Home Care In Colchester, CT

COLCHESTER — Another $1.5 million for the senior center building project was overwhelmingly approved by voters in a referendum on Tuesday, resolving the town’s yearlong attempt to cover the looming shortfall.

The additional funds include approximately $32,000 in federal coronavirus relief funds, a $575,000 donation from the estate of Stephen Bendas and $892,300 in additional bonding, increasing the total project budget from $9.5 million to $11 million.

The project has been short on funds since October 2022, when it was revealed costs would rise. After making some reductions, the town voted to make up the shortfall using the $575,000 donation and additional funds from Colchester’s Unassigned Fund Balance.

Several town officials, however, argued that residents should decide whether to spend the additional money on the senior center. Selectman Jason LaChapelle sued the town to prevent it from entering into a contract with BRD Builders. But after a judge ruled in favor of the town in late December 2022, the Board of Selectmen approved an $8.625 million contract with the firm in February.

At the time, then-First Selectman Andreas Bisbikos said he supported going to referendum to assign the money from the Bendas estate to the project.

As of mid-November, $9.42 million of the $9.5 million project budget was already encumbered, without accounting for furnishings and fixtures or contingency costs.

Current First Selectman Bernie Dennler said he was glad the additional funding was allocated, since the building’s construction is underway.

“The fact is that it was not a referendum where we were deciding whether or not to build a building. The building’s already being built. The foundation is in, the steel has gone up in areas … the project was underway. And the fact is that the town did not have the funding to complete the project that it set out to build,” he said.

He said he wasn’t surprised the measure passed by such a large margin.

“This project had overwhelming support from the beginning. Look at the referendum results from two years ago. There was broad support for this project, and there was broad support to finish it,” Dennler said. “I think that people were well-educated on this. They understood what the consequences of voting no would be.”

According to Dennler, the referendum’s impact on taxpayers will remain flat, thanks to a $2.5 million state grant and the money from the Bendas estate. Dennler said the town expects to have to bond about $8 million for the project.

The project, which was slightly delayed this summer by rains and a lack of a drainage system, is scheduled for completion in 2024.

Building Committee Chair Tony Tarnowski said at a Wednesday meeting that he wanted to organize a workshop run by CSG, the town’s project manager, to create a revised budget for the senior center using the extra $1.5 million. Before the referendum approval, he explained that the committee had been taking funds from different line items to pay for necessary costs.

Tarnowski said he hopes to present the new budget to the full committee at its December meeting.

Emilia Otte covers health and education for the Connecticut Examiner. In 2022 Otte was awarded "Rookie of the Year," by the New England Newspaper & Press Association.

[email protected]

COLCHESTER — The town is asking voters to approve an additional $1.5 million in bonding for the new senior center, saying the building will go unfinished without the extra money.

Tony Tarnowski, chair of the Senior Center Building Committee, told the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance on Tuesday that the project still has the same $1.4 million shortfall reported in December.

“If you take a look at where we were back in November of 2021, when the referendum was approved, and where we are now … during that period of time, you had an unprecedented 18 to 22 percent across the construction industry inflation factor,” Tarnowski said.

In November 2021, the town approved $9.5 million for the senior center, but by October, the estimated cost rose to $10.8 million. The building committee then removed about $370,000 from the project cost, leaving a shortfall of just under $1 million. In December, the town voted to make up the shortfall using a combination of a $575,000 donation from a private citizen and money from the town’s unassigned fund balance.

After Selectman Jason LaChapelle sued the town to prevent Colchester from entering into a contract with a builder without first going to referendum, a judge ruled that the town could enter into the contract, since the original project total would be below $9.5 million. The town signed a contract for $8.625 million with BRD Builders in early February.

LaChapelle also pushed back against the use of the $575,000 donation without first taking it to referendum, arguing that citizens should have the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to pay more for the project. First Selectman Andreas Bisbikos said at the time that he was in favor of holding a future referendum to allocate the grant to cover the additional costs.

