate ($13-$14 million). This is the latest in a series of bad news for taxpayers about the cost of public building projects.
We believe taxpayers deserve good answers to the following six questions:
- Why will Holland Hill cost so much more than we thought it would?
- With State aid declining, how much can we afford to spend on Holland Hill?
- What can we eliminate from the Holland Hill project to reduce its cost?
- What if we need to remediate PCBs at Holland Hill?
- Why is the cost of public construction so high?
- How can we improve our building committee process to lower the cost of our projects? READ MORE
2018 Budget Process is just Getting Underway
The annual budget season for 2018 begins in early January, when the Superintendent of Schools submits a recommended budget to the BOE. By the end of January, the BOE submits its recommended budget to the First Selectman, who, in turn, a month later presents his recommended budget for the combined Town and BOE spending. This is followed by joint public hearings on the budget in March by the BOS and the BOF. In late March/early April, first the BOS and then the BOF approve a budget that is sent to the RTM. The RTM holds hearings during April, and approves a final budget in early May.
Posted below are the remarks of Chairman Tom Flynn at the Board of Finance meeting on December 6th., in which he addresses the budget challenges facing the Town for fiscal 2018.
I want, first of all, to thank my colleagues for your support to continue as your Chairman. It is not a job or an honor that I take lightly. As I have said many times previously, I am very proud to be a member of this body, proud to count you as friends and colleagues, and work hard to ensure our Board functions well.
In years past, I have stopped my comments there – but this is not a typical year and my comments are meant for a broader audience.
One of the things, that I am proudest of, in my 11 years on this Board, is the proactive and leadership approach that this Board has taken when confronting important financial issues that will or could impact the Town. Pension issues, the global economic meltdown, the underfunding of some long-term liabilities, growing the Town’s fund balance, investigating the Metro Center project, planning capital projects – all of these are examples of issues where our Board pressed for action, provided guidance and raised awareness.
Because of these actions, the Town’s financial position has not only been preserved, but strengthened. Working with our colleagues on the Board of Selectman, the RTM and the Board of Education, as well as numerous department heads, we have done what was in the best financial interests of the Town and its taxpayers.
As we start this next year, however, we face a new and growing threat – the loss of revenue in an unprecedented amount – first, from the loss of revenue coming back from the State and, second, the continued uncertainty from the loss of our single largest taxpayer, GE. If it is just passed on to our tax payers, the result of this revenue loss could mean a tax increase of between 1.25% and 1.75% without accounting for ANY spending increases. These items, while not of our making, are ours to help manage. The State, in years past, has taken the easy road – and have under-funded long-term obligations, bonded significant sums of money – in short, “kicked the can down the road,” as opposed to making the tough decisions that financial hardships require.
We should not and cannot do the same. Through talking with my colleagues on this Board, no one wants to make the same mistakes and damage the Town’s financial position. I know the Board of Selectman and the RTM share our concerns.We must be diligent in this next budget process. We must ask departments heads to review all of their processes/procedures/policies and services. They must review their departments for areas where they can be even more efficient than many of them already are.
We cannot simply ask the taxpayers of the Town to make up the revenue shortfalls with increased taxes – remember, through Income and Sales Taxes, our citizens already contribute over $260 million to the State of Connecticut.The Town gets back under $8 million in direct annual revenue – and that number is decreasing. As the State looks to resolve its financial difficulties, the impact to our Town and its citizens is likely to be even more negative.
I have spoken with the First Selectman and know that he has sent the message to Town-side department heads that their budgets need to be conservative and well thought out. I want to echo those comments and ask that they bring forth only new ideas on how we can be more efficient in the short-term. I would also encourage the Board of Education to adopt that same line of thinking – to review all their policies/procedures and operations – including areas related to unfunded mandates from the State – to identify areas where they can reduce spending while preserving the quality of direct programs to the students of the Town.
No one, on any board, wants to see the quality of Town services or education suffer. This Board has been particularly supportive of educational initiatives and investment in our schools – capital and operating.
In the mid-term, I would encourage the Board of Selectman to act swiftly and move forward with the longer-term strategic plan for the Town that myself – and many members of this Board – have been advocating for – for quite some time. It is more imperative than ever that the operations of the Town, the services provided and the very structure of the Town operations be reviewed – with no sacred cows and every stone overturned.
So, as we face these unprecedented times – and revenue issues – we are asking, I am asking, the other Town bodies, elected officials, department heads and Town employees – to assist us in keeping Fairfield’s financial position strong – while understanding the significant pressures facing the Town and our tax paying citizens who are under enormous pressures of their own and are looking for us to provide the appropriate leadership for all of us.
I have every confidence that this Board will do its part – will be leaders on these issues – but we need a collective effort to make the right decisions.
I know we will do the right thing for the citizens of our Town. I thank you for your time and your attention.
December 6, 2016
The annual budget season for 2018 begins in early January, when the Superintendent of Schools submits a recommended budget to the BOE. By the end of January, the BOE submits its recommended budget to the First Selectman, who, in turn, a month later presents his recommended budget for the combined Town and BOE spending. This is followed by joint public hearings on the budget in March by the BOS and the BOF. In late March/early April, first the BOS and then the BOF approve a budget that is sent to the RTM. The RTM holds hearings during April, and approves a final budget in early May.
Posted below are the remarks of Chairman Tom Flynn at the Board of Finance meeting on December 6th., in which he addresses the budget challenges facing the Town for fiscal 2018.
I want, first of all, to thank my colleagues for your support to continue as your Chairman. It is not a job or an honor that I take lightly. As I have said many times previously, I am very proud to be a member of this body, proud to count you as friends and colleagues, and work hard to ensure our Board functions well.
In years past, I have stopped my comments there – but this is not a typical year and my comments are meant for a broader audience.
One of the things, that I am proudest of, in my 11 years on this Board, is the proactive and leadership approach that this Board has taken when confronting important financial issues that will or could impact the Town. Pension issues, the global economic meltdown, the underfunding of some long-term liabilities, growing the Town’s fund balance, investigating the Metro Center project, planning capital projects – all of these are examples of issues where our Board pressed for action, provided guidance and raised awareness.
Because of these actions, the Town’s financial position has not only been preserved, but strengthened. Working with our colleagues on the Board of Selectman, the RTM and the Board of Education, as well as numerous department heads, we have done what was in the best financial interests of the Town and its taxpayers.
As we start this next year, however, we face a new and growing threat – the loss of revenue in an unprecedented amount – first, from the loss of revenue coming back from the State and, second, the continued uncertainty from the loss of our single largest taxpayer, GE. If it is just passed on to our tax payers, the result of this revenue loss could mean a tax increase of between 1.25% and 1.75% without accounting for ANY spending increases. These items, while not of our making, are ours to help manage. The State, in years past, has taken the easy road – and have under-funded long-term obligations, bonded significant sums of money – in short, “kicked the can down the road,” as opposed to making the tough decisions that financial hardships require.
We should not and cannot do the same. Through talking with my colleagues on this Board, no one wants to make the same mistakes and damage the Town’s financial position. I know the Board of Selectman and the RTM share our concerns.We must be diligent in this next budget process. We must ask departments heads to review all of their processes/procedures/policies and services. They must review their departments for areas where they can be even more efficient than many of them already are.
We cannot simply ask the taxpayers of the Town to make up the revenue shortfalls with increased taxes – remember, through Income and Sales Taxes, our citizens already contribute over $260 million to the State of Connecticut.The Town gets back under $8 million in direct annual revenue – and that number is decreasing. As the State looks to resolve its financial difficulties, the impact to our Town and its citizens is likely to be even more negative.
I have spoken with the First Selectman and know that he has sent the message to Town-side department heads that their budgets need to be conservative and well thought out. I want to echo those comments and ask that they bring forth only new ideas on how we can be more efficient in the short-term. I would also encourage the Board of Education to adopt that same line of thinking – to review all their policies/procedures and operations – including areas related to unfunded mandates from the State – to identify areas where they can reduce spending while preserving the quality of direct programs to the students of the Town.
No one, on any board, wants to see the quality of Town services or education suffer. This Board has been particularly supportive of educational initiatives and investment in our schools – capital and operating.
In the mid-term, I would encourage the Board of Selectman to act swiftly and move forward with the longer-term strategic plan for the Town that myself – and many members of this Board – have been advocating for – for quite some time. It is more imperative than ever that the operations of the Town, the services provided and the very structure of the Town operations be reviewed – with no sacred cows and every stone overturned.
So, as we face these unprecedented times – and revenue issues – we are asking, I am asking, the other Town bodies, elected officials, department heads and Town employees – to assist us in keeping Fairfield’s financial position strong – while understanding the significant pressures facing the Town and our tax paying citizens who are under enormous pressures of their own and are looking for us to provide the appropriate leadership for all of us.
I have every confidence that this Board will do its part – will be leaders on these issues – but we need a collective effort to make the right decisions.
I know we will do the right thing for the citizens of our Town. I thank you for your time and your attention.
December 6, 2016
Tetreau: GE Sale to SHU May Mean Tax Increases
The purchase of the former General Electric property by Sacred Heart University is concerning to Fairfield First Selectman Mike Tetreau because the University is a nonprofit institution and is therefore exempt from local property taxes. “While I appreciate the benefits to Sacred Heart for their future growth and expansion, I am concerned in the short term of the impact of the loss of revenue for the town,” Tetreau said Monday. “This creates a new challenge moving forward,” said Tetreau, who raised the possibility of tax increases going forward.Sacred Heart announced last week its agreement to purchase the 66-acre campus, which has been home to General Electric’s global headquarters for the past four decades, for $31.5 million. GE announced in January of this year that it would move its headquarters to Boston. The company has been paying about $1.6 million in property taxes to the town of Fairfield. Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 11/29/16
The purchase of the former General Electric property by Sacred Heart University is concerning to Fairfield First Selectman Mike Tetreau because the University is a nonprofit institution and is therefore exempt from local property taxes. “While I appreciate the benefits to Sacred Heart for their future growth and expansion, I am concerned in the short term of the impact of the loss of revenue for the town,” Tetreau said Monday. “This creates a new challenge moving forward,” said Tetreau, who raised the possibility of tax increases going forward.Sacred Heart announced last week its agreement to purchase the 66-acre campus, which has been home to General Electric’s global headquarters for the past four decades, for $31.5 million. GE announced in January of this year that it would move its headquarters to Boston. The company has been paying about $1.6 million in property taxes to the town of Fairfield. Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 11/29/16
WONDERING HOW CT CAN TURN AROUND? ATTEND on DEC 2!
The meeting posted below, which is open to anyone who is interested, is another in a series that is sponsored by a non-partisan organization called Imagine Connecticut. Several participants in Fairfield Taxpayer have attended earlier meetings, each of which provides access to elected and appointed State Officials, such as Ben Barnes, Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, and Catherine Smith, the Commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development. Other featured guests have included David Walker, former US Comptroller General, and Jim Cameron, founder of the Commuter Action Group. The upcoming meeting features State Comptroller Kevin Lembo and Joe Brennan, who is the President and CEO of the CT Business and Industry Association.
Imagine Connecticut Budget & Business Round Table
Speakers: Ask Connecticut's Comptroller, Kevin Lembo, directly about our budget issue and solutions. Also hear Joe Brennan, CEO of the CT Business & Industry Association (CBIA), on the business climate in the state. Please forward this to other people you know in this area.
Date/Time: Friday, December 2nd, 8 - 10 am
Location: Norwalk Inn, 99 East Ave, Norwalk, CT 06851
Cost: $5.00 at the door or at our home page. More is always appreciated!
Hosts: Steve Obsitnik & Ted Yang
Background:
Imagine Connecticut was inspired not just by the frustration we feel about continued job loss, like GE and Bristol Myers, and the compounding, chronic fiscal crisis, but also by a determination to change our state's future prospects.
Imagine Connecticut is a broad-based, non-partisan group that brings leaders together who are committed to a Connecticut that vibrantly creates jobs, attracts and retains people and creates an aligned climate where both people and institutions prosper, while preserving the special character of our state. In short, we imagine the day when CT is once again a top 10 job creation state.
We look forward to seeing you on December 2nd in Norwalk!
Steve Obsitnik & Ted Yang
www.imagineconnecticut.com
The meeting posted below, which is open to anyone who is interested, is another in a series that is sponsored by a non-partisan organization called Imagine Connecticut. Several participants in Fairfield Taxpayer have attended earlier meetings, each of which provides access to elected and appointed State Officials, such as Ben Barnes, Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, and Catherine Smith, the Commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development. Other featured guests have included David Walker, former US Comptroller General, and Jim Cameron, founder of the Commuter Action Group. The upcoming meeting features State Comptroller Kevin Lembo and Joe Brennan, who is the President and CEO of the CT Business and Industry Association.
Imagine Connecticut Budget & Business Round Table
Speakers: Ask Connecticut's Comptroller, Kevin Lembo, directly about our budget issue and solutions. Also hear Joe Brennan, CEO of the CT Business & Industry Association (CBIA), on the business climate in the state. Please forward this to other people you know in this area.
Date/Time: Friday, December 2nd, 8 - 10 am
Location: Norwalk Inn, 99 East Ave, Norwalk, CT 06851
Cost: $5.00 at the door or at our home page. More is always appreciated!
Hosts: Steve Obsitnik & Ted Yang
Background:
Imagine Connecticut was inspired not just by the frustration we feel about continued job loss, like GE and Bristol Myers, and the compounding, chronic fiscal crisis, but also by a determination to change our state's future prospects.
Imagine Connecticut is a broad-based, non-partisan group that brings leaders together who are committed to a Connecticut that vibrantly creates jobs, attracts and retains people and creates an aligned climate where both people and institutions prosper, while preserving the special character of our state. In short, we imagine the day when CT is once again a top 10 job creation state.
We look forward to seeing you on December 2nd in Norwalk!
Steve Obsitnik & Ted Yang
www.imagineconnecticut.com
As described in this article, Westport continues to move forward with major improvements in its two business centers. As stated in our "Strategic Plan for Fairfield" (www.FairfieldStrategicPlan.com), Fairfield Taxpayer believes that we “should consider bold, transformational changes, like a complete makeover of Fairfield Center, with a major public-private, mixed-use (commercial, residential, educational) development . . .” One strategic option is to create a transit- and senior-oriented Center of Excellence for Senior Living that could offer: a wide range of multi-family housing options (including affordable housing); a new, modern, weather-proof train station that allows commuters to park their cars indoors and get on and off the train without ever going outdoors; ample parking for commuters, shoppers, residents and employees; a major hotel; and pedestrian-friendly plazas and bike paths.
Saugatuck Master Plan Steering Committee formed
Westport First Selectman Jim Marpe announced last week the establishment of the Saugatuck Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Steering Committee (the “Saugatuck Steering Committee” or “SSC”). The mission of the Committee shall be to provide input, guidance and direction to professional planning consultants chosen to develop a transit-oriented master plan for the Saugatuck area. The acceptance of the $440,000 State grant, awarded to the Town of Westport in June, 2016 is for the express purpose of developing a Saugatuck TOD Master Plan.
The Saugatuck TOD Master Plan (“Master Plan”) process will be modeled after the successful Downtown Master Plan development and implementation currently in progress. This Master Plan will focus on improving the Saugatuck area in a manner that will benefit residents, commuters and businesses. Among other things, the study will review how to successfully improve streets, sidewalks, lighting, crosswalks and streetscapes. All will be incorporated into a vision of how the Saugatuck area might work better; including a focus on traffic, pedestrian safety, and congestion concerns. Additionally, the Master Plan will incorporate ideas on how future development and infrastructure improvements may be shaped so that community goals such as improved bicycle and pedestrian access to the train station will be addressed. Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 11/11/16
Saugatuck Master Plan Steering Committee formed
Westport First Selectman Jim Marpe announced last week the establishment of the Saugatuck Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Master Plan Steering Committee (the “Saugatuck Steering Committee” or “SSC”). The mission of the Committee shall be to provide input, guidance and direction to professional planning consultants chosen to develop a transit-oriented master plan for the Saugatuck area. The acceptance of the $440,000 State grant, awarded to the Town of Westport in June, 2016 is for the express purpose of developing a Saugatuck TOD Master Plan.
The Saugatuck TOD Master Plan (“Master Plan”) process will be modeled after the successful Downtown Master Plan development and implementation currently in progress. This Master Plan will focus on improving the Saugatuck area in a manner that will benefit residents, commuters and businesses. Among other things, the study will review how to successfully improve streets, sidewalks, lighting, crosswalks and streetscapes. All will be incorporated into a vision of how the Saugatuck area might work better; including a focus on traffic, pedestrian safety, and congestion concerns. Additionally, the Master Plan will incorporate ideas on how future development and infrastructure improvements may be shaped so that community goals such as improved bicycle and pedestrian access to the train station will be addressed. Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 11/11/16
What is Danbury doing right?
The city of Danbury has been experiencing a renaissance in the past few years, which has the city moving in the opposite direction as the rest of the state. Although Connecticut has been experiencing a net loss of population, Danbury has increased its population by 8 percent since 2000; while Connecticut’s credit rating has decreased, Danbury recently earned a AAA rating; Connecticut’s state employee pension system is among the most underfunded in the nation, while Danbury’s is nearly fully funded into the foreseeable future. Read More: Yankee Institute 11/15/16
The city of Danbury has been experiencing a renaissance in the past few years, which has the city moving in the opposite direction as the rest of the state. Although Connecticut has been experiencing a net loss of population, Danbury has increased its population by 8 percent since 2000; while Connecticut’s credit rating has decreased, Danbury recently earned a AAA rating; Connecticut’s state employee pension system is among the most underfunded in the nation, while Danbury’s is nearly fully funded into the foreseeable future. Read More: Yankee Institute 11/15/16
Teacher Pension Costs to Surge, Widen Hole in Next State Budget
State spending on retired teachers’ pensions is set to surge $282.7 million next fiscal year – a 28 percent increase the state is obligated to fund and is likely to push the next state budget further into deficit. The new pension contribution levels, if accepted by the Teachers’ Retirement Board Wednesday, are larger than those anticipated in next fiscal year’s nonpartisan deficit forecast by $47 million and in the 2018-19 projection by $42 million. Read More: CT Mirror 11/1/16
State spending on retired teachers’ pensions is set to surge $282.7 million next fiscal year – a 28 percent increase the state is obligated to fund and is likely to push the next state budget further into deficit. The new pension contribution levels, if accepted by the Teachers’ Retirement Board Wednesday, are larger than those anticipated in next fiscal year’s nonpartisan deficit forecast by $47 million and in the 2018-19 projection by $42 million. Read More: CT Mirror 11/1/16
As a Pinched Hartford tries to Relieve the Pressure, Proposed Fixes Could Ripple Out Across the State
What is the relationship of Connecticut’s cities with the rest of the state? How important is their financial health to the rest of the state? Do suburban communities have a responsibility to the cities at the center of our regions?
These are the questions that are, yet again, coming to the forefront of the Connecticut political landscape. Read More: CT Magazine 10/21/16
What is the relationship of Connecticut’s cities with the rest of the state? How important is their financial health to the rest of the state? Do suburban communities have a responsibility to the cities at the center of our regions?
These are the questions that are, yet again, coming to the forefront of the Connecticut political landscape. Read More: CT Magazine 10/21/16
Cities, States Need Top Financial Talent, but Fall Short on Pay
Help wanted: Top-notch financial talent needed to face intense regulatory scrutiny; no bonuses or equity awards; modest civil servant’s paycheck. That is not a job that would appeal to most of the nation’s best and brightest financial executives, who enjoy the big cash and stock incentives—not to mention the prestige—offered by the private sector. But states and towns increasingly need such executives to manage bond sales and pension deficits, as they come under closer government oversight. Read More: WSJ 10/17/16
Help wanted: Top-notch financial talent needed to face intense regulatory scrutiny; no bonuses or equity awards; modest civil servant’s paycheck. That is not a job that would appeal to most of the nation’s best and brightest financial executives, who enjoy the big cash and stock incentives—not to mention the prestige—offered by the private sector. But states and towns increasingly need such executives to manage bond sales and pension deficits, as they come under closer government oversight. Read More: WSJ 10/17/16
Unaccountable and Unaffordable 2016: Unfunded Public Pension Liabilities Near $5.6 Trillion
Connecticut has the nation’s worst funded ratio at 22.8 percent, meaning no state is failing to keep its promise to taxpayers and pensioners as badly as Connecticut. The state’s failure to address its pension liabilities is a significant contributor to Connecticut’s ongoing budget problems. Read More: Alec.org 10/16
Connecticut has the nation’s worst funded ratio at 22.8 percent, meaning no state is failing to keep its promise to taxpayers and pensioners as badly as Connecticut. The state’s failure to address its pension liabilities is a significant contributor to Connecticut’s ongoing budget problems. Read More: Alec.org 10/16
New Fairfield Superintendent to Hold Meet and Greet 9/21 8pm
Dr. Toni Jones, who was recently appointed Superintendent of Fairfield Public Schools by a unanimous vote of the Board of Education, will visit Fairfield next week for a meet and greet. Jones will visit Fairfield and attend the meet and greet on Wednesday, Sept. 21 at 8 p.m. at 501 Kings Highway, second floor. Read More: Fairfield Patch 9/16/16
Dr. Toni Jones, who was recently appointed Superintendent of Fairfield Public Schools by a unanimous vote of the Board of Education, will visit Fairfield next week for a meet and greet. Jones will visit Fairfield and attend the meet and greet on Wednesday, Sept. 21 at 8 p.m. at 501 Kings Highway, second floor. Read More: Fairfield Patch 9/16/16
Financial Irony in Connecticut, the "Sinkhole State"
Today, Truth in Accounting (TIA), a think tank that has analyzed government financial reporting since 2002, released its annual “Financial State of the States” report. Included is the fact that Connecticut ranks 49th for financial health, second to last, and has the second highest taxpayer burden in the country at $49,000 per taxpayer. Taxpayer burden is the amount each Connecticut taxpayer would have to pay the state’s treasury in order for the state to be debt-free. Read More: CT Viewpoints 9/21/16
Today, Truth in Accounting (TIA), a think tank that has analyzed government financial reporting since 2002, released its annual “Financial State of the States” report. Included is the fact that Connecticut ranks 49th for financial health, second to last, and has the second highest taxpayer burden in the country at $49,000 per taxpayer. Taxpayer burden is the amount each Connecticut taxpayer would have to pay the state’s treasury in order for the state to be debt-free. Read More: CT Viewpoints 9/21/16
A Sour Surprise for Public Pensions: Two Sets of Books
When one of the tiniest pension funds imaginable — for Citrus Pest Control District No. 2, serving just six people in California — decided last year to convert itself to a 401(k) plan, it seemed like a no-brainer. After all, the little fund held far more money than it needed, according to its official numbers from California’s renowned public pension system, Calpers. Except it really didn’t. Read More: NY Times 9/17/16
When one of the tiniest pension funds imaginable — for Citrus Pest Control District No. 2, serving just six people in California — decided last year to convert itself to a 401(k) plan, it seemed like a no-brainer. After all, the little fund held far more money than it needed, according to its official numbers from California’s renowned public pension system, Calpers. Except it really didn’t. Read More: NY Times 9/17/16
Webster Bank CEO: State Must 'Control Its Destiny'
Developing enforceable, effective government spending controls should be the top priority for the state’s Spending Cap Commission according to Webster Bank chairman and CEO Jim Smith. Appearing before the commission’s September 7 hearing, Smith said the state must adopt “a control our destiny” approach to resolving Connecticut’s long-term fiscal problems and driving economic growth. Webster Bank CEO Jim Smith“I am deeply concerned for the state’s fiscal condition, which I think we can agree is deteriorating,” Smith told the commission. “I strongly believe that fiscal pressures and related uncertainty regarding taxes and regulatory rules are largely responsible for the low and waning confidence expressed by businesses and consumers. Read More: CBIA 9/16/16
Developing enforceable, effective government spending controls should be the top priority for the state’s Spending Cap Commission according to Webster Bank chairman and CEO Jim Smith. Appearing before the commission’s September 7 hearing, Smith said the state must adopt “a control our destiny” approach to resolving Connecticut’s long-term fiscal problems and driving economic growth. Webster Bank CEO Jim Smith“I am deeply concerned for the state’s fiscal condition, which I think we can agree is deteriorating,” Smith told the commission. “I strongly believe that fiscal pressures and related uncertainty regarding taxes and regulatory rules are largely responsible for the low and waning confidence expressed by businesses and consumers. Read More: CBIA 9/16/16
Sunrise Senior Living: Tempers Flare at Assisted Living Facility Hearing
Some residents didn’t hold back Tuesday night when they got the chance to let the Town Plan and Zoning Commission what they think of a proposed assisted living facility on Stratfield Road. One man’s comments even prompted a commissioner to leave the room in disgust.
