|
ENFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Town Council was called to order by Chairman Tallarita in the Council Chambers of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Monday, November 13, 2006.
PRAYER – The Prayer was given by Councilman Nelson.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – The Pledge of Allegiance was said.
ROLL-CALL – Present were Councilmen Crowley, Edgar, Hilinski, Kaupin, Lee, Mangini, Nelson, Peruta, Ragno and Tallarita. Councilman Maxellon was absent. Also present were Town Manager, Matthew Coppler; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Clerk, Suzanne Olechnicki; Town Attorney, Christopher Bromson; Director of Public Works, John Kazmarski; Director of Finance, Gregory Simmons; Revenues Collector, Suzanne Guinness; Library Director, Henry Dutcher; Assistant Library Director, Mary Palomba; Director of Planning and Community Development, Jose Giner; Director of Social Services, Pamela Brown
FIRE EVACUATION ANNOUNCEMENT
Chairman Tallarita made the fire evacuation announcement.
MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETINGS
MOTION #8882 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Hilinski to accept the minutes of the October 2, 2006 Regular Meeting.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8882 adopted 9-0-1, with Chairman Tallarita abstaining.
MOTION #8883 by Councilman Kaupin, seconded by Councilman Mangini to accept the minutes of the October 16, 2006 Special Meeting.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8883 adopted 10-0-0.
MOTION #8884 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Ragno to accept the minutes of the October 16, 2006 Regular Meeting.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8884 adopted 10-0-0.
MOTION #8885 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Kaupin to accept the minutes of the October 18, 2006 Special Meeting.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8885 adopted 9-0-1, with Councilman Hilinski abstaining.
MOTION #8886 by Councilman Hilinski, seconded by Councilman Mangini to accept the minutes of the October 25, 2006 Special Meeting.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8886 adopted 10-0-0.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS & PETITIONS
Jack Sheridan, 7 Buchanan Road
Referred to the newspaper articles about high levels of mercury in the Connecticut River and stated his belief there doesn’t seem to be enough concern about the issue of mercury in the environment.
Mr. Sheridan questioned whether anything has been addressed regarding the Ethics Ordinance and a requirement to have everyone sign off on it at least on a yearly basis. He noted this is done all the time in the private sector, and he believes it should also be done in the public sector.
He stated there was a recent special meeting and the topic of the bid waiver on books was raised. He noted the public wasn’t allowed to speak at that meeting. He stated his belief special meetings should happen in a more public forum where people can speak.
As concerns Item 12D on the agenda – “Connecticut Municipal Consortium for Fiscal Responsibility”, Mr. Sheridan stated his belief it’s fairly simple in that they just stop spending.
Mr. Sheridan referred to the booklet sent out by the Town regarding the upcoming revaluation and noted there’s a reference to 12-170a which relates to tax exemptions and abatements people might be able to get if they meet a certain status. He stated 12-170a was rescinded, and it’s been rescinded for awhile.
As concerns Item 13E on the agenda – “Aquifer Protection Area program, Model Municipal Regulations”, Mr. Sheridan stated he attended a recent Planning & Zoning Meeting. He noted this is just another unfunded mandate. He pointed out that just to police this process will require personnel. He referred to a lengthy statement made at that meeting by Karen LaPlante and noted she had a lot of good, valid points regarding this and the costs these regulations would place on the business people in the aquifer area.
Mr. Sheridan stated if they take into consideration all the money coming from the CIP account, the Town actually gave the school system a 7.6% increase, not a 4.4% increase. He noted this equals an $11,879 per student cost. He stated his belief Enfield spends plenty on its per student cost. He feels it would behoove everyone to inform people what is really spent, rather than saying it’s a lesser amount. He stated they should state all the costs that it takes to run the school system.
Reginald Leonard, 42 Fairfield Road
Thanked the new Town Manager for responding to him in a timely manner.
Referring to Item 11 F – “Street Excavation Permits and Legislative Update”, Mr. Leonard questioned if there was another incident of a contractor digging in the roadway without permits. He stated his belief the Town has to keep track of these violators.
Mr. Leonard stated his belief Enfield has very good Town regulations as concerns zoning, building, wetlands, etc., however, they have to be followed. He noted someone has to monitor these regulations, and it’s his impression that’s not being done.
He stated he went to a seminar at the State Capitol on August 23rd regarding wetlands, storm water and pollution control. He noted there are regulations and permits within the State government that apply to anything over ten or more acres. He stated he couldn’t find anything relating to this in Enfield. He pointed out these regulations should be adhered to within Enfield’s statutes to make developers and builders realize the Town will check on them. He pointed out two or three years ago a videotape was shown to the Town Council and Planning & Zoning which filmed water cascading through backyards, down driveways and into the Connecticut River. He noted if this type of problem had been addressed in the development of any applications, there might not be such problems.