Tarnowski noted that although the town would be voting to borrow $11 million for the project, the actual amount they would bond would be $8.5 million, because of a $2.5 million state grant the town would put toward the project.

Selectwoman Rosemary Coyle said that the town still plans to use the $575,000 private donation to cover some project costs, as well as $32,691 from a grant program created by the state to direct American Rescue Plan Act funds that the state created specifically for senior centers. This would leave the additional amount the town needed to bond for at roughly $900,000.

Tarnowski said if the project was limited to $9.5 million, the building would be constructed — walls, roof, windows — but that it likely would not be able to obtain a certificate of occupancy. The floor would go unfinished, he said, and the kitchen would have no equipment.

But LaChapelle disagreed that the town could not build a functioning senior center with $9.5 million, and criticized Tarnowski and Board of Selectmen members for what he saw as forcing a choice between supporting the seniors and supporting the taxpayers.

“When you say the only answer is to give us more money and you will not have a functioning senior center … you have completely removed the possibility for people to support the senior center and support the seniors and also support fiscal responsibility and support not increasing the cost,” he said.

Bisbikos said he was committed to finishing the senior project, but he agreed that a Plan B was needed.

“It ain’t going to be under my watch that this senior center doesn’t get built. It may be under somebody else’s watch, but I’m not a guy that likes to quit,” said Bisbikos.

Bisbikos asked Tarnowski whether the building committee had performed any value engineering, or had looked for cost savings since the bid was awarded. Previously, Bisbikos testified in court that the town would use value engineering to look for cost savings on the project.

Tarnowksi replied that the building committee had saved $16,000 in value engineering, and that they were continuing to consider other options, such as eliminating a lighting package that would save the town approximately $30,000.

But he said that while there might be some opportunity for further cost savings, it wouldn’t be enough to balance the increased cost.

“If you think we’re going to find a million and a half dollars worth of savings, that’s not going to happen,” said Tarnowski. “That’s the reality. The value engineering will not bring you those kinds of numbers.”

Tarnowski said he had sent an email requesting a joint meeting of the Board of Finance and the Board of Selectmen in February. But Bisbikos said he wanted the building committee to look for more opportunities for value engineering, and that he wanted citizens to approve the town and school budget before talking about the senior center.

Board of Finance member Tim Vaillancourt joined LaChapelle in insisting that the town create a “Plan B” for what to do if the town voted down the referendum. LaChapelle and Bisbikos said part of that plan could be to direct the $575,000 donation toward furniture, fixtures and equipment, which LaChapelle said he didn’t consider to be part of the building cost.

Multiple members of the building committee spoke in favor of proceeding with plans for the new senior center. Geraldine Transue, an alternate member of the Senior Center Building Committee, showed pictures of the current senior center and pointed out the lack of handicapped access entrance, water damaged ceilings and bathrooms with missing tiles and a utility sink that she called “absolutely disgusting.”

A few members of the Board of Selectman and the Board of Finance mentioned that the project had been in-process for 20 years, and that they wanted to see a resolution.

“I think we can all agree, no matter what we have to do, we’ve got to find a way to finish this,” said Board of Finance member John Thomas.

Board of Finance Chair Andrea Migliaccio said the board would meet with the town’s bond counsel, the financial director and the town planner to draw up a draft referendum. The next meeting for the Board of Finance is Aug. 23.

—This story has been clarified and corrected to show that the Board of Finance meeting is on Aug. 23, and that the woman holding pictures of the current senior center is an alternate member of the building committee

Emilia Otte covers health and education for the Connecticut Examiner. In 2022 Otte was awarded "Rookie of the Year," by the New England Newspaper & Press Association.

[email protected]

COLCHESTER — Town officials are divided on whether to use $300,000 of federal coronavirus relief funding to pay for a direct “give back program” for town residents or to give the money to the town’s social services to direct it toward people in need.

In July, Selectman Jason LaChapelle proposed a program that would allow Colchester residents to apply for up to $1,000 per household if they were negatively affected by the pandemic. According to LaChapelle, the money would go to as many households as applied for the funds and be divided evenly, with the amount each person receives depending on the total number of people who applied.

