AVON TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 2007
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Avon Senior Center Community Room by Chairman Carlson. Members present: Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs Shea and Zacchio. Mr. Woodford, absent.
II. PUBLIC HEARING: None
III. MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETING: None
IV. COMMUNICATION FROM AUDIENCE
David Goldsholl reported one thing that the community wants and I think there has been a tremendous improvement in the open communication that the board has been providing through newsletters and communicating with each other. I think that is helping everybody and I strongly urge all three boards to continue working together. We love living here, but I think the town has to prepare themselves for some hefty tax increases by the town in order to stay at this high level of performance. We love living here and that is what it is going to cost to live here.
V. COMMUNICATION FROM COUNCIL
Chairman Carlson reported the purpose of the meeting tonight is to hear from the Board of Education regarding the recent Teachers Contract. It has been requested that we have a public presentation by the Board of Education to us on this contract. It was a good suggestion by those who brought it to our attention. He also stated this is not a public hearing where the public votes on it- it will be a vote of the Town Council and we have three courses of action that we can take. One, is to take no action, which means the contract stands as proposed. The second course of action to take would be by a two-thirds vote, would be for us to reject it or for us to accept it. If we were to reject the contract, it would then go to a different arbitration panel, which would make a decision. Mr. Zacchio has reclused
himself from this portion of the meeting due to a conflict of interest. He will not be commenting on or voting on the matter before us.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
07/08-12 FY 08/09 Budget: Review of Grand List and Community Growth: Harry DerAsadourian, Town Assessor and Steve Kushner, Town Planner
The Town Assessor reported about 15 months ago Mr. Hines questioned us on what we could expect in terms of grand list growth. With the help of the Town Planner we have put together some information, which is helpful in looking at where we stand, where we are headed in terms of development and grand list growth.
The Town Planner reported after about two years of planning, the Planning & Zoning Commission completed a document called the Plan of Conservation and Development, which is required by State Statute to be reviewed and updated every ten years. It requires a whole series of policies that relate to conservation and development. The document recommends that certain parcels of land be preserved, how the land should be developed, what land should be used for industrial use, what land should be used for commercial use, what land should be used for housing development. He reported in 1968 the Town had only about 20% of land committed to single-family home development, as compared to 49% in 2004.
The Town Planner reported things have changed over the last couple of decades- in 2004 single family housing equaled 72% and 28% was for multi family units. One of our goals is to move forward with maintaining our ratio issues. He reported we have about 5,100 housing units in the town right now. We have a chart showing the number of building permits given between 1978 and 2006/07. This year has been the lowest amount for building permits since 1989-91. He reported we also have a chart that shows the commercial development over the past 15 years and shows total approvals of 1,054,393 sq. ft. The total non-taxable approvals done over the same period of time equals 374,178 sq. ft., which includes schools, churches etc. He further reported the plan also shows population trends of Avon as compared with other
towns in the Farmington Valley. The only town that was higher was Canton.
The Town Planner reported another portion of the Plan of Conservation and Development is a future land use plan, which shows how land should be developed over time. It does recommend that we keep a ratio of 3-4 single-family homes to about 1-4 multi family homes. We also have land available for industrial parks, 80 acres at Avon Park south, for future development.
He further reported the final part of the plan is called the buildout analysis. Once we came up with recommendations of how land should be developed over time, we then looked at all the parcels in town that were over 5 acres in size - those parcels that are undeveloped, and that have some potential for development for both commercial and residential. There are parcels that have significant environmental restraints, i.e. wetlands, and in most cases are not developable. There are areas of small building lots that may be developed. Basically, this analysis shows potential for approximately 1200 additional homes. The population at buildout for Avon will be about 20,100.
The Town Assessor reported it is interesting to see what was built 40 years ago and, in 10 year increments, what we are building today; the type of house, the value, assessed value and the taxes. The comparison for a modest colonial home is as follows:
-built in 1967 has a current assessment of $200,980 and taxes of $5,135.
