MINUTES
WATERTOWN TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
POLK SCHOOL LIBRARY
MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2003, 8:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Elaine Adams
Lee Archer, Chairman
Raymond Hebert, Jr., Vice Chairman
Robert Kane
Jean King
Raymond Primini
Paul Rinaldi
Paul Valenti
Richard Wick
ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Frank Nardelli, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director
Meredith Robson, Town Manager
1. Call Meeting To Order
Mr. Archer, Chairman, Called the Meeting to Order at 8:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Ms. LaForme, Board Clerk, executed the Roll Call.
3. Pledge of Allegiance
Mr. Archer, Chairman, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 2
4. Public Participation
Joe Pawluck, 173 Middlebury Road, Watertown, CT 06795
Mr. Pawluck: I noticed in the paper about 2 weeks ago that Middlebury Road was scheduled for sweeping, either last week or the week before. It hasn't been swept yet, and they announced the next schedule for sweeping. I'm a little concerned because I raked everything down, all the sand and debris from the Winter down in the gutter before April 15th, and I did it again in the middle of May. It's still there and the grass is growing down in the gutters and I'm not going to mow that. I'd like to know when the schedule is for sweeping Middlebury Road, and hopefully it will be a firm schedule.
I live on the corner of Middlebury and Highland and in the Winter I couldn't help but notice that about 45 feet of curbing was ripped up by the plow. Granted it was a tough Winter, but I wondered if there were any plans to replace that curbing. I noticed a lot of the neighbors going down Highland had a lot of curbing ripped up, probably on just the north side of Highland, well over 100 feet of curbing is ripped up and missing. I know it's been taken away, so the Town knows it's a problem, but I'd like to know when it will be fixed.
Before the first referendum there were several informal meetings, one was at the Oakville Branch and at the Watertown Library. I attended the Watertown Library meeting and one of the questions that was asked regarding the budget was regarding the natural growth in the Grand List and how much money that netted to the Town in additional income. At that time I believe you did not have an answer for that. Can you tell me what that additional income is?
Ms. Robson: It's about 2%.
Mr. Nardelli: In actual tax dollars it's about $600,000, about ½ a mill.
Mr. Pawluck: We have that money as part of the natural growth in the Grand List as well as what you're looking for in the increase of 3.2%?
Mr. Nardelli: 3.4%.
Mr. Pawluck: So that in addition to what the natural growth was?
Mr. Nardelli: When you get involved with the revenues, you have to factor in what the State took away from us.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 3
Mr. Pawlack: I understand that, and it's making it more difficult for all of us. The last issue I have to ask the Town Council, I don't know if this is true, but I have heard that there is an on-going statistical reevaluation in the Town of Watertown regarding all real estate and that it's being done as we meet and talk here, and it will be in effect, I think October 31, for next fiscal year. Is there any truth to that rumor?
Mr. Nardelli: Yes, every 4 years we have to do a statistical evaluation and that would be for the 10/1/03 Grand List, which will be for next year's budget, 04/05 budget.
Mr. Pawluck: So in fact there is a reevaluation going on?
Mr. Nardelli: Yes, by State Statutes we went to bid and we hired a reevaluation firm who is conducting the reevaluation.
Mr. Archer: Regarding the sweeping, they're probably a little behind because of the weather, but I imagine Meredith can get you answers on both of those.
Ms. Robson: When you have questions like that, if you just want to give me a call it will probably be easier to get those answers more quickly, but we'll get back to you.
Bob LeBlanc, 78 Highland Avenue, Watertown, CT 06795
Mr. LeBlanc: I'm questioning on why there was purchase orders put out for the John Trumbull School for software, which is not reimbursable by the State which we learned of at our least Executive Committee meeting? I realize that this was authorized in August 2001 before the Council knew that these funds were not reimbursable, and I question buying the software at this time to a price of $27,000. I would think this should come from the educational budget and not from the Town's side budget (inaudible) bonding.
Is there anything the Council can do concerning the awarding or giving of land by the developers when they subdivide their land, like on Litchfield Road they're trying to give us 22 acres of wetlands. Is there some way to get this developer to give us either 10 acres of good land, or give us a value of the land to use for further recreation projects?
Mr. Archer: By my understanding, what is considered as an acceptable donation of land is designated by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The concept of land donated for recreation can be either passive or active recreation. Passive recreation would be hiking trails, bird watching, etc., and I believe there is a ratio. I was on P & Z so I remember discussions about that, but I can't remember the ratios, but that is determined by them. While I was on the P & Z we made an attempt to increase the ratio of upland versus wetland as far as donations of open space when you're doing a subdivision, and there was a loud, lengthy cry against it, so there's two contingents, one that wants to see that changed, and those who do not, but it is in the hands of P & Z to determine those ratios.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 4
Mr. LeBlanc: Well it just appears that we're getting non-usable land. If we didn't take it it would be taxable to the developer and we're actually losing money on it. I know it's open space, I know we have a lot of tree huggers who want open space, but speaking from recreational purposes, it seems useless, but I appreciate your answer.
Secondly I asked a question about the $500,000 that was refused by the State by Polk School. I never received an answer from the Town Manager. Who is going to pay for this money and how is it projected?
Mr. Archer: Meredith were you able to make any headway on that?
Ms. Robson: No, I apologize, I didn't realize I was supposed to be getting information together.
Mr. Archer: Okay, we crossed on that one. This predates me so I'm not the person to speak to it. We're going to do some digging on that.
Mr. LeBlanc: The refusal came down May 6th of this past year, did anybody look into why this money was refused or how it affects our bonding?
Mr. Archer: All good questions.
Ms. Robson: There was a considerable effort made by the Superintendent, and I know Frank was involved in reviewing some of those numbers as well, to try and get more reimbursement from the State, and then to argue our case, but if it's not paid by the State, and the money is needed, it obviously will come out of the taxpayers.
Mr. LeBlanc: Well I think it will be prudent on the Council and future Councils and the Building Committees to ensure that all the monies that are spent is reimbursable by the State before we go ahead with a project and they say it's 60% reimbursable, and 8 years later we find out it's not reimbursable. This is totally ridiculous and I think it would be prudent for us to check that out.
There was a discussion a few minutes ago about some kind of computers for the Town. Can I know what's going on here? Somebody was asking about monies . . . .before the meeting started.
Ms. King: It was about an item that was in the budget, I asked. It's in the proposed budget for next year, and I had something in the mail that related to the fact that it might be available at a less cost basis, but I couldn't remember what was in the budget. I just wanted to make sure someone knew about it.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 5
Tom Plungis, 898 Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT 06795
Mr. Plungis: I'd like to shore up what Bob LeBlanc said about the active recreation land at the Calabrese Subdivision. First I want to pass out a picture of the latest accident up there, and also 4 letters that the Watertown Park and Rec sent in asking for recreation land. When this was passed by Planning and Zoning May 13th, none of these letters were brought up, and I have the Minutes of that right here.
Mr. Archer: These were letters that were submitted to Planning and Zoning?
Mr. Plungis: Yes, from Park & Rec. Recently there was another article in the paper about complaints on Guernseytown Road, the speeding and conditions there, so I think it might be necessary to look at this recreation area and this property because you have two roads between a subdivision that is almost 200 acres and there is no place for the kids up there, other than running around in the swamp and Judd's Pond. I needs my pictures back.
George Valaitis, 647 Linkfield Road, Watertown, CT 06795
Mr. Valaitis: I will continue to elaborate a little more in detail what Mr. LeBlanc mentioned. By the way we didn't talk to each other about it. I have to thank the Town Manager for arranging a session with the Town Attorney, cause some things came to the top that I and some of the Conservation Commissioners weren't aware of, (inaudible) in the Planning and Zoning and what the Town Planner knew. With that statement I would say also that we do not need 2.5 mill increase and we could have the cake and eat it and still have the cake. We don't need that raise.
I'm going to pass a blueprint and from there on I'll go by memory cause I looked quite a bit at it. That is an official blueprint because it does have the signatures on it. This is a development, approved, the Pondview Estates. It was in the R30 Zone, meaning 30,000 sq. ft. per lot. It was changed to 15,000 sq. ft. There was an application in the Wetlands that drew attention, but he said Planning and Zoning changed it. That's okay, I mean that's their prerogative, but they have to change the zoning in that area. Could be spot, might not be. 80 homes at 15,000 sq. ft., or roughly 40 homes and meeting the zoning requirement. Factor in the education, the kids, the homes, and I recall being in this place when the Tax Assessor, I think the 2nd or 3rd one back, when he mentioned that the Grand List was going to be reduced because of the project, that didn't really ring the bell, but now I can see what he meant. When the lots are undersized, the homes are smaller, the value is less, you get less revenue from it because the value of the home is smaller. I went into the Town booklet 2000/2001 to see how the reevaluation was and all those homes were reduced in that development, all 80. I did a little figuring on it, and I could see roughly and conservatively, cause I factored in not 2 kids per home, but 1.8, the Town is losing over $500,000 a year just on the education end. Also not factoring what they have lost and will be losing because they have smaller homes and smaller lots, so that the assessed property is less.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 6
Now there is in the middle a land that's going to be granted to the Town. I don't know if it was already granted or not. The Town doesn't have to accept the grant, they could suggest and there is a Planning and Zoning booklet, that there could be fees to the developer for developing the land. My suggestion is that central portion where there is only one entrance and that deadlocked otherwise, donation in the center over there, 20 foot right of way from back lots . . .
