Council Discusses $833k Shortfall Concern, Elects Board of Finance Replacement

Robert Britton is sworn in as the town’s newest member of the Board of Finance on July 13. AVERY MARTIN PHOTO

Southington’s town council began its meeting Monday night by voting unanimously to elect Robert Britton to fill the Board of Finance position left empty by the death of Edward Pocock Jr.

Britton, a Republican, gave his letter of resignation from the Planning and Zoning Committee to the council upon his appointment to the board.

“[Britton] is highly qualified for this position. Something I personally feel is extremely important for every candidate serving on our Board of Finance,” said Vice Chairwoman Jennifer Clock.

Britton is currently employed as Senior Vice President of M & T Bank. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in General Studies from UConn and his MBA in Finance and International Business from the University of Hartford.

Britton will serve on the Board of Finance until November 2027.

“I'm excited to be part of it. I think it aligns with my current job and employment. I think I can add some value to the board of finance for the town of Southington,” said Britton.

He said filling Pocock’s position will be a challenge, but a welcome one. Pocock, a longtime member of the Board of Finance, died on July 1 at the age of 87.

“Big shoes to fill. I met Ed; he was like a grandfather to a lot of people, so hopefully I can do half the job he did,” said Britton.

Before returning to public business, the council held an 87-minute-long executive session to discuss pending litigation. Also present in the closed-door meeting were several Board of Finance members and lawyers for the town.

Questions over Possible $833k Budget Shortfall Aired

During its regular session, a $833,000 payment the state gave the town at the end of its last budget session, one intended for Board of Education use, became a point of contention among council members.

The state waived a requirement that the extra funds should directly increase spending in the school budget. So, in order to convert it into relief for taxpayers, the council previously cut the Board of Education budget by that sum.

The problem seems to be that the Board of Finance calculated the mill rate by treating the state payment as revenue that did not need to be transferred to the Board of Education budget - thus, in effect, double-counting it.

“The $833,000 that was added back in, related to educational funding, I'm concerned about," said council member Christopher Palmieri, the leader of the Democrats on the council. "I know the Board of Finance is talking about this, that it's not accounted for in the mill rate. So I'm trying to understand how that happened, and how we are going to make up that $833,000 if it was not factored in when we calculated the mill rate for our residents.”

Town manager Alex Ricciardone listed several options for dealing with the potential $833,000 budget hole. The Board of Finance, he said, had decided against increasing the mill rate, or pulling from the rainy day fund. Ricciardone recommended dipping into the town’s budget surplus to cover costs.

“[We have] a $2.455 million budget surplus from the budget that ended July 1 of 2025. So my suggestion would be, if the Board of Finance and Town Council want to give the $833,000 to the Board of Ed, to harvest that money through a one-time appropriation. That's my recommendation,” said Ricciardone.

Chairman Paul Chaplinsky, head of the council Republicans, said the council did not make a mistake with its budget votes. “There’s no error on our side, and there’s no shortfall really. The vote that we made is the vote that we made... The way that it was discussed and structured here is the way it was passed at the Board of Finance."

Chaplinsky emphasized that the budget issue was now Finance's responsibility.

“That’s not a town council job,” said Chaplinsky. “That’s a Board of Finance job. When the budget leaves here, the Board of Finance decides, based on our actions, how do they want to set the mill rate. They can set the mill rate as they wish. They can set the mill rate equal to, lower or higher.”

Council Addresses Library Plaque Payments

Later in the session, Council members from both parties united to express disapproval of Councilor Jim Morelli’s handling of payments for a $3,063 plaque at the library that he purchased without prior authorization. Council members alleged that Morelli asked that the payments be split into separate amounts so that they would fall below the town’s $1,000 limit for no-bid purchases.

On Wednesday, the Southington Republican Town Committee condemned the actions of their fellow Republican in a Facebook post that also urged Morelli to resign from the Committee as he had said he would do this past March.

The council meets again on Tuesday, August 10.

Sign Pro v. Town of Southington: A Timeline

PHILIP THIBODEAU PHOTOS

The case of Sign Pro v. Town of Southington involves a number of important legal questions, which will be examined in future articles. However, it can be difficult to evaluate those questions without a good general grasp of the events that have transpired. For that reason, we thought our readers would find it useful to have a timeline of the case, one based on publicly available materials.