-built in 1976 has a current assessment is $249,240 with taxes of $6,368
-built in 1987 has a current assessment is $386,410 with taxes of $9,873
-built in 1997 has a current assessment is $477,930 with taxes of $12,211
-built in 2005 has a current assessment is $901,930 with taxes of $23,044
-built in 2007 has a current assessment is $881,250 with taxes of $22,516
He further reported the homes are getting bigger, the values are going up and the tax obligations are also going up. The homes built in 2005 and 2007 are typical of homes that are being built today in most subdivisions, given that the land costs are approaching $400,000 to $500,000 per lot. He reported, in terms of future growth, we have the ability to take on more retail, more office and more industrial as the community grows. We can add another 300,000 sq. ft. in retail space, 200,000 sq. ft. in office space and just under 100,000 sq. ft. in industrial space. The interesting thing about land use is the dynamics; there is constant change. What was popular 20 years ago may not be popular today. We have the capacity to take on quite a bit of growth. As far as living units, we have roughly 6,700 living
units with the capacity for another 1,200 with a percentage of that being multi family units. These new units, with lower square footage would be at a much higher value than what was built in the past.
He reported in terms of land use, collectively and independently we looked at the town, the large parcels of land that were available and what was the potential development for commercial use (both the industrial and office). The commercial is located primarily along Route 44, and the residential is scattered throughout town. We have also included Old Farms School. He reported in terms of growth, we have the capacity and we are averaging 75 homes per year. We are not getting the growth this year and it is mainly because of the economy, plus we have a scarcity in building lots. We have not seen any decrease in home prices. We currently have a Grand List, which is set at 2 billion dollars and believe that will grow steadily over the year, but a lot will depend on what will happen with individuals
buying cars as well as building homes. The absorption of the industrial/commercial will occur based on the economy and the need. Years ago, when the industrial was started, we had a distribution center and we had manufacturing. As time went on, distribution moved away and more high tech manufacturing moved in and that trend will continue.
Ken Notestine questioned if Avon Old Farms School has approximately 600 acres of land that really is not necessary to put in to this plan. The Town Planner reported they have approximately 600 acres of land that is not necessary for their campus. He also reported there are no signs at the school that they have any plans of developing it, but at one point in time they did sell 500 acres to Farmington which did get developed. When they went through bad times, they had to sell off some land. They are in an excellent position now. But, it is privately owned, it is not deed restricted, and is readily possible for development. The land is also zoned for education and would require a zone change by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The single-family home neighborhoods that surround the school are
largely one acre building lots. He further reported there is a potential for around 900 units, without the school. But, as to whether that would ever happen, it is unknown.
Mr. Shea said pick a number, there has to be an average to get some clarification, like one acre building lot. The Town Planner reported, Avon has a somewhat unique zoning regulation and that is, in most communities, if you were in an R-40 zone, you would need minimum of 40,000 square feet to meet that lot size requirement. In Avon, you also have to meet the overall density factor that allows for fewer homes per acre then you would normally have.
Tom Gugliotti stated you mentioned there was 600 acres at Old Farms School - that only translates into 300 potential building lots. The Town Planner replied, right now the school has no interest at all, but some day they might decide to have 200 or 300 acres or they might want to develop all 600, but the Planning & Zoning Commission did not create a zone to accommodate that. He also reported other options that will be available as far as the school is concerned, which is purely speculation at this point, but there might be some opportunities to concentrate some housing on a smaller portion of land, like a condominium development or cluster housing.
Mr. Shea questioned if the Town Planner could share some of the smart growth issues that the town is going through right now.
The Town Planner reported a couple of important things came out of the 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development that resulted in some changes. One is that, with every subdivision that gets approved, the developer has to donate to the town of Avon, a certain percentage of the land as "Open Space," at no cost to the taxpayers. He reported the rate in 1957 was 5%, and as a result, Avon has acquired hundreds of acres since then. One of the recommendations was to double that figure, so now it requires that 10% be donated to the town as "Open Space". In addition, sometimes the Planning & Zoning Commission is faced with a situation where the property being divided is rather small, so open space obligation is rather small and, even at 10% the asset that the town would receive, may prove to be
more of a liability rather than a asset. We also adopted a state law, which allows the town to collect a fee in "lieu of open space." There is a formula under the state law that allows the developer to contribute a fee to the community that needs to be earmarked with a special open space acquisition. The law is very clear that the monies received for that fund have to be used to acquire other open space parcels, with general authorization from the Town Council. He also reported another addition that the Planning & Zoning Commission has adopted is called the Transfer of Development Rights, which allows the Planning & Zoning Commission to earmark certain parcels of land in the community, that might be appropriate for higher density development, i.e. parcels of land that have been identified in the center for some additional housing units to be built downtown, or land to preserve the character of the town, or to put in sidewalks. He
reported there is a new law, which allows a developer to partner with private property owners, like Avon Old Farms School. This would allow them to preserve the property and give the town a conservation easement to use part of it.
