On the agenda: Coventry meeting — Surveillance Camera (Apr 6)

AGENDA
Coventry Town Council Meeting
April 6, 2026
7:00 PM
Town Hall Annex
In-person attendance is permitted for the Audience of Citizens Portion of the meeting.
If you would prefer to submit comments for inclusion
under correspondence at the next meeting, email them to [email protected]
no later than 4 PM on the Tuesday prior to the day of the meeting.
Contact information for general correspondence to the Town Council
is available on the Town website at https://www.coventryct.org/225/Town-Council
A recording of the meeting is available on the Town's video-on-demand system
for those who wish to watch the meeting at this link: https://coventryct.viebit.com/?
folder=ALL
Please allow approximately 48 business hours
after the meeting for the video to be published.
1. Call To Order, Roll Call
2. Pledge Of Allegiance
3. Audience Of Citizens:
(30 Minutes - 5 minutes maximum per citizen)
4. Acceptance Of Minutes: (E)
l
l
l
l

March 9, 2026 Budget Meeting
March 12, 2026 Special Budget Meeting
March 16, 2026 Regular Meeting
March 23, 2025 Budget Meeting

Documents:
UNOFFICIAL 3.9.26 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING
MINUTES.PDF
UNOFFICIAL 3.12.26 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING.PDF
UNOFFICIAL 3.16.26 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.PDF
THOMAS SUGGESTED EDITS 3.23.26 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL BUDGET
MEETING MINUTES.PDF
UNOFFICIAL 3.23.26 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING
MINUTES.PDF
5. Consent Agenda:
All items listed with an asterisk (*) will be acted on by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion on this items unless a Council member so requests, in which case,
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence
on the agenda.
6. Reports:
6.A. Council Chairwoman: Lisa Thomas
6.A.1. Testimony: HB5770; An Act Concerning A Tax Credit For Milk Producers (E)
Documents:
TESTIMONY HB5770.PDF

6.A. Council Chairwoman: Lisa Thomas
6.A.1. Testimony: HB5770; An Act Concerning A Tax Credit For Milk Producers (E)
Documents:
TESTIMONY HB5770.PDF
6.B. Council Members:
6.C. Steering Committee: Jonathan Hand, Chairperson
6.C.1. Steering Committee Recommended Appointments: (E)
6.C.1.a. Energy Conservation/Alternative Energy Committee: Reilly (E)
Documents:
STATEMENT OF INTEREST REILLY.PDF
6.C.1.b. Inland Wetlands Agency Alt.: Goldsnider (E)
Documents:
STATEMENT OF INTEREST GOLDSNIDER.PDF
6.C.1.c. Pension & Retirement Committee: Maher (E)
Documents:
STATEMENT OF INTEREST MAHER.PDF
6.C.2. * Steering Committee Minutes: 3/23/2026 (E)
Documents:
UNOFFICIAL 3.23.26 STEERING MINUTES.PDF
6.D. * Finance Committee: Robyn Gallagher, Chairperson
6.E. *COVRRA:
6.F. Town Manager: James D. Drumm
6.F.1. Projects/Issues Update (E):
Documents:
4-2-26 PROJECT ISSUE MEMO.PDF
6.F.2. Press Release: Town Of Coventry Accepting Applications For The 2026
Neighborhood Assistance Act (E)
Documents:
PRESS RELEASE - COVENTRY ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF 2026
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSISTANCE ACT FUNDING.PDF
7. Unfinished Business:
7.A. 25/26-39: FY 2026/27 Budget (E)
l
l

Budget Deliberations
Budget Motions

Documents:

l
l

Budget Deliberations
Budget Motions

Documents:
BUDGET MOTIONS 2026-27.PDF
8. New Business:
8.A. 15/26-46: Consideration/Possible Action: Town Council Senior Awards (E)
Documents:
RE_ COVENTRY SENIOR AWARDS.PDF
8.B. 25/26-47: Consider/Possible Action: Ratification Of The Town Manager’s Appointment
Of Public Works Director Bill Watkins As Acting Deputy Town Manager During The
Temporary Absence Of The Town Manager (E)
Documents:
25-26 - 47 SUMMARY SHEET.PDF
9. Miscellaneous/Correspondence:
9.A. * Board Of Education: Minutes - 3/12/26; Agenda - 3/26/26; Cancellation - 4/6/26 (E)
Documents:
03-12-26UNAPPROVEDBOEMINUTES.PDF
03-26-26 BOE AGENDA.PDF
BOE CANCELLATION OF 4-6 MEETING AND SPECIAL MEETING 4-20.PDF
9.B. * Brown - Request For Future Action On Gun Ordinance (E)
Documents:
FW_ SPECIAL MEETING REQUEST FOR FUTURE ACTION.PDF
9.C. * CDS Deadline Reminder & March Updates From Senator Murphy’s Office (E)
Documents:
FW CDS DEADLINE REMINDER AND MARCH UPDATES FROM SENATOR
MURPHYS OFFICE.PDF
9.D. * Possible New State Mandate Affecting Local School Districts (E)
Documents:
POSSIBLE NEW STATE MANDATE AFFECTING LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS.PDF
9.E. * State Comptroller: Economic Pulse, April 2026 (E)
Documents:
APRIL ECONOMIC PULSE.PDF
10. Adjournment
_______________
(E) denotes enclosure

_______________
(E) denotes enclosure

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Coventry Town Council Budget Meeting
March 9, 2026
7:00 PM
Town Hall Annex
1. Call To Order, Roll Call:
The Meeting was called to order by Council Chairwoman Lisa Thomas at 7:00 PM
Members Present: Lisa Thomas-Chairwoman, Peter Larson-Vice Chairman (joined at 8:00 PM), Matthew KyerSecretary, Jon Hand, Robyn Gallagher, Mark Wheaton, and Julie Blanchard.
Also Present: James Drumm-Town Manager, and Cherie Trahan-Finance Director.
2. Pledge of Allegiance:
Town Council members stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Thomas noted there is no Audience of Citizens (AOC) for this special Town Council meeting, but there will be
an Audience of Citizens for every regular Town Council meeting, and for certain special meetings during
budget season. Information for which meetings contain an AOC can be found on the town website.
3. Unfinished Business:
3.A. 25/26-39: FY 2026/27 Budget:
 Presentation of Proposed Budgets:
3.A.1. Booth and Dimock Memorial Library Budget Presentation:
Library Director, Margaret Kahn and President of the Library Board of Trustees, Jacob Jankowski gave a
presentation of the library’s budget.
Presentation: 26/27 Library Budget Presentation Booth and Dimock Annual Report: 2025 Annual Report
Highlights from their presentation:
 The library’s proposed budget is larger than what the Town Manager has proposed at $713,000, which is a
total increase of $95,200.
 The Town Manager’s budget proposes a 4% increase, increasing the bottom line $25,000. This is not
enough to cover necessary expenses and have enough money for staff and fund new programs and materials.
 Staff raises were delayed in the current FY from July 1 to Oct. 1, to help balance the budget. The Board of
Trustees desires to give a baseline cost of living increase of 2.5% to all employees, with the exception of
minimum wage employees, which will need to be 3.5%.
 The Town Manager’s proposed budget only allows for a 1.8% raise for non-minimum wage employees.
 The library board hopes the Council will consider increasing funding from the Town Manager’s
recommendation. $15,000 more to the bottom line will ensure a 2.5% living increase to the staff and $5,000
for programs.
 The library has had the same growth over the past 3 years in the visits, programs, computer and Wi-Fi use,
and new library card registration categories showing community reliance on the library.
1

















Total circulation is at a 6-year high and is expected to remain at this level for the remainder of the FY.
Over the last 2 years, the library has issued 932 new library cards, which is the highest it's been in 10 years.
As of June 2025, 3,404 Coventry residents had active library cards.
Library outreach events have been successful and continue to grow.
Goals:
o Continue to expand library outreach, through increased operating hours (8 hours on Mondays).
Currently, the library is closed on Mondays. The cost for this is about $41,700.
o Expand staff benefits.
o Develop more competitive wages to retain excellent, well-qualified staff.
o Increase spending on materials and programs.
The library value calculator determined that for every $1 spent, $8.12 was returned back to the community.
$14,800 in revenue was received from grants, fees, and interest.
The Governor's current proposed budget reduces funding from the ‘Borrow It’ program, which will reduce
the library’s revenue by a couple hundred dollars.
Library budget increase requests are driven by factors mainly outside of library’s control, like increases to
service and vendor contracts.
The library faces challenges to keep pace with mandated minimum wage increases that have led to
compressed pay grades.
Current materials and program spending is the same as it was over 10 years ago. The library is only
requesting an increase of $600 to that total of $41,100. Costs for materials have increased, while funding for
materials has decreased.
The state library has indicated a baseline expense of $4 per capita. In the proposed budget, the per capita
expense has increased to $2.84.
Being open on Monday is standard across the board, and the Booth and Dimock’s 43 weekly hours fall
below the schedules of neighboring towns.

Questions and Comments
Blanchard:
 Felt the cost for phone lines were high and asked about how the # of lines and usage.
o Kahn-Phone lines are on contract with the town for the cost of $130/month. Additionally, the library
maintains 5 additional lines for faxing and security system purposes.
 The budget book reflects $309,000 from grants and contributions, which is ½ of the library’s funds. She was
curious why the whole contribution was not shown.
o Kahn-Confirmed and expressed that town grants are received on a quarterly basis. Trahan added that
once they receive the library’s expenditures, they will be booked reducing the $309,000 that is currently
on the books.
 Asked if dumpster fees have been looked into.
o Kahn-No, prices continue to rise, and the library is happy with their service. The increases by the
current vendor are manageable.
 Disagreed with how the contributions are recorded, as it is not clear and could be confusing to those who are
not familiar with reading these reports.
2



o Trahan explained that the information can be found in the monthly expenditure summaries. The transfer
will be reflected on the report as soon as the funding is sent to the library.
o Gallagher added that she understands this is how the accounting software allows the funds to be
recorded. Including the amount now would reflect contributions too high, and including a negative
amount would look like $0 was budgeted for the library.
Asked how many full-time employees there are and entitled to health benefits. Kahn explained there are 4,
including herself. They receive $14,250 which can be used towards health benefits or a retirement fund.

Wheaton:
 Asked for clarification that the Monday hours are expected to increase weekly hours by 18%, and that this is
reflected in the salaries and wages line. Kahn confirmed.
Gallagher:
 Clarified that the line items listed is not what they are going to get. The Town Manager’s recommended
budget is just $70,000 off the bottom line, and the Library Board will do what it wants with the funds.
However, she expects that the library will not put $60,000 in the salaries and wages after taking a cut of
$70,000. Which is why the Town Manager’s recommended budget does not fund Monday hours.
o Kahn reminded that a $70,000 reduction is more than the $42,000 needed for Monday hours. Requiring
an additional $30,000 from the library’s budget.
 Commented on how great and well attended the kids programs are.
 Shared that when cuts are made to both the BOE and library, it impacts the children in town twice.
Kyer:
 Commented that he is amazed by the return on investment of $1 to $8.12.
 Asked for other benefits of the library being open on Mondays to be shared.
o Additional availability for people to use the internet/Wi-Fi.
o Additional hours as a dedicated space for teenagers outside of school.
o Programs and space for people of all ages
 Kyer felt these benefits were important for those who need a safe place to go 5 days a week after school.
o Jankowski stated that school is open on Mondays, so it is important that the library is available for
students. The only Mondays that it will be closed are state and federal holidays.
Larson:
 Felt amazed that the library is working with the same amount of programming funding as they were in 2015,
especially with how costs have risen.
o Kahn stated that they spend about .25 cents per participant, which is really good.
Hand:
 Shared the reality of the library being a warm, safe place for children to go after school for programs,
working on homework, etc., as this was his experience growing up in town. He imagines other kids use the
library to the same degree.
Thomas:

3








Asked for clarification that $15,000 added back into the Town Manager’s proposed budget would allow for
a 2.5% salary increase to staff. Kahn confirmed, and added this would include all staff starting July 1, with
the exception of minimum wage employees (shelvers).
Asked for qualifications of library assistants.
o L1s- high school diploma, and experience working with the public. Comes with training, and is good
for people who have an interest in libraries and serving the community,
o L2s- college degree, more extensive experience in a library setting, and proficient computer skills.
Asked if healthcare benefits have increased? Kahn confirmed that the library has increased the benefits from
$500-$700 per employee over the past couple of years.
Asked if the line item for donations includes donations received from the community mailer the library
sends out.
o Kahn-Some of it, and some of the membership funds are dedicated towards operating costs.
Additionally, contributions a randomly mailed in or left at the desk. Thomas was curious how
fundraising efforts have supported the library. Kahn shared that they are integrated into the general
budget. Trahan confirmed that the funds are put towards expenditures, which reduces library spending.
Kahn explained that the membership drive raised $13,000 this year.

Jankowski commented that he recognizes the Town Council has a difficult task with the upcoming budget.
However, the increases the library has historically received over the past decade have had to been dedicated to
fixed costs the library board did not have control over. This has led to spending on programs and materials to be
below what was desired.
He added that he does not want to see Booth and Dimock at the bottom of the list for # of hours the library is
open compared to neighboring towns. He stressed that the library is such an important part of the community
and is a fantastic facility. Every year more and more people are able to take advantage of the library. He
commented that he hopes the Town Council sees the real benefits of adding something back beyond what the
Town Manager has proposed.
Jankowski shared good news that the paperwork from SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) was finally
received for the library to move forward with applying for a grant for historical preservation. Kahn shared that a
condition assessment was done through SHPO, that revealed a few areas of concern for Booth and Dimock
Library. From this information, a priority list of repairs was developed. The upcoming repairs planned are joist
repairs and a portico repair at the front entrance which has been affected by water infiltration. Drumm added
that since the building belongs to the town, $39,500 has been budgeted in the proposed budget for historic
library repairs, which is 50% of the estimated project costs.
Jankowski explained that the library is required to close out the joist project, before they can apply for another
grant to help fund the portico repairs. Thomas asked if it was realistic to include the funding for the portico in
the 26-27 budget. She shared concerns that the joist project still needs to be completed, and a grant application
process needs to be completed as well. Kahn shared that the portico was indicated as the next priority by
structural engineers, but she can’t speak to the timeline for SHPO to close the grant. Kahn added that she
expects construction to be completed in the summer. The next round of grant applications are due in the fall and
awarded in the winter. Thomas shared that if the $39,500 may not be needed in FY 26-27, then they can use that
to put the $15,000 as requested.
4

3.A.2. Coventry Board of Education Budget Presentation:
BOE members present: Jennifer Beausoleil-Chairperson, Dr. David Petrone-Superintendent, Mary KortmanVice Chairperson, Megan Boshuyzen, Emma Eaton, Joshua Clark, Mark Larson, Courtney Rossignol, and
Charmain Bradshaw-Hill-BOE Business Manager.
Beausoleil explained that the BOE budget remains unchanged from Dr. Petrone’s presentation, and from the
budget book. She continued that there is nothing new in the budget, and the overall FTE increase is not an
increase, but a decrease. She explained that they are getting things done that they are required to do, with the
same number of staff.
Beausoleil shared that the difference between Dr. Petrone’s request to the Board in January is very minor, with
a change to the health insurance line for the Board’s share of premiums for the BOE employees based off the
decision to leave ECHIP. The BOE used the current premium amount per their staff census and used that
number in the proposed FY 26/27 budget. Beausoleil added that the BOE employees have a higher premium coshare than the town employees do. Looking at the health insurance line, it does not equate to the premium
increase that USI claimed was required for employees. The amount in the line item is the district’s share of the
health insurance. The employee contribution toward the premium is not in the budget because it is not coming
from the taxpayers; it's coming from the employees. She noted that this may cause percentages to look out of
line, because they don’t cover as large of a piece of the insurance premium.
Beausoleil also shared that the Board of Ed received a huge number of mandates that they don’t have the option
of whether to implement it or not. They need to do what is required to meet legal and state regulation
obligations.
Beausoleil stated that the BOE has received encouraging news from state legislature regarding ECS funding.
She expressed this is the 1st time that she has heard the House and the Senate propose bills to increase the
baseline for what towns receive per student. She added it is also the 1st time she has seen support for that type of
bill on both sides of the political aisle. She felt that the ECS funding has a good chance of being higher when
the state budget comes out in the spring than what is in the Governor’s proposed budget.
Questions and Comments:
Blanchard:
 Asked when the potential ECS funding would come available. Beausoleil stated July 1 of the upcoming FY.
She added that they are looking at editing the base number they use for the ECS formula by some sort of
inflationary index that's agreed upon by everyone, to be changed on a yearly basis. Thomas noted that the
Town Council did submit testimony to state legislature in support of this. Beausoleil commented that they
have worked with local representatives, Sen. Gordon and Rep. Ackert. She stated that Senator Gordon put
forth the bill to increase ECS funding by $5,000 per student. She emphasized that both have been very
supportive in this endeavor.
 Asked about the # of students listed on pg. 5, which states there are 128 students at the PreK. She asked if
this included paid tuition and special ed. Dr. Petrone confirmed and stated that there are about 40 students
that receive special education services on some level.
 Questioned what is driving up non-certified salaries to increase 35.44%.
5







o Dr. Petrone explained that this is driven by the absences and the need for substitute teachers. He
informed that there are shortages everywhere, and Coventry has had to increase their rates to stay
competitive. Beausoleil added that the 35% increase seems high, but it is only a $17,000 increase.
Discussed pg. 86 and asked for clarification on the difference between maintenance supplies and custodial
supplies.
o Dr. Petrone informed that maintenance supplies are things like filters, belts, and hoses for things like
the HVAC system. Custodial supplies are cleaning materials. Beausoleil noted that the cost for
maintenance supplies has increased due to the age of the building and the cost of maintaining the
systems.
Discussed the 19.46% increase for non-certified salaries for the Central Office on pg. 90.
o Bradshaw-Hill explained this reflects the market adjustment for staff members who have been working
in finance and HR roles to accommodate the fact that they have been underpaid for several years. Even
with this increase, the pay rates are still significantly lower than surrounding districts.
Questioned health insurance premiums that are listed in 2 different places. On pg. 91, it shows an increase
of 10.4%, but earlier on it was not that high.
o Bradshaw-Hill explained that the supplemental page got missed, as far as getting the updates that were
discussed earlier. The correct percentage is 7.99% or $328,685.

Gallagher:
 Asked about the increase of contracted services: administration technology that is larger than expected
(almost a 60% increase) on pg. 16 of the budget.
o Dr. Petrone explained this is for new software. Bradshaw-Hill added it's for the cloud base for the
Finance Office as well. Beausoleil commented that some of the software pieces are multi-year, not
annual, as to why the cost is higher than expected. It was also discussed that big software renewals are
staggered, so they don’t all hit at once. Kortmann added on pg. 93 has these items listed out.
 Slide 19 of Dr. Petrone’s presentation was discussed, which Gallagher had clarified that the annual software
review is across the board, both educational and administrative.
 Pointed out that the total increase for GHR is 1.18%, which is well below inflationary rates. She believes
that a .2% increase for a music instructor would be beneficial for a school with such a low increase. Dr.
Petrone spoke on the large decrease to the BOE last year, and how hard it will be to recover from that.
Wheaton:
 Questioned the significant increase for student transportation on pg. 8.
o Dr. Petrone explained that it is from contractual increases. Beausoleil added that the increase is for
transportation across the district, which includes regular and special education transportation. She
reminded that special education transportation is more expensive as it is usually specialized.
 Discussed assumption #3, on pg. 20, which reflects an 8% increase for pension, but on pg. 7, row 230 reflect
that pensions are increasing 10%
o Bradshaw-Hill explained that the baseline employer liability for the pension plan has not been
confirmed yet but is projected to be 8%. Additionally, there are contributions made separate from the
employer liability fees that are made to the employees as in their contract. So, the contributions to the
employees are inflating the number a little bit, reflecting in 10%
 Questioned what non-public tuition is.
6





o Dr. Petrone responded that non-public tuition is usually a DCF placement dictated by the state for
private school.
Discussed assumption #1 on page 20, which shows the salary increase for teachers is 3%. However, at GHR
the amount is 1% and at Nathan Hale Middle School the amount is 6.48%. He asked for more information
on the 1-step increases and how the increase is at 6% for 30 people. Beausoleil explained that there are both
general wage increase that is given to everyone in the union and STEP. STEP is milestone driven pay
increases.
Asked why other expenses aren’t listed under Hale Early Education Center, besides salaries. Beausoleil
explained that the operating budget at HEEC is funded by private paid tuition and not included in the BOE
budget. However, the BOE is required to cover the special education costs at HEEC. She explained that the
operating expenses at HEEC are provided in the BOE financial reports that are provided every month.

Kyer:
 Suggested to revisit student transportation, he pointed out that the amount budgeted for the current FY is
$2,124,000. The actuals as of Dec. 31st are already over that. This places the year end estimate at
$2,382,000. He stated that the proposal for the next fiscal year should be on what the district is actually
going to spend. He feels the increased costs come from mandates they are expected to cover.
o Dr. Petrone explained that the district has control over the 17 buses and knows what those will cost due
to the DATCO contract. He reminded that programs and transportation are based on the needs that exist
today. If the state informs that there will be a new special education student in the district, without a
nexus, Coventry becomes the responsible party for their transportation. Dr. Petrone explained the
reimbursement formula.
 Kyer pointed out that over a 5-year period, the per pupil spending in our DRG (district reference group) has
steadily decreased to the point that Coventry is now last. He stressed that this is not a trend that Coventry
should aspire to. Kyer shared that he understands the Town Council does not give specific cuts, just a total
amount for the BOE to decide where to make cuts. However, the DRG shows that the cuts the BOE has had
to make over the past 4 years from the Town Council cuts to their budget have taken Coventry from 30th
out of 33, to 33rd out of 33. He asked that the Council keep this in mind during the budget process. He also
added that out of schools in our geographical area, Coventry is almost dead last for per pupil spending.
Beausoleil commented that Coventry went from #138 out of 165 towns for the state ranking to #148, which
is the bottom 10%, and Coventry is well below the state average. She reminded that taxpayers may think
they are paying a lot of schools, but they are not compared to the rest of the state. She reminded that even
with low spending, Coventry is able to get great results. However, if funding does not increase, the BOE
will need to give up those things that provide great results. Kyer explained that there seems to be a
disconnect that our school district spends less per pupil, yet our students are outperforming other towns that
spend more per pupil. He expressed that Coventry does an amazing job, but it is not sustainable for the long
run. He added that he adds value to people's homes when people want to move to Coventry, which is in part
due to the town having amazing schools.
Thomas:
 Asked about the districts' responsibility to those attending magnet schools.

7





o Dr. Petrone informed that they don’t have to provide transportation to magnet schools but are required
to provide transportation to Tech and Vo-Ag Schools. He added that any students at the PreK who have
an IEP are legally required to receive transportation from the district as well.
Discussed state legislation that she believes would require math and literacy interventionists.
o Dr. Petrone informed that it is not a mandate but is recommended to have a person in the schools to fill
that role. He explained that there are reading rooms and math interventionalist at GHR and CGS. Dr.
Petrone continued that if they are able to catch challenges at an early stage, they can help offset
expenses and challenges associated with those at a later point.
Shared concerns that there is potential to allow unbudgeted magnet school placements. Dr. Petrone
commented that he heard there has been talk about this, and it could happen anywhere in the year. He
continued that the BOE does not have any control over what magnet schools charge the district for special
education services. He informed that the district incurred $75,000 of unanticipated expenses from magnet
schools and tech schools for special education. He noted their biggest concern is surprise placements by
DCF.

Hand:
 Asked for a rough estimate of the number of magnet school placements. It was explained that it is broken
down in the budget book by age group/per school. Dr. Petrone also explained that there are students who
start off at Vo-Ag/Tech schools and end up coming back to CPS for a number of reasons.
Beausoleil expressed that the BOE is not trying to pick on/single out the special ed portion of the population.
She emphasized that from a financial standpoint the special ed expenses are unpredictable. She stressed that
every student deserves what they need to learn.
Dr. Petrone explained that it will not be good for the Coventry students if the BOE has to go down the path with
yet another significant cut. He stressed that many increases are minimal but needed.
The BOE left at 9:07 PM.
26/27 Budget Discussions:
Thomas stressed that she feels very strongly about having a DPW Maintainer 1 position in the budget and
reminded that she will push for this during deliberations. She continued that the DPW has been consistently
understaffed with demands growing and growing, including many projects on the horizon that have to do with
facilities. She also shared that the staff is aging and there is a concern with a loss of institutional knowledge.
Drumm commented that within 6 years, most of the current DPW staff will be retired.
Gallagher pointed out that the memo she requested was received from Trahan and shows all items in the budget
that have a significant or valuable increase in the budget and what they are for.
Wheaton questioned the longevity line item that is in various labor accounts for town departments. It was
explained that it is for people who reach the cap in the STEP pay increases. This gives employees a certain
amount per year, with a max of $500. Trahan added that this amount is a separate 1-time payment not included
in the employee's base wages.
Wheaton also shared that there is a department in the budget book whose revenues and expenditures don’t
match. Trahan informed that there are a few that need to be reformatted in order to show the use of fund balance
8

as a revenue, if needed. Gallagher shared that some special revenue funds have revenues higher than their
annualized operating expenses because big expenses are coming up.
Blanchard discussed her desire to have historical data from last year to show cuts made and more information,
like the chart used to help with this year’s budget deliberations. Larson agreed, especially as a new Councilor,
that it would be helpful to have information that shows areas that have been historically under or over funded.
This will be worked on to see if that information could be provided based on documents from last year’s budget.
4. Adjournment:
Motion: I move that the Town Council adjourn the meeting at 9:28 PM.
By: Hand
Second: Wheaton
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 by unanimous vote, except for Councilor Blanchard who was not present for
the vote.
Respectfully Submitted,

Nicole Archambault
Nicole Archambault, Minutes Clerk
PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not official until approved by the Coventry Town Council at the next
Town Council meeting. Please see the next Town Council meeting minutes for approval or changes to these
minutes.