Sunrise Senior Living is the contract purchaser for Congregation Ahavath Achim, 1571 Stratfield Road, and an adjoining residential property. The proposal calls for a three-story building, housing assisted living units on the first two floors and a memory care unit on the third floor on the 5.2 acre site in an R-3 zone. Assisted living facilities are allowed in the zone, with a special permit. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 9/15/16
Some residents didn’t hold back Tuesday night when they got the chance to let the Town Plan and Zoning Commission what they think of a proposed assisted living facility on Stratfield Road. One man’s comments even prompted a commissioner to leave the room in disgust.
Sunrise Senior Living is the contract purchaser for Congregation Ahavath Achim, 1571 Stratfield Road, and an adjoining residential property. The proposal calls for a three-story building, housing assisted living units on the first two floors and a memory care unit on the third floor on the 5.2 acre site in an R-3 zone. Assisted living facilities are allowed in the zone, with a special permit. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 9/15/16
Connecticut Judge Orders Lawmakers To Fix Schools His Way; What If He's Wrong?
A judge in Connecticut has ordered the legislature to come up with a wholesale restructuring of the state’s educational system within 180 days, to fix what he calls unconstitutional differences in educational outcomes between rich districts and poor. And those differences are stark: While wealthy towns like New Canaan and Greenwich have among the best public schools in the world, a third of the high-schoolers in nearby Bridgeport fail to meet minimum reading standards. The unusual thing about Judge Thomas Moukawsher’s ruling is what isn’t in it. Nowhere in the 90-page opinion and 160-page appendix does he list how much the rich and poor districts actually spend per student, usually the critical factor judges zero in on in disputes about disparate results in education. (Answer: Bridgeport spends around $14,000 per capita, less than $19,000 in New Canaan but comfortably above the national average of $11,000.) Read More: Forbes 9/9/16
A judge in Connecticut has ordered the legislature to come up with a wholesale restructuring of the state’s educational system within 180 days, to fix what he calls unconstitutional differences in educational outcomes between rich districts and poor. And those differences are stark: While wealthy towns like New Canaan and Greenwich have among the best public schools in the world, a third of the high-schoolers in nearby Bridgeport fail to meet minimum reading standards. The unusual thing about Judge Thomas Moukawsher’s ruling is what isn’t in it. Nowhere in the 90-page opinion and 160-page appendix does he list how much the rich and poor districts actually spend per student, usually the critical factor judges zero in on in disputes about disparate results in education. (Answer: Bridgeport spends around $14,000 per capita, less than $19,000 in New Canaan but comfortably above the national average of $11,000.) Read More: Forbes 9/9/16
Post-Regulatory School Reform: Making the Case for Charter Schools and Other Choice Options to Boost Educational Performance
At the turn of the twenty-first century, the United States was trying to come to grips with a serious education crisis. The country was lagging behind its international peers, and a many-decade effort to erode racial disparities in school achievement had made little headway. Many people expected action from the federal government. Read More: Harvard Magazine Sept/Oct 2016
At the turn of the twenty-first century, the United States was trying to come to grips with a serious education crisis. The country was lagging behind its international peers, and a many-decade effort to erode racial disparities in school achievement had made little headway. Many people expected action from the federal government. Read More: Harvard Magazine Sept/Oct 2016
Give Hartford Something Far Better than Regionalism: Bankruptcy
For the sake of Hartford itself and the whole state, the objective of state government should not be to keep subsidizing the city in its incompetent and corrupt operations, the worst of them required by state law, but rather to shut down the poverty factory by changing the welfare, educational, and labor policies that sustain it. For decades these policies have produced only decline in the city. Unfortunately the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities will be no help. To the contrary, the group seems to have fallen for Mayor Bronin's pitch. The group has appointed a committee to study "property tax and local revenue diversification and regional service delivery" and make proposals to the General Assembly next year. That means tax increases, though Governor Malloy and the legislature concluded this year that state taxpayers were tapped out and that spending had to be cut, especially since next year's financial projections for state government are worse. Read More: Journal Inquirer 9/3/16
For the sake of Hartford itself and the whole state, the objective of state government should not be to keep subsidizing the city in its incompetent and corrupt operations, the worst of them required by state law, but rather to shut down the poverty factory by changing the welfare, educational, and labor policies that sustain it. For decades these policies have produced only decline in the city. Unfortunately the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities will be no help. To the contrary, the group seems to have fallen for Mayor Bronin's pitch. The group has appointed a committee to study "property tax and local revenue diversification and regional service delivery" and make proposals to the General Assembly next year. That means tax increases, though Governor Malloy and the legislature concluded this year that state taxpayers were tapped out and that spending had to be cut, especially since next year's financial projections for state government are worse. Read More: Journal Inquirer 9/3/16
Penfield Pavilion is Back in Place
It may not have looked like it was moving, but Penfield Pavilion was rolled back from its temporary home in the parking lot onto a new, improved foundation Tuesday morning. The pavilion, shuttered since being hit by Superstorm Sandy in 2012, was moved into the parking lot several months ago while pilings were driven for the new foundation. The building, which has also been elevated, will be connected to a rebuilt east locker wing by a breezeway, according to Jim Bradley, chairman of the building committee. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 8/31/16
It may not have looked like it was moving, but Penfield Pavilion was rolled back from its temporary home in the parking lot onto a new, improved foundation Tuesday morning. The pavilion, shuttered since being hit by Superstorm Sandy in 2012, was moved into the parking lot several months ago while pilings were driven for the new foundation. The building, which has also been elevated, will be connected to a rebuilt east locker wing by a breezeway, according to Jim Bradley, chairman of the building committee. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 8/31/16
Towns Wary of Local Spending Cap as State Begins Revenue Sharing
Enjoying their first infusion of state sales tax receipts — albeit not as much as promised — Connecticut’s cities and towns remain wary of a revenue-sharing program that comes with a controversial spending cap. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities continues to press for reform of the cap, which critics say encourages some poor fiscal habits, such as borrowing for ongoing expenses. And the Connecticut Council of Small Towns continues to urge legislators to repeal the cap altogether. Read More: CT Mirror 8/26/16
Enjoying their first infusion of state sales tax receipts — albeit not as much as promised — Connecticut’s cities and towns remain wary of a revenue-sharing program that comes with a controversial spending cap. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities continues to press for reform of the cap, which critics say encourages some poor fiscal habits, such as borrowing for ongoing expenses. And the Connecticut Council of Small Towns continues to urge legislators to repeal the cap altogether. Read More: CT Mirror 8/26/16
Fairfield Schools’ 2016 Smarter Balanced Test Scores
The percentage of students statewide meeting or exceeding English standards rose by 3.3 points to 55.7 percent and 3.9 points to 44 percent in math. The 2014-2015 test administration was a baseline year for Smarter Balanced exams, which have new and higher standards for students that assess critical thinking skills. “These gains are a testament to the commitment of our students for rising to meet the challenge of higher standards and to our families, teachers, and leaders for instilling critical thinking skills and a love of learning in our students,” Education Commissioner Dianna R. Wentzell said. Read More: Fairfield Patch 8/25/16
The percentage of students statewide meeting or exceeding English standards rose by 3.3 points to 55.7 percent and 3.9 points to 44 percent in math. The 2014-2015 test administration was a baseline year for Smarter Balanced exams, which have new and higher standards for students that assess critical thinking skills. “These gains are a testament to the commitment of our students for rising to meet the challenge of higher standards and to our families, teachers, and leaders for instilling critical thinking skills and a love of learning in our students,” Education Commissioner Dianna R. Wentzell said. Read More: Fairfield Patch 8/25/16
CT to be a Test Case for Education Rights under U.S. Constitution
A group of high-profile attorneys have put Connecticut at the center of a decades-old debate over whether the federal government is responsible for ensuring that children in the U.S. are provided a quality education. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court Tuesday, attorneys for seven minority students from Hartford and Bridgeport asked the court to recognize education as a new right in the U.S. Constitution. The suit attacks Connecticut for its “failing public schools” and long waiting lists for access to charter and magnet schools. Read More: CT Mirror 8/24/16
A group of high-profile attorneys have put Connecticut at the center of a decades-old debate over whether the federal government is responsible for ensuring that children in the U.S. are provided a quality education. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court Tuesday, attorneys for seven minority students from Hartford and Bridgeport asked the court to recognize education as a new right in the U.S. Constitution. The suit attacks Connecticut for its “failing public schools” and long waiting lists for access to charter and magnet schools. Read More: CT Mirror 8/24/16
Budget Deficits Intensify Push for Regional Cooperation in Connecticut
Facing a massive deficit that’s more than 12 percent of his city’s budget, the new mayor of Hartford is appealing to wealthier neighbors to help find regional solutions that benefit Connecticut’s struggling capital city and its suburbs.
Luke Bronin, a Democrat who took office in January, is pitching the idea of greater regionalism. While acknowledging Hartford has made some poor financial decisions, he reminds people that his and other Connecticut communities can only tax local property. And in Hartford, which is nearly 18 square miles, “there’s basically too little property” to pay the bills. “That is a municipal funding structure that’s broken,” Bronin said. “If we want to have strong, vibrant cities that can be engines of growth for our state, we’ve got to fix that and we’ve got to fix it quickly.” Read More: New Haven Register 8/22/16
Facing a massive deficit that’s more than 12 percent of his city’s budget, the new mayor of Hartford is appealing to wealthier neighbors to help find regional solutions that benefit Connecticut’s struggling capital city and its suburbs.
Luke Bronin, a Democrat who took office in January, is pitching the idea of greater regionalism. While acknowledging Hartford has made some poor financial decisions, he reminds people that his and other Connecticut communities can only tax local property. And in Hartford, which is nearly 18 square miles, “there’s basically too little property” to pay the bills. “That is a municipal funding structure that’s broken,” Bronin said. “If we want to have strong, vibrant cities that can be engines of growth for our state, we’ve got to fix that and we’ve got to fix it quickly.” Read More: New Haven Register 8/22/16
With Hartford In Fiscal Quagmire, Bronin Making A Case For Towns To Step Up
Mayor Luke Bronin has made no secret of the city's financial woes. Ending the fiscal year with a balanced budget will depend on millions in employee concessions, and there's a structural deficit of more than $30 million looming next year. As city leaders scramble for solutions, Bronin is seeking relief from neighboring towns and the state. At public meetings and in private conversations, talk has turned to regionalism. Read More: Hartford Courant 8/5/16
Mayor Luke Bronin has made no secret of the city's financial woes. Ending the fiscal year with a balanced budget will depend on millions in employee concessions, and there's a structural deficit of more than $30 million looming next year. As city leaders scramble for solutions, Bronin is seeking relief from neighboring towns and the state. At public meetings and in private conversations, talk has turned to regionalism. Read More: Hartford Courant 8/5/16
Bond sale rate makes history for AAA-rated Fairfield
First Selectman Mike Tetreau announced that the Town’s Bond Committee, which consists of the Board of Selectmen, Town Treasurer Helen D’Avanzo and Fiscal Officer Robert Mayer, participated in a $20,311,000 Bond Sale and a $20,432,000 Note Sale resulting in exceptional interest rates. The Bond Committee unanimously approved the Bond Sale to JP Morgan, the winning firm that bid 2.026%, the lowest rate in the Town’s history. Read More: Fairfield Sun 8/1/16
First Selectman Mike Tetreau announced that the Town’s Bond Committee, which consists of the Board of Selectmen, Town Treasurer Helen D’Avanzo and Fiscal Officer Robert Mayer, participated in a $20,311,000 Bond Sale and a $20,432,000 Note Sale resulting in exceptional interest rates. The Bond Committee unanimously approved the Bond Sale to JP Morgan, the winning firm that bid 2.026%, the lowest rate in the Town’s history. Read More: Fairfield Sun 8/1/16
State’s DOT Proposes Fare Hike on Metro-North New Haven Line
Last Friday, a plan to increase Connecticut rail and bus fares was announced by the state’s Department of Transportation and Gov. Dan Malloy.
The rate increases are part of the plan plan to implement the new fiscal year’s budget that began July 1, which will include both expenditure reductions across the Department’s budget and increased rail and bus fares that will collectively balance the Department of Transportation budget while preserving service, according to a press release from the state.
The 5% increase would include all parts of the Metro-North New Haven commuter line, including the New Canaan, Danbury and Waterbury branches and Shoreline east and would become effective Dec. 1 of this year. On the New Haven line, it would be combined with the 1% increase already scheduled for January, making the increase 6%.
According to the state, the increase in fare would generate about $5.9 million in revenue. The plan also calls for closing what the state called under-used ticket windows in Greenwich, South Norwalk and Bridgeport.
The plan also calls for decreased highway and bridge maintenance and reduction of staffed hours at seven highway rest areas, which would be closed over night with allowance for truck parking. Read more: Fairfield Sun 7/25/16
Last Friday, a plan to increase Connecticut rail and bus fares was announced by the state’s Department of Transportation and Gov. Dan Malloy.
The rate increases are part of the plan plan to implement the new fiscal year’s budget that began July 1, which will include both expenditure reductions across the Department’s budget and increased rail and bus fares that will collectively balance the Department of Transportation budget while preserving service, according to a press release from the state.
The 5% increase would include all parts of the Metro-North New Haven commuter line, including the New Canaan, Danbury and Waterbury branches and Shoreline east and would become effective Dec. 1 of this year. On the New Haven line, it would be combined with the 1% increase already scheduled for January, making the increase 6%.
According to the state, the increase in fare would generate about $5.9 million in revenue. The plan also calls for closing what the state called under-used ticket windows in Greenwich, South Norwalk and Bridgeport.
The plan also calls for decreased highway and bridge maintenance and reduction of staffed hours at seven highway rest areas, which would be closed over night with allowance for truck parking. Read more: Fairfield Sun 7/25/16
Ready to Retire? Avoid These 4 States.
Three recent studies examining the role of public pension debt on the overall fiscal health of states should be a warning shot for Americans entering retirement age. If you will be living on reduced income when you retire, as most Americans will, you'll likely want to avoid the states most likely to raise your taxes and cut your essential government services. As reports by J.P. Morgan, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Mercatus Center show, that dubious distinction goes to Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky and New Jersey. Read More: Governing.com 7/18/16
Three recent studies examining the role of public pension debt on the overall fiscal health of states should be a warning shot for Americans entering retirement age. If you will be living on reduced income when you retire, as most Americans will, you'll likely want to avoid the states most likely to raise your taxes and cut your essential government services. As reports by J.P. Morgan, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Mercatus Center show, that dubious distinction goes to Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky and New Jersey. Read More: Governing.com 7/18/16
Bronson Road Housing Proposal Denied Again
The Town Plan and Zoning Commission was asked to reconsider part of a controversial affordable housing proposal. They did, but did not change their minds.
The zoning panel had denied the 8-30g application for a 95-unit building on lower Bronson Road near Interstate 95 in July 2014. Garden Homes, the developer, appealed that denial and the court remanded the application back to the TPZ earlier this year, instructing them to take another look at the access road. The single-access road into the development, with no turnaround, was one of the reasons for the zoning panel’s denial, particularly because of concerns about fire truck access.
According to the lengthy reasons for the latest denial, the TPZ said the court advised “the applicants should submit to the commission a fully-engineered site plan indicating the provision of the turning radii necessary to allow these and other larger vehicles to turn around and exit the site with minimal reverse travel, both via the elimination of four parking spaces and three units, as proposed, and by alternate means.”
The revised application submitted by Garden Homes reduced the number of units to 91, eliminated four parking spaces, and added three handicapped parking spaces and a fire lane. The plan called for a two-foot reinforced shoulder along the driveway. There was no turnaround provided, and at the May 24 hearing, the applicant argued the access drive met the state fire code.
The commission voted unanimously to deny the revised plans. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 7/14/16
The Town Plan and Zoning Commission was asked to reconsider part of a controversial affordable housing proposal. They did, but did not change their minds.
The zoning panel had denied the 8-30g application for a 95-unit building on lower Bronson Road near Interstate 95 in July 2014. Garden Homes, the developer, appealed that denial and the court remanded the application back to the TPZ earlier this year, instructing them to take another look at the access road. The single-access road into the development, with no turnaround, was one of the reasons for the zoning panel’s denial, particularly because of concerns about fire truck access.
According to the lengthy reasons for the latest denial, the TPZ said the court advised “the applicants should submit to the commission a fully-engineered site plan indicating the provision of the turning radii necessary to allow these and other larger vehicles to turn around and exit the site with minimal reverse travel, both via the elimination of four parking spaces and three units, as proposed, and by alternate means.”
The revised application submitted by Garden Homes reduced the number of units to 91, eliminated four parking spaces, and added three handicapped parking spaces and a fire lane. The plan called for a two-foot reinforced shoulder along the driveway. There was no turnaround provided, and at the May 24 hearing, the applicant argued the access drive met the state fire code.
The commission voted unanimously to deny the revised plans. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 7/14/16
Ash Creek Pedestrian Bridge Kickoff Meeting 7/20/16 6pm
Location: Burroughs Community Center, 2470 Fairfield Ave, Bridgeport, CT 06605
The regional planning agency, now known as MetroCog, is planning on building a bridge from Bridgeport (Fox street) to Fairfield Metro Center, over Ash Creek.
Questions people have been asking which may be answered at this or future meetings:
1. Price tag - the article mentions that the City of Bridgeport has a grant of $3.8M. Is this the total cost for all soft costs, hard costs?
2. Budgetary impact- will maintenance, repairs and improvements be born by Bridgeport or Fairfield? What town departments will be involved initially and ongoing - DPW, Police, Wetlands, Conservation, Shellfish?
3. Permits- DEEP- the material presented to the Conservation Commission (see attachment or go to above link) says the Fairfield side of the bridge construction would require piercing of the membrane that is capping the toxic materials - this will require a DEEP permit; also both sides impact tidal wetlands so permit needed and possibly coastal site plan review which would go to TPZ possibly in both towns.
4. Fairfield Wetlands- the entire site may be considered a 'regulated area' for our own inland wetlands commission- so the existing permit may need to be modified or a new permit applied for
5. Cost-benefit analysis- a copy should be made available- who will use the bridge, how many, and how will it impact the Bridgeport-side residents as well as the Fairfield side pros & cons compared to initial and ongoing budget impact
6. Town approval- If there is money to be spent by Fairfield, whether for construction or ongoing budgetary impact, would it require a modification (and BOS, BOF, RTM approval) of the Fairfield Metro Center Tri-Partite agreement which delineated the entire development on the Metro Center site. This should be reviewed by Town counsel and presented to Town bodies.
7. Safety, vandalism, dumping, graffiti, littering- is there a plan to minimize this- this is beyond the reach of police traffic patrols - which municipality has this responsibility?
8. Parking for people on the Bridgeport side- will people drive to the pedestrian bridge or walk there? If drive is there a parking lot on the Bridgeport side?
To view the full Ash Creek Bridge Presentation by MetroCog click here.
Location: Burroughs Community Center, 2470 Fairfield Ave, Bridgeport, CT 06605
The regional planning agency, now known as MetroCog, is planning on building a bridge from Bridgeport (Fox street) to Fairfield Metro Center, over Ash Creek.
Questions people have been asking which may be answered at this or future meetings:
1. Price tag - the article mentions that the City of Bridgeport has a grant of $3.8M. Is this the total cost for all soft costs, hard costs?
2. Budgetary impact- will maintenance, repairs and improvements be born by Bridgeport or Fairfield? What town departments will be involved initially and ongoing - DPW, Police, Wetlands, Conservation, Shellfish?
3. Permits- DEEP- the material presented to the Conservation Commission (see attachment or go to above link) says the Fairfield side of the bridge construction would require piercing of the membrane that is capping the toxic materials - this will require a DEEP permit; also both sides impact tidal wetlands so permit needed and possibly coastal site plan review which would go to TPZ possibly in both towns.
4. Fairfield Wetlands- the entire site may be considered a 'regulated area' for our own inland wetlands commission- so the existing permit may need to be modified or a new permit applied for
5. Cost-benefit analysis- a copy should be made available- who will use the bridge, how many, and how will it impact the Bridgeport-side residents as well as the Fairfield side pros & cons compared to initial and ongoing budget impact
6. Town approval- If there is money to be spent by Fairfield, whether for construction or ongoing budgetary impact, would it require a modification (and BOS, BOF, RTM approval) of the Fairfield Metro Center Tri-Partite agreement which delineated the entire development on the Metro Center site. This should be reviewed by Town counsel and presented to Town bodies.
7. Safety, vandalism, dumping, graffiti, littering- is there a plan to minimize this- this is beyond the reach of police traffic patrols - which municipality has this responsibility?
8. Parking for people on the Bridgeport side- will people drive to the pedestrian bridge or walk there? If drive is there a parking lot on the Bridgeport side?
To view the full Ash Creek Bridge Presentation by MetroCog click here.
Graph of town spending and taxes, updated for the F2017 Budget, approved this spring. Click on image to see detailed data on many components of Fairfield's historical budget and population.
Fairfield Launches New Tourism Website
As part of a renewed emphasis on tourism, the Town of Fairfield has unveiled a new website designed to provide visitors and residents alike with information on upcoming events, local attractions, things to do and places to stay, eat and shop in Fairfield. Read more: Fairfield Patch 6/29/16
As part of a renewed emphasis on tourism, the Town of Fairfield has unveiled a new website designed to provide visitors and residents alike with information on upcoming events, local attractions, things to do and places to stay, eat and shop in Fairfield. Read more: Fairfield Patch 6/29/16
Fairfield Assisted Living Facility Approved on Mill Hill Terrace
An assisted-living facility on Mill Hill Terrace, though hotly opposed by neighbors, was approved recently by the Town Plan and Zoning Commission.