Mr. Archer: 25, right.
Mr. Valaitis: That developer keep that land, pay the Town the money and let the people buy the land and bring the lots to R30, the ones at least around that portion. This is not the only project. Going back to the area of Turkey Brook, on top of Shaw's Hill also is a development around the same time, 1994, 1995, 1996. I'll put in 2 pictures, almost the same but the angle is changed a little, so it won't make that much difference. As you see there is high tension wires and a sidewalk and a street on the right hand side. On the left hand side there are homes with no sidewalk. I guess it really was a good idea by Planning and Zoning to put the sidewalk in the CL&P right of way and from driving it looks like about a couple of tenths, a quarter mile, maybe a little bit more of sidewalk where there is no homes in the CL&P right of way where the power lines are, where the homes are there is no sidewalk. Who is going to clean that, the Town, CL&P? So why put a sidewalk that has no use? And that has been approved by Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Archer: I don't know the answer to anything you've asked regarding this property.
Mr. Valaitis: No, I'm not asking, I'm just making a statement. My statement was when I asked are you getting the reports from Town Planner, what's going on, no, I think this should be something detailed pretty well what's happening. Now it rained a couple of weeks, fairly steady, and what triggered for me to go and look at Turkey Brook, cause you had on the Agenda the last meeting or the meeting before, after the big meeting with the engineers and the Town Manager which did a good job, was right near the end of the Agenda, for the people to come in and participate, they have to sit and wait. That's actually, I interpret personally as let's have as few people for that as possible because you never know when it's about the 5th or 6th item on the Agenda when you're going to start discussing hat. Putting that aside, I took the camera and I started following the little brook. I have not had a chance to look at the Town Engineer's blueprint or what my experience was down south, black barrier river where the storms and you have downpours and you're looking 30, 40 feet down and 6, 7 hours later it's filled up and floating, so I almost know what to look for in Connecticut and there is only one bad spot. The rest of the spots are actually maintenance and whoever put in the development on top of Shaw's Hill and connected with the old pipes the connection with the old pipes, they should have been really evaluated whoever was in charge in Town engineering.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 7
Most of the popes in the critical area that are come in to discharge into Turkey Brook are at the culvert inlet end, not on the outlet end. And if you go to Mattoon Road, that's your bottleneck. The culvert on the driveway near the industry there, that's where it was flooded and going back, because the water was not flowing further down really freely, it's undersized. All the other ones, especially Sunnyside Avenue, and that was not even halfway to a capacity running down, because you could estimate when you have a round pipe, if it reaches diameter or not. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that, that if it's below that half, then it's not even half full. The only place where a real problem also existed was near industrial near Sylvan Lake, where Noujaim Manufacturing is, up in that area there. The water that comes in from the Oakville, from the development up there, where new homes were put in, runs kind of swift, and that's the area. The problem is if you really looked at it close, where the people lived, and I walked the streets, is the streets that connect to Falls Avenue, that go 90 degrees to Falls Avenue, especially one of them, a dead end street with a cul de sac. Guess where the storm drains are, in the cul de sac, the furthest point and the highest point from the brook. There is almost no water at the high end, all the water when it rains accumulates when it runs down the gutter. There is no storm drain. It just goes over the edge near the brook, past somebody's garage that has a lip on the curb only 2 inches so if you have the water, that water is going to go right directly in a home a flood it without anything. Now somebody's bright idea to put the storm drains and the drain up on top, but they should have also put it down where it's supposed to be, to do some good on it.
Getting to the other issues that have come up, there are certain deadlines, not only the 5 years, there's a deadline only 1 year, for certain items regardless what it is when they start. And my argument is yes, if the permit was given, but then when it comes in and Planning and Zoning, and I'm talking bout the Echo Lake and the Icehouse Road, when they changed the streets from the original plan what was approved, my question is then the Conservation and Wetlands Commission 5 years ago decisions were not right. They should have came back for a new decision on it, and that's actually killing the lake. Going down Route 63, the development there is, I think in regulations, that the Wetlands Commission could recommend to the Town 10%, 64 acres, that's 6 acres, 34 lots, that's 3.5 lots roughly on Route 63 in the Guernseytown Farm development. Now anybody with a little imagination they could use those 6 acres, it's at the point that location up in that area is roughly 950 feet so if you put a tower like on the Buckingham Street, you have about 1,000 feet at the top. And talking to Jodaitis and being on that Commission, that's an ideal location for triangulation between Straits Turnpike area tower Buckingham and that would be a third one, and with the 6 acres in that area, you could have a Police Substation, a Fire Substation, you could have a water tower that producing money just like rental areas on Buckingham because they were looking for it, the Town would be making money on it and providing the service later on, plus it would reduce several homes, maybe improve a little bit on the school budget, because Pondview, besides what they're losing it, they created actually 3 teaching positions, from that one development, so if you're talking 3 teaching positions, you raised every year at least $100,000 for education budget.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 8
So when I'm saying that actually you don't need that 2.5 mills raise, if you look at it. There is a way out without raising it and having the land for the fire and police and water tower in that area. Plus if you factor that one in there the Town could get money out of it in the treasury also because it does say in Panning and Zoning that they could be assessed developer's charges on it, one time, according to that. And actually maybe the Budget Committee really should look into it because it's not up to the Conservation Commission to say that we're going to have that one. We can only recommend to Planning and Zoning, and they have to make the decision whether to take the land or not. And the way to express the feeling about one commission and the other commission, it's too bad that had to be that way because Conservation Commission never had any bad feelings about Planning and Zoning, but right now it's coming to it. And I'm very much surprised that the people had to fight to have one street not paved and then had to come up and try to be overruled over here, but thank God it did not get overruled by one vote, and for that one individual, I don't know who it is, I say thank you from the people from the street, that it didn't follow party lines, but followed what the people want and need. They need the savings, they don't need the extra expenses fro plowing, paving, and maintaining it especially when there are no homes on that street with the front on that street, and they can't build because there are no building lots on that street.
Dana Bongiorno, 1254 Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT 06795
Ms. Bongiorno: Much like George Valaitis I also took a field trip when we had this heavy rain that we've had for the past few weekends in a row, down to the new development on Echo Lake and Icehouse Road. The lake is being destroyed. We drove into that new development, nobody is even close to having grass yet. The silt fences were all broken and falling down. I sat there in my car in the middle of the road and I watched the runoff, all the soil and dirt from these houses, just run right down from that development, across Echo Lake Road, and you could see right where it dumped out into the water and there was a broken silt fence in front of the lake that was supposed to hold it up, it was knocked down by the heavy rain and the dirt was just pouring into Echo lake. Something has to be done about this. These developers come into Town, and with all due respect to, I can't even say it because I really don't have any respect for them, so I guess I'll eliminate that, but anyway the Planning and Zoning Commission has a very strong and obvious (Tape #1, Side A ended – may have missed some).
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 9
Who have been long standing good corporate citizens of the Town. For example the gentleman who owns Kenecticut Hardware and the gentleman who runs Copes Rubbish Removal. These are established businesses who have been in Town, that pay their taxes every year, that support school athletics, sports, little league, software, Watertown/Oakville Youth Soccer and they go before Planning and Zoning and they get a hard time. They have to cry and beg and jump through hoops. I've been there; I've seen it happen. The owner of Rinaldi's Restaurant on Straits Turnpike came to a Planning and Zoning meeting on behalf of Copes Rubbish to say listen, I own a restaurant, I would be the first person in here screaming and yelling if my customers were turned away or didn't want to eat at my restaurant because there was foul smelling odors coming from Copes Rubbish, but there's not. He keeps it immaculate, he keeps it clean. I own a restaurant and I have no problem with the guy, and I'm right in front of him. Please pass him and don't give him a hard time, and they gave him a hard time anyway.
