741 Colonel Ledyard Highway

Ledyard, Connecticut 06339

TOWN OF LEDYARD

Finance Committee

Meeting Minutes

Chairman

Kevin J. Dombrowski

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, April 5, 2023

5:00 PM

Town Hall Annex Building - Hybrid

Format

In -Person- Council Chambers, Town Hall Annex Building

Join Zoom Meeting from your Computer, Smart Phone or Tablet:

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83407479266?

pwd=WE0yTm94bU1oNEJHSG81MmhCWnBmQT09

by Audio Only: Telephone: +1 646 558 8656; Meeting ID: 834 0747 9266; Passcode:

525836

CALL TO ORDER

the Meeting was called to order by Councilor Saums at 5:00 p.m. at

the Council Chambers Town Hall Annex Building.

Councilor Saums welcomed all to the Hybrid Meeting. He stated for the Town Council

Finance Committee and members of the Public who were participating via video

conference that the remote meeting information was available on the Agenda that was

posted on the Town’s Website - Granicus-Legistar Meeting Portal.

II.

ROLL CALL

Councilor Bill Saums

Councilor Andra Ingalls

Councilor Tim Ryan

Present:

Excused:

In addition, the following were present:

S. Naomi RodriguezTown Councilor

Matt Bonin Finance Director

Steve Masalin Public Works Director/Town Engineer

Karen GoetchuisNursing Administrator

Scott Johnson, JrDirector Senior Citizens & Parks & Recreation

Gary Schneider Permanent Municipal Building Committee Chairman

Joe GushPermanent Municipal Building Committee

Wayne Donaldson Board of Education Director of Facilities & Grounds

Roxanne MaherAdministrative Assistant

III.

IV.

RESIDENTS & PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS

None.

PRESENTATIONS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

None.

Board of Education Year-to-Date Report- 4/3/2023

RECEIVED AND FILED

RESULT:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MOTION to approve the following:

Fiscal Year Budget Work Session Minutes March 9, 2023

Fiscal Year Budget Work Session Minutes of March 13, 2023

Fiscal Year Budget Work Session Minutes of March 20, 2023

Finance Committee Special Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2023.

Moved by Councilor Ingalls, seconded by Councilor Saums

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Andra Ingalls

RESULT:

MOVER:

Bill Saums

SECONDER:

Saums and Ingalls

Ryan

AYE:

EXCUSED:

VI.

FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

Finance Director Matthew Bonin reported that Colliers Project Leaders have been

continuing to assist the Town in working with the State to close-out the Schools

Consolidation/Improvement Projects (Middle School & Gallup Hill School). He stated

they expect the State to release $6 - $7 million of the $10 million they owed to the town

in the near future. Councilor Saums stated this was good news, noting that the grant

reimbursement funding from the State has been a long time coming.

VII. FINANCIAL REPORT

None

Financial Reports

Revenue Year to Date Report vs. Actuals- March 31, 2023

Expenditure - Year to Date Report vs. Actuals - March 31, 2023

IX.

OLD BUSINESS

Continued discussion regarding the status and possible changes to Capital Improvement Plan

(CIP) and Capital Non-Recurring (CNR) Fund based on the American Rescue Act Funding

(ARPA) and the process to approve ARPA Projects and expend ARPA Funding.

No Action.

NO ACTION

RESULT:

Any other Old Business proper to come before the Committee.

None.

VX. NEW BUSINESS

MOTION to approve appropriation from the receipt of sales of vehicles and equipment

through GovDeals in the total amount of $11,300 to the Public Works Small Truck CNR

Account 21040101-57313.

Moved by Councilor Ingalls, seconded by Councilor Saums

Discussion: Councilor Saums stated the town received $11,300 from the GovDeals

on-line auction sale for the 2011 Ford E350 Van, which was formerly the Public

Works Department Buildings & Grounds services vehicle.

Public Works Director/Town Engineer Steve Masalin stated at their October 12, 2022

meeting the Town Council authorized the purchase ($72,036.90) of a 2023 Ford

Econoline Cutaway Truck with a utility body to replace the Buildings & Grounds

2011 Ford E350 Van. He stated this revenue was anticipated to make the account

whole. He stated the Public Works Department has reduced their fleet by one vehicle.

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved and so declared

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

Andra Ingalls

RESULT:

MOVER:

Bill Saums

SECONDER:

Saums and Ingalls

Ryan

AYE:

EXCUSED:

Discussion and possible action to increase one Senior Center Van Driver to full-time.