The commission gave unanimous approval to a special permit for Maplewood of Fairfield, a three-story, 98-unit facility for seniors on 27 acres adjacent to Mill Hill School. The developer will set aside 13 acres of the property as open space in perpetuity, with public access. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 6/23/16
An assisted-living facility on Mill Hill Terrace, though hotly opposed by neighbors, was approved recently by the Town Plan and Zoning Commission.
The commission gave unanimous approval to a special permit for Maplewood of Fairfield, a three-story, 98-unit facility for seniors on 27 acres adjacent to Mill Hill School. The developer will set aside 13 acres of the property as open space in perpetuity, with public access. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 6/23/16
Cost of Penfield Pavilion Goes Up As Grant Money Goes Away
A wave of state regulations washed out an existing bulkhead, and a $500,000 state grant that would have offset the cost of rebuilding Penfield Pavilion. According to First Selectman Mike Tetreau, the state $500,000 Community Development Block Grant came with some strings attached — chiefly, the requirement that the building be raised another foot. And it was during a state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection review of the Penfield Building Committee plans for that grant that the state agency said a bulkhead installed in front of the pavilion after Tropical Storm Irene was not properly permitted. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 6/8/16
A wave of state regulations washed out an existing bulkhead, and a $500,000 state grant that would have offset the cost of rebuilding Penfield Pavilion. According to First Selectman Mike Tetreau, the state $500,000 Community Development Block Grant came with some strings attached — chiefly, the requirement that the building be raised another foot. And it was during a state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection review of the Penfield Building Committee plans for that grant that the state agency said a bulkhead installed in front of the pavilion after Tropical Storm Irene was not properly permitted. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 6/8/16
CT Ranked #50 on Mercatus Center State Fiscal Condition Study
CT was ranked #50 in this study (only Puerto Rico ranked lower) by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Rankings are based on each US state’s financial health based on short- and long-term debt and other key fiscal obligations, such as unfunded pensions and healthcare benefits. Read More: Mercatus 6/3/16
CT was ranked #50 in this study (only Puerto Rico ranked lower) by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Rankings are based on each US state’s financial health based on short- and long-term debt and other key fiscal obligations, such as unfunded pensions and healthcare benefits. Read More: Mercatus 6/3/16
25 Years, $13 Billion Lost: Connecticut Income Tax Continues To Fail
Twenty-five years ago, amid economic turmoil and a looming budget crisis that put legislators at each other’s throats, the then-governor of Connecticut made a fateful decision. Unsure of the best way to dig Connecticut out of its financial hole, Governor Lowell Weicker implemented an income tax. The Nutmeg State would certainly come to rue that day. Read more: Forbes 5/23/16
Twenty-five years ago, amid economic turmoil and a looming budget crisis that put legislators at each other’s throats, the then-governor of Connecticut made a fateful decision. Unsure of the best way to dig Connecticut out of its financial hole, Governor Lowell Weicker implemented an income tax. The Nutmeg State would certainly come to rue that day. Read more: Forbes 5/23/16
Fairfield Economic Development Commission Seeks Input
Fairfield Community and Economic Development Director Mark Barnhart invites Fairfield business owners and residents to participate in an online survey regarding the Town’s business climate and economic development. The survey instrument can be found at fairfieldct.org/cedsurvey. The survey will be available through June 10, 2016. This is an official Town of Fairfield survey and not affiliated with FT.
Fairfield Community and Economic Development Director Mark Barnhart invites Fairfield business owners and residents to participate in an online survey regarding the Town’s business climate and economic development. The survey instrument can be found at fairfieldct.org/cedsurvey. The survey will be available through June 10, 2016. This is an official Town of Fairfield survey and not affiliated with FT.
TPZ Commission Meeting re: Bronson Road Project
On Tuesday, May 24th, the Town Plan and Zoning Commission will conduct a hearing on the Bronson Road affordable housing application. The hearing is the result of a remand from the judge hearing the developer’s appeal against TPZ denial of the project. The hearing is limited to the topic of Fire Department access to the site and will feature testimony from experts. The public can speak but only on the fire access issue. Click here for further background on this issue.
The agenda for this meeting will be posted on the Town website prior to the meeting. Click here to view agenda.
Town Meetings Calendar
What: TPZ Commission Hearing on Bronson Road Affordable Housing Application
When: Tuesday, May 24th, 7:30pm
Where: McKinley School Cafeteria, 60 Thompson Street
On Tuesday, May 24th, the Town Plan and Zoning Commission will conduct a hearing on the Bronson Road affordable housing application. The hearing is the result of a remand from the judge hearing the developer’s appeal against TPZ denial of the project. The hearing is limited to the topic of Fire Department access to the site and will feature testimony from experts. The public can speak but only on the fire access issue. Click here for further background on this issue.
The agenda for this meeting will be posted on the Town website prior to the meeting. Click here to view agenda.
Town Meetings Calendar
What: TPZ Commission Hearing on Bronson Road Affordable Housing Application
When: Tuesday, May 24th, 7:30pm
Where: McKinley School Cafeteria, 60 Thompson Street
Fairfield Public Schools Superintendent Search Survey
We are posting this to ensure every resident in Fairfield has an opportunity to be heard. Click here to take a quick, two question survey.
We are posting this to ensure every resident in Fairfield has an opportunity to be heard. Click here to take a quick, two question survey.
Repeal CT Estate Tax To Stem Wealth Flight
Connecticut spends beyond its means and, therefore, taxes more than it should. The General Assembly's latest budget fix is a small step in what must become a fundamental overhaul of Connecticut's profligate spending habits. Although taxes weren't raised, they're still too high, and they're driving the largest taxpayers away. We've passed the tipping point beyond which higher taxes beget lower revenues, and the budget fix won't change that. The wealthy, in particular, have decided in swelling numbers they won't be caught dead — literally — in our state. Evidence strongly suggests that estate and gift taxes are the final straw. To avoid Connecticut's estate tax, wealthy families are moving to one of the 36 states without one. They're also shunning Connecticut's gift tax — the only one in the nation. Read More: Hartford Courant 5/5/16
Connecticut spends beyond its means and, therefore, taxes more than it should. The General Assembly's latest budget fix is a small step in what must become a fundamental overhaul of Connecticut's profligate spending habits. Although taxes weren't raised, they're still too high, and they're driving the largest taxpayers away. We've passed the tipping point beyond which higher taxes beget lower revenues, and the budget fix won't change that. The wealthy, in particular, have decided in swelling numbers they won't be caught dead — literally — in our state. Evidence strongly suggests that estate and gift taxes are the final straw. To avoid Connecticut's estate tax, wealthy families are moving to one of the 36 states without one. They're also shunning Connecticut's gift tax — the only one in the nation. Read More: Hartford Courant 5/5/16
Democrats, Governor Strike Budget Deal, Aim for Wednesday Vote
The Governor and the majority (Democratic) leaders in the Assembly have apparently agreed on a budget for next year, which appears likely to be approved, though it is still subject to debate and change. There will still be cuts in the amount of state grants Fairfield receives in the form of municipal and educational aid, but they will apparently be less than the ~$4.5 million originally proposed by the Governor. Details are not yet available. Read more: CT Mirror 5/3/16
The Governor and the majority (Democratic) leaders in the Assembly have apparently agreed on a budget for next year, which appears likely to be approved, though it is still subject to debate and change. There will still be cuts in the amount of state grants Fairfield receives in the form of municipal and educational aid, but they will apparently be less than the ~$4.5 million originally proposed by the Governor. Details are not yet available. Read more: CT Mirror 5/3/16
RTM Quickly Oks $294M Budget, Despite Looming State Cuts
With no debate on the $293.5 million budget itself, the RTM unanimously approved the 2016-17 town budget as presented, and did it in under a half an hour - despite the state fiscal crisis that could cost the town millions in aid. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 5/3/16
With no debate on the $293.5 million budget itself, the RTM unanimously approved the 2016-17 town budget as presented, and did it in under a half an hour - despite the state fiscal crisis that could cost the town millions in aid. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 5/3/16
RTM May Delay Budget Vote until State Aid Cuts are Settled
Representative Town Meeting members Monday searched for ways the town’s budget could be reduced if Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposed state spending plan — cutting about $5 million in aid — is adopted. The governor’s proposal, which would cut all of the town’s $3.4 million Educational Cost Sharing grant, as well as an additional $1.6 million expected from sales tax revenue, however, is not winning support from either side of the political aisle at the General Assembly. A budget proposal Monday from Republicans in the state legislative body, would restore all of the town’s ECS funding; a proposal from state Democrats, who hold the legislative majority, was expected later in the week. “We know the governor’s proposal is not moving forward,” First Selectman Michael Tetreau said, but local officials still don’t know how much could eventually be cut in revenue allotted to the town from the state. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 4/26/16
Representative Town Meeting members Monday searched for ways the town’s budget could be reduced if Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposed state spending plan — cutting about $5 million in aid — is adopted. The governor’s proposal, which would cut all of the town’s $3.4 million Educational Cost Sharing grant, as well as an additional $1.6 million expected from sales tax revenue, however, is not winning support from either side of the political aisle at the General Assembly. A budget proposal Monday from Republicans in the state legislative body, would restore all of the town’s ECS funding; a proposal from state Democrats, who hold the legislative majority, was expected later in the week. “We know the governor’s proposal is not moving forward,” First Selectman Michael Tetreau said, but local officials still don’t know how much could eventually be cut in revenue allotted to the town from the state. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 4/26/16
An Innovative Approach to Affordable Housing
All across southwestern Connecticut, some of the wealthiest communities in America are grappling with the mandate to make room for those who are not wealthy. Some towns like Fairfield have implemented mandatory inclusionary housing programs, similar to those in New York City; Darien, after spending millions on blocking projects, has started building its own; while Milford, just a few inlets up the coast, has faced down numerous lawsuits and politicians have turned this issue into a reliable get-out-the-vote tactic. Read More: NY Times 4/25/16
All across southwestern Connecticut, some of the wealthiest communities in America are grappling with the mandate to make room for those who are not wealthy. Some towns like Fairfield have implemented mandatory inclusionary housing programs, similar to those in New York City; Darien, after spending millions on blocking projects, has started building its own; while Milford, just a few inlets up the coast, has faced down numerous lawsuits and politicians have turned this issue into a reliable get-out-the-vote tactic. Read More: NY Times 4/25/16
GOP Budget Plan: Slash Agency Budgets, Cut Bonding Drastically
Whatever plan is ultimately adopted to address Connecticut's growing budget deficits (including the Governor's and the Appropriation Committee's, both of which would transfer a portion of those deficits to towns like Fairfield through cuts in Educational Cost Sharing and other State grants), this should be a "wake-up call" for everyone about what happens when the cumulative efforts of special-interest groups, including the public-employee unions, push government spending beyond sustainable levels. Read More: CT Mirror 4/25/16
Whatever plan is ultimately adopted to address Connecticut's growing budget deficits (including the Governor's and the Appropriation Committee's, both of which would transfer a portion of those deficits to towns like Fairfield through cuts in Educational Cost Sharing and other State grants), this should be a "wake-up call" for everyone about what happens when the cumulative efforts of special-interest groups, including the public-employee unions, push government spending beyond sustainable levels. Read More: CT Mirror 4/25/16
Malloy's School Funding Cuts Draw United Opposition
In an effort to balance the state budget, Malloy has proposed eliminating all education cost-sharing grants for 28 of the state’s wealthiest municipalities, including Fairfield and Westport, for a total of $65 million. “We have to make tough decisions,” a representative for Malloy was quoted as saying, noting it was part of an attempt to eradicate what is projected to be a $922 million state deficit in the next fiscal year. But as far as some area legislators are concerned, the money being pulled out of both Fairfield and Westport is nothing they’re in favor of.
“As a member of the Education Committee and a strong advocate for our public schools, students and educators, I am deeply concerned,” said Fairfield State Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey, a Democrat, who added, “My concerns are further exacerbated by the timing of this announcement. Fairfield, like many communities throughout our state, has reached a point in the budget process where there is little recourse to address the proposed cut, let alone plan for it.”
While she acknowledged that the state’s financial issues and concerns warrant some “very difficult decisions,” she said, “This proposal will not serve our community well. A reduction of over $3.5 million to our local educational system is not tenable.” Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 4/21/16
In an effort to balance the state budget, Malloy has proposed eliminating all education cost-sharing grants for 28 of the state’s wealthiest municipalities, including Fairfield and Westport, for a total of $65 million. “We have to make tough decisions,” a representative for Malloy was quoted as saying, noting it was part of an attempt to eradicate what is projected to be a $922 million state deficit in the next fiscal year. But as far as some area legislators are concerned, the money being pulled out of both Fairfield and Westport is nothing they’re in favor of.
“As a member of the Education Committee and a strong advocate for our public schools, students and educators, I am deeply concerned,” said Fairfield State Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey, a Democrat, who added, “My concerns are further exacerbated by the timing of this announcement. Fairfield, like many communities throughout our state, has reached a point in the budget process where there is little recourse to address the proposed cut, let alone plan for it.”
While she acknowledged that the state’s financial issues and concerns warrant some “very difficult decisions,” she said, “This proposal will not serve our community well. A reduction of over $3.5 million to our local educational system is not tenable.” Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 4/21/16
As State Aid Cuts Loom, School Board won’t Say how to Handle Loss
With a looming cut in state aid threatening to upend Fairfield’s 2016-17 budget plans with a shortfall as large as $4.5 million, the Board of Education met in special session Wednesday to grapple with the potential loss. But the school board meeting, called in advance of Monday’s Representative Town Meeting session, produced no blueprint on ways the recommended $163.3 million education budget could be reduced to reflect the cuts proposed by Gov. Dannel Malloy. Instead, the board basically affirmed its support for the level of spending already approved by both the Boards of Selectmen and Finance. The brief meeting was scheduled in response to a letter to school board Chairman Philip Dwyer from RTM Moderator Pam Iacono that said, “We respectfully request that your board discuss this item prior to our April 25th meeting, and that as chairman, you be prepared to speak on behalf of your board regarding this issue at our meeting.” Read More: Fairfield Citizen 4/21/16
With a looming cut in state aid threatening to upend Fairfield’s 2016-17 budget plans with a shortfall as large as $4.5 million, the Board of Education met in special session Wednesday to grapple with the potential loss. But the school board meeting, called in advance of Monday’s Representative Town Meeting session, produced no blueprint on ways the recommended $163.3 million education budget could be reduced to reflect the cuts proposed by Gov. Dannel Malloy. Instead, the board basically affirmed its support for the level of spending already approved by both the Boards of Selectmen and Finance. The brief meeting was scheduled in response to a letter to school board Chairman Philip Dwyer from RTM Moderator Pam Iacono that said, “We respectfully request that your board discuss this item prior to our April 25th meeting, and that as chairman, you be prepared to speak on behalf of your board regarding this issue at our meeting.” Read More: Fairfield Citizen 4/21/16
As Criticism Mounts, Malloy Defends Education Cuts to Affluent Towns
As sharp criticism built Thursday of its proposal to end state education aid to 28 of the state's wealthiest towns, the administration of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy released data to show that most of the towns affected have among the lowest mill rates in the state and rely relatively little on state aid.
Facing a sizable budget deficit, the governor on Tuesday proposed eliminating all of the $25 million that the state currently provides to the wealthiest communities through the Education Cost Sharing grant – a move decried by Republican legislators who largely represent those communities.
"We're in a new economic reality. With fewer resources, it requires difficult choices," said Devon Puglia, spokesman for the Democratic governor. "We need to provide support to schools and districts that need it most. Taking the same percentage of cuts in towns with wildly varying mill rates and tax bases just doesn't make sense. We believe we should protect those schools that rely on us most." Read More: CT Mirror 4/14/16
As sharp criticism built Thursday of its proposal to end state education aid to 28 of the state's wealthiest towns, the administration of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy released data to show that most of the towns affected have among the lowest mill rates in the state and rely relatively little on state aid.
Facing a sizable budget deficit, the governor on Tuesday proposed eliminating all of the $25 million that the state currently provides to the wealthiest communities through the Education Cost Sharing grant – a move decried by Republican legislators who largely represent those communities.
"We're in a new economic reality. With fewer resources, it requires difficult choices," said Devon Puglia, spokesman for the Democratic governor. "We need to provide support to schools and districts that need it most. Taking the same percentage of cuts in towns with wildly varying mill rates and tax bases just doesn't make sense. We believe we should protect those schools that rely on us most." Read More: CT Mirror 4/14/16
Fairfield budget gap up to $4.5M if state cuts stand
The town faces the loss of $4.5 million in revenue under Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposed budget, a cut that First Selectman Michael Tetreau said would be “devastating” to the community.
The governor’s revised budget proposal to cut more than $900 million in state spending zeroes out all Educational Cost Sharing funds received by Fairfield, as well as many other wealthy municipalities in Fairfield County. It also cuts $1 million in sales tax sharing, Tetreau said.“The only thing we can do is significantly reduce services,” the first selectman said, should the ECS and sales tax funding not be restored prior to final adoption of a 2016-17 budget by the state’s General Assembly.
The town’s $293.5 million spending package for the new fiscal year has already been voted on by the Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance, and awaits a May 2 vote by the Representative Town Meeting. As it stands, that would be a 0.79 percent increase over the current budget.
At Tetreau’s request, the RTM will discuss the budget situation at its meeting Monday. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 4/13/16
The town faces the loss of $4.5 million in revenue under Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposed budget, a cut that First Selectman Michael Tetreau said would be “devastating” to the community.
The governor’s revised budget proposal to cut more than $900 million in state spending zeroes out all Educational Cost Sharing funds received by Fairfield, as well as many other wealthy municipalities in Fairfield County. It also cuts $1 million in sales tax sharing, Tetreau said.“The only thing we can do is significantly reduce services,” the first selectman said, should the ECS and sales tax funding not be restored prior to final adoption of a 2016-17 budget by the state’s General Assembly.
The town’s $293.5 million spending package for the new fiscal year has already been voted on by the Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance, and awaits a May 2 vote by the Representative Town Meeting. As it stands, that would be a 0.79 percent increase over the current budget.
At Tetreau’s request, the RTM will discuss the budget situation at its meeting Monday. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 4/13/16
Malloy Spending Cuts Could Blow $3.5M Hole in Fairfield Budget
The town faces the loss of $3.5 million in revenue under Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposed budget, a cut that First Selectman Michael Tetreau said would be “devastating” to the community.
The governor’s revised budget proposal to cut more than $900 million in state spending zeroes out all Educational Cost Sharing funds received by Fairfield, as well as many other wealthy municipalities in Fairfield County.
“The only thing we can do is significantly reduce services,” Tetreau said, should the ECS funding not be restored prior to final adoption by the state’s General Assembly. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 4/13/16
The town faces the loss of $3.5 million in revenue under Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposed budget, a cut that First Selectman Michael Tetreau said would be “devastating” to the community.
The governor’s revised budget proposal to cut more than $900 million in state spending zeroes out all Educational Cost Sharing funds received by Fairfield, as well as many other wealthy municipalities in Fairfield County.
“The only thing we can do is significantly reduce services,” Tetreau said, should the ECS funding not be restored prior to final adoption by the state’s General Assembly. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 4/13/16
Malloy Cuts All State Aid To Fairfield Schools In New Proposed Budget
Gov. Dannel Malloy released a revised budget proposal for the 2017 fiscal year Tuesday, which includes completely eliminating education cost sharing grants for 11 Fairfield County towns while maintaining full funding for its four large cities. The proposed cuts are aimed at reducing the state's projected $922 million deficit in the budget approved last year. Statewide, the cuts in Education Cost Sharing grants total $43.4 million. Read more: Daily Voice 4/12/16
Gov. Dannel Malloy released a revised budget proposal for the 2017 fiscal year Tuesday, which includes completely eliminating education cost sharing grants for 11 Fairfield County towns while maintaining full funding for its four large cities. The proposed cuts are aimed at reducing the state's projected $922 million deficit in the budget approved last year. Statewide, the cuts in Education Cost Sharing grants total $43.4 million. Read more: Daily Voice 4/12/16
Assisted Living Plan at Synagogue Site Gets no Blessing from Neighbors
A proposal to build an 83-unit assisted-living center on property where a Stratfield Road synagogue now stands got a less-than-positive reception at an informal meeting with neighbors Wednesday.
The meeting, hosted by the developer, Fairfield-based Senior Living Development, was held at Congregation Ahavath Achim, 1571 Stratfield Road. Should the project be approved — plans have not yet been submitted to the Town Plan and Zoning Commission — the synagogue would be demolished and the three-story facility erected. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 3/31/16
A proposal to build an 83-unit assisted-living center on property where a Stratfield Road synagogue now stands got a less-than-positive reception at an informal meeting with neighbors Wednesday.
The meeting, hosted by the developer, Fairfield-based Senior Living Development, was held at Congregation Ahavath Achim, 1571 Stratfield Road. Should the project be approved — plans have not yet been submitted to the Town Plan and Zoning Commission — the synagogue would be demolished and the three-story facility erected. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 3/31/16
Fairfield Bd of Selectman Cut Growth in F2017 Budget to 0.64%
At a nearly five-hour meeting today (3/29/16), the Board of Selectmen cut $1.3 million from the First Selectman's proposed budget for FY 2017 resulting in revised total spending of $293.1 million, up 0.64% from the current year budget of $291.2 million. The BOS also approved an increase in expected non-tax revenues of $0.2 million to $23.2 million, up 1.02% from the current year. Thus, the expected Tax Levy (before credits and reserves) required in FY 2017 declined by $1.5 million to $266.6 million, and would be up 0.54% from the current year. After reflecting the 2% decline in the Grand List, the mill rate would now have to rise approximately 2.75% next year instead of 3.15% (the exact implications for the mill rate depends on pending adjustments to the Grand List for ongoing assessment reductions by the Board of Assessment Appeals and an error caused by the State DMV with regard to the number and value of cars in Fairfield).
Most of the overall $1.3 million cut in spending came from a $1.255 million cut in the growth of the BOE budget to $163.4 million, which would be now rise 1.36% instead of 2.14% as proposed by the First Selectman and 2.59% as originally proposed by BOE. Most of the $1.255 million cut was an $800,000 reduction in expected healthcare costs based on more favorable actual cost experience through February. The original proposal was to cut BOE spending next year by $1.63 million. Dr. Title, responding to a question at the meeting, said that the remaining $455,000 cut could be absorbed without affecting educational programs. Indeed, thanks to substantial savings from moving school employees to the State healthcare plan, school spending on everything other than healthcare costs would still rise approximately 4.3% to ~$140 million, which is obviously a very substantial increase.
The modest $42,000 cut in Town spending, which at $129.7 million would be down 0.25% from the current year, was a net figure after a $221,461 increases in expected healthcare costs (to reflect a possible delay in moving Town employees to the State healthcare plan) and for a $140,000 computer server, plus a number of smaller adjustments, and cuts in the Health & Hypertension account of $125,000 and the postponed replacement of a $210,000 dump truck, plus a number of smaller adjustments.