The same thing with the gentleman from Kenecticut Hardware. You come in here, you have a business, you're basically creating jobs for the Town, you're paying a high amount of taxes to the Town, and you're not taking away any tax services. It's a business. They're not going to have 2.5 or 1.8 kids to send to school, they have their own security systems, fire sprinklers, the business tax base is important. They don't add services to the Town, they add revenue to the Town. These are the people we should be welcoming with open arms, and instead Planning and Zoning turns them away, but if you're a developer and you want to come in here and add another 50 kids to the school system, hey come on down, we're happy to see you, build your house. Oh you know what, 30,000, that's too many, you could get twice as many houses. We'll divide your lots, now we'll make them only 15,000 sq. ft. and they go ahead and they just do this. They make the rules, and then they break the rules.
The Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda is chock full of people from Pondview Estates who have these little tiny postage stamp lots, who want to add a deck and they can't do it, because they're required, according to the Planning and Zoning Commission, to have so much barren space, i.e., grass, and they can't because their lots are so small they're literally all concrete. Their lots are made up of the house, the driveway, and a deck, and now people want to add pools, so Zoning Board of Appeals' work since Pondview Estates has been put in has easily doubled because everybody is looking for a special waiver so they can add a pool, a deck, those lots are so small up there they can't do anything. All they do is jam in kids and tax the services of the Town. We needed 3 new teachers for that development alone, now we're looking at the same thing with Guernseytown Farms Estates on Route 63.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 10
And then this interpretation thing, I don't understand that. Maybe it's because I'm an accountant and I see things in black and white, but I think it's pretty damn obvious, sorry. You put it down, they wrote the subdivision regulations, it says a cul de sac, 1,000 feet or 10 houses, what the hell is there to interpret about that? I thought it was pretty obvious. Either it's 1,000 feet long or it has 10 houses. That's it, so somebody please explain to me how we got away with a 54 house cul de sac, which is basically what Pondview Estates is. There is one entrance, one exit. You drive up off of Route 63, you go around the circle, and you come out. I'm sure the Fire Chief isn't too happy about that because that's got to be a bitch if there's a fire. It's a pretty long drive all the way up to the top of the cul de sac and back. And what about the Police Department, and all these little kids who are now loitering across the street, because there is no open space, there is no recreational area for these children at all. They drive across Route 63, through all that traffic, to go hang out at Burger King and the Rite Aid across the street. I have gone shopping at Rite Aid at 9:00 p.m. and there's like 12 little kids on bicycles doing wheelies in the parking lot because there's no recreation for them. So wait until these kids decide to go up the street and get hit by a car, then we'll have another lawsuit.
But all this boils down to is Planning and Zoning. There was, at the Special Meeting where they decided to approve Guernseytown Farms Estate, there was a good half hour discussion on, I believe the gentleman called it interpetation. There was an "r" in there the last time I read the dictionary, but that's what he called it, and they were going to interpet what things meant and that included sole access, and there was a half hour discussion on sole access. I think it's pretty obvious, sole, one, access. Maybe he was thinking about his shoes, I have no idea. But at any rate it just goes on and on and on. So something needs to be done about this. Last time I was up here and spoke, I asked that some members of the Council, whether they be assigned, or do something that we have someone kind of watching there to see what's going on, and I know that George Valaitis spoke about that as well, as far as who is getting reports about what's really happening on these commissions. Has that been addressed yet?
Mr. Archer: I'm sorry, you said two things, you mentioned someone to oversee . . . .
Ms. Bongiorno: Is someone going to the Planning, I know Meredith went to the last one, but are people going from the Town Council, going to continue to go and see what's happening on other commissions?
Mr. Archer: There is no one specifically designated to go to Planning and Zoning, no.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 11
Ms. Bongiorno: Well perhaps can a schedule be set up where certain people, I know it means extra work for you guys but it is important, go to these other meetings, and then when you have your executive sessions or your meetings you can discuss what's going on, because unless you see the big picture, it's a situation where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
Mr. Archer: Right, I think we have a pretty good idea of what's going on at this point.
Ms. Bongiorno: Yea, but look how long it took to get there and how many people had to come up here and speak and for how many months.
Mr. Archer: No, actually I got it before I even ran.
Ms. Bongiorno: All right, then why haven't you fixed it?
Mr. Archer: Cause I sat there, these things are not immediately fixable. We have almost no authority over Planning and Zoning.
Ms. Bongiorno: Who has authority over them?
Mr. Archer: No one.
Ms. Bongiorno: I want that job, because I want a job where I don't have to report to anyone, and not have a boss, cause that sounds pretty sweet.
Mr. Archer: They don't get paid either.
Ms. Bongiorno: But it doesn't matter, you have responsibility. You actually maybe should be paid because you're making important decisions that affect all the other people in this Town.
Mr. Archer: Moot point, because they don't.
Ms. Bongiorno: But they are appointed by the Town Council.
Mr. Archer: Yes, they are, but they . . . .
Ms. Bongiorno: How are they removed?
Ms. Adams: The only way they can be removed, from what I understand, is they miss so many meetings in a row without a reason.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 12
Mr. Rinaldi: That's it, that's the only reason.
Ms. Bongiorno: Can rules be changed?
Ms. Adams: That's their own rule. That is not anything we could put in place.
Mr. Archer: Most of this is all by State Statute.
Ms. Adams: That's by their policy, that's why alternates were put on maybe 10 years ago, because there was a problem getting quorums and (inaudible).
Mr. Archer: This is not to say there isn't anything that can be done, but it's the only thing I'm prepared to discuss right now.
Ms. Bongiorno: Thank you very much, and I'll leave the floor open.
John Bongiorno, 1254 Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT 06795
Mr. Bongiorno: What I think I hear from people here today, and certainly from myself, I would like to see a letter crafted from the Town Council with a request to the State Legislature to look into this matter and to maybe come up with a policy and a procedure to more better regulate some of these commissions. It's not to say that there are people who are necessarily bad or evil, and everyone is volunteer, but over time I think there becomes a certain affliction to authority. People go through your life and sometimes you're important for a week and sometimes you're important for 20 weeks and sometimes for years, and it builds. I see where some of these terms, the terms that are set up for commissions with regards to how much training you need, I think that they're all too long before you have the ability to either counsel someone or remove someone. 6 years on Planning and Zoning is too long. You should never be allowed to sit on a steering committee, on more than one steering committee, even if you can't get somebody else, you should not be allowed to be on Water & Sewer and Planning and Zoning, or Z.B.A. and Planning and Zoning, or Conservation and Planning and Zoning, ever, cause you can steer projects. Whether you do it on purpose or not it doesn't matter, but you have the same opinion sitting on that commission as you would have on another, you can technically steer projects, whether it be for good or bad, which means it should never be allowed to happen.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 13
I also believe that 6 years of Planning and Zoning is too long, even if you're going to training every week and you're a genius, it's too long. You should at least be re-evaluated after 3 years or 2 years and 2 years and 2 years. Even if you have a sit down, where you come in and you sit with the Council, if 25 people have come up before you and complained about Planning and Zoning and an individual, you can at least counsel them and hopefully by then the Legislature will realize the position that they've put some of the towns in. I'm not guaranteeing that they will because it's kind of tough to get them to notice much of anything, but they've created a situation that is absolutely non-manageable. My commission too. I mean you basically have to either be a bad person, or never show up, or otherwise you can basically skate through and do whatever you want, good or bad, and using being a volunteer as an excuse is a bad one. If you accept the responsibility to do something, then you should do it, period. You should do it correctly and fairly. There is no well it's volunteer, so what. No, that's not a good excuse.
With Pondview, because Meredith set up with the Town Attorney for him to come and speak with our Commission and explain rules and regulation and what you do and how to get good record, and such, and of course with all the training we go to for the D.E.P. they pound that into you and some interesting things. When you have a planned community, the idea behind it is to put aside a huge chunk of open area that's usable space for the recreation for that group in that community, which was not done here at all. And how they managed to get around it is part of everyone's complaint. They get around it. Well it doesn't work out now, cause we need to put those other 5 houses in there, and blah, blah blah. The story is the same. If you sit in on the Planning and Zoning meetings you hear the same story. With regards to that particular community those roads have not been approved yet, and yet they're in public hearing right now to add on to the top part of that development, to add another 20 something houses. The roads haven't been approved because they don't make grade, they're not finished right, they've broken plows and we've plowed them for 2 years for free, and yet they have the ability, and they're allowed to come back and try to add on to something that's not even approved yet. I find that to be a problem. Not to mention that we're not very pleased with the fact that they really didn't give the open space that was remanded with the fact that they convinced everyone to do a planned community. That requires a lot of planning, which most of the planning ended up getting done by the Town, not by their engineering force.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 14
With regards to Copes, they kind of screwed them, because they Tabled it and left it for the Plan of Development, so they're not going to rezone it so he can move until the Plan of Development which is a year. So you've taken a gentleman who really wants to build another building and move his business, and they totally put him off, they totally bagged him, and I sat there and I listened to them do it, and as people have said, they have no problem approving 20 houses or a planned community like this, but someone who has been a good citizen in Town for years, they totally hosed the guy and he didn't know it, cause he wasn't sitting there, but they Tabled it and said they would work on that when they do the Plan of Development. That's absurd. That's terrible, especially for the Business Development people who are trying to get business not just to stay here, but to come here. When he goes out and speaks to other people and other businesses and whatever function it is and he's like you don't want to come to Watertown, I want to move my business, I paid for half of Little League and they won't even let me move my business to another site. That's not good. That can't be good at all.
