Tag Archives: Town

January 23, 2013 · 11:31 am

Coventry Boondoggle A Monument For Government Waste

Coventry's small wind turbine

Coventry’s small wind turbine

The Coventry demonstration wind project has become the Coventry Boondoggle.  Boondoggles have been described as “a project that is considered a useless waste of both time and money, yet is often continued due to extraneous policy motivations”.

That definition describes the situation with the wind turbine located at Coventry High School.  There it sits inoperable, broken down and wasting.  Gone are all the promises of government.

Coventry was one of four (4) towns selected to receive a small wind turbine in 2009 after being selected from a field of 35 communities applying to become a host site.  At the time Town Council Chairwomen Elizabeth Woolf said, “This will also count towards the Town’s commitment to reduce energy use by 2010.”  The project never lived up to that expectation in fact it became a series of delays, false promises and ultimately a failure.

According to Town Council meeting minutes the turbine had the potential to generate from 5,000 to 15,000 kilowatts of power per year.  Councilwoman Woolf reported this “would result in an electricity savings of $5,000 to $7,000” per year.  The plan was to locate the turbine near the high school and that would allow students to learn about the technology.

During the application process it was disclosed that Coventry had a teacher familiar with the technology and council members believed this was a plus for our community to operate and maintain a small wind turbine.  The expectation as it turns out may have been beyond the realm of reality; Councilwoman Lisa Thomas called the project, “a phenomenal partnership between the Town and the schools.”

The turbine was originally installed in September of 2010 but was not operational.  There were representations of near term operation but break problems and other delays resulted in no operation during 2010.  There was no production of electricity or saving in 2010 as expected.

The turbine was finally placed in service in January of 2011 but it did not perform nearly as well as expected.  From the start date until 4/1/12 it did produce some small amount of electricity, but never reached the lofty totals that were represented.  Today the turbine still sits broken and useless producing only a small amount of shade and a place for birds to perch and watch students at play.

Where the money came from for this project is not the issue, if we spent the money from local or state funds it was still taxpayer money.  The taxpayers of Connecticut already have a high burden of taxation to live with and sitting by silently and watching our dollars wasted is not responsible government with transparency.  It is disheartening to the taxpayers to see such waste and it erodes confidence in the management of our tax dollars.

If students learned anything from this project perhaps more was learned about government than science.  The most important lesson may be that Coventry High School has what can only be described as a boondoggle on campus.

What are the future plans of our Town Council for this small wind turbine?  So far the Town Council has chosen to ignore the issue, and so it sits like a monument to government waste.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 20, 2013 · 10:30 pm

Town Meeting Tuesday To Approve Sale of Old Public Works Property

coventry-old-public-works--roxanne-pandolfi-photoTuesday January 22, 2013 at 7:00 pm there will be a Special Town Meeting to consider for approval the sale of the former Department of Public Works Facility located at 46 Bradbury Lane.   There will be a vote to approve the sale at the meeting.

The proposal is to sell the property to Earth Dynamics, LLC for $40,000.00 in cash and $20,000 in site improvements on adjacent Town property.  It is anticipated that time will be allotted for information and questions prior to the vote.

While Earth Dynamics does not yet own the property the Town Council has already voted to approve tax abatements for the firm.   According to the minutes of the Town Council meeting of January 7th Earth Dynamics would be granted tax abatements in the amount of 50% for a period of two years.  The motion was made by Joan Lewis and seconded by Lisa Thomas with Council member Julie abstaining from the vote while all others voted for approval.

There has been some difficulty with environmental issues concerning the sale and all details were not complete at the time the Town Council voted to forward the sale to a Special Town Meeting for approval.  In the words of the meeting minutes “We can continue to try to resolve, or we could proceed with the sale regardless of the consequences.”

To go forward, Earth Dynamics has requested the Town do the permit application for the Transfer Act, which would cost $1500.  According to the meeting minutes, “Jeff Shorts asked if we do the filing for the $1500 if it limits our exposure. John Elsesser replied it is not that simple. DEEP could always go after past owners but we anticipate the primary exposure would be Earth Dynamic’s.”

Lawsuits can be costly to defend and resolve and parties consider to have “deep pockets” are good targets.  This meeting will be your opportunity to ask questions and vote on the issue.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Coventry CT, COVENTRY GOVERNMENT ISSUES

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 13, 2012 · 10:17 am

Coventry News: Celebrity To Help Raise Funds

Tis just days before Christmas and all should be bright,

But in Coventry some things are not right.

In front of Town Hall a tree shines in great light,

While some of our neighbors are found in a plight.

What should be a season of giving and joy,

Only brings stress if you can’t buy a toy.

Out of a job and down on their luck,

Neighbors are short and stretching a buck.

Never living this way before

Up all night and pacing the floor.