At a nearly five-hour meeting today (3/29/16), the Board of Selectmen cut $1.3 million from the First Selectman's proposed budget for FY 2017 resulting in revised total spending of $293.1 million, up 0.64% from the current year budget of $291.2 million. The BOS also approved an increase in expected non-tax revenues of $0.2 million to $23.2 million, up 1.02% from the current year. Thus, the expected Tax Levy (before credits and reserves) required in FY 2017 declined by $1.5 million to $266.6 million, and would be up 0.54% from the current year. After reflecting the 2% decline in the Grand List, the mill rate would now have to rise approximately 2.75% next year instead of 3.15% (the exact implications for the mill rate depends on pending adjustments to the Grand List for ongoing assessment reductions by the Board of Assessment Appeals and an error caused by the State DMV with regard to the number and value of cars in Fairfield).
Most of the overall $1.3 million cut in spending came from a $1.255 million cut in the growth of the BOE budget to $163.4 million, which would be now rise 1.36% instead of 2.14% as proposed by the First Selectman and 2.59% as originally proposed by BOE. Most of the $1.255 million cut was an $800,000 reduction in expected healthcare costs based on more favorable actual cost experience through February. The original proposal was to cut BOE spending next year by $1.63 million. Dr. Title, responding to a question at the meeting, said that the remaining $455,000 cut could be absorbed without affecting educational programs. Indeed, thanks to substantial savings from moving school employees to the State healthcare plan, school spending on everything other than healthcare costs would still rise approximately 4.3% to ~$140 million, which is obviously a very substantial increase.
The modest $42,000 cut in Town spending, which at $129.7 million would be down 0.25% from the current year, was a net figure after a $221,461 increases in expected healthcare costs (to reflect a possible delay in moving Town employees to the State healthcare plan) and for a $140,000 computer server, plus a number of smaller adjustments, and cuts in the Health & Hypertension account of $125,000 and the postponed replacement of a $210,000 dump truck, plus a number of smaller adjustments.
Riddles Are Amusing . . . But Not When They Mislead the Public
In his comments to the Board of Finance (BOF) at its Public Forum on Saturday, March 19th, one of the first speakers noted that recent Board of Education (BOE) and Town labor contracts have granted unsustainable 3%-4% annual increases, in part due to inexcusable confusion about their full cost to the Town. He urged the BOF to get involved and use its financial expertise to ensure that the full cost of any new labor contract is presented clearly and accurately to the Town boards and officials responsible for approving them.
Two subsequent speakers at the Forum claimed that the labor costs for their unions (Teachers and Firefighters) were increasing only 2% annually. This disagreement on these critically important numbers demonstrates the importance of getting the BOF involved.
We will illustrate the problem with two riddles. Read More
In his comments to the Board of Finance (BOF) at its Public Forum on Saturday, March 19th, one of the first speakers noted that recent Board of Education (BOE) and Town labor contracts have granted unsustainable 3%-4% annual increases, in part due to inexcusable confusion about their full cost to the Town. He urged the BOF to get involved and use its financial expertise to ensure that the full cost of any new labor contract is presented clearly and accurately to the Town boards and officials responsible for approving them.
Two subsequent speakers at the Forum claimed that the labor costs for their unions (Teachers and Firefighters) were increasing only 2% annually. This disagreement on these critically important numbers demonstrates the importance of getting the BOF involved.
We will illustrate the problem with two riddles. Read More
Big Issues Fairfield Taxpayers Should Care About
An important part of Fairfield's annual budgeting process is the Board of Finance-hosted meeting, held specifically for public comment. While this year's proposed budget is not as controversial some in the past, we encourage you and your neighbors to attend and express your opinions:
What: Board of Finance Budget Meeting for Public Comment
When: Saturday, March 19th, 9:30am
Where: Fairfield Ludlowe High School Auditorium
Can't attend Saturday's meeting? Send a "1-Click" Email to the BOF
An important part of Fairfield's annual budgeting process is the Board of Finance-hosted meeting, held specifically for public comment. While this year's proposed budget is not as controversial some in the past, we encourage you and your neighbors to attend and express your opinions:
What: Board of Finance Budget Meeting for Public Comment
When: Saturday, March 19th, 9:30am
Where: Fairfield Ludlowe High School Auditorium
Can't attend Saturday's meeting? Send a "1-Click" Email to the BOF
THE BIG ISSUES FAIRFIELD TAXPAYERS SHOULD CARE ABOUT
SCHOOL SPENDING SHOULD BE FLAT NEXT YEAR
SCHOOL SPENDING SHOULD BE FLAT NEXT YEAR
- The BOE will have substantial savings from a cheaper healthcare plan, but the Superintendent of Schools, the BOE and the teachers' union all want to spend $5.8 million more on everything else, resulting in a net increase of $3.4 million, or 2%, to $165 million. If all that $5.8 million in additional spending were truly essential, then without the healthcare savings Read More
Overheard in a Fairfield Kitchen
Prologue: The context for this very short play is that Fairfield's Board of Education has requested a substantial increase in education spending despite the substantial savings it will realize from a cheaper healthcare plan. Both before and after the First Selectman’s adjustments to its budget request, and at a time when student enrollment is declining, the BOE wants to spend almost $6 million more on everything other than employee benefits. If all this additional spending were truly essential, then without the healthcare savings the BOE would be asking for a total increase of around $8 million, or 5%. Fairfield Taxpayer believes the BOE should find ways, with the benefit of those savings, to hold education spending flat next year, just as the Town is doing for municipal spending.
“Reinvest” Sounds So Much Better than “Spend More” - A One-Act Play
Scene: Two people at their kitchen table in Fairfield discussing their household budget for next year.
Spouse #1: Unfortunately, things are still really tough out there, so we must be very careful with our spending. As you know, our home declined in value based on the latest revaluation, and it may go even lower because all those GE employees are leaving. Meanwhile, the stock market has been weak, which ... Read More
Prologue: The context for this very short play is that Fairfield's Board of Education has requested a substantial increase in education spending despite the substantial savings it will realize from a cheaper healthcare plan. Both before and after the First Selectman’s adjustments to its budget request, and at a time when student enrollment is declining, the BOE wants to spend almost $6 million more on everything other than employee benefits. If all this additional spending were truly essential, then without the healthcare savings the BOE would be asking for a total increase of around $8 million, or 5%. Fairfield Taxpayer believes the BOE should find ways, with the benefit of those savings, to hold education spending flat next year, just as the Town is doing for municipal spending.
“Reinvest” Sounds So Much Better than “Spend More” - A One-Act Play
Scene: Two people at their kitchen table in Fairfield discussing their household budget for next year.
Spouse #1: Unfortunately, things are still really tough out there, so we must be very careful with our spending. As you know, our home declined in value based on the latest revaluation, and it may go even lower because all those GE employees are leaving. Meanwhile, the stock market has been weak, which ... Read More
Public Hearing Schedule on FY17 Budget
The tentative schedule for public hearings on the fiscal year 2017 budget, for the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance and the Representative Town Meeting, can be downloaded below. We will update this schedule with any changes as needed.
The tentative schedule for public hearings on the fiscal year 2017 budget, for the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance and the Representative Town Meeting, can be downloaded below. We will update this schedule with any changes as needed.
| 2016_budget_meeting_schedule.pdf |
1.19% increase for FY 17
At a Chamber of Commerce meeting this morning, First Selectman Tetreau announced a proposed 1.19% increase in spending and taxes for fiscal year 17. His proposed town spending is down 0.22%, and his proposed BOE spending is up 2.1%, which implies a $800,000 cut in the $4.2 million increase proposed by the BOE. 2/25/16
At a Chamber of Commerce meeting this morning, First Selectman Tetreau announced a proposed 1.19% increase in spending and taxes for fiscal year 17. His proposed town spending is down 0.22%, and his proposed BOE spending is up 2.1%, which implies a $800,000 cut in the $4.2 million increase proposed by the BOE. 2/25/16
$60 million for Merritt Plan
On February 4th the DOT held a public information meeting to explain its plan to spend $60 million on the 5 mile no-exit zone section of the Merritt Parkway. Read more: Letter to the Fairfield Minuteman 12/2/16
On February 4th the DOT held a public information meeting to explain its plan to spend $60 million on the 5 mile no-exit zone section of the Merritt Parkway. Read more: Letter to the Fairfield Minuteman 12/2/16
Westport Grand List up 8% Versus 2% Decline for Fairfield
Westport Assessor Paul Friia announced Friday that on Jan. 31, he signed the Oct. 1, 2015 Grand List as required by state statute. The list is the sum of the net assessed value of all taxable property – real estate, motor vehicles, and personal property.
The net 2015 Grand List of $10,876,602,613 represents a total increase of approximately 7.8 percent compared to the net 2014 Grand List of $10,092,436,351. Residential values increased approximately 7.5 percent, while commercial values increased approximately 10 percent. The combined increase in the real estate categories is 8.3 percent. Read more: Fairfield Minuteman 2/6/16
Westport Assessor Paul Friia announced Friday that on Jan. 31, he signed the Oct. 1, 2015 Grand List as required by state statute. The list is the sum of the net assessed value of all taxable property – real estate, motor vehicles, and personal property.
The net 2015 Grand List of $10,876,602,613 represents a total increase of approximately 7.8 percent compared to the net 2014 Grand List of $10,092,436,351. Residential values increased approximately 7.5 percent, while commercial values increased approximately 10 percent. The combined increase in the real estate categories is 8.3 percent. Read more: Fairfield Minuteman 2/6/16
Ability to Search Land Records Now on Town of Fairfield Website
This is a great example of how the Town can enhance public services using technology.
Fairfield would be interested to learn that The Town Clerk's Office has recently created the ability to search Fairfield land records on the Internet. Go to www.searchiqs.com/ctfai to see land record indexes and images.
This is a great example of how the Town can enhance public services using technology.
Fairfield would be interested to learn that The Town Clerk's Office has recently created the ability to search Fairfield land records on the Internet. Go to www.searchiqs.com/ctfai to see land record indexes and images.
- Records for the period April 1977-December 1999 are available as Index Data.
- Records for the period January 2000-Present are available as both Index Data and Images.
- Anyone can click on "Log in as GUEST" and search land records at no charge.
- In order to print land records from the new website (at a cost of $1.50 per page), one must sign up for a user account.
Connecticut FY2017 Midterm Budget Adjustments
To view Governor Dannel Malloy's FY2017 midterm budget adjustments click here or download the document below.
To view Governor Dannel Malloy's FY2017 midterm budget adjustments click here or download the document below.
| fy17midtermbudgetadjustments.pdf |
Fairfield Grand List Decreases 1.77%
The Town of Fairfield’s Net Grand List assessment, based on valuations as of October 1, 2015, and pending Board of Assessment Appeals hearings, is $10,781,433,240, Town Assessor Donald J. Ross, Jr., announced Tuesday. This amount represents a decrease of $194,191,675, or 1.77 percent, from the 2014 net list of $10,975,624,915 as adjusted by the Board of Assessment Appeals effective March 31, 2015.
As a result of the 2015 town wide property revaluation, the net 2014 Real Estate List of $10,199,907,843, as adjusted by the March 2015 Board of Assessment Appeals, decreased 2.2 percent, by $226,287,333, to a net of $9,973,620,510 for the October 1, 2015 list, Ross said. The decrease is mainly due to a decline in many property values since 2010, the year of the last revaluation, he said. As a percentage of the Gross Real Estate List, residential property comprises 89 percent, commercial and public utility properties comprise 10 percent, and industrial properties comprise 1 percent.
The Board of Finance will set the tax rate for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, based on the town budget and on projected revenues from Grand List assessments. The budget will be set over the next several weeks. Read more: Fairfield Minuteman 2/2/16
The Town of Fairfield’s Net Grand List assessment, based on valuations as of October 1, 2015, and pending Board of Assessment Appeals hearings, is $10,781,433,240, Town Assessor Donald J. Ross, Jr., announced Tuesday. This amount represents a decrease of $194,191,675, or 1.77 percent, from the 2014 net list of $10,975,624,915 as adjusted by the Board of Assessment Appeals effective March 31, 2015.
As a result of the 2015 town wide property revaluation, the net 2014 Real Estate List of $10,199,907,843, as adjusted by the March 2015 Board of Assessment Appeals, decreased 2.2 percent, by $226,287,333, to a net of $9,973,620,510 for the October 1, 2015 list, Ross said. The decrease is mainly due to a decline in many property values since 2010, the year of the last revaluation, he said. As a percentage of the Gross Real Estate List, residential property comprises 89 percent, commercial and public utility properties comprise 10 percent, and industrial properties comprise 1 percent.
The Board of Finance will set the tax rate for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, based on the town budget and on projected revenues from Grand List assessments. The budget will be set over the next several weeks. Read more: Fairfield Minuteman 2/2/16
GREAT NEWS: $3.5 MILLION IN SCHOOL COST SAVINGS . . . OOPS, NO, SORRY . . . BAD NEWS: TAXPAYERS ASKED TO PAY $4.2 MILLION MORE FOR OUR SCHOOLS DESPITE THOSE SAVINGS AND A 1% DECLINE IN ENROLLMENT
Superintendent of Schools David Title recently released his recommended school budget for next year.
Thanks to a new healthcare plan (the Connecticut Partnership Plan 2.0), next year’s BOE budget will benefit by $3.5 million. Unfortunately, Dr. Title proposes that we spend all those savings and more with a $4.2 million, or 2.6%, increase in next year’s budget to $165.4 million (vs. $161.2 million this year), even though he projects that enrollment will continue to decline – down 1% from 10,058 to 9,960, and down 3% from the FY 2012 peak of 10,287.
It should be quite alarming to taxpayers that without the $3.5 million in savings on healthcare costs, Dr. Title would presumably be asking for a $7.7 million, or 4.8%, increase in spending at a time when enrollment continues to decline. This is particularly alarming at a time when Fairfield taxpayers continue to struggle with a difficult general economic environment in which incomes are growing slowly if at all (e.g., no COLA increase in Social Security benefits for seniors this year), a weak stock market, the impending departure of the Town’s largest taxpayer, and an impending 2% increase in the mill rate simply to offset the recent 2% decline in Fairfield home values (and thus in the Town’s tax base) after the 2015 revaluation. Since the BOE budget represents 55% of our total spending, a 4.8% increase would mean that even if there were no increase in spending on the Town side (police, fire, roads, debt service, etc.), the mill rate would have to rise 2.6% (55% of 4.8%). Combined with the 2% increase required to offset the decline in our tax base, all other things equal, the mill rate would have to rise almost 5% to 25.95 from 24.79. Also, keep in mind that the following year (2017-18), BOE healthcare costs are expected to resume their 5%-10% annual increases. Click here to read full document.
Superintendent of Schools David Title recently released his recommended school budget for next year.
Thanks to a new healthcare plan (the Connecticut Partnership Plan 2.0), next year’s BOE budget will benefit by $3.5 million. Unfortunately, Dr. Title proposes that we spend all those savings and more with a $4.2 million, or 2.6%, increase in next year’s budget to $165.4 million (vs. $161.2 million this year), even though he projects that enrollment will continue to decline – down 1% from 10,058 to 9,960, and down 3% from the FY 2012 peak of 10,287.
It should be quite alarming to taxpayers that without the $3.5 million in savings on healthcare costs, Dr. Title would presumably be asking for a $7.7 million, or 4.8%, increase in spending at a time when enrollment continues to decline. This is particularly alarming at a time when Fairfield taxpayers continue to struggle with a difficult general economic environment in which incomes are growing slowly if at all (e.g., no COLA increase in Social Security benefits for seniors this year), a weak stock market, the impending departure of the Town’s largest taxpayer, and an impending 2% increase in the mill rate simply to offset the recent 2% decline in Fairfield home values (and thus in the Town’s tax base) after the 2015 revaluation. Since the BOE budget represents 55% of our total spending, a 4.8% increase would mean that even if there were no increase in spending on the Town side (police, fire, roads, debt service, etc.), the mill rate would have to rise 2.6% (55% of 4.8%). Combined with the 2% increase required to offset the decline in our tax base, all other things equal, the mill rate would have to rise almost 5% to 25.95 from 24.79. Also, keep in mind that the following year (2017-18), BOE healthcare costs are expected to resume their 5%-10% annual increases. Click here to read full document.
GE Headquarters Leaving Fairfield, Moving to Boston
General Electric modernized the world with 20th century inventions from vacuum cleaners to radios that were built in Connecticut. Now the company is planning its future in Boston, where elite technical talent abounds, as part of a bid to transform industrial development with digital innovation.
GE, based in Fairfield for 42 years, made its long-awaited announcement Wednesday.
GE had been considering moving its headquarters for more than three years, but the issue only came to light in a dispute over state taxes last summer. Read more: CT Post 1/14/16
With General Electric’s decision this week to move its corporate headquarters from Fairfield — its home for more than four decades — the immediate political finger-pointing over loss of the town’s largest taxpayer mingled with uncertainty over the future of the 30-acre Easton Turnpike property. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 1/13/16
General Electric modernized the world with 20th century inventions from vacuum cleaners to radios that were built in Connecticut. Now the company is planning its future in Boston, where elite technical talent abounds, as part of a bid to transform industrial development with digital innovation.
GE, based in Fairfield for 42 years, made its long-awaited announcement Wednesday.
GE had been considering moving its headquarters for more than three years, but the issue only came to light in a dispute over state taxes last summer. Read more: CT Post 1/14/16
With General Electric’s decision this week to move its corporate headquarters from Fairfield — its home for more than four decades — the immediate political finger-pointing over loss of the town’s largest taxpayer mingled with uncertainty over the future of the 30-acre Easton Turnpike property. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 1/13/16
Title Proposes $165.4M School Budget with 2.6% Increase
A $165.4 million education budget proposed for 2016-17, with a 2. 6 percent increase, was unveiled Tuesday by Superintendent of Schools David Title.
Title detailed his $165,393,561 spending package — $4,177,921 more than this year’s budget of $160.8 million — to the Board of Education and about 75 members of the public. The proposed budget, which the panel expects to vote on later this month, then faces review by other town boards before final action by the Representative Town Meeting in the spring. The new budget will take effect July 1. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 1/13/16
A $165.4 million education budget proposed for 2016-17, with a 2. 6 percent increase, was unveiled Tuesday by Superintendent of Schools David Title.
Title detailed his $165,393,561 spending package — $4,177,921 more than this year’s budget of $160.8 million — to the Board of Education and about 75 members of the public. The proposed budget, which the panel expects to vote on later this month, then faces review by other town boards before final action by the Representative Town Meeting in the spring. The new budget will take effect July 1. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 1/13/16
This is Among the Most Important Things Fairfield Can Do!
It has happened more often than not — the town funds a building project based on an estimate for a conceptual design and then seeks bids on the work, only to have the bids come in over the anticipated costs.
Or over the course of a project something unexpected arises, such as PCBs found in school buildings, and the building committee is back before town bodies, asking for more money leaving officials and taxpayers alike frustrated and angry.
After last month’s Board of Finance meeting, where another $1.4 million was added to the Penfield Pavilion project, Chairman Thomas Flynn suggested that it might time to at least discuss hiring a new municipal employee whose job it would be to act as a sort of “owner’s rep” on town projects. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 1/6/16
It has happened more often than not — the town funds a building project based on an estimate for a conceptual design and then seeks bids on the work, only to have the bids come in over the anticipated costs.
Or over the course of a project something unexpected arises, such as PCBs found in school buildings, and the building committee is back before town bodies, asking for more money leaving officials and taxpayers alike frustrated and angry.
After last month’s Board of Finance meeting, where another $1.4 million was added to the Penfield Pavilion project, Chairman Thomas Flynn suggested that it might time to at least discuss hiring a new municipal employee whose job it would be to act as a sort of “owner’s rep” on town projects. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 1/6/16
Fairfield Taxpayer's Interactive Map of Property Revaluation Changes
Below is a link to Fairfield Taxpayer’s new web page that allows you to look at how the new revaluation changed property values in Fairfield based on the preliminary data provided by the Tax Assessor.
All property owners should have received a letter from the Tax Assessor dated November 12th informing them of the Assessed value of their property as of October 1, 2015. The Tax Assessor reported that about 10% of all Fairfield residential properties were unchanged in value, about 50% were down and about 40% were up, subject to any adjustments after the informal hearing process with the appraisers. You can also find your new assessment at the following website: http://gis.vgsi.com/fairfieldct/
Fairfield Taxpayer’s new web page will allow you to analyze much more easily whether your new assessment is fair by comparing how it changed relative to other properties in your neighborhood. Although there are always exceptions, if the percentage change in your assessment is roughly similar to those for most of the properties near you, it is likely that your new assessment is fair. The new web page also makes it much easier to analyze how appraised values changed in different neighborhoods. In a large and diverse town like Fairfield, greater or lesser changes in property values are to be expected in different neighborhoods, since each of them is subject to different trends in land values.
Clicking on the button will take you to a web page that looks like the screenshot below. There is a dot on the map for every residential property in Fairfield, and the dots are color-coded to show how the value for each property changed in the latest revaluation. Dark Green – up more than 10%; Light Green – up 0% to 10%; Beige – down 0% to 10%; and Red – down more than 10%. As you can see, in general, property values increased on the east side of town and declined on the west side and along Fairfield Beach Road.
Fairfield Taxpayer’s new web page will allow you to analyze much more easily whether your new assessment is fair by comparing how it changed relative to other properties in your neighborhood. Although there are always exceptions, if the percentage change in your assessment is roughly similar to those for most of the properties near you, it is likely that your new assessment is fair. The new web page also makes it much easier to analyze how appraised values changed in different neighborhoods. In a large and diverse town like Fairfield, greater or lesser changes in property values are to be expected in different neighborhoods, since each of them is subject to different trends in land values.
Clicking on the button will take you to a web page that looks like the screenshot below. There is a dot on the map for every residential property in Fairfield, and the dots are color-coded to show how the value for each property changed in the latest revaluation. Dark Green – up more than 10%; Light Green – up 0% to 10%; Beige – down 0% to 10%; and Red – down more than 10%. As you can see, in general, property values increased on the east side of town and declined on the west side and along Fairfield Beach Road.
Click here to read full document
If you would like to access the data base from which the map is created, which includes more detailed information about each property in an Excel spreadsheet format, please click on the following button:
If you would like to access the data base from which the map is created, which includes more detailed information about each property in an Excel spreadsheet format, please click on the following button:
Some Tips on Analyzing Your New 2015 Property Assessment
All residential and commercial property owners should have received a letter from the Tax Assessor dated November 12th informing them of the Assessed value of their property as of October 1, 2015.
The combined value of all the new assessments for residential, commercial and industrial real estate (which represents ~93% of all the taxable property in Town) reportedly declined about 2% from what those properties were worth on October 1, 2010. If we assume the remaining 7% of taxable property (motor vehicles and personal property) also declined 2%, the so-called "mill rate" will have to rise by 2% in order to collect the same amount of taxes. Under these circumstances:
Click here to read full document
Fairfield Taxpayer will continue to get information to assist residents with their property assessments. If you would like to get alerts from FT regarding any new assessment information, please fill out the form below and we will send updated information as it comes in.