My friends at Planning and Zoning approved a special permit without a site walk. Had they done a site walk they would have recognized that there is absolutely no soil and erosion control at all on this entire site. They didn't seem to care anyway, but they approved the special permit for this individual, who withdrew his Inland/Wetlands application when we went there and viewed the site, that's how we saw that there is absolutely no soil and erosion control, and you'll be happy to know that this particular site borders Turkey Brook all the way around and the entire flood plane is bermed off, which means it doesn't flood, but it floods 100 yards downstream because they bermed off all the property so they could use the flood plain to store gear. If they had done a site walk, and they had paid attention to just simple things, that's their responsibility to do, then that would have gotten noticed and they wouldn't have gotten the special permit until they fixed it. Now our Town Engineer has been there and there are other discussions going on, but again should never have gotten the special permit to go any farther, without at least evaluating the site and looking at it. That's their responsibility, period.
I also brought up almost a year ago about the use of Town engineering services. I know that our engineers are buried with work, some Town work, a lot of development activities, looking at development, some predevelopment stages still some aren't approved. Now I can understand when you need Town engineering services to get the finishing touches on something, you sit down and clean it up. Our engineers are involved in projects that aren't even to public hearing yet and they're spending hours on them. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that. We should have a limit. If you don't make it, you're done.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 15
We can accept an application and then deny it. I'm told we can never deny anyone an application, but certainly two of the most important things that I've been taught so far are you're supposed to take expert recommendations to heart and expert testimony. And if a Town Engineer says this project is not ready to go, then we should just deny them. No public hearings, no nothing, we have every right to do that. We don't do it here. We go through the public hearing process, we got Chuck working on projects for hours. He's got other things to do. We shouldn't be doing developments for developers so that applicants can come in, make millions of dollars, use Town resources to death and then low and behold, I got my development. Well the engineer helped me out, of course it's going to be right. They should do it on their own. We shouldn't be doing that work for them, period. We're trying to change some things around, we're making some great progress with a couple of the commissions, you get 65 days before they have to approach you, and they're going to use every bit of it. They're not going to rush in and rush out anymore. We're having, with one commission getting them on board, but that's all right, the point of the matter is is that our engineering services are being taxed for nothing except for working for someone they shouldn't be working for.
With regards to recommendations, we were informed, never told until the other night, that the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands is supposed to make recommendations on open space. So is Park and Rec and the Fire District, even the Fire Department if they so desire, and so are any, there's one other one that escaped me, sorry, that are considered recommendations that are supposed to be valued. I could pull Minutes out for the last year and a half about any recommendations, not only from Town engineering staff, Park and Rec, Conservation on different particular portions of applications that were not only totally ignored, but mocked and ignored in Planning and Zoning. Now in reading this and the way the Town is structured, the recommendations are considered from an expert, so should 4 commissions and 2 engineers recommend them to do something, and then they don't do it, you have to wonder why, considering that's what you're supposed to be looking at. I don't know how to fix it, because I certainly understand the dilemma about dealing with that, but there are some things that can be done, and enforcing their responsibilities might be something that can be done. I'm not sure who gets that lovely job, or even if there's such a place for it, but I certainly would hope that we can get that smoothed out, because communities like Pondview, that's where your $350,000 went for the school, right down the toilet, right there, all those houses with just above middle income, because they're on the postage stamp lots, and people could afford them, and they moved there, and God Bless them for wanting to move to Watertown, it's a great Town, but that's where your money went, that and this planned development right there. Thank you.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 16
Rico Ceniccola, 150 Pullen Avenue, Oakville, CT 06779
Mr. Ceniccola: Speaking on behalf of my mom.. I'd like to discus the Bunker Hill sewer disconnect project, particularly the paving of a portion of Overlook Avenue. First I'd like to thank the Commission for its time and effort, and the residents who put a lot of time into this as well. They attended Water and Sewer meetings, Planning and Zoning meetings, and Town Council meetings in both towns. They also circulated a petition and collected over 100 residents' signatures to oppose the paving of this paper street. I personally attended these meetings on behalf of my mother and the other abutting property owners who are seniors, to try and help them out. I believe the honorable Council is well aware of the issues and objections to this paving, but I'd just like to give you some background to refresh your memories.
The decision to pave this paper street was not made by any board member in our Town, it was made in some behind closed door meeting by Waterbury. A road located in our Town is being paved at Waterbury's request. Does that make sense to you? This road is being paved for their alleged benefit that is so their garbage trucks can save 1/8 of a mile off of their routes. Does that make sense? I'm sure this road won't even be used by them.
This paving was never presented to the residents who live in the area. They never had an opportunity to participate in any of this. There was no notice, no public participation. Then the rules for opening a street, rules setup by the State, weren't followed. They didn't pay attention to the law, and violated a State Statute, which is why we're on the Agenda tonight. Finally I thought Water & Sewer was putting in a sewer pipe to improve our sewer system, and we don't object to the sewer pipe, but we do object to them opening this road. In the first place Water & Sewer doesn't have the authority to open roads, our Town Council opens roads. Tonight we're just asking Council to have them leave the area the way it was, the way it's been for 90 something years. There is no good reason to pave this area, it's not necessary, and it's not wanted by the residents. Tonight the honorable Council has an opportunity to support the residents, and not some contract, so I encourage you to support the residents and not override Planning and Zoning's position to not pave the road.
Now I'd like to address the contract. The contract that we have with Waterbury has substantial problems. An A24 approved was never sought or granted. As I mentioned previously no Board member elected to have this road paved, it was slipped into the contract at the last minute. It never went to Engineering or Planning and Zoning for approval. In my opinion we're not breaching this illegal contract because the paving was never agreed to in the first place. Both parties must want it, and Planning and Zoning repeatedly said we shouldn't pave it. They voted not to pave it back in November and reiterated their position again last month. Even our Ms. Robson was present at the meeting last month, and Planning and Zoning felt very strongly that we don't want this road and they don't want it paved. Wouldn't you say, Ms. Robson?
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 17
Ms. Robson: That's correct.
Mr. Ceniccola: So in conclusion the residents do not want this paper street paved, Planning and Zoning doesn't want this paper street paved, and the Town may even save some money, so don't let Waterbury rule our Town and our neighborhoods. Don't override Planning and Zoning, and don't pave this area. Thank you.
George Valaitis, 647 Linkfield Road, Watertown, CT 06795
Mr. Valaitis: I'm just going to refer to the Finance Committee Chairman. I read in the newspaper about the raises on it and I did some calculations. Based on the hours what they would work and the salary that they get and I come from labor, I also come from management too, and usually the top administrator gets the top pay, and I'm just comparing what a teacher makes per hour for the hours per year that they work and what the Town Manager makes, and I'm embarrassed because based on the 40 hours that you have to stay in the office and run the Town, or work in Town in the different departments, plus come in in the evenings and work a week, her pay roughly would come out, and I don't want to mention it, sorry about it, but it comes out less than $35.00. I think they should look into it. Not only that, but I would have walked out of a job when somebody would say we'll give you a raise for 6 months from now. I think that's administratively a no/no. Either you give them a raise now or you don't.
Mr. Archer: But we're required by Town Charter to set the salary by June 1st.
Mr. Valaitis: But Charter is written by people.
Mr. Archer, Chairman, Closed Public Participation at 9:00 p.m.
5. Proclamation
Mr. Archer read aloud the following Proclamation:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, individuals and organized forms of recreation and the creative use of free time are vital to the happy lives of all our citizens; and education, athletic and recreation programs through the Town of Watertown encompass a multitude of activities that can result in personal accomplishment, self-satisfaction and family unity for all citizens, regardless of their background, ability level or age; and
WHEREAS, citizens of Watertown should recognize the vital role that swimming and aquatic-related activities relate to good physical and mental health and enhance the quality of life for all people; and
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 18
WHEREAS, the Town of Watertown is extremely proud of the swimming facilities and aquatic programs of this community and their contributions to providing to all ages a healthy place to recreate, a place to learn and grow to swim, build self-esteem, confidence and sense of self-worth which contributes to the quality of life in our community;
WHEREAS, the Gold Circle of Sports has proven to be a valuable civic minded organization recognizing the good and potential in competitive sports.