9

Finance Director-Significant Changes Memo for Town Manager’s FY 26/27 Proposed Budget:

10

11

12

13

14

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Coventry Town Council Budget Meeting
March 12, 2026
7:00 PM
Town Hall Annex
1. Call To Order, Roll Call:
The Meeting was called to order by Council Chairwoman Lisa Thomas at 7:07 PM
Members Present: Lisa Thomas-Chairwoman, Peter Larson-Vice Chairman (joined at 8:00 PM), Matthew KyerSecretary, Jon Hand, Robyn Gallagher, Mark Wheaton, and Julie Blanchard.
Also Present: James Drumm-Town Manager, and Cherie Trahan-Finance Director.
2. Pledge of Allegiance:
Town Council members stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Audience of Citizens:
(30 Minutes - 5 minutes maximum per citizen)
None
4. Unfinished Business:
4.A. 25/26-39: FY 2026/27 Budget:
Presentation of Proposed Budgets:
Department of Public Works:
Bill Watkins, Director of Public Works, reviewed his budget with the Town Council. DPW budget highlights:
DPW Update:
 19 total employees: 14 Maintainers (at varying levels), 3 Mechanics, and 1 Admin. Secretary.
 Road Maintenance Crew maintains 240 miles of road (snow removal, roadside mowing, street sweeping,
etc.)
 Facility Maintenance for all town owned buildings and grounds (2 beaches, 4 schools, 24 athletic fields, 3
miles of trails, and 300 acres of town property.
 Fleet Maintenance: Maintains all town owned vehicles (107 CV license plates and equipment).
 Project and event photos from the past year were shared.
Proposed Budget Changes (from Town Manager’s proposed budget):
 Roads and Drainage:
o Increase in payroll for salary increases and a new Maintainer 1 position
o $10,000 increase for overtime.
o Increase to temporary line item to get seasonal staff/laborer.
o $9,000 increase to professional services for line painting.
o $500 increase to equipment rentals for a core drill.
o $10,000 increase to cement, sand, salt, and gravel.
o $5,000 increase to asphalt
o $16,750 increase to equipment for the following purchases: gas meters, chainsaw, walk behind road
saw, battery powered drills and grease guns, dremel hammer, and concrete saw.



Public Works Building:
o $13,600 increase to service contracts for failing garage door, pressure washing, and rising costs of
repairs to the aging building.
o $8,000 increase for HVAC equipment-Circulator Pump needs to be replaced.
o $1,000 increase for minor building repairs.
o Utility increases (telephone, electric, sewer).

Questions/comments:
Kyer stated that the Town Manager’s proposed budget is significantly less for service contracts than what
Watkins is asking for. He asked Watkins what items would be cut under the Town Manager’s proposed budget.
Watkins explained that they will not be able to repair the garage door, or power wash the building. Blanchard
asked why these expenses aren’t under building repair and maintenance. Watkins replied that someone will be
hired to do this, so it is a service contract. Hand asked if the power washing could be done in house. Watkins
replied yes, but informed that the DPW may do it themselves, depending on time. Additionally, a lift would
need to be rented, which is still an expense.


Snow Removal:
o $20,000 increase for overtime. Salaries have increased but overtime has stayed the same, meaning the
department is getting less hours of work with rate increases.
o $40,000 increase to cement, sand, salt and gravel to get back up to FY25 numbers of $160,000. This
past year, the line item was cut to $120,000. Watkins expects to end the winter with 500 tons of salt in
the shed. The year started with 1,200 tons, which is not a full shed (1,500 tons) due to last year's cuts.
There was also a salt shortage that required the DPW to mix sand with salt, which Watkin’s stressed is
not a good idea. He added that the DPW will need to spend more time street sweeping. Watkins shared
that he was able to stick with the same salt vendor which kept costs lower than switching vendors,
which other towns were forced to do. Watkins added that there have been 29 snow events, and the
DPW has used roughly 1,800 tons of salt. Drumm suggested that if there are savings at the end of year,
it would be a good idea to allocate funds to fill the salt shed.

Questions/comments:
Gallagher asked how much has been spent on salt this year. Watkins stated that he has spent $71,000 so far with
$40,000 encumbered for upcoming deliveries. He added that he expects to be $18,000 over, as they had to buy
white salt during the shortage.


Facility Maintenance:
o Increase to payroll to fund Maintainer 1 position. 2 part-time positions to fill department needs have
been difficult to sustain.
o $2,000 increase to overtime.
o $4,000 increase to the temporary line item for additional part-time staff.
o Moving $4,000 from professional services to service contracts for irrigation.
o $1,200 increase to equipment rentals for an aerator for athletic fields.
o $500 increase for custodial supplies.
o $5,500 increase to cement, sand, salt, and gravel for topsoil, beach sand and stone for the athletic fields.

o $7,250 increase due to the rising costs of grass seed, lime fertilizer, and line paint.
o $4,500 increase for needed equipment: battery-op handheld tools, grease gun, gas powered sprayer, and
chainsaw.
o Increases for rising costs of general utilities.
Questions/comments:
The Town Council discussed some discrepancies in the salaries line. Trahan explained that the Town Manager’s
proposed budget salary line items are correct, and include the STEP increases and regular salary increases, but
not the Maintainer 1 position.
Kyer asked about the cement, sand, salt, and gravel line item, as the request for the upcoming FY is over
$11,000 but to date only $230 has been spent. Watkins confirmed that most of the line item is spent in the
spring.
Thomas questioned the inclusion in chainsaws in 2 different budget categories. Watkins confirmed they would
be used for 2 different purposes/areas.


Public Works Administration
o $500 increase for longevity, which was added back in, as it was cut last year. Certain staff are now
eligible for it.
o $1,900 increase to licenses and support-data for work order system
o $800 increase to professional services for mandated hearing tests and CDL physicals.
o $500 increase to training. Watkins stressed that this line item is completely spent every year.
o $500 increase to office supplies.
o $500 increase to clothing, due to rising costs with the uniform vendor.
o $250 increase to equipment parts for main office refrigerator.



Fleet Maintenance:
o $6,000 increase to other professional services for upgrades to the fueling system, saving on manhours.
o Increase to equipment repairs due to rising costs.
o Minor increases to gas and diesel
o $5,000 increase to truck parts. Parts costs are rising, and with the aging fleet the cost of repairs and
maintenance are also higher.
o $8,000 increase for equipment parts for the purchase of a hydraulic hose press.

Questions/comments:
Kyer asked about the gas and diesel prices, as the budget was made before the costs went up. Drumm informed
that the prices are locked in through a contract. Kyer also asked about the request for 2 new dump trucks, which
would require more diesel. Drumm clarified that the new trucks wouldn’t be additions, but replacements for the
older dump trucks.


Cemetery:
o $17,000 increase to payroll to part time salary.

o $3,000 increase to the temporary line item for seasonal help. Watkins reminded this was cut last budget
season.
o $1,000 increase for ground supplies for grass seed, topsoil, etc.
o Minor increases for electricity.
o $500 increase to major maintenance and casualty repairs.
Questions/comments:
Thomas questioned if the fee for burials has been increased overtime. Watkins explained that the DPW has
worked on this, and fees were increased as of December of ‘25. He added that they have looked into doing
burials and cremains internally, which would be handled by the Cemetery Sexton. The revenues received from
the fees would then be used to offset their salary.


Tree Warden:
o $2,000 increase for the Tree Warden Stipend, to appoint a Deputy Tree Warden for times when
Watkins is absent/unavailable.
o Increase to equipment rental for the rental of a bucket truck to do the work internally, as a way to
reduce the service contracts line item. He further explained that staff have been trained and are ready to
do the work.

Questions/comments:
Thomas noted that Watkins requested $30,000 for equipment rentals, but the Town Manager is proposing
$5,000. She asked what $5,000 would do for him. Watkins explained that $5,000 will cover a bucket truck
rental for 3 weeks.
Watkins added that as of last week there are no more funds for tree removal, and he has a list of tree complaints
on his desk. Wheaton asked if the tree removal is only for town property. Watkins confirmed, and noted that
this includes roadways, vacant lots, parks, and trails.
Thomas discussed the positions that Watkins requested and clarified that the Maintainer 1 position that would
be half facilities, half COVRRA, would be replacing 2 part time positions, leading to efficiencies. She noted
that this wouldn’t be a new position since part time employees already do the work. Watkins agreed. Thomas
requested the financial impact of a Maintainer 1, including benefits. Watkins stressed the importance of this
position, and the ability to do more work internally. He added that the demands/needs of the town have grown,
increasing the workload on the staff.


Engineering:
Town Engineer Todd Penny, spoke to the success of capital projects even with the engineering department
having a staff of 1 ½ persons.
He stressed that things aren’t getting done, and he can’t request more grants until existing grant projects are
completed. He is requesting that the budget get pushed a bit in order to accomplish the volume of work he
has. He explained that he did not request an additional full-time person as the budget can’t afford that but
would like to see an increase of $90,000 the architects and engineering line item in order to get movement
on smaller projects, but under the Town Manager’s proposed budget, it

Penney also stressed the strain it puts on the department to have to come to the Town Manager/Town
Council for spending authority. He stated that he would like to have the freedom and authority to contract
architect and engineering services when needed. He added that adding money into this line item will show
the need for 2 full-time engineering staff. Penney shared the benefits of having additional staff as he is
concerned with the succession of the engineering department upon his retirement.
Questions/comments:
Gallagher questioned the fact that more money is being requested for the architects and engineering line item,
when $15,000 was adopted for this year and $0 has been spent. Penney explained that he has POs out. He added
that he would like to spend the money, but $15,000 will only get him engineering services for halfway through
Maa project, not the whole thing.
Gallagher also noted that if the budget stays where it is, and Penney makes a request for something that gets
approved, it will increase the line item for the next budget year.
Penney noted there is plenty of money in capital projects, but there is not enough manpower to get through all
the projects. Penney shared a list of projects in the works which include: Plains Rd. Waterline, South St. And
Swamp Rd., Daly Rd., North School Rd., Main St. Sidewalks, TRIP Grant, Patriots Park, etc. He added that
there are other roads that need work like Grant Hill Road and other minor roads. However, the TRIP grant can’t
be applied for, for these projects until the other TRIP grant projects have been completed. He added that state
funding may be received for the failing culvert on Broad Way, which is great, but another project for him to do.
Penney shared the following solutions:
1. Stop doing more projects, and reduce the need for a Town Engineer
2. Increase the engineering staff
3. Increase the amount of cash available in the architects and engineering line to contract services to move
projects along.
Kyer asked how much funding it would take to get 1 of the projects off the shelf. Penney discussed that it would
be about 300 manhours, which requires $30,000 in funding. He reminded that he could use that to complete 1
project, and then the line item would be $0, and he wouldn’t have any money left in the architect and
engineering line for the rest of the year.


DPW Capital Plan:
Priority 1s:
o Summer Road Project
o Street Sweeper-Included in upcoming bond referendum.
o Large Dump Truck-Takes 1-2 years to fulfil order. Need to order 1 every 2 years to keep up with
rotating replacement of the fleet.
o Small Dump Truck
o Utility Machine: Bobcat/Toolcat-Versatile, used for snow removal, field maintenance, and more.
o Lean Mower
o Roadside Mower

o 2 Pick-up Trucks
o Backhoe
o Service Truck for Mechanics

Questions:
Kyer shared that he felt that for the cost of the streetsweeper, it would make sense to have it as a shared piece of
equipment with neighboring towns, as it is idle the vast majority of the year. Watkins shared that this would not
be feasible, as everyone would want to be sweeping at the same time. He agreed that it would be idle often but
clarified that it is used for more than just spring cleaning. He informed that it is used to clean up after large
projects, spills, chip sealing, etc. He explained that after snow/salt clean up, the streetsweeper is used for 10-12
weeks to try to do the whole town. He noted that the whole town has only been done once, in the past 5 years,
and he has a goal of doing the whole town this year as long as the current streetsweeper doesn’t break down.
Drumm explained that with the proposed stormwater mandates, they will need to start street sweeping more
than once a year.
Wheaton commented that there seems to be disconnects between the DPW handout and the Town Manager’s
proposed budget for the backhoe, which is listed as $0 in the budget book. Drumm explained that Watkins put a
lot of things in the capital budget last year, which needed to be spread out. He clarified that it is marked as $0
for FY27, as it is included in the capital for FY28.
Wheaton questioned the road funding is listed higher than the general fund contribution. Drumm clarified that
Watkins requested more than the general fund contribution.
Gallagher clarified that TAR cannot be used to purchase the Streetsweeper as it is not available yet, and using
funds from TAR for equipment would take away much needed funds from the roads. Gallagher noted that she
fully supports it being a part of the referendum.
Wheaton shared that it would be helpful to have information on the DPW fleet and equipment such as age and
mileage. Watkins has a list that he will update and send to the Town Manager for distribution to the Town
Council.
Drumm asked with both a small and large dump truck on the priority 1 list, which trucks would be replaced.
Watkins informed that the large dump truck would replace a 2000 International 4900, and the small dump truck
would replace a 2008 Ford F-350.
Priority 2s:
o Line Painting Robot-Automated line painting for the athletic fields, controlled by a tablet. Watkins
stated this would save on manhours, and paint usage would be consistent. The approximate cost is
$48,000-$49,000.
o Cover replacement for the ClearSpan building, as it is getting holes. Sand and salt mix is stored in there,
which is required by DEEP to be covered.
o Scag Mower
o Bucket Truck

o 4 new staff cars for Town Hall to replace 2 older Honda Civics and a retired police cruiser. Drumm
noted that this was included in potential CNREF uses.
o Drainage and culvert funds
o Cemetery wall repair-Back wall overlooking the lake is in rough shape and needs maintenance.
Questions:
Wheaton shared concerns that the ClearSpan cover was a priority 2, when it could violate state pollution
regulations and have negative environmental impacts. Watkins shared that this is a secondary location for
sand/salt storage. The salt shed us used 1st. Typically, the ClearSpan building is used to keep equipment dry.
Hand commented that he has heard of the benefits and cost savings of the line painting robot and hopes that it is
something Coventry can use in the near future. Hand noted that Watkins mentioned a scag mower, but his
handout states it is a blower. Watkins clarified that it is a scag blower to blow leaves and debris.
Gallagher stated that if the ClearSpan cover was blowing in the wind, she anticipates the Town Council would
use CNREF for this emergency replacement. Larson agreed and commented that he strongly believes in proper
maintenance/storage for longevity considering the town uses vehicles and equipment for 20+ years.
Priority 3s:
o $22,000 for irrigation at Laidlaw, for 2 fields.
o Addition to Hoop Style Storage Building to protect equipment.
o Sidewalk repairs, as it is aging. Drumm noted $8,000 was received from LOCIP for sidewalks.
o Forestry-Tree removal and planting.
o $5,000 for Open Space Maintenance
Questions:
Thomas asked about the information she has sent along from CRCOG about grant funds for forestry. Drumm
explained that the Director of Planning and Development has submitted an application in order to get a survey
completed. The town will still need funds for tree removal.
Hand asked about the lead time to get a replacement cover for the ClearSpan building. Watkins has to look into
this.
Wheaton questioned the type of bulbs used in the streetlights, as they use a lot of electricity. It was clarified that
LEDs are used for efficiency. Drumm noted that there aren’t that many in Coventry to be in line with ‘The Last
Green Valley’s’ pledge to not over pollute with lights.
Watkins, Penney, and DPW staff were thanked for their good work and presentation.
Parks and Recreation Department:
Director of Parks and Recreation, Lesley Munshower gave a presentation on the Parks and Rec Budget.
FY25 Department Highlights:
 Participated in/ran 9 free community events.
 Employed 39 Coventry residents.






120 Basketball games played.
199 Families participated in childcare services through Parks and Rec.
495 hours of adult fitness programs
8,508 visits to Coventry beaches-despite being closed 32 days at Patriots Park.

FY 26-27 Budget Requests:
 $0 general fund transfer for Patriots Park, Creaser Park, Lisicke Beach, and Miller Richardson.
o Money from past general fund transfers to be put towards Parks and Rec Supervisor and
Operations to support the Assistant Rec Director salary. (This has been part of the Town Council
goals).
o Fee generated revenue can support the operation of parks.
Questions/Comments:
Wheaton shared concerns that the amount of revenues listed in the budget does not cover the listed amount of
expenses, which would require an additional general fund transfer of $60,000. Trahan explained that the general
fund transfers are showing but are zeroed out. Trahan, Munshower, and the Council reviewed this and
determined the expenses were overstated. After further review, Gallagher determined that salary for regular full
time in general operations was moved into general fund but still present in the transfer amount.
Kyer asked how things are looking for summer camp so far. Munshower responded that they are currently
interviewing for staff, and had a big response when registration opened. A waitlist was created on day 1. She
explained that they are looking to expand capacity where they can.
Blanchard questioned why revenues have gone down from last year. Munshower explained that at this point in
budgeting, they don’t know where they are going to end up with revenues. She added that the revenues reflect
the general fund contribution which was decreased.
Hand asked how recruiting was going for lifeguards, and if she anticipated a shortage. Munshower stated she
was unsure as they are still actively recruiting, and lifeguards typically get hired after summer camp staff.
Munshower requested that if anyone hears that people couldn’t get into the summer camp, to have them call and
get on the waitlist. She explained they are trying to accommodate as many people as possible, and people’s
schedules are always changing.
Thomas asked if there have been any negative impacts from legislature Munshower is aware of. Munshower
stated that the only thing that looks like it could be passed are bills lessening the requirements for summer
camp. She reminded that they are already meeting the requirements now, so nothing would impact Coventry’s
summer camp.
Budget Discussions:
Thomas encouraged Councilors to digest the presentations. She also commented that 4 years ago, the Parks and
Recreation Department was struggling post COVID, and it's amazing how it's been turned around.

Drumm handed out a draft Citizen’s Budget Guide for Council review and feedback as it needs to get out asap.
It was explained that its purpose is to provide budget information and how the budget process works.
Citizen’s Budget Guide Edits:
 1st paragraph, strike ‘comma’ after July 1.
 Add email address for budget comments in the text
 2nd paragraph, 9th line down, remove 2nd “their budget”, and replace with “in the overall budget proposal”.
 2nd paragraph, 11th line, remove ‘s’ from “conducts”.
 Include ‘comma’ after budget, to read, “With this feedback the Town Council finalizes the proposed budget,
which is then presented at the town meeting and voted on at referendum.”
 Last sentence, needs to be correct to “Coventry residents are encouraged to participate by providing public
comment at meetings where the budget is presented, at the annual town meeting, and voting in the
referendum.”
 Simply 1st full 2 sentences into 1 reading, “Department Heads submit their budget requests to the Town
Manager to review and evaluate proposed changes.” and separate the “fall” and “spring” paragraphs.
 Under taxes and revenues, 1st paragraph, last 2 sentences, change it to read “In CT property taxes are
calculated based on 70% of a property’s market value; this is the assessed value. For example, with a mil
rate of 5 and a property with an assessed value of $100,000 an individual would pay $500 in property taxes.
(100,000*0.005=500).
 Under taxes and revenues, correct the 2nd sentence by removing “rate of”. The sentence should read,
“Property taxes are determined by the mil rate.”
 Under taxes and revenues, 4th line, change “derived to “calculated”. The sentence will be rewritten.
It was suggested for Councilors to continue their review and send their edits to the Town Manager, who will
bring a copy to the next Town Council meeting on, Monday March 16th.
5. Adjournment:
Motion: I move that the Town Council adjourn the meeting at 9:52 PM.
By: Kyer

Second: Wheaton

The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 PM by unanimous vote.
Respectfully Submitted,

Nicole Archambault
Nicole Archambault, Minutes Clerk
PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not official until approved by the Coventry Town Council at the next
Town Council meeting. Please see the next Town Council meeting minutes for approval or changes to these
minutes.

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Coventry Town Council Meeting
March 16, 2026 7:00 PM
Town Hall Annex
1. Call To Order, Roll Call:
The Meeting was called to order by Council Chairwoman Lisa Thomas at 7:03 PM
Members Present: Lisa Thomas-Chairwoman, Peter Larson-Vice Chairman, Jon Hand, Robyn Gallagher, Mark
Wheaton, and Julie Blanchard.
Members Absent: Matthew Kyer-Secretary
Also Present: James Drumm-Town Manager and Cherie Trahan-Finance Director
2. Pledge Of Allegiance:
Town Council members stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Joseph Bauch, a student at Coventry
Public Schools.
3. Audience Of Citizens: (30 Minutes - 5 minutes maximum per citizen):
Kate Clark, 104 Leslie Lane:
Clark thanked the Town Council for all they do. She expressed a desire to attend previous meetings, but they
conflicted with her daughter's extracurriculars. She explained that she has heard a narrative from this room that
parents don’t show up. She explained that parents are showing up for their kids: when they’re sick, taking them
to sports/activities, volunteering for school events, and helping with homework. In order to be available for their
kids, many parents work in the evening as daycare costs are expensive. Showing up every day for their kids
makes it hard to come to Council meetings to advocate for the budget.
Clark expressed understanding that the budget environment is difficult, especially with inflation, and raising
taxes for residents is not easy. However, she felt everyone should recognize that one of the best long-term
investments a town can make is in its schools. Strong schools are one of the most important drivers for property
values and community vitality.
She reminded that Coventry already spends significantly less per student than other communities in CT. She
stressed that when the approved budget does not cover contractual wage increases, transportation, and other
fixed costs that rise each year, not funding these increases cuts services.
Clark asked that the school’s budget be approved, and for accountability in Town Council decisions. If funding
levels result in fewer programs or services, then the reality of this should be acknowledged by the Council
instead of pushing a narrative that there were no cuts. She requested that schools maintain the funding levels to
maintain current services. She stated that she would like to stay for the meeting to hear the discussion but needs
to show up for her kids to do bedtime.
Motion: I move to move Agenda Item 8.A. up on the agenda to immediately follow Agenda Item 7.B.
By: Larson
Discussion: None

Second: Hand

Vote: Unanimously in favor
4. Acceptance Of Minutes, February 17, 2026:
Motion: I move to accept the February 17, 2026, Town Council Meeting Minutes.
By: Blanchard

Second: Larson

Discussion/Edits:
 Pg. 1, Under ‘Members Present’, remove “(remote)” after Blanchard’s name.
For: Hand, Gallagher, Thomas, Larson, Wheaton, and Blanchard.
Against:
Abstain:
5. Acceptance Of Minutes, March 2, 2026:
Motion: I move to accept the March 2, 2026, Town Council Meeting Minutes.
By: Hand

Second: Wheaton

Discussion/Edits:
 Pg. 10, Under Agenda Item 9.A., 4th paragraph, starting with “Gallagher spoke...” correct any instance of
“bon fire” to “bonfire”.
 Pg. 12, 2nd paragraph after bullets, 1st sentence, change “.76%” to “4.76%”.
 Pg. 5, Under 8.B., Under Gallagher’s report, 1st bullet, change “is” to “are”.
 Pg. 6, Under 8.C.1.b., expiration date in motion should be corrected to “1/1/2028”.
 Pg. 11, Under Agenda Item 10.A., 1st bullet under “Drumm discussed”, change “decreased to under
$75,000” to “decreased by $75,000.”
 Pg. 11, Under Agenda Item 10.A., 2nd bullet under “Drumm discussed”, last sentence, change “2027/27” to
“2026/27”.
For: Hand, Gallagher, Thomas, Larson, Wheaton, and Blanchard.
Against:
Abstain:
6. Consent Agenda:
All items listed with an asterisk (*) will be acted on by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on
these items unless a Council member so requests, in which case, the item will be removed from the consent
agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
Motion: I move to accept the consent agenda.
By: Hand

Second: Wheaton

Discussion: Thomas asked that Agenda Item 10.A. be removed.
Voting:
For: Hand, Gallagher, Thomas, Larson, Wheaton, and Blanchard.
Against:
Abstain:

7. Reports:
7.A. Council Chairwoman: Lisa Thomas:
Thomas read the following report:
 Farewell to our Human Services Administrator Annemarie Sundgren who is moving on to new life
adventures. Many thanks to Annemarie for serving our town with professionalism and compassion.
 Speaking of human services, I want to take a moment to highlight the many ways that the Coventry Senior
Center supports our community. You can sign up to receive the newsletter via email, you can pick up a
copy at the senior center, or you can look at their Facebook page.
 I would like to call your attention to three items attached under my Chair report:
o First is the flyer announcing the observance of National Vietnam War Veterans Day, which will be held
at the CT Vietnam War Veterans Memorial on the Coventry Memorial Green. The ceremony is on
Sunday, March 29, at 2:00 p.m.
o Second are two pieces of legislative testimony that I submitted. One is to the Planning and
Development Committee in support of more flexible use of Town Aid Roads (TAR) funds. The other is
to the Human Services Committee in support of increasing Medicaid reimbursement for ambulance
services by adjusting the out-of-district mileage calculation for such services.
o Councilor Blanchard has in the past questioned my submitting testimony from the Town, expressing her
wish that she had more information. I want to reiterate that the Council approved by consensus the
CRCOG legislative priorities; the testimony I submit as Council Chair is testimony that supports those
priorities. Those priorities are attached to past Council minutes and can be viewed on the CRCOG
website.
 Today you should have received a forwarded email invitation to join a conference at EastCONN this Friday
focused on ways to develop regional municipal partnerships, shared services and other collaborations. If you
are interested in participating, you must register. There is no cost to attend. I had planned to go but need to
take care of another commitment.
 Congratulations to the CHS girls and boys varsity basketball teams for their ongoing March Madness
success! I am looking forward to cheering both teams on tomorrow at Manchester High School - the boys at
5 and the girls at 7.
7.A.1. National Vietnam War Veterans Day Announcement: Vietnam War Veterans Day 2026
7.A.2. Legislative Testimony Update:
Testimony Raised Bill 5501
Testimony Raised Bill SB429
7.B. Council Members: None.
7.C. Finance Committee: Robyn Gallagher, Chairperson:
Gallagher highlighted the following from the last Finance Committee meeting:
 Reviewed monthly reports.
 Discussed getting the general fund up to date.
 Received a referendum update (later on the agenda).
 Discussed the balance of the ECHIP reserve, and how to get more information.