LaChapelle said he wanted this program to provide relief not only to low-income residents, but to the middle class as well. He said he felt that even a limited, one-time payment would mean a great deal to households trying to put food on the table.

“This idea that $1,000 isn’t going to help a family in need I think is … coming from a really privileged position. $1,000 to a family struggling is a massive amount of money,” said LaChapelle.

But other town officials disagreed with the idea of a direct give-back program, saying the funds should be more targeted toward low-income families, or used for town projects.

LaChapelle’s proposal would require using $100,000 in ARPA funds earmarked for Colchester social services, and add an additional $200,000 that would be taken from other projects. LaChapelle said he believed that the unassigned fund balance or the capital reserve could be used to make up for funds that were designated toward fixing the town hall roof or the HVAC system.

First Selectman Andreas Bisbikos said he would support a program giving cash to the middle class. And during an Aug. 14 meeting, he said that with the town’s decision to use the money under the category of “revenue loss,” the Colchester had a “tremendous amount of discretion” on how the program could work.

“We could technically give money to every household in the Town of Colchester if that’s the program that we wanted to move forward on,” said Bisbikos.

Bisbikos said that if the committee were to make any family who made $75,000 or less eligible for funding, they could reach up to 40 percent of Colchester households. He said that anyone in Colchester who made under the median income would be immediately considered to have been negatively impacted by COVID.

At a meeting on July 31, the Board of Selectmen voted to task the ARPA committee, UHY and Social Services to create a “give-back program” to distribute up to $300,000.

LaChapelle said during the July 31 meeting that he did not believe it was fair to expect town residents to show proof of financial harm from the pandemic when businesses received grants through the federal funding without having to offer similar proof.

“It seems like if it was okay for businesses, the way we handled it for businesses, the same exact thing should be fine for the citizens,” said LaChapelle.

But Claire Collins, a consulting senior manager for the accounting firm UHY, which the town has contracted to oversee distribution of the ARPA funds, said the federal guidelines for the funds required people to show proof of hardship, including information regarding taxes and unemployment. She said that UHY had checked business’ financial records “behind the scenes,” which wasn’t possible with individuals.

Collins also said she believed that lump sums that people received through the program would be subject to taxation, and that it could push people into a higher tax bracket, threatening their eligibility for benefits.

She also warned that a direct cash program would restrict how people could spend the money. According to the ARPA guidelines, families would not be able to use the money on food, groceries, clothing, gasoline, loan payments or entertainment. If a person spent money on things that weren’t allowed, that family would have to pay the money back to the federal government.

The money from a direct cash program could be used for medical bills, utility bills, childcare, rent or mortgage payments.

David Koji, chair of the town’s ARPA Committee, said that a direct-assistance program would also mean that the town would have to pay $30,000 to UHY to administer the program.

The other proposal, to allow social services to take charge of the $300,000 and distribute the money, also brought up challenges.

Valerie Geato, the town’s director of social services, said she wasn’t sure if she would be able to spend $300,000 by the 2026 deadline.

Geato said at a meeting on Aug. 14 that additional funding might be used by local social services to support local residents with home improvements required for medical conditions, and car repairs. But she also warned that the department would need a system to pay for these things, and she said that there would need to be clear guidelines regarding who would qualify for assistance.

In the meeting on Aug. 14, Selectwoman Rosemary Coyle and Debbie Bates said they believed Social Services could reach people outside the income guidelines of $75,000. She said that Social Services had helped households making up to $82,000.

“We have a mechanism for screening, we have a mechanism for paying for it, there’s no tax burden … Why would we not want to expand that?” said Coyle. “I want this program to support as many people as we can that find themselves in a difficulty under different circumstances, plus the people that normally need the assistance of social services.”

But LaChapelle cautioned that residents might be reluctant to come to social services for help.

“We can make $5 million available. That money will sit there forever because people aren’t’ going into social services to ask for help because they don’t want to ask for help,” he said.