Moved by Councilor Ingalls, seconded by Councilor Saums

Discussion: Senior Citizens Director Scott Johnson Jr., explained that the Senior

Citizens Center has seen an increase in the demand for transportation services. He

stated making one of the Van Drivers full-time would allow the Senior Citizens

Center to increase their service hours and accommodate more medical rides. He

stated should the merger of the Senior Citizens Commission and the Parks &

Recreation Commission move forward, that they had initially proposed moving the

funds from the Community Health & Welfare Programs Account into the Van Driver

line to cover the cost for the increased full-time hours. However, he stated if the

town received the Senior Resources Agency on Aging -Title 3 Grant funding that

they would be able increase the Van Driver’s hours to full-time without having to use

the Community Health & Welfare funds.

Mr. Johnson went on to explain that $8,000 has been included in the upcoming Fiscal

Year 2023/2024 Budget for the Van Driver, which they could use for the town’s

local match to receive the grant funding. He stated the town would be eligible to

apply/receive the Senior Resources Agency on Aging -Title 3 Grant for three

consecutive years with the percentage of the funding slightly decreasing each year

(85%; 80%; 75%).

Councilor Saums questioned once the town has completed the three-year grant cycle

whether they would be eligible to reapply for the grant program. Mr. Johnson

explained that the Senior Resources Agency on Aging -Title 3 Grant was for new

programs.

Councilor Saums questioned whether the Senior Citizens Center received any

revenues for providing transportation for medical appointments, or whether it was

strictly a service that they provided to the Senior Citizens. Mr. Johnson stated

because the Van was purchased using Grant Funding that they were not allowed to

charge for providing transportation to medical appointments. However, he stated they

do accept donations for the rides; noting that some riders will give a dollar for the

ride.

Councilor Ingalls stated using grant funding for wages was always tricky, noting that

once the grant funding has been exhausted the cost then becomes the town’s cost.

Therefore, she questioned the funding plan for the full-time Van Driver once the

Senior Resources Agency on Aging -Title 3 Grant has ended. Mr. Johnson stated

once the Senior Resources Agency on Aging -Title 3 Grant ended that the Senior

Citizens Center would like to continue the full-time Van Driver. Therefore, he stated

they would add the wages for the full-time position into the annual budget.

Mr. Johnson went on to explain because they were uncertain of the outcome of the

proposal to combine the Senior Citizens Commission with the Parks & Recreation

Commission that for next fiscal year (23/24) he has submitted two separate budget

and he explained the following:

· Senior Citizens programs were subsidized by taxpayers’ dollars (a few years ago

the budget was reduced from $14,000 to $10,000 per year); and the fees for the

Programs were not breaking even. The cost of the Senior Citizens Health and

Welfare Programs cost about $14,000 per year; therefore, the Senior Citizens

Center budget included $14,000 for Senior Center Health and Welfare Programs.

· Parks & Recreation’s programs were self-sufficient, with 80% of the program

fees going to the instructor and 20% going to the Parks & Recreation Special

Revenue Fund. The 20% of the Parks & Recreation program fees had been being

used to pay for their independent quarterly magazine that advertised their

Programs.

Mr. Johnson went on to explain because the quarterly Events Magazine was now

being paid for by the advertisements, that he proposed using the 20% collected

from the Parks & Recreation programs, that was previously being used to

independently advertise the Parks & Recreation Programs, to off-set the cost of

the Senior Citizens programs that were currently not breaking even. He stated by

using 20% collected from the Parks & Recreation programs for the Senior

Citizens programs that the $14,000 of taxpayer dollars that were being budgeted

to support the Senior Citizens Health and Welfare Programs could be then used to

pay for the full-time Van Driver for the Senior Center.

Councilor Saums provided an overview noting that the revenue received from the

Parks & Recreation Programs could be used to support the Senior Citizens Health

and Welfare Programs. The funding that was being budgeted to off-set the cost

Senior Citizens Health and Welfare Programs would then be used to pay for the

full-time Van Driver for the Senior Citizens.

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved and so declared

Councilor Saums thanked Mr. Johnson, Jr. for attending tonight’s meeting.

Senior Citizens & Parks & Recreation Director Mr. Johnson, Jr. left the meeting at

5:13 p.m.