He pointed out three homeowners in one area spent over $25,000 of their own money to try addressing grading and storm water control. He stated residents rely on the Council, Planning & Zoning and Inland/Wetlands for these types of issues.
Mr. Leonard concluded stating whenever an application comes before Inland/Wetlands or Planning & Zoning, someone should be sure state guidelines and regulations are being followed.
Frank Dubish, 42 O’Hear Avenue
Stated he’s before the Council concerning a business that’s being run in a residential neighborhood at 40 O’Hear Avenue. He noted he doesn’t know whether the Town Council looked into this. He stated he wrote a letter to Mr. Coppler who wrote him a response. He noted he questioned why the issue of the business vehicles and equipment being stored at 40 O’Hear Avenue wasn’t addressed between 1995 and 2002. He pointed out the vehicles and equipment were visible during that period. He stated Mr. Coppler wrote that in 1996 this business was granted the ability to operate out of that location based on the zoning codes in effect at that time. Mr. Dubish stated he checked the zoning codes during that period and they didn’t allow any business to be run in a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Dubish stated he has been complaining for a number of years, and nothing has been done. He feels the Town has to take some responsibility when it comes to businesses operating in residential areas.
He stated his understanding a person is allowed to operate a home office business and have one truck, however, it’s his perception a business is being operated out of a residential neighborhood when a person loads up all his equipment onto a rig, goes out to do work and then returns with all that equipment.
He stated his belief the Town needs to take a look at businesses operating out of residential neighborhoods. He pointed out people pay taxes to live in a residential area in a quiet neighborhood. He submitted some photographs of this situation.
Mr. Dubish noted this same residence built a large garage in 2001 and installed an apartment above the garage. He noted in 2006 that apartment is now legal because a permit was pulled for an alteration. He feels until regulations are enforced, this practice will continue in other neighborhoods.
Mrs. Collins, the Hazardville Section
Stated her impression there seems to be a lot of special meetings.
Mrs. Collins stated there is a large pile of leaves left by the fence near her property.
Referring to Item 13H – “Personal Services Agreement America the Beautiful Urban Forestry Grant, Mrs. Collins questioned whether this relates to the state park behind her property. She noted the trees on the state property overhang the trees on her own property. She pointed out sometimes these trees fall onto her property. Councilman Kaupin indicated he’d check into this.
Margaret Jedziniak, 232 Abbe Road
Questioned whether there’s selective enforcement of zoning laws or regulations in Enfield. She questioned if too many waivers are being given to builders negating these regulations. She feels this should be looked into.
Ms. Jedziniak stated her belief the amount of political signs around town were obscene. She added her belief there should be some regulations about the amount of and placement of signs.
Ms. Jedziniak stated she found the handicap parking arrangement at JFK Middle School inconvenient when she recently visited that building for voting. She went on to note that the Town Hall handicap parking is on one side of the building while the elevator access is on the opposite side. She added only one door leading into Town Hall is automatic.
Ms. Jedziniak submitted an envelope to the Town Manager. She noted she considers this correspondence personal because she does not want to speak of it in public because the last time she spoke about certain things, she was chided by certain people. She noted she does not want to be harassed about something she has every right to ask questions about.
Karen LaPlante, 166 North Maple Street
Referring to the impending adoption of the new aquifer protection regulations for Enfield by the Aquifer Protection Agency Ms. LaPlante noted she previously made a public statement at the public hearing for these regulations and a copy of her statement was e-mailed to each Councilman.
Ms. LaPlante stated everyone understands the importance of protecting the drinking water supply now and for future generations. She noted a safe and plentiful supply of drinking water is a regional issue. She pointed out water companies are being allowed to pump water from one town and sell it in another. She noted the cost of developing new wells is becoming very expensive with land acquisitions, well siting, regulatory approval, mapping, drilling and diversion permit costs can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. She stated wells in Enfield supply water to Somers and East Windsor. She noted it’s possible Somers will not have any aquifer protection area to regulate, and the businesses and landowners in the Enfield aquifer protection area will have to absorb the cost of compliance with these regulations.
She stated it’s important the Town understands this is a regional issue and legislators understand the regulation impact on the businesses located in the aquifer protection areas. She noted the aquifer protection regulations are meant to provide protection for high yield wells located in stratified drift soils. She stated the currently approved aquifer protection area in Enfield will be expanded when mapping is complete by June of 2008. She noted Hazardville Water will add at least three well fields to the aquifer protection area that will include the Raffia Road, Town Farm, Hazard Avenue and Scitico areas. She pointed out Connecticut Water will add at least one area in North Thompsonville. She noted these areas have vacant land and businesses that will be effected by these regulations and restricted what can be done on these properties.
Ms. LaPlante stated as clean water is being protected for all Enfield residents and future generations, she is asking that the Town Council provide the proper funding for implementation, training, and enforcement of these regulations to remove the added financial burden these regulations will have on the