The summary below relies on dated documents that have been submitted to federal court, and are currently available (for a fee) through the PACER system – an assortment of emails, applications, and selections of deposition testimony. It does not aspire to be comprehensive or to summarize all the allegations and defenses that have been made; instead it is designed to lay out in clear fashion some of the main actions that have occurred in the seven years since the dispute began brewing.

Sign Pro Moves to Southington: 2014

Sign Pro Inc. was founded in 1990 by its current president, Peter Rappoccio. Originally based in New Britain, the company moved to Southington in 2014, opening a facility at 60 Westfield Drive in Plantsville.

Rappoccio Reports Alleged Non-Compliant Signage to Town: 2019 to 2022

Starting in 2019, Rappoccio began sending notices to Town Manager Mark Sciota and various other local officials drawing attention to signs in Southington that he said were not in compliance with the town’s regulations, lacked proper permits, or were installed by unlicensed vendors. Rappoccio’s most recent filing includes the text of six such reports, together with replies from officials acknowledging receipt and stating that the reports would be reviewed. The earliest of these emails dates to May 1, 2019; the latest, to May 9, 2022, right around the time the lawsuit was filed. Rappoccio says in his correspondence that his motive for reporting the infractions was to ensure that there was a level-playing field for himself and his competitors, with all having to meet the same standards.

The Sign Pro Annex Building: 2020 to 2021

On November 16 of 2020, Sign Pro applied to the town for a permit to build a new annex facility at 161 Canal Street, just across the street from its main campus. The contractor’s description of the project says that it is for “construction of new, 15,000 SF low hazard equipment storage facility,” and included an architectural drawing intended to show, among other details, the presence of five garage doors.

In his review of the plan, Southington Building Official John Smigel wrote “No parking of commerical motor vehicles see IBC section 903.2.10.1.” On January 4, 2021, Building Official Jeffrey Pooler signed a building permit that indicated that the Fire Department had approved the plan and allowed work on the facility, but with the qualification, “No storage of commercial motor vehicles allowed per IBC section 903.2.10.1.”

A Fire Department plan review dated to April 12, 2021 says that the plan is “not in compliance,” explaining, “This 15,000 sq. ft. building was supposed only [to] hold non-combustible building materials for signs per owner conversation. Building cannot house service vehicles inside the building without a fire sprinkler system. No fire sprinkler plans have been submitted to date.”

In August of 2021, according to Rappoccio, Building Official Jeffrey Pooler observed vehicles in the building and said that he could not give it a Certificate of Occupancy; he communicated to Rappoccio that it would need a sprinkler system to bring it up to code for vehicle storage. On September 27, the Town issued a certificate of occupancy approving a "low hazard equipment storage facility," but adding that there should be "no storage of any motor vehicles, commercial or otherwise, unless sprinkler systems is installed and approved."

Rappoccio arranged to have a sprinkler system installed in the structure; he put the cost for this work at approximately $185,000. The building received its Certificate of Occupancy on December 15, 2021, according to a letter signed by Pooler and dated December 28, 2021.

Apple Valley Pharmacy (1 North Main Street): 2022

 

On January 28 of 2022, Sign Pro sought approval for a signage project at the now-defunct Apple Valley Pharmacy & Gifts. It submitted a zoning application and an application for a building permit to the town. Three days later, Assistant Town Planner David Lavallee sent a letter denying the application on the grounds that regulations prohibited internally illuminated cabinet signs in that zone. In March, Sign Pro responded by citing other examples of such signs in the same zone, and argued that the feature should be grandfathered in due to its presence in the existing sign. On May 9, the zoning application was approved.

Image from Sign Pro's revised application for zoning approval of Apple Valley signage.

The application for a building permit was initially denied on the grounds that it lacked an emergency electrical shutoff inside the building. Sign Pro argued that the only requirement was for an emergency shutoff within view of the Sign, rather than one inside the building. Later Pooler approved the permit. The approval document shows a date of May 18, 2022. According to Rappoccio, the document did not appear on the electronic permit portal system for “several weeks.”