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

Andra Ingalls

RESULT:

MOVER:

Bill Saums

SECONDER:

Saums and Ingalls

Ryan

AYE:

EXCUSED:

MOTION to grant a Bid Waiver to STV Construction Inc. not to exceed $91,496 due to

receiving fewer than the required three bids in response to Bid #LPS 23-01 (Owner’s

Representative Services for Select Capital Projects,), in accordance with Ordinance

#200-001 (rev 1) “An Ordinance for Purchasing”.

Moved by Councilor Ingalls, seconded by Councilor Saums

Discussion: Councilor Saums explained when the town received fewer than the

required three bids that a bid waiver was required. He stated in response to Bid #LPS

23-01 (Owner’s Representative Services for Select Capital Projects) that only two

bids were received. However, he stated that he had some questions regarding the

process, noting that the PMBC has requested a bid waiver for STV Construction,

Inc., whose original bid came in at $141,470; but after several meetings the price was

negotiated down to $91,496. However, he stated the original proposal submitted by

other Bidder, Colliers Project Leaders, came in at $63,301, but the PMBC did not

negotiate with that Firm.

Councilor Saums went to state that although they had the right to select the best value

for the taxpayer, and not necessarily the lowest cost, that he had concerns with the

mechanics of negotiating with the highest bidder, but not also negotiating the lowest

bidder. He stated when this has happened in the past the Finance Committee has

rejected the request for the bid waiver because they had only negotiated with one of

the bidders.

Mr. Gary Schneider, Permanent Municipal Building Committee (PMBC) Chairman,

101 Inchcliffe Drive, Gales Ferry, stated the PMBC via the Board of Education

issued an RFQ/RFP for the “Owner’s Representative Services for Select Capital

Projects” on January 13, 2023 for the Board of Education Roof Replacement Projects

for the Central Office and the Juliet W. Long School. He explained the RFQ was a

two-part request: (Part A) Qualifications; and (Part B) Dollar Value. He stated the

dollar value part was kept in a sealed envelope that was held by Board of Education

Director of Facilities and Grounds Wayne Donaldson.

Mr. Schneider stated the PMBC interviewed both Firms noting that they were both

very qualified. He stated during the interviews the PMBC discussed with both Firms

what their process/procedure would be; and he noted the following:

STV Construction, Inc. - Mr. Schneider stated STV Construction, Inc., was willing

and included in their proposal having a full-time inspector on-site while the roof was

being installed, noting that the roof was the most valuable piece of the building

envelope.

Collier’s Project Leaders - Mr. Schneider stated Colliers Projects Leaders stated that

since they knew both of the roofing contractors, and because they knew that both of

the contractors were good, that their process would be to have a person drive/stop by

to see that they were starting the work right, and then leave, noting that Colliers

proposal included 2 - 4 hours of an inspector on each of the roof projects.

Mr. Schneider went on to state because they had issues with the roofs for the Schools

Consolidation/Improvement Projects (Middle School & Gallup Hill School) that the

PMBC was not comfortable with Colliers Project Leaders approach. He stated the

PMBC did ask Colliers what the cost would be to have a full-time inspector on the

roofs. However, he stated Colliers’s response was that a full-time inspector on the

roofs was not needed and that they would not recommend it, and it was left it at that.

Mr. Schneider stated based on the interviews and not knowing the bid proposal

prices, because they were in sealed envelopes, that the PMBC selected STV

Construction, Inc. He stated the proposals were as follows:

· Collier’s Project Leaders $63,301

· STV Construction, Inc. $141,470

Mr. Schneider stated because the PMBC thought $141,470 was high they authorized

Board of Education Director of Facilities and Grounds Wayne Donaldson to invite

STV Construction, Inc., back. He stated they had a good discussion, noting that the

PMBC told STV Construction, Inc., that they did not think they needed the added

expense of having their Project Manager on-site, and so they came back with a lower

price. He stated that the PMBC asked Mr. Donaldson to go back one more time to

STV Construction, Inc., to ask what their price would be to have an inspector on the

job full-time while the roofer was there, and having the Project Manger provide

oversight to make sure the paperwork was correct. He stated STV Construction, Inc.,

came back with the $91,496 proposal, which was higher than Colliers Project

Leaders’ proposal. However, he stated the STV Construction’s, Inc., proposal

included having the inspector on the job full-time.

Mr. Schneider went on to state that the PMBC was comfortable with how STV

Construction, Inc., was going to move thru the projects, noting that the town would

only be billed for the hours that the roofers were on the job. He stated the PMBC also

asked Board of Education Director of Facilities and Grounds Wayne Donaldson to

monitor the projects, monitor the time the roofers were on the job, and to work with

the Firm to ensure they used the minimum amount of hours to do a good job in

completing the projects.