Wishing for help to knock at their door

Too proud to ask for help evermore.

This is your chance, a time to do good,

Helping your neighbors, here in the hood.

Tis the season to spread some good will,

And all it takes is a few bucks in the till.

The economy has been tight recently and more families are having a difficult time, but you can help your neighbors here in Coventry.  Ninety percent (90%) of all monies stay right here in Coventry when you make a donation to a local Salvation Army Bell Ringer.

Things have been a little tight this year in the economy and Coventry must dig a little deeper as a community to help our neighbors in need.  Indeed we are fortunate to have a new helper this year, a celebrity you might say.

Despite a very busy schedule getting things ready at the North Pole, Santa Claus has stepped forward to help ring the bells here in Coventry.  In a statement released from the North Pole Santa said, “Those residents of Coventry making a donation when he is in town will have an inner glow of happiness, knowing they are helping their neighbors in need”.

He is inviting moms and dads to bring the children along and have their pictures taken with Santa.  The schedule of appearances for Santa Claus depends on his schedule and weather.  He wants to keep that red velvet suit dry for the big trip on Christmas Eve.  According to Santa, “No donation is too small or too large.  All are needed and will sure be a help to your neighbors in Coventry”.

Santa will at Highland Market this Saturday the 15th from 10:00am until noon and on Tuesday the 18th at CVS from 3:00pm until 5:00pm

PLEASE HELP to get the word out by passing along this link to others.

Thank you for reading the Opining Quill you are invited to become a friend on Facebook or a subscriber

Leave a Comment

Filed under Coventry CT, EVENT NEWS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 17, 2011 · 1:38 am

Food for Thought on All Day Kindergarten and More

There are two topics of intense discussion currently burning up phone lines between parents in Coventry, drugs and all day kindergarten (ADK). Parents may want to ask the BOE to take notice of these issues and include funding for action in the proposed budget. Tonight at 7:30 in the Town Hall Annex there will be a special meeting of the Board of Education (BOE) with their annual budget expected to be voted on for approval and forwarding to the Town Council.

One would expect that every member of the BOE will be a strong supporter for providing a safe drug free environment on our school buses and in our schools. The only real questions are: 1. How real and how big is the drug problem? 2. What actions should and can be taken to protect our children in Coventry? Parents will be asking the BOE to focus on this problem during their March 10th meeting. This should provide the BOE with an opportunity to perhaps have a forum with input and discussion to fully understand the issue and options for addressing the problems.

More complex is the issue of ADK which some people want included in the budget proposal being brought forward now. Certainly there are some compelling arguments being raised for and against just such a program. Unfortunately for the BOE it is not an easy issue and there is not a lot of time before the budget must be presented for a vote.

Proponents will talk about the values of early education, and increased demands of an ever expanding curriculum. Detractors may point out that early education is in fact important, on that they can agree but this is a local issue and should be looked at with a local context.

Our young students have proven to perform well as a group even with some students already getting additional private education. The performance gap of early education seems to be covered. They point to performance testing in the third grade as proof of the ability of our current programs to reach educational goals. Their concern or question is that if we have addition funding and our current students are performing well by the third grade but having lower performance levels as measured in the sixth grade why are we using the money for ADK and not addressing issues in the 3rd to 6th grade level with that priority?

One alternative is to put our toe in the water and test ADK with a pilot program. Advocates say at least we will be heading in the right direction with students and parents getting some immediate benefit. This would provide a good opportunity to refine the program before it is adopted system wide. Opponents are saying you don’t put your toe in the water until you know the depth of the water or if there are piranha present. To them this proposal lacks goals, guidance, and full planning. They say it would be like diving into water without knowing what is below the surface, always a dangerous gamble. Here we are gambling with the educational foundation of the next generation, which leads into the next talking point.

The State is moving the date of birth which will cause a child to become eligible for kindergarten, recognizing that not all children are “ready” for school at the same age. This brings to question the individual’s development and the impact that ADK will have on all students. Just what is being added to the day? Certainly one would expect more teaching but at the same time is fatigue an issue? Are we adding lunch time, snack time, and nap time to round out the day? How much of the additional time is educational time compared to daycare time? Some would say ADK is often supported to eliminate daycare expense for individual families. These are all valid points for rational discussion.

If we do not offer ADK to all students but do for some are we building in a learning gap that will only create more problems for our staff to overcome? If all students do not receive the benefits and the same opportunities are we building into the system some hint of inequality, some elitism? If the proponents are correct in pointing out the educational benefits of an early foundation will we be making a program that would give some students an advantage over others because we are providing a better foundation for some but not all? Is limiting ADK to only a select group of children by using a gambler’s luck of the draw to select the students a wise decision for the students? Will we allow a lottery to determine who in the first grade will compete with an advantage because the community chose to give them a different and perhaps more complete foundation of learning? If your child is not guaranteed a spot for ADK under some proposals, is it still a good alternative way to start? That needs to be discussed with your input.