 

M&T Bank (1 Center St): 2022

 

On May 19, 2022, Sign Pro finished installing a sign at M&T Bank. Both parties concur that the company did so without seeking a permit first. According to Rappoccio, he proceeded this way on the suggestion of then-Town Attorney Alex Ricciardone, who, he said, advised him to do so in order to see whether it would receive special attention from the Building Department.

On May 20, 2022, M&T received a notice from Pooler that its building was in violation of the Building Code because its sign had no permit. On June 5, Rappoccio sent an email to Ricciardone complaining of the outcome. Later Sign Pro applied for the required permit. On September 22, an inspection of the sign failed on the grounds that Sign Pro would not provide a ladder for inspection due to safety and liability concerns. Later, in November, approval for the signage was granted.

The Suit is Filed: 2022

On April 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed suit in Connecticut Superior Court against the Town of Southington and Jeffrey Pooler. Less than a month later, on May 19, the defendants moved the case to United States District Court, Judge Stefan R. Underhill presiding.

Calvanese Shopping Plaza (685 Queen Street): 2022

On or shortly after May 12, 2022, Sign Pro submitted an application for a building permit to replace the signage and awnings at Calvanese Shopping Plaza. Building Officer Pooler raised concerns regarding the wind and load requirements under the building code, and required the firm to submit engineered drawings for the structures. Sign Pro submitted the requested drawings on July 7, which Rappoccio says cost the firm $8,000 to create. In a series of email exchanges dating from July 15 to August 4, Rappoccio and his attorney David DeBassio asked Ricciardone and Pooler to clarify on what grounds the application had yet to be approved. Eventually town officials acknowledged that the code was being cited incorrectly and granted approval. A town spreadsheet of permits dates the inspection and approval to December 1, 2022.

Additional Defendants Added: 2022

In the fall of 2022, on October 31, the plaintiffs added former Town Manager Mark Sciota and former Town Council Chair Victoria Triano as defendants.

Riverstone Square (36 Queen St): 2023

Sometime in the middle of 2023, Sign Pro submitted an application for a sign at Riverstone Square. Pooler denied the application on the grounds that the submitted plans lacked sufficient structural detail and that the installation had unique circumstances. Sign Pro’s attorney submitted a letter to the department listing six signs of similar size that had been permitted in Southington without any request for engineered drawings. Pooler maintained his position. Sign Pro commissioned engineered drawings and submitted them on June 21, 2023. A spreadsheet provided by the town gives April 16, 2025 as the date of inspection, and dates the final approval to April 17, 2025.

Settlement Conference: 2023

A four-hour long settlement conference was held between the two parties on November 15, 2023, overseen by Judge Robert A. Richardson. The conference failed to result in a settlement.

Changes in Personnel: 2024 to 2025

Mark Sciotta retired from the position of Town Manager, which he had held for seven years, on June 30, 2024. He was replaced by former Town Attorney Alex Ricciardone, who continues to be Southington’s Town Manager.

Pooler entered into a separation agreement with the town effective January 10, 2025. In return for releasing the town of all claims, the town agreed to pay Pooler $52,340. Since then the chief Building Official has been David Riccio.

Mobile Billboard Complaint: 2025

On January 13, 2025, Zoning Enforcement Officer Matt Reimondo sent a Notice of Violation to Maximum Associates at 36 Valley View Court, asking that a mobile billboard for Sign Pro parked at their property be removed within ten days. According to Reimondo, a competitor of Sign Pro, Gorilla Signs & Wraps, submitted a complaint regarding the trailer. Southington’s signage regulations classify mobile billboards as a forbidden class of sign. Sign Pro countered that this was an example of selective enforcement, citing other mobile billboards located in town.

Recent Developments in the Case: 2025 to 2026

On June 26 of 2025, the plaintiffs added current Town Manager Alex Ricciardone and current Town Council Chair Paul Chaplinsky as defendants.

Depositions in the case were taken over a year-and-a-half period running from September 27, 2024 (Alex Ricciardone), to January 28, 2026 (Peter Rappoccio).

On March 30 of this year, the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. This motion asks that the judge find that the plaintiff’s constitutional rights had not been violated by the town’s actions, and, in effect, dismiss the case.