Mr. Schneider stated to get an idea of what Colliers Project Leaders proposal would

have been if they added a full-time inspector to their cost that he doubled their price

for the 2-4 hours (8-hours) which came out to a little more than STV Construction

Inc., proposal, noting that the two proposals would be about the same.

Mr. Schneider continued by addressing the cost for the Architect to watch the

instruction portion of the project and to handle the paperwork for the roof projects.

He stated although the Architect would have to be on-site to verify that the work was

being done to the specifications, that they did not want to have duplicate inspections.

Therefore, he explained by having a full-time inspector on-site that it would be less

time that the Architect would need to be on-site minimizing the cost for the

Architect. He stated that they have not solicited bids for the Architect work yet.

Mr. Schneider stated the PMBC believed that they gave Colliers Project Leaders

every opportunity to come back with another price. He concluded his comments by

stating that the PMBC selected STV Construction, Inc., based on all the reasons he

explained this evening.

Councilor Saums stated that this was an interesting case noting that with the Schools

Consolidation/Improvement Projects (Middle School & Gallup Hill School) they

learned that the town should have had some professional oversight. Therefore, he

stated for the Board of Education’s Roof Replacement Projects they were looking to

hire a company to oversee the contractor. However, he stated what makes this

interesting was the following:

Colliers Project Leaders - Councilor Saums stated Colliers was the Firm that was

looking over the work that was done by O&G Industries on the Schools

Consolidation/Improvement Projects (Middle School & Gallup Hill School) to

close out the Projects in preparation for the State’s Audit as it pertained to

receiving the Grant Reimbursement Funding. Councilor Saums stated Colliers

Project Leaders was doing a good job for the town, noting that they were finding

the errors that were made by not having a Project Manager on-site. He stated

Colliers Project Leaders work was known by the town; however, they were not

specifically asked to come back with a second or third proposal, as STV

Construction, Inc., was. He stated he understands that PMBC Chairman Schneider

did the calculation to add a full-time inspector to Colliers Project Leaders’

proposed cost.

· STV Construction’s, Inc., - Councilor Saums stated their work was not known by

the town, but the PMBC asked them to come back with a second and third

proposal.

Councilor Saums stated because the proposals were now made public that it would be

difficult to ask Colliers Project Leaders to come back with a second price. He stated

the process should have been to ask Colliers Project Leaders to provide a second

proposal that included a full-time inspector on-site to provide a fair and equitable

process. Mr. Schneider acknowledged that Colliers Project Leaders was doing an

excellent job with preparing the Schools Consolidation/ Improvement Projects

(Middle School & Gallup Hill School) for the State Audit, noting that they know

everything about what was required for the filing of State Grants, etc. However, he

stated in interviewing the two Firms for the Roof Replacement Projects (Colliers

Project Leaders and STV Construction, Inc.) that the PMBC felt that STV

Construction interviewed well, and the PMBC was more comfortable with how STV

Construction, Inc. was going to manage the roof replacement projects.

Councilor Saums stated his experience with Requests for Proposals (RFP) was that

some companies interview well, and some do not interview well; they respond to bids

well and they do not respond to bids well; and they do jobs well and they do jobs

poorly. Therefore, he stated because the town had experience with using Colliers

Project Leaders that he would like to know what their price would be if the town gave

them the same requirements to include a full-time inspector to bring the two bid

specifications up to the same expectations. Mr. Schneider stated that they could go

back to Colliers Project Leaders.

Councilor Ingalls questioned whether the initial Bid Specifications called for a

full-time inspector on-site. Mr. Schneider stated in the Requests for Proposals that

they were looking for the scope of work that the Firms would provide, stating that he

did not believe the Bid #LPS 23-01 (Owner’s Representative Services for Select

Capital Projects) was detailed to specifically ask for a full-time inspector. Board of

Education Director of Facilities and Grounds Wayne Donaldson stated the LPS

Request was not specific and did not call for a full-time inspector on-site. He stated

the LPS Request asked for the following:

· Inspect the work

· Attend the Construction Meetings

· Review the Plans

· Follow the Project thru to the State Audit

Mr. Donaldson commented on the issues they had with the new roofs for the Schools

Consolidation/ Improvement Projects (Middle School & Gallup Hill School), noting

that areas had to be cut out and replaced. Therefore, he stated although the roof

manufacturer provided a 25-year warrantee, they have brand new roofs that look like

they have already been patched.

