Mansfield OKs land deal

The town is now poised to purchase a 3.9­ acre property if it is not sold at a tax sale after the town council approved a possible expenditure last week.

After hearing no opposition dur­ing a public hearing Feb. 14, the council unanimously approved the property deal in hopes of preserv­ing wildlife in the area.

The property, owned by the es­tate of Lawrence J. Penner Jr., is slated for a tax sale in the near future and the town could acquire the site if it receives no bids.

The current owners of the prop­erty, with an assessed value of $10,220, have not paid taxes to the town for 10 years and currently owe $3,240 in taxes.

The town has attempted to con­tact the owners to collect taxes or negotiate a transfer, but have not been successful because the own­ers currently live out of state.

The land – which is located in between Jonathan Lane and White Oak and Fieldstone Drives – con­tains a portion of an Atlantic White Cedar Swamp.

Kenneth Metzler, an ecologist with the state Department of En­vironmental Protection, said in a letter to the town the swamp area offers habitat for “state-listed spe­cies” or those considered endan­gered or rare. Mansfield Open Space Preser­vation Committee Chairman Jim Morrow told the council the site is home to some “very important wildlife,” but also said the DEP does not release specific informa­tion about an endangered species.

The town did not hear any objec­tions to the possible purchase dur­ing the hearing, but one resident offered to sell the town another parcel of property in the vicinity of the Penner property.

The resident, Robert Roberge, said the town currently has an affordable housing covenant on a property he owns on White Oak Drive.

He said the covenant has made it difficult for him to sell the parcel.

Roberge asked the council to either remove the covenant or pur­chase the roughly 1-acre property. Town Manager Matthew Hart said in a memo to the council the town is currently scheduling a tax sale for the Penner property and state law prohibits the town from bidding on the site during the sale.

The town can choose to acquire the property after the tax sale if it receives no bids and Hart said in the memo the acquisition, includ­ing attorney’s fees, would cost approximately $5,000.

Posted 3-2-2011

So far, Regional School District 19 won't cut April vacation

Even after missing seven days of school so far this year, the Regional School District 19 Board of Education is hoping to keep its April vacation intact.

But that will depend on the weather, as any future snow days would result in classes at E.O. Smith High School during the break, starting with April 18.

The board did agree during its Feb. 15 meeting to change March 21 from a professional development day to an instructional day for students.

Board member Janice Chamber­lain abstained, while members Frank Krasicki, Elizabeth McCosh-Lilie and Mike Sibigia were not present. All other members approved the change.

E.O. Smith has had to miss seven days of classes due to inclement weather and the board decided to make up the rest of the days at the end of the year. As a result, gradu­ation will now be on June 23.

D19 Superintendent Francis Archambault said the graduation was slated for June 24, but parents of students involved in field trips after the school year expressed concerns about letting students participate in graduation.

Archambault said the June 24 date would have created schedul­ing conflicts for the students on the two trips, including a German exchange field trip.

He also said the board did not want to let those two field trips “drive” the decision by themselves and said he feels the decision “makes the most sense” for every­one in the school district.

“We kind of considered most alternatives, if not all,” he said.

The board decided not to utilize April vacation for now, but agreed to reserve April 18 through April 21 as make-up days should E.O. Smith need to cancel any more days of classes. April 22 is Good Friday.

The school boards in Mansfield, Ashford and Willington, the three sending towns in Region 19, all agreed to utilize February vaca­tion to account for the snow days in their district, as well as other changes to their calendars.
Posted 3-2-2011

Town wants two new schools – Mansfield council OKs plan, but no sites

Town councilors have approved a two-school concept for a referendum in May, but stopped short of saying where those two proposed elementary schools would go.

During Monday’s (Feb. 28) council meeting, Councilman William Ryan’s motion to send the two-school option to a referen­dum passed by a 6-3 vote.

But, it was based “on the provision” the council select the two sites by its March 14 meeting.

But after failing to get a majority on two of the three scenarios presented, the council decided to adjourn the meeting after four hours and reconsider the sites before forcing a decision.

School board Chairman Mark LaPlaca urged the council to consider the three scenarios for a site before making a vote, saying each location has its “pluses and minuses.”

Council members also said they want­ed to seek public input from residents.

The proposed location of the two new elementary schools would impact the price tag because the town would need to purchase more land if it wanted to place a school at the Dorothy C. Goodwin site, raising the proposal by $450,000.

The other sites discussed are the cur­rent locations of Annie E. Vinton and Southeast elementary schools.

Without the purchase of land around Goodwin, located on Hunting Lodge Road, the two-school project currently has an estimated price of $57,629,000.

The project would also include reno­vations to Mansfield Middle School.

Current projections call for a state reimbursement grant of 58.4 percent, meaning the town would be respon­sible for $23.98 million of construction costs.

With bonding costs, the project would have a $37.49 million price tag for the town, but also would have more than $15.6 million in savings after con­solidating the three elementary schools into two.

The council learned Monday it could get the current reimbursement rate from the state if residents approve a project in May, not the reduced rate in Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s budget.

Councilmen Christopher Paulhus, Meredith Lindsey and Denise Keane – participating via phone – all voted against the proposal, saying they were worried about the costs of the project.

Lindsey said the council needed to balance educational and finan­cial obligations, and all three sup­ported renovating the three ele­mentary schools and MMS over 20 years, funding the project with cash and not through bonding.

But that motion was defeated by a 3-6 vote.

The three Republican council­men, though, pointed to a pos­sible budget forecast from Town Manager Matthew Hart and Finance Director Cherry Trahan that looked at other possible projects and expenses in the future.