All residential and commercial property owners should have received a letter from the Tax Assessor dated November 12th informing them of the Assessed value of their property as of October 1, 2015.
The combined value of all the new assessments for residential, commercial and industrial real estate (which represents ~93% of all the taxable property in Town) reportedly declined about 2% from what those properties were worth on October 1, 2010. If we assume the remaining 7% of taxable property (motor vehicles and personal property) also declined 2%, the so-called "mill rate" will have to rise by 2% in order to collect the same amount of taxes. Under these circumstances:
- If the value of your property declined exactly 2%, then with the mill rate up 2% due to the revaluation, the amount of taxes you pay would not change, but if spending and taxes in fiscal 2016-17 increase by 1.5%, the mill rate would have to rise even more, and you would pay 1.5% more in taxes.
- If the value of your property declined less than 2% or increased, the amount of taxes you pay would go up due to the revaluation, and you would pay even more if spending and taxes increase 1.5% next year.
- If the value of your property declined more than 2%, the amount of taxes you pay would go down, but your tax bill would go down less if the Town's spending and taxes rise 1.5% next year.
Click here to read full document
Fairfield Taxpayer will continue to get information to assist residents with their property assessments. If you would like to get alerts from FT regarding any new assessment information, please fill out the form below and we will send updated information as it comes in.
Unsure of your voting district? Click here for the street index.
Shrinking Revenue Forecast Shows CT's Red Ink Spreading Fast
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the legislature face more than $600 million in red ink this fiscal year and next combined — and another shortfall close to $1.4 billion after the next state election — if new revenue estimates released Tuesday are correct.
That means the financial problems facing the Capitol over the next few years are roughly five times the size of Connecticut’s modest $406 million emergency reserve.
And this grim news comes just five months after the governor and legislature enacted a new two-year budget that raises taxes by $1.3 billion over the biennium, and also cancels previously approved tax cuts worth close to $500 million. Read more: The CT Mirror 11/10/15
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the legislature face more than $600 million in red ink this fiscal year and next combined — and another shortfall close to $1.4 billion after the next state election — if new revenue estimates released Tuesday are correct.
That means the financial problems facing the Capitol over the next few years are roughly five times the size of Connecticut’s modest $406 million emergency reserve.
And this grim news comes just five months after the governor and legislature enacted a new two-year budget that raises taxes by $1.3 billion over the biennium, and also cancels previously approved tax cuts worth close to $500 million. Read more: The CT Mirror 11/10/15
Final Phase of Revaluation Underway - Informal and Formal Appeal Hearings to Take Place
After the inspection and valuation of over 20,000 properties, Fairfield will soon enter the final informal and formal hearing phases of its two year revaluation process.
During the revaluation, the Assessor’s Office and Vision Government Solutions Inc. looked at Fairfield as nineteen distinct neighborhood areas and studied market values, real estate transactions, building permits, and other data to determine the value of every property as of October 1, 2015. Town and Vision personnel entered neighborhoods and inspected individual properties to identify their characteristics and conducted field reviews prior to arriving at final valuations. Read more:Fairfieldct.org
Property owners will receive a notice of their new October 1, 2015 assessment on or about November 14 to November 18, 2015. Property data and assessment information for the October 1, 2015 revaluation will be available online at http://gis.vgsi.com/FairfieldCT/. Anyone who does not feel their new assessment value represents 70% of fair market value as of October 1, 2015 will have an opportunity for an informal hearing to discuss their property’s market value with Vision Government Solutions Inc.
The informal hearings will take place at the Bigelow Center for Senior Activities (formerly the Fairfield Senior Center), 100 Mona Terrace, by appointment only from November 18 through December 18, 2015.
To schedule an appointment for an informal hearing, taxpayers should go to: www.vgsi.com/schedules and follow the instructions. Please do not call the Assessor’s Office to schedule appointments or discuss new assessments. If you do not have access to a computer or have more than two parcels you wish to discuss, you may call Vision Government Solutions Inc. at 1-888-844-4300 between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM Monday-Friday (excluding the Thanksgiving holiday on November 26 and November 27). The results of the informal hearings are scheduled to be mailed in early January 2016.
After the inspection and valuation of over 20,000 properties, Fairfield will soon enter the final informal and formal hearing phases of its two year revaluation process.
During the revaluation, the Assessor’s Office and Vision Government Solutions Inc. looked at Fairfield as nineteen distinct neighborhood areas and studied market values, real estate transactions, building permits, and other data to determine the value of every property as of October 1, 2015. Town and Vision personnel entered neighborhoods and inspected individual properties to identify their characteristics and conducted field reviews prior to arriving at final valuations. Read more:Fairfieldct.org
Property owners will receive a notice of their new October 1, 2015 assessment on or about November 14 to November 18, 2015. Property data and assessment information for the October 1, 2015 revaluation will be available online at http://gis.vgsi.com/FairfieldCT/. Anyone who does not feel their new assessment value represents 70% of fair market value as of October 1, 2015 will have an opportunity for an informal hearing to discuss their property’s market value with Vision Government Solutions Inc.
The informal hearings will take place at the Bigelow Center for Senior Activities (formerly the Fairfield Senior Center), 100 Mona Terrace, by appointment only from November 18 through December 18, 2015.
To schedule an appointment for an informal hearing, taxpayers should go to: www.vgsi.com/schedules and follow the instructions. Please do not call the Assessor’s Office to schedule appointments or discuss new assessments. If you do not have access to a computer or have more than two parcels you wish to discuss, you may call Vision Government Solutions Inc. at 1-888-844-4300 between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM Monday-Friday (excluding the Thanksgiving holiday on November 26 and November 27). The results of the informal hearings are scheduled to be mailed in early January 2016.
Voters’ turn: Election’15 contests decided Tuesday
Experience in government is important to many voters. But Fairfield voters next week are being asked to choose what kinds of experience are best for the man they choose to fill the town’s top job over the next four years.
The municipal election Tuesday pits incumbentDemocrat Michael Tetreau, 63, seeking election to a second term after years of service on other town boards, against Republican challenger Chris Tymniak, 36, who has held a variety of appointed government posts, but is finishing his first full term as an elected Representative Town Meeting member.
Read More Fairfield Citizen 11.2.15
The municipal election Tuesday pits incumbentDemocrat Michael Tetreau, 63, seeking election to a second term after years of service on other town boards, against Republican challenger Chris Tymniak, 36, who has held a variety of appointed government posts, but is finishing his first full term as an elected Representative Town Meeting member.
Read More Fairfield Citizen 11.2.15
FT's Ads for Election Forum: (click on each pix to enlarge)
Candidates for First Selectman Debate Issues
A lunchtime debate was held Monday afternoon at the Gaelic American Club on Beach Road, hosted by the Rotary Club. First Selectman Michael Tetreau, a Democrat, defended his seat and record from challenger Chris Tymniak, a Republican who most recently has served as town manager for Ansonia. Read more: Fairfield Minuteman 10/27/15
A lunchtime debate was held Monday afternoon at the Gaelic American Club on Beach Road, hosted by the Rotary Club. First Selectman Michael Tetreau, a Democrat, defended his seat and record from challenger Chris Tymniak, a Republican who most recently has served as town manager for Ansonia. Read more: Fairfield Minuteman 10/27/15
Public Hearing Oct. 29: Parking Authority Weighs Solar Carports for Fairfield Train Station
Think strategically: Is this the best long term use for one of Fairfield's most valuable real estate? Click here to see memo from Town to commuters: FairfieldCT.org
What: Parking Authority Board Meeting
When: Thursday Oct. 29th 7:30pm
Where: Sullivan Independence Hall, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Read more: Fairfield Daily Voice 10/28/15
Think strategically: Is this the best long term use for one of Fairfield's most valuable real estate? Click here to see memo from Town to commuters: FairfieldCT.org
What: Parking Authority Board Meeting
When: Thursday Oct. 29th 7:30pm
Where: Sullivan Independence Hall, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Read more: Fairfield Daily Voice 10/28/15
What's Wrong with this picture?
The Fairfield Teachers' Union (Fairfield Education Association) was going door-to-door this weekend campaigning for ITS chosen candidates for OUR Board of Education.
We ask all voters who care about the long-term best interests of our Town to consider whether it would be good to elect BOE candidates who have been endorsed by the union, ONLY 30% OF WHOSE MEMBERS ARE FAIRFIELD RESIDENTS.
For many years, public employee unions have been successfully endorsing candidates at the State level, which has not worked out so well for Connecticut.
Indeed, Fairfield Taxpayer believes that excessive growth in public employee labor costs is the single greatest challenge faced by our Town and our State.
Knowing that the BOE must negotiate the salaries, benefits and work rules that determine half of Fairfield's total spending, how can it be good for our town to elect BOE members endorsed by our schools' unions?
It is essential to good government that our elected officials must be free from undue influence by public-employee unions, which exist to serve the narrow self-interests of their members rather than the best interests of our Town and our State.
This is no time to bring Hartford to Fairfield!
The Fairfield Teachers' Union (Fairfield Education Association) was going door-to-door this weekend campaigning for ITS chosen candidates for OUR Board of Education.
We ask all voters who care about the long-term best interests of our Town to consider whether it would be good to elect BOE candidates who have been endorsed by the union, ONLY 30% OF WHOSE MEMBERS ARE FAIRFIELD RESIDENTS.
For many years, public employee unions have been successfully endorsing candidates at the State level, which has not worked out so well for Connecticut.
Indeed, Fairfield Taxpayer believes that excessive growth in public employee labor costs is the single greatest challenge faced by our Town and our State.
Knowing that the BOE must negotiate the salaries, benefits and work rules that determine half of Fairfield's total spending, how can it be good for our town to elect BOE members endorsed by our schools' unions?
It is essential to good government that our elected officials must be free from undue influence by public-employee unions, which exist to serve the narrow self-interests of their members rather than the best interests of our Town and our State.
This is no time to bring Hartford to Fairfield!
Final legal victory in Berwick/Fairchild Affordable Housing case.
Thanks to everyone who worked on or wrote emails about this! As you will see on page 20 of the document, the judge dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, and the housing can not be built there. This is a total victory for our neighbors and all of Fairfield. Read More
Thanks to everyone who worked on or wrote emails about this! As you will see on page 20 of the document, the judge dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, and the housing can not be built there. This is a total victory for our neighbors and all of Fairfield. Read More
Unequal Pay: Public vs. Private Sector Compensation in Connecticut
Since 2011, Connecticut lawmakers have passed the two largest tax increases in state history, yet the state is projected to be in deficit again by 2017. Why? Read more: Yankee Institute 10/8/15
Since 2011, Connecticut lawmakers have passed the two largest tax increases in state history, yet the state is projected to be in deficit again by 2017. Why? Read more: Yankee Institute 10/8/15
Tetreau, Tymniak Race Heads into Homestretch
The battle for Fairfield's top job is entering its last month, and while letters to the editor and lawn signs cross swords over the better candidate, the contest has become one of the more closely watched in the state. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 10/7/15
The battle for Fairfield's top job is entering its last month, and while letters to the editor and lawn signs cross swords over the better candidate, the contest has become one of the more closely watched in the state. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 10/7/15
Fairfield League of Women Voters to Host Two Candidate Debates
The Fairfield LWV will host a debate for the Board of Education and Board of Finance candidates on October 14th at 7pm. The LWV's Board of Selectmen candidates debate is October 19th at 7:30pm. Both debates will take place in the Board of Education meeting room at Riverview Park, 501 Kings Highway. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 10/3/15
The Fairfield LWV will host a debate for the Board of Education and Board of Finance candidates on October 14th at 7pm. The LWV's Board of Selectmen candidates debate is October 19th at 7:30pm. Both debates will take place in the Board of Education meeting room at Riverview Park, 501 Kings Highway. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 10/3/15
Fairfield Rotary to Host First Selectman Debate
The Fairfield Rotary Club will host the First Selectman candidates for a debate at the Gaelic American Club on Monday, October 26th at 12:30pm. Read more: Fairfield Minuteman 10/6/15
The Fairfield Rotary Club will host the First Selectman candidates for a debate at the Gaelic American Club on Monday, October 26th at 12:30pm. Read more: Fairfield Minuteman 10/6/15
Final Tax Assessor's Revaluation Meeting
When: Thursday, October 22nd, 7pm-9pm
Where: Fairfield Ludlowe High School Auditorium, 785 Unquowa Road
(Copied from Town website)
In conjunction with the current Town-wide property revaluation for the Grand List of October 1, 2015, the Town of Fairfield is holding ten informational presentations on the revaluation process at various locations throughout Town.
Phase I Presentations focus on the Five Steps in the Revaluation Process. Phase II presentations focus on the Analysis and Valuation Process, including a review of trends in neighborhood values.
Click here for specifics on the revaluation process or to access the Revaluation Question and Answer Brochure.
Individual property values will not be discussed at these meetings. Any property owner wishing to discuss their current values may contact the Assessor's Office for an appointment.
All presentations are from 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm.
http://www.fairfieldct.org/townmeetings
Report on Fairfield's Property Revaluation
When: Thursday, October 22nd, 7pm-9pm
Where: Fairfield Ludlowe High School Auditorium, 785 Unquowa Road
(Copied from Town website)
In conjunction with the current Town-wide property revaluation for the Grand List of October 1, 2015, the Town of Fairfield is holding ten informational presentations on the revaluation process at various locations throughout Town.
Phase I Presentations focus on the Five Steps in the Revaluation Process. Phase II presentations focus on the Analysis and Valuation Process, including a review of trends in neighborhood values.
Click here for specifics on the revaluation process or to access the Revaluation Question and Answer Brochure.
Individual property values will not be discussed at these meetings. Any property owner wishing to discuss their current values may contact the Assessor's Office for an appointment.
All presentations are from 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm.
http://www.fairfieldct.org/townmeetings
Report on Fairfield's Property Revaluation
In case you missed them, below are links to two recent "letters to the editor" that are highly critical of Fairfield Taxpayer and the Strategic Plan for Fairfield that we recently published. We will respond to these and other comments and suggestions in future updates to the Strategic Plan.
Letter: Shame On Fairfield Taxpayer Strategic Plan Fairfield Daily Voice 9/24/15
Letter: Fairfield Resident Urges Fellow Voters To Do Their Homework Fairfield Daily Voice 10/5/15
Letter: Shame On Fairfield Taxpayer Strategic Plan Fairfield Daily Voice 9/24/15
Letter: Fairfield Resident Urges Fellow Voters To Do Their Homework Fairfield Daily Voice 10/5/15
Busy, Busy, Busy....we've been hard at work and are excited to share three new efforts - well, 2 updated and the third BRAND new:
1. FT's Election Forum. Your key to understanding Fairfield's upcoming municipal elections. Candidate bios and responses to voter questions. Our 2013 Forum had well over 10,000 "hits" and about 80% of the candidates who won submitted responses to our questions. This year's Forum is much easier to use and should have an even bigger impact helping voters get prepared for the election.
2. FT's Voting District Info. Most voting districts have changed as well as many polling venues. We help you sort it out.
3. FSP - FairfieldStrategicPlanning.com was launched as a new site and Facebook page to crowd-source a start to Fairfield's long overdue strategic planning process. While FTers got this site off the ground, it has an independent life of its own. EXPLORE MORE
1. FT's Election Forum. Your key to understanding Fairfield's upcoming municipal elections. Candidate bios and responses to voter questions. Our 2013 Forum had well over 10,000 "hits" and about 80% of the candidates who won submitted responses to our questions. This year's Forum is much easier to use and should have an even bigger impact helping voters get prepared for the election.
2. FT's Voting District Info. Most voting districts have changed as well as many polling venues. We help you sort it out.
3. FSP - FairfieldStrategicPlanning.com was launched as a new site and Facebook page to crowd-source a start to Fairfield's long overdue strategic planning process. While FTers got this site off the ground, it has an independent life of its own. EXPLORE MORE
Welcome to FairfieldStrategicPlan.com (a new "sister-site" of Fairfield Taxpayer)
You will find here a series of papers that Fairfield Taxpayer has written on the subject of A Strategic Plan for Fairfield, which we hope will contribute to the creation of an effective strategic plan that will allow Fairfield to continue to prosper by keeping our Town both desirable and affordable for all its residents. Explore More
You will find here a series of papers that Fairfield Taxpayer has written on the subject of A Strategic Plan for Fairfield, which we hope will contribute to the creation of an effective strategic plan that will allow Fairfield to continue to prosper by keeping our Town both desirable and affordable for all its residents. Explore More
Penfield planners revert to first repair plan amid reimbursement concerns
The Penfield Building Committee wants to go back to its original repair plans for the beachfront facility, shuttered since being damaged by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012.
In a sense-of-the-body resolution, the committee voiced support Thursday for a rebuilt pavilion without an east wing of lockers. That was its original recommendation to reopen the structure, but when it sought funding, the Board of Finance asked it to reconsider restoring lockers to the proposal. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 9/9/15
The Penfield Building Committee wants to go back to its original repair plans for the beachfront facility, shuttered since being damaged by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012.
In a sense-of-the-body resolution, the committee voiced support Thursday for a rebuilt pavilion without an east wing of lockers. That was its original recommendation to reopen the structure, but when it sought funding, the Board of Finance asked it to reconsider restoring lockers to the proposal. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 9/9/15
TAXES AT HOME: A Comparison of Municipal Spending
High property taxes are a fact of life in Connecticut. Assessed at the local level, they account for nearly half of all the taxes collected in-state.
Recently, legislators have looked at providing some cities and towns with more tax revenue by designating a portion of the state sales tax to some municipalities. But providing cities and towns with a new revenue stream isn’t the key component in controlling property taxes – controlling spending is. Read More: Yankee Institute Aug. 2015
High property taxes are a fact of life in Connecticut. Assessed at the local level, they account for nearly half of all the taxes collected in-state.
Recently, legislators have looked at providing some cities and towns with more tax revenue by designating a portion of the state sales tax to some municipalities. But providing cities and towns with a new revenue stream isn’t the key component in controlling property taxes – controlling spending is. Read More: Yankee Institute Aug. 2015
Lower Scores on the Common Core
Fewer than 40 percent of students statewide got a passing grade in math on a new, tough test linked to the Common Core curriculum standards results released Friday show. Read More: CT Post 8/28/15
Fewer than 40 percent of students statewide got a passing grade in math on a new, tough test linked to the Common Core curriculum standards results released Friday show. Read More: CT Post 8/28/15
Connecticut earns an "F" on Survey of Small Business Friendly States
In addition to Texas and Utah, small business owners rated New Hampshire, Louisiana, and Colorado as the best places for business. Aside from California and Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Illinois received “F” grades, closely followed by Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York with “D” grades. Read More:Forbes 8/18/15
In addition to Texas and Utah, small business owners rated New Hampshire, Louisiana, and Colorado as the best places for business. Aside from California and Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Illinois received “F” grades, closely followed by Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York with “D” grades. Read More:Forbes 8/18/15
CT's property taxes in perspective. (Hint: #4)
We know Fairfield has high taxes vs other towns. How High Are CT's ave prop taxes vs other States? Read More
We know Fairfield has high taxes vs other towns. How High Are CT's ave prop taxes vs other States? Read More
Another Penfield twist: FEMA formula could mean less aid for rebuild
What was hailed as good news appears to have thrown another a monkey wrench into the Penfield Building Committee’s plans for repairing Superstorm Sandy-damaged Penfield Pavilion.
On Wednesday, First Selectman Michael Tetreau announced the Federal Emergency Management Agency had determined that storm damage to the shorefront structure exceeded 50 percent, making it eligible for “replacement” project costs, with up to 75 percent federal reimbursement for both construction and hazard mitigation costs.
But at a special meeting Thursday night, building committee members found themselves not only dealing with bids on the job that came in over the $6 million budget, but since plans call for reusing the pavilion’s west wing, it might not be considered a replacement project by FEMA. That could affect the size of reimbursement the town receives from FEMA. Fairfield Citizen Read More 8/21/15
What was hailed as good news appears to have thrown another a monkey wrench into the Penfield Building Committee’s plans for repairing Superstorm Sandy-damaged Penfield Pavilion.
On Wednesday, First Selectman Michael Tetreau announced the Federal Emergency Management Agency had determined that storm damage to the shorefront structure exceeded 50 percent, making it eligible for “replacement” project costs, with up to 75 percent federal reimbursement for both construction and hazard mitigation costs.
But at a special meeting Thursday night, building committee members found themselves not only dealing with bids on the job that came in over the $6 million budget, but since plans call for reusing the pavilion’s west wing, it might not be considered a replacement project by FEMA. That could affect the size of reimbursement the town receives from FEMA. Fairfield Citizen Read More 8/21/15
Tax Assessor's Revaluation Meeting
When: Thursday, August 20th, 7pm-9pm
Where: *Fairfield Woods Middle School, 1115 Fairfield Woods Road
*Please note change in location from previous meeting
(Copied from Town website)
In conjunction with the current Town-wide property revaluation for the Grand List of October 1, 2015, the Town of Fairfield is holding ten informational presentations on the revaluation process at various locations throughout Town.
Phase I Presentations focus on the Five Steps in the Revaluation Process. Phase II presentations focus on the Analysis and Valuation Process, including a review of trends in neighborhood values.
Click here for specifics on the revaluation process or to access the Revaluation Question and Answer Brochure.
Individual property values will not be discussed at these meetings. Any property owner wishing to discuss their current values may contact the Assessor's Office for an appointment.
All presentations are from 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm.
http://www.fairfieldct.org/townmeetings
Report on Fairfield's Property Revaluation
When: Thursday, August 20th, 7pm-9pm
Where: *Fairfield Woods Middle School, 1115 Fairfield Woods Road
*Please note change in location from previous meeting
(Copied from Town website)
In conjunction with the current Town-wide property revaluation for the Grand List of October 1, 2015, the Town of Fairfield is holding ten informational presentations on the revaluation process at various locations throughout Town.
Phase I Presentations focus on the Five Steps in the Revaluation Process. Phase II presentations focus on the Analysis and Valuation Process, including a review of trends in neighborhood values.
Click here for specifics on the revaluation process or to access the Revaluation Question and Answer Brochure.
Individual property values will not be discussed at these meetings. Any property owner wishing to discuss their current values may contact the Assessor's Office for an appointment.
All presentations are from 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm.
http://www.fairfieldct.org/townmeetings
Report on Fairfield's Property Revaluation
RTM Members Want Change in Retirement Plan for Non-Union Workers
With a majority of the town's union contracts now requiring newly hired employees to participate in a defined contribution retirement plan, rather than a traditional pension, some RTM members want non-union hires to get the same retirement coverage. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 8/11/15
With a majority of the town's union contracts now requiring newly hired employees to participate in a defined contribution retirement plan, rather than a traditional pension, some RTM members want non-union hires to get the same retirement coverage. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 8/11/15
UPDATE ON FAIRFIELD’S PROPERTY REVALUATION
At public meetings on June 18th and July 23rd, Tax Assessor Donald Ross and representatives of Vision Government Solutions, Inc. (VGSI) provided progress reports on the Town’s revaluation process.1 Fairfield Taxpayer’s observations based on what we learned at these meetings are as follows:
1. Based on highly preliminary data, homes valued in 2010 below $1.1 million are, on average, up 4%-5% in value, and homes valued in 2010 above $1.1 million are down 1%-9%.