The final question is always the financial side of any new proposal. Do the taxpayers have the appetite for this level of spending? Are we realistic in our level of expectations in these harsh economic times? During recent contract negotiations with our teachers, staff was asked to freeze wages, including step increases with the clear understanding that the district needed the freeze to minimize staff reductions and meet our current needs. They agreed to a “hard” freeze for this year.

How would you feel as a teacher? Would you look at this as a new proposal, creating new expenditures with a program that has not been fully vetted by the BOE? Would you feel some of the negotiations had been disingenuous? If you were a teacher you may not want to speak in public, but how would you feel? Look in the mirror, if your employer said sorry no raise this year we don’t have the money then rolled out a brand new corporate jet as a new way for company executives to travel, would you feel somehow cheated?

Just asking questions here and not taking sides or advocating for or against the issue. It is important that we all understand that not all questions coming before the Board of Education have easy solutions. Not all people can be satisfied, no matter how the issue moves forward it is hoped that these points will provide some food for thought and a better understanding of some of the complexity of the decisions that must be made.

1 Comment

Filed under COVENTRY EDUCATION

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 11, 2011 · 1:24 pm

WikiLeaks and the Coventry Town Council What’s the Connection?

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has really stirred the pot in diplomatic circles with the release of sensitive documents previously held in confidence.  The world is reading details from diplomatic correspondence that the inner circles of power never thought would see the light of day.

Today the Hartford Courant is questioning if Mr. Assange should be hailed as a hero or prosecuted for leaking sensitive U. S. documents.  Why that is even a question should be disturbing, unfortunately it is not.  Unfortunately we have lowered some of our ethical standards upon which this nation was founded.  From Coventry to Washington there is a lack of courage in government and selective enforcement is a prime example.

We have leaders that will pass a regulation or law telling the voters it was needed, then brag they are working hard or even fighting “for the people”.  The lack of courage is reflected in the policy of enforcement for the regulation or law.  If the issue was so important that a regulation or law was required to control the activity why then do we see the concept of selective enforcement?

On a national level why are we asking if Julian Assange should be prosecuted, the only question should be did he break the law?  Why does our local Town Council have regulations on the books for blight or sign control then have a policy of selective enforcement?  Their enforcement policy is to have staff ignore an obvious violation unless a citizen actually complains.

It’s a good thing Liz Woolf is Chairman of the Town Council and not the Chief of Police.  Can you imagine with an enforcement policy like that, stop signs and red lights would be meaningless until a citizen stopped at the police department to fill out a form to complain?  Yes, a driver running a red light at 90 miles an hour on route 44 would be just fine as long as nobody came forward with a written complaint.

Selective prosecution or enforcement is not new and it occurs at all levels.  One need only remember back a few years to the Clinton presidency.  The President of the United States lied to a grand jury then selective prosecution became a topic of the day.  The defenders of Mr. Clinton did not deny the act occurred but rather said it was insignificant and Mr. Clinton should not be prosecuted.  Every presidency has a legacy and Mr. Clinton will have selective enforcement as part of his.  That doesn’t make it right.

Selective enforcement is poor government policy for regulations or laws.  If we need the actions of government in the form of regulation or law then it should be enforced.  If the policy of enforcement is selective it could well be that the regulation is poorly written or not really needed, in either case review for possible removal from the books would be proper.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under COVENTRY EDUCATION

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

February 9, 2011 · 10:42 am

Coventry School Roofs History and Update Information

Coventry has been closing schools daily due to issues of snow removal and a large portion of the issue revolves around the school roofs.  Therefore, a longer than normal entry is being made today to provide a great deal of information concerning the history of issue and an update of information.

The source of this information is taken from meeting minutes or from original direct copies of spoken presentations.  The dates of actual minutes are provided for your convenience and you may see the full minutes of those meetings on the Board of Education (BOE) website or the Town website if the reference is to the Town Council.

Some areas are highlighted in bold to assist you in finding information or condensing your reading.

BOE 12/11/08 – During a Capital Improvement Budget conversation, John Barrett begins to ask questions about roof life expectancy and learns from the Chairman, Larry Pietrantonio that an engineering study needs to be done.  (Recollection is that when Mr. Barrett brought up the discussion he was referring to Capt. Nathan Hale but the comment was made, if you think that’s bad you should see Robertson)

BOE 5/28/09 – First discussion of development of an RFP (Request for Proposal) to contract with a roofing engineer to assess the condition of the roofs.  J. Barrett speaks of leaking roofs in several schools.

BOE 6/5/09 – Paul Noel, Facilities Director, discusses damage to building caused by roof leak as well as associated costs.