Councilor Saums requested the PMBC ask Colliers Project Leaders to provide a

second proposal that included a full-time inspector on-site to level the specifications

and provide a fair and equitable process.

Mr. Donaldson stated Colliers Project Leaders’ proposal included an inspector for

20-hours for each of the two roof projects (Board of Education Central Office and

Juliet W. Long School).

MOTION to withdraw the

MOTION to recommend the Town Council grant a Bid Waiver to STV Construction

Inc., not to exceed $91,496 due to receiving fewer than the required three bids in

response to Bid #LPS 23-01 (Owner’s Representative Services for Select Capital

Projects,), in accordance with Ordinance #200-001 (rev 1) “An Ordinance for

Purchasing”.

Moved by Councilor Ingalls, seconded by Councilor Saums

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved to Withdraw

Councilor Saums thanked Mr. Schneider, Mr. Gush, and Mr. Donaldson for attending

tonight’s meeting.

PMBC Chairman Gary Schneider. PMBC Member Joe Gush, and Board of Education

Director of Facilities and Grounds Wayne Donaldson left the meeting at 5:31 p.m.

WITHDRAWN

RESULT:

MOTION to overspend account 10110205-53610 Specialty Approved Counsel through June

30, 2023.

Moved by Councilor Ingalls, seconded by Councilor Saums

Discussion: Councilor Saums stated that the Specialty Approved Counsel Account covered

labor attorney fees, land use attorney fees, tax attorney fees and other specialty counsel. He

stated the Fiscal Year 2022/2023 Budget included $30,000 for these expenses. He stated to

date the Account had an expended balance of $31,086; which did not include the

outstanding invoices for February from both Shipman & Goodwin (labor); and Fahey &

Landolina (land use).

Councilor Saums explained that the Land Use Department incurred significant costs

this year for the rewriting of the Zoning Regulations as well as the Subdivision

Regulation rewrite. He also noted that there were several technical applications that

required legal counsel and that Labor Counsel was also required for several

outstanding labor issues.

Councilor Saums went on to state although he did not like to overspend accounts that

the town’s practice for these types of expenses has been not budget everything they

might spend because companies look at municipal budgets. He stated by authorizing

to overspend an account, when needed, kept the law firms guessing on what the town

was willing to spend and it kept everyone honest.

Councilor Ingalls stated she understood the strategy to not include an “up-to” amount

to overspend an Account. However, she stated if Councilor Ryan was present this

evening that his point would be that they were voting “yes” without stating a budget

number; and therefore, she wanted to say it for him.

Councilor Saums stated that Councilor Ryan would also question where the

additional funds to overspend the Account were coming from.

Finance Director Matthew Bonin explained that it was difficult to project what the

costs would be to cover the expenses to the end of the fiscal year. He noted that the

funds would come from under spent accounts at year-end.

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved and so declared

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

Andra Ingalls

RESULT:

MOVER:

Bill Saums

SECONDER:

Saums and Ingalls

Ryan

AYE:

EXCUSED:

MOTION to approve a tax refund in the amount of $5085.18 exceeding $2,400.00 in

accordance with tax collector department procedures.

James & Valerie Hazlin - Double Payment - $5,085.18

Moved by Councilor Ingalls, seconded by Councilor Saums

Discussion: Councilor Saums stated in accordance with policies established for the

Tax Collection Department, that refunds to taxpayer exceeding $2,400 need to be

approved by the Town Council. He stated, as noted in the motion, that this was a case

of a double payment in which both the property owner and the mortgage/escrow

company paid the taxes. Therefore, he stated a refund was in order.

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved and so declared

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

Andra Ingalls

RESULT:

MOVER:

Bill Saums

SECONDER:

Saums and Ingalls

Ryan

AYE:

EXCUSED:

Continued discussion regarding potential uses of the revenue received from Public Act

No.21-58 “An Act Concerning Solid Waste Management” in accordance with “Resolution

Regarding Revenues Received from Beverage Container Surcharges” adopted on June 8,

2022.

Councilor Saums provided some background noting that the “Bottle Bill” (Public

Act No. 21-58 - An Act Concerning Solid Waste Management”) implemented a

five-cent surcharge on any beverage container containing a spirit or liquor of fifty

milliliters. He explained that the State’s initial proposal was to place a .25 cent

deposit on nip bottles. However, he stated the .25 cent nip bottle deposit failed

because the Liquor Lobbyists successfully convinced the State to instead give money

the towns to pay for the clean-up of the nip bottles that litter the sides of the roads.