Citizens budget guide (later on agenda).

7.C.1. * Monthly Financial Report:
7.D. *Steering Committee: Jonathan Hand, Chairperson
7.E. * COVRRA
7.F. Town Manager: James Drumm:
7.F.1 Projects/Issues Update:
Drumm highlighted the following updates:
 The Charter Revision Commission is meeting this week on 3/19.
 Town staff continues to look at other Boards and Commissions. Current boards being reviewed are the
Softball Field Committee and the Human Services Advisory Committee. Additionally, there may be a need
for a Youth Advisory Services Committee. Once these are fully looked into, it will be brought to Steering.
 Assessor Vacancy-The Town has received 4 qualified applicants, and interviews are scheduled for this
week.
 Human Services Administrator, Anne Marie Sundgren, has resigned with her last day being March 24th. The
position has been advertised, and many applications have been received. The posting will close March 30th,
at which time the applications will be reviewed and interviews schedule.
 MMI Grant-This grant would allow for a food waste and leaf composting facility at the transfer station.
However, DEEP has an extensive permitting process to go through, with many towns being unable to move
forward with their projects. Coventry continues to work through the permitting process but hoped to be
further along at this point. The permitting delays have pushed the originally anticipated spring construction
to fall.
 Patriots Park- Bid documents are complete for the playscape and were sent to the CT Department of
Economic and Community Development who reviewed and approved them. Bids will be going out soon,
with hopes to have that project completed by summer of 2026.
 Plains Rd Waterline-DPH comments have been received that look good. They still have 15 days to complete
their review and request changes. Due to the delays, construction will likely start in July. However, it is still
expected to be finished by the end of summer.
 Main St./South St.- Town Eng. Todd Penney shared that additional engineering is required for this project,
which requires extra funds. This project will go out to bid once the design is complete, so it is currently
delayed. It is expected to come forward at a future meeting for a funding request to be considered.
 Bunker Hill Bridge- Tree removal is taking place tomorrow to prepare the area for construction
 Daffodil Beautification Committee-The Committee has decided that this is their last year, after 20 years.
DPW Director, Bill Watkins is looking for other volunteers who may be willing to step up and continue
some of that work. Over the past 20 years, 125,000 bulbs have been planted in town. He suggested the
Town Council invite them into a future meeting to thank them and provide recognition.
Questions/Comments:
Wheaton questioned the 'in-kind services’ that are being used for the Hale Trails Project. Drumm explained that
this is for engineering work by our town engineer. He explained that there are some wetland issues with the
construction, putting this project on standby until additional engineering can be completed, which requires

funding and the overcoming of challenges. A potential option is to have a dead-end trail with a deck over the
water.

7.F.2. Neighborhood Assistance Act 2026 Notice:NAA Annoucement Letter
Drumm explained this is a program that opens each year, allowing non-profits to apply for state funding through
donations, that are approved by the local municipality. Businesses who donate typically receive a tax credit for
donating.
Drumm stated they are trying to be proactive this year, as they were rushed last year, to encourage non-profits
that want to get involved. He commented that this would be advertised as well. The non-profit would present
their project at a public hearing for the Council to consider approving them. The approved projects are
submitted to the state for businesses looking to donate to a project.
Wheaton was concerned with the extra work that would be put onto town staff as a NAA liaison. Drumm
confirmed it would be minimal with documentation submittals and notifying organizations. Drumm also
confirmed there is no cost to the town.
8. Unfinished Business:
8.A. 25/26-39: FY 2026/27 Budget:
Budget presentations:
 Police Department:
Capital Improvement:
Chief Peterson explained that there is nothing in the Capital Improvement plan for this FY, but shared the
following items that will be coming down the pipes within the next 5 years:
 Car Dash Cameras- The PD received these through recent grant funding. 2 years ago, when they were
initially requested in the budget, they cost $64,425. Current prices are $77,519.46. The life expectancy for
this equipment is 5 to 8 years, meaning the department will be looking to replace these come July 2031,
with prices expected to be much higher. There are 5 frontline cars that use cameras.
 Officer Body Cameras- The PD also received 16 body cameras through recent grant funding, which cost
$45,101.54. The life expectancy for these is 5 years. Replacements will be needed for these as well come
July 2031.
 Polce Department Surveillance Cameras-20 years old, original to 2006 building construction. The system
uses both inside and outside cameras, which have been having reliability and security issues. Resolution
quality is making viewing difficult, which is needed for areas like the cell block area and prisoner cells.
Currently, there are areas not covered by cameras including the parking lot and rear of the building.
Replacement cost-$29,582.48.
 Dispatch Terminal Upgrade-Received in the grant as well, which cost $268,000.
Department Operating Budget:
 Current staff consists of 28 employees.

Chief Peterson is requesting a 6th Sergeant/Supervisor position, as the department currently operates with 5.
o This would allow around the clock coverage.

o
o
o
o
o

The department would operate with 6 Sergeants/7 Officers, instead of a 5/8 ratio.
There are state mandated policies that require supervisor responsibilities/presence.
Not having a supervisor working is a liability for the town.
Chief Peterson’s plan is to promote a senior officer once the department is fully staffed.
Cost is minimal, in 3-step increments. 1st step is $2.44/hr. difference, after 3 years, its $5.35/hr.

Administration Budget:
 No increase/decrease. Budget stays the same for FY26/27.
Police Operations Budget:
 $100 increase to clothing/safety equipment
Support Services:
 Removed $22,000 annual maintenance fee for CAD system.
 $500 decrease in training.
 $250 decrease in printing.
 $200 increase for office supplies.
 $300 increase for microfilm photo supplies.
Police Station:
 $50 increase for copiers
 General utility increases
ACO/CSO (Animal Control Officer/Community Service Officer:
 $200 increase for equipment parts
 $500 increase for vet fees.
Marine Patrol:
 $500 increase for equipment repairs
 $400 increase for equipment parts
 The boat is really starting to show its age.
Chief Peterson shared a chart/list of yearly contract services.
Questions and Comments:
Gallagher questioned the $11,800 that is budgeted for part-time, to help address over-time costs. However, that
hasn’t been used, and she was curious if that needed to remain in the budget. Chief Peterson explained that this
program could work, but he hasn’t been able to get a good pool of candidates. He expressed the Town Manager
had interest in keeping it there in case someone could be brought on board. Drumm explained that the $11,000
was taken from overtime, so if there is no part-time employee, the money gets used up by overtime. So, it can’t
truly be cut completely.
Gallagher also asked if the department is on track to spend less than what was budgeted for part-time under
Police Support Services, as the actual spending is only $17,812. Chief Peterson discussed the difficulties

utilizing a part-time dispatcher, as they don’t have set hours but typically work on the weekends. If there is ever
a shift they don’t want to/can’t work, it has to be covered by one of the full-time employees. Additionally,
contracts state the full-time employees get 1st dibs at overtime during the week over part timers, and there has
been a high interest for overtime from full-time employees. Chief Peterson explained that the only other
suggestion would be to add 2 more full-time dispatchers, to have a total of 5. This would allow 24/7 coverage
without part-timers, but that would have a higher cost.
Gallagher shared concerns that the budget report only shows that about half of the overtime budget has been
used as of December, which reflects the department being only slightly over by year end, but Chief Peterson
expressed that 92% has been used to date. Chief Peterson explained that when he printed his financial reports, it
shows that approximately $34,000 of the budgeted $37,000 has been used, leaving $3,400 remaining. However,
there is a balance of $57,000 for part-time pay. He explained that he tries to use part-time employees to offset
overtime costs, as a full-time employee working on the weekend is more expensive at time and a half.
Wheaton asked what the $9,500 in equipment parts are for, if it is not for auto parts (which have their own
separate line item). Chief Peterson thought this could be for different parts of the building. Wheaton
commented that the actuals for this line item were less last year. Trahan determined that this was special
equipment needed for the CREST officer.
Blanchard asked Trahan to explain the longevity program. Trahan explained that employees are eligible for
longevity once they reach 5 years of employment. At that point, they receive $100 per year, with a maximum of
$1,500. It was noted that a few of the Coventry PD officers have been employed for a long time.
Blanchard also questioned police operations, which shows an increase for regular full-time salaries. It was
clarified that this was to account for the pay increase for an officer to go sergeant, as well as some of the
contractually obligated step increases for officers. This reflects the fiscal year 26-27 to be $7,500 with fringe
benefits included.
Larson asked about the $23,000 Chief Peterson requested for licenses, and support data processing in Police
Support Services. He noted it was removed by the Town Manager and curious as to what it is. Drumm
explained that this is the annual fee for the CAD system, that the Police Department is switching. The new
system does not require a fee for this 1st year, so it is being removed. Drumm reminded that $30,000 is in capital
to cover the 1st year’s payment.
Gallagher asked if there were any areas that could be cut, as the line item for training is significantly lower than
what is budgeted (1,400 out of $14,000). Chief Peterson explained that he has a balance of $8,094 and expects
to use more of those funds in the spring.
Gallagher also questioned the equipment supplies for police services, as the actuals on this line item are lower
than budgeted. Chief Peterson shared that his financial report shows that there has been more used than what is
in the budget book, as there are some things they have received but haven’t gotten from the vendor.
Chief Peterson reminded that he would continue to work with the Town Manager on items that could be
reduced but wants to make sure that he has enough in these line items to get through the last quarter without
going over budget.

Thomas noted that the Police Department budget seems lean.
 Fire/EMS Department: (A copy of the Fire/EMS Presentation is at the conclusion of the minutes).
Chief Peterson gave his presentation and highlighted the following:
 His gratitude for the dedication, service, and commitment of the department volunteers.
 The department is at the point of doing more with less, absorbing a 26% increase in call volume while
maintaining the same resource levels.
 Personnel continue to do exceptional work under increasing demands.
 An aging population has created a higher demand for emergency services and often experiences multiple
calls at the same time.
 Even with increased EMS call volume, operational costs have been contained with the use of volunteer
shifts and an innovative live-in student program.
 Department accomplishments:
o Created Recruitment Officer and Retention Officer
o Established Emergency Management Director position
o Started student live-in program
o Purchased 1st set of Edraulic tools.
o Received various grant funding.
 Review of the 2022-2027 Strategic Journey.
o Wellness Culture-To ensure physical and mental wellbeing of the department staff and volunteers
o Facilities and Equipment: Facilities strategically placed to have short response times. Maintaining these
facilities and having the right tools in the right condition at the right time is critical. The goal is to
maintain physical assets through data-driven capital planning. Vehicle replacement is the most critical
need, as the fleet is continuously pushed past its intended service life. Old vehicles result in increased
maintenance costs and increased risk for failure.
o Cross-Trained Staff: Focused recruitment for Firefighter/EMTs, increasing the value of each position.
o Training Programs: Training coordinator achieved Fire Service Instructor 3 certification, which is the
highest, positioning Coventry to deliver sophisticated, standards-based training in-house.
o Organizational Integration: Switching to paid staff and hiring the Fire Chief to encompass the Fire
Administrator role. This allows for a clear chain of command, strategic alignment, and seamless
coordination between administrative and operational functions.
 Changes to the Organizational Chart
 Normalization of deviance quietly replaces a culture of safety.
 Preventative Maintenance to overcome age, wear, and obsolete components.
 Insurance companies advertise protection, but do not provide emergency response. The real protection
comes from well-trained, well-equipped fire and EMS services.
 Proactive budgeting is a necessary risk management strategy. When the fire department is underfunded, risk
is not eliminated; it is redistributed. Shifting planned budgets to emergency spending.
 Budget Overview:
o EMS-$817,239 (53% of total budget)
o Fire Services- $396,539 (25% of total budget)
o Transfer Funds- $213,711 (14% of total budget)
o Fire Marshall- $28,490 (2% of total budget)
o Facilities- $98,009 (6% of total budget)

o Overall, the budget has decreased.
o Chief Meyers praised the work of the Administrative Assistant who did an efficient breakdown of the
budget, allowing Meyers to recognize waste and cost savings.
Questions and Comments:
Gallagher discussed how reserves and general fund transfers make up the revenues for the EMS department.
She stated that the general fund transfer that has been decreased by $75,000 but the amount to be transferred to
reserves has increased by $50,000. Drumm noted that these are reserves within the EMS fund itself, not a
transfer from the general fund.
Gallagher also discussed the part-time line item in EMS expenses, which is at $62,000 of the budgeted $77,000
as of December. She shared concerns that even with volunteers, it seems like the $77,000 won’t cut it. Meyers
explained that he lost a full-time employee in July and had to cover hours with the part-time budget versus the
full-time budget. He added that he did not change the full-time employee budget because he has requested more
hours for the Administrative Assistant. Doing so will allow for ambulance billing to be in-house, instead of
paying $27,000 for a billing company. He also explained that he has brought to the Steering Committee to try to
work in billing insurance companies for fire services to try to increase revenue.
Gallagher shared concerns with the service contracts line item, which she feels is on track to be well
overbudget. Meyers shared that this cost comes from the fact that Windham Paramedics bought American
Ambulance and started doing their billing through them. American Ambulance realized that Windham
Paramedics was not billing Coventry properly and taking half of the mileage when transporting a patient from
the scene to the hospital. He explained the contract has been changed and will be lower moving forward as the
billing will be done properly.
It was clarified that the full-time employee that was lost last year has not been replaced. Blanchard questioned if
the Administrative Assistant has EMT or Fire Officer training. Meyers explained that she is a volunteer, and
FSLA does not allow an individual to volunteer and get paid to be on the ambulance. Regardless, with the
amount of work she does, it's not feasible for her to be out on the ambulance.
Thomas questioned if moving billing in-house helps with the direct pay issue; they were trying to get legislation
on. Meyers explained that there is no direct pay in the state. He explained that there were issues with federal
insurance and out-of-state insurance, who are not required to pay the provider directly; they pay the insured. He
shared that the few they were having issues with are not in town anymore.
Wheaton discussed the reserves line item, as the $76,000 looks like a transfer from reserves since it is a revenue
account that is being added to. He asked for clarification. Gallagher explained that since the EMS fund is a
special revenue fund, it can build money year to year. They are spending money they have saved from, carrying
forward funds from this year to next fiscal year as a revenue source. Trahan explained that the fund will have a
balance of around $220,000 by the end of FY26. It was clarified that this accounts for the general fund transfer
from last year.
Wheaton also questioned the travel, meetings, mileage line item, which seems high. Meyers clarified that this
needs to be adjusted and added that it is more of a points stipend for the volunteers. Hand commented that this

helps cover the gas bills of volunteers who take out of their family and personal time to drive to the station and
respond to calls.
Capital Budget:
 Ambulance- Meyers shared the need for a replacement ambulance, as the last 2 have had catastrophic
engine failures. He commented that Coventry will never get a diesel ambulance again and really hopes that
the referendum in May passes in order to get a replacement. He continued that if the current ambulance fails
again, he can’t continue to sink money into it. Drumm explained it is in the budget but has not been funded
as it is included in the bond referendum.
 Fire Engines/Quint-Meyers shared that with a new Fire apparatus, he can replace 2 of the current fire
engines in the fleet, as it will carry more water and equipment. The Quint Firetruck is 26 years old, and the
Fire Engine that can be replaced, but is still in operation is 22 years old. By the time a new Quint Firetruck
is manufactured and delivered, these vehicles will be 3-4 years older.
 Rescue Vehicle- This would need to be replaced in another 7-10 years, which would cost $1.5M.
 Equipment:
o SCOTT Packs- 18 years old. Once they reach 20 years of age, they need to be replaced as they are not
compliant with OSHA and NFPA standards.
o SE Bay Bottles- ON a replacement cycle so not all bottles need to be replaced at once.
o Hoses-Recently replaced 1,300 feet of hose after OSHA testing, which cost $10,000.
o PPE- Coats and pants have to be replaced every 10 years. A coat and pants cost approximately $7,000.
 Meyers reviewed the ages of the Fire/EMS apparatuses, the replacement schedules, and vehicle rotations.
Questions and Comments:
Wheaton discussed which vehicles would be removed from the fleet, should the Quint on the budget
referendum be approved. It was clarified that the old Quint, Fire Engine 218, and Rescue 218 would be
removed. So, 3 vehicles come out of the fleet, and 1 new Quint goes in.
Blanchard questioned the $570 increase on the sewer line item for Station 118. Meyers explained that the sewer
needs to be monitored and tested because of the apparatus, which costs $500. This is because the Fire Station
has a drain that goes into the sewer system.
Wheaton questioned the saving from the solar panels, as they are not listed in the budget. It was explained that it
typically brings down the electric bill.
Meyers shared his closing remarks and urged the Town Council to consider what the data and operation
experience show. Which include:
 Operating emergency vehicles that are more than 20 years old has real consequences.
 Underfunding scheduled replacements is not fiscal responsibility; it is shifting risks and future costs onto the
Coventry Fire Department members and community we serve.
 The town has million-dollar safety assets that deserve the same capital planning that are applied to other
town assets.
 A $2.245M Quint with a 30-year service life is a long-term investment. Annualizing the Quint replacement
cost is less than 1/3 the combined annual replacement cost for police and public works over that same time
frame.





This budget is designed to do things right, once, and on schedule.
Properly funding the department means the service members have the tools, training, and support necessary
to protect the community safely and effectively.
Everyone in the community and the Town Council has praised the volunteers, which is deeply appreciated
and valued. However, praise alone does not keep them safe. Support is not measured in complements; it is
measured in the willingness to provide the necessary resources to do the job, which is what this budget
represents.

Additional Budget Discussions:
Thomas explained that the Council was given revised Parks and Recreation budget pages, which show
reductions for a lot of numbers. She asked how this impacts the budget numbers they were originally given.
Trahan explained that it doesn’t impact them. Drumm explained that the Parks and Rec budget wasn’t fully
balanced, as there was a position showing up in 2 places. The numbers have been corrected, but the savings
remain the same. Trahan and Thomas discussed the revenues that showed changes. Trahan explained that funds
were pulled from the Parks and Rec Reserves fund in order to balance the revenues and expenditures. It does
not change the transfer from the general fund.
Trahan additionally explained that there were 2 expenses that did not get put into ClearGov that had to be added
in. This increased the expenditures, then Trahan decreased the expenditures under Parks and Rec Operations by
$62,000 to balance it out in the budget.
9. New Business:
9.A. 25/26-42: Consideration/Possible Action: 2026 World Autism Awareness Day Proclamation (7:15
PM):
Thomas read the 2026 World Autism Awareness Day & World Autism Awareness Month Proclamation and
presented it to Coventry student Joseph Bauch and his mother, Elizabeth Bauch who are advocates for Autism
Awareness.
J. Bauch thanked the Town Council and expressed gratitude for their support over the last 3 years to help raise
awareness for autism, accepting people of all abilities, and celebrating people with autism and their families
through this proclamation.
J. Bauch expressed that autism awareness is much more than just a proclamation. He shared that it is a yearlong journey of advocacy, sharing, and educating the community to have patience and support those with
autism. He concluded that he and his family look forward to continuing this journey with the Town Council.
Thomas added that the Police Department and the EMS/Fire Department were recently involved in the ‘Yellow
Envelope Project’, which creates awareness for those with autism or other disabilities. Thomas thanked J.
Bauch for his involvement and advocacy.
Motion: I move to approve the Proclamation declaring April 2026 as Autism Awareness Month and April 2,
2026, as Autism Awareness Day in the Town of Coventry.
By: Hand

Second: Blanchard

Discussion: None
Voting:
For: Hand, Gallagher, Thomas, Larson, Blanchard, and Wheaton.
Against:
Abstain:

9.B. 25/26-43: Consideration/Possible Action: Combined Capital Projects Referendum Resolution:
Motion: I move to adopt Resolution 2026-06, RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $3,520,000 FOR THE
ACQUISITION, REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, AND/OR PURCHASE OF CERTAIN CAPITAL
EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES, AND/OR FURNISHINGS FOR VARIOUS TOWN DEPARTMENTS; AND
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $3,520,000 BONDS OF THE TOWN TO MEET SAID
APPROPRIATION AND PENDING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF THE MAKING OF TEMPORARY
BORROWINGS FOR SUCH PURPOSE.
By: Gallagher

Second: Hand

Discussion:
Drumm explained that this is a resolution for the bonding projects that the Council reviewed back in December,
including:
 Fire Alarms for CGS and GHR.
 Intercoms for all schools.
 Ambulance replacement (for the 1 that is currently out of service).
 DPW Street Sweeper.
 Quint Firetruck
o This will take 3 years to build, but it needs to be authorized by the voters to place the order.
Bonding for this item will not be taken out until the truck is delivered.
For a total of $3.52M.
Drumm clarified that it is not expected that the ambulance would take that long to be delivered. Thomas asked
about the streetsweeper. Drumm was unsure of a definite timeline and would need to check the timing.
However, a year ago when this was being looked into, it was expected to take a year to be delivered. It was also
confirmed that if the bond referendum is passed, it will lock in the current prices.4
Blanchard questioned when the Council will see the ballot question. It was informed that the question is
included in the 2nd motion on Drumm’s summary sheet, which Drumm read aloud. Explanatory text will be on
the doors, presented on an easel, or placed in the budget in brief. However, the explanatory text will not be on
the ballot.
Gallagher shared that she is in favor of the public safety aspect of this bond referendum. She shared concerns
with the possibility of not being able to communicate at the schools in the instance of an emergency. She also

shared that if the fire alarms fail in the schools, the BOE is required to hire someone for a 24/7 fire watch to
endure the safety of the building.
Wheaton shared concerns that voters will see a large number without information. He questioned how to
increase voters' knowledge of what is included in the $3.5M. Thomas clarified that the explanatory text will be
provided in multiple locations, especially at the polls. Wheaton felt that the chart that breaks the bond out into 3
chunks is a useful tool and allows voters to have visibility to make an informed decision. Thomas also
explained that the department presentations will be made available on the website.
Motion: I move to recess no longer than 5 minutes for caucus discussion.
By: Wheaton