BOE 6/25/09 – Chairman Pietrantonio informs Board that money will be available 7/1/09 to move forward with roof analysis.  The Board unanimously votes to begin the roofing project.  Larry Pietrantonio informs Board that an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) be emailed out to Board members for review.

Comment:  Three consecutive summer meetings were canceled.   Board takes no action for 2 months

BOE 8/26/09 – Mike. Whitham asks about status of roofs.  Later in meeting Chairman Pietrantonio provides Board with copy of the RFQ.  John Barrett asked if we needed to pass it through for legal review. Larry Pietrantonio said it is a stock RFQ.  Board approves RFQ by consensus.

BOE 9/10/09 – M. Whitham asked for a realistic timeline for the roof replacement project.  J. Barrett said the Board should make a recommendation to the Town Council at their next meeting to have some remediation done to these roofs.  J. Barrett said he is very concerned about the condition of the roofs. L. Pietrantonio said the letter will be written to the Town Manager asking what the Town’s responsibility is if there is a roof failure.

BOE 10/08/09 – L. Pietrantonio informs board of conversation with Town Manager regarding proper procedures.  J. Barrett reiterated that the roof is still leaking; something needs to be done in the meantime. L. Pietrantonio said there is no fast tracking the process.

BOE 10/29/09 – J. Barrett and M. Whitham ask about costs associated with leaking roofs and suggest the Board was not given enough information about the severity of the roof problems.

[November lections take place three new members are elected, the new members are: Jen Beausoleil, Mary Ann Emanuelle, and Mark Malcolm]

BOE 11/12/09 – During discussion of BOE meeting date schedule M. Malcolm suggested that summer meetings should not be starred (indicating they’d take place if necessary).  He said if those meetings had taken place this past summer the Board would have been in a more advances stage of the roof replacement project. Later, L. Pietrantonio provided Board with RFQ responses from 12 contracts to be reviewed for discussion at the next meeting.

BOE 12/3/09 – Board narrows the vendors down to three who were invited to submit quotes for the assessment phase of the project.

BOE 1/14/10 – By split vote the BOE selects an engineer for the roof assessment. Barrett, Emanuele, Malcolm, and Kortman spoke of their desire to move the process along due to its criticality while opposing members preferred to have an opportunity to interview the vendors.

BOE 1/28/10 – Discussion and vote on CIP which included lengthy debate about what year in the CIP the roof project should fall.  During discussion, C. Trudon said the discussion had with the Town Manager noted the roofs currently in place are not in dire need of total repair.

BOE 2/25/10 – First meeting between roof engineer Albert Jacunski from Jacunski Humes Architect and Board.  Engineer spoke of his first assessment of roofs after viewing them the prior week.  He went on to say “that the membrane of the roof at GHR is going to shatter” and “when the shattering happens it is roof failure”. He further offered that “he does not think GHR should wait another year; it should be done this summer”.  Mr. Jacunski talked about re-roofing and the state deadlines for reimbursement. He said Coventry’s figure for reimbursement is 63%, if the filing is done with the State by June 30. He said if it is after June 30, it will be 60%.

BOE 4/8/10 – Board met with engineer where he recommended replacing the roof GHR “forthwith”. He also spoke of reductions in state aide should the project be delayed another year.  Based on compelling information provided by engineer, J. Barrett motions to fast track the roof project by requesting an immediate $25,000 expenditure from the Town Council and use the engineer to draw up the plans necessary to move the roof replacement project forward, continuing that if the Town Council refused to fund the Fast Tracking approach, the BOE would pay for it.  M. Malcolm and M. Emanuele supported the motion.  Pietrantonio, Beausoleil, Trudon and Kortman oppose.  Motion to fast track failed making it impossible to complete the GHR roof in summer 2010.

Town Council 3/1/10 – Audience of Citizens Town Council Meeting citizens came forward with concerns about the roofs and urged the Town Council to act immediately.

Tom Pope – “Waiting to act will not stop the rain over Robertson School” and “The Town garage is a priority that can not be ignored.  It is now joined by a roof project for our schools that can not be ignored.  At the last Board of Education meeting an outside engineer recommended that the project can and should be scheduled for this summer to gain additional reimbursement money from the state that would be lost if we delay past June. In addition he pointed out the structural risk of waiting and it became apparent this is not a project that prudent thinking can ignore.”

John Barrett – “The Robertson School roof will be coming forward this spring for a summer build. We have been patching and repairing. He recommended getting a copy of the DVD from the last Board of Education meeting for more information about this issue.”

Below are the actual minutes of the Town Council meeting concerning the school roof replacement.

Special Town Council Meeting Minutes – April 19, 2010

Consideration of School Roof Replacement

Al Jacunski of Jacunski Humes Architects and Larry Pietrantonio, Chair of the Coventry Public Schools Board of Education, were present to discuss the condition of the roofs at Robertson School, Coventry Grammar School and Nathan Hale Middle School. Mr. Pietrantonio noted that Jacunski Humes was the architect for the Police Station. This issue was discussed thoroughly at the last Board of Education meeting.