NOW THEREFORE, WE, the Watertown Town Council, do hereby declare the week of July 13-19, 2003 as
NATIONAL AQUATIC WEEK
And do urge all those in the Town of Watertown to support and promote this observance.
Dated at Watertown, Connecticut this 16th day of June, 2003.
Lee Archer, Chairman
Watertown Town Council
6. Minutes
A. Regular Meeting Minutes - June 2, 2003
MOTION: (Mr. Kane, sec. Ms. Adams) to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes dated June 2, 2003 as presented.
Discussion: Mr. Valenti: Page 31, halfway down there's comments from myself. The last word is "from", not "form".
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
7. Sub-Committee Reports
A. Public Works Subcommittee
Ms. Adams: We met last Tuesday. W discussed several items. Roy Cavanaugh and Chuck Berger, along with their staff, are looking to keep our web site updated with all the Public Works projects and their different status' as best they can, so if people see trucks there, that's a way to find out what's going on.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 19
The Main Street sidewalk project, that's tied in with the sidewalk project that's going to be closer to Chubba's plaza. The State has sent a draft agreement regarding the sidewalk portion of that, that would be 80% State paid, 20% Town paid, so maybe at our next meeting that will come forward to the Council for approval.
Mr. Archer: That's on tonight's Agenda.
Ms. Adams: We've been working on back charging developers for the plowing, etc. That we do. We've finally got all the input we were looking for from Planning and Zoning and hopefully at our July 21st Town Council meeting we will have something to present to the Council, cause it was brought up again tonight during Public Participation that these unapproved roads really do a lot of damage, so we'll go from there (Tape #1, Side B ended – may have missed some) drainage projects and road improvement projects and look for a possible two referendum. We did do an overview of the list but we want a little time and give Engineering the opportunity to look for more concrete numbers to be able to come forward with the proposals for the Council, hopefully at our July 21st meeting.
Mr. Archer: Makes sense; we don't want to repeat stuff done in the past, where we went to referendum without solid numbers.
B. Ordinance Subcommittee
Mr. Wick: We have a meeting scheduled for June 25th to review the input from C.C.M. on the proposed Code of Ethics and to go over the charge we recently got on reviewing the Economic Development Commission ordinance.
8. Chairman's Report
A. Correspondence
1. Resignation Letter from RoseAnn Pescheff from Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency dated May 30, 2003.
"May 30, 2003
Town of Watertown
Conservation Commission Inland/Wetlands Agency
To Whom It May Concern:
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 20
Due to personal reasons I hereby submit this letter of resignation effective immediately.
Sincerely,
Roseanne Pescheff"
2. Letter from Brian and Cathy Gillis, dated June 2, 2003.
"June 2, 2003
We are Brian and Cathy Gillis of 400 Sunnyside Ave., Oakville. We would be here at this meeting, but our son is being inducted into the National Honor Society tonight and we of course must attend the ceremony.
Although our property is not going to be affected by the Sunnyside Ave. Project, we feel it is very important and necessary for us to stand up for the owners of the building marked to be raised and the proprietors of both the Falls Ave Package Store and the Hair Salon. We realize that the owners of the building are also the proprietors of Barb's Hair Salon.
We feel that it is totally unnecessary for that building to be raised. At the recent special meeting, an idea came up of the owner of the building taking off the addition to the building himself and making more room for the construction of the culvert. The residents in attendance seemed to think it was a great idea, but the panel seemed dumbfounded. When the Town goes to the State with a plan and the State says it can't be done that way, does the Town ever stand up for the citizens and speak out for them, and say there has to be another way to do this project without adversely affecting the Townspeople?
Another question we have is "How can you, the Town, justify squeezing in a piece of the Turkey Brook project just in case that project comes into fruition?" Basically the way we see it is you were offered money from the State and the Feds to fix Sunnyside Ave., and you'll take it any way you can get it, so squeeze in a culvert no matter who it hurts. If the owner of the building decided to take down the addition to the building, we would be there right along side him with sledge hammer in hand.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 21
We feel it is completely unfair to these people, and think you, the Town Council, should have stepped up and stood up for these people. There has to be another way.
Again we say fix the upper part of Sunnyside from the corner to the Town line and leave the rest alone.
We feel strongly enough to write this letter because of our inability to be present and not have to read in the paper that "the residents didn't bother to show up."
Sincerely,
Brian and Cathy Gillis"
Mr. Archer: Just as a point of reference, at the last meeting we did determine that if the rest of Turkey Brook could not be done, then it probably didn't make a lot of sense to do Sunnyside Avenue, and I believe we instructed the Town Manager to take steps toward moving toward a new referendum on Turkey Brook for the additional funding that was not approved in the original referendum.
B. Facts and Fallacies
None
C. Other
Mr. Archer: About 2 meetings ago we passed a Resolution, we sent a letter to the State Legislature demanding that they take a look at binding arbitration rules and how those might be changed. Obviously the intent is to not be completely hog tied when it comes to what the result of arbitration awards are, particularly the one with the teachers most recently, and we received correspondence back from Senator Lou DeLuca:
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 22
"June 2, 2003
Dear Meredith:
Thank you for your correspondence concerning the resolution passed by the Town Council of the Town of Watertown regarding arbitration reform. It is important to me to hear the concerns of the Town I represent and I appreciate your taking the time to express your views. As you may know the Governor has proposed that municipalities have the option to repeal binding arbitration for 1 to 3 years. I support this proposal and will push for this measure during budget negotiations. Over the years Representative Brian Flaherty and I have repeatedly worked for binding arbitration changes and will continue to do so. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Lou DeLuca
Senate Republican Leader"
Mr. Archer: We also sent this letter I believe to all of the other towns in Connecticut to try and solicit some of their support as well. This comes from the Selectman's Office of the Town Of Stonington:
"June 2, 2003
Dear Ms. Robson:
At our meeting of May 28, 2003 the Stonington Board of Selectman adopted the Resolution passed by your Town Council regarding modifications to the State's arbitration laws. We are grateful to you and the members of your Council for bringing this important issue to our attention. We will of course be advising our local legislators as to our Board's action in this manner. Thank you again.
Very truly yours,
Peter N. Dibble
First Selectman
Stonington"
Mr. Archer: It's interesting that it's starting to get some traction with other towns.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 23
Mr. Robson: We started to make a list now, we have about 8 to 10 communities that have passed similar Resolutions in support of that and I have had a number of other representatives from other towns that I've seen at meetings or have called indicating that they too will at least be bringing it to their governing bodies for potential action so some of these things take some time but there does seem to be quite an interest in it.
Mr. Archer: It generally takes someone to make the first step and other people jump on board.
Just one other thing I was copied on, this was from the Commissioner of Education. This was sent to Superintendents of Schools in various districts, ours included, and this was really for our information in our packet, but I think it's important just to read the official notice. This is from Theodore S. Sergi, Commissioner of Education, Connecticut.
"May 16, 2003
Re: Eligibility for Federal Title I Funds
I regret to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education has made a preliminary determination that your district is not eligible to receive Title I funds for 2003/04 school year. The Source of Poverty Data used to calculate Title I eligibility has changed. The U.S.D.E. is now using Census 2000 Poverty Data and more specifically, 1999 School District Poverty Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program. Prior to 2003/04 Title I allocations were largely based upon the 1990 Decennial Census Estimates of poverty for school districts and on 1997 Model Based Estimates for Counties."
Mr. Archer: So what all of this means is basically we don't fit the model anymore for towns that are eligible for Title I. Lots of acronyms there, but that's the bottom line. Just some information here:
"In 2002/03 school year Watertown received $350,111 in Title I funds. In the 2003/04 school year Watertown's projected receipt of Title I funds is $0."
Mr. Archer: So that's money that we used to count on that we no longer have. Just some information on what drives some of the budgeting decisions.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 24
9. Action Items
A. Consider Appointments to Boards and Commissions
The terms of various Boards and Commissions have expired or are expiring. Appointments must be made to fill these vacancies.
None
B. Consider Transfers
Town Council authorization is required for the transfer of departmental funding between line items.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, expenses in the 2002-03 fiscal year require the Transfer of Funds:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by vote of the Watertown Town Council, that the following actions are taken relative to the transfer of funds:
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT: $15,789 NO: 1
FROM: $ 5,282, 010-50510-014-1616 – Public Bldgs., Senior Ctr. Imprv.
FROM: $ 5,000, 010-50410-014-0000 – Public Bldgs., Bldg. Maint. Supp.
FROM: $ 4,000, 010-50317-014-0000 – Public Bldgs., Mt. Land & Bldgs.