Hart noted the town is also looking at other issues in town, including water service for the area around the intersection of routes 44 and 195, increases in funding for the fund balance and capital improvement plan, and possible additions to the town’s resident trooper program.

Council Vice Chairman Antonia Moran pressed Hart for his own view, and Hart, a member of the school building committee, noted he had endorsed an option to build one large elementary school in March 2010.

The forecast, based on the two-­school option, calls for the budget to increase to $52.4 million in the 2015-16 fiscal year, a projected increase of 7.9 percent over the previous year, and a correspond­ing 11.06 percent tax increase.

Under the forecast, the budget would reach $60 million in the 2020-21 fiscal year, with a projected tax rate of 38.48 mills.

Councilman Peter Kochenburger said the forecast was based on a “wish list” of items for the town and the council likely would not complete all the projects and upgrades.

LaPlaca and some councilmen, meanwhile, said they expected the Storrs Center project to produce more than a 1 percent increase in the grand list annually, the rate Hart and Trahan used to calculate mill rates.

Councilmen favoring the two­school option said they wanted to take advantage of the current state reimbursement rate after learning they could get the rate with refer­endum approval by May.

Project architect Rick Lawrence, of The Lawrence Associates, pro­vided the council with an email from the state Bureau of School Facilities saying current legisla­tion says the town gets the rate in place at the time a project is approved by residents.

The town would then need approval from the state legislature and the school facilities bureau, but the email states the town would be locked into the 58.4 percent rate under current legislation.

Lawrence said many other towns have approved projects in recent months and would be on the same timeline as Mansfield.

He said he finds it unlikely the state would pass legislation and retroactively reduce rates for those projects.

Councilmen, meanwhile, noted they could pull the project back if the state does change the rates and substantially increases the town’s costs.

Malloy’s proposed rate of 47.4 percent would mean $6.35 mil­lion less in state aid for a two­-school project, and many coun­cilmen originally opposed to the price tag under Malloy’s figure supported it Monday night.

LaPlaca, meanwhile, noted a move to build two new schools would result in roughly $11 mil­lion in staffing reductions and $4.6 million in maintenance sav­ings, which Trahan said would equate to $ 821,600 in savings annually over the 20-year bond.

Ryan was the only councilman voicing support for the one-school option, but also voted in favor of two schools after the council first voted 8-1 to abandon the one­-school option. The one-school option would cost $50.1 million, with the town’s share being $19.85 million.

Despite being less costly, the one-school option was not endorsed by town and education officials, citing a desire for the smaller neighborhood school con­cept.

Residents appeared split on whether to build two new elemen­tary schools or renovate the existing structures, but agreed during the public comment portion of Monday’s meeting they did not want one large school.

Ryan and others on the council also agreed they did not want to send a project to referendum without specifying the location of the two schools.

Ryan and Moran expressed con­cerns about the increased costs and uncertainty going forward if the town targeted the Goodwin site, as the town does not have the additional needed property yet.

But Kochenburger, Keane and Lindsey said they did not want a proposal resulting in no new school in the northern side of town for various reasons.

The council did vote against motions to place the schools at the Southeast and Goodwin sites, as well as at the Vinton and Southeast sites, but Town Clerk Mary Stanton said those motions can be made again.
Posted 3-2-2011

Mansfield Council still supports Masonicare

The town council agreed Monday (Feb. 28) to support a letter to Masonicare pledging its help to secure water for a possible senior-living complex, although some councilmen also reiterated they did not want to make any firm commitments.

The council supported the let­ter, written by Town Manager Matt Hart, which states the town is “committed to supporting the development” of a senior com­plex, including the issue of water supply.

Masonicare is currently looking to build a senior living complex, which could include assisted- liv­ing units, in town and has a pur­chase option for a 40-acre prop­erty on Maple Road.

The council selected Masoni­care, a nonprofit health-care pro­vider based in Wallingford, as its preferred developer for the project in July 2008.

But Masonicare has had dif­ficulty securing a water supply. A water test at the proposed site showed the location did not have enough ground water to support a community well.

The University of Connecticut, meanwhile, told the developer in February it could not provide water from its current system.

But Hart noted in his letter that Mansfield and UConn are cur­rently looking at potential water supplies for future developments, and the town may be able to pro­vide for Masonicare’s potential need.

The council agreed to support the letter, but not before ques­tioning whether Masonicare could target another property with more available water. Council Deputy Mayor Antonia Moran asked if Masonicare could target a property in the southern section of town near the Windham/Willimantic border.

Masonicare spokesman Margaret Steeves, though, said this morn­ing proximity to the senior center, Mansfield Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, UConn and other attractions is important.

“Really, the allure for most peo­ple is the lifestyle,” Steeves said of potential tenants, adding Windham Community Memorial Hospital is still nearby.

Steeves said seniors interested in a complex like the one pro­posed by Masonicare want to be near those attractions, which is why Masonicare is targeting the Maple Road site.

She also said Masonicare has extended its purchase option for the site, which expired Monday (Feb. 28), until March 31 while it explores options, including working with the town on a possible water sup­ply.

Councilman William Ryan said he supported the language of Hart’s letter, but he and others on the council also wanted to clarify the town was not committing to supply water in the future.

“We can’t promise that at this point,” he said.

Mansfield is currently looking at water options to help spark development at the Four Corners area near the intersection of Routes 44 and 195.

Town officials have said the goal is to find an alternative capa­ble of providing water to other developments in town, as well as possibly allowing the town to work with UConn on its needs for additional water.
Posted 3-2-2011