Second: Blanchard

The motion is not debatable.
Vote: Unanimously in favor.
Hand shared support for the resolution as it is an investment in the safety in our community and felt that it was
responsible governance.
Blanchard requested that the Council consider splitting the bond referendum items into more than 1 lumped
question. She shared that she has seen greater participation in the last few years and believes the voters want the
choice to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to things.
Wheaton agreed that the items in the referendum are very important but also supports Blanchard’s thoughts as
separating into 3 sections, as displayed in the table, to allow for more visibility for the voters.
Thomas shared that she has expressed her opinion on this and believes it to be reasonable to put them all into 1
question since they are all safety related items for the community. She continued that she believes separating
them into 3 different sections will pit different organizations against each other, leading to a failure of all
questions. She emphasized that Coventry is 1 town and does not support random picking and choosing.
Thomas additionally shared concerns that there is a lack of support for the firetruck from Councilors from the
last couple of terms and believes the intent to break out the questions is a way to try and defeat that purchase,
which is not in the best interest of community safety.
Larson expressed full support of putting the chart on display for voter visibility for them to be well informed.
He shared that the fire alarms for the school are included, but if the school was on fire, you couldn’t put it out
without the tanker. Alternatively, if the town had the tanker to put out fires but didn’t have alarms to notify
them of the fire, that's not good either. He emphasized that these work hand in hand. He reminded that even if
approved, the Quint Fire Engine would still be 3 years out, at which point the current Quint will be close to 30
years old, and hopefully still working. If they delay this purchase, it will be more expensive, and still 3-4 years
out to get. He shared that kicking the can down the road there could be lives at stake or lost to the major
buildings in town the community is invested in. He shared that his concern is that the Quint would be voted

down based on the total cost, and then there would be no new fire truck coming in and a fire truck that doesn’t
work.
Gallagher commented that they often have discussions where they try to guess what taxpayers are more likely to
do, which is dangerous. She commented that breaking it out could make some or all of these things more likely
to fail. With the explanatory text, it will be clear what the money is for. She agreed with Thomass point that it
will appear that things are being pitted against each other, making voters pick and choose. This then creates the
opportunity for plurality votes, with certain percentages of the population caring for 1 item but not the others.
This may lead to only a 40% consensus for each item, resulting in all items failing. She feels these items are all
too important for them to fail.
Hand reiterated that he is against breaking the questions out, as there is a very strong safety theme amongst the
items. He reminded that having the explanatory text allows last minute voters who show up to be informed. He
stressed the importance of this investment in the community.
Voting:
For: Hand, Gallagher, Thomas, and Larson.
Against: Blanchard and Wheaton
Abstain:
Motion: I move that the Town, Manager and Town Clerk be authorized and directed to place on the agenda for
consideration Resolution 2026-06 at the Annual Town Meeting to be held in the Coventry High School
Veterans Auditorium (78 Ripley Hil Road, Coventry, Connecticut 06238) on Saturday, April 25, 2026 at 10:00
A.M. (DST.), for the following purpose:
1. To consider a resolution entitled “Resolution Appropriating $3,520,000 For The Acquisition, Repair And
Replacement, And/Or Purchase Of Certain Capital Equipment, Vehicles, And/Or Furnishings For Various
Town Departments; And Authorizing The Issuance Of $3,520,000 Bonds Of The Town To Meet Said
Appropriation And Pending The Issuance Thereof The Making Of Temporary Borrowings For Such Purpose.”
And, further, that the vote on the ballot question below be adjourned to a vote at the Adjourned Annual Town
Meeting and Referendum, to be held on May 5, 2026:
1. “Shall the resolution entitled ‘Resolution Appropriating $3,520,000 For The Acquisition, Repair And
Replacement, And/Or Purchase Of Certain Capital Equipment, Vehicles, And/Or Furnishings For Various
Town Departments; And Authorizing The Issuance Of $3,520,000 Bonds Of The Town To Meet Said
Appropriation And Pending The Issuance Thereof The Making Of Temporary Borrowings For Such Purpose’,
as introduced and read at the Annual Town Meeting held April 25, 2026 be approved?” The ballot label for said
question shall read as follows:
Shall the resolution making an appropriation of $3,520,000 for various capital equipment vehicles,
furnishings and other capital projects, be approved?
YES_____ NO____”

The vote will be by optical scan voting machine. Those in favor of the resolution referred to in the question
shall fill in the oval under the word “YES” under such question. Those not in favor of the resolution referred to
in the question shall fill in the oval under the word “NO” under such question.
The polls will be open during the hours between 6:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. (D.S.T.). Electors will vote at the
polling places established for voting districts #1 and #2. The voters who are entitled to vote by reason of Section
7-6 of the General Statutes of Connecticut, as amended, may vote at Coventry Town Hall, 1712 Main Street,
Coventry, CT 06238. The polling places are as follows:
District 1 and District 2 will vote at Coventry Fire/EMS Station #118, 1755 Main Street, Coventry, CT 06238.
Absentee ballots shall be available as provided by law at the Office of the Town Clerk.
By: Larson

Second: Hand

Discussion: None
Voting:
For: Hand, Gallagher, Thomas, and Larson.
Against: Blanchard and Wheaton
Abstain:
9.C. 25/26-44: Consideration/Possible Action: Citizen's Budget Guide:
Drumm explained that comments following the previous meeting were added, and Gallagher sent in several
comments, practically rewriting the guide. Gallagher shared that most of her edits were changing the dialogue
from passive to active voice. She stated that she felt people would be frustrated if they were told to get involved
by attending meetings that have already taken place. She noted that since the guide is now prepared, listing
meeting dates for future budget seasons is more feasible.
Additional budget guide corrections:
 Budget Process, 2nd paragraph, change “Town Council’s public budget hearing” to “Town Manager’s
budget hearing.”
 Clarify the Town Council conducts public meetings, not hearings.
 Under Special Funds, 2nd to last sentence, remove the word “sometimes”.
 Under Debt Management, change “Town debt is done” to “Town debt is issued.
 Under Debt Management, last sentence, change “taken out” to “incurred”.
 Budget Full Review, 1st paragraph, put a “:” before the list of items and remove the “or”. To read” For
example: roads, schools, vehicles, or equipment’”
 Budget process section, 3rd sentence, change “the Superintendent” to “Superintendent of Schools”. (This
change is to be made throughout the document).
 Taxes and revenues, last paragraph, edit language to read “Coventry also receives state and federal funds
through intergovernmental transfers that support education and infrastructure. Some of the town's services
also raise revenues, for example, administrative fees, program fees, Ambulance charges and others. (E.g.
Parks and Recreation, Senior Center activities).









Under Taxes and Revenues, top of right column, remove ‘s’ from “vehicles”.
Use MSRP instead of Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price.
Under Taxes and Revenues, top of right column, change “age of the old vehicle” to “vehicle age”.
Under Debt Management, 2/3s of the way down add “rates” after “lowering interest”.
In the timeline, change “Department heads budgets” to “Department Director budget requests”.
In the timeline, change dates for December 2025 and January 2026.
In the timeline, for the budget referendum on May 5th, include address for the Fire Station, and location and
time for the Annual Town Meeting.
 Make sure the font size is uniform.
 Change the question mark after “How to get involved” to an “!”.
 Fewer hyphenated words, if possible, through reformatting.
Thomas requested that an Audience of Citizens be added to the March 23rd agenda, and that this be posted on
the website with the budget information.
Thomas requested that Drumm make the changes discussed and get the budget guide out ASAP.
Motion: I move to accept the Budget Primer with the discussed amendments.
By: Larson

Second: Hand

Discussion: None
Voting:
For: Hand, Gallagher, Thomas, Larson, Blanchard, and Wheaton.
Against:
Abstain:
10. Miscellaneous/Correspondence:
10.A. *DRIP Program Update: Drip Progam Update
Thomas shared that she wanted Councilors to be aware of this. She received feedback from the BOE Chair who
commented that this is great news, and Coventry should be able to take advantage of it. Information was shared
at the last BOE fiscal meeting regarding the process and timelines. Project submissions are due April 15th.
The BOE Fiscal Committee decided to recommend to the full BOE that the air conditioning units and electrical
work to meet classroom temperature mandates be submitted for FY26. The full BOE voted to authorize that
submission for this year’s DRIP cycle. The BOE also voted to use their non-lapsing 2% account for Project Plus
in excess of the funds available via the DRIP program.
If the AC units are not approved, then the cost will remain on the CIP list. The BOE is optimistic that the AC
units and electrical work meet the guidelines communicated so far, and the submission will be approved.
Thomas noted that there may be additional financial assistance available for education purposes, but it won’t be
known until the session ends, which is the day after the budget vote.
11. Adjournment
Motion: I move that the Town Council adjourn the meeting at 10:34 PM

By: Larson

Second: Wheaton

The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote at 10:34 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,

Nicole Archambault
Nicole Archambault, Minutes Clerk
PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not official until approved by the Coventry Town Council at the next
Town Council meeting. Please see the next Town Council meeting minutes for approval or changes to these
minutes.
Fire/EMS Presentation and Supporting Documents:

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Coventry Town Council Special Budget Meeting
March 23, 2026
7:00 PM
Town Hall Annex
1. Call To Order, Roll Call:
The Meeting was called to order by Council Chairwoman Lisa Thomas at 7:05 PM
Members Present: Lisa Thomas-Chairwoman, Peter Larson-Vice Chairman, Matthew Kyer-Secretary, Jon
Hand, Mark Wheaton, and Julie Blanchard.
Absent: Robyn Gallagher
Also Present: James Drumm-Town Manager and Cherie Trahan-Finance Director.
2. Pledge of Allegiance:
Town Council members stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Audience Of Citizens: (30 Minutes - 5 minutes maximum per citizen):
Patrick Wagstrom, 51 Edgewater Drive:
Wagstrom shared that he wanted to speak on behalf of parents, to advocate for the Board of Ed budget.
Wagstrom shared concerns that there is only 1 shot at getting the budget right, because if the budget gets voted
down, it can only be further decreased, not increased. Every cut made before the referendum essentially goes
into effect, with no do-overs. He requested that the Town Council carefully consider their actions. He stated that
this unfortunately wasn’t the case last year, which devastated the school district's budget.
He shared since moving to Coventry in 2013, his taxes have increased in line with inflation, which he feels is
reasonable. However, this has not been the case for the BOE budget. If it had increased in line with inflation,
their budget would be $3M higher than it is today. He stated that the Board of Ed does an admirable job
managing the consequences of continuously being underfunded, but the cuts have unfortunately led to loss of
staff. Currently, Coventry Public Schools are ranked 33 out of 33 in per pupil spending in our district reference
group, which is not something to be proud of. Regardless, GHR was just named the best elementary school in
CT by the CT Association of Schools. He emphasized that this is not because of the facility or playground but
accredited to the great staff.
He questioned if his taxes have increased in line with inflation, but the schools have only grown 20%, then
where is the rest of the money? He stated that all general government budget categories (Administration, Public
Works, Human Services, Civic, Cultural, and Sundry) have grown faster than the school budget has. He
requested that the Council do the right thing and fund the schools, rather than cutting the ‘easy’ target as this
trend is unsustainable.
Motion: I move to move Agenda Item 5 up on the agenda to immediately follow Agenda Item 3.
By: Hand

Second: Kyer

Discussion: None
1

Vote: Unanimously in favor.
4. Unfinished Business:
4.A. 25/26-39: FY 2026/27 Budget:
● PZC CIP Recommendations:
Drumm shared that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the proposed Capital Improvement Plan
every year to provide a prioritized list of recommendations. He read the following memo, submitted by the
PZC for Town Council review: PZC Capital Improvement Recommendations.
Thomas felt that their memo is reflective of the adopted Town Council goals and work that has been done to
secure grant funding for the sewer treatment plant and the water. Additionally, the town is working to move
forward on a road bond next year. Thomas thanked the PZC for their feedback and stated that the Town Council
concurs with their recommendations. She added that the PZC is encouraged to participate in the strategic
planning goals.
● Budget Deliberations:
Wheaton discussed the following for clarification:
● The $219,000 budgeted for contingency- He asked which groups does contingency cover, as it was not clear
when reviewing labor lines.
o Trahan explained that it covers all groups. She added that the amounts that Wheaton is seeing in the
individual department budgets are for things like step increases, or for newer employees getting paid for
a full year instead of a partial year from when they were onboarded.
o Trahan also shared that she noted what salary line-item increases were for, on her memo dated March
9th.
o Wheaton reviewed the line items listed on the memo with amounts included in the budget to verify
what they were for and that no mistakes were made. They all checked out.
● Investment income reflects $137,000 was earned last year. However, the amount budgeted for FY 26-27 is
significantly less. He was curious if we are being conservative or if the investment income is expected to
decrease.
o Trahan explained that she is still working on the allocation of interest income and is unsure of what it is
for the current year yet, which is why she did not want to adjust the amount listed to a higher amount.
She clarified that the original budgeted amount for FY 25 was only $250,000, and that investment
income is too volatile to increase to a higher amount. She explained that it was important to increase it
to $300,000 from the $250,000 to avoid overtaxing by not accounting for enough revenue. Drumm
added that it has been heard interest rates may come down.
o She commented that she hopes to get a better handle on this amount prior to a mil rate being set.
o Wheaton asked if the investment income is from short-term interest rates, Trahan confirmed and added
that there are some accounts that get more than others, but it is not like investing in the market.
● The Capital and Non-recurring fund has a sizeable increase
o It was explained that this is for the SEPA study that was done for the WPCA. Under the WPCA budget,
there is $160,000 in state and federal grant funds that will be put towards this.

2

● The Town Council recently voted on things to go to referendum, and Wheaton expressed he found the
intercoms and fire alarms for the school and the firetruck in the budget book but could not find the
ambulance or streetsweeper replacements. He thought it was important that they are added if they are not
currently included.
o Drumm explained that the ambulance and the streetsweeper would be purchased in the current budget,
not FY26/27, so they will not be reflected in the budget book. He further explained they have already
been put into capital, so if the referendum passes, the ambulance and streetsweeper can be purchased
right away. He reminded the firetruck can be ordered right away too, due to the time it takes to get one
and the fact the bonding would be delayed until it is received. The remaining items will be purchased in
FY26/27.
● The Portico Rebuild for the Booth and Dimock Library: To ensure everyone is on the same page about it not
being in the budget for next year due to the low probability of the repairs taking place next year. Drumm
confirmed.
● There is a $250,000 in-kind contribution for the Hale Trails. Wheaton asked if this is in the DPW, since inkind means the use of existing staff and there is no line item in the budget. Drumm confirmed that it is for
the use of existing staff and materials (dirt, gravel, etc.)
● On Pg. 338, Wheaton believes this to be the plan for how the Town Council plans to spend the CNREF
budget for FY 26/27.Drumm confirmed and referenced the amount reflected is an “up to” amount, so the
entirety would not be used if not needed.
Blanchard asked the following questions:
● If an Executive Session can be scheduled to update the Town Council where Town Manager Jim Drumm is
at with Union negotiations. Drumm explained it is too early, as the Unions have just filed the paperwork and
had initial opening sessions. He continued that he has not seen their requests at this point. He shared that an
Executive Session will be put on a Town Council agenda when there is more information. He stated that the
1st meetings with the Unions will likely take place in early April.
● Blanchard pointed out that the Lake Management Fund shows $0 in the budget book, but she thought the
town was getting $75,000. Drumm explained that there used to be a Lake Management Fund when the town
was just doing testing. Now, testing and treatment are paid out of the Capital budget as part of the overall
Capital treatment. Trahan added that grants for the lake would not go in the general fund; they would go in
the grants fund. She explained that it is reported and tracked separately in order to report to the agency that
gave the town the grant. However, the town provided a match for the Hydrilla treatment/lake management
($124,000) which is recorded in the budget book. Wheaton shared concerns that the town’s expense is in the
budget, but not the revenue. Trahan discussed how the revenues and expenses are recorded appropriately for
this. The Council reviewed the grants that are going to be received and how they are broken down. Trahan
reminded that the Capital Plan is just a plan of all the monies to be received and what projects are going to
be done with them. Blanchard explained she wished there was a section in the budget books for grants,
because the Capital Improvement Plan is so fluid.
o Larson agreed with having an informational memo to explain recent and upcoming grants that can be
provided separately from the budget book.
o Drumm explained his reasoning and process for rolling Capital items from year to year.
o Wheaton asked about the $435,000 of revenues under lease purchase, as the town would get assets
before they are paid for. This is reflected in the DPW portion of the budget, but the amount is not
included in debt service like it should be. Trahan explained how it works, and stated that next year, the
lease payments will be included in debt service. Wheaton then asked why the ambulance and
3

●
●

●

●

●

●

streetsweeper are not in the FY27 budget for debt service. It was reminded that it would be ordered in
FY26. Additionally, in order to put something in a referendum vote, it needs to be in an approved
capital plan 1st.
Pg. 198, Blanchard asked why the HVAC and Plains Rd amounts are not reflected. Drumm explained that
they have not been bonded yet as the town still has temporary notes. He added the plan is to take them out in
July, and then they will show up in next year’s debt service.
Blanchard shared that it is frustrating that the Council has been told their debt service is going down,
meanwhile it seems like it's around $10M.
o Trahan explained that she is working with the Financial Advisor on debt projections. She reminded that
this is difficult until they really know what is being issued for debt. She stated that at the time of the
referendum, the HVAC debt that needs to be issued as well as the proposed $3M can be projected.
Drumm agreed that debt has come down, but things are being issued that will drive it back up.
Revenues, Pg. 6, State of CT for General Government: Blanchard stated the last line is for early voting has
$0 budgeted, when last year it was $10,000. Drumm confirmed that last year nothing was budgeted as they
did not expect to receive anything, but state legislature gave a grant last minute. He continued that it might
be received again this year, but it is not guaranteed, especially since it is not a formal grant program.
Under the Finance section, there is a line for tax sale property. She continued that she thought there was a
tax sale in 2025, Drumm confirmed there was a tax sale in 2025. Trahan was unsure why that line item, as
the tax sale revenues would get recorded under delinquent taxes. (there seem to be some words missing
here)
Wheaton asked what the one-time $125K in vehicle tax reimbursement is.
o Thomas Drumm informed that the town was not allowed to assess vehicles above a certain mil rate.
The Town of Coventry’s mil rate was over the cap for motor vehicles, so the state provided a grant for
the difference.
Blanchard requested that the budget book be more consistent as there are pages that list FY26, or FY27, or
FY26/27. She found this confusing when reviewing the budget book and trying to determine when things
are allocated for. She asked Drumm and Trahan to settle on one and use that consistently. Hand agreed.
Trahan appreciated the feedback in order to make the documents more understandable.

Thomas discussed her budget thoughts:
● She agreed with Wheaton that the $39,500 for the library portico should be taken out of the capital budget,
since it is unknown whether it can be used, and it should not sit in the FY26/27 budget unused.
o With the $39,500 removed, she would like to restore $15,000 funding with the intent it goes towards
library salaries and programming.
● Stressed the importance of including a full-time maintainer 1 for the DPW. She added it can be starting July
1 or pushed off a little bit if they need to find an area of savings.
● Thomas recognized Town Engineer Todd Penney’s desire to have a pot of money but explained she is not in
favor of having money just sit around.
o Alternatively, she suggests and welcomes Penney to come to the Town Council with a request for
funding to support a project(s) at that specific point in time for Town Council consideration.
o Hand pointed out that Penney had previously informed that he could use help for additional engineering
services, which is around $30,000 per project. He explained that reviewing and approving $30,000 at a
time may be more feasible than having a pot of funds waiting.

4

Trahan explained that Thomas’s suggested changes would result in a net increase of $71,000, increasing the
overall budget from 4.76% to 4.91%. This would result in a tax increase for the median homeowner from $354
to $365 (a total of $11 more for the year). The projected mil rate would go from 25.17 to 25.22.
Larson agreed with the comments about removing the library's portico funding and supports putting funds back
for salaries and programming. Hand agreed, adding that he supports the Maintainer 1 position as well, hearing
how taxed the DPW staff is. Larson also pointed out that DPW Director, Bill Watkins, had discussed the aging
staff when he was here last too. He stated that it would be important to get someone on staff to understand how
things function before there is a large inevitable turnover.
Blanchard asked for more clarification on the following items:
● In the Planning and Development Department section, the book lists the 3 full-time employees, and the
following page lists the salaries. Further into the book, there is information for the Inland Wetlands Agent,
which has a line for full-time salaries as well. She was curious if the Inland Wetland Agent salary is paid in
2 places.
o It was confirmed it is. Blanchard asked that this be noted that the salary is designated 50% in the 2
places. Trahan suggested an FTE chart to list where specific positions are paid from. The Council
agreed this would be super helpful.
● Pg. 100, for Fire Station Buildings, building 118: Blanchard questioned why their sewer line went up over
$500 when other sewer increases were only $35.
o Hand shared that Fire Chief Bud Meyers explained that their cost is higher due to necessary testing, as
the floor drains in the Station 118 drain into the sewers.
o Blanchard asked if they were connected to public water. Drumm responded ‘No’; the station uses a
well, but their drains are connected to the sewer.
● Pg. 110, Emergency Management Director has a sewer line in his budget. She felt this does not make sense.
o It was felt a portion of the sewer budget was built into his salary as he moves to different buildings, but
this is being looked into.
● Pg. 137, Lake Associations matching funds: Blanchard commented that the town gives money to maintain 9
miles of private roads. She thought that the town had actually taken over some of the roads and was curious
if the 9 miles had decreased yet.
o Drumm was unsure and would need to look into this. He reminded that the last road that was taken over
was Avery Shores, but the milage as probable gone down a small amount.
o She wanted to make sure the town's contribution was decreasing with the milage decreases.
● Pg. 186, Municipal Insurance: Blanchard commented that the 2nd item is for workman's’ comp, which
$43,000 was budgeted, but current actuals are $105,000.
o Trahan explained that she provided a handout that breakdowns the actual expenditures, as that should
have been the case, but they were all booked under the 1 account. She stated that it has been fixed.
Blanchard shared that after last year’s reval and tax increase, the budget is too high right now. She appreciates
everything the town needs, but the Council needs to consider what the citizens can or are willing to afford.
Wheaton shared that the Town Council is currently considering forwarding a budget to the taxpayers for their
approval of approximately a 6% increase to the mil rate, and a spending increase of 4.91%. He commented that
if this budget were to pass, people paying taxes on their homes will see a 6% increase. He felt that that budget is

5

3% too high at 6%. He understands that getting to 3% would require very difficult decisions. However, he feels
that Coventry residents have an expectation of an inflationary increase in their property taxes.
Thomas requested that Wheaton bring suggestions for reductions to Monday’s meeting. Wheaton stated that his
suggestion would be for the Town Manager and the Superintendent, who know much more about this process,
to look into it and figure out how to get the mil rate increase to 3%.
Drumm asked Trahan what would need to be cut to get it to 3%. Wheaton commented that it would be around a
$1.5M reduction in spending between both the Board of Ed and the Town. He reminded that this was done last
year. Thomas stressed that reductions last year had very significant impacts, and the Council heard from many
citizens that they did not want those impacts to the town.
Trahan gave the perspective that the Town has already made significant cuts, and there are no additional
services. She explained that if there is a desire to cut more,then town staff needs to know what programs and
services the Councilors are willing to reduce. She emphasized that in order to cut $1.5M, they can’t shave off
$1,000 here and there. The current budget can’t absorb that amount unless entire programs or services are cut.
She reminded that it’s not the Finance Director’s job to say the town doesn’t need to sweep the streets, etc., and
those decisions are policy decisions to be made by the Town Council. She added that the town is barely able to
maintain services with the current budget and wanted to make sure everyone is advised of that.
Thomas reiterated for Wheaton to come to Monday’s meeting with some policy decisions, in order to make
reductions. She continued that it is the Town Council’s job as the elected representatives of the people to make
these decisions. She stated that every year the Council has to make these decisions, but every year there are
Councilors who want cuts, but are unwilling to have the courage to present options for cuts. Thomas stressed
that she is unwilling to cut a penny at this time, unless she is convinced of some good policy decisions and why
the cut should be made. Wheaton shared that his priority and his policy is to retain affordability for the
taxpayer. Thomas agreed that is a great goal, but she asked for his plan/policy on how to get there. What things
does he want or not want to provide?
Wheaton explained that a way to reduce $1.5M is to reduce the town budget, CIP, and the BOE budget by
$500,000 each. Thomas asked Wheaton to provide his recommendations of what can be cut from the CIP.
Hand shared some information about the budget process that the individual departments put through their
budget requests, which are carefully reviewed by the Town Manager, who reduces the budgets to a
recommended level in his professional opinion. The BOE goes through a similar process.
Hand continued that Wheaton may have a different perspective being his 1st year at the Council table and was
curious if Wheaton found any areas of the budget where he noticed “fluff”, because he wasn’t able to find areas
where there was a whole lot of excess. He reminded that this is the reason that department heads are asked to
come in and present their budgets.
Thomas shared that typically when the budget is presented in previous years, the Town Council finds things the
1st go around that can be reduced or make do without, but she does not see that with the FY26/27 budget.
Trahan reminded that in meeting with the department heads, every single department asked for more, but it was
to be able to continue doing what they are doing now.
6