At a meeting of the ARPA committee on Monday, questions also arose over the necessity of setting aside $300,000. According to a PowerPoint presentation to a meeting of the ARPA committee on Monday, town social services expect to receive a $36,000 grant each year “for the foreseeable future,” but had spent just $7,000 over the past three years on assistance other than funding the food bank and fuel assistance.

“There is no indication that future social service demand would necessitate additional funding outside of current balance and future revenue streams(s),” the presentation noted.

Koji said that the committee could also recommend the town stick with the original allocation of $100,000 for social services and leave the additional $200,000 to the projects it was originally encumbered for.

“We don’t have to scramble to find something,” said Koji.

Geato said she was willing to look at the possibility of using a lump sum to help people with rental assistance, but that giving out funds to people simply based on their income levels was outside the scope of social services.

“The way that we could utilize these funds would be through our normal processes, which is not giving people money because they fall into a certain income category. No part of what we do really operates that way,” said Geato. “That’s not really the nature of social services. We exist to help people meet their basic needs.”

The ARPA Committee will meet next Monday to determine what program recommendation they will make to the Board of Selectmen.

Emilia Otte covers health and education for the Connecticut Examiner. In 2022 Otte was awarded "Rookie of the Year," by the New England Newspaper & Press Association.

[email protected]

COLCHESTER — Residents packed a four-hour meeting on Tuesday to argue for and against the Board of Education’s proposed budget increase of 9.83 percent — including a $1.2 million increase in the district’s special education costs.

The meeting, designed so that the Board of Finance could ask questions about the budget proposed by the Board of Education, also heard questions and comments from a number of members of the public asking about the possibility of alternative revenue sources and emphasizing the need to invest in the schools.

On February 23, the Board of Education voted to approve a 9.83 percent increase in the school budget, bringing the total cost to about $46.1 million. The budget increase includes additional school security officers and camera monitoring, paying for some positions previously funded through grants, as well as a substantial rise in special education costs and increases in teacher and administrative salaries.

Superintendent Dan Sullivan III told the board that the budget increase was partially driven by the elimination of the coronavirus relief grants. When the school district received the federal funding, the administration began paying some district staff salaries out of the temporary grants rather than the yearly budget.

As a result, several positions, including a preschool teacher, a kindergarten teacher and a special education teacher, needed to have their salaries returned to the general budget this year. In addition, two new staff members hired with grant money — a special education supervisor and a kindergarten teacher — will also need to be funded through the general budget.

At a public hearing on March 7, one resident asked Sullivan what would happen if the budget increase had to be dropped to 5 percent. Sullivan replied that there were several programs that could be cut, including band at the intermediate and middle schools and full-day kindergarten.

“Without question we see the value of full day kindergarten, but it is not a state requirement,” Sullivan wrote in a community email on March 17. “We also take pride in the strength of the music program, but we could reduce the band positions as we also offer general music.”

A number of people spoke in favor of the budget proposal, telling board members that the rate of inflation and a long-time refusal to fund what was needed for the schools had placed the town in this position.

“The Board of Finance had the gall to sit up at the table two weeks ago and say that they wouldn’t cut the band or do anything to hurt the students. Yet when they cut the budget to an arbitrary number, that is exactly what they’re doing,” said Jeremy MacKenzie. “When you continually provide less funding than the inflation rate, you are effectively cutting the schools.”

Residents also debated what the loss of full-day kindergarten or Pre-K would mean for parents in the community.

“My understanding is that the average price of daycare full-time in Connecticut, uh, and this is readily available from multiple sources online, is [in the] order of 11 to $13,000 a year,” said resident Vince Rose. “So you may not consider it a tax increase, but that is what it effectively is for those affected people.”

Others questioned the Board of Education’s rationale for the increase. Jason LaChapelle, a selectman in Colchester, said that the town has increased its per-pupil spending on education by 42 percent over the last decade.

“It’s not about the money. It’s how we spend the money,” said LaChapelle.

