To the Editor:
We know that Wilton faces some serious financial hurdles. Perhaps what we need is a new approach to how and why we spend our money.
The primary argument for moving to Wilton should not be ‘schools’. It should be ‘quality of life’. It’s as important as STEM and sports and the arts. I argue that Wilton is severely ‘skewed’ in what it offers. How do we achieve better balance?
Let’s start with the biggest expense — education. The primary reason for our children’s success is their socioeconomic environment. I’d guess 90% of Wilton families have at least one college graduate parent, and a very high number has two — parents with the knowledge and resources to ensure that homework is done, tutors are hired, tests are prepared. Do we really believe that the reason towns like Wilton, Westport, Darien, etc. outperform less wealthy neighbors is simply spending per pupil? No matter how much money we waste on new software, two plus two will always equal four. It’s easy to get caught in the ‘higher price equals higher quality’ trap, but we don’t need Hermes when Coach does just as well.
The school superintendent works for the town, though it often feels as if the power structure is reversed. Yet in an era of declining enrollment and annual budget increases, our performance has lagged our ‘peers’. Why are we not holding the administration accountable? Let’s not throw more money at the problem until someone does a real, independent analysis. If teachers need coaches then we need new teachers or new administration. Adding layers is what management does when it can’t or won’t solve the real problem. Hiring more people isn’t the answer. Hiring the right ones is. And it would be helpful if they would stop with the scare tactics and the drama that somehow if they don’t get every penny our kids will be lifelong failures. They’re gonna be fine.
The second biggest part is infrastructure. We know that we waited too long to address the problem, all in the name of ‘budget. Now numbers like $150 million in future costs are being talked about.
Let’s assume that number is real. I propose that the Town hires its own construction project management team that will act as the general contractor and overseer of all physical projects. Given that general contractors receive anywhere from 10-25% of the cost, we would save tens of millions of dollars while ensuring that the people in charge are acting solely in the Town’s best interest. If we really have as much work to do as the administration says, this is a no brainer. It seems that every year we are paying tens of thousands to outside ‘consultants’. Bring it all in house.
How about changing the bidding process? Why do we send out projects, ask for bids, then choose from amongst the lowest? How do we know if ANY of those bids are reasonable? How about instead, we put together a project and a reasonable budget as ascertained by our project team and sent it out to see who is interested? ‘We have project X and are looking for someone to do it for Y dollars’. We should at least control how the bidding opens for any project. We can always adjust.
Third, I think we can all agree Wilton severely lacks amenities. I propose we mandate that 1% of the annual budget is directly solely towards the development and maintenance of new town-wide amenities. Examples can be:
- Dog park
- A real amphitheater for music, shows, movies etc.
- Expanded play areas at parks
- Town pool or ice rink, etc.
- Pickleball courts? And an online automated reservation system for all courts, available solely to Wilton taxpayers.
- Ok sure a turf field, after the rest gets done…
There is no reason usage fees can’t be charged to offset the cost. The point is, I’m tired of hearing how it’s not possible. Doesn’t the town own a lot of land? Is there really nowhere we can put anything?
If we want to see the town thrive and property values increase, then we need to commit to investing in life as much as education.
Fourth, Town taxes should not be supporting local non profits. Period. They need to do their own fundraising or rethink their model. That’s not where our money should be going, and you know I’m all in favor of supporting charity.
Finally, the budget requirements should be changed so that unless 15% of the town votes, the budget fails. The best way to get people engaged is the risk that the budget doesn’t pass. Let’s explore ways to make it easier to vote, whether it’s more days at the polls or absentee ballots. Having a budget default to ‘yes’ when less than 10% of people have voted is the antithesis of democracy. It just works in the favor of the Town.
Andy Schlesinger
I’m not going to get into every point here, but you mention socioeconomic class and test scores. You’re quite right about that – Wilton students start off with a tremendous number of advantages – but wrong about the conclusion: those test scores actually *cover up* the fact that it’s a very, very stingy school system compared to many of our neighbors; those advantages let the district get away with spending less than it should on stuff while maintaining the appearance that things are going well.
There are two problems with this as far as attracting people to Wilton. Number one, it depends on homebuyers continuing to compare districts primarily through test scores; if more people start to look at things like, say, whether there’s a gifted program or middle school drama or a proper elementary science curriculum, Wilton starts to look a lot less competitive to our neighbors. So the system is propped up by over-reliance on that one specific metric that we’re guaranteed to do well on. If somebody were to make + widely circulate a spreadsheet comparing Lower Fairfield County school amenities, I daresay that could cause a multi-percentage-point drop in our real estate values all by itself.
Number two, it also depends on families of kids-who-are-destined-to-test-well continuing to move to + remain in the district in order to keep those scores high; the same factors that mean that these kids do well in Wilton also mean that they’ll likely do well in other places that might be cheaper or a shorter commute or offer better school amenities. And every new cut to a beloved after-school club or whatever is another gentle nudge to those families to consider going elsewhere, particularly in the current booming housing market.
Basically, if the schools don’t actually matter and our kids are destined to do well thanks to their socioeconomic class, why should families continue paying a premium to live in Wilton? And no, a dog park and pickleball courts don’t count for much in that discussion.
(you can, of course, argue that the district is spending too much in absolute terms already, but I don’t think you’ll find a lot of WPS families who feel like the district is generously funded as it stands now, and I don’t think anybody has identified much waste other than vague unsupported comments about having too many administrators or whatever)
Amen to all that Mr. Schlesinger, but you left off the fact that young parents and their school-age kids are the biggest beneficiaries of the town’s tax dollars, not the senior citizens and retirees who comprise the largest population segment and yet pay in with not much return.A little balance in how the town taxes and spends our dollars would be appreciated.
I thank the author of the letter, which raises several interesting points and, hopefully, will spark further discussion.
I am particularly intrigued by the failure-by-default budget referendum. It’s a start to the conversation, at least.
The author’s second point, though, appears to misunderstand key aspects of public construction. First, average profit margins in public sector construction are nowhere near the claimed 10–25%. I don’t know where those figures came from, but they diverge significantly from the publicly available data from sources like the AGC and CFMA, as well as from my anecdotal experience.
The author suggests proposing a price, then soliciting contractors to perform at that price. That runs counter to statutory requirements, best practice, and common sense. I’d be happy to expand on why, but, suffice to say, the idea is nonsense.
The author does make a fair point regarding project management. My understanding, though, is that the former DPW or such was re-hired in a part-time role to provide exactly that: an in-house owner’s representative for all these projects.
If you’ve read this far, I have a question for you to also consider: why doesn’t the Town have publicly available procurement guidelines?
Andy, thanks for your letter. You posed some good ideas and generally agree with you that the town should provide amenities and services that serves the general population’s “quality of life”. And I think you’re basically saying that the town should be thinking smarter, moving faster, and cutting the red tape on project development, which I agree with.
But I do want to provide a different view on the town supporting local non profits. I count the services, amenities, and goods provided by (certain) non-profits, as a benefit to the “quality of life” for the town, just a much as dog parks, turf fields, and amphitheater, which I think are great things to have. But Wilton Library, Wilton YMCA, Trackside Teen Center, Wilton Historical Society, to name just are few, are terrific. I think it’s okay to say: yeah, it would be great for our town to have community programs and culture and the arts…and a pickleball court!