2. If this pattern holds and all other things being equal, the average home in Fairfield would be up 3%-4%, and the combined value of all homes2 would be up 1%-2%.
3. As reported at the meetings, the median sales price (MSP) for Fairfield homes increased about 7% between 2010 and 2014 (from $495,000 to $530,000). However, based on more recent data from the same source, Fairfield’s MSP declined 2% in the first half of 2015 (to $519,400), so the gain since 2010 is now only 4.9%. Because they are subject to distortions from any change in the mix of sales, MSPs do not necessarily reflect what is happening to true market values.
4. A decline in the value of higher-end homes relative to other homes would reverse some of the shift in tax burden that occurred in 2010 when their relative value increased, in some cases substantially. All other things being equal (e.g., no new construction or demolitions, commercial property values up exactly in line with residential, and a zero tax increase), if the pattern above holds, then on average taxes on homes valued above $1.4 million would be down 9%, taxes on homes valued at $1.1-$1.4 million would be down 3%, and taxes on homes valued below $1.1 million would be up 3%.
5. Assessment notices will be mailed on November 6th, and property owners will be able to schedule informal hearings to discuss their new assessments with VGSI personnel from November 16th to December 12th, before the new Grand List is finalized on January 31st. The deadline for any appeals to the Town’s Board of Assessment Appeals is February 20th. Read More
At public meetings on June 18th and July 23rd, Tax Assessor Donald Ross and representatives of Vision Government Solutions, Inc. (VGSI) provided progress reports on the Town’s revaluation process.1 Fairfield Taxpayer’s observations based on what we learned at these meetings are as follows:
1. Based on highly preliminary data, homes valued in 2010 below $1.1 million are, on average, up 4%-5% in value, and homes valued in 2010 above $1.1 million are down 1%-9%.
2. If this pattern holds and all other things being equal, the average home in Fairfield would be up 3%-4%, and the combined value of all homes2 would be up 1%-2%.
3. As reported at the meetings, the median sales price (MSP) for Fairfield homes increased about 7% between 2010 and 2014 (from $495,000 to $530,000). However, based on more recent data from the same source, Fairfield’s MSP declined 2% in the first half of 2015 (to $519,400), so the gain since 2010 is now only 4.9%. Because they are subject to distortions from any change in the mix of sales, MSPs do not necessarily reflect what is happening to true market values.
4. A decline in the value of higher-end homes relative to other homes would reverse some of the shift in tax burden that occurred in 2010 when their relative value increased, in some cases substantially. All other things being equal (e.g., no new construction or demolitions, commercial property values up exactly in line with residential, and a zero tax increase), if the pattern above holds, then on average taxes on homes valued above $1.4 million would be down 9%, taxes on homes valued at $1.1-$1.4 million would be down 3%, and taxes on homes valued below $1.1 million would be up 3%.
5. Assessment notices will be mailed on November 6th, and property owners will be able to schedule informal hearings to discuss their new assessments with VGSI personnel from November 16th to December 12th, before the new Grand List is finalized on January 31st. The deadline for any appeals to the Town’s Board of Assessment Appeals is February 20th. Read More
|
|
Police and Fire Contracts Approved - Why We Should Worry
On July 27, 2015, the RTM approved new labor contracts for police officers and firefighters. It was standing room only for those who showed up to see what would happen, as it has been at recent RTM meetings to approve new labor contracts for teachers (November 24th) and school administrators (March 19th), and the fiscal budget (May 4th). There are several reasons why Fairfield taxpayers should be concerned. Read more
On July 27, 2015, the RTM approved new labor contracts for police officers and firefighters. It was standing room only for those who showed up to see what would happen, as it has been at recent RTM meetings to approve new labor contracts for teachers (November 24th) and school administrators (March 19th), and the fiscal budget (May 4th). There are several reasons why Fairfield taxpayers should be concerned. Read more
RTM Approves Police and Firefighter Contracts
New four-year contracts for both police and firefighters were approved Monday by the RTM. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 7/28/15
New four-year contracts for both police and firefighters were approved Monday by the RTM. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 7/28/15
Informational Presentation on Fairfield's 2015 Revaluation
When: Thursday, July 23rd, 7pm-9pm
Where: Roger Ludlowe Middle School Auditorium, 689 Unquowa Road
(Copied from Town website)
In conjunction with the current Town-wide property revaluation for the Grand List of October 1, 2015, the Town of Fairfield is holding ten informational presentations on the revaluation process at various locations throughout Town.
Phase I Presentations focus on the Five Steps in the Revaluation Process. Phase II presentations focus on the Analysis and Valuation Process, including a review of trends in neighborhood values.
Click here for specifics on the revaluation process or to access the Revaluation Question and Answer Brochure.
Individual property values will not be discussed at these meetings. Any property owner wishing to discuss their current values may contact the Assessor's Office for an appointment.
All presentations are from 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm.
http://www.fairfieldct.org/content/10726/11012/30505.aspx
When: Thursday, July 23rd, 7pm-9pm
Where: Roger Ludlowe Middle School Auditorium, 689 Unquowa Road
(Copied from Town website)
In conjunction with the current Town-wide property revaluation for the Grand List of October 1, 2015, the Town of Fairfield is holding ten informational presentations on the revaluation process at various locations throughout Town.
Phase I Presentations focus on the Five Steps in the Revaluation Process. Phase II presentations focus on the Analysis and Valuation Process, including a review of trends in neighborhood values.
Click here for specifics on the revaluation process or to access the Revaluation Question and Answer Brochure.
Individual property values will not be discussed at these meetings. Any property owner wishing to discuss their current values may contact the Assessor's Office for an appointment.
All presentations are from 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm.
http://www.fairfieldct.org/content/10726/11012/30505.aspx
The New Police and Firefighter Contracts - Here We Go Again!
FT's perspective on another unsustainable increase in our town's cost structure...locked in for years. RTM has the chance, once again, to say "NO!" Read More 7/20/15
FT's perspective on another unsustainable increase in our town's cost structure...locked in for years. RTM has the chance, once again, to say "NO!" Read More 7/20/15
Raises and higher premium costs for Police and Firefighter Unions
The town’s police and firefighter unions have agreed to contracts that grant raises for both emergency services, but also require them to make higher contributions for health insurance, pensions and retirement benefits. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 7/16/15
The town’s police and firefighter unions have agreed to contracts that grant raises for both emergency services, but also require them to make higher contributions for health insurance, pensions and retirement benefits. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 7/16/15
Another sobering look at our State. This one from our own, UConn:
Flat Lining: Connecticut’s Disappearing Economic Growth - CCEA, UConn, June 2015
Flat Lining: Connecticut’s Disappearing Economic Growth - CCEA, UConn, June 2015
UPDATE ON DEPARTMENT HEAD COMPENSATION
On Wednesday, with no acknowledgement that there is any problem whatsoever with continued unsustainable increases in public employee compensation, the Board of Selectmen:
· GRANTED AVERAGE SALARY INCREASES OF 2%-3% TO MOST DEPARTMENT HEADS;
· GRANTED 2.5% ANNUAL INCREASES IN EACH OF THE NEXT FOUR YEARS (THAT’S A 10.4% INCREASE IN TOTAL) TO WHOEVER THE SELECTMEN WILL BE AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION; AND
· CLAIMED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE BENEFITS GRANTED TO DEPARTMENT HEADS.
Unfortunately, it is clear that the Town’s current executive board is not willing to address the problem of excessive public employee compensation, which is driving unsustainable increases in spending and taxes at both our local and state levels. Fairfield Taxpayer urges voters to keep this in mind in November and to elect people to public office who acknowledge the problem of excessive public employee compensation and are willing to do something about it before it is too late.
Fairfield’s Executive Board Denies Responsibility for Determining Department Head Benefits
Claiming that the Town Charter allows the Board of Selectmen to review and approve only the salaries and not the benefits and work rules that apply to Department Heads, they unanimously approved increases that were said to average 1.95%. Excluding what were referred to as three to four “outliers,” most of the increases were said to be 2%-3%.
With no acknowledgement that it is necessary to restrain the relentless growth in public employee compensation, the discussion among the selectmen focused on the process employed by the First Selectman in making his recommendations. He said the process included an evaluation for each Department Head of performance against personal goals and objectives, performance against specific challenges that arose during the year, and benchmarking against surrounding towns. It will perhaps surprise no one to learn that the performance review process is still primitive by the standards generally applied in the private sector. None of the performance criteria and none of the data upon which the First Selectman relied in this process were shared with the public.
Perhaps the most amazing aspect of this discussion was the unanimous acquiescence to the notion that salaries could be reviewed on their own rather than in the context of total compensation, and that doing so was justified based on the First Selectman’s assertion that according to the Town Charter, the BOS can only review salaries. Article V, section 5.2 states as follows: “Except as provided in this Charter or otherwise by law, the compensation of all Town officers shall be fixed by the Board of Selectmen subject to the adoption of the Town budget as provided in Article XII of this Charter.” Note that this clause uses the word “compensation” rather than “salaries.”
Accordingly, First Selectman Tetreau’s only reference to Department Head benefits was to state that, “We do our best to follow the mid-manager benefits,” which means that benefits for Department Heads have traditionally been matched to those of the Professional and Technical Employee Union. This statement begs the following questions:
Question: Why should Department Head benefits be tied to those of the PTE union?
Answer: Because that is how it has been done in the past.
Question: Who determines the benefits for PTE union members?
Answer: The First Selectman (who is responsible for negotiating contracts with the seven Town unions).
Question: Does this mean that the First Selectman determines his own benefits when he negotiates with the PTE union?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Is there any reason why the First Selectman, as the Town’s CEO, could not mandate less costly benefits for Department Heads and himself than are granted to PTE union members?
Answer: None that we know of.
Additional rationales that were offered by various selectmen in the discussion for granting most Department Heads salary increases of 2%-3% and for not requiring them to pay more of the cost of their generous benefits included: they do an excellent job; they are key to making Fairfield special; and they are key to making the Fairfield’s tax increase for FY16 the lowest in 20 years; they don’t get any overtime; they don’t get any “comp” days (i.e., if they are called into work, they can’t take additional time off); a 2% increase is in line with (“on par with”) increases granted to other Town unions; a 2% increase is less than the increases granted to teachers and school administrators by the BOE and approved by the RTM (“teachers are much higher”); they had to deal with Sandy, Irene, Nemo, PCBs, and Ebola (yes, that’s right, Ebola); none of them are in the annual list of the top fifty Town employees in terms of compensation (a list that is dominated by our highly paid school administrators and by policemen who work many overtime hours); they are always asked to do more with less; the population of Fairfield is growing; Fairfield is more efficient than other surrounding towns measured in terms of cost per capita (in FY14 Fairfield at $4,650 was below Greenwich at $6,012 and Westport at $7,112). Please note that none of these rationales addresses the simple question of whether some or all Department Heads are currently overcompensated by the standard of what their total compensation would be for a comparable position in the private sector, which is where the citizens of Fairfield must work in order to be able to pay their property taxes.
10.4% Increase in Selectmen Salaries over the Next Four Years
Based on the unanimous recommendation of a special, volunteer, ad hoc, four-person, bipartisan committee composed of two BOF members and two RTM members, the BOS unanimously approved salary increases for whoever the selectmen will be after the November election of 2.5% annually over the next four years. No data were provided to justify the increases, though it was said that the Committee relied upon data from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities to benchmark at least the First Selectman’s salary. In a classic understatement, the Committee’s letter also suggested that it would be helpful in the next Town Charter review to address the question of exactly which Town body should approve salaries and benefits for the BOS. The rationales then offered by the selectmen for granting these increases included: the selectmen have received increases over the past three years of only 0%, 3% and 0%; and “we are simply doing what the special committee recommended.”
We Can Deny Reality and Even Ignore Reality, but We Can’t Escape Reality
The most important new reality is that six years after the Great Recession, the economy, jobs and personal incomes are still growing only slowly in the U.S., and even slower, if at all, in Connecticut. This is a big change from the way things were over the lifetimes of most American adults, upon which basis we have all formed our understanding of the world. For 60 years after WW II, notwithstanding some cyclical ups and downs, things just kept getting better as the United States increasingly dominated the global economy and generated lots of good-paying jobs in the process. Virtually everyone enjoyed remarkable increases in incomes and even greater increases in material well-being and living standards, thanks to the benefits of technological improvements (i.e., better homes, cars, appliances, airplanes) and free trade. Even in the most recent period leading up to the Great Recession, when incomes leveled off, the benefits of advancing technology and free trade substantially increased purchasing power, allowing standards of living to continue to rise.
During this extraordinary period of rising affluence, we unfortunately developed some bad habits that will not serve us well in the new economic reality we face. For example, as long as the rising tide of general prosperity was lifting all ships (and all home values), it didn’t seem to matter that more and more generous compensation packages were granted to public employees, and it didn’t seem to matter that elected officials responsible for approving these contracts did so without considering their longer-term consequences.
As a result, strong, well-organized public-employee unions dominated at the bargaining table against weak, short-sighted, politically motivated government negotiators who were supposed to be representing the taxpayers, and the same unions were also highly successful as lobbyists to enact legislative protections like binding arbitration, prevailing wages (on public construction projects), and constitutional pension protections.
As a result, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm), as of March 2015, total compensation for state and local government workers was 40% higher ($44.25 per hour) than for workers in private industry ($33.49), with wages and salaries 24% higher and benefit costs 50% higher. Note that these figures do not take into account any of the work rule restrictions that further raise the cost of public-sector labor by limiting productivity.
As a result, Fairfield’s spending and taxes have increased at 2.5x-3.0x the rate of inflation over the past 17 years, NOT because we added substantially more and/or better public services, but because the cost of public labor escalated sharply due to increasingly generous wages, benefits and work rules.
As long as things kept getting better, neither the politicians nor the voters who elected them were forced to accept responsibility for the long-term consequences of their actions (or inactions). And when things did get bad enough in some towns, cities, regions and states, people simply began to “vote with their feet” by moving somewhere else, which is exactly what more and more people in Connecticut are doing.
That neither the Town nor the State has been able to even acknowledge the problem of excessive public employee compensation, let alone address it, is very discouraging. Fairfield Taxpayer believes that it is essential to elect people to public office at the local and state levels who acknowledge the problem of excessive public employee compensation and are willing to do something about it.
On Wednesday, with no acknowledgement that there is any problem whatsoever with continued unsustainable increases in public employee compensation, the Board of Selectmen:
· GRANTED AVERAGE SALARY INCREASES OF 2%-3% TO MOST DEPARTMENT HEADS;
· GRANTED 2.5% ANNUAL INCREASES IN EACH OF THE NEXT FOUR YEARS (THAT’S A 10.4% INCREASE IN TOTAL) TO WHOEVER THE SELECTMEN WILL BE AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION; AND
· CLAIMED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE BENEFITS GRANTED TO DEPARTMENT HEADS.
Unfortunately, it is clear that the Town’s current executive board is not willing to address the problem of excessive public employee compensation, which is driving unsustainable increases in spending and taxes at both our local and state levels. Fairfield Taxpayer urges voters to keep this in mind in November and to elect people to public office who acknowledge the problem of excessive public employee compensation and are willing to do something about it before it is too late.
Fairfield’s Executive Board Denies Responsibility for Determining Department Head Benefits
Claiming that the Town Charter allows the Board of Selectmen to review and approve only the salaries and not the benefits and work rules that apply to Department Heads, they unanimously approved increases that were said to average 1.95%. Excluding what were referred to as three to four “outliers,” most of the increases were said to be 2%-3%.
With no acknowledgement that it is necessary to restrain the relentless growth in public employee compensation, the discussion among the selectmen focused on the process employed by the First Selectman in making his recommendations. He said the process included an evaluation for each Department Head of performance against personal goals and objectives, performance against specific challenges that arose during the year, and benchmarking against surrounding towns. It will perhaps surprise no one to learn that the performance review process is still primitive by the standards generally applied in the private sector. None of the performance criteria and none of the data upon which the First Selectman relied in this process were shared with the public.
Perhaps the most amazing aspect of this discussion was the unanimous acquiescence to the notion that salaries could be reviewed on their own rather than in the context of total compensation, and that doing so was justified based on the First Selectman’s assertion that according to the Town Charter, the BOS can only review salaries. Article V, section 5.2 states as follows: “Except as provided in this Charter or otherwise by law, the compensation of all Town officers shall be fixed by the Board of Selectmen subject to the adoption of the Town budget as provided in Article XII of this Charter.” Note that this clause uses the word “compensation” rather than “salaries.”
Accordingly, First Selectman Tetreau’s only reference to Department Head benefits was to state that, “We do our best to follow the mid-manager benefits,” which means that benefits for Department Heads have traditionally been matched to those of the Professional and Technical Employee Union. This statement begs the following questions:
Question: Why should Department Head benefits be tied to those of the PTE union?
Answer: Because that is how it has been done in the past.
Question: Who determines the benefits for PTE union members?
Answer: The First Selectman (who is responsible for negotiating contracts with the seven Town unions).
Question: Does this mean that the First Selectman determines his own benefits when he negotiates with the PTE union?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Is there any reason why the First Selectman, as the Town’s CEO, could not mandate less costly benefits for Department Heads and himself than are granted to PTE union members?
Answer: None that we know of.
Additional rationales that were offered by various selectmen in the discussion for granting most Department Heads salary increases of 2%-3% and for not requiring them to pay more of the cost of their generous benefits included: they do an excellent job; they are key to making Fairfield special; and they are key to making the Fairfield’s tax increase for FY16 the lowest in 20 years; they don’t get any overtime; they don’t get any “comp” days (i.e., if they are called into work, they can’t take additional time off); a 2% increase is in line with (“on par with”) increases granted to other Town unions; a 2% increase is less than the increases granted to teachers and school administrators by the BOE and approved by the RTM (“teachers are much higher”); they had to deal with Sandy, Irene, Nemo, PCBs, and Ebola (yes, that’s right, Ebola); none of them are in the annual list of the top fifty Town employees in terms of compensation (a list that is dominated by our highly paid school administrators and by policemen who work many overtime hours); they are always asked to do more with less; the population of Fairfield is growing; Fairfield is more efficient than other surrounding towns measured in terms of cost per capita (in FY14 Fairfield at $4,650 was below Greenwich at $6,012 and Westport at $7,112). Please note that none of these rationales addresses the simple question of whether some or all Department Heads are currently overcompensated by the standard of what their total compensation would be for a comparable position in the private sector, which is where the citizens of Fairfield must work in order to be able to pay their property taxes.
10.4% Increase in Selectmen Salaries over the Next Four Years
Based on the unanimous recommendation of a special, volunteer, ad hoc, four-person, bipartisan committee composed of two BOF members and two RTM members, the BOS unanimously approved salary increases for whoever the selectmen will be after the November election of 2.5% annually over the next four years. No data were provided to justify the increases, though it was said that the Committee relied upon data from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities to benchmark at least the First Selectman’s salary. In a classic understatement, the Committee’s letter also suggested that it would be helpful in the next Town Charter review to address the question of exactly which Town body should approve salaries and benefits for the BOS. The rationales then offered by the selectmen for granting these increases included: the selectmen have received increases over the past three years of only 0%, 3% and 0%; and “we are simply doing what the special committee recommended.”
We Can Deny Reality and Even Ignore Reality, but We Can’t Escape Reality
The most important new reality is that six years after the Great Recession, the economy, jobs and personal incomes are still growing only slowly in the U.S., and even slower, if at all, in Connecticut. This is a big change from the way things were over the lifetimes of most American adults, upon which basis we have all formed our understanding of the world. For 60 years after WW II, notwithstanding some cyclical ups and downs, things just kept getting better as the United States increasingly dominated the global economy and generated lots of good-paying jobs in the process. Virtually everyone enjoyed remarkable increases in incomes and even greater increases in material well-being and living standards, thanks to the benefits of technological improvements (i.e., better homes, cars, appliances, airplanes) and free trade. Even in the most recent period leading up to the Great Recession, when incomes leveled off, the benefits of advancing technology and free trade substantially increased purchasing power, allowing standards of living to continue to rise.
During this extraordinary period of rising affluence, we unfortunately developed some bad habits that will not serve us well in the new economic reality we face. For example, as long as the rising tide of general prosperity was lifting all ships (and all home values), it didn’t seem to matter that more and more generous compensation packages were granted to public employees, and it didn’t seem to matter that elected officials responsible for approving these contracts did so without considering their longer-term consequences.
As a result, strong, well-organized public-employee unions dominated at the bargaining table against weak, short-sighted, politically motivated government negotiators who were supposed to be representing the taxpayers, and the same unions were also highly successful as lobbyists to enact legislative protections like binding arbitration, prevailing wages (on public construction projects), and constitutional pension protections.
As a result, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm), as of March 2015, total compensation for state and local government workers was 40% higher ($44.25 per hour) than for workers in private industry ($33.49), with wages and salaries 24% higher and benefit costs 50% higher. Note that these figures do not take into account any of the work rule restrictions that further raise the cost of public-sector labor by limiting productivity.
As a result, Fairfield’s spending and taxes have increased at 2.5x-3.0x the rate of inflation over the past 17 years, NOT because we added substantially more and/or better public services, but because the cost of public labor escalated sharply due to increasingly generous wages, benefits and work rules.
As long as things kept getting better, neither the politicians nor the voters who elected them were forced to accept responsibility for the long-term consequences of their actions (or inactions). And when things did get bad enough in some towns, cities, regions and states, people simply began to “vote with their feet” by moving somewhere else, which is exactly what more and more people in Connecticut are doing.
That neither the Town nor the State has been able to even acknowledge the problem of excessive public employee compensation, let alone address it, is very discouraging. Fairfield Taxpayer believes that it is essential to elect people to public office at the local and state levels who acknowledge the problem of excessive public employee compensation and are willing to do something about it.
VOTERS PLEASE TAKE NOTE: Board of Selectmen About to Review and Approve Department Head Compensation
The Board of Selectmen will review and approve Department Head compensation on Wednesday this week. Fairfield Taxpayer urges the Board – all of whom are seeking reelection in November – to show strong leadership and to set a constructive example by increasing substantially in the contributions that Department Heads must make towards the cost of their generous healthcare and pension benefits, and to replace defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution 401(a) plans for any department heads hired in the future. This is particularly important given that six of the seven Town union contracts are still being negotiated (Police, Fire, DPW, Nurses, Professional & Technical, and Communications Workers), given that we are trying to convert all public employees to 401(a) plans, and given that the recent contracts for teachers and school administrators, despite some welcome concessions in healthcare costs, will still result in unacceptably high annual increases in total compensation of 3.2%-3.6% over the next three years. (See: Town Budget Approved – Why We Should Worry – http://www.fairfieldtaxpayer.com/uploads/1/1/1/8/11185705/town_budget_approved_--_why_we_should_worry--_final.pdf)
Department Heads, which include elected officials like the First Selectman, are not members of any union, but traditionally their benefits have been based on those of the “Fairfield Professional & Technical Employees” (PTE) union, and documented in a “Benefit Summary for Non-Union Department Heads and Public Officials.”