A resident questioned, for the sake of the environment and for the property tax structure, is there any talk of requiring the downsizing the square footage of residences in town? The Town Planner reported years ago when the town first developed the zoning regulations, they had minimum house size requirements of 1000 square feet. But the homes being built now are much larger than that. We also have regulations that talk about the percentage of building size versus the size of the lot. We did have discussions about it in connection with this planning document that has been talked about. We did make one small adjustment - in one area they did increase the area of house footprint as it relates to lot size. It is possible to take this further but Planning & Zoning Commission has not decided to do it at this time.
Ms. Stahl questioned what is the current status on the Thompson property. Mr. Carlson reported a number of years ago, through the guidance of the Town Council, we asked the Town Manager to enter into discussion with the largest landowners, which are five. We have had ongoing discussions with them but cannot get into specifics because they are of negotiation nature. There are varying degrees of interest from those five landowners, but when it involves land acquisition, it is not open to public discussion.
Ms. Stahl questioned if the real estate market is stagnant due to the increase in the cost of homes. The Town Assessor reported he was referring to 2003, and stagnant is in relationship to today's terms, which has happened over the last six months. We are in a healthy position in that regard. If you were to use today's dollars, and all our capacities were built out, it would add a substantial amount, probably in the neighborhood of $700,000,000 to our Grand List. But with the building permit issuance, it is very erratic and it is hard to say when that growth is going to incur.
Mr. Hines reported this document is very good and would like to know what is the growth potential in this area and hope you would give it your best estimate, look over the next 10 - 20 years to project when you think those might occur and at what rate - what kind of a grand list increase you think that might be, to help the various boards as they do their budgeting each year. Are we going to have 1.5 % growth as an average for the next 10 years and then maybe drop down to maybe one percent? You could give some kind of projection even over the next five years. The Town Assessor reported with a little more time we will have more detail and come up a better projection. The point we would like to make, is even in a good year we are still only looking at a 2% - as the grand list grows, especially after re assessment, even
a 30 or 40 million dollar increase on a current 2.2 billion dollar list the percentage is not that great. The days of the eight percent, which we had in the 1980's and three percent growth are limited. We are looking at probably 1% to 2 % growth. That growth still is healthy, it is still 30 to 40 million dollars, but as compared to the overall grand list, it is a much smaller percentage.
Mr. Speich questioned the rate of growth-is it about 20,000 projected population growth? The Town Planner reported a growth of 250 people each year over the last 15 years. The additional residential home potential that we are talking about we can probably say that over the next 15 years those units will be constructed. We are averaging 2.5 people per home according to the census. Of the new homes being constructed, you have an average of one school age child per home. We are doing fine now because of the tax base on the new homes and the trend for the larger homes seems to be continuing, at least for the next 200 homes. The family size has steadily decreased; in 1970 the average family size was 3.2 and is now 2.5.
Barbara Zuras, 428 Deercliff - questioned if the town was taking into consideration the increase in school enrollment and the cost of $11,000 per child per year. She stated her concern with a considerable amount of the town's population starting to downsize and with the possibility of building 900 more units. The Town Assessor reported what you are talking about is beyond our control. These are policy decisions and are difficult for us to address.
The Town Planner reported, in answer to Ms. Zuras' question, there is an additional responsibility between each of the boards and commissions that are represented here tonight. The mission of the Planning & Zoning Commission was to prepare the Plan of Conservation and Development. Interestingly, if you look at their statutory charge, it gives them all kinds of things to take a look at, but it does not mention fiscal impact. He reported the Commission did think about fiscal impacts when they put this together. It is one of the reasons why we are in a good position today, with respect to a 2.2 billion dollar grand list. We have the Town Council who has been charged with numerous responsibilities, like certain policies, certain strategies related to growth. We have the Board of Education who has to
provide a budget that has to be accepted by the community. We also have intricate boards and commissions, each with a separate set of rules and a separate set of responsibilities, it is not only the responsibility of Planning & Zoning Commissions.
Ms. Zuras questioned, in light of our budget constraints, do you have any control as to the amount of building that goes on in town.
Chairman Carlson reported the numbers you heard tonight were based upon current zoning board regulations. There exists "a last person in" syndrome; the last person in closed the door and says lets keep it the way it is. It is tough to go to a landowner who owned 30-40 acres for many years, and say, we know your land is zoned R-40 (1 acre lots)-we are changing that to R-80 (2 acre lots), which takes away half of the economic value. We do not know how legal that is but it is part of the challenge. A better way of addressing this is to go out to the acquisition marketplace, which we have done. We acquired 15 acres on Scoville Road, the M. H. Rhoades property. We could have left that on the tax role as industrial property and gotten revenues from the taxes, but decided to take it off to keep the character
of the town the way it is, and that is part of the trade off we had. He also reported there are a number of ways to acquire land. You can buy it outright and buy with development rights; you can do other things. But one thing you cannot do is take the economical value away from the landowner. That is the challenge that we have.