Councilor Saums went on to explain that based on the “Bottle Bill” (Public Act No.

21-58 - An Act Concerning Solid Waste Management”) the State approved 0.5 cent

surcharge on each bottle noting that every six-months the State would disburse the

surcharge fee to the town in which the beverages were sold. He stated the last

disbursement Ledyard received was in the amount of $13,027.06 which was for the

sale of 260,541 nip bottles during that period. He stated in accordance with Public

Act No.21-58 and Ledyard’s Resolution #003-2022-June 8 the surcharge funds could

only be used for the following purposes:

(1) Environmental measures intended to reduce the generation of solid waste;

(2) Reduce the impact of litter caused by such solid waste, including, but not limited

to, the hiring of a recycling coordinator

(3) The installation of storm drain filters designed to block solid waste and beverage

container debris or

(4) The purchase of a mechanical street sweeper, vacuum or broom that removes

litter, including, but not limited to, such beverage containers and other debris

from streets, sidewalks and abutting lawn and turf.

Councilor Saums went on to explain that the surcharge revenue was being

appropriated to Account 21040101-57316 (Beverage Container Surcharges) and

that the funds could accumulate in the Account until the town decided on a plan to

spend the funds. He stated the purpose for tonight’s discussion was to discuss ideas

on how to spend the funds.

The Committee discussed the following ideas for the use of the Bottle Bill

Revenues:

· Collect the nip bottle and deposit them on the steps of the Capital in Hartford.

· Offer Residents 0.25 cents per nip bottle they pick-up from the roads, until the

money was used up. The following was discussed regarding this idea:

o Ask Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resource Recovery Authority

(SCRRRA) to provide the clear plastic bags for the town’s roadside

clean-up; which SCRRRA has done in past years.

o Ask Residents to put the nip bottles in the clear plastic bags.

o Who would count the bottles, it’s a dirty job.

· Street Sweeping - Public Works Director/Town Engineer Steve Masalin stated in

consultation with Finance Director Matthew Bonin that some of the Bottle Bill

revenues were already being spent to rent a Street Sweeper, noting that this was

one of the state statutory eligible uses. He stated it would take them about one

month to

sweep the entire town and the cost would use about one-third of the annual

accrual Bottle Bill revenues. He stated in December, 2022 the town sold the

2000 Mobil Athey Sweeper for $15,000 using the GovDeals on-line auction site.

He addressed the cost to house and maintain a piece of equipment that the town

only used for one month out of the year, noting that it may be more cost effective

to rent a sweeper. However, he stated that this opinion may change now that the

State Legislation would allow the town to use the Bottle Bill Revenue to

purchase a sweeper. He stated with availability of an annual $30,000 from the

Bottle Bill Revenues that they may be able to finance a sweeper well within its

replacement cycle along with the associated maintenance costs.

Councilor Saums stated that he liked spending the funding to pay for roadside

sweeping, however, he stated that sweeping the streets did not fix the problem

of nip bottles littering their roads.

· Town Sanctioned Community Roadside Clean-up Day - Councilor Ingalls stated

a few years ago the Beautification Committee organized a Community Roadside

Clean-up Event, noting that they asked for Street Captains, Neighborhood

Captains, trash bags were provided, etc. She stated they had a great response

noting the tremendous number of residents that turned out to participate in the

event. She suggested the Community Clean-Up Day could concluded on the

Town Green where prizes would be awarded for a variety of categories such as:

Strangest Item Picked Up; the Most Number of Nip Bottles, etc. She stated the

Event could be funded by the Bottle Bill Revenues. She stated that they could ask

the Beautification Committee if they would like to organize this type of event.

Councilor Saums stated Earth Day was April 22, 2023, noting that they would not

have enough time this year to organize a Community Clean-Up Day to happen on

Earth Day. Councilor Ingalls stated the Beautification Committee had a lot of new

members and that they were working to get themselves organized. She stated

although Spring was a good time of year to have a Community Clean-Up Day

because vegetation has not grown in yet, that the Community Clean-Up Day

could be scheduled for any time noting that maybe it could be held in the Fall for

this year.

Councilor Saums thanked Mr. Masalin for attending tonight’s meeting.

Public Works Director/Town Engineer Steve Masalin left the meeting at 5:52 p.m.