Sign Pro filed its response to the Motion on June 18. In it, the company argued that the evidence in the case was more than sufficient to keep it moving forward.

On July 2, the defendants filed a reply to Sign Pro's response, sorting out points where the parties agreed and disagreed.

A Senior Year Privilege Faces New Limits at SHS

Southington High School CTPHOTOPRO PHOTO

Southington High School Principal Richard Aroian returned to work last fall after surgery and watched from his office as seniors packed the main exit.

“I was watching roughly 250 to 300 students leave the building early at the end of third block every single day,” Aroian said. “It just got me thinking, that’s so many wasted opportunities for those kids.”

Aroian’s observation, which was confirmed by a year of data from a school committee, is one reason senior dismissal at Southington High will look very different this fall.

By the Numbers: The Scope of the Problem

 

Aroian presented on the problem and the new policy along with world language department leader Tina Riccio and math teacher Marisa Kudla at the May 7th Board of Education (BOE) meeting.

During the 2025-26 school year, they reported, seniors at SHS left after third block, which ends around 12:15 or 12:45, depending on a student’s lunch wave. The presentation data showed that, during the fall, between 269 and 307 students were leaving on A and B days; during the spring, between 301 and 327 students were leaving. Given a total class size of 477, that works out to between 56% and 69% of the seniors leaving early on at least one rotation day.

Of the seniors leaving early, 252 or 54%, had failed a class, not just the classes required to graduate.

“It was very eye-opening,” BOE Chairman Zaya Oshana said. “I believe it surprised the entire board.”

Oshana said early dismissal began as a benefit for students who had jobs after school or were in a work-study program. Over time, he said, it grew well beyond that purpose, reaching beyond the senior class.

For Aroian, the bigger loss is what students give up by leaving. SHS offers numerous courses that carry college credit and mentioned that early dismissal was a missed opportunity to save real money.

“The 25 is the minimum. It’s not the maximum,” Aroian said, indicating the credits a student needs to graduate.

He mentioned that a one dual-enrollment course could save a family as much as $30,000 to $40,000 in future college tuition. He also spoke of seniors at risk of not graduating who refused to stay for extra help because it would mean giving up their early dismissal.

“They valued senior dismissal more than being successful,” Aroian said. “That was a problem.”

Oshana made a similar point. “I don’t think it makes sense to be walking out as a senior failing classes,” he said, “or, quite frankly, to be walking out at any grade while failing classes.”

Empty Classrooms, Defunct Courses

The committee’s data also showed a problem most students never see. Because so many seniors asked to leave after third block, the school stopped offering many courses during the fourth block.

An example given at the BOE presentation was that of a single teacher who taught English IV during second block. That class had 25 students in it, while the same course during fourth block had only 10.

Math was similar. In fact, no senior math classes were run during fourth block this pas school year.

Other courses like Computer Science Principles and Intro to Teaching, which send students interested in becoming teachers to an elementary school, have not run in two years because they can only run during fourth block.

With most teachers assigned to teach during the first three blocks, there was limited coverage for duties and a shortage of classroom space, which created an imbalance in daily operations. Students were sent to the library during the second and third blocks due to coverage issues and the Math Lab closed during those blocks for the same reason.

 

Block Scheduling a Contributing Factor

A recent switch from period- to block scheduling didn’t help the issue. SHS moved from an eight-period day to a four-block day a few years ago. Aroian said the change did not cause the problem by itself, but did play a part. The longer schedule allows the school to add an extra credit each year, so most students now earn seven credits annually and reach 21 credits by the start of senior year.

“Block scheduling allows the possibility of up to 32 credits,” Aroian said.

This left many seniors little reason to fill their final year, and led them to favor senior dismissal on both A and B days during the fall and spring instead of taking courses.

Robert Brown is a long-standing BOE member who taught at SHS for most of his 41-year teaching career. He sat on a committee that studied block scheduling more than a decade ago, examining the pros and cons of switching to it. That led to a faculty vote on whether the school staff would be in favor of block scheduling – and the faculty voted no.

Brown cited two reasons that they voted no: the perception that teachers would lose their jobs, as well as a concern that the change could be cost students who leave early their education.