A resident questioned with the number of homes being built at Buckingham, somewhere between $290,000 and $1,000,000 dollar homes, what are the taxes and the impact on future growth there? She also questioned what is happening with the toxic waste situation and clean up on the M. H. Rhoades property. She also questioned if the three boards can work together to provide more funding.
The Town Assessor reported as far as Buckingham goes; we use the term "built out". Their values run from about $525,000 up to $675,000. The units for active adults are going to be in the assessment of $200,000. The single-family homes vary in size from 2,400 square feet to 3,500 square feet and their taxes range from $6,500 to $8,500 depending if they have the larger unit.
The Town Manager reported in regards to your question about the M. H. Rhoades property; that was a manufacturing site, they built tiny devices and bomb sights, going back to WW II in Hartford. They moved out to that site in 1968. It was approximately an 85,000 square foot manufacturing facility on a concrete slab that used a lot of salt, seeing they had a lot of small mechanical parts that they manufactured and assembled there. In 1968, when the building was built, it had a state of the arts disposal system. As time went on and problems developed with the site, in the sense that the system was obsolete that they had, they were cited by the DEP and a $300,000 remediation plan was put into place by the company. They removed all the soil that was around the westerly side and some on the northerly side of the
building. But there was no way to determine whether they did some form of pollution underneath the concrete slab. When the town bought the building in 2003, we agreed to accept the environmental liabilities. We knew we were going to be tearing the building down, so when we tore the building down, we hired an environmental consultant to ascertain whether there was any pollution underneath the concrete slab that was under the building. There was some minor pollution that has been remediated and removed, and the DEP has required a four-year testing program. There is a number of PVC pipes sticking up because we are still testing them. That four-year testing program should be ending next year and hopefully, at that time, we will get a clean reading from the DEP. At that time, the wells will be closed, the site will be graded, seeded and depending upon the implementation schedule of the Recreation Master Plan, it may be turned into active
athletic fields. We have retained the storage building there for town storage, and we have a parking lot that needs to be upgraded. It is part of the old parking lot for the industrial building, because to joins the Rails-to-Trails. He also reported that the town purchased the property and the buildings for a little over 1 million dollars. The cleanup, so far has averaged in the $60,000 to $70,000 range. That includes the testing and the remediation that had to be done once the slab was removed.
A resident stated in regard to town roads, we are not anti-road in the work that is being done. The affordable housing lends itself to transients. You are not going to find empty nesters remaining in high-priced households. Instead, they will allow their kids to graduate from high school. Then you will get another family with 1.8 children moving in, which will impact the school system and other services in town. We would like to see denser areas with smaller homes.
The Town Planner reported it is 1.08 children, which is about one child per family coming out of the larger subdivisions and will not impact on the school system. Also, if you look at some of the census statistics, the average length of stay is five years, which does not vary significantly if you compare Avon to other communities in the state. Also, we did not notice any variation between neighborhoods with more modest homes versus the newer neighborhoods with larger homes. He also reported as far as living in a transient society, people get job transfers and the average length of stay is five years. Fifty percent of the people that currently live here were not born in the state of Connecticut.
Mr. Usich questioned the Town Planner on his best guess as to the number of home sites from Lovely Street and west to the river and in the past 20 years in town.
The Town Planner reported that the northwest corner has some of the larger undeveloped parcels and that is where the majority of the activity has been over the last 15 years - about 400 homes have been built in that area. Another sixty building lots have been approved, which was a consolidation of three larger parcels of land owned by the families of Jakubiak, Terry and Honnewell. A real estate developer bought them and will proceed to build 60 homes. We have been told that those 60 homes are probably likely to be a continuation of what you see in the adjacent subdivision of Bridgewater, and will probably start at 1.2 - 1.3 million dollars. Beyond those 60 lots there is potential for 100 plus.
Jane Ellen Peregrin, 67 Cotswold way - stated she thinks the issue really concerns growth.. She reported she moved to Avon 25 years ago because of the school system. She had one son graduate from Avon High School and another son currently at the junior high school and she works at the high school. I see the numbers coming in, I see 30 to 50 students per year moving in. Those are the types of things the town is going to have a hard time predicting, so this next budget season I hope we can work together. We are committed to a certain level, which puts a lot of pressure on all of us. As a school district, we are mandated by the state. Now we need to move ahead and hope we can work together for the common good.