CONTINUE

RESULT:

Discussion regarding potential uses for the funding received from the National Opioid

Settlement Payments.

Councilor Saums stated the town has begun to receive payments from the National

Opioid Settlement. He stated to date Ledyard has received $53,134.19 (Perdue

Pharma) from the Distributor Settlement and that they would be receiving additional

payments from multiple sources such as the Janssen Settlement and from other

sources such as Teva, Allergan, Walgreens, CVS and Walmart.

Councilor Saums stated the funding received from the National Opioid Settlement

was being deposited into Account #20810201-58206-24206 (National Opioid

Settlement) and that the funds could accumulate in the Account until the town

decided on a plan to spend the funds. He stated like the Bottle Bill that the Opioid

Settlement Revenues could only be used for specific opioid abatement purposes,

including, but not limited to, expanding access to opioid use disorder prevention,

intervention, treatment, and recovery options, etc.

Councilor Saums stated the purpose for tonight’s discussion was to consider ideas

on how to spend the Opioid Settlement Revenues.

The Committee discussed the following ideas:

· Ledyard Prevention Coalition

· Ledyard Public Health Nursing

· Ledyard Social Services

· Purchase Narcan for their Emergency Service Providers - It was noted that

Narcan was already being provided for free to Emergency Services Providers.

· Donate funds to Addiction Organizations outside of Ledyard

· Work with Ledyard Public Schools

· Scholarship Fund for residents who were entering into a rehabilitation program.

The Finance Committee discussed the need to determine the best value in terms of

helping people who were struggling with addiction. They noted the many families

who have experienced and been touched by the loss of a child, parent, friend, etc.

who became addicted to either prescription opioids and/or street drugs that may have

been laced with fentanyl or other synthetic types of dangerous and harmful narcotics.

Nursing Administrator Karen Goetchius stated doctors were no longer prescribing

pain medications for major surgeries such as a knee replacement at the same rate they

were 15-years ago.

The Finance Committee agreed to solicit ideas from Youth Services Coordinator

Kate Sikorski-Maynard and Ledyard Prevention Coalition Kerensa Mansfield for the

best use of the Opioid Settlement funding.

CONTINUE

RESULT:

Continued discussion and possible action regarding the continuation of the Visiting Nurses

Association in Ledyard.

Councilor Saums presented the Ledyard Visiting Nurse Agency (LVNA) Budget for

the past eight years, noting that as a business their revenues have been steadily

declining year after year.

Nursing Administrator Karen Goetchius questioned whether Councilor Saums was

looking at the “Projected Revenues” versus the “Actual Revenues” or whether he was

looking at their “Actual Revenues” versus their “Expenses” .

Councilor Saums stated he was looking at the Actual Revenues minus the Expenses.

Ms. Goetchius explained in preparing the LVNA annual budgets that she has been

too optimistic and that she went too high in projecting their revenues. She also noted

that there were a number of things that impacted the LVNA Operations, noting the

following:

· Staff turn-over - Ms. Goetchius stated they had to turn some patients away

because they did not have enough staff, which they had never done before.

· Implementation of the Emergency Medical Records Software (EMR) - Ms.

Goetchius noted that there was a learning curve for the nurses to use the new

software program.

· Changes in the Insurance - Ms. Goetchius stated the changes in the insurances

were complicated and were happening quickly. She explained this coupled with

the new Emergency Medical Records Software (EMR) that their Biller could not

keep up with filing of the claims correctly; and therefore, they were being denied

payment. She stated they currently had about $100,000 in the queue coming to

them.

· Billing Position - Ms. Goetchius stated this position was eliminated, which

included benefits. She stated the LVNA was now contracting with the Emergency

Medical Records Software Company to handling their billing. She stated the

contract would pay the Billing Company 2% for the collection of Medicare

Payments; and 4% for the collection of Private Insurance. She stated if they paid

the Billing Company $12,000 - $13,000 per year, compared to Salary/Benefits

they were paying for the Biller position, that the LVNA would come out ahead.

She stated last year (fy 2022) she gave money back to the Town.

Finance Director Matthew Bonin stated the LVNA expenses came in under the

budgeted amount. He noted the LVNA Fiscal Year 2021/2022 as follows:

ü Expenditure Budget:

ü Total Actual Expenditures $723,000 (not including benefits)

ü Actual Revenues: $636,929.