Under the old eight-period day, a student who left early missed about 45 minutes. Under block scheduling, students now miss roughly 90 minutes every day.

“It’s not just the top students going,” Brown said. “It’s over half the class.” He mentioned that students who leave end up with about three-quarters of an education in one of the most important years of high school.

Oshana agreed that the schedule was not the only cause. “I think the problem existed before block scheduling,” he said. “Block scheduling may have made it a little bit more visible, but I don’t think it was the cause of the problem.

A First-Person Observation

One thing I wish to be upfront about is that I graduated from SHS last year. I had senior dismissal on both A and B days. I did not use that time on a job, an internship or anything productive. I would go home and do nothing, mostly playing video games and watching TV.

I am mentioning this because of the Journalism course I chose to take in my senior year, which is a major reason why I can write this story now. It started my career as a writer in college, and it is the exact opportunity the administration says students miss when they leave.

A New Policy

Under the old system, a student simply filled out a form, and counselors approved dismissal at their own discretion, with no guidelines.

“I had to put some guardrails on this,” Aroian said. “We had to establish some structure to it because the numbers were growing.”

Beginning with the class of 2027, a senior can make use of early dismissal only by earning a GPA of 3.65 or higher and completing junior year with at least 20 credits. Students who fall short can still leave through an approved internship or mentorship program, or by making their case to a panel of teachers through a new appeal process.

The new appeal process will send students, whose schedules leave them with an open fourth block, to a panel of teachers, which Aroian said will not include himself. There, students can explain why leaving would help them.

The new policy also means juniors can no longer leave early.

Based on data shown in the presentation, 171 rising seniors, or about 36% of the class of 2027, will be able to earn senior dismissal under the new policy.

Budget Complications

The new policy will be complicated by a thin Southington budget. The BOE asked for about $130.3 million for 2026-27, an $8.4 million increase of 6.89% that Oshana defended as covering rising salaries, benefits and special education costs rather than new programs. The Board of Finance recommended cutting that request by $1.6 million, a reduction that could eliminate about 22 positions.

Staffing is the area where the budget and the new senior dismissal policy collide. Aroian said the cuts left him with a potential staff shortfall. Fewer teachers make it harder to staff a balanced fourth block, which is what the new policy depends on. Furthermore, he does not expect to know the full schedule, including how many students end up in study halls or miss the course they requested, until the middle or end of summer.

Brown raised similar concerns. He said a stricter dismissal policy could drive the district to hire more teachers to cover fourth-block courses, even as the town looks to cut staff. He pushed back on the idea of issuing layoff notices only to rehire weeks later, calling it bad for morale.

Concerns About New Policy

Not everyone is sold on the new approach. Some parents have told the BOE that the policy swings too far in the other direction, turning senior dismissal into a privilege many students cannot achieve.

Brown wondered whether a policy based on GPA could shortchange students with learning disabilities whose grades fall below the cutoff. He said he would rather tie senior dismissal to doing something of value, such as a job, work-study program, community service or an internship, rather than to a single number.

Brown also mentioned a concern about a local youth survey he helps review. The survey flagged rising loneliness among teenagers and he wondered whether sending students home early makes it worse. “At least in the building, students are around other people,” Brown said.

What Brown, Oshana and Aroian kept returning to was the same weak spot: communication. The school lists 11 career pathways and a long catalog of electives, yet students do not always hear about them.

Oshana said the district is responsible for fixing that. “It’s incumbent upon us to make sure that happens,” he said.

Aroian put it at the center of his job going forward. “I want students in the building with a purpose,” he said.

New offerings like an EMT class that lets 20 students earn certification by the end of the year, which Aroian mentions can only run during fourth block.

Learning and Adjusting

The class of 2027 will be the first to experience the new rules. Aroian said his first task over the summer is to learn how many seniors get the courses they wanted and how many landed in study hall, then regularly meet to adjust the senior dismissal policy based on what’s working and what’s not.

Oshana called it a practice rather than a policy and said the BOE expects to change parts of it as results come in.

The real test arrives in the fall, when the building of 2,500 students finds out whether seniors are receptive towards the possibility of putting their futures first instead of going home early.