LaChapelle also questioned the board’s decision to hire the superintendent at a salary of $215,000 per year — an increase of about $36,000 above the base salary of the previous superintendent. LaChapelle said that with benefits, the increase amounts to about a $60,000 increase over the previous superintendent.

Board of Education members said that the superintendent’s salary was comparable to other superintendents in the surrounding districts. And Board of Education Chair Alex Oliphant said that Sullivan was being paid more because he had a higher level of experience than former superintendent Jeffrey Burt.

Oliphant said at the meeting that over the last 10 years, the district had received about half of what they asked for from the town. In the last five years, the school budget has increased by an average of .68 percent yearly, with a few years showing a negative change based on declining revenue.

But in an email to the Board of Education dated March 15, Board of Finance Chair Andrea Migliaccio questioned the Board of Education’s budgeting methods, and also pushed back against the proposed cuts.

“In no budgetary year have we ever threatened teachers or programming like you have this year. Even when our state threatened substantial cuts, our BOE did not pass the financial woe onto the classroom,” said Migliaccio. “Your inflammatory narrative and scare tactics is a low for our community.”

Migliaccio also demanded an explanation for the cost increase in the district’s Special Education line of $1.2 million, accusing the Board of Education of a “failure to provide financial oversight” amounting to “a clear act of willful blindness.”

“I reached out to the auditors, attorneys and other politicians to find that under no circumstances would our town be in a position to absorb this increase without reimbursement despite your claims that our town must bear the full cost,” Migliaccio wrote.

A memo to Sullivan from Amy Emory, the district’s director of pupil services and special education, said that the increases in cost reflected students being placed in specialized programs outside of the district, including new special education students who had just moved to the town and students needing new placements because their needs had increased.

At the meeting on Tuesday, Emory said that one student in particular, because of his highly unusual needs, had to be placed in a specialized school outside of the state of Connecticut.

Although the state will reimburse the district 77 percent of the cost of special education for up to 4.5 times the cost to educate a regular education student, Emory said that because the school is outside of the state, it doesn’t qualify for reimbursement.

Board of Education member Chris Rivers said he had spoken to the chair of the legislature’s Education Committee, and said he was “optimistic” about the possibility of getting some relief at the state level.

Board members also discussed whether it would be possible to use some of the money put aside from the district’s budget each year in a capital reserve fund. According to budget data, $2.4 million has been put aside in the capital reserve fund over the last 10 years, but Migliaccio said she’s not sure how much of that money has been spent over time.

One resident also raised the possibility of using money from the town’s undesignated fund balance, which currently contains about $8 million.

But Board of Finance member Mike Egan warned against using the undesignated fund balance for one-time expenses. Board of Finance member Art Shilosky also said that using the undesignated fund balance to balance a budget could put the town’s bond rating in jeopardy.

Board of Education member Margo Gignac said she has watched the services available in the district decrease overtime, and has seen the differences in the schools between when her oldest child and her younger children attended — fewer English teachers, a loss of a guidance counselor, music, gym and art teachers. She pointed out that the district used to have an alternative program for students who weren’t successful in traditional school, and also used to have free preschool. The Gifted and Talented program, she said, has also been cut.

“Over a decade … of watching [my kids] go through the schools, volunteering at the school and seeing how every single year they are doing more with less, we’re just at a point that there is no more you can do. You can only pinch that penny so far,” she said.

Gignac told CT Examiner that with the struggles that students faced during COVID, both academically and emotionally, was another reason the district shouldn’t be cutting its funding.

“We just have such great administrators in our district and such a good, solid group of teachers and it’d really be a shame to see that fall apart because we didn’t want to make that investment into our own community,” said Gignac.

Board of Finance member Tim Vaillencourt said that despite the discussion at the meeting, he was still disinclined to vote for the 9.83 percent increase.

“To be honest, I just don’t think that kind of increase is responsible and sustainable for the entirety of the population,” said Vaillencourt. “A lot of people in this room said they don’t mind paying the extra money … They could afford it. I could if I had to. I don’t want to, but I could. But there’s a lot of people that can’t.”