Mr. Jacunski thanked the Council for moving this discussion up on the agenda. He noted that Jacunski Humes has an extensive portfolio of exterior roofing and restoration. They were commissioned to conduct a survey of the 3 buildings to assess existing conditions and make recommendations to extend the life of the roofs or replace them. The evaluation was conducted over 7 weeks. We did find some asbestos. Mr. Jacunski indicated that some historical data is still pending but the costs outlined in his estimate should not change. Costs shown are based on 2011 construction costs, which should be escalated by approximately 4% for each year of deferral. The filing deadline for the 2010 reimbursement rate is June 30th

Nathan Hale:

The roof is over 20 years old. The waterproofing method is asphalt. Asphalt loses waterproofing over time and that is happening here. Costs for this project include replacement of approximately 69,500 sq. ft. of existing roofing with a new 20-year EPDM roofing system, masonry restoration, chimney and above roof wall surfaces, replacement of deteriorated mechanical equipment and removal of abandoned mechanical equipment. Additional costs include contingency, an alternate for a 30-year EPDM roofing system, architectural/engineering fees and printing/legal fees for a project total of $1,395,800.00. With a projected State reimbursement of 85% of project total at 60.71%, the cost to the Town of Coventry would be $675,518.00.

Robertson School:

Robertson School has an existing PVC system on half of the building that should be replaced. PVC is a hard brittle plastic that is resistant to almost everything. A plasticizer is added to make it more pliable. This has evaporated over time and has become more brittle, which makes it smaller. Basically, the roof is “shot.” It is splitting and in danger of shattering – which would be ultimate failure. Mr. Jacunski has seen this happen in about 4 cases. The original roof is still there – in fact there are 3 roofs in place, which is a code violation. The upper section of the roof is in good condition with approximately 10-15 years of life left. There is no access to the cafeteria roof and installation of a ladder is recommended.

Mrs. Thomas asked about the implication of “shattering.” Mr. Jacunski replied that the roof is going to leak. Mr. Elsesser indicated that the roof is not in danger of collapse, although Mr. Jacunski said some of the ceiling tiles might fall. Mr. Elsesser said that water has gotten into every building that the Town owns. Mr. Pietrantonio said it is going to happen no matter how well they are built. Mr. Jacunski said that a new roof that is designed properly should not leak, but even a well-designed roof will leak with aging.

Jacunski Humes is recommending the replacement of the PVC system “forthwith.” The roof could shatter at any time. Costs include replacement of approximately 30,100 sq. ft. of existing PVC section with a new 20-year EPDM roofing system, masonry restoration, chimney and gym above roof wall surface, asbestos removal and disposal, cafeteria roof access ladder, removal of abandoned mechanical equipment, contingency, alternate for a 30-year EPDM roofing system, architectural/engineering fees, industrial hygienist fee and printing/legal for a total of $644,100.00. With a projected State reimbursement of 85% of project total at 60.71% the cost to the Town of Coventry would be $311,722.00.

Coventry Grammar School:

Replacement of the entire roof is recommended. Most of the asbestos was found here in the flashing and patching material. This building has the best chimney of the three, would could be repointed rather than replaced. More of this project (5%) would qualify for State reimbursement. Costs include replacement of approximately 54,300 sq. ft. of existing roofing with a new 20-year EPDM roofing system, masonry chimney restoration, asbestos removal and disposal, replacement of deteriorated mechanical equipment, contingency, alternate for 30-year EPDM roofing system, architectural/engineering fee, industrial hygienist fee and printing/legal for a total of $1,052,000.00. With a projected reimbursement of 90% of project total at 60.71% the cost to the Town of Coventry would be $477,198.00.

Mr. Hall asked for an explanation of the June 30th filing deadline. Mr. Jacunski replied that the State reimbursement rate is set based on the wealth of the community. Coventry is the 122nd poorest in the State for the 2010 rate. The highest rate is 80 – the lowest is 20. The State requires that you commit to funding. You get reimbursement after you start construction. The rate prior to June 30th is 63.21%. After July 1st it is 60.71%. Coventry has moved up seven places in the ratings for 2011.

Mr. Elsesser said we will have to add other things like bonding, Clerk of the Works, etc. Mr. Jacunski said that some towns have a Clerk of the Works and some don’t. If Jacunski Humes is selected for the project we would not provide a Clerk of the Works service. We recommend that the Town hire an outside service.