FROM: $ 1,507, 010-50325-014-0000 – Public Bldgs., Fuel Oil & Gas
TO: 010-50310-014-2160 – Public Bldgs., Boiler Replacement
REASON: Public Works Garage boiler replacement increase in scope of work
AMOUNT: $3,800 NO: 2
FROM: 010-50319-031-0000 – Highway, Vehicle Maintenance
TO: 010-50415-031-0000 - Highway, Equipment Parts
REASON: Extensive Repairs for extreme Winter conditions
AMOUNT: $5,000 NO: 3
FROM: 010-50528-033-2146 – Solid Waste, Landfill Improvements
TO: 010-50318-033-2076 – Solid Waste, Container Services
REASON: Bulky Waste Container Service
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 25
Dated at Watertown, Connecticut this 16th day of June, 2003.
Lee Archer, Chairman
Watertown Town Council
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Mr. Kane) to approve the Resolutions authorizing the transfers as presented.
Discussion: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
C. Consider Resolution Authorizing the Utilization of State of Connecticut Bid Contracts
Town Council approval is requested for a Bid Waiver allowing the Purchasing Agent to utilize the State Bid for various purchases throughout this year.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Town Council approval is required for waiving the bid process and awarding a contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, Town Council authorization is required for any purchase exceeding $4,000 that has not been independently bid by the Town's Purchasing Agent; and
WHEREAS, various equipment, materials and supplied required to be furnished to the Town of Watertown have been formally bid by the State of Connecticut and are available to all State political subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Watertown has recognized the economy of purchasing in cooperation with the State of Connecticut in prior years.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Watertown Town Council hereby authorizes the Purchasing Agent of the Town of Watertown to utilize State of Connecticut bid for the purchase of various equipment, materials and supplies in cooperation with the State of Connecticut and in accordance with those requirements established by Town Departments, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall remain in effect for Fiscal Year 2003-2004.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 26
Dated at Watertown, Connecticut this 16th day of June, 2003.
Lee Archer, Chairman
Watertown Town Council
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Ms. Adams) to approve the Resolution authorizing the use of State of Connecticut bid contracts for fiscal year 2003/2004.
Discussion: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
D. Consider a Resolution Authorizing an Appropriation from the General Fund for Emergency Repairs to Ladder 2
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Fire Department's Ladder 2 is in need of emergency repairs that require additional funding.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council appropriates $10,850 from the General Fund Balance to line item 010-50319-018-0000 – Vehicle Maintenance for emergency repairs to Ladder 2.
Dated at Watertown, Connecticut this 16th day of June, 2003.
Lee Archer, Chairman
Watertown Town Council
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Ms. Adams) to approve the Resolution authorizing the appropriation of funds from the General Fund for emergency repairs to Ladder 2, as well as a Resolution to approve the bid waiver for the repairs.
Discussion: Ms. Adams: Do we have to put the amount in here, as part of the Motion, cause it's a transfer from the General Fund?
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 27
Ms. Robson: You're approving the Resolution. The Resolution has the $10,850, and the Motion was to approve the Resolution. You could probably amend the Motion.
Mr. Kane: It's in the Resolution.
Ms. Adams: It's just we had a problem before with the Motion.
Mr. Archer: Right.
MOTION: (Ms. Adams, sec. Mr. Kane) to amend the Motion to state that it will be $10,850 from the General Fund balance.
Discussion: None
MOTIOPN PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Mr. Archer: Larry, can you just tell us what the nature of the damages were, the repairs?
Mr. Black: We're repairing what's called the swivel, the integral part of the aerial ladder itself that's under the turntable, the part that spins on the truck, and that swivel contains hydraulic connections, electrical connections, 12 and 110 volt, water connections for the 1,000 gallons per minute pipeline that goes up the ladder, and that swivel has deteriorated and starting to fall apart. The electrical parts of it are surrounded by a bath of silicone to prevent corrosion, and that's breaking and falling apart, so the electrical part has already failed and the water part has failed, the hydraulic part is still working at this time. Unfortunately it's a problem that develops with all aerial ladders over a period of time, just under normal wear and tear. We did Tower 1 about 2.5 years ago and now Ladder 2 is happening.
Mr. Archer: So this is age and use, basically?
Mr. Black: Yes.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 28
Ms. Robson: You may want to vote on the appropriation and the bid waiver separately just for clarification purposes on the fire apparatus. The bid waiver had to be added to the Agenda.
Mr. Archer: So how do we undo what we just did?
Mr. Hebert: We separated the Resolution out, there's a Resolution for this and one for that.
Ms. Robson: Well the bid waiver itself wasn't on the Agenda, so I think we probably should make a motion to add it to the Agenda, and then I think you probably could do both.
Mr. Archer: And if they overlap, better sure than not.
Ms. Robson: Yea, well there are two things, one is the bid waiver and one is the appropriation.
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Ms. Adams) to add Agenda Item 9F, Resolution to approve the Bid Waiver for Repairs to Ladder 2.
Discussion: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
E. Consider Setting Mill Rate for Fiscal Year 2003/2004
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the mill rate must be established to levy the taxes on motor vehicle, personal property and real estate.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that if the Budget is approved by Referendum vote on June 25, 2003 the mill rate for the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 shall be 26.68 due and payable on July 1, 2003 for Personal Property, Motor Vehicle Taxes and Real Estate Taxes.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 29
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should the budget not be approved by Referendum of June 25, 2003, the mill rate will be set at 24.91 for the first installment of Real Estate taxes and payable on July 1, 2003. A new mill rate for the entire year will be acted upon for the motor vehicle, personal property and real estate upon final referendum approval when that occurs with an adjustment for the difference in the taxes paid on the first installment of real estate taxes due on July 1, 2003.
Dated at Watertown, Connecticut this 16th day of June, 2003.
Lee Archer, Chairman
Watertown Town Council
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Mr. Kane) to approve the Resolution setting the mill rate for fiscal year 2003/2004 which includes two different options, one if the budget passed on June 25th, and one if it doesn't.
Discussion: Mr. Hebert read aloud the Resolution.
Ms. King: We've never done this before, sort of have an if, then. Usually we just wait until after the referendum. Is this just a convenience so that we don't have to have a special meeting on June 26th?
Mr. Nardelli: Actually there are two reasons for that:
1. Yes, we would need a special meeting right after the referendum vote one way or the other to set the mill rate.
2. By doing it tonight, once the referendum is over the Tax Collector can go ahead and get the bills ready immediately, not having to wait another day to have that special meeting to set the mill rate.
Mr. Wick: It's a good idea.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 30
F. Resolution to Approve the Bid Waiver for Repairs to Ladder 2
RESOLUTION
WEHREAS, Town Council approval is required for waiving the bid process and awarding a contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder.
WHEREAS, Town Council authorization is required for any purchase exceeding $4,000 that has not been independently bid by the Town's Purchasing Agent.
WHEREAS, due to urgent unforeseen and necessary repair work required on Fire Department Ladder 2.
WHEREAS, Gowans Knight a Watertown business, has satisfactorily serviced the Fire Department for a number of years and will provide the certified service within the timeframe required.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Watertown Town Council hereby approves a bid waiver for emergency required repairs of Fire Department Ladder 2 as stated above.
Dated at Watertown, Connecticut this 16th day of June, 2003.
Lee Archer, Chairman
Watertown Town Council
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Mr. Kane) to approve the Resolution for bid waivers to Ladder 2 as presented.
Discussion: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Mr. Archer, Chairman, called a Recess at 9:23 p.m.
Mr. Archer, Chairman, Reconvened the Regular Meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 31
10. Discussion Items
A. Discussion and Possible Action on AT&T Water Tank Lease Agreement
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Mr. Kane) to approve the first amendment to Connecticut Lease Agreement with AT&T for space for antennas, associated cables and other communication instruments on the water tank on Buckingham Street.
Discussion: Mr. Wick: When I looked over this, it makes reference to Exhibit 1A, as in paragraph 4 it says "effective upon installation of the additional antennas shown in Exhibit 1A, the rents shall be increased by $150 per month, so I looked for Exhibit 1A and it doesn't say anything, so apparently what we've been given is incomplete, and until we can see what it is we're being asked to approve, I would suggest we ask for some more information. In addition to the specifics made reference to in Item 4, I'd be interested in knowing how much revenue the Town is getting per antenna and whether in fact we are charging enough for providing that valuable space.
Ms. Adams: Has Water and Sewer reviewed this and can the tank take the weight of the additional antennas?
Ms. Robson: Yes, Water and Sewer and our Public Works Director have both reviewed this and have no problems with it. Exhibit 1 does show the diagram. I agree with you, though, that there seems to be some extra pages in there which I tried to talk to her about, and I can get better clarification on that, but Exhibit 1 does show the location of the antenna. It's right before the copy of the old lease agreement.