Chairman Carlson reported we are very open, willing and able to entertain comments on how to curtail this growth so if people have ideas on that, we welcome them. Send them to us and anything that is within the legal bounds of doing, we will certainly have it investigated and taken a look at. We all face this challenge. The three boards have worked hard together to make things work - it does not mean that we have always agreed. As we have gone out to acquire the Rhoades property, the property around the library, the property at Fisher Meadows in 2001, the town has been very generous and very willing to participate in that and the Board of Finance has also been very supportive of it.
Mr. Shea reported as much as we are concerned with business growth and the commercial development of buildings and businesses, I am concerned about the empty space that we have in town, which can sometimes go unnoticed. He questioned if it would be possible for the Town Manager and the Town Assessor to speak with the Chamber of Commerce and coordinate a time they can be present at a Town Council meeting so we can have a better understanding of how we can best utilize the commercial or business space we have so we can market ourselves appropriately when approached by people from outside of Avon. Although it will not generate a great deal of tax revenue, it should help a little bit.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
07/08-42 7:30 p.m.: Presentation, Avon Board of Education: Financial Impact of Avon Board of Education and Avon Education Association Binding Arbitration Award
Peggy Roell reported Doug Evans was the Chairman of the Board of Education Committee that negotiated with the teachers on almost a daily basis since the beginning of June, which was about a six-month period. Ken Notestine and Mike Eagen were also a part of the committee.
Doug Evans reported the selective bargaining process is governed by the Connecticut Statute. We will try to explain how the mediation arbitration process works. The law came into effect in 1976 to prevent teachers from striking and refusing to provide educational services. The law specifies date under which mediation must begin and a date by which the contract must be established. The date for Avon was February 15, 2007. During this process of negotiation, a member of the Board of Finance was present during negotiation and during many of the workshops. This past year, the Board of Finance representative was Margaret Bratton; in previous years, Mark Zacchio in 2004, Bill Cooper in 2001. Before the arbitration, the negotiating committee for the Board of Education consisted of myself, Ken Notestine and
Michael Eagan. We were guided by the Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Richard Kisiel, the School Finance Director, Gary Franzi, Margaret Bratton, Board of Finance representative and Attorney Thomas Mooney, who is an expert in Connecticut school law. The negotiating committee engaged in several workshops. Also participating in these workshops was the insurance consultant, Dr. Kisiel and Attorney Mooney. The first negotiating session took place on June 20 to establish the ground rules. The ground rules require that all of the contract negotiations be held in public. These negotiation sessions took place in August and September. The Board of Education and Teachers Union were unable to agree on contract and mediation schedules. A mediation session was held on September 19th with a mediator from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The Board was unable to reach a definitive contract as we opened the mediation session-several
issues were still in dispute, including general wages. With the help of Attorney Mooney, we had to decide on a neutral arbitrator in preparation for an arbitration hearing. The Board of Education selected Attorney John Romanow as the arbitrator. The Teachers Union selected Attorney Clifford Silvers as their arbitrator. Then the board and the teachers agreed on a neutral arbitrator Attorney Susan R. Meredith.
Mr. Evans reported the Initial Proposals as follows:
Board of Education Avon Education Association
24 Proposals 23 Proposals
- GWI plus step increase - GWI plus step increase
08/09 - 0.00% plus 1.53% 08/09 - 5.33
09/10 - 1.75% plus 1.23% 09/10 - 5.66% plus 1.32%
10/11 - 1.50% plus 0.95% 10/11 - 6.00% plus 0.95%
- Reduce entry level salary - Changes in working conditions
- Increases in teacher costs for - Meetings
health insurance (11 proposals) - Planning periods
- Eliminate class size requirements - Class size penalties $250 to $2,000
- Changes in working conditions - Increase in retirement stipend
Length of teacher day - Increase in Life insurance
Website requirement
He reported the Board and the teachers were in agreement on the amount of the step increase for teachers with less than 12 years experience. They were not in agreement on the general wage increase. All teachers will receive general wage increases - only those with less than 12 years professional teaching experience will receive the step increase. Since Avon has the highest experienced staff-only 40% were eligible to receive that step increase. He also reported it was a concern of the community that the teacher's salary be held at a reasonable level. Avon teachers rate first in Hartford County for entry level salary and are in the top seven of the salary schedule. Therefore, one of the proposals the Board had made was the creation of a new entry-level step, which would be the first step
starting salary for teachers at 4% below the existing salary schedule.