Mr. Williams asked whether the Town has historically gone with a 20 or 30-year EPDM. Mr. Elsesser replied 20, but projects are changing. The slopes are higher, etc. Mr. Jacunski said the specs are based on ½” per foot of slope. It might be possible to get a waiver to ¼”. We would apply for that. He also recommended a 30-year EPDM, saying it is money well spent when you amortize the cost over the life span of the project. He will amend the budget to add a Clerk of the Works.

Mr. Elsesser asked whether these roofs would be more efficient from an energy conservation standpoint. Mr. Jacunski replied yes. They are specified to meet the minimum requirements of the code, plus a little more. We can’t tell exactly how much more. We would have to do a full thermal scan.

Ms. Woolf asked Mr. Elsesser if we have any information from the State regarding possible changes in funding. Mr. Elsesser replied there is increased fiscal pressure, which could mean reduced fiscal grants. There is a good likelihood that will happen. Connecticut was more generous than other states and is looking for savings. Once we have a signed contract we will get paid. There are progress payments so it can become a cash flow issue. This project is not that huge – we shouldn’t have to worry but there might be occasional delays.

Mr. Jacunski noted that a school roofing project doesn’t require Legislative approval. The Commissioner of Education approves it. It is not a grant – it is a reimbursement.

Mr. Hall asked whether the Board of Education is recommending all 3 projects. Mr. Pietrantonio replied yes, staggered over a 2-3 year period. We are recommending establishing a Building Committee and developing a 2-3 year plan to do all 3 roofs. There would be economy of scale. Only a few contractors can do a roof project of this size. We can get good numbers if we guarantee a contractor 2 years of work. Plus the climate is favorable now and will cost more later.

Mr. Zenko asked whether the intention is to do the work during the summer of 2011 and 2012. Mr. Pietrantonio said yes. We won’t make 2010. We need preliminary design, a referendum, time to interview architects, etc. Mr. Elsesser noted that the idea of getting Robertson done this summer is virtually impossible. Mr. Jacunski replied it would be very monumental. That’s why he recommended replacing it “forthwith.”

Mr. Hall asked what would happen if we get a hurricane. Mr. Jacunski replied it is possible that such an event would accelerate the roof’s failure. Mr. Hall asked how many classrooms are in the failed section of Robertson School. Dr. Bernard replied there are 4 in that section. We moved one. Mr. Pietrantonio noted we may have to do temporary repairs.

Mr. Jacunski noted that all 3 roofs could be done in one summer. Mr. Zenko asked if we go to 2012 if the cost would be higher. Mr. Jacunski replied yes. Industry standards for escalation are 4% per year.

Mrs. Trudon, a member of the Board of Education, asked about the process. Would we require a Town Meeting prior to a referendum? Mr. Elsesser replied yes. Mrs. Trudon said we will have a lot of work to do to explain the process. Mr. Elsesser said we could choose to call a Town Meeting with a financial report in 6 weeks, if people are willing to accept it without input from a Building Committee. It would lock in the reimbursement rate and start the clock ticking on a construction start date. We would have to start construction within 12 months. There are 3 projects with 3 sets of paperwork. We also have to hire an architect and complete all of the required legal warnings, etc. We are not going to achieve a July construction start date. We would have to consider roofing while school is in session. The State requires a competitive bid process. We do not have to select the low bidder but price is a factor.

Mr. Jacunski said he doesn’t recommend roofing while school is in session. We would have to vacate sections while the work is being done. There will also be odors, etc. Dr. Bernard said she agrees – we would prefer to plan ahead with a realistic timeline.

Ms. Woolf asked about next steps. Mr. Elsesser said we should proceed with the selection of a Building Committee. Mr. Pietrantonio said we would prefer that the Board of Education not do it. We don’t have time. Perhaps a permanent Building Committee could be selected. We will need meetings every two weeks. Mr. Jacunski said the Committee could be as small as one person. There are not set regulations.

Mr. Zenko suggested sharing the draft Building Committee charge with the Board of Education at the Steering Committee on Monday and asking for input. We will want a Board of Education member for reporting. Mr. Elsesser said by Statute the Building Committee is authorized to execute the project for the schools. Mr. Pietrantonio said the Board of Education will discuss it at Thursday’s meeting. Mr. Elsesser noted there is no State reimbursement for repairs. The cycle of patching is all on our dime and is not a permanent solution. It will cost us more in the long run. There is not a path to do nothing. Board of Education members Mrs. Trudon and Mrs. Kortmann also emphasized the costs of interior damage and disruptions to school schedules.

Ms. Woolf thanked Mr. Jacunski and Mr. Pietrantonio for their presentation.

BOE 5-3-10 Town Council adopts the charge to the School Roof Building Committee.  Mr. Elsesser said we have revised numbers to add a Clerk of the Works, bonding and portable classrooms. (Comment: The reference to portable classrooms relates to replacing those roofs also)Mr. Zenko asked if we requested input from the Board of Education. Mr. Elsesser replied yes, and we received none. The architect who developed the evaluation report also recommends that work not be done while school is in session.