Thomas discussed that she does not believe that last year’s budget kept up with inflation. Trahan explained that
inflation is a good tool if the budget is starting where it needs to be. She reminded that over the years,
Coventry’s budget has not kept up with inflation, and the Capital budget has been significantly reduced. She
continued that inflation helps inform where the budget should be, if it is already meeting the needs and
providing necessary services. However, Coventry is not there.
Trahan shared that the tax increase to the median household would be $365 for the year, which is roughly $30 a
month. She continued that the Council would need to balance what they think the needs of the community are
versus the $30/month.
Kyer shared that every budget cycle they try to come up with a magic number of what they think the citizens of
Coventry will accept. He added that the flaw in doing so does not give the taxpayers a say. Just as the Council
heard from an Audience of Citizens speaker tonight, when the Council makes significant cuts before allowing
the taxpayers to vote, the Council is taking away some of their voice. He understands the want to bring the
budget to a 3% increase over a 6% but feels this needs to be the year that the Town Council puts forward a
reasonable budget for the town and BOE to get their feedback. The feedback will either be a passed or failed
referendum. He stressed that he would like to have data back from the taxpayers before making any significant
cuts. He agreed that 6% seems like a significant increase, but that is only because significant cuts have been
made over the past couple of years.
Thomas commented that it has been a quiet year for feedback with no emails received, and only 2 Audience of
Citizens speakers. Thomas reminded that the next meeting is March 30, 2026, and requested Councilors bring
forward their suggestions for further reductions.
5. New Business:
5.A. 25/26-45: Consideration/Possible Action: Police Department CAD Software Conversion:
Drumm shared that last year Chief Peterson had requested $30,000 in order to update the CAD software as the
system has become outdated and was falling behind, leading to reports being unable to be submitted to the state.
Chief Peterson is proposing to replace the CAD system with a better one, as recommended by our IT. Chief
Peterson explained that because the system is so outdated, if they put the $30,000 towards the upgrade, there is
no guarantee they won’t have to do the same thing next year, wasting valuable financial resources. This
software company used to service 15%-20% of the Police Departments in CT, now only service 3 towns.
The new software company, NexGen, is trying to get the business of the remaining towns by offering a
discount. It would cost the town $125,000 instead of $200,000 and would cover the system, yearly maintenance
fee, and training. Drumm suggested instead of throwing $30,000 down the hole, to put it towards the cost of the
new software and budget the remaining cost.
The Finance Committee initially reviewed this item and proposed to take $30,000 from this year’s budget and
then add another $45,000 from the 1.5% fund to cover the required $75,000 needed for the down payment. The
difference would be budgeted in next year’s budget, along with money for training ($7,500) and the annual
software maintenance ($18,000). The remaining cost of the software would be put into Capital until it is paid
off.
7

Questions/Comments/Discussion:
It was clarified that line item 13 would go from $30,000 to $24,163, which is the remainder of the Capital
expense of the program, which was a total of $99,163.53. The plan is to pay $75,000 of that in the current fiscal
year and pay the remaining $24,163 next year. On top of this expense, the annual maintenance will be budgeted
as well as the one-time group training expense, which is not expected to be needed after the 1st year, outside of
training new staff.
The annual maintenance fee will be added to the Police Department operations budget, under contracts for a
total of $26,500 this fiscal year. Starting next year, the annual maintenance fee will be $18,000 moving forward.
It was also clarified that the capital amount would go from $30,000 to $24,163.
Wheaton questioned the $99,000 total that says due upon receipt. It was further explained that of the $99,000
total, $75,000 would be due at the time of purchase as a down payment. For the $75,000 down payment,
$30,000 would be used that is currently budgeted for the outdated software update. Instead of updating outdated
software, the funds would go towards the new CAD system, and the remaining $45,000 was suggested to come
from either the 1.5% fund or CNREF, whichever the Town Council decides should they vote to move forward
with this. Wheaton shared concerns that there was not enough in CNREF, which Drumm clarified that there are
still funds in it right now to cover this expense. The $75,000 down payment will be paid prior to 7/1/2026. The
$7,500 is in next year’s PD budget, as a one-time expense. Drumm shared that this expense has not yet been put
in the budget, as the Council has yet to vote on this item. The total impact to the FY 26-27 budget is an increase
of $20,664.
Additionally, based on the individual who is up for the Sergeant position promotion, the total cost of the
promotion has been reduced to $5,000 from $11,000. Drumm recommended further reducing the Sergeant line
item in the FY 26-27 budget by $5,000.
Chief Peterson shared some benefits about the NexGen program:
● Information based sharing for those using the software.
● Logs complaints and issues case #.
● Compiles data to create reports for arrest reports, arrest warrants, accidents reports, and statements that are
required to be sent to the state.
● Booking photographs and fingerprints are integrated into the system.
● Established with many other Police Departments in the state, as well as State Police, encouraging them to
consistently improve the software.
● Good reviews and feedback from other Police Departments.
Wheaton questioned how data transfer will be done from the old system to the new system. Chief Peterson
explained that NexGen will transfer everything, which is included in the cost. Chief Peterson added that
navigating the system and accessing transferred data will be a part of the training, which will be done at all 3
shifts to train all officers and dispatchers. Since they are so established in 20 other towns, their data transfer is
routine.
8

Chief Peterson shared a side note, he meant to share during his budget presentation, that a large portion of the
equipment parts line item that was questioned by Wheaton is for ammunition, which is a big expense. He added
that he would like to make adjustments to some of the wording for budget line items to streamline categories
etc. He stated he will work with Trahan when she has the time.
The Council wanted to consider this item during budget deliberations to see if there will be enough in CNREF
or if the 1.5% fund will need to be used. Trahan noted that the CNREF balance may be able to cover it, and if it
does, there will not be much of a balance left. It seemed as though the majority of Councilors were in favor of
using CNREF if the funds were available. Thomas requested that the CNREF balance be looked into and
brought to Monday’s meeting. Drumm noted that even if CNREF did not have enough, it could be depleted, and
any remaining funds could be pulled from the 1.5% fund.
Hand spoke in favor of switching to NexGen, especially with all the positives discussed. Most Councilors were
in favor of the switch but wanted to look at the financials before making a final decision. Larson shared that it is
best to not wait for things to fail before having to take action.
Kyer questioned if it would be possible once budget season is over, to have the IT do an audit of other town
used software to assess which ones, if any, are near the end of their useful life. This way, the Council can be
more proactive with a plan for replacements. Larson agreed, as this has been useful information especially for
needed vehicle replacements.
The Town Council had full consensus to continue Agenda Item 5.A.
6. Adjournment:
Motion: I move that the Town Council adjourn the meeting at 9:22 PM.
By: Larson

Second: Kyer

The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 PM by unanimous vote.
Respectfully Submitted,

Nicole Archambault
Nicole Archambault, Minutes Clerk

PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not official until approved by the Coventry Town Council at the next
Town Council meeting. Please see the next Town Council meeting minutes for approval or changes to these
minutes.

9

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Coventry Town Council Special Budget Meeting
March 23, 2026
7:00 PM
Town Hall Annex
1. Call To Order, Roll Call:
The Meeting was called to order by Council Chairwoman Lisa Thomas at 7:05 PM
Members Present: Lisa Thomas-Chairwoman, Peter Larson-Vice Chairman, Matthew Kyer-Secretary, Jon
Hand, Mark Wheaton, and Julie Blanchard.
Absent: Robyn Gallagher
Also Present: James Drumm-Town Manager and Cherie Trahan-Finance Director.
2. Pledge of Allegiance:
Town Council members stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Audience Of Citizens: (30 Minutes - 5 minutes maximum per citizen):
Patrick Wagstrom, 51 Edgewater Drive:
Wagstrom shared that he wanted to speak on behalf of parents, to advocate for the Board of Ed budget.
Wagstrom shared concerns that there is only 1 shot at getting the budget right, because if the budget gets voted
down, it can only be further decreased, not increased. Every cut made before the referendum essentially goes
into effect, with no do-overs. He requested that the Town Council carefully consider their actions. He stated that
this unfortunately wasn’t the case last year, which devastated the school district's budget.
He shared since moving to Coventry in 2013, his taxes have increased in line with inflation, which he feels is
reasonable. However, this has not been the case for the BOE budget. If it had increased in line with inflation,
their budget would be $3M higher than it is today. He stated that the Board of Ed does an admirable job
managing the consequences of continuously being underfunded, but the cuts have unfortunately led to loss of
staff. Currently, Coventry Public Schools are ranked 33 out of 33 in per pupil spending in our district reference
group, which is not something to be proud of. Regardless, GHR was just named the best elementary school in
CT by the CT Association of Schools. He emphasized that this is not because of the facility or playground but
accredited to the great staff.
He questioned if his taxes have increased in line with inflation, but the schools have only grown 20%, then
where is the rest of the money? He stated that all general government budget categories (Administration, Public
Works, Human Services, Civic, Cultural, and Sundry) have grown faster than the school budget has. He
requested that the Council do the right thing and fund the schools, rather than cutting the ‘easy’ target as this
trend is unsustainable.
Motion: I move to move Agenda Item 5 up on the agenda to immediately follow Agenda Item 3.
By: Hand

Second: Kyer

Discussion: None
1

Vote: Unanimously in favor.

4. Unfinished Business:
4.A. 25/26-39: FY 2026/27 Budget:
 PZC CIP Recommendations:
Drumm shared that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the proposed Capital Improvement Plan
every year to provide a prioritized list of recommendations. He read the following memo, submitted by the
PZC for Town Council review: PZC Capital Improvement Recommendations.
Thomas felt that their memo is reflective of the adopted Town Council goals and work that has been done to
secure grant funding for the sewer treatment plant and the water. Additionally, the town is working to move
forward on a road bond next year. Thomas thanked the PZC for their feedback and stated that the Town Council
concurs with their recommendations. She added that the PZC is encouraged to participate in the strategic
planning goals.


Budget Deliberations:

Wheaton discussed the following for clarification:
 The $219,000 budgeted for continency- He asked which groups does contingency cover, as it was not clear
when reviewing labor lines.
o Trahan explained that it covers all groups. She added that the amounts that Wheaton is seeing in the
individual department budgets are for things like step increases, or for newer employees getting paid for
a full year instead of a partial year from when they were onboarded.
o Trahan also shared that she noted what salary line-item increases were for, on her memo dated March
9th.
o Wheaton reviewed the line items listed on the memo with amounts included in the budget to verify
what they were for and that no mistakes were made. They all checked out.
 Investment income reflects $137,000 was earned last year. However, the amount budgeted for FY 26-27 is
significantly less. He was curious if we are being conservative or if the investment income is expected to
decrease.
o Trahan explained that she is still working on the allocation of interest income and is unsure of what it is
for the current year yet, which is why she did not want to adjust the amount listed to a higher amount.
She clarified that the original budgeted amount for FY 25 was only $250,000, and that investment
income is too volatile to increase to a higher amount. She explained that it was important to increase it
to $300,000 from the $250,000 to avoid overtaxing by not accounting for enough revenue. Drumm
added that it has been heard interest rates may come down.
o She commented that she hopes to get a better handle on this amount prior to a mil rate being set.
o Wheaton asked if the investment income is from short-term interest rates, Trahan confirmed and added
that there are some accounts that get more than others, but it is not like investing in the market.
 The Capital and Non-recurring fund has a sizeable increase
o It was explained that this is for the SEPA study that was done for the WPCA. Under the WPCA budget,
there is $160,000 in state and federal grant funds that will be put towards this.
 The Town Council recently voted on things to go to referendum, and Wheaton expressed he found the
intercoms and fire alarms for the school and the firetruck in the budget book but could not find the
2







ambulance or streetsweeper replacements. He thought it was important that they are added if they are not
currently included.
o Drumm explained that the ambulance and the streetsweeper would be purchased in the current budget,
not FY26/27, so they will not be reflected in the budget book. He further explained they have already
been put into capital, so if the referendum passes, the ambulance and streetsweeper can be purchased
right away. He reminded the firetruck can be ordered right away too, due to the time it takes to get one
and the fact the bonding would be delayed until it is received. The remaining items will be purchased in
FY26/27.
The Portico Rebuild for the Booth and Dimock Library: To ensure everyone is on the same page about it not
being in the budget for next year due to the low probability of the repairs taking place next year. Drumm
confirmed.
There is a $250,000 in-kind contribution for the Hale Trails. Wheaton asked if this is in the DPW, since inkind means the use of existing staff and there is no line item in the budget. Drumm confirmed that it is for
the use of existing staff and materials (dirt, gravel, etc.)
On Pg. 338, Wheaton believes this to be the plan for how the Town Council plans to spend the CNREF
budget for FY 26/27.Drumm confirmed and referenced the amount reflected is an “up to” amount, so the
entirety would not be used if not needed.

Blanchard asked the following questions:
 If an Executive Session can be scheduled to update the Town Council where Town Manager Jim Drumm is
at with Union negotiations. Drumm explained it is too early, as the Unions have just filed the paperwork and
had initial opening sessions. He continued that he has not seen their requests at this point. He shared that an
Executive Session will be put on a Town Council agenda when there is more information. He stated that the
1st meetings with the Unions will likely take place in early April.
 Blanchard pointed out that the Lake Management Fund show $0 in the budget book, but she thought the
town was getting $75,000. Drumm explained that there used to be a Lake Management Fund when the town
was just doing testing. Now, testing and treatment are paid out of the Capital budget as part of the overall
Capital treatment. Trahan added that grants for the lake would not go in the general fund; they would go in
the grants fund. She explained that it is reported and tracked separately in order to report to the agency that
gave the town the grant. However, the town provided a match for the Hydrilla treatment/lake management
($124,000) which is recorded in the budget book. Wheaton shared concerns that the town’s expense is in the
budget, but not the revenue. Trahan discussed how the revenues and expenses are recorded appropriately for
this. The Council reviewed the grants that are going to be received and how they are broken down. Trahan
reminded that the Capital Plan is just a plan of all the monies to be received and what projects are going to
be done with them. Blanchard explained she wished there was a section in the budget books for grants,
because the Capital Improvement Plan is so fluid.
o Larson agreed with having an informational memo to explain recent and upcoming grants that can be
provided separately from the budget book.
o Drumm explained his reasoning and process for rolling Capital items from year to year.
o Wheaton asked about the $435,000 of revenues under lease purchase, as the town would get assets
before they are paid for. This is reflected in the DPW portion of the budget, but the amount is not
included in debt service like it should be. Trahan explained how it works, and stated that next year, the
lease payments will be included in debt service. Wheaton then asked why the ambulance and
streetsweeper are not in the FY27 budget for debt service. It was reminded that it would be ordered in
FY26. Additionally, in order to put something in a referendum vote, it needs to be in an approved
capital plan 1st.
3













Pg. 198, Blanchard asked why the HVAC and Plains Rd amounts are not reflected. Drumm explained that
they have not been bonded yet as the town still has temporary notes. He added the plan is to take them out in
July, and then they will show up in next year’s debt service.
Blanchard shared that it is frustrating that the Council has been told their debt service is going down,
meanwhile it seems like it's around $10M.
o Trahan explained that she is working with the Financial Advisor on debt projections. She reminded that
this is difficult until they really know what is being issued for debt. She stated that at the time of the
referendum, the HVAC debt that needs to be issued as well as the proposed $3M can be projected.
Drumm agreed that debt has come down, but things are being issued that will drive it back up.
Revenues, Pg. 6, State of CT for General Government: Blanchard stated the last line is for early voting has
$0 budgeted, when last year it was $10,000. Drumm confirmed that last year nothing was budgeted as they
did not expect to receive anything, but state legislature gave a grant last minute. He continued that it might
be received again this year, but it is not guaranteed, especially since it is not a formal grant program.
Under the Finance section, there is a line for tax sale property. She continued that she thought there was a
tax sale in 2025, Drumm confirmed there was a tax sale in 2025. Trahan was unsure why that line item, as
the tax sale revenues would get recorded under delinquent taxes.
Wheaton asked what the one-time $125K in vehicle tax reimbursement is.
o Thomas informed that the town was not allowed to assess vehicles above a certain mil rate. The Town
of Coventry’s mil rate was over the cap for motor vehicles, so the state provided a grant for the
difference.
Blanchard requested that the budget book be more consistent as there are pages that list FY26, or FY27, or
FY26/27. She found this confusing when reviewing the budget book and trying to determine when things
are allocated for. She asked Drumm and Trahan to settle on one and use that consistently. Hand agreed.
Trahan appreciated the feedback in order to make the documents more understandable.

Thomas discussed her budget thoughts:
 She agreed with Wheaton that the $39,500 for the library portico should be taken out of the capital budget,
since it is unknown whether it can be used, and it should not sit in the FY26/27 budget unused.
o With the $39,500 removed, she would like to restore $15,000 funding with the intent it goes towards
library salaries and programming.
 Stressed the importance of including a full-time maintainer 1 for the DPW. She added it can be starting July
1 or pushed off a little bit if they need to find an area of savings.
 Thomas recognized Town Engineer Todd Penney’s desire to have a pot of money but explained she is not in
favor of having money just sit around.
o Alternatively, she suggests and welcomes Penney to come to the Town Council with a request for
funding to support a project(s) at that specific point in time for Town Council consideration.
o Hand pointed out that Penney had previously informed that he could use help for additional engineering
services, which is around $30,000 per project. He explained that reviewing and approving $30,000 at a
time may be more feasible than having a pot of funds waiting.
Trahan explained that Thomas’s suggested would result in a net increase of $71,000, increasing the overall
budget from 4.76% to 4.91%. This would result in a tax increase for the median homeowner from $354 to $365
(a total of $11 more for the year). The projected mil rate would go from 25.17 to 25.22.

4

Larson agreed with the comments about removing the library's portico funding and supports putting funds back
for salaries and programming. Hand agreed, adding that he supports the Maintainer 1 position as well, hearing
how taxed the DPW staff is. Larson also pointed out that DPW Director, Bill Watkins, had discussed the aging
staff when he was here last too. He stated that it would be important to get someone on staff to understand how
things function before there is a large inevitable turnover.
Blanchard asked for more clarification on the following items:
 In the Planning and Development Department section, the book lists the 3 full-time employees, and the
following page lists the salaries. Further into the book, there is information for the Inland Wetlands Agent,
which has a line for full-time salaries as well. She was curious if the Inland Wetland Agent salary is paid in
2 places.
o It was confirmed it is. Blanchard asked that this be noted that the salary is designated 50% in the 2
places. Trahan suggested an FTE chart to list where specific positions are paid from. The Council
agreed this would be super helpful.
 Pg. 100, for Fire Station Buildings, building 118: Blanchard questioned why their sewer line went up over
$500 when other sewer increases were only $35.
o Hand shared that Fire Chief Bud Meyers explained that their cost is higher due to necessary testing, as
the floor drains in the Station 118 drain into the sewers.
o Blanchard asked if they were connected to public water. Drumm responded ‘No’; the station uses a
well, but their drains are connected to the sewer.
 Pg. 110, Emergency Management Director has a sewer line in his budget. She felt this does not make sense.
o It was felt a portion of the sewer budget was built into his salary as he moves to different buildings, but
this is being looked into.
 Pg. 137, Lake Associations matching funds: Blanchard commented that the town gives money to maintain 9
miles of private roads. She thought that the town had actually taken over some of the roads and was curious
if the 9 miles had decreased yet.
o Drumm was unsure and would need to look into this. He reminded that the last road that was taken over
was Avery Shores, but the milage as probable gone down a small amount.
o She wanted to make sure the town's contribution was decreasing with the milage decreases.
 Pg. 186, Municipal Insurance: Blanchard commented that the 2nd item is for workman's’ comp, which
$43,000 was budgeted, but current actuals are $105,000.
o Trahan explained that she provided a handout that breakdowns the actual expenditures, as that should
have been the case, but they were all booked under the 1 account. She stated that it has been fixed.
Blanchard shared that after last year’s reval and tax increase, the budget is too high right now. She appreciates
everything the town needs, but the Council needs to consider what the citizens can or are willing to afford.
Wheaton shared that the Town Council is currently considering forwarding a budget to the taxpayers for their
approval of approximately a 6% increase to the mil rate, and a spending increase of 4.91%. He commented that
if this budget were to pass, people paying taxes on their homes will see a 6% increase. He felt that that budget is
3% too high at 6%. He understands that getting to 3% would require very difficult decisions. However, he feels
that Coventry residents have an expectation of an inflationary increase in their property taxes.
Thomas requested that Wheaton bring suggestions for reductions to Monday’s meeting. Wheaton stated that his
suggestion would be for the Town Manager and the Superintendent, who know much more about this process,
to look into it and figure out how to get the mil rate increase to 3%.
5

Drumm asked Trahan what would need to be cut to get it to 3%. Wheaton commented that it would be around a
$1.5M reduction in spending between both the Board of Ed and the Town. He reminded that this was done last
year. Thomas stressed that reductions last year had very significant impacts, and the Council heard from many
citizens that they did not want those impacts to the town.
Trahan gave the perspective that the Town has already made significant cuts, and there are no additional
services. She explained that if there is a desire to cut more, than town staff needs to know what programs and
services the Councilors are willing to reduce. She emphasized that in order to cut $1.5M, they can’t shave off
$1,000 here and there. The current budget can’t absorb that amount unless entire programs or services are cut.
She reminded that it’s not the Finance Director’s job to say the town doesn’t need to sweep the streets, etc., and
those decisions are policy decisions to be made by the Town Council. She added that the town is barely able to
maintain services with the current budget and wanted to make sure everyone is advised of that.
Thomas reiterated for Wheaton to come to Monday’s meeting with some policy decisions, in order to make
reductions. She continued that it is the Town Council’s job as the elected representatives of the people to make
these decisions. She stated that every year the Council has to make these decisions, but every year there are
Councilors who want cuts, but are unwilling to have the courage to present options for cuts. Thomas stressed
that she is unwilling to cut a penny at this time, unless she is convinced of some good policy decisions and why
the cut should be made. Wheaton shared that his priority and his policy is to retain affordability for the
taxpayer. Thomas agreed that is a great goal, but she asked for his plan/policy on how to get there. What things
does he want or not want to provide?
Wheaton explained that a way to reduce $1.5M is to reduce the town budget, CIP, and the BOE budget by
$500,000 each. Thomas asked Wheaton to provide his recommendations of what can be cut from the CIP.
Hand shared some information about the budget process that the individual departments put through their
budget requests, which are carefully reviewed by the Town Manager, who reduces the budgets to a
recommended level in his professional opinion. The BOE goes through a similar process.
Hand continued that Wheaton may have a different perspective being his 1st year at the Council table and was
curious if Wheaton found any areas of the budget where he noticed “fluff”, because he wasn’t able to find areas
where there was a whole lot of excess. He reminded that this is the reason that department heads are asked to
come in and present their budgets.
Thomas shared that typically when the budget is presented in previous years, the Town Council finds things the
1st go around that can be reduced or make do without, but she does not see that with the FY26/27 budget.
Trahan reminded that in meeting with the department heads, every single department asked for more, but it was
to be able to continue doing what they are doing now.
Thomas discussed that she does not believe that last year’s budget kept up with inflation. Trahan explained that
inflation is a good tool if the budget is starting where it needs to be. She reminded that over the years,
Coventry’s budget has not kept up with inflation, and the Capital budget has been significantly reduced. She
continued that inflation helps inform where the budget should be, if it is already meeting the needs and
providing necessary services. However, Coventry is not there.
6

Trahan shared that the tax increase to the median household would be $365 for the year, which is roughly $30 a
month. She continued that the Council would need to balance what they think the needs of the community are
versus the $30/month.
Kyer shared that every budget cycle they try to come up with a magic number of what they think the citizens of
Coventry will accept. He added that the flaw in doing so does not give the taxpayers a say. Just as the Council
heard from an Audience of Citizens speaker tonight, when the Council makes significant cuts before allowing
the taxpayers to vote, the Council is taking away some of their voice. He understands the want to bring the
budget to a 3% increase over a 6% but feels this needs to be the year that the Town Council puts forward a
reasonable budget for the town and BOE to get their feedback. The feedback will either be a passed or failed
referendum. He stressed that he would like to have data back from the taxpayers before making any significant
cuts. He agreed that 6% seems like a significant increase, but that is only because significant cuts have been
made over the past couple of years.
Thomas commented that it has been a quiet year for feedback with no emails received, and only 2 Audience of
Citizens speakers. Thomas reminded that the next meeting is March 30, 2026, and requested Councilors bring
forward their suggestions for further reductions.
5. New Business:
5.A. 25/26-45: Consideration/Possible Action: Police Department CAD Software Conversion:
Drumm shared that last year Chief Peterson had requested $30,000 in order to update the CAD software as the
system has become outdated and was falling behind, leading to reports being unable to be submitted to the state.
Chief Peterson is proposing to replace the CAD system with a better one, as recommended by our IT. Chief
Peterson explained that because the system is so outdated, if they put the $30,000 towards the upgrade, there is
no guarantee they won’t have to do the same thing next year, wasting valuable financial resources. This
software company used to service 15%-20% of the Police Departments in CT, now only service 3 towns.
The new software company, NexGen, is trying to get the business of the remaining towns by offering a
discount. It would cost the town $125,000 instead of $200,000 and would cover the system, yearly maintenance
fee, and training. Drumm suggested instead of throwing $30,000 down the hole, to put it towards the cost of the
new software and budget the remaining cost.
The Finance Committee initially reviewed this item and proposed to take $30,000 from this year’s budget and
then add another $45,000 from the 1.5% fund to cover the required $75,000 needed for the down payment. The
difference would be budgeted in next year’s budget, along with money for training ($7,500) and the annual
software maintenance ($18,000). The remaining cost of the software would be put into Capital until it is paid
off.
Questions/Comments/Discussion:
It was clarified that line item 13 would go from $30,000 to $24,163, which is the remainder of the Capital
expense of the program, which was a total of $99,163.53. The plan is to pay $75,000 of that in the current fiscal
year and paying the remaining $24,163 next year. On top of this expense, the annual maintenance will be
budgeted as well as the one-time group training expense, which is not expected to be needed after the 1st year,
outside of training new staff.
7

The annual maintenance fee will be added to the Police Department operations budget, under contracts for a
total of $26,500 this fiscal year. Startin next year, the annual maintenance fee will be $18,000 moving forward.
It was also clarified that the capital amount would go from $30,000 to $24,163.
Wheaton questioned the $99,000 total that says due upon receipt. It was further explained that of the $99,000
total, $75,000 would be due at the time of purchase as a down payment. For the $75,000 down payment,
$30,000 would be used that is currently budgeted for the outdated software update. Instead of updating outdate
software, the funds would go towards the new CAD system, and the remaining $45,000 was suggested to come
from either the 1.5% fund or CNREF, whichever the Town Council decides should they vote to move forward
with this. Wheaton shared concerns that there was not enough in CNREF, which Drumm clarified that there are
still funds in it right now to cover this expense. The $75,000 down payment will be paid prior to 7/1/2026. The
$7,500 is in next year’s PD budget, as a one-time expense. Drumm shared that this expense has not yet been put
in the budget, as the Council has yet to vote on this item. The total impact to the FY 26-27 budget is an increase
of $20,664.
Additionally, based on the individual who is up for the Sergeant position promotion, the total cost of the
promotion has been reduced to $5,000 from $11,000. Drumm recommended further reducing the Sergeant line
item in the FY 26-27 budget by $5,000.
Chief Peterson shared some benefits about the NexGen program:
 Information based sharing for those using the software.
 Logs complaints and issues case #.
 Compiles data to create reports for arrest reports, arrest warrants, accidents reports, and statements that are
required to be sent to the state.
 Booking photographs and fingerprints are integrated into the system.
 Established with many other Police Departments in the state, as well as State Police, encouraging them to
consistently improve the software.
 Good reviews and feedback from other Police Departments.
Wheaton questioned how data transfer will be done from the old system to the new system. Chief Peterson
explained that NexGen will transfer everything, which is included in the cost. Chief Peterson added that
navigating the system and accessing transferred data will be a part of the training, which will be done at all 3
shifts to train all officers and dispatchers. Since they are so established in 20 other towns, their data transfer is
routine.
Chief Peterson shared a side note, he meant to share during his budget presentation, that a large portion of the
equipment parts line item that was questioned by Wheaton is for ammunition, which is a big expense. He added
that he would like to make adjustments to some of the wording for budget line items to streamline categories
etc. He stated he will work with Trahan when she has the time.