He reported the Board proposed the elimination of contract specifications for class size maximum that would give the Board full discretion over establishing class size. He reported the teachers said they would be pleased if the class size exceeded the maximum amount i.e., one class at Avon High School that exceeded the contractual limit of 25 students for that class. In the teachers' proposal, the teacher would be paid $2,500 for each student that exceeded the contractual limit, versus the existing contract of $250 per student. Now they are requesting $2,500.
He further reported in the Initial Proposal, the AEA had proposed a general wage increase of 5.33%, 5.66%, and 6.00% for each of the three years of the contract. After the third negotiating session they had reduced their GWI to 5.33 in each of the contract years. The Board did not make a counter offer to that proposal. The Board justified its original proposal as you see in the left hand column and no wage increase other than step in the first year, 1.75% and 1.50%. They decided that by continuing to maintain that proposal based on the fact the we believe the larger salaries are the teacher salaries, with the potential 5% decrease in our operating budget, would result in potential loss of programs, services and personnel.
Mr. Evans reported negotiations between the Board and the teachers did result in the following:
Agreed-Upon Proposals
Step salary increases for teachers with less than 12 years of experience
- Increase in teacher contributions to health insurance by 1% for each of the three years of the contract (15% the first, 16% the second year, 17% the third year).
- Increase in payment for class size that exceeds the contract maximum from $250 to $350 per student.
- Increase in coaching stipends by the GWI increase.
- Establishment of a I.R.C. 457(b) deferred compensation plan for employee savings through payroll deduction
- Retirees contribute same health insurance premium as active employees for five years.
He reported the Board and the teachers agreed to several proposals and also agreed to withdraw from several proposals. The increase in teacher contribution towards the health insurance premium was significant as well as increased the co-pay, another insurance benefit such as mail order prescriptions. It is estimated, based on prior projections that those agreed upon proposals with respect to health care will result in a $72,000 savings to the board the first year, $98,575 the second year and over $114,000 projected for the third year.
Mr. Evans reported the Proposals submitted to Arbitration are as follows:
1. Longevity stipend upon retirement
Board of Education -Keep as is AEA -Add $1,000 to each amount
2. Establish new entry level step
Board of Education -Equal to 0.96% of step 1 AEA -no additional step
3. General wage increase in 2008/09
B O E - 2.2% AEA -3.1%
4. General wage increase in 2009/10
B O E - 2.2% AEA -3.1%
5. General wage increase in 2010/11
B O E -2.4% AEA -3.2%
He reported the Board and teachers presented these proposals on November 12th. The proposals are referred to as "Final and Last Best Offer". In their last best offer, the teachers requested an additional $1,000 for each stipend received for service years in Avon prior to retirement. Retirement stipend is similar to a severance payment on retirement, showing appreciation to the teachers working in Avon. The teachers proposal was to increase the retirement payment and range from $2,200 to those teachers with 10 - 19 years experience, and up to $4,000 for those teachers with 25 years work experience. The Board proposed to establish a new entry-level step, which is 4% below the salary schedule. Both side presented their offers on general wage increase. Nearly 50% of the teachers in Avon
are at maximum salary-all teachers receive a general wage increase.
Mr. Evans reported the schedule during the arbitration is as follows:
October 20
Board and teachers met with the three arbitrators and established
Hearing dates on November 2 and 12
November 2
Board seeks to conduct hearings in public
Testimony by Town Manager and Board of Finance Chair
November 12
Testimony by Superintendent of School
Closing arguments by attorneys
November 20
Post-hearing briefs filed with the arbitrators
December 3
Receipt of arbitrators' decision
Following the beginning of arbitration on October 20th, two meetings were scheduled at Avon Middle School cafeteria. The first session was held on November 2, and the Arbitrator Panel voted to allow a measured portion of the proceedings to be public. On behalf of the Board of Education the Town Manager, Phil Schenck testified, well as the Chairman of the Board of Finance, Tom Harrison.
At the second session on November 12th, the Board of Education called the SOS to testify, as well as numerous exhibits and documents. Teachers also presented documents. Both sides presented after the closing arguments their Last Best Offers on each issue. The attorneys for both sides submitted detailed legal referenda.
The Arbitrators' issued a report on December 3. A copy of that report and decision is available on the town website.
Mr. Evans reported the Arbitration Panel's Decision as follows:
1. Longevity stipend upon retirement
Rejected the teachers' proposal, maintains current provisions.