Ms. King: Could I just have a quick summary. This is a new lease for AT&T to add more antennas where they already have one?
Ms. Robson: This is specifically to add antenna for E911 Emergency 911 services, which is mandated by the federal government, so it's specific to E911, it's not for just the normal course of their business.
Ms. King: Does E911 mean that they can trace cell phone calls?
Ms. Robson: Yes, I think that's part of it.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 32
Ms. King: Which we would like to be able to have happen.
Ms. Robson: Yes.
Mr. Archer: Unless you're paranoid of big brother.
Ms. King: If you're calling 911 from someplace where they can't find you . . . .
Mr. Archer: This is true.
Mr. Wick: Are we talking about one antenna?
Ms. Robson; No, there were coax cables, 10 additional antennas, but I'll double check on that. I don't think there's a problem if you did want to Table it, you know timing-wise. I'm sure they'd want it done sooner than later, but I can get the number on the revenue. Now you want it specific to AT&T, the revenue we get per antenna?
Mr. Wick: Well if it's not too much trouble, I would think that comparing it to the revenue we get for all the other antennas that are revenue generators would be useful.
Ms. Robson: Okay.
MOTION: (Mr. Wick, sec. Ms. Adams) to Table.
Discussion: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
ORIGINAL MOTION WAS NEVER VOTEDON (TABLED)
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Request from Board of Education to Change Town Council Meeting Regular Meeting Location (Tabled 6/2/03)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, at a Town Council meeting held on November 18, 2002, the Town Council set a regular meeting schedule noting the place for their regular meetings for 2003 to be held at the Polk School Library;
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 33
WHEREAS, in an effort to save overtime expenses the Board of Education requested that the Town Council consider moving Town Council meetings to John Trumbull Primary School.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council move their regularly scheduled meetings listed below to the John Trumbull Primary School, 779 Buckingham Street, Oakville Connecticut to 8:00 p.m., except as noted.
TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS 2003
Tuesday, September 2, 2003 Monday, November 3, 2003
Monday, September 15, 2003 Monday, November 17, 2003
Monday, October 6, 2003 Monday, December 1, 2003
Monday, October 20, 2003* Monday, December 15, 2003
*Meeting will be held at Polk School due to a conflict.
Dated at Watertown, Connecticut this 16th day of June, 2003.
Lee Archer, Chairman
Watertown Town Council
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Mr. Kane) to approve the Resolution authorizing the change in location for Town Council meetings beginning September 2, 2003, with the exception of October 20th which there is a conflict and will remain at Polk School.
Discussion: Ms King: Do we still have the capability of videotaping meetings?
Ms. Robson: Yes, as far as I know. They're here.
Ms. King: I didn't know whether this equipment stays here or can it go?
Ms. Robson: I assumed that wasn't a problem, but I may be wrong.
Ms. King: We want to know if we move our meetings to John Trumbull, can you come too with your equipment?
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 34
Videotographer: Yes.
Mr. Hebert: (Inaudible) go to the library?
Ms. Adams: You'd have to, because you cannot hear in the gym and the cafeteria between their heating and cooling systems, it's absolutely awful.
Mr. Hebert: We get some meetings that turn out to be large. Here we go to the cafeteria; where would we go there? Into this place that you can't here.
Ms. King: We could go to the green pod.
Mr. Archer: Actually the library there is a lot larger than this one.
Ms. Adams: I don't know if there would be enough seating.
Ms. Robson: Well I think if worse came to worse, and there was some reason to have it back here, then we would talk to them about having it back here, but the purpose in general is to move it to save some money.
Mr. Wick: Am I correct that the main reason, if not the only reason for doing this is to reduce the cost of having our meetings after hours?
Ms. Robson: Yes, that's my understanding.
Mr. Wick: Do we have an estimate for how much we are likely to save?
Ms. Robson: I don't, I can get that for you.
Mr. Wick: Ballpark?
Ms. King: It's like $3,600 in the Board's budget I thought. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's more.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 35
Mr. Archer: I thought it was more than that. Any time we go past 10:00 here we start incurring overtime, but at John Trumbull there are people there until 1:00 a.m.
Ms. King: And there are large chairs, not just little tiny ones?
Ms. Adams: Yes.
Ms. Robson: I attended a meeting there and they had adult chairs.
Ms. Adams: Were they folding chairs or these kind of chairs?
Ms. Robson: (Inaudible) chairs.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
C. Discussion and Possible Action on a New Job Description – Police Matron
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Ms. Adams) to approve the Job Description for the Police Matron as presented.
Discussion: Ms. King: Have we never had one?
Ms. Robson: We've had one informally. It's really been the female staff that has played that role, but now for purposes of accreditation we need to actually formalize the process.
Mr. Valenti: If I read the number right, we are not hiring anybody additional, it's just people who are already doing this will assume the duties?
Ms. Robson: Right, they would be paid that hourly wage, $15.11 an hour.
Mr. Valenti: In any way, by approving this position, does this expose us to a creation of a unionized position, would this be construed as a unionized position?
Ms. Robson: No, because it's going to be as needed.
Mr. Archer: Yea, based on the duties it sounds like a once in awhile thing.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 36
Ms. Robson: Yea, it depends on how many female prisoners are kept long term, because for all prisoners they normally try to get them in and out.
Mr. Archer: More of a designation than a position.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
D. Discussion and Possible Action of Crestbrook Park Golf Course Restaurant Lease
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Mr. Kane) to approve the lease agreement between the Town of Watertown and Michael Cavallo for the Crestbrook Park Restaurant facility for a period of 10 years as well as the agreement for the adjunct fund concession agreement for the Snack Shack on a year to year basis as presented.
Discussion: Mr. Wick: Can you briefly tell us what in here is different from the present agreement?
Ms. Robson: For one thing the rental amounts have increased. We tried to look at other similar types of facilities, ad it's not that easy to do because there is really nothing exactly comparable, but Harry Ward looked at what others are charging and we tried to come to some reasonable price, so the rental amounts have increased and there's an escalation factor each year that wasn't there in the past. Most of the other changes were relatively minor. We adjusted, it used to say under interest 18%, I believe it was, and it's only 12% by law. There were some additional insurance language added or changed to the document. I think for the most part it's pretty similar, other than some relatively minor changes. The other thing that is different, though, is the Snack Shack was pulled out of the lease and is now a separate agreement that we'll do on an annual basis because there has been discussions amongst some of you in the past about potentially moving that at some point to do some other things at that site, so it's a year by year that gives us the flexibility to make those changes if we need to.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 37
Mr. Wick: On page 1 toward the bottom, the last sentence, in Use of Premises, it says "the lessee shall not use the leased property in a manner that shall increase the rate of liability or fire insurance for the building over that in effect prior to the execution of the lease". Now on the next page, the second paragraph from the top, it says "if because of lessee's use the premises the addition of approved equipment or use causes the liability insurance rate to become higher, than the lessee shall reimburse the Town." I think that language makes more sense to me than just saying it can't happen, and if that's really the intent to say that if you do something that causes the rates to go up, you pay for it, that's fine, but I would suggest that the last sentence in the Use of Premises on the preceding page be deleted, cause they're inconsistent.
Ms. Robson: That's a good point. We still have the ability to (Tape #2, Side A ended – may have missed some) that wouldn't impact the insurance rates. Do you want to just strike that sentence then on Page 1?
Mr. Wick: That would seem to me to make sense.
Ms. Robson: One other change that was made – this in prior times was a 10 year lease with renewable periods. This is now just a 10 year lease and the Town at that point will decide what to do.
MOTION: (Mr. Wick, sec. Mr. Rinaldi) to amend the Motion to delete the last sentence in Paragraph 3, Use of Premises.
Discussion: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
In Favor: Ms. Adams, Mr. Archer, Mr. Hebert, Mr. Kane, Ms. King, Mr. Primini, Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Wick
Opposed: None
Abstained: Mr. Valenti
MOTION CRRIED (8-0-1)
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 38
E. Discussion and Possible Action on Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Reimbursable Grant Agreement Between the State of Connecticut and the Town of Watertown in conjunction with the construction of culvert replacement on Route 63 in the vicinity of Edgewood Avenue and for construction and construction engineering of concrete sidewalks on Route 63.
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Mr. Kane) to approve the Resolution authorizing the execution of a Reimbursable Grant Agreement between the State of Connecticut and the Town of Watertown in conjunction with the construction of culvert replacement on Route 63 in the vicinity of Edgewood Avenue, and for construction and construction engineering of concrete sidewalks on Route 63.
Discussion: Ms. King: The design of these sidewalks is the same as the design for the others that the Town will be putting in, everything is going to match?