There is an inherent conflict of interest in the process for determining Department Head benefits because the First Selectman basically determines his own benefits when he negotiates contract terms with the PTE union. The retirement benefits for Department Heads are currently quite generous relative to those available to people in comparable positions in the private sector, and relative to those of other Town unions. For example, Department Heads currently pay only 2% of their salaries toward their pensions, and only 11%-13% of the cost of their healthcare plans, while school administrators will be paying 23%, 24% and 25% over the next three years. In addition, school administrators agreed to substantially higher co-pays that are much higher than those paid by Department Heads.
Fairfield Taxpayer believes that the single most important challenge to both our Town and our State is the relentless increase in the cost of wages, benefits and restrictive work rules for public employees. Spending and taxes in Fairfield have more than doubled since 1998 (+118% and +137%) NOT because the Town is providing more public services; they are up primarily because the cost of public labor has soared. FT believes that public employees should be compensated in line with comparable private-sector employees rather than at a substantial premium, including overly generous pension and healthcare plans that are not available in the private sector to the taxpayers who must pay for them, many of whom are still coping with lower incomes since the Great Recession.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm), as of March 2015, total compensation for state and local government workers was 40% higher ($44.25 per hour) than for workers in private industry ($33.49), with wages and salaries 24% higher and benefit costs 50% higher.
A summary of the current terms that apply to Department Heads and to the seven unions that represent Town workers can be found on the Fairfield Taxpayer website through the following link:
http://www.fairfieldtaxpayer.com/uploads/1/1/1/8/11185705/ft-fairfieldlaborcontractsupdated10.30.13.pdf
The Board of Selectmen will review and approve Department Head compensation on Wednesday this week. Fairfield Taxpayer urges the Board – all of whom are seeking reelection in November – to show strong leadership and to set a constructive example by increasing substantially in the contributions that Department Heads must make towards the cost of their generous healthcare and pension benefits, and to replace defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution 401(a) plans for any department heads hired in the future. This is particularly important given that six of the seven Town union contracts are still being negotiated (Police, Fire, DPW, Nurses, Professional & Technical, and Communications Workers), given that we are trying to convert all public employees to 401(a) plans, and given that the recent contracts for teachers and school administrators, despite some welcome concessions in healthcare costs, will still result in unacceptably high annual increases in total compensation of 3.2%-3.6% over the next three years. (See: Town Budget Approved – Why We Should Worry – http://www.fairfieldtaxpayer.com/uploads/1/1/1/8/11185705/town_budget_approved_--_why_we_should_worry--_final.pdf)
Department Heads, which include elected officials like the First Selectman, are not members of any union, but traditionally their benefits have been based on those of the “Fairfield Professional & Technical Employees” (PTE) union, and documented in a “Benefit Summary for Non-Union Department Heads and Public Officials.”
There is an inherent conflict of interest in the process for determining Department Head benefits because the First Selectman basically determines his own benefits when he negotiates contract terms with the PTE union. The retirement benefits for Department Heads are currently quite generous relative to those available to people in comparable positions in the private sector, and relative to those of other Town unions. For example, Department Heads currently pay only 2% of their salaries toward their pensions, and only 11%-13% of the cost of their healthcare plans, while school administrators will be paying 23%, 24% and 25% over the next three years. In addition, school administrators agreed to substantially higher co-pays that are much higher than those paid by Department Heads.
Fairfield Taxpayer believes that the single most important challenge to both our Town and our State is the relentless increase in the cost of wages, benefits and restrictive work rules for public employees. Spending and taxes in Fairfield have more than doubled since 1998 (+118% and +137%) NOT because the Town is providing more public services; they are up primarily because the cost of public labor has soared. FT believes that public employees should be compensated in line with comparable private-sector employees rather than at a substantial premium, including overly generous pension and healthcare plans that are not available in the private sector to the taxpayers who must pay for them, many of whom are still coping with lower incomes since the Great Recession.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm), as of March 2015, total compensation for state and local government workers was 40% higher ($44.25 per hour) than for workers in private industry ($33.49), with wages and salaries 24% higher and benefit costs 50% higher.
A summary of the current terms that apply to Department Heads and to the seven unions that represent Town workers can be found on the Fairfield Taxpayer website through the following link:
http://www.fairfieldtaxpayer.com/uploads/1/1/1/8/11185705/ft-fairfieldlaborcontractsupdated10.30.13.pdf
A brief summary of contract terms for Department Heads is as follows:
NUMBER OF PEOPLE: 23
SALARY: Annual salary increases are determined by the First Selectman.
LONGEVITY PREMIUMS: Except for elected officials (e.g., the First Selectman and the Town Clerk), department heads get automatic 3% salary increases after five, ten and fifteen years of employment.
DEFERRED COMPENSATION MATCHING: There is a deferred compensation plan with a Town match of 50% up a maximum Town contribution of $1,000.
PENSION: Employee contribution of 2% of gross salary, pension vesting after ten years, retirement at the age of 62, pension benefit of 2.275% of highest salary per year of employment (e.g., 22.75% of highest salary after ten years, 45% of highest salary after 20 years). Anyone who does not become fully vested before they leave employment receive all of their pension contributions plus interest in a lump sum. Also covered by Social Security and Medicare.
401(a) PLAN: Optional (no Department Head, including the First Selectman, has opted for a 401(a) plan in lieu of the pension plan.
HOLIDAYS: 12 days
VACATION: 25 days after ten years. Maximum days accruable is 70. Maximum payable on separation or retirement is 60.
SICK DAYS: 30 days after ten years. Sick days can be accrued up to a maximum of 180 days, none of which are payable upon termination.
PERSONAL DAYS: five plus more at discretion of First Selectman.
FUNERAL DAYS: four for an immediate family member.
TOTAL DAYS OFF: holidays (12), + vacation (25), + sick (30), + personal (5+), + funeral (4) = 76, or 3.5 months.
LIFE INSURANCE: equal to 1.5x annual salary before retirement; $30,000 after retirement.
WORKERS COMPENSATION: 90 days at full pay after ten years.
FAMILIY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: up to 12 weeks.
SEVERANCE: one week per year of employment
ACTIVE HEALTH INSURANCE:
PREMIUM COST SHARE: 11% if employed before 4/22/13; 13% if employed after that date.
ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE: none
CO-INSURANCE: none
CO-PAYS: $0-$150
ANNUAL MAXIMUM: none
LIFETIME MAXIMUM: none
RX CO-PAY: $10-$40
RX ANNUAL MAXIMUM: none
RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE:
PREMIUM COST SHARE: None if employed before 4/22/13, and otherwise the same rate that was being paid when employment terminated.
MEDICARE: Carve Out after age 65.
DEPENDENTS: Coverage only for dependents at time of retirement.
VESTING: ten years.
NUMBER OF PEOPLE: 23
SALARY: Annual salary increases are determined by the First Selectman.
LONGEVITY PREMIUMS: Except for elected officials (e.g., the First Selectman and the Town Clerk), department heads get automatic 3% salary increases after five, ten and fifteen years of employment.
DEFERRED COMPENSATION MATCHING: There is a deferred compensation plan with a Town match of 50% up a maximum Town contribution of $1,000.
PENSION: Employee contribution of 2% of gross salary, pension vesting after ten years, retirement at the age of 62, pension benefit of 2.275% of highest salary per year of employment (e.g., 22.75% of highest salary after ten years, 45% of highest salary after 20 years). Anyone who does not become fully vested before they leave employment receive all of their pension contributions plus interest in a lump sum. Also covered by Social Security and Medicare.
401(a) PLAN: Optional (no Department Head, including the First Selectman, has opted for a 401(a) plan in lieu of the pension plan.
HOLIDAYS: 12 days
VACATION: 25 days after ten years. Maximum days accruable is 70. Maximum payable on separation or retirement is 60.
SICK DAYS: 30 days after ten years. Sick days can be accrued up to a maximum of 180 days, none of which are payable upon termination.
PERSONAL DAYS: five plus more at discretion of First Selectman.
FUNERAL DAYS: four for an immediate family member.
TOTAL DAYS OFF: holidays (12), + vacation (25), + sick (30), + personal (5+), + funeral (4) = 76, or 3.5 months.
LIFE INSURANCE: equal to 1.5x annual salary before retirement; $30,000 after retirement.
WORKERS COMPENSATION: 90 days at full pay after ten years.
FAMILIY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: up to 12 weeks.
SEVERANCE: one week per year of employment
ACTIVE HEALTH INSURANCE:
PREMIUM COST SHARE: 11% if employed before 4/22/13; 13% if employed after that date.
ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE: none
CO-INSURANCE: none
CO-PAYS: $0-$150
ANNUAL MAXIMUM: none
LIFETIME MAXIMUM: none
RX CO-PAY: $10-$40
RX ANNUAL MAXIMUM: none
RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE:
PREMIUM COST SHARE: None if employed before 4/22/13, and otherwise the same rate that was being paid when employment terminated.
MEDICARE: Carve Out after age 65.
DEPENDENTS: Coverage only for dependents at time of retirement.
VESTING: ten years.
Malloy proposes budget 'improvements' to reduce spending, eliminate business taxes
Governor Dannel Malloy announced state budget “improvements” Friday that he said would “reduce spending and eliminate business taxes, while preserving historic investments in transportation and property tax reform." The proposal came as Malloy was being urged to modify the budget approved recently by the state legislature in response to comments by officials of General Electric of Fairfield and other major corporations that they were considering leaving Connecticut because of the state’s tax burden.
Fairfield First Selectman Mike Tetreau commented Friday, “I have read the Governor’s announcement on the budget. This appears.. Read More 6/12/15 Fairfield Minuteman
Governor Dannel Malloy announced state budget “improvements” Friday that he said would “reduce spending and eliminate business taxes, while preserving historic investments in transportation and property tax reform." The proposal came as Malloy was being urged to modify the budget approved recently by the state legislature in response to comments by officials of General Electric of Fairfield and other major corporations that they were considering leaving Connecticut because of the state’s tax burden.
Fairfield First Selectman Mike Tetreau commented Friday, “I have read the Governor’s announcement on the budget. This appears.. Read More 6/12/15 Fairfield Minuteman
Why Union Labor Will Cripple Affordable Housing
Momentum is growing in Albany to require builders of affordable housing to use union labor, with both parties supporting the idea.
FT’s Take: Interesting data on the premium paid in the cost of public construction in NY due to the "prevailing wage" requirement. CT has a very similar statewide mandate for municipal building projects. If one presumes that the wage differentials are approximately the same in CT, this illustrates the approximate premium that Fairfield taxpayers must pay to build a school or a Penfield Pavilion thanks to CT's prevailing wage mandate.
Read more: Crain's New York 6/3/15
Momentum is growing in Albany to require builders of affordable housing to use union labor, with both parties supporting the idea.
FT’s Take: Interesting data on the premium paid in the cost of public construction in NY due to the "prevailing wage" requirement. CT has a very similar statewide mandate for municipal building projects. If one presumes that the wage differentials are approximately the same in CT, this illustrates the approximate premium that Fairfield taxpayers must pay to build a school or a Penfield Pavilion thanks to CT's prevailing wage mandate.
Read more: Crain's New York 6/3/15
Town Budget Approved! – Why We Should Worry.
GE Announces Search for New Home
The following is the email sent out to Connecticut GE employees by CEO Jeff Immelt:
“Last night, the Connecticut legislature passed a tax package which includes significant and retroactive tax increases for businesses in the state. The passing of this law, despite the concerns we raised, has serious implications for GE, other businesses and for the business climate in Connecticut. Please see attached fact sheet on the current environment. As a result of this law passing, I have assembled an exploratory team to look into the company’s options to relocate corporate HQ to another state with a more pro-business environment. This will be a thoughtful process which will take many factors, especially employee impact, into consideration. As the team makes progress, we will keep you updated.
“We only consider this after a lot of thought and in the context of our ability to compete. GE is a major employer in the state. We purchase $14 billion in goods and services from Connecticut companies. Despite this, we have had a tough past decade in Connecticut. Our taxes have been raised five times since 2011, while support for our strategies has been uneven. I believe we should pay our fair share and that all of us should give back to our communities. But, we can compare Connecticut with other states where small and large businesses have a better environment to thrive and compete.
“The new taxes will raise more than $1.9 billion. This will be the second highest tax increase in the state’s history behind only the more than $2 billion tax hike passed in 2011. Throughout the week we conveyed our concerns that these would not improve the competitiveness of small and large businesses in the state. We further reiterated those points in a public statement as the legislature began its budget deliberations.
“If you wish to register your concern, you can find your legislator by clicking http://www.cbia.com/ga/get_involved/contact_ct_legislators/ and all legislators can be reached through the Capitol switchboard at 860-240-8500. The decision to engage your representatives is, of course, voluntary.
Jeff
Original post: The chief executive officer of General Electric Co. has told employees the company has begun looking at the possibility of leaving its Fairfield headquarters.
The move comes in response to the Legislature’s adoption of a new two-year budget that raises business taxes.
CEO Jeffrey Immelt said in an email obtained by Hearst Connecticut Media that he has assembled an “exploratory team” to review the company’s options to relocate to another state with a “more pro-business environment.”
He cited “significant and retroactive tax increases for businesses” passed Wednesday night despite lobbying by GE.
On Monday, the company issued a statement before the budget passed that it would consider finding a new home.
“Reports that Connecticut officials intend to raise taxes by another $750 million are truly discouraging,” the statement read. “Retroactively raising taxes again on Connecticut’s residents, businesses and services makes businesses, including our own, and citizens seriously consider whether it makes any sense to continue to be located in this state,” the statement read. Click here for blogpost: Financial Mines 6/4/15
The following is the email sent out to Connecticut GE employees by CEO Jeff Immelt:
“Last night, the Connecticut legislature passed a tax package which includes significant and retroactive tax increases for businesses in the state. The passing of this law, despite the concerns we raised, has serious implications for GE, other businesses and for the business climate in Connecticut. Please see attached fact sheet on the current environment. As a result of this law passing, I have assembled an exploratory team to look into the company’s options to relocate corporate HQ to another state with a more pro-business environment. This will be a thoughtful process which will take many factors, especially employee impact, into consideration. As the team makes progress, we will keep you updated.
“We only consider this after a lot of thought and in the context of our ability to compete. GE is a major employer in the state. We purchase $14 billion in goods and services from Connecticut companies. Despite this, we have had a tough past decade in Connecticut. Our taxes have been raised five times since 2011, while support for our strategies has been uneven. I believe we should pay our fair share and that all of us should give back to our communities. But, we can compare Connecticut with other states where small and large businesses have a better environment to thrive and compete.
“The new taxes will raise more than $1.9 billion. This will be the second highest tax increase in the state’s history behind only the more than $2 billion tax hike passed in 2011. Throughout the week we conveyed our concerns that these would not improve the competitiveness of small and large businesses in the state. We further reiterated those points in a public statement as the legislature began its budget deliberations.
“If you wish to register your concern, you can find your legislator by clicking http://www.cbia.com/ga/get_involved/contact_ct_legislators/ and all legislators can be reached through the Capitol switchboard at 860-240-8500. The decision to engage your representatives is, of course, voluntary.
Jeff
Original post: The chief executive officer of General Electric Co. has told employees the company has begun looking at the possibility of leaving its Fairfield headquarters.
The move comes in response to the Legislature’s adoption of a new two-year budget that raises business taxes.
CEO Jeffrey Immelt said in an email obtained by Hearst Connecticut Media that he has assembled an “exploratory team” to review the company’s options to relocate to another state with a “more pro-business environment.”
He cited “significant and retroactive tax increases for businesses” passed Wednesday night despite lobbying by GE.
On Monday, the company issued a statement before the budget passed that it would consider finding a new home.
“Reports that Connecticut officials intend to raise taxes by another $750 million are truly discouraging,” the statement read. “Retroactively raising taxes again on Connecticut’s residents, businesses and services makes businesses, including our own, and citizens seriously consider whether it makes any sense to continue to be located in this state,” the statement read. Click here for blogpost: Financial Mines 6/4/15
2015 Niche Rankings for CT Public Schools
Best Public Elementary Schools ranks 40,403 elementary schools based on key student statistics and 4.6 million opinions from 280,000 students and parents. A high ranking indicates that the school is an exceptional academic institution with a diverse set of high-achieving students and faculty, and the students are very happy with their experiences. Click here to view rankings
Best Public Elementary Schools ranks 40,403 elementary schools based on key student statistics and 4.6 million opinions from 280,000 students and parents. A high ranking indicates that the school is an exceptional academic institution with a diverse set of high-achieving students and faculty, and the students are very happy with their experiences. Click here to view rankings
RTM Quickly Approves $291 Million Spending Plan, 1.64% Tax Increase
On Monday, the Representative Town Meeting approved a $291 million spending plan for the 2015-2016 fiscal year. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 5/5/15
On Monday, the Representative Town Meeting approved a $291 million spending plan for the 2015-2016 fiscal year. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 5/5/15
On May 4, 2015, Fairfield’s Representative Town Meeting (RTM) approved a $291 million budget for next year. It was standing room only for those who showed up to see what would happen and, if necessary, to speak in opposition to any proposed cuts. The same was true five months earlier when, on November 24, 2014, the RTM met to vote on a new three-year labor contract for teachers, a very important contract that accounts for about one-third of Fairfield’s total spending. In both cases, the RTM’s approval was followed by loud cheers and applause from the audience.
There are several reasons why Fairfield taxpayers should be concerned.
First, we should worry because the standing-room-only crowds that showed up at both meetings and who were cheering and applauding were primarily self-interested school teachers and administrators, many of whom do not live or pay taxes in Fairfield.
Second, we should worry because our RTM representatives approved what was a generous three-year contract for Fairfield’s teachers in the mistaken beliefs: that it would increase the combined cost of salaries and healthcare benefits by only 1.7% per year (instead of an actual 3.6% per year); and that the BOE budget next year would increase only 1.7% or slightly more (instead of an actual 3.5%).
Third, we should worry because, with only a few exceptions, RTM members seem content to simply move on and forget that they were misled into making a decision that was not in the best long-term interests of the Town, and because the people responsible for misleading the RTM seem to accept no responsibility for having done so.
Fourth, we should worry because the people who misled the RTM about the teachers’ contract were the same people who negotiated the new contract, and since we presume they did not intentionally mislead the RTM, it appears that they did not really understand the financial implications of the deal they negotiated, and/or were not capable of properly explaining them to other Town bodies.
Fifth, we should worry because at least one RTM member who spoke in favor of approving the new teachers’ contract (and later in favor of a generous new contract for the school administrators) did not recuse himself, even though his wife is a Fairfield teacher, although he did abstain in the formal vote.
Sixth, we should worry because if Fairfield continues to approve generous labor contracts for public employees, our spending and taxes will continue to increase at an unsustainable rate, driving more and more people to leave and hurting our property values.
Seventh, we should worry because Fairfield’s government is run almost entirely by well-meaning volunteers who often don’t have the time or expertise to understand the full consequences of the important decisions they are making, who often base their decisions on simplistic platitudes, and who are no match for the professionals who represent the public employee unions, particularly on the uneven playing field created by pro-union state laws like binding arbitration.
Finally, we should care about all this because in November we can elect people who we think understand the problems confronting Fairfield and are willing to address them. This is particularly true for the critical office of First Selectman, the Town’s only full-time elected official who can control its spending. In a government that relies primarily on part-time amateurs, if the First Selectman does not provide strong, professional leadership, Fairfield has little hope of being able to continue to prosper. Read More
There are several reasons why Fairfield taxpayers should be concerned.
First, we should worry because the standing-room-only crowds that showed up at both meetings and who were cheering and applauding were primarily self-interested school teachers and administrators, many of whom do not live or pay taxes in Fairfield.
Second, we should worry because our RTM representatives approved what was a generous three-year contract for Fairfield’s teachers in the mistaken beliefs: that it would increase the combined cost of salaries and healthcare benefits by only 1.7% per year (instead of an actual 3.6% per year); and that the BOE budget next year would increase only 1.7% or slightly more (instead of an actual 3.5%).
Third, we should worry because, with only a few exceptions, RTM members seem content to simply move on and forget that they were misled into making a decision that was not in the best long-term interests of the Town, and because the people responsible for misleading the RTM seem to accept no responsibility for having done so.
Fourth, we should worry because the people who misled the RTM about the teachers’ contract were the same people who negotiated the new contract, and since we presume they did not intentionally mislead the RTM, it appears that they did not really understand the financial implications of the deal they negotiated, and/or were not capable of properly explaining them to other Town bodies.
Fifth, we should worry because at least one RTM member who spoke in favor of approving the new teachers’ contract (and later in favor of a generous new contract for the school administrators) did not recuse himself, even though his wife is a Fairfield teacher, although he did abstain in the formal vote.
Sixth, we should worry because if Fairfield continues to approve generous labor contracts for public employees, our spending and taxes will continue to increase at an unsustainable rate, driving more and more people to leave and hurting our property values.
Seventh, we should worry because Fairfield’s government is run almost entirely by well-meaning volunteers who often don’t have the time or expertise to understand the full consequences of the important decisions they are making, who often base their decisions on simplistic platitudes, and who are no match for the professionals who represent the public employee unions, particularly on the uneven playing field created by pro-union state laws like binding arbitration.
Finally, we should care about all this because in November we can elect people who we think understand the problems confronting Fairfield and are willing to address them. This is particularly true for the critical office of First Selectman, the Town’s only full-time elected official who can control its spending. In a government that relies primarily on part-time amateurs, if the First Selectman does not provide strong, professional leadership, Fairfield has little hope of being able to continue to prosper. Read More
Eversource and UI electric rates in Fairfield are heading for big drop in July Read More
PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES IN FAIRFIELD SCHOOLS:
A RACE TO THE BOTTOM?
WE DON’T THINK SO.
Are we spending enough on our schools?
Superintendent of Schools David Title and BOE Chairman Phil Dwyer think we are not.
Indeed, they recently told the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance that Fairfield is in "A Race to the Bottom" in school spending because Fairfield's rank in terms of the amount of money we spend per pupil (Per Pupil Expenditure, or “PPE”) has fallen 45 places over the last ten years from #24 to #69.
Their evidence?
Here is the relevant chart they presented in support of their proposed budget for next year. Fairfield’s PPE rank is indicated for each year in the blue horizontal line at the bottom.
Superintendent of Schools David Title and BOE Chairman Phil Dwyer think we are not.
Indeed, they recently told the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance that Fairfield is in "A Race to the Bottom" in school spending because Fairfield's rank in terms of the amount of money we spend per pupil (Per Pupil Expenditure, or “PPE”) has fallen 45 places over the last ten years from #24 to #69.
Their evidence?
Here is the relevant chart they presented in support of their proposed budget for next year. Fairfield’s PPE rank is indicated for each year in the blue horizontal line at the bottom.