2. Establish new entry level step
Rejected the board's proposal.
3. General wage increase in 2008/09
Accepted the board's proposal of 2.2%.
4. General wage increase in 2009/10
Accepted the teachers' proposal of 3.1%.
5. General wage increase in 2010/11
Accepted the board's proposal of 2.4%.
Mr. Evens reported the Panel rejected the $1,000 stipend proposal - maintains current provisions
The Arbitrators rejected our request for a new entry-level step. In their opinion, the new salary step could have a major impact and make it more difficult to recruit high quality teachers.
With regards to the GWI, the arbitrators believe that Avon's financial capabilities are sufficient and decided on neither the Board or the teachers last best offer. They felt the teachers wage increase was higher than average over the past 10 years and that the welfare of the Avon teachers has been well protected. They voted in favor of the Board's proposal the first year. He reported Connecticut Statutes do not require the panel to consider above average increases, but to consider the wage itself. The arbitrators sided in favor of the teachers' proposal in the second year of the contract and the board's proposal in the third year of the contract.
Mr. Evans reported on Criteria used by Arbitrators as follows:
- Financial capability of and demands on the town.
- Interest and welfare of the teachers.
- Change in the cost of living averaged for the past three years.
- Total salaries and benefits of Avon teachers compared to other teacher groups in the state.
- The results of contract discussions before arbitration.
- The results of recent contract settlements.
He reported state statutes guide the arbitration panel when making decisions. For instance, financial capability of the town is determined by adjustment of Grand List per capita and median family income and the measure of financial demands on the town. Other criteria includes average 3 year cost of living, teachers working conditions, the salary and benefits of Avon teachers as compared to teachers across the state, and the results of contract discussions prior to arbitration. By statute the panel could not consider the towns' willingness to pay.
Mr. Evans reported the Arbitration Panel Decision (General Comments) as follows:
- Avon is the wealthiest community in Hartford County.
- Avon has a enviable AAA bond rating
- Avon's high salaries attract and retain excellent teachers.
- Teachers' new health insurance premium cost share is the highest of current contract settlements.
- "Last best offers" represented significant moderation from positions held during contract discussions.
- Cost of living over the last three years averaged between 3.23% and 3.27%.
Mr. Evans reported the Arbitration Panel considered the Comparison of GWI Settlements as follows:
Average settlements 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
Hartford County 2.83% 2.79% 2.93%
DRG B 2.79% 2.85% 2.99%
Avon actual settlement 2.20% 3.10% 2.40%
Avon average for 3 years 2.56% 2.56% 2.56%
Mr. Evans reported how does the negotiated, arbitrated GWI settlements compare to other towns? The Arbitration Panel considered the comparison of GWI settlements with Hartford County and DRG B (District Reference Group of Avon) as compared to other communities. In the arbitrators' opinion, the award of the average GWI, which is 2.56% over the three years, meets the criteria for a fair increase for Avon teachers. It allows Avon to retain excellent teachers and meets the needs of the Board of Education to allocate resources to many needs of the District.
Mr. Evans reported the Financial Impact shows the GWI and Step increase and savings of thousands of dollars for insurance provisions of the new proposed contract. The Financial Impact is as follows:
2007/2008 total teacher salaries $20,150,663
In 2008/09 (with current 07/08 staff) General wage increase (2.2%) $ 450,098
"Step" Increase (1.53%) 308,317
Total $ 758,415
Less estimated savings from changes in insurance benefits (72,030)
Net cost $ 686,385
In 2009/10 (with current 07/08 staff)
General wage increase (3.1%) $ 662,715
"Step" Increase (1.32%) 270,739
Total $ 933,454
Less estimated savings from changes in insurance benefits (98,575)
Net cost $ 834,879
In 2010/11 (with current 07/08 staff)
General wage increase (2.4%) $ 539,711
"Step" Increase (0.95%) 196,157
Total $ 735,868
Less estimated savings from changes in insurance benefits (114,762)
Net cost $ 621,106
This financial impact is in addition to and does not include other financial withholdings of the contract. For example, taking the first year; 2.2% in salary for teachers, less $72,030 savings from changes in insurance benefits, the net cost to the Board of Education in year 1 is $ 686,385.
Mr. Evans reported the Town Council has three options at this point:
- The Town Council can vote to approve the contract any time between tonight and December 29.
- The Town Council can take no action and the contract will automatically become effective on July 1, 2008
- The Town Council can reject the contract by a two-thirds vote.