$857,000

Councilor Saums stated that they have to look at the LVNA from a Business

Perspective. He stated the LVNA Revenues have been trending downward noting that

they have been loosing money since Fiscal Year 2017/2018.

Ms. Goetchius stated that she agreed that the revenues were not coming in as she had

projected, explaining that around Fiscal Year 2017/2018 the large medical groups

such as Yale New Haven Health and Hartford Healthcare started buying up all the

Visiting Nursing Agencies.

Ms. Goetchius continued by noting that she has been with the town for 25-years and

she questioned the reason the LVNA was the only Department that had to cover their

expenditure budget. She stated no other Department had to generate revenues to

cover their expenditure budgets. She noted the Emergency Dispatch Communications

Department as an example, stating that their overtime was already over the amount

budgeted for the year. She stated Ledyard could outsource the Emergency Dispatch

Communications work.

Councilor Saums explained the town was required to provide certain services such as

Police, Fire, Ambulance, and Dispatch Communications. He stated whether the town

outsourced Dispatch Services or whether they handle this work in-house that the

town would have to pay to provide those services. However, he stated that the town

does not have to provide Visiting Nursing Services.

Ms. Goetchius stated the LVNA has about 15 residents who private pay to have a

home health aide give them a shower once or twice a week. She stated no other

Agency would provide these types of services for them. She stated by not offering

LVNA services that the quality of services would not be there. Councilor Saums

stated he agreed that LVNA provided great quality, noting that the work Ms.

Goetchius and her team have done was phenomenal, noting the LVNA has been

nationally recognized for being in the Top 25-VNA’s in the country for the services

they provided and in their patients satisfaction. However, he stated based on the

decline in revenues that residents were making the decision not to use the LVNA,

noting that the town had no control over their decisions.

Ms. Goetchius stated she was a one-man show noting that she oversees the entire

LVNA operation. She stated that she had stopped the postcard mailings because the

quarterly Events Magazine was going to reach every household in town. However,

she stated the LVNA was not getting a good return from the Events Magazine.

Therefore, she stated that she was planning to go back to doing separate mailings to

inform residents about the services the LVNA provided. She addressed Councilor

Saums’ comment that “it was the residents’ decision to choose other visiting nursing

providers, not the town’s”. Ms. Goetchius explained that it was not the residents’

decision. She stated it was the doctors’ decision when patients were being discharged

from the hospital or from a surgical procedure. She stated the patients the LVNA was

seeing were the people who had knee surgery and called them because they were not

satisfied with the visiting nursing agency that the hospital, or the doctor arranged for

them; and that they wanted to have the LVNA back. She stated by not offering the

LVNA that they were taking away the patients’ choice. She asked for one year to see

if she could turn the tide again, noting that just 30 patients could make a difference in

terms of revenues.

Councilor Saums stated the town was not taking the decision away from patients

regarding which visiting nursing agency to use, noting that Yale New Haven Health,

Hartford Healthcare, and United Healthcare have provided other Agency options,

stating that these healthcare organizations have taken the decisions away from the

patients. He stated the LVNA has done a phenomenal job however, he stated they

have been talking about the large healthcare providers taking over the market for

years; and that they all know that the doctors and healthcare organizations were

directing patients to other visiting nursing agencies and they were not telling them

that they had a choice. Ms. Goetchius stated the patients need to know that they have

a voice and a choice in their visiting nurse services.

Ms. Goetchius asked for another year, noting that she would do more independent

advertising and public relations and then see how the year goes.

Councilor Saums stated the Finance Committee was only discussing the issue noting

that they did not have a motion to vote on this evening. He went on to state that it

was his opinion that this was an unviable situation that could not continue, and that

he did not know what they were going to do.

Councilor Ingalls asked Ms. Goetchius to present a Business Case to the Taxpayers

of Ledyard that they should continue to cover a $200,000-budget deficit to support

the LVNA, noting that she was open to hear their Case. However, she stated that she

agreed with Councilor Saums’ that the LVNA was trending in the direction that was

not viable. She stated VNA’s across the State have gone on by the wayside.

Councilor Saums thanked Nursing Administrator Karen Goetchius for attending

tonight’s meeting

CONTINUE

RESULT:

Any other New Business proper to come before the Committee.

None.

XII. ADJOURNMENT

Councilor Saums moved the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Councilor Ingalls.

VOTE: 2 - 0 Approved and so declared, the meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

William D. Saums

Committee Chairman

Finance

Committee

DISCLAIMER: Although we try to be timely and accurate these are not official records of the

Town.