8

The Council wanted to consider this item during budget deliberations to see if there will be enough in CNREF
or if the 1.5% fund will need to be used. Trahan noted that the CNREF balance may be able to cover it, and if it
does, there will not be much of a balance left. It seemed as though the majority of Councilors were in favor of
using CNREF if the funds were available. Thomas requested that the CNREF balance be looked into and
brought to Monday’s meeting. Drumm noted that even if CNREF did not have enough, it could be depleted, and
any remaining funds could be pulled from the 1.5% fund.
Hand spoke in favor of switching to NexGen, especially with all the positives discussed. Most Councilors were
in favor of the switch but wanted to look at the financials before making a final decision. Larson shared that it is
best to not wait for things to fail before having to take action.
Kyer questioned if it would be possible once budget season is over, to have the IT do an audit of other town
used software to assess which ones, if any, are near the end of their useful life. This way, the Council can be
more proactive with a plan for replacements. Larson agreed, as this has been useful information especially for
needed vehicle replacements.
The Town Council had full consensus to continue Agenda Item 5.A.
6. Adjournment:
Motion: I move that the Town Council adjourn the meeting at 9:22 PM.
By: Larson

Second: Kyer

The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 PM by unanimous vote.
Respectfully Submitted,

Nicole Archambault
Nicole Archambault, Minutes Clerk

PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not official until approved by the Coventry Town Council at the next
Town Council meeting. Please see the next Town Council meeting minutes for approval or changes to these
minutes.

9

RE: HB5770; An Act Concerning A Tax Credit for Milk Producers
Submitted by: Lisa Thomas, Chairwoman, Coventry Town Council
March 24, 2026
Committee Co-Chairs Senator Fonfara, Representative Horn, Ranking Members Senator Fazio and
Representative Polletta, Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to lend my support to HB5770. Here in northeastern Connecticut we pride
ourselves on building sustainable communities, as well as protecting open space and farmland in support of the
State’s goals and its Plan of Conservation and Development. Uplifting our agricultural producers is a critical part
of both our economic and environmental sustainability. Here in Coventry, we are fortunate to be home to two dairy
farms: Heckler Brothers Farm established in 1961, and Hytone Farm which is a member of the Farmers Cow
collective. Established in 1944, Hytone Farm is now run by the fourth generation of the Perrachio family. And we
need these farms, along with all of our CT dairy farms, to stay in operation.
An Act Concerning A Tax Credit for Milk Producers is an important part of the toolbox for ensuring the ongoing
viability of CT dairy farms. Unfortunately the last year or so has brought devastating decreases in federal milk
pricing, which is at its lowest levels in over a decade. As you know, pricing is set at the federal level and is
completely out of the control of our State producers. Connecticut dairy farmers are projected to lose $20 million in
2026, potentially resulting in the loss of nearly half of our remaining dairy farms in the next few years. Here in
eastern CT, our milk producers have stretched themselves to find every possible way to survive. Some have set
up a business plan that includes an on-farm market. Some have biodigesters sited on their property. Some have
special farm tour programs. Some even hold concerts on their grounds. These all sound like really great
endeavors, but what they actually do is add additional burdens to these folks who are an integral part of food
production, are employers, and are contributors to the local economy. Their importance to putting food on our
tables was never so clear as during the COVID pandemic when people flocked to their local producers while
grocery stores had bare shelves.
The refundable tax credit model proposed in HB5570 has had success keeping the dairy industry alive in multiple
states. Our neighbors in Massachusetts saw the annual rate of dairy farm loss drop by roughly half after their
refundable tax credit went into effect. Temporary stabilization is far less expensive than rebuilding a lost industry,
and the program only activates when federal milk prices fall unsustainably low. Farmers can reinvest these
refundable tax credits into capital purchases and other areas of their business. As elected officials we all know
the economic importance of capital investments.
I appreciate you taking the time to consider the importance of HB5770 and to weigh the data in our collective
testimony.
Thank you for your time and consideration,

Lisa Thomas
Chairwoman, Coventry Town Council

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
Town Council Steering Committee Meeting
March 23, 2026
6:00 PM
Town Hall Annex
1. Call To Order, Roll Call;
The meeting was called to order by Chair Jonathan Hand at 6:01 PM.
Members Present: Jonathan Hand-Chairperson, Matthew Kyer, Mark Wheaton, and Lisa Thomas (Ex-Officio
Member & Council Chairwoman).
Absent: None
Also Present: James Drumm-Town Manager, and Alex Taylor-Special Projects Coordinator.
2. Acceptance of Minutes, March 2, 2026:
Kyer moved to accept the minutes of March 2, 2026, Wheaton seconds.
Discussion/Changes: None
Vote: Unanimously in favor.
3. Reports:
3.A. Chairperson: None
3.B. Committee Members: None
3.C. Monthly Board and Commission Reports:
Kyer asked Drumm if there are any areas that need to be highlighted or are of concern. Drumm informed that
there are no concerns at this time as all boards and commissions are able to meet and have a quorum. Things
seem to be functioning fine outside of a few vacancies here and there
Hand added that he had a conversation with the Human Rights Commission Chair, Lisa Conant, who explained
they are looking for members who are registered as unaffiliated or Republican.
4. Resignations/Not Wishing to be Reappointed:
4.A. Zoning Board of Appeals: Zenko:
Zenko’s long-standing service to the town of Coventry was recognized. It was noted that Zenko’s resignation
from the Zoning Board of Appeals is an elected position and is effective April 1. The appropriate parties have
been notified for the next steps. A new candidate will have to be elected to the position following the proper
process.
5. Appointments:
5.A. Energy Conservation/Alternative Energy Committee: Reilly:
Motion: I move to recommend to the full Town Council to appoint Jennifer Reilly to the Energy
Conservation/Alternative Energy Committee for a term to expire 3/1/2029.
By: Kyer

Second: Wheaton

1

Discussion: It was noted that Reilly is a long-standing member of this committee and is currently serving as
chair. Hand added that during her service, the committee has done a lot of good things for the town.
Vote: Unanimously in favor.
5.B. Human Services Advisory Board: (E) (Not Ready for Action):
 Bennett
 Cooper
5.C. Inland Wetlands Agency: Goldsnider:
Motion: I move to recommend to the full Town Council to appoint Jessana Goldsnider to the Inland Wetlands
Agency as an alternate for a term to expire 9/15/2028.
By: Kyer

Second: Wheaton

Discussion: Town Engineer Todd Penney shared that Goldsnider has been working with the Inland Wetlands
Agent, Lindsay Beutler, and has extensive experience in an environmental background through her professional
work.
Vote: Unanimously in favor.

5.D. Pension & Retirement Committee: Maher:
Motion: I move to recommend to the full Town Council to appoint Kenneth Maher to the Pension &
Retirement Committee for a term to expire 1/1/2029.
By: Kyer

Second: Wheaton

Discussion: The Steering Committee agreed that Maher is very well-qualified.
Vote: Unanimously in favor.
6. Review of road turnovers policy:
Drumm explained that the Town Council has received a request from one of the lake associations to out the
Road Turnover Policy back in place. This policy was adopted by the Town Council in 2007, as there was a
desire at the time that the Town Council was taking over some lake association roads to provide sewer, but not
all. In the policy, specific guidelines would need to be met before the town could consider taking over an
individual street. The policy has been used over the years to take some or all of the roads within a lake
association. This policy expired in 2017.
Additional work needed to be done to obtain easements and right-of-way, which kept the work active even
though the policy expired. Over the years, some of the roads reached a level of completion that allowed the
roads to be turned over to the town. There are a few that are still going through the process.
The request before Steering is for them to consider putting this policy back into place for associations that
didn’t take the offer between 2007 to 2017, to acquire additional roads, as well as the necessary costs to bring
them up to town standards.

2

Penney added that the expired policy is far off from the current standards of what a town road needs to be built
at. Penney agreed with Drumm’s explanation and added that once the sewer lines were going in by the lake, it
was a way for the lake associations to get attached to the new sewer, especially since the roads were already
being trenched.
Penney noted that the extensions to take over the roads could be considered on a case-by-case basis, by the
Town Council. He informed that he does not believe the Town Council has had involvement over the past
couple of years, as the previous Town Manager was spearheading the work. He stated that work continues with
Waterfront Heights for Ridgewood Trail and Old Oak Trail, as the Town already owns the rest of the roads
around them in a loop.
Penney shared a list of all roads in Coventry with town roads, state roads, lake associations, and ‘paper’ roads
indicated.
He discussed that it would be a decent task for the town to take over, and the process of examining the roads,
most of which are gravel. This includes a visual inspection to examine drainage, any issues, # of catch basins,
ditches, and making sure the road is within the right-of-way. Penney added that the associations are required to
have a licensed land surveyor to do an A2 boundary survey and topography survey. The process includes
obtaining easements, grading, and drainage before the town can take over the road. All of these things are a
fiscal liability to the taxpayers. Additionally, surface improvements are also made to aid DPW, even though it is
not required. To be fiscally responsible, these road takeovers and improvements would need to be planned for in
capital improvement over the next decade.
Overall, Penney noted that it is a good policy and needs minimal tweaking. A benefit for the Coventry taxpayers
is switching private roads to town-owned roads changes the assessment values increasing tax revenue to the
town. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the cost and benefits would balance in a short period of time. Penney did
remind that the boards of the lake associations are volunteers just like the Town Council and maintaining the
roads has become harder for them.
Questions and Comments:
Thomas asked if the 2016 amendment, for takeover requests to be considered by the Town Council, was only if
the requests/processed were started prior to 2017. Penney confirmed. He highlighted that the only association
that this policy is in effect for is Waterfront Heights.
The Avery Shores road takeover was briefly discussed, which Penney explained was a different situation than
the policy being reviewed. He reminded that the Avery Shores road takeover was due to a legal settlement
between the association and the town. Coventry took ownership of those roads in February of 2025.
Thomas asked if all private roads are lake association roads. Penney explained that some roads are just private
roads, without being a part of a lake association. He referenced Victoria, Dexter, and Cheney Lane, which
would not have been covered under this policy which applied solely to lake associations. Thomas was curious if
those roads could be taken over. Penney explained yes, if a request was received. He reminded that Cheney
Lane was requested to be taken over by the previous owner, which he thinks the town should do, but stressed
that it needs significant infrastructure improvement. He stated that the issue has come to land use, but the
request is not active at this time. Drumm added that there were certain criteria they were informed they would
need to meet in order for the town to consider taking over the road, but they were not interested in meeting the
criteria at the time.
Kyer asked what the next steps are, or what the purpose is for Steering to review this. Thomas noted that the
policy is not active at this time, so Steering can consider making it active, and if they want to make it active,
consider revisions prior to re-adoption. Another alternative is not adopting the policy at all.
3

Hand stated that the Council has previously received a request from the Actor’s Colony Association, and this
could apply to their request should the policy be adopted.
Penney reiterated that he believes this policy was put into place in order to take over lake association roads as
the town installed and connected sewer lines on town-owned roads in the area. He reminded that the Council
would need to consider fiscal responsibility that comes with a policy such as this for both the associations and
the Coventry taxpayers. Which includes the maintenance for X amount of lane miles versus the projected value.
He suggested that the Council also look at the implication of what happens if the Town Council says ‘No’ to the
policy and road takeover requests. He felt that a deeper evaluation would be needed, which would require work
from the DPW Director and himself. Regardless, he felt it was important for the Council to assess their
evaluation needs. He shared that the associations are more impacted than the town, due to them being a smaller
group of people compared to the town taxpayer population.
Wheaton agreed that more guidance on this policy and topic is needed. He felt that the policy as written was
confusing and that it would need to be revised/brought up to date, if Steering was looking to renew it.
Kyer added that it could also be revised to include the takeover of private roads that don’t belong to lake
associations as well.
Hand agreed with getting guidance from town staff. He shared that generally taking over roads, in any form,
comes with a cost to the town both initially and ongoing. He reminded that having a policy doesn’t guarantee
that the Council would always accept a request, especially as specific criteria would need to be met. He agreed
that the policy is a good idea and would like to see recommended amendments.
The Steering Committee had consensus for town staff to look into this, bring such a policy up to 2026
standards, and report the findings to the Steering Committee.
Thomas commented that communication needs to be had with the Actors Colony Association. As they seem
eager to get information on their request. Thomas had communicated with them that April may be the time to
meet with Steering. However, with the policy going back to staff, it might be better suited for them to come in
May.
Wheaton suggested that they be invited in April to notify that the policy is being modified, and no decisions
cannot be made in the absence of a policy, but Steering can listen to their request in detail and get more
information.
Hand felt that they should wait until there is a policy, as the Actor’s Colony Association may change their
request based on the information included in the policy. He felt that there should be a set of rules they need to
go by, in order to make their request to the town. That way, their time is not wasted.
Thomas hoped to have staff feedback, or an updated policy by the April Steering Committee meeting, at which
point a recommendation could be made to the Town Council, that the Council can act upon in May. The
Association Board of Directors could then come to the May Steering meeting.
Drumm shared that staff should meet with the Association Board of Directors again, as there have been
conflicting messages that they want to turn some of the roads over or completely dissolve the Association. If the
Association dissolves, then the assets would turn over to the town if the town chooses to accept. If the town
does not accept, the roads would become ‘paperless’ roads that no one owns.
4

Staff will look more into this policy and have a meeting with the Actor’s Colony Association.
7. Consideration/possible action: Establishment of School Building Committee to evaluate current and
future facility needs for Coventry Public Schools:
It was reminded that this item has been continued from a previous meeting.
Thomas asked about item #6 of the charge. It states, “In all project phases, the committee shall bring all
contracts before the Coventry Board of Education to be recommended to the Town Council for final approval.”
Thomas stated that it is a Town Council committee, so it would not need to go to the BOE. Taylor noted that he
misinterpreted that request, and it can be correct. It will be changed to read, “In all project phases, the
committee shall bring all contracts before the Town Council for final approval.” Drumm noted that the
committee would make recommendations to the Town Council, based on their study and report.
It was noted that the agenda attachment reflects differently, as the items were reorganized to improve flow. He
also informed that language was adjusted in Section 1 to better reflect state statute. With this change, all
members will be appointed by the Town Council, except for 1 position for the BOE Chair or their designee.
Taylor also shared that language was added to state that one member shall have professional experience as an
architect or engineer as “construction experience” seemed too broad. Taylor explained that also per the request
of the Steering Committee to be presented with different options for plans of development or restructuring of
school facilities along the way, language was included that states, “The committee shall present a report to the
Board of Education and Town Council, which documents the building options the School Building Committee
has determined to be feasible, including relevance analysis and comparisons of various aspects of these options.
Based on feedback, the support from the Board of Education and Town Council, the committee shall develop a
multi-year plan for renovation projects and the results that it needs.” This statement requires the committee to
identify alternative options that are feasible.
Wheaton asked to have more time to review the document before making a recommendation to the full Town
Council. The Steering Committee had consensus to continue this agenda item.
The Steering Committee had consensus to continue the rest of the agenda items.
8. Discussion: Ordinance for Fire Prevention and Protection Cost Recovery: Continued.
9. Consideration/Possible Action: Discharge of the Human Services Advisory Committee: Continued.
10. Consideration/Possible Action: Discharge of the Softball Field Study Committee: Continued.
11. Attendance Policy Compliance Review for Boards, Committees, and Commissions (Not ready for
action): Continued.
12. Consideration/possible action: Expanded Veterans Residential Property Tax Exemptions (Not ready
for action): Continued.
13. Adjournment:
Kyer moved to adjourn at 6:59 PM Wheaton seconds. The meeting adjourned at 6:59 PM by unanimous vote.
Submitted by,
Nicole Archambault

Nicole Archambault
5

Steering Committee Minutes Clerk

PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not official until approved by the Steering Committee at the next
Steering Committee meeting. Please see the next Steering Committee meeting minutes for approval or
changes to these minutes.

6

To:
From:
Date:
Ref:

Town Council
James Drumm, Town Manager
April 2, 2026
Project/Issue Updates

There are a few minor updates on our projects. As usual, underlined sentences within this memo
indicate more recent updates.
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Award: The GFOA has awarded the Town of
Coventry the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the FY2024 Audit.
The Town has received this award each year since 2008. The FY24 Audit reporting was extremely
difficult as we lost our Finance Director in the middle of the process and also our other two Town
Finance staff members. Thanks to the volunteer work of retired Finance Director Beth Bauer and
our then interim Finance Director Cherie Trahan, both with years of municipal accounting
experience, we were able to successfully complete the audit. We are pleased to see the Town was
further successful in being awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting for the FY2024 Audit. Cherie, her crew, and all involved did a great job!
DEEP Climate Resiliency Fund (DCRF) Grant: The Town has applied today to the Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection (DEEP) for grant funding for a project to locate and inventory our
stormwater basins and outfalls. The Grant amount is $650,000 and requires no Town financial
match. CT PA-25-33 passed in June of 2025 requires that Connecticut municipalities send a geo spatial
file listing each culvert and bridge within the control and boundaries of the municipality to the Office of
Policy and Management (OPM) by May 1. 2028. The project, if funded, would create the database
needed to fulfill the State requirement. This information is also needed for the Town to be ready for the
National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System (NPDES)Permit once we are declared by the State to be
a MS4 Town. The project will not only identify the location but will evaluate the condition of the system
to allow the Town to consider projects for stormwater system improvements. These professional
evaluations would also allow us to potentially seek grant funding for repairs/replacements.
Charter Revision Commission: The Town Council appointed the members of the Charter Revision
Commission (CRC) on September 2, 2025. The Council appointed Michael Petro as the Chair on
September 15th. The first meeting of the CRC was on Monday October 1st. They selected Justin Murphy
as the Vice Chair and Monica Gallegos Ramirez as the Secretary. They set their meeting schedule as the
first Wednesday and the third Thursday of the month, starting on November 20th. At their meeting on
October 23rd, the CRC was briefed by Attorney Rich Roberts (Halloran and Sage: Town Attorney’s Office)
on the Charter Revision process as established within State Statutes. They were also briefed on State
regulations related to public meetings, public records and the FOIA. The process calls for two public
hearings, one before the CRC was able to review and deliberate on sections of the Charter, and the

1

second when they have a draft of their recommended Charter amendments. The first Public Hearing
was held on November 20, 2025, at 6:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex. There were a few suggestions by
members of public, all of which were considered. The second one is tentatively scheduled for April 23,
2026, at 6:30 PM in the Town Hall annex. This session will provide input for the Commission on the
proposed changes. The CRC has been actively reviewing the Charter and is now preparing the final
adjustments to their proposed amendments. Their next meeting is a Special CRC Meeting on April 8th.
They will be looking at formatting and descriptions of the changes proposed.
Committee/Commission and ad hoc Committee Review: Upon coming on board as Town Manager, I
had the need to review some of the Ordinances and Charges of our various committees. In that limited
review I found that some committees were not in compliance with their charge. The Town has
numerous standing committees that cover many facets of municipal government and community
interests and issues. The Town Council expressed that Committee charges and ordinances need to be
reviewed and updated. There may be committees with similar overlapping charges; there may be
committees that are not in compliance with their charges; there may be committees that may need
their charges updated; and there may be committees that need to be discharged as they are no longer
active or required. I have planned to present my findings to the Town Council Steering Committee in
groupings for review and possible recommendations. Staff is now reviewing the need to continue with
the Softball Field Committee and the Human Services Advisory Committee, both of which have not had a
meeting since 2022. These committees will be discussed at the next Steering committee on April 27th
Assessor Vacancy: Paige Walton, the Town of Waterford Assessor, is currently serving part-time as our
interim Assessor. The Town interviewed three qualified applicants. The Town is preparing to make a
conditional offer to the finalist.
Human Services Administrator Vacancy: The Town is currently advertised for the position and has
received 24 applications. The deadline for applications was March 30th. Top candidates are now being
scheduled for an interview.
Materials Management Infrastructure (MMI) grant: the CT Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection has awarded the MMI grant to the Town to construct a food waste/leaf composting facility at
DPW. Towns awarded this grant are finding that there is extensive permitting being required before
they can move forward. The DEEP is currently reviewing the Town’s permit application. Tree removal
will begin upon approval of the permit. Construction is estimated to occur in summer/fall of 2026. This
program will also include the purchase of counter-top collection containers, which will likely come in fall
2026 when the program is implemented with the public. The total amount of the grant is $202, 895.
The Town Council has pledged up to $5,000 in NIPS funding for the containers.
Nip Money Recycling Projects: The State passed the “Nickel for Nips” bottle program in 2021 after
having had many complaints about littering, especially nip bottles, along Connecticut roadways. The
funds must be used for recycling, litter prevention and related activities. The Town currently has a
balance of $69,749.48. On November 3, 20025, the Town Council voted to allocate funds to several
qualified initiatives:
1) A waste oil container that will provide a clean and environmentally safe way to collect waste
oil. This initiative includes funding a pad and a shed to contain the tank, which is planned to be placed at
the Transfer Station. Amount approved is up to $22,000

2

2) The Town has seen an increase in the amount of waste oil and this expense is rising. This
initiative will cover these disposal costs. Amount approved is up to $3,000 per year. This will be
reviewed annually.
3) A MetroSTOR container is planned to be placed at the Transfer Station and will limit odor and
animal intrusion. This initiative will improve the voluntary public food waste collection that is planned to
begin in 2026. Amount approved is up to up to $3,500
4) Storm drain markers educate/warn the public on that dumping in the drain will impact lake
water quality and the environment. These would only be placed on drains in the lake watershed.
Amount approved is up to up to $1,000. The storm drain markers have arrived and will be installed in
the summer.