8/31/10 Referendum was held for the roof project and it passed with, 906 were in favor with 377 opposed.

BOE 10/4/10 Discussion of Revised Charge to School Roof Building Committee:  An alternate position is included in the Charge; a full member’s resignation is expected.   These position need to be filled for the Committee to have meeting quorums  The Committee will hold a special meeting to consider architects.

As of Tuesday Feb. 8 substantial progress was made in clearing the roofs of snow and was continuing.  Schools were closed on Tuesday to assure completion of clean-up and to allow consideration of an engineer’s review of structural issues.  The structural engineer was at the schools Monday night and expressed concerns with the weight of certain drifts and some new cracking in the new gym and other areas, and needs further evaluation of the southern exterior wall of Nathan Hale which moved laterally during snow removal on Monday.   The weight of the snow increases as it absorbs more rain so the calculations from last week are no longer accurate.

Thank you for visiting the Opining Quill you are invited to follow the Opining Quill on Facebook or subscribe to this blog.

1 Comment

Filed under COVENTRY EDUCATION, COVENTRY GOVERNMENT ISSUES

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 10, 2010 · 10:57 am

White House Christmas Entertainment Coming to Coventry, CT

This year marks the 87th lighting of the National Christmas Tree.  The President traditionally celebrates the Christmas season with the fanfare and entertainment.  This year was no different but this year some of the entertainment from the event is going to be performing in Coventry on December 16th.

While First Lady Michelle Obama read the “Twas the Night Before Christmas by Clement Clarke Moore in Washington she is not expected to attend Coventry’s celebration.  The U. S. Coast Guard Band which performed on the Ellipse at the White House will be performing here in Coventry on December 16th.

If you want to see the National Christmas Tree celebration the taped broadcast it will be aired on CPTV on December 13th at 9:00 pm.  Other musical performers include Grammy award-winning group Maroon 5; singer-songwriter Sara Bareilles;  and blues artist B.B. King.

The Coventry Holiday Concert with the U. S. Coast Guard Band will be held at Coventry High School Veteran’s Auditorium from 7-9:00 pm on Thursday December 16th.  The event is free.  Coventry Human Services will be collecting donations to benefit the Holiday Food and Gift Program.  Donations of new and unwrapped gifts for all ages and gift cards will be welcome.

Since its formation in 1925, the Coast Guard Band has developed an international reputation as one of the finest professional concert bands in the world, offering music of great variety and appeal. This is a wonderful opportunity to enjoy a quality performance presented by the dedicated men and women of our military.

—————————————————————————

You are invited to become a friend of the Opining Quill on Facebook

Leave a Comment

Filed under EVENT NEWS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

November 26, 2010 · 8:09 am

Arrogance Could Cost Coventry $1,000,000

The political elitism from the arrogance of power may have cost Coventry taxpayers over 1 million dollars.  That is a lot of money for a Town the size of Coventry so let’s take a look at what happen and see if the loss is necessary.

The current Town Council majority has let the power of their positions develop an arrogance of power, a political elitism where politicians act and the people are suppose to follow blindly.  If Coventry is to be a government of the people our Town Council should be far more open and trusting of the people.

First it was the issue of recycling and trash bins and now it is the Pucker Street Bridge.  In the first case Councilman Richard Williams acted much like Paul Revere as he rode through the Town with flyers to alert the people what the arrogance of power was about to do.  The people acted and continued to voice their strong opposition to the majority leadership on the Town Council until the “green bags” and orange bins became a relic of the past.

Now the arrogance and elitism has again caused an alarm to be sounded within the community.  The question of the Pucker Street Bridge was on the November ballot and was defeated.  The voters were largely left in the dark about this project.  The majority leadership on the Town Council depended on the trust of the people to blindly vote for the project because they approved it.  That is political elitism and an arrogance of power that could well cost the citizens of Coventry over $1,000,000.

The bridge project was a necessary project, an expenditure that will fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers now or in the future.  The real question was how much do the citizens of Coventry want to pay for the repair?  The real question wasn’t if but rather how much and when.

Informed citizens would have voted in favor of the bridge if they realized the real need for the repair and the true cost to delay the repair.  The cost today with approved federal grants funding most of the project left only $320,000 for Coventry taxpayers to spend.  The cost tomorrow will be far higher because according to Town Manager John Elsesser the project no longer qualifies for a federal grant, therefore taxpayers will someday shoulder far more cost.  In the words of Mr. Elsesser, “What’s at stake is asking today’s taxpayers to pay $320,000 or tomorrow’s taxpayers to pay $1.5million”.

