Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
WINSTED — Community members and town officials met Tuesday night at Pearson Middle School to hear a summary of a proposed budget of $22.5 million for the 2010-11 school year.
Superintendent of Schools Blaise Salerno invited parents and community member to participate in the discussion, which was billed as the first of three rounds of the 2010-11 Citizen Budget Advisory Workshop.
“This is an opportunity for you to comment and let us know what you would like to see enhanced or reduced,� Salerno told the group. “They are all taken into consideration.�
The proposed budget of $22,585,590.12 is more than $1.2 million greater than the current year’s amended budget of $21,362,983, reflecting a 5.7-percent increase. But that is before the Board of Education, Board of Selectmen and voters of the town each get a crack at making reductions.
The school system’s business manager, Ed Evanouskas, gave a summary of the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, and said he believes the Board of Education is on target to finish the year in the black. “The bills are paid,� he said.
Evanouskas presented a list of significant increases and decreases to the operating budget that have occurred this fiscal year, primarily due to the hiring of new staff with grant money obtained by the school system. These increases were reflected in the amended budget of $21,362,983 for the current year.
Marsha Sterling, a former member of the town’s School Building Committee, questioned some of the numbers in Evanouskas’ report, including figures that suggest the school system’s budget is off by nearly $90,000. Evanouskas said a discrepancy exists because he has not yet accounted for additional expected revenue, but did not have an exact answer for Sterling’s query.
Both Evanouskas and Salerno noted that the current budget is still evolving as revenues come in and that the 2010-11 proposal is only in draft form at this point. “I think we’re trying to be as transparent as we can possibly be,� Evanouskas said.
But Sterling also questioned the fact that the school system’s budgeted maintenance projects list has remained essentially the same for the past three years, with the Board of Education ultimately putting aside the projects each year to cover shortfalls. “The maintenance budget has been the piggy bank,� Sterling said. “Now we’re asking people to once again fill up the piggy bank.�
Sterling said she sees a credibility problem with the school’s business office and suggested that clearer and more accurate numbers should be presented. “It’s difficult when you have one piece of paper that says one thing and another that says something else,� she said.
Several attendees also wondered aloud what the town and school system are going to do in future years, when state and federal funding are expected to decrease. For the current year, the federal government has stepped in to help local school districts pay for a reduction in Education Cost Sharing (ECS) funding from the state. But town leaders have noted that the federal bailout is considered a one-time deal.
“You have to be careful about building a system that requires additional support when the feds walk away,� Sterling said. “If you keep building the system with a bigger platform and temporary supports, when the supports go away, it could be catastrophic.�
Board of Education Chairman Kathleen O’Brien said all towns in Connecticut are facing the same problem. “The state of Connecticut is going to have to figure something out because if they cut everyone [by 14 percent], there will be a real problem. I don’t think we’re going to lose that amount of money. I really doubt it.�
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.