5) An antifreeze containment unit will cover any overflow or leakage from the two barrels used
to store the liquid waste. Amount approved is up to $2,000
6) Additional hours being allocated to part-time staff (Transfer Station Operators) would be used
to monitor recycling in the field and to provide public education so to reduce recycling contamination.
Amount approved is up to $8,000 per year. This will be reviewed annually. Due to winter weather this
has not been implemented yet.
The Public Works Department is currently planning the implementation of these initiatives. Updates on
these initiatives will be reported as they progress.
CHS Roof Project: The Roofing contractor (Greenwood Industries) and the HVAC contractor (Pro-mech
coordinated roof cuts over the fall of 2024 and winter 2024-25. All roof work has been satisfactorily
completed. The portion of grant funding for the architectural services has been found to be in jeopardy,
as it was determined that the Town did not follow State Statutes regarding the selection process in
2022. The Statutes called for not more than four vendors to be interviewed and evaluated. The

3

Town/BOE at that time interviewed and evaluated five engineers. In July of 2024, this requirement
which stifled competition was repealed. In fall of 2024, the Town made an official request to the
Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to waive the Statue on the record in 2022, when this
evaluation process occurred. Since we have not had any determination to our response after several
months and inquiries, we have asked Rep. Ackert to sponsor special legislation to waive the application
of the old requirement on our project, so that the Town could recoup the grant funding that was
awarded. We believed that this was especially appropriate as the General Assembly found in 2024 that
this policy restricting competition needed to be removed. A bill unfortunately was not filed in time for
the 2025 session, and so we have asked for one in the 2026 session to recover the grant amount toward
the engineering. It is estimated that the grant will be approximately $10,000 for the GHR roof project
and $12,000 for the CHS roof project.
CHS HVAC Project: Our contractor Pro-Mech, Inc. of Bloomfield is still on the job. Construction of the
overall system is now complete, but they are working on a punch list. The project passed final
inspection in mid-October. They are working with Aramark, the commissioning agent, to test and to
adjust the system. The Town received a State HVAC grant which covers over 50% of this project. The
Town has requested a six-month extension on this grant, just in case a valid test of the Chiller cannot be
done until warmer weather arrives. The total cost of the original construction contract is $11,897,800.
Additional change orders are being processed now due to Eversource changing the Transformer size
which is increasing the total project cost. An additional $46,000 has been added to the project cost for
the commissioning agent. State grant funding will cover $6,602,148 of the project, with the remaining
amount being financed by bond funds. The total cost of the project is expected to be approximately
$12,642,000. Voters within the Town on November 4, 2025, approved the referendum question that will
transfer previously approved unused bonding debt that was saved from recent school projects to cover
the cost increases for this much-needed project. The project will be officially completed on June 30,
2026.
Coventry Village Water Tower Project: The Town was notified last year by Congressman Courtney that
we have received a Congressional Directed Spending (CDS) grant of $1 million toward the construction
of an elevated water tower to strengthen and improve the village water system. The water tower would
provide additional pressure and steady volume of water for the system. This is especially important for
fire suppression systems that are needed for new commercial development and historic mill redevelopment in Coventry Village. This project could also improve the fire suppression systems at the
high school, the middle school, and GHR. The total project was estimated to be $2.5 million. The
request made by the Town was for $1.875 million dollars. The grant requires at least a 25% match. The
grant will be administered starting in 2025-26 through the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural
Development Program. The Town coordinated with Connecticut Water Company on possible locations.
Connecticut Water conducted a review and made recommendations for the siting of the Tower. They
presented the findings of the review to the Finance Committee on October 30th. Town Engineer Todd
Penney presented their recommendations to Town Council on November 3rd. As the Water Tower
Project was found to best be sited on the Stonehouse Road property, the Town Council approved the
use of the unspent preliminary engineering funds to be used to evaluate that site. The Town staff have
applied for State bonding funds to cover the full cost of the Project, which is now estimated to be $3
million. Local businesses, including Teleflex, have shown interest in the extra fire protection the water
tower would provide.
Plains Road/Salt Impacted Potable Wells: This water extension project involves much coordination with
the Connecticut Water Company to complete. They have tentatively agreed to connect a newly

4

constructed water line to their existing system in the Nathan Hale Drive area. The Town currently has
State grant funding pledged for approval for 50%. However, to secure the funding, the project must be
ready with design and authorized by a public referendum. CT Department of Health (DPH) has
informed us that we have secured a Small Disadvantaged Communities (SDC) grant from the U.S. EPA in
the amount of $787,000 to add on top of the approximate 50% subsidy. This will reduce the Town’s
expenses to less than 25% of the total project cost. The construction cost is estimated to be $2.6
million. The survey work has been completed. Our contract engineer, GZA Geoenvironmental, Inc., has
completed the engineering and is still providing services for permitting. The project was presented to
the Town Council at the January 21, 2025 Town Council meeting. The Town Council determined at that
meeting that this project should be placed on a future public referendum requesting authorization for
debt to construct the improvements. At the February 18, 2025 meeting the Town Council authorized
funding for permitting that would allow the installation of a water line along the South Street extension
right of way. Application has been made for SRF grant/loan funds so that funding may be designated by
the State. The Town has received a DPH notice of funding for the project. This would include additional
funding for possible project contingency needs. The funds are now pledged but will be obligated by DPH
after completion and execution of the loan documents. Town staff held a meeting with DPH staff and
found that the loan documents will be prepared after the permitting is complete and the bids for
construction have been received. DPH indicates the loan is a 10 year or a 20-year loan at 2% interest.
Staff and our legal team have prepared our construction bid package. DEEP has finished its review of
the permits. The Town has received DPH approval of the proposed bid package documents. We are
preparing to advertise and go out for bids. We expect bids to be returned in May. Upon return of the
bids, the DPH will review them and then begin the process for financing with grants and 50% forgivable
low interest loans. We have been warned by the State that this process may take 2 to 3 months. With
this in mind, we expect to start construction now in September with substantial completion in
November.
Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) - Plant upgrade vs. Willimantic Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP) connection: The engineers, Tighe & Bond, completed their review of the costs to connect
our wastewater system to the Willimantic WWTP. The study shows that the connection to the
treatment plant in Willimantic will be nearly the same cost as the upgrade to the existing Coventry
WWTP. However, with that reported, it is likely that the Town would be eligible for more grant funding
for the Coventry WWTP upgrade than a line extension to the Willimantic WWTP. The study was
forwarded to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) for their review and
comment. Town staff, our engineering consultants and the WPCA did meet with DEEP representatives
in June 2024. DEEP indicated that the WPCA will need to conduct an environmental impact study
regarding the preferred option of upgrading the wastewater treatment plant. The Town must take
action one way or the other as the Coventry WWTP does not meet current State wastewater treatment
standards. The WPCA is selecting an independent firm to conduct the evaluation of the upgrade of the
Wastewater Treatment Plant project under the requirements of the Connecticut Environmental
Protection Act (CEPA). Request for Qualifications (RFQs) were received December 19, 2024. Only one
was received by SLR International Corporation of New Haven, CT. An interview was held in March 2025.
The WPCA has contracted for services for the CEPA project. This study is expected to take one year to
complete. The contractor was delayed in their project start time. It is expected to be completed by late
summer 2026. DEEP will then review the study and provide comments by January of 2027. After taking
the DEEP comments into consideration, the Town will be able to move towards engineering and design.
Bolton/Coventry Sewer Extension: The Town has planned for a sewer line extension project from the
existing sewer service in the Town of Bolton eastward along US Route 44 into the town of Coventry.

5

This was planned in the expectation that the Town may attract additional commercial growth along that
corridor, which currently has some commercial development. Town staff are negotiating with the
Bolton Lakes Water Pollution Control Authority on the connection fees to their utility system. The
BLWPCA will soon be providing a new proposal for the Town’s consideration. After approving the
connection fees, a separate agreement will be required to address maintenance requirements, annual
use fees, billing, permitting, service area, flows, etc. The Town has also been working with the United
States EPA to prepare the grant contract. The project is partially funded through the passage of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Community Projects grants. Additional funding will be required
possibly through bonding and sewer connection assessments. We will continue to explore our options
for additional funding for this project. We have learned that this money, if not used for the Bolton
project, could possibly be re-directed to another sewer project.
Coventry Lake/Lake Wangumbaug Hydrilla Control Project: The Town has received the CT Department
of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) for the Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) grant for the 2026
fluoridone treatments. Matching funds and funds for monitoring the lake have been proposed in the
FY2026-27 Budget. Summer 2026 will be the third year of the three-year Treatment Plan that has been
recommended by our consultants. The Treatments for 2026 will start in July.
Booth and Dimock Library Historic Preservation Grant: The Town was selected to receive the $6000
grant by the State Historic Preservation Office for repairs to the historic portion of the Booth and
Dimock Library. The project specifically will make repairs to the framing and joists supporting the floors
in the reading rooms under the bookshelves. As you may recall the project is a total of $12,000 with the
library providing the match from their endowment fund. Construction is expected in summer 2026.
Patriots Park Improvement Project: A Small Town Economic Assistance Program (STEAP) grant has been
awarded by the State to the Town in the amount of $315,000 for Patriots Park improvements. The
project totals $350,000, including a $5,000 donation from the Coventry Lions Club and the municipal
match of $30,000. The project involves improvements to the pavilion, playground replacement, fencing
and geese deterrent measures. In late 2024 and early 2025, the Town conducted a master plan process
for the park. The process is now complete. The grant has been amended, and construction plans are
being developed. The Town Engineer has prepared a plan for the new playground area. Also, geese
deterrent measures are being planned. These plans have been reviewed by the Inland Wetlands Agency.
A separate permit is being requested for the geese remediation involving a water circulator near the
swimming area. The project began construction in December with tree removal and earthwork
preparing a level area for the new playground. The Town Crew is now constructing the wall along he
playground. The bid documents for the playscape are complete and have been advertised. Bids are due
by April 23, 2026. The overall project should be completed in Summer 2026. Now that the Town has
actively begun construction, we are eligible to apply for future STEAP grant funding. The Town Council
was briefed on this STEAP Grant project at their October 20, 2025 Town Council Meeting.
Main Street/South Street Pedestrian Crossing Project: The Town was awarded a Transportation Rural
Improvement Program (TRIP), a newly created state grant program designed to support rural
municipalities, which are often ineligible for many federal transportation programs. The grant is
$498,000. This is a 100% funded grant for construction, with engineering being the responsibility of the
Town. This project will provide crosswalks and pedestrian safety features along Main Street in the Village
and along South Street. Improvements will include signage, flashing lights and curb ramps (sidewalk
bumps) that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Additional engineering is
required. Town Engineer Todd Penney expressed the need for additional funding for consulting engineers

6

to complete this project at the March 12th Budget meeting. This project will go to bid at the completion
of design. The project is planned for construction in summer 2026, but may be delayed.
Main Street sidewalk project: This project is funded by a Community Connectivity grant. This project
will begin at Hemlock Point Lane and go northeasterly to Winterberry. The design had been reviewed by
CDOT for permitting and rejected. Construction plans have been amended to move retaining walls
outside of the right of way at the request of CDOT. Work has involved acquiring additional easements
for retaining walls. Upon completion of the easements, the Town will seek bids. Bid packets are being
prepared. Construction is expected in summer 2026. Upon completion of this project the Town will be
eligible to apply for another Community Connectivity grant to extend the sidewalk further on Main
Street to Lisicke Park and additionally westward to Daly Road. This will eventually connect to planned
(currently in design) future sidewalks along Daly Road. When all is complete within the next couple of
years, there will be sidewalks in place that circle Coventry Lake.
Hale Trails Project: This is a Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP)
grant. The project budget is $500,000 and is funded 50% State and 50% local. The Town’s match is
primarily in-kind services and in-house engineering. The project design is currently paused to evaluate
the wetland impact and possible alternative crossings on Bear Swamp Road at Rufus Creek. Staff had a
meeting with the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to explain project
difficulties in working with the wetland component of the project and have found that we can phase the
project with the current award and apply for additional funding at a later cycle to address the wetland
crossing or bypass. This project has been placed on hold as additional engineering is needed to reflect
project changes.
Depot Road Bridge replacement: The Town has been awarded a $7.4 million State/Federal grant for
100% funding for this project. The State has agreed to provide engineering with one of their consulting
engineers. CHA Engineering of Rocky Hill, CT has been assigned the project by the Connecticut DOT.
Scouring tests have been completed showing that replacement is warranted. In October 2025 the State
notified the Town that they have funded design engineering so it can move forward.
Brigham Hill Bridge replacement: The Town has been awarded a $5.2 million State/Federal grant for
100% funding for this project. The State has agreed to provide engineering with one of their consulting
engineers. CHA Engineering of Rocky Hill, CT has been assigned the project by the Connecticut DOT.
Scouring tests have been completed showing that replacement is warranted. In October 2025, the State
notified the Town that they will be designating funds soon for design engineering so it can then move
forward.
Bunker Hill Bridge Replacement (Rufus Creek): Though this project is described as a bridge, it is
described more accurately as a large culvert structure that is constructed under the roadway. The
project is in design with Jacobson Engineering. The Town is coordinating with the Town of Andover, as
they have a bridge project over the Hop River moving forward and we do not want to isolate the
residents on this road with two construction projects active at the same time. As Andover’s permitting
and began construction in 2025, we had to delay construction of this project until summer 2026. CDOT
has given the Town an extension on this grant award. The Town was awarded a $700,000 grant for this
project. This is a 50/50 State/Local funded project. The local match was budgeted with existing road
bond funds. The Inland Wetlands Agency has issued a permit. Trees have been cleared to allow for
construction. Easements are finalized with adjacent landowners. Bids have been put out for this project
and are due by April 9,2026.

7

Parker Bridge Road-Bridge (Culvert) replacement grant: In 2023 the Town applied for Federal/State
funding to replace the smaller bridge on Parker Bridge Road. It is actually a large culvert that the
adjacent creek runs through. The grant was not funded that year. Staff has again applied for this
funding for the 2024 grant cycle. The Town was awarded a $714,000 grant for this project. The total
project cost is $1,428,000. This is a 50/50 State/Local funded project. The local match was budgeted
with existing bond funds. The project is now in engineering and will require adjacent right of way at the
crossing of an unnamed creek, so to re-align the crossing. A preliminary design plan is complete.
Easements are being sought from adjacent property owners. The CT. Fisheries has recently contacted
the Town and is requesting a change in the design plans to allow for the passage of fish, which is not
possible with the current bridge(culvert). The Town is in discussion with them on this request.
Flanders Rd/Cider Mill Bridge: The Town has been awarded a Federal bridge replacement grant. We
have contracted and obligated these Federal grant funds. The State has changed the process and time
frame of this project. They were hoping to complete multiple bridges with five towns with one
design/contactor. That has changed. The State will directly contract engineering and then directly hire
a separate contractor. The Towns of Mansfield and Coventry will be included in the design phase and
will coordinate efforts. A project meeting was held with the project engineers and the Town of
Mansfield on December 11, 2025. The project is now planned to begin with a public meeting in 2026;
followed by design completion in 2028; and then construction to be completed by December 2030 (four
years later than first suggested by CDOT). The estimated cost of the project is $7,070, 000. The
State/Federal grant award is to be 100% funded.
South Street/Swamp Road Project: This is a major project that will improve safety on these roads and
will raise the elevation of the intersection of South Street and Swamp Road. Preliminary plans are
complete. This project was reviewed by the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) last fall.
The comments caused minor adjustments to be made to the preliminary plans. The revised plans were
presented at the public involvement meeting that was held on October 24, 2023. It was well attended
by the residents of the area. Public involvement meetings are required by the Connecticut Department
of Transportation (DOT) for funding from the Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program
(LOTCIP). Good feedback from residents/property owners was received by staff and the project
engineers. In late 2024, design plans were amended further to include a gap area along South Street
and the State awarded an additional $442,800 to cover this area. The design amendments did not
significantly delay the project’s engineering, however this addition required the need to acquire multiple
new easements. The focus now is on easement acquisitions from property owners. The Town Council
has approved additional funding to complete this process in a timely manner. Bidding for this project
will be in summer of 2026. Construction is now planned to begin in fall of 2026 with completion in
summer of 2027.
Daly Road Construction Project: This is a road and sidewalk construction project from Rt. 31 to South
Street. Two Local Option Transportation Capital Improvement Program (LOTCIP) grants have been
approved and have been combined into one project. Funding for construction is 100%. The project will
modify curves and increase pedestrian safety. Funding for design will be funded by the Town. Barton
and Loguidice of Glastonbury is conducting engineering on this project. The preliminary design has been
reviewed by CRCOG and CDOT. Now that all preliminary plans have been approved, design engineering
is the next step. This funding is the match requirement from the Town. There is currently insufficient
funds in CNREF. The Town will need to consider possible sources to fund this next step of this project.
This could be funded in a future Road Bond that Town Council has discussed for later in 2026.

8

Road resurfacing/drainage Improvements: The Town is reviewing road conditions for next year’s
summer paving and for a potential road bond project. Leslie Lane is the next priority project on our list.
With less funds budgeted for roads this next year, our funding will not go too far with the summer
paving projects.

9

For immediate release:
Contact: Alexander Taylor, Special Projects Coordinator
Town of Coventry
860-742-6324
Email: [email protected]

Town of Coventry is Accepting Applications for the
2026 Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act
(COVENTRY, CT) – March 24, 2026 . . . The Town of Coventry is accepting applications for the 2026 Neighborhood
Assistance Act (NAA) program. Qualifying programs must be conducted by tax-exempt or municipal organizations and
provide an eligible service such as neighborhood assistance, job training, community services or energy conservation.
Additional eligible program details can be found on the State of CT Department of Revenue Services website. Applicants
should submit a completed form NAA-01 to the Town no later than June 1, 2026. Applications can be submitted
physically to the Town Manager’s Office at Town Hall at 1712 Main Street, Coventry CT, 06238, or digitally to
[email protected]. After a public hearing on June 15, approved applications will be submitted to the DRS, who will
post approved projects to their website later in the year.
About the Neighborhood Assistance Act:
The Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act (NAA) is a Tax Credit Program which provides an opportunity for
businesses to receive a tax credit for making cash investments into community programs by municipal or tax-exempt
organizations. Credits are distributed for approved programs by the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (DRS),
which can be 60% or up to 100% for a specific category of improvements. In order for a program to be eligible, an
application must be submitted to the Town of Coventry and approved by the Coventry Town Council before being
approved by the DRS.
Program details:






A business is limited to receiving $150,000 in tax credits in a given funding year
A municipal or tax-exempt organization is eligible to receive an aggregate of $150,000 of funding for any
programs in a given funding year
The minimum contribution for which a credit can be received is $250
Any program receiving $25,000 or more in NAA funding is required to provide a post-project audit prepared by a
certified public accounting firm to the Town
Additional information and application forms can be found at the State of CT DRS website at
https://portal.ct.gov/drs/credit-programs/neighborhood-assistance/neighborhood-assistance-act-tax-creditprogram

-end-

BUDGET MOTIONS
I move that the Town Council make the following appropriations for the Fiscal Year July 1,
2026 to June 30, 2027:
General Government
Board of Education
Capital Expenditures
Debt Service
Ambulance Service
For a Total of:

$
$
$
$
$
$

I move that that the Town Council establish the annual rate for COVRRA for FY 26/27
at:____________________.
I move that the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to enter into agreement with the
Commissioner of Transportation for Town Aid Funds available to the Town of Coventry
under Chapter 240 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
I move that the Town Council, pursuant to Title 7, Chapter 116b of the Connecticut General
Statutes, adopt the FY 26/27 Capital Improvement Plan, as amended by the Council, and
further, that the Town Manager be authorized to make application for funding for eligible
projects under the Local Capital Improvement Program (LOCIP).
I move that the Town Council authorize the Town Manager and the Town Treasurer to
borrow money from time to time in anticipation of tax collections as needed to meet current
expenses.
I move that the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to make any adjustments needed
to correct any mathematical errors in the budget.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Laura Stone
Laura Stone
RE: Coventry Senior Awards
Monday, March 23, 2026 3:27:00 PM

Last year’s cost was $174 for six plaques
.
----Laura Stone
Executive Assistant to the Town Manager
Town of Coventry
1712 Main Street
Coventry, CT 06238

Direct Line: 860-531-2139
Main Office Phone: 860-742-6324
Website: www.coventry-ct.gov
PLEASE NOTE: My new email address is [email protected]
From: Lisa Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 11:05 AM
To: Laura Stone <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Coventry Senior Awards

Great. Thanks!
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Laura Stone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 8:31:00 AM
To: Lisa Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Coventry Senior Awards
Thanks. I’ll add this to an upcoming agenda to authorize the expense for the plaques.
----Laura Stone
Executive Assistant to the Town Manager
Town of Coventry
1712 Main Street
Coventry, CT 06238

Direct Line: 860-531-2139
Main Office Phone: 860-742-6324

Website: www.coventry-ct.gov
PLEASE NOTE: My new email address is [email protected]
From: Lisa Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 8:00 AM
To: Laura Stone <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Coventry Senior Awards

FYI
Lisa Thomas
Chairwoman, Coventry Town Council
Chair, Capitol Region Council Of Governments Legislative Committee
Member, CT State Comptroller's Healthcare Cabinet
Member, CT Education Mandates Review Advisory Council
860.930.7303
PLEASE NOTE: my new email is [email protected]
From: Lisa Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 10:10 AM
To: Leslie Reed <[email protected]>
Cc: Lisa Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Coventry Senior Awards

Leslie,
We will use the same awards categories as in the past. I can't believe we are already far
enough into the year to be thinking about this!
If we can have student names as soon as you have them, that will help our staff get the
plaques ordered in a timely manner.
Typically the school sends us brief bios on each of the award recipients so that we can
make more personalized comments during the ceremony.
Lisa
Lisa Thomas
Chairwoman, Coventry Town Council

Chair, Capitol Region Council Of Governments Legislative Committee
Member, CT State Comptroller's Healthcare Cabinet
Member, CT Education Mandates Review Advisory Council
860.930.7303
PLEASE NOTE: my new email is [email protected]
From: Leslie Reed <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2026 9:45 AM
To: Lisa Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: Coventry Senior Awards

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is
important
Morning Lisa –
Just reaching out regarding our annual Senior Awards night for 2026, as I am now the high
school contact for this event. We have scheduled May 27 at 6:00 in Veterans Auditorium as
the night to celebrate the senior class.
Can you let me know when you would need our staff picks for the Town Council awards so I
can start the process on this end, and we can touch base on who will be handing out the
awards once we get closer to the event. Let me know if there are any changes to your awards,
or if you need anything from me.
Thank you,
Leslie Reed
Principal’s Secretary
Coventry High School
78 Ripley Hill Road
Coventry, CT 06238
860-742-7346

8.B.

25/26-47: Consider/Possible Action: Ratification of the Town Manager’s Appointment of
Public Works Director Bill Watkins as Acting Deputy Town Manager during the temporary
absence of the Town Manager

Town Council Action Requested: The Town Council will consider approving the appointment
of Public Works Director Bill Watkins as the “Acting Deputy Town Manager” in the absence of
the Town Manager.
Purpose: The Town Manager is planning to take some leave to travel out of State from April
16th-19th The Town Charter section 6-8 indicates that the Town Manager may make an
appointment of an Acting Town Manager to serve in the absence of the Town Manager. Though
it is being recommended that the appointment be an Acting Deputy Town Manager. The
appointment of an Acting Deputy Town Manager would not provide the transfer of all the
authority of the Town Manager and would better allow the Town Manager to advise and direct
the Acting DTM on serious issues that may arise during the absence if needed. The Charter
does not address an Acting Deputy Town Manager, but since there are similar duties, this
request is being made to avoid any concerns with compliance with the Charter.
History: The Charter allows the Town Manager to make an appointment of an Acting Town
Manager to serve in an absence or disability, with approval of Town Council. It has been the
Town’s practice that the former Town Manager appointed an Acting Town Manager in his
absences without seeking Town Council approval. The Finance Director was primarily his
choice, if she was available to serve. The current Town Manager has never appointed an Acting
Town Manager, but has chose to appoint an Acting Deputy Town Manager in his absence,
assigning supervisory authority and community relations duties, but not all financial or
contractual authority granted the Town Manager. This was last done in December 2025, when
Cherie Trahan served as the Acting Deputy Town Manager.
Facts about the issue: Though it has not been the practice of the Town to have the Town
Council approve the Town Manager’s appointment of an Acting Town Manager, the Town
Attorney has indicated that he interprets that the Town Council is to consider approving the
Town Manager’s appointment of an Acting Town Manager.
Funding Information: There is no financial impact to this temporary appointment.
Town Manager Comments: Public Works Director Bill Watkins can be of assistance to the
Town Council and the community during this short absence of the Town Manager.
Town Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the Town Manager’s appointment of Bill

Watkins as the Acting Deputy Town Manager for a period of four days beginning on
April 16, 2026, and ending on April 19,2026.