But Board of Finance member Mike Egan told CT Examiner that while the board should look for potential reductions, they needed to be aware that inflation was affecting everything.

“Especially in these times, we have to be very cognizant of the fact that there’s a lot of inflationary pressure on not just salaries, but also everything else that goes into a Board of Education budget,” said Egan. “So I think we have to look for efficiencies where we can find them … [but] you can only find so many efficiencies without actually getting to the meat and potatoes, which is the programs and the teachers, essentially.”

The Board of Finance will discuss the education budget in its regular meeting on April 12 at 7 p.m.

Emilia Otte covers health and education for the Connecticut Examiner. In 2022 Otte was awarded "Rookie of the Year," by the New England Newspaper & Press Association.

[email protected]

Search Department of Education

Search the current Agency with a Keyword

Filtered Topic Search

(Hartford, CT) - The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Charles E. Hewes as the new Deputy Commissioner for Academics and Innovation. Dr. Hewes is an innovative educational leader who has experience building systems for continuous instructional improvement. He hopes to utilize his skills of multitiered, data-informed decision-making, comprehensive curriculum design, and professional learning delivery models to address student learning outcomes statewide.

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Hewes began his career in education as a high school social studies teacher and athletic coach before transitioning to administration. He has held the roles of Assistant Principal, Acting Principal, Director of Teaching and Learning, and Assistant Superintendent. He joins the CSDE team from his most recent role as the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment at Colchester Public Schools, where he led the design and implementation of a K-12 instructional coaching delivery model, a teacher leadership development program, and the revision of curriculum from preschool to grade 12.

Dr. Hewes has extensive experience working with whole-school change models centered on supporting all learners to develop skills in reading and math. He has worked with district teams and external partners to improve equity and to support student wellness. He has also worked with school-based teams to provide workforce development pipelines for students in partnership with the Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board (EWIB), the programs of which included expanding opportunities for students in computer sciences, public service, and modern-day manufacturing.

Beyond his work in public schools, Dr. Hewes has served as a lecturer at Central Connecticut State University in the teaching and educational leadership master's programs. As Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Hewes will be responsible for leading the Academic, Performance, and Turnaround Offices, as well as the Office of Strategic Planning and Partnerships.

"Dr. Charles E. Hewes brings innovative leadership, data-driven decision-making, and a focus on comprehensive curriculum design to the Connecticut State Department of Education,” said Education Commissioner Charlene M. Russell-Tucker. “His dedication to improving student outcomes and building systems of continuous instructional improvement make him a valuable leader within the Department who will inspire positive change and collaboration statewide, ensuring the best educational opportunities for Connecticut students."

Dr. Hewes earned his bachelor's degree in history/secondary education from Rhode Island College, where he was awarded the Evelyn Walsh Prize in History as an undergraduate. He obtained his master’s, sixth-year certificate, and doctorate in educational leadership from Central Connecticut State University. His dissertation focused on the effects of educator feedback on student writing, and he presented his research nationally at the American Educational Research Association’s Annual Conference.

“I’m excited to join the Commissioner and her talented leadership team to make a difference in our students’ lives. Connecticut students and their schools have a lot to be proud of,” said Deputy Commissioner Charles E. Hewes. “I hope that the relationships I can build with the educators and organizations across the state will afford all our schools the opportunity to learn and grow from each other to the benefit of our students!”

Dr. Hewes’s family moved frequently when he was a child, but he considers East Hampton, Connecticut, as the town in which he grew up. He is proud to say that he was raised by a librarian for a father and a teacher for a mother, and that education runs “deep in his blood” being a fourth-generation teacher. He is also proud of his six years of service in the United States Coast Guard Reserves and his current role as his son’s Cub Scout den leader. He and his wife have been married nearly ten years, and they are “enjoying growing up all over again” with their seven-year-old son and four-year-old daughter.

Dr. Hewes will start work in the agency in the coming weeks as he transitions out of his role at Colchester Public Schools. For more information about the Connecticut State Department of Education visit https://portal.ct.gov/SDE.