Ms. Robson: Yes.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
F. Discussion and Possible Action on Overlook Avenue Project
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Ms. Adams) to Override the Denial of A24 from Planning and Zoning regarding the Overlook Avenue Project.
Discussion: Mr. Rinaldi: Override the denial?
Mr. Archer: P & Z denied A24 approval. We have the ability to overrule that.
Ms. King: They denied extending the road.
Mr. Archer: They said no to paving, basically.
Ms. King: Don't pave it, is what they said, and this Motion is to overrule that and thus the end result would be paving.
Mr. Archer: Correct. So a yes vote is to pave it.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 39
Ms. King: And this requires a 2/3 vote?
Mr. Archer: Yes, to override a A24 approval.
Mr. Primini: For there record, if it is paved, what is the paving, at the 24 feet width or . . . .
Mr. Archer: I think it is, whatever it was last. It was 24.
Ms. Robson: It was smaller than what Waterbury originally requested.
Mr. Archer: 52% smaller than what they requested.
Ms. Robson: I think they were originally at 30.
Mr. Primini: They were at 38 plus 6 and 6 for the sidewalks, which is 52 feet.
Mr. Archer: They're not doing sidewalks and the road is going to 24 feet. 24 or 26.
Ms. King: It was the narrower one as opposed to the wider one.
Mr. Primini: What I'm asking is are we voting to accept the Watertown standard versus the Waterbury standard as a matter of record?
Mr. Archer: Actually I think it's below both standards.
Mr. Primini: I want to know exactly what we're voting on, what we're agreeing to pave.
Mr. Archer: We're not voting to agree to pave; we're voting to override A24 denial.
Ms. King: If the Council votes in favor of it, that's an agreement to pave.
Mr. Archer: But we're not approving a particular design spec.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 40
Ms. King: No, it's just that the road will be paved.
Mr. Wick: I'd like to argue against overriding, and the main reason is simply that we've heard a lot about the way this part of the contract was arrived at, and admittedly we haven't gone so far as to get all the t's crossed and the i's dotted and legal input on both sides, so there's a lot of murkiness as far as I'm concerned in just what is the strength of that portion of the contract. It's been said, and this was my original concern, that if it is part of the original contract, we are running the risk of breaching that contract if we don't, but as time went on and in thinking about it more, I think there is some possible merit to the argument that that portion of the contract is voidable, and given the effect on the quality of life that the abutting property owners will suffer based upon what we've been told over the last several meetings in here, I would tend to side toward the residents who have vigorously opposed this. If this approach turns out to be wrong for any reason, then we can always reverse this stand at a later date. I think, to be sure, there's a calculated risk that we will be sued by Waterbury, there is also a possibility we won't, that they will agree that there is another way to achieve the objective of providing the appropriate access for the sewer line that's in that space, and I just believe it's important to be concerned about the affect on the neighbors.
Mr. Valenti: By voting yes, we would be voting to override the P & Z decision?
Mr. Archer: Correct.
Mr. Valenti: Suggestion, because as I understand it, it's a 2/3 requirement, to make it easier for Lynn, we should do it by hands or some easily identifiable manner. I agree with Dick, actually, and being an attorney myself I certainly understand the obligations of a contract; on the other hand we're all elected here to represent the folks in this Town, not Waterbury.
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 41
Ms. Adams: I hate getting stuck with stuff that we never had any input to in the very beginning. We've tried very, very hard, Meredith you had countless meetings along with Roy with the City of Waterbury regarding this particular project here. I know the responses were not in the positive at all, if anything there was an extreme negative, and I did sense something there that this was something they really wanted to do. In being part of the contract I really think that it's more than a calculated risk, I would think that we will be sued by Waterbury for violation of the contract, and I'm not prepared to go that route.
Mr. Archer: Yea, I've pretty much been assured that we will. I just don't know that as representatives of the Town we want to be thumbing our nose at a legal document. If there are flaws in it then they probably should have been specifically shown at this point.
Mr. Primini: I was opposed to it at the 52 foot width, when it was originally presented that it would be 5 feet from one neighbor's house, but after talking to that particular person, my understanding if it's a 24 foot wide road, it gives him like 18 feet and he said he has no problem with that. I feel in the best interests, the 24 foot would be acceptable.
In Favor: Ms. Adams, Mr. Archer, Mr. Hebert, Mr. Kane, Mr. Primini
Opposed: Ms. King, Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Valenti, Mr. Wick
MOTION FAILED (5-4-0)
Mr. Archer: Just for the record, we just voted to spend taxpayer's money on legal fees.
11. Public Participation
Al Mickel, 173 DiNunzio Road, Oakville, CT 06779
Mr. Mickel: You voted tonight to move your meetings to the Trumbull School. Consider moving the hour to 7:30 p.m. Thank you.
Mr. Kane: Good idea.
Ms. Adams: Is 8:00 the start time in the Charter?
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 42
Mr. Archer: Just for the first meeting. The others can be changed after that.
John Bongiorno, 1254 Litchfield Road, Watertown, CT 06795
Mr. Hebert: Short, John, I hope. Please?
Mr. Bongiorno: Very short. With regards to the Overlook Avenue issue that's going to come up, I commend the people for sticking it out and coming to meetings and trying their hardest for the legal perspective, this is really for 23,000 people, not 16 or 24 people. Sometimes you have to look past the 24 people who will be directly affected for the good of the Town, so with regards to voting not to accept A24 that kind of has a bearing on 24,000 where it really should only have affected 24. Was it fair? I'm not sure. I understand the contractual agreement, I understand that there really might not be a need to pave the road to get to the sewer line. Maybe they can't have gardens there, maybe they can't have pools there, maybe they need to ease that to the Town and be done with it, but I also understand that this brings up an excellent point that there are a lot of roads out there that the Town has not performed A24 approval on that are paper streets, that are going to cause this problem down the road, and it was discussed at Planning and Zoning, they didn't do anything about it, but it was still brought up that there are a lot of other roads out there. We should look into them and stop this problem from ever happening again, so if we get sued this one time, we'll end up learning our lesson, and then we can fix all the other mistakes so it doesn't happen again. Thank you.
Mr. Archer, Chairman, Closed Public Participation at 10:00 p.m.
12. Old Business
None
13. Executive Session
A. Legal Matters
B. Pending Litigation
C. Personnel
D. Property Acquisition/Negotiation
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Ms. Adams) to enter into Executive Session at 10:01 to discuss legal matters, pending litigation, personnel, and property acquisition/negotiation with the 9 Town Council Members, Ms. Robson, Mr. Nardelli, and Atty. Dugas for one item.
Discussion: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 43
The following people were present during Executive Session:
Elaine Adams
Lee Archer
Raymond Hebert
Robert Kane
Jean King
Raymond Primini
Paul Rinaldi
Paul Valenti
Richard Wick
Atty. Floyd Dugas
Frank Nardelli
Meredith Robson
Atty. Floyd Dugas left the Executive Session at 10:30 p.m.
Mr. Archer, Chairman, Reconvened the Regular Meeting at 10:38.
No Motions Were Made; No Votes Were Taken.
Mr. Archer: Just for the record we're back from Executive Session, and just to clarify we had previously gone into Executive Session inviting Atty. Dugas. That was done in (inaudible) discuss something that we later realized we could not discuss in Executive Session, so we sort of uninvited him and now we've invited him back. At this time we're going to recess the meeting so that members of Council can discuss a matter of collective bargaining, pursuant to 1-200(2) of the Connecticut Genera Statutes. We are at Recess to discuss collective bargaining (inaudible).
Mr. Archer, Chairman, called a Recess at 10:39 p.m.
14. Action Items Continued
A Consider and Possible Action on Pension Plan Modification for the Board of Education – Local 1049 of Council #4 –0 AFSCME, AFL-CIO Custodial and Maintenance Employees.
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Mr. Kane) to approve the pension changes on the offset for custodial and maintenance employees from 35% to 25%.
Discussion: Mr. Hebert: Do you want the contract part of it, or just leave it?
Watertown Town Council
Regular Meeting
June 16, 2003
Page 44
Mr. Nardelli: As the Local 1049 of Council #4, AFSCME . . . . as presented.
Mr. Hebert: As presented.
In Favor: Ms. Adams, Mr. Kane, Ms. King, Mr. Primini, Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Valenti
Opposed: Mr. Archer, Mr. Hebert, Mr. Wick
Abstained: None
MOTION CARRIED (6-3-0)
B. Discussion and Possible Action on Property Acquisition
None
15. Adjournment
MOTION: (Mr. Hebert, sec. Ms. Adams) to Adjourn the Regular Meeting at 11:22 p.m.
Discussion: None
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Regular Meeting Adjourned at 11:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lee Archer, Chairman
Watertown Town Council
Approved: _______________________________
Lynn M. LaForme, Clerk |