Update on Groton City Road Costs

This is excerpted and edited for space in Groton PATCH

To: Mayor Granatoski, Town of Groton, with copies to Town Council members, District 7 RTM reps, Town Manager, Town Clerk and other interested parties

From: Edward Johnson Friday, April 5, 2019

Subject: Further comments on Groton City Road Budget and related suggested budget cutbacks

Dear Mayor Granatoski,

First, thank you for replying to my E-mail yesterday on the above subject and for the information you provided. With help last night, I reviewed the highway analysis joint report for 3/18/19.

I also reviewed highlights of Groton City Finance Report of 2018, along with a Groton City Zoning Map, historical info from Groton Town Finance Office, as well as recall my own observations as a program driver, covering both the Groton Town and City areas, for over 15 years.

I want to acknowledge and thank Robert Frink for his letter (below) in the New London DAY, "Strange how your tax dollars work in Groton." Everything I have studied confirms the figures he mentioned. We have a definite problem.

1) The report indicates that Groton City (GC) is Urban, as compared with Groton Town (GT) as either Rural or "Mixed Use." This suggests that GC is populated with heavier traffic patterns than GT, which implies more frequent maintenance is needed. However, the reality for GC road maintenance suggests otherwise.

The primary factor for heavy GC traffic involves daily shift commutes for employees of Pfizer and Electric Boat and there is frequent truck traffic also involving the Spicer fuel operation. All are close to the water and are serviced by state road, Rt 349, which is maintained by the State of CT. Route 349 comes from Rt 95 via Sharps Hwy south, Chester going west, and Eastern Point going south. So, eliminating this cost factor takes heavy burden away from GC road maintenance.

2) This leaves GC in very much the same fashion as GT in terms of "Mixed Use" or Rural for maintenance. The GC Zoning Map shows a 75% residential makeup plus large amounts of open space areas, including the golf course, Avery Point, Fort Griswold, Washington Park and the GC Municipal Building on a large, open lot.

With the exception of one credit union and one school, there are no banks or schools and only a few well-established small businesses in various areas. Compare this with GT, with 3 large shopping plazas (Big Y, Stop&Shop, Walmart) and smaller strip malls stores with, 6 bank/credit union branches and multiple schools. As for heavy traffic with frequent congestion, there is always Mystic in the summer. In short, GC and GT should probably average about the same for maintenance per mile costs.

3) Since 2013, there have been several GC road repaving projects covering 27 miles. Why, then, would GC annual costs still remain the same even though there are no major repaving projects currently? I am also advised that all Groton taxpayers will still be paying off the Bond for Thames Street repair that was approved in May, 2011, for 20 years from 2015 to 2034. The final bond figure was $5.23 million. So, we're still paying for that.

4) The above analysis reports that GT and GC use different accounting methods to determine budget needs. GC uses "full cost accounting" and GT does not. Supposedly, the GC method is more detailed, but the GT method results in lower budget figures. So the figures in Mr. Frink's letter do clearly tell that the GT mileage cost maintenance figure is $32,000/mile and the GC figure is $70,621/mile, over twice the GT figure. This puts the total GC overage at the staggering amount of $1,094,592. Moreover, over 70% of GT reserve "rainy day" funds, designated for next year, will apparently be used to cover this extra expense.

5) Meanwhile, the Council actually plans to cut back on "non-mandated" health and service agencies, including two emergency ambulance operations and two community libraries, even in light of the above cost overage for GC. With both my wife and I being senior citizens with health issues, I am not comfortable with this, especially the ambulance reduction. Mandated or non-mandated, a reduction in financial support to any emergency service or useful library does NOT benefit the population or the community quality of life.

So, I have not changed my mind. If anything, having researched this more thorouly, I feel more strongly than ever that the GT Council needs to (a) reduce) the amount of money the GC is requesting for their road budget, and (b) cancel the cutbacks to the ambulance and library services. I hereby make that request....again....as I did yesterday.

Thank you for your time, as always.

Ed Johnson

-----------------------------------------------

Strange how your Tax Dollars work in Groton

written by Robert Frink - printed in NL DAY 4/5/2019 edition

The Town of Groton pays the City of Groton to maintain the roughly 28 miles of town roads within the city. This stems from an arrangement made in 1933 between the town and what was then the Borough of Groton.
Today, the town’s highway maintenance costs are $32,000 per mile. However, when the city presented its bill for fiscal-year 2020 their costs for highway maintenance added up to $70,621 per mile, double the town’s cost! The difference, for maintaining 28 miles of roads for a year, comes to an incredible $1,094,592....this while the town budget is proposing a 25 percent cut to non-mandated health and services agencies, including Groton Ambulance, Mystic River Ambulance, Mystic & Noank Library plus Bill Memorial Library.
The $1,094,592 accounts for over 70 percent of the rainy day funds being applied to next years’ spending. Incredibly, we’re paying twice the cost for something using rainy day funds, while short changing libraries and ambulances!

The Town Council will be voting on funding for the City of Groton on Saturday 4/6/19. Ask the Town Council and your RTM reps why the town should pay the city twice what the town’s costs are. Why are rainy day funds being used? Why are we taxing citizens for this in the first place? And how did libraries and ambulances get shorted?