He reported if the Town Council deems it appropriate to reject the proposed contract, the Commissioner of Education will then have to appoint a second panel of three neutral arbitrators. The second panel does not have to start over again. The second panel simply reviews the riders on the basis of the transcript, documentary of exhibits, and all the information that was presented at the first arbitration and make a decision based on those records. By state statute, the panel can only agree with the first panels' decision or select the other sides' last best offer. It cannot consider changes in either side's last best offer on any issue. He further reported that the Board of Education is recommending that the Town Council approve this contract.
Mr. Evans made the following final comments:
1. The Board of Education has the highest degree of respect and admiration for the teachers and professional staff in the district. The Avon schools are exceptional in large part because we are fortunate to have skilled, creative and devoted teachers.
2. Throughout the process, the Board was guided by the community's concern about keeping teacher salaries at a reasonable level and by recent limits in the amount of our budget increases.
3. The Board of Education believed it was our responsibility to arrive at a teacher contract that fairly and adequately compensated teachers, but at the same time took into account the Board's need to fund student programming and satisfy state mandates for education in Avon.
The power point presentation done by Mr. Evans is made part of the minutes.
Chairman Carlson thanked the committee, on behalf of the town, for all the hard work that went into this and stated, whether people agree or disagree with the outcome, your efforts are well appreciated.
Mr. Shea reported we echo Mr. Evans' comments, everyone negotiated fairly and we move on from here, good job.
Chairman Carlson reported in looking at the math, this coming year you have about a 3.5% increase on the compensation line, when you compare the net increase of $686,385 against the budget of 20 million. He reported the increase of about 4% in 2009/20 and back in the 3's in 2010/11 and that is a fairly reasonable outcome. I would love to have seen the middle year down lower and it has me concerned, with the other things we have going on, particularly the high school.
David Goldsholl reported Avon has the highest paid teachers in the in the region, where are we in terms of the population. Doug Evans reported Avon teachers are the highest paid in Hartford County, as far as starting salary, but not the overall teachers - they are one of the highest, but not the highest.
Flo Stahl questioned what part of the contract was the deciding factor for going to arbitration? Mr. Evans reported it was mainly the wage increase.
Ann O'Brien, 11 Stony Way - Thanked everyone for being here this evening and for the services you contribute on a daily basis, all year long. She reported what was different this year as compared to other years is the Board Negotiating Committee had some leverage. They had concerns that made them feel that their hands were tied. Recognizing what a lengthy process arbitration is, and having them tell us at one of the beginning sessions they offered us zero percent for the first year for a general wage increase. Sixty percent of the teachers are at their maximum step salary, so zero percent increase, with the cost of living being 3.2 percent, was obviously not acceptable. She reported that the Board wanted an arbitrator to determine what the teachers should be paid. As a result, the teachers felt there was
not an effort to negotiate the wages for the teachers.
Mike Eagan reported he was on the Negotiating Committee as well, and reported that Mr. Evans recommended a mediator only when is became clear that the teachers and the Board of Education could not come to an agreement. We needed an independent person to come in and maybe help both sides. That process did take place and we did narrow down the issues quite a bit. We never had the intention of going into arbitration from the beginning.
Chairman Carlson reported year two worries me quite a bit, all three years worries me, given the fact that we are anticipating very low increases in our Grand List, over the next couple of years. We know we have tight budgets ahead of us. We applaud the efforts that went in on both sides, but for us to return to an arbitration panel would not be beneficial for us. When you look at the three major areas, the general wage increase, next year, the year after and the third year, two of the three went in the Board's favor. We would be best suited to accept this.
Mrs. Hornaday reported we need to be very careful about the words we use with regard to the intention of the negotiating team. With regard to the settlement we are pleasantly surprised about aspects of it. I agree with what Chairman Carlson said about the future of the Grand List for our town. I also think it would be counter productive to go back to the arbitration panel. Zero increase is not unheard of; in fact communities near us have had zero increases. It was not outlandish for the Board of Education to suggest that. I also made note, in the contract, of the participation in the insurance cost and that has a positive financial impact for the town.
Mr. Shea reported there is not much I can add in what Chairman Carlson and Mrs. Hornaday have said. I think this contract represents what is in the best interest of our town.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mrs. Hornaday it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve the Teacher Contract for 2008-2011 as presented.
Mrs. Hornaday and Messrs Carlson, Shea, and Zacchio voted in favor.
VIII. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT/MISCELLANEOUS- None
IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Litigation/Negotiation-None
X. MEETING SCHEDULE
XI. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Attest:
Caroline B. LaMonica Clerk
| 