Coventry Board of Education
Coventry, Connecticut
Board of Education Regular Meeting
Unapproved Minutes of Thursday, March 12, 2026
Administration Building Conference Room
Board Members Present:
Jennifer Beausoleil, Chairperson
Mary Kortmann, Vice-Chairperson
Emma Eaton, Secretary
Megan Boshuyzen
Joshua Clark
Mark Larson
Courtney Rossignol
Board Members Absent:
None
Administrators Present:
Dr. David J. Petrone, Superintendent of Schools
Charmaine Bradshaw-Hill, Director of Finance and Operations
Student Representative:
Maggie Coffey
I. Call to Order
J. Beausoleil called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
II. Salute to the Flag
J. Beausoleil led the salute to the flag.
III. Audience of Citizens
There were none
IV. Report of the Superintendent
Dr. Petrone reported several updates, including that the First Responders Academy was
held and Read Across America Day was celebrated. The Town budget hearing also took
place. He noted that 983 tickets were sold for the CHS production of Annie. Additionally,
CHS hosted a Science Fair Career Day. The Board met with the Town Council on Monday
regarding the budget, and Dr. Petrone attended the URSA/NASA meeting.
IV.A. Recognition: March – Board of Education Appreciation Month
Dr. Petrone recognized the Board of Education and expressed gratitude for their
commitment, leadership, and dedication to Coventry Schools. Students presented calendars
to the Board members. The calendars featured artwork created by the student presenters.
Coventry Board of Education Regular Meeting Minutes, March 12, 2026 – Page 1 of 5

IV.B. Information: Coventry Public Schools Partnership with the Police Department
and Police Liaison to Schools – Mr. Opdenbrouw
Mr. Opdenbrouw and Officer Stebbins presented an overview of the partnership between
the Police Department and the School Police Liaison Officer, which is available on the
district’s website via the BoardBook portal.
Officer Stebbins, the police liaison to the schools, provided background information about
himself and his role.
E. Eaton commented that the ways visibility and accessibility are provided and promoted
are impressive, and she commended the Handle with Care program.
Dr. Petrone noted that the relationship between the district and the Police Department is
one he worked hard to develop and that it has now become part of the district’s culture.
There was a discussion about the office space available to the police liaison at the complex
and whether it has been used. Officer Stebbins stated that the office is not where the
students are. He noted that the space may be used as a meeting area with an administrator
and is appreciated if needed. Dr. Petrone added that the office space was established to
maintain a police presence on campus, and the long-term goal is to create similar spaces at
the other schools.
Board members expressed thanks and appreciation for their dedication to the schools.
IV.C. Information: Board of Education Student Representative Report – Maggie Coffey
Miss. Coffey reported that the girls’ basketball team won, and the boys’ basketball team will
play in the quarterfinals tomorrow. She also attended Read Across America. She noted that
the school play was a success, and the jazz band will be performing at the senior center.
Music Mayhem Week is taking place. A St. Patrick’s Day Best Buddies event will be held
next week, and the school will be hosting the Middle School East Region Festival. Another
Spirit Week is planned for the last week in March.
V. Information: Report of the Chairman
J. Beausoleil reported that the boys’ and girls’ basketball teams are doing well. She also
noted that the Town Council Steering Committee met and discussed building committee
requests. She attended facilities tours of the middle school, high school, and preschool. In
recognition of Women’s History Month, she acknowledged the women who have served as
Board of Education chairs since 1970 and recognized their leadership in guiding education
in the community, sharing their names with the group. She also asked for a moment of
appreciation for educator peers at Old Dominion University who experienced a tragedy
today.
VI. Communications
An email was received from Town Manager James Drumm regarding the Capital
Improvement request.
VII. VOTE: Approval of Minutes
VII.A. Approve Minutes of February 26, 2026

Coventry Board of Education Regular Meeting Minutes, March 12, 2026 – Page 2 of 5

Correction: Under VI. Report of the Chairman, the second-to-last sentence should read:
“The town hearing is scheduled for March 5, at which the Town Manager and
Superintendent will be presenting.”
The last sentence should read: “On March 9, the Board of Education will appear before the
Town Council to answer questions about the district's appropriation requests.
MOTION: To approve minutes of February 26, 2026, as amended
By: C. Rossignol
Seconded: E. Eaton
Result: Motion passes unanimously
VIII. Old Business
VIII.A. Information and Possible VOTE: FY2027 Budget
The Town Council is meeting tonight to continue the discussion of the budget. Upcoming
meetings are scheduled for March 23, March 30, and April 6. On April 6, final deliberations
will include decisions on the appropriation and Capital Improvement Plan.
VIII.B. Information and Possible VOTE: Approve the 2026-2027 School Calendar
The EAC contract states that the work year shall include 187 days, consisting of 182
instructional days and 5 other days. The Board reserves the right to modify the work year,
and any changes shall be negotiated in accordance with the law.
Dr. Petrone reviewed the professional development requirements and noted that a half-day
was missed.
Modifications: The professional development early release day has been moved from
December 4 to December 11. This change is necessary to ensure compliance with
professional development requirements.
MOTION: To approve the 2026-2027 School Calendar
By: M. Larson
Seconded: M. Kortmann
Results: Motion carries with 6 in favor and 1 abstention by E. Eaton
IX. New Business
IX.A. Information and Possible VOTE: Contract for New Website Platform
Kathy stated that an RFP was conducted, and Apptegy, Inc. was selected from four
proposals. Apptegy will serve as the district’s primary communication hub, streamlining
digital outreach for all schools, departments, parents, students, staff, and the community.
This agreement will replace the expiring agreement with FINALSITE. She reviewed
compliance requirements for the website, including the ability to keep the web design fresh
and updated annually. The cost covers both conversion and ongoing maintenance. ADA
accessibility requirements were also reviewed, and Google Translate will be used for
multilingual support.
MOTION: That the Board of Education authorize the Superintendent to enter into a
professional services agreement with Apptegy, Inc. for the implementation and
three-year hosting of a new district-wide website platform. The total contract value
for the three-year term shall not exceed $36,000.
By: E. Eaton
Seconded: C. Rossignol
Result: Motion passes unanimously
Coventry Board of Education Regular Meeting Minutes, March 12, 2026 – Page 3 of 5

IX.B. Information: Revisions to Policy 5141.21 Administration of Medications in
Schools (to be warned for a future vote at a future BOE meeting)
The policy has been revised to reflect updated statutory language regarding medication
delivery mechanisms. These changes were made in consultation with school nurses and the
district medical advisor.
It was confirmed that the policy allows students with allergies to carry EPI pens or nasal
sprays and permits coaches to administer them.
There was consensus to move forward with a vote at a future meeting.
X. Report of Board Members
X.A. Information: Fiscal Committee Report, Meeting of March 12, 2026
M. Kortmann reported that outplacement costs have not increased and that the district has
received the first payment of excess cost. She noted that food service is experiencing a loss.
She also reviewed the DRIP funds, with $97,000 received, and stated that the Board needs
to indicate which projects will utilize these funds. The deadline for designation is April 15.
X.A.1. Information and Possible VOTE: Approve Participation in the District Repair
and Improvement Project (DRIP) Program
This year, the district is receiving $97,000 in DRIP funds, which may be used for projects
included on the capital request list.
C. Brashaw-Hill and Dr. Petrone reviewed how the DRIP program operates. The Fiscal
Subcommittee recommended using the funds for window AC units in schools that do not
currently have air conditioning. J. Beausoleil reviewed the state mandate on air quality.
The project application must be submitted by April 15.
MOTION: To approve the district’s participation in the District Repair and
Improvement Project (DRIP) Program and selection of the air conditioners
as the project to submit
By: E. Eaton
Seconded: M. Boshuyzen
Result: Motion passes unanimously
MOTION: Authorize the use of the 2 percent account for the balance of the AC project
By: E. Eaton
Seconded: C. Rossignol
Discussion: Review of the notification process to the appropriate individuals
Result: Motion passes unanimously
XI. Possible Vote: Executive Session (Security Update and Superintendent’s
Evaluation and Contract)
MOTION: Pursuant to CGS-1-200(c)(6)(A), the Board of Education will go into
Executive Session for discussions related to a security update and the
Superintendent's evaluation and contract with the Superintendent, and Ted
Opdenbrouw present at 8:35 p.m.
By: C. Rossignol
Seconded: E. Eaton
Result: Motion passes unanimously

Coventry Board of Education Regular Meeting Minutes, March 12, 2026 – Page 4 of 5

XII. Open Session
XII.A. Possible VOTE: Approve the Superintendent’s Employment Agreement 20262029
The Board returned to Open Session at 9:58 p.m.
MOTION: To approve the Superintendent’s Employment Agreement 2026-2029 as
discussed
By: E. Eaton
Seconded: M. Boshuyzen
Result: Motion passes unanimously
XIII. Adjournment
MOTION: Adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
By: C. Rossignol
Seconded: M. Boshuyzen
Result: Motion carries unanimously
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Respectfully Submitted:
______________________________
Tricia Dean
Board Clerk
Approved: ________________

Coventry Board of Education Regular Meeting Minutes, March 12, 2026 – Page 5 of 5

Coventry Board of Education
Coventry, Connecticut
Board of Education Regular Meeting - Agenda
Thursday, March 26, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.
Administration Building Conference Room
I.

Call to Order

II.

Salute to the Flag

III.

Audience of Citizens

IV.

VOTE: Consent Agenda
A. Approve the GHR May 2026 Field Experience to Sturbridge, MA
B. Accept the Retirement of Reginald Hutchins, CHS Custodian

V.

Report of the Superintendent
A. Recognition: CHS Girls Basketball Team — CIAC Division III State Champions
B. Information: Board of Education Student Representative Report - Maggie Coffey
C. Information: Superintendent Initiative Achievement Presentation 2025-2026

VI.

Report of the Chairman

VII.

Communications

VIII.

VOTE: Approval of Minutes
A. Approve Minutes of the Special Meeting of March 9, 2026
B. Approve the Minutes of March 12, 2026

IX.

Old Business
A. VOTE: Approve the Revisions to Policy 5141.21 Administration of Medications in
Schools
B. Information and Possible VOTE: FY2027 Budget

X.

Report of Board Members
A. Information: Athletic Advisory Liaison Report - M. Boshuyzen
B. Information: Wellness Committee Liaison Report - C. Rossignol

XI.

Possible VOTE: Executive Session [Superintendent's Evaluation]

XII.

Open Session

XIII.

Adjournment

From:
To:

Subject:
Date:

Kimberlee Delorme
Alicia Le Borious; Amanda Mayer; Brian Baglan; Chelsea Doane; Christine Kessler; Deborah Page; Doreen
Pelletier; Elizabeth Chatis; Heather Neal; Jeff Spivey; James Drumm; Joya Libow; Kim Dias; Laura Barnett; Laura
Stone; Linda Massucci; Lois Hasty; Lyle Evans; Maggie Coffey ([email protected]); Michael Daigneau;
Michelle Trani; Patricia Dean; Patrick Cox; Paula Sandahl; Sarah Woodin; Shawn Cyr ([email protected]);
Shelby Johnson; Tina Moriarty; Tom McKenna ([email protected]); Angela Rejman; Beth Pratt; Celeste
Bedard; Cindy Amelotte; Fran Schenk; Kate Arey; Kate Morrison; Kimberlee Delorme; Leslie Reed; Liz Murphy;
Mara Ahmadi; Mary Sposito; Michele Mansella; Michelle Johnson; Ted Opdenbrouw; Catherine Drury; Charmaine
Bradshaw-Hill; Christian Marcinczyk; Christine Domler; Cindy Wilbur; David Petrone; Jennifer DeRagon; Jennifer
Hammer; Jennifer Slifer; Joseph Blake; Kyle Ferreira van Leer; Laura Zurell; Michele Mullaly; Ross Sward; William
Trudelle; Ashley March; Chelsea Alejandro; Brooke Manning; Lori Beecher; Lori Tollmann
April 6 BOE - April 20 BOE
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:49:04 AM

Please know the regularly scheduled Fiscal Committee and BOE meeting of April
6 have been cancelled.
A special Fiscal meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 20 at 6:00 p.m.
and a special Board of Education meeting has been scheduled for 7:00 p.m. also
on Monday, April 20, 2026.
Thank you,
Kimberlee

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Lisa Thomas
Laura Stone; James Drumm
Fw: Special Meeting last night
Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:32:29 PM

Please attach under correspondence for April 6 agenda.
Lisa Thomas
Chairwoman, Coventry Town Council
Chair, Capitol Region Council Of Governments Legislative Committee
Member, CT State Comptroller's Healthcare Cabinet
Member, CT Education Mandates Review Advisory Council
860.930.7303
PLEASE NOTE: my new email is [email protected]
From: Teresa Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 9:53 AM
To: James Drumm <[email protected]>; Lisa Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: (EXTERNAL MESSAGE)Special Meeting last night
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

CAUTION!: This email originated from outside of the Coventry Public Schools email system. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe to open.
Hi,
I attended the meeting last night. Is there a way to attach maybe another version of the Gun
Ordinance to our regular elections in the Fall so the entire town could more easily vote? The
Ordinance was so very reasonable and fair to all and we should have protection for all. I’m
not sure everyone understood its importance. Please don't give up on it!
Terry Brown

Sent from my iPad

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Lisa Thomas
Laura Stone
Fw:CDS Deadline Reminder & March Updates from Senator Murphy’s Office
Monday, March 30, 2026 2:14:25 PM
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png

Please attach as correspondence to the April 6 agenda.
Lisa Thomas
Chairwoman, Coventry Town Council
Chair, Capitol Region Council Of Governments Legislative Committee
Member, CT State Comptroller's Healthcare Cabinet
Member, CT Education Mandates Review Advisory Council
860.930.7303
PLEASE NOTE: my new email is [email protected]
From: Fallon, Mike (Murphy) <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 12:27 PM
Cc: Curran, Kenny (Murphy) <[email protected]>
Subject: (EXTERNAL MESSAGE)CDS Deadline Reminder & March Updates from Senator Murphy’s
Office

CAUTION!: This email originated from outside of the Coventry Public Schools email system. Do
not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe to open.

Good afternoon,
I am writing to provide an update on some of the work Senator Murphy has done in
Connecticut and Washington over the last couple of weeks.
Connecticut Updates
Congressionally Directed Spending
Applications for Fiscal Year 2027 Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) are now
open. You can find the CDS application here. In addition, a guide to CDS can be found
here. Applications will remain open until 11:59 PM on April 6th, 2026. However,
applicants are encouraged to submit their applications prior to the deadline.
As always, our team is available to answer questions about the CDS process or provide

feedback on project ideas.  
21st Century Road to Housing Act
Senator Murphy voted in favor of the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, legislation to
address the affordable housing crisis in Connecticut and across the country. Among
other reforms, the bill would allow Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funding to be used for new housing construction and seeks to create other pathways to
reduce housing costs and increase availability.  
After voting for the bill, Senator Murphy released a statement, which you can read here.
Agricultural Management Assistance Act
Senator Murphy introduced the Agricultural Management Assistance Act to reauthorize
and improve the Partnership for Risk Management Education and the Agricultural
Management Assistance (AMA) programs, which help farmers manage financial risk
through diversification, marketing, or conservation practices. AMA programs are only
available to 16 states that have historically low rates of participation in the Federal Crop
Insurance Program, including Connecticut. You can read more about the bill here.
10th Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Essay Challenge
Earlier this month, Senator Murphy announced the 15 winners of his Martin Luther King
Jr. Essay Challenge. This year, our office received more than 1,000 entries from
elementary, middle, and high school students from across Connecticut reflecting on
how they can live Dr. King’s legacy in their own communities. You can read more about
the contest and the winners here.
Washington Updates
President Trump’s War with Iran
Since President Trump started the war with Iran nearly 30 days ago, Senator Murphy has
been a vocal opponent of this unauthorized war of choice and has demanded public
hearings on the war. Over the last few weeks, Senator Murphy has:
Introduced a War Powers Resolution to withdraw U.S. armed forces from
hostilities in and against Iran. The Senate voted earlier this week on Senator
Murphy’s resolution; Senate Republicans ultimately blocked the measure.
Appeared on Meet the Press, where he slammed the incompetence of Trump and
his administration as the war spirals out of control. You can watch Senator
Murphy’s appearance here.

Appeared on CNN’s State of the Union, where he discussed Trump’s illegal and
disastrous war. Murphy argued against providing a historically incompetent Trump
administration with additional funding to carry out a war Americans don’t support.
You can watch Senator Murphy’s appearance here.
Joined his colleagues in demanding that Secretary of State Marco Rubio
immediately ramp up communication and efforts to safely evacuate American
citizens who have been left stranded in the Middle East.
Spoke on the Senate floor to support Senator Kaine’s War Powers Resolution,
while urging his colleagues to force President Trump to fulfill his constitutional
obligations and seek an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iran.
Private Equity in Health Care
On March 23rd, Senator Murphy released Aided and Abetted: How the Trump
Administration is Helping Private Equity Take Over Health Care. The new report uncovers
how the Trump administration mobilized the federal government, through legislation,
rulemaking, and relaxed enforcement, to give handouts to one of the most destructive
forces in American health care today: private equity. Senator Murphy traces Trump’s
giveaways to private equity to a corrupt, multimillion-dollar lobbying and donation
campaign from the industry to buy influence with the administration and advances
several policy proposals to curb private equity’s deadly impact on our health care. You
can read the full report here.
In addition to the new report, over the last few weeks, Senator Murphy also:
Introduced legislation to protect whistleblowers in the health care industry. Along
with Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, Senator Murphy introduced the Patient Safety and
Whistleblower Protections Act, which provides legal protections for health care
whistleblowers who speak out publicly on patient safety concerns. You can read
more about the bill here.
Introduced a bill to ban private equity from owning nurses and hospitals. Also
introduced with Rep. Scanlon, the Take Back Our Hospitals Act would effectively
ban private equity ownership of hospitals and nursing homes by making them
ineligible to receive Medicare funding. You can read more about the Take Back Our
Hospitals Act here.
Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act
Senator Murphy recently introduced the Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act, a bill that
would bring down prices for American families and support small businesses by
cracking down on corporate price discrimination. You can read more about the Fair

Prices for Local Businesses Act here.
Banning Event Trading on Sensitive Operations and Federal Functions (BETS OFF)
Act
Earlier this month, Senator Murphy and Rep. Greg Casar unveiled the Banning Event
Trading on Sensitive Operations and Federal Functions (BETS OFF) Act, bicameral
legislation to ban wagering on government actions, terrorism, war, assassination, and
events where an individual knows or controls the outcome. Because many of these
“event contracts” are traded on offshore prediction markets, the bill also amends
existing laws against illegal gambling to enforce these rules by shutting down payment
systems to illegal online platforms and imposing criminal penalties for people in the U.S.
who promote, manage, own, or supervise these businesses domestically. You can read
more about the bill here.

Mike Fallon
Outreach Director
Office of U.S. Senator Chris Murphy
120 Huyshope Avenue, Suite 401
Hartford, CT 06106
Office: 860-549-8467

   

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Lisa Thomas
Laura Stone
James Drumm
Fw: Possible New State Mandate Affecting Local School Districts – HB 5468 Hearing Wednesday 3/11/26
Wednesday, March 18, 2026 8:00:29 AM

Please attach as correspondence to April 6 agenda.
Lisa Thomas
Chairwoman, Coventry Town Council
Chair, Capitol Region Council Of Governments Legislative Committee
Member, CT State Comptroller's Healthcare Cabinet
Member, CT Education Mandates Review Advisory Council
860.930.7303
PLEASE NOTE: my new email is [email protected]

From: Lisa Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 11:43 AM
To: Julie Rau <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL MESSAGE)Possible New State Mandate Affecting Local School Districts – HB
5468 Hearing Wednesday 3/11/26

Julie,
Sorry for my delayed response to your message. Thank you for sharing your concerns
with HB5468, and for pointing out specific challenges. I hope that you were able to
submit written testimony to share your thoughts about the proposed bill's impact.
Best regards,
Lisa
Lisa Thomas
Chairwoman, Coventry Town Council
Chair, Capitol Region Council Of Governments Legislative Committee
Member, CT State Comptroller's Healthcare Cabinet
Member, CT Education Mandates Review Advisory Council
860.930.7303
PLEASE NOTE: my new email is [email protected]
From: Julie Rau <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 8:13 AM
To: Lisa Thomas <[email protected]>; Peter Larson <[email protected]>; Matthew

Kyer <[email protected]>; Robyn Gallagher <[email protected]>; Jon Hand
<[email protected]>; James Drumm <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: (EXTERNAL MESSAGE)Possible New State Mandate Affecting Local School Districts – HB
5468 Hearing Wednesday 3/11/26

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is
important
Dear Members of the Town Council and Board of Education,
I am writing to bring your attention to Connecticut House Bill 5468, scheduled for a public
hearing this Wednesday, March 11, 2026 at 10am, that may have implications for local school
districts and municipal resources.
Although much of the public discussion has focused on homeschooling, the language of the
bill applies to any student withdrawing from a public school, including transfers to private or
parochial schools. As written, the proposal could create new responsibilities for districts when
families withdraw students.
The bill may raise several issues of interest for municipalities and school districts, including:
• A potential new state mandate on local districts requiring additional staff time to document,
track, and report student withdrawals
• New reporting requirements, including forwarding student withdrawal information to the
Connecticut State Department of Education within two days, which would then transmit the
information to the Department of Children and Families (DCF)
• Possible student privacy concerns under FERPA if personally identifiable student
information is transmitted without parental consent
• Administrative workload related to managing new withdrawal documentation and oversight
requirements
• Operational impacts if districts must manage part-time participation by non-enrolled students
in classes, extracurricular activities, and sports.
Testimony related to SB 6, Section 5 indicates the Connecticut State Department of Education
has already expressed concern about potential FERPA conflicts.
Given the upcoming hearing, I respectfully encourage town and district leadership to review
the bill and consider whether it could place additional administrative, financial, or legal
burdens on local school systems and taxpayers. You may wish to raise any concerns with state
legislators while the proposal is under consideration.
Thank you for your time and service to our community.
Respectfully,
- Julie Rau, PhD
[email protected]

Laura Stone
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Lisa Thomas
Wednesday, April 1, 2026 4:31 PM
Laura Stone; James Drumm
Fw: (EXTERNAL MESSAGE)April Economic Pulse

Please include on April 6 consent agenda.
Lisa Thomas
Chairwoman, Coventry Town Council
Chair, Capitol Region Council Of Governments Legislative Committee
Member, CT State Comptroller's Healthcare Cabinet
Member, CT Education Mandates Review Advisory Council
860.930.7303
PLEASE NOTE: my new email is [email protected]
From: Comptroller Sean Scanlon <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 1:49 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: (EXTERNAL MESSAGE)April Economic Pulse

CAUTION!: This email originated from outside of the Coventry Public Schools email system. Do not click links
or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe to open.

Happy April!
Here's to the madness spilling into another month for both Huskies teams!
As always, our full report features a discussion of what's changing in the economy,
updated housing and labor stats, and more.
This month, we spotlight household debt across the country and here in Connecticut.
What's driving it, how bad is it, and what does this mean for consumer spending and
the larger economy?
Stay sharp, stay informed, and keep your finger on the pulse,
Comptroller Sean Scanlon
1

Quick Beat
General Fund Balance:

Special Transportation Fund Surplus:

-$6.0 million

$47.4 million

Outlook: Recession risk increased in March, as the US-Israeli war in Iran
triggered a massive shock to global oil and natural gas supplies. Most
economists still expect to avoid a recession in the U.S. economy in 2026,
as long as the hostilities end soon, but it depends on how long benchmark
oil prices remain above $100 per barrel. U.S. real GDP growth was revised
down by half to 0.7% for Q4 2025 (SAAR), showing that even before the
war, the economy was slowing more than previously thought.
Fed Chair Powell said the labor market appeared to be in balance
but with essentially zero monthly job growth—uncharted territory for
the U.S. economy that has recently seen growth in the pool of available
workers shrink alongside a significant slowdown in hiring by companies.
The Fed kept its key interest rate unchanged at 3.5-3.75% in March.
Annual inflation according to the PCE Price Index was 2.8% in January,
significantly above the Fed’s 2% target even before the Iran war.
Connecticut home buying activity was slow in February, and a spike
in mortgage rates is coming at the worst time—right as peak season
gets underway. A rising rental vacancy rate is welcome news to renters
and points to slower Connecticut rent growth in the year ahead.

KEY DATES THIS
MONTH
4/3 – March U.S. jobs
report
4/7 – January CT jobs
report
4/9 – CT 2025 Q4 GDP &
personal income; U.S. 2025
Q4 GDP 3rd estimate
4/10 –March CPI inflation
report
4/21 –February CT jobs
report
4/28-4/29 – U.S. Federal
Reserve FOMC rate-setting
meeting
4/30 – U.S. 2026 Q1 GDP
1st estimate

2

The share of Connecticut consumer debt in
serious delinquency rose across all major
categories in 2025. This month's spotlight
examines the mortgages, auto loans, and
student loans we carry.

The projected General Fund balance for the
current fiscal year is -$6.0 million. We explain
the revenue and expenditure changes driving
that, and what we can expect as the fiscal year
goes on.

Learn more

Read more

It’s a challenging time for Connecticut
farmers. Rising input costs, labor difficulties,
climate change, health insurance access and
shifting consumer preferences are all issues
Connecticut farmers are facing this year.

Sustained global oil prices over $100 per
barrel and other supply chain disruptions are
driving up costs for gas, heating oil, diesel
fuel, plane tickets, mortgages and likely food
as well.

Learn more

What's the latest?

3

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up to get it first here!

The Office of the State Comptroller | 165 Capitol Ave | Hartford, CT 06106 US
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice

4