The Town Council voted recently to take another step to keep the project active and thereby remain eligible for the federal grant.  Once again Mr. Williams stepped forward to make a motion to continue the process by spending only $15,000 and thereby potentially save Coventry taxpayers $1,000,000 that was good judgment.  What the majority on the Town Council must now do is explain the reasoning to the taxpayers.  They can not depend on their arrogance of power, their political elitism or their own endorsement of the project to assure support from the taxpayers.

The times are changing the winds of change are being driven by a weak economy and government spending is no longer being ignored by the taxpayers.  The elected leadership at all levels must do a better job of communication and explanation of expenditures if they want support for necessary projects.  Merely wanting a project will not be enough justification and communication will be vital.

The weeds of political elitism developed from the arrogance of power must be rooted from the gardens in the land of steady habits.  It is time for the Town Council and the Board of Education to change their patterns behavior and style of leadership.

The Town Council and Board of Education in Coventry tend to work in a dark vacuum. When given the opportunity to inform the people too often the opportunity is wasted with feel good rhetoric.  One needs only to read a series of Coventry Monthly insertions from the Superintendent of schools or Town newsletters to see a good example

Leave a Comment

Filed under COVENTRY EDUCATION, COVENTRY GOVERNMENT ISSUES

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 15, 2010 · 12:06 pm

Roll Out Your Barrels For A Better Coventry

The day has come; Coventry has delivered the barrels for both trash and recycling.  There can be no denying how it happened.  One man stood tall against the majority on the Town Council.  Mr. Richard Williams an independent thinking leader, willing to take on the majority and go the extra mile to do what the people want.

Mr. Williams spent his own money kicking off the drive to alert the public with signs and flyers.  Then a ground swell of public support got behind Mr. Williams and people across Coventry activated in favor of tipper barrels.

From the signs “Dump the Green Bag” to Facebook contacts the citizens stood up and demanded a new system, one that would increase capacity for both trash and recycling.  The citizen pressure increased until the majority on the Town Council finally reversed their thinking and supported Mr. Williams.

This month is the first time Coventry citizens will have the convenience and extra capacity for recycling and trash.  No more bending over to pick up a heavy bin, no more litter from blowing recycling materials and no more animals ripping open trash bags!

Thank you Mr. Williams, you have made Coventry a cleaner community with the greater capacity to recycle.  Now folks across town can just “Roll Out The Barrel”!!!!

In honor of Mr. Williams we present Ragtime Pam with her rendition of “Roll Out The Barrel”

Thank you Mr. Richard Williams you are an assets to our community.  Your commitment to do what is right in the face of opposition is commendable and should be an example for others to follow.  The Opining Quill salutes you.

Leave a Comment

Filed under COVENTRY GOVERNMENT ISSUES, QUILL SALUTES

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 7, 2010 · 4:52 pm

The Rubber Stamp Committee of the Board of Education will meet on Wednesday

This Friday some Coventry parents will see a new style report card.  Gone are the days when a student of excellence earns an “A” or a student fails with an “F”.  So what is the new system and why has Coventry changed?

The answer is not as simple as the question.  The first widespread public notice of the change was reported in The Willimantic Daily Chronicle and for citizens of Coventry that watch Board of Education meetings on television it was a surprise.  A surprise because it was never discussed by the Board of Education at any public meeting and members of the Board of Education didn’t even know about the change.

Does it amaze you that a basic system of student evaluation which has been in place for generations was changed without notice, input or approval of the Board of Education?  The representatives of the people charged with the responsibility to over see the educational system in Coventry were left out of the discussion or decision to implement this change.  Our elected representatives didn’t even have any opportunity to ask questions or offer input prior to the change going into effect.

This Wednesday the Board of Education will be presented with a presentation of what is now the policy for grading in our schools.  The first of the new report cards are due to be sent home on Friday.  Isn’t it nice to know that the elected officials charged with the responsibility to oversee our educational programs will finally be made aware of the change?

When you vote for members of the Board of Education do you expect them to just rubber stamp programs and changes after the decisions are made or do you expect they will actively participate in educational oversight?  The issue here is not the quality or justification of changing the grading system it is an issue of responsibility and authority for the Board of Education.

According to the newspaper the Lebanon Superintendent was also quoted as saying it was an issue to be looked at for Lebanon but it would be brought to the Board of Education for more discussion.  The new report also disclosed a report card workshop was held to inform parents in Coventry and that feedback from parents was positive.  So if a parent had a question and was not at the workshop they would have been in the dark like members of the Board of Education.

The key word is “informed” as if the administrators are presenting the parents and the Board of Education the information as a courtesy to keep them “informed”.  It seems appropriate to have the Board of Education involved in policy decisions and given the opportunity as leaders to have input and vote to approve such changes.  They are the elected voice of the people and yet too often they sit in darkness and silence only to react with a rubber stamp of approval after the fact.

Leave a Comment

Filed under COVENTRY EDUCATION

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,