Both Dr. Title and Chairman Dwyer referred to this decline in rank as a “Race to the Bottom,” implying that Fairfield should be worried about this trend. Referring to Fairfield’s decline in PPE rank, Dr. Title’s exact words were: “If we keep this up we will win the race to the bottom.” Chairman Dwyer’s comments were: “Where are we heading in Dr. Title’s so-called Race to the Bottom, if in five years we are below the average of the state?” Read More
Click on Graph to see annual budget data
|
Fairfield Taxpayer's Perspective on 2016 Budget
As we noted when the Fiscal 2016 budget was first proposed by the First Selectman, Fairfield Taxpayer applauds the fact that the proposed tax increase is only 1.64%, which is close to the inflation rate for the first time in many years,perhaps only coincidentally because this is a municipal election year. In any given year, there are many moving parts to a budget, and this year, as we explain below, is no exception. The people who create budgets are always quick to take credit for heroically controlling some costs, and at the same time to lament that certain other costs are beyond anyone's control. Truly well managed public and private organizations deliver strong results with great consistency in spite of all the positive and negative things that inevitably happen from one year to the next. Read More |
Dreaded 'R' word: School officials mull redistricting for cost savings
The often-controversial issue of redistricting arose at Tuesday's Board of Education meeting as board members reviewed proposed revisions to a Long Range Facilities Plan that calls for the renovation and expansion of Holland Hill and Mill Hill schools. Read More Fairfield Citizen 2/27/15
The often-controversial issue of redistricting arose at Tuesday's Board of Education meeting as board members reviewed proposed revisions to a Long Range Facilities Plan that calls for the renovation and expansion of Holland Hill and Mill Hill schools. Read More Fairfield Citizen 2/27/15
Fairfield Taxpayer applauds the First Selectman Mike Tetreau’s proposal for a tax increase next year (fiscal 2016) of only 1.64%.
One of FT’s founding objectives, as stated on its website, has been to restrict spending and tax increases to levels no greater than the rate of inflation. At 1.64%, the proposed tax increase is very close to the 1.6% rate of inflation (CPI-U) reported for 2014 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
We note and also applaud the fact that in his recent State of the Town address, the First Selectman has also called for the creation of the Town’s first strategic plan, and has reportedly included $100,000 in his proposed fiscal 2016 budget for this purpose.
We look forward to analyzing the details of the First Selectman’s proposed budget, including the proposed 3.3% increase in BOE spending, for which Mr. Tetreau has stated his full support.
One of FT’s founding objectives, as stated on its website, has been to restrict spending and tax increases to levels no greater than the rate of inflation. At 1.64%, the proposed tax increase is very close to the 1.6% rate of inflation (CPI-U) reported for 2014 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
We note and also applaud the fact that in his recent State of the Town address, the First Selectman has also called for the creation of the Town’s first strategic plan, and has reportedly included $100,000 in his proposed fiscal 2016 budget for this purpose.
We look forward to analyzing the details of the First Selectman’s proposed budget, including the proposed 3.3% increase in BOE spending, for which Mr. Tetreau has stated his full support.
Some initial questions about the 3.3% proposed increase in 2016 BOE budget
When the new three-year labor contract for the Teachers’ Union was before the Representative Town Meeting for approval on November 24 2014, Representative Lipp asked what would happen to the BOE budget for fiscal 2016 if the proposed contract were approved. BOE Chairman Dwyer assured the RTM that the BOE budget would rise in line with the 1.7% expected increase in teacher salaries and healthcare expenses, and the RTM approved the teachers’ contract.
Watch the one-minute FairTV Clip below of Mr. Dwyer’s comments. Fifty seconds into the clip, Mr. Dwyer clearly says "we think it's [the 2016 budget] going to go up 1.7%."
Click on picture below to this see 60 sec video and to read more
When the new three-year labor contract for the Teachers’ Union was before the Representative Town Meeting for approval on November 24 2014, Representative Lipp asked what would happen to the BOE budget for fiscal 2016 if the proposed contract were approved. BOE Chairman Dwyer assured the RTM that the BOE budget would rise in line with the 1.7% expected increase in teacher salaries and healthcare expenses, and the RTM approved the teachers’ contract.
Watch the one-minute FairTV Clip below of Mr. Dwyer’s comments. Fifty seconds into the clip, Mr. Dwyer clearly says "we think it's [the 2016 budget] going to go up 1.7%."
Click on picture below to this see 60 sec video and to read more
Important Public Hearing on Affordable Housing Laws
State Rep Brenda Kupchick, ranking house member of the legislature’s Housing Committee, has submitted legislation regarding 8-30g, CT affordable housing statue—a law that has directly impacted our community and continues to do so. Click Here for more Details
What: Legislature’s Affordable Housing Public Hearing
When: Thursday, February 5th, 6:00pm
Where: Board of Alders Chamber (2nd floor), 165 Church Street, New Haven
State Rep Brenda Kupchick, ranking house member of the legislature’s Housing Committee, has submitted legislation regarding 8-30g, CT affordable housing statue—a law that has directly impacted our community and continues to do so. Click Here for more Details
What: Legislature’s Affordable Housing Public Hearing
When: Thursday, February 5th, 6:00pm
Where: Board of Alders Chamber (2nd floor), 165 Church Street, New Haven
What a difference you made, Fairfield!
Remember 18 months ago when Aquarion proposed a 23% rate hike over 3 years? Fairfield residents sent over 650 emails to PURA (the org regulating utilities), who listened to our arguments and outrage. Aquarion was granted a near zero increase. Now Aquarion is passing on much of the savings from a new tax break to its customers - something we argued at the time was only fair. Nice job! Aquarion Water Announces Lower Bills For Fairfield Customers. Read More Fairfield Daily Voice 1/16/15
Remember 18 months ago when Aquarion proposed a 23% rate hike over 3 years? Fairfield residents sent over 650 emails to PURA (the org regulating utilities), who listened to our arguments and outrage. Aquarion was granted a near zero increase. Now Aquarion is passing on much of the savings from a new tax break to its customers - something we argued at the time was only fair. Nice job! Aquarion Water Announces Lower Bills For Fairfield Customers. Read More Fairfield Daily Voice 1/16/15
Deeply divided school board wrangles over bylaw changes. Read More _Fairfield Citizen 1/15/125
BOE Votes to Limit Transparency of FPS and Public's Ability to Comment
At a Board of Education meeting on Tuesday that did not end until 2 am, and in defiance of opposition from 17-18 members of the public who spoke against the proposals, a narrow 5-4 majority (Dwyer, Convertito, Gerber, Patten and Maxon-Kennelley), voted: (a) to restrict its own members' access to information from the school administration by requiring any requests to be approved by a majority of the Board; and (b) to restrict the public's right to speak at its meetings on any subject about our schools unless it is on the Board's agenda. The meeting adjourned before the Board could vote on another proposal to require a 2/3 majority to approve any future changes to its bylaws, which would make it more difficult to rescind the new restrictions, which of course would not have been approved if a 2/3 majority had been required last night. (See directly below for details on the proposed changes)
The rationale for the first restriction is absurd, namely that it requires, according to Superintendent David Title, half of one administrator's time to respond to information requests from both the Board and the public. Thus, even if all of the Board's requests for information were eliminated, it would save only about $25,000 per year (one quarter of the cost of a $100,000 administrator), which is an utterly trivial fraction (0.00016) of our $156 million school budget. Moreover, any member of the public can still request the same information under the Freedom of Information Act that a Board member is denied the right to request. Absurd.
Meanwhile, eliminating the right of the public to raise any issue germane to our school system at BOE meetings because certain members of the Board feel that inappropriate comments are sometimes made, and that the Board has an obligation to protect its own members and school system employees from personal criticism, is simply appalling to anyone who believes in democracy. Appalling.
Yes, democracy is inherently messy, but it is also essential.
The public will soon have an opportunity to express its opinion of those who voted in favor of these new rules when, except for Mr. Patten, their four-year terms on the BOE expire at the end this year.
At a Board of Education meeting on Tuesday that did not end until 2 am, and in defiance of opposition from 17-18 members of the public who spoke against the proposals, a narrow 5-4 majority (Dwyer, Convertito, Gerber, Patten and Maxon-Kennelley), voted: (a) to restrict its own members' access to information from the school administration by requiring any requests to be approved by a majority of the Board; and (b) to restrict the public's right to speak at its meetings on any subject about our schools unless it is on the Board's agenda. The meeting adjourned before the Board could vote on another proposal to require a 2/3 majority to approve any future changes to its bylaws, which would make it more difficult to rescind the new restrictions, which of course would not have been approved if a 2/3 majority had been required last night. (See directly below for details on the proposed changes)
The rationale for the first restriction is absurd, namely that it requires, according to Superintendent David Title, half of one administrator's time to respond to information requests from both the Board and the public. Thus, even if all of the Board's requests for information were eliminated, it would save only about $25,000 per year (one quarter of the cost of a $100,000 administrator), which is an utterly trivial fraction (0.00016) of our $156 million school budget. Moreover, any member of the public can still request the same information under the Freedom of Information Act that a Board member is denied the right to request. Absurd.
Meanwhile, eliminating the right of the public to raise any issue germane to our school system at BOE meetings because certain members of the Board feel that inappropriate comments are sometimes made, and that the Board has an obligation to protect its own members and school system employees from personal criticism, is simply appalling to anyone who believes in democracy. Appalling.
Yes, democracy is inherently messy, but it is also essential.
The public will soon have an opportunity to express its opinion of those who voted in favor of these new rules when, except for Mr. Patten, their four-year terms on the BOE expire at the end this year.
"BOARD OF EDUCATION" OR "POLITBURO OF EDUCATION"?
Across the country, boards of education are addressing such critical issues as how to raise student performance, how to control costs, and how to close the achievement gap.
What is Fairfield's Board of Education doing?
Certain members of Fairfield's BOE (Mr Dwyer(Chair, D), Mr Convertito(R) and Mr Patton(D)) are proposing to amend its By-Laws by adopting rules that would limit its members' access to information, data and public comments. We believe this would mean less transparency and less public influence. We believe the new rules would be a step backward. Read More
Across the country, boards of education are addressing such critical issues as how to raise student performance, how to control costs, and how to close the achievement gap.
What is Fairfield's Board of Education doing?
Certain members of Fairfield's BOE (Mr Dwyer(Chair, D), Mr Convertito(R) and Mr Patton(D)) are proposing to amend its By-Laws by adopting rules that would limit its members' access to information, data and public comments. We believe this would mean less transparency and less public influence. We believe the new rules would be a step backward. Read More
RTM Rejects New Contract for School Administrators
The RTM voted 21-20 against a new three-year contract regarding wage increases and insurance premiums for school administrators Monday night. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 12/16/14
The RTM voted 21-20 against a new three-year contract regarding wage increases and insurance premiums for school administrators Monday night. Read more: Fairfield Citizen 12/16/14
Interim Senior Survey Results Posted
To date we have 490 responses which is a good start, but we have a long way to go in order to get a good representative sample of Fairfield's Seniors. Fairfield has approximately 12,000 residents over the age of 60 and we need your help to broaden our reach. We encourage you to take the survey and send the link to others so that we may get a solid representative sample of this important demographic. Click here to view results
To date we have 490 responses which is a good start, but we have a long way to go in order to get a good representative sample of Fairfield's Seniors. Fairfield has approximately 12,000 residents over the age of 60 and we need your help to broaden our reach. We encourage you to take the survey and send the link to others so that we may get a solid representative sample of this important demographic. Click here to view results
Fairfield Taxpayer Launches Senior Page and Senior Survey
We are happy to unveil a page dedicated to Fairfield's Seniors click here. As part of this effort, FT has created a survey of Fairfield's Seniors to gather information on this important demographic. The general consensus among Seniors and non-Seniors is that this is an under-served part of Fairfield's population. We look forward to compiling the survey data and sharing the results in the coming months. Click here or anywhere on the survey below to view and take the full survey.
We are happy to unveil a page dedicated to Fairfield's Seniors click here. As part of this effort, FT has created a survey of Fairfield's Seniors to gather information on this important demographic. The general consensus among Seniors and non-Seniors is that this is an under-served part of Fairfield's population. We look forward to compiling the survey data and sharing the results in the coming months. Click here or anywhere on the survey below to view and take the full survey.
Fairfield Not Named to SafeWise List
12 Towns in Fairfield County named to SafeWise's list of safest communities in Connecticut, but Fairfield does not make the list. This is not good and affects our property values. Read more: Fairfield Daily Voice 10/21/14
12 Towns in Fairfield County named to SafeWise's list of safest communities in Connecticut, but Fairfield does not make the list. This is not good and affects our property values. Read more: Fairfield Daily Voice 10/21/14
Informational Presentation on Fairfield's 2015 Revaluation
What: Informal presentation on Fairfield's property revaluation process by the Assessor's Office and Vision Government Solutions. Click here for details
Where: Andrew Warde High School Auditorium, 755 Melville Avenue
When: Thursday, November 6th at 7pm
What: Informal presentation on Fairfield's property revaluation process by the Assessor's Office and Vision Government Solutions. Click here for details
Where: Andrew Warde High School Auditorium, 755 Melville Avenue
When: Thursday, November 6th at 7pm
Letter: Money doesn't buy good public education
Our elected RTM and state representatives have worked very hard to represent your interests and keep taxes from becoming an even bigger burden to you. The elected members of the RTM voted down not an increase in the school budget but the size of the increase. I challenge residents to show me where the reduction in the size of the increase has hurt their children's educations. Connecticut and Fairfield were good places to live before we had an income tax and high sales tax and high property taxes. Read More Fairfield Citizen 10/17/14
Our elected RTM and state representatives have worked very hard to represent your interests and keep taxes from becoming an even bigger burden to you. The elected members of the RTM voted down not an increase in the school budget but the size of the increase. I challenge residents to show me where the reduction in the size of the increase has hurt their children's educations. Connecticut and Fairfield were good places to live before we had an income tax and high sales tax and high property taxes. Read More Fairfield Citizen 10/17/14
Renovations At Fairfield Ludlowe Will Cost More Than Expected
Budget estimates for the Fairfield Ludlowe High School renovation have spiked from $11.6 million to about $14.2 million, the high school’s building committee reported to the town’s Board of Selectmen on Wednesday.
The three-phase renovation project will add two science labs, four all-purpose classrooms, expand the overall size of the cafeteria and renovate both the teacher and senior lounges in the over-capacity school. Read More: Fairfield DV, 10/17/14
Budget estimates for the Fairfield Ludlowe High School renovation have spiked from $11.6 million to about $14.2 million, the high school’s building committee reported to the town’s Board of Selectmen on Wednesday.
The three-phase renovation project will add two science labs, four all-purpose classrooms, expand the overall size of the cafeteria and renovate both the teacher and senior lounges in the over-capacity school. Read More: Fairfield DV, 10/17/14
|
Born Broke: Our (CT's) Pension Debt Problem
Connecticut's public pension system is one of the most expensive in the nation - which may explain why it is drowning in debt. Read more: Yankee Institute for Public Policy 8/14 |
|
Town of Fairfield Needs to Stop Raising Taxes. Read More: Fairfield Sun 10/3/14
FPS Projects $98M Spending on Schools in Next 10 Years
Despite being past a peak in total school enrollment (P. 5 of this report projects a 2% decline in the decade ahead), this report concludes we will need to spend $98M for upgrades, renovations, and additions to the district’s school buildings. This study is being considered now by the BOE. Read the report
Despite being past a peak in total school enrollment (P. 5 of this report projects a 2% decline in the decade ahead), this report concludes we will need to spend $98M for upgrades, renovations, and additions to the district’s school buildings. This study is being considered now by the BOE. Read the report
Fairfield DPW Sees $38.5M New Spending Need for Water Treatment
The origin of the Town of Fairfield sanitary sewer system and wastewater treatment plant dates back to the late 1940’s. Much of the infrastructure was installed from 1950-1980. The Fairfield Director of Public Works has identified $38.5M in "WPCA Conceptual Projects" that we need to do in order to bring our infrastructure up to date. Read More
The origin of the Town of Fairfield sanitary sewer system and wastewater treatment plant dates back to the late 1940’s. Much of the infrastructure was installed from 1950-1980. The Fairfield Director of Public Works has identified $38.5M in "WPCA Conceptual Projects" that we need to do in order to bring our infrastructure up to date. Read More
Recent Letters/Articles of Interest to Fairfield Taxpayers re: High Density Housing
Zoners reject Berwick/Fairchild 'affordable' apartment plan Read More: Fairfield Citizen 8/13/14
Whose town is this anyway? 8-30g vs. right of Home Rule Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 7/16/14
Developer plans to challenge denial of plan for Bronson apartmentsThe saga of a 95-unit "affordable" apartment building proposed for lower Bronson Road isn't over yet...John Fallon, the lawyer representing Garden Homes, confirmed Thursday that the Stamford-based developer plans to file an appeal of the denial in Superior Court. He said the applicant has until Aug. 9 to file that lawsuit. Read More Fairfield Citizen 7/31/14
Bronson Road Apartment Proposal Unanimously Rejected by TPZ
Fairfield Town Planning and Zoning (TPZ) Commission unanimously denied the proposal for a 95-unit apartment building on lower Bronson Road Tuesday. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 7/22/14
TPZ deliberation, hearings conclude on Bronson Road development
On Wednesday evening, the Fairfield Town Planning and Zoning (TPZ) Commission concluded its discussion at its fourth and final public hearing on the subject of Garden Homes Management’s proposal to build a three-story, 95 unit affordable housing complex at 92 and 140 Bronson Road. The meeting marked the end of over 15 hours of deliberation on the subject.... Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 7/18/14
Bronson apartment plan's fate awaits TPZ vote after four nights of debate
John Fallon, the lawyer for a developer who wants to build a 95-unit apartment building on lower Bronson Road, had a rough start to his rebuttal at the fourth and final public hearing on the controversial project Wednesday night. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 7/17/14
Bronson Apartment Plan Faulted on Fire, Traffic Safety Issues; More Debate Tonight
Debate over the apartment building proposed on lower Bronson Road continued Tuesday night at the TPZ Hearing. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 7/16/14
Whose town is this anyway? 8-30g vs. right of Home Rule. Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 7/16/14
TPZ reviews application for proposed apartment complex on Bronson Road
Feelings ran high at Tuesday evening's well attended Fairfield Town Planning and Zoning Commission (TPZ) meeting. On the docket before the TPZ was an application by Garden Homes Management. Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 7/11/14
Neighbors: Flood, Parking Woes should Sink Berwick-Fairchild Apartment Plan
Kings Highway Neighborhood Association opposes development plan at TPZ Hearing. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 6/11/14
Police Chief, Neighbors Criticize Berwick-Fairchild Apartment Proposal
Police Chief Gary MacNamara concerned about safety in the area of the proposed housing complex. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 4/23/14
Residents Concerned about Density in Fairfield
Residents opposed to high-density housing in residential neighborhood. Read More: Fairfield Sun 4/4/14
Lower Bronson Neighborhood Alliance
Citizens raising money to fight the proposed development. Read More: Flyer
Affordable Housing Public Forum
Letter from the Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee (AHC) encouraging citizens to attend a Public Forum to discuss issues and elicit public comment relating to Fairfield's affordable housing plan. The Public Forum will be held on Tuesday, April 1st from 7pm - 9pm at the Board of Education offices at 501 Kings Highway East. Read More: Minuteman News Center 3/21/14
Plan for Bronson Road Apartments Sparks Opposition at Tense Meeting
Citizens express strong concern over a Stamford developer's plan to build a 96-unit apartment building on 2.7 acres off lower Bronson Road by the Mill River. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 3/7/14
Apartment Proposed for Mill River Site
Conservation report finds reason to test proposed building site for contaminants. Read More: Minuteman News Center 2/12/14
Zoners reject Berwick/Fairchild 'affordable' apartment plan Read More: Fairfield Citizen 8/13/14
Whose town is this anyway? 8-30g vs. right of Home Rule Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 7/16/14
Developer plans to challenge denial of plan for Bronson apartmentsThe saga of a 95-unit "affordable" apartment building proposed for lower Bronson Road isn't over yet...John Fallon, the lawyer representing Garden Homes, confirmed Thursday that the Stamford-based developer plans to file an appeal of the denial in Superior Court. He said the applicant has until Aug. 9 to file that lawsuit. Read More Fairfield Citizen 7/31/14
Bronson Road Apartment Proposal Unanimously Rejected by TPZ
Fairfield Town Planning and Zoning (TPZ) Commission unanimously denied the proposal for a 95-unit apartment building on lower Bronson Road Tuesday. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 7/22/14
TPZ deliberation, hearings conclude on Bronson Road development
On Wednesday evening, the Fairfield Town Planning and Zoning (TPZ) Commission concluded its discussion at its fourth and final public hearing on the subject of Garden Homes Management’s proposal to build a three-story, 95 unit affordable housing complex at 92 and 140 Bronson Road. The meeting marked the end of over 15 hours of deliberation on the subject.... Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 7/18/14
Bronson apartment plan's fate awaits TPZ vote after four nights of debate
John Fallon, the lawyer for a developer who wants to build a 95-unit apartment building on lower Bronson Road, had a rough start to his rebuttal at the fourth and final public hearing on the controversial project Wednesday night. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 7/17/14
Bronson Apartment Plan Faulted on Fire, Traffic Safety Issues; More Debate Tonight
Debate over the apartment building proposed on lower Bronson Road continued Tuesday night at the TPZ Hearing. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 7/16/14
Whose town is this anyway? 8-30g vs. right of Home Rule. Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 7/16/14
TPZ reviews application for proposed apartment complex on Bronson Road
Feelings ran high at Tuesday evening's well attended Fairfield Town Planning and Zoning Commission (TPZ) meeting. On the docket before the TPZ was an application by Garden Homes Management. Read More: Fairfield Minuteman 7/11/14
Neighbors: Flood, Parking Woes should Sink Berwick-Fairchild Apartment Plan
Kings Highway Neighborhood Association opposes development plan at TPZ Hearing. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 6/11/14
Police Chief, Neighbors Criticize Berwick-Fairchild Apartment Proposal
Police Chief Gary MacNamara concerned about safety in the area of the proposed housing complex. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 4/23/14
Residents Concerned about Density in Fairfield
Residents opposed to high-density housing in residential neighborhood. Read More: Fairfield Sun 4/4/14
Lower Bronson Neighborhood Alliance
Citizens raising money to fight the proposed development. Read More: Flyer
Affordable Housing Public Forum
Letter from the Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee (AHC) encouraging citizens to attend a Public Forum to discuss issues and elicit public comment relating to Fairfield's affordable housing plan. The Public Forum will be held on Tuesday, April 1st from 7pm - 9pm at the Board of Education offices at 501 Kings Highway East. Read More: Minuteman News Center 3/21/14
Plan for Bronson Road Apartments Sparks Opposition at Tense Meeting
Citizens express strong concern over a Stamford developer's plan to build a 96-unit apartment building on 2.7 acres off lower Bronson Road by the Mill River. Read More: Fairfield Citizen 3/7/14
Apartment Proposed for Mill River Site
Conservation report finds reason to test proposed building site for contaminants. Read More: Minuteman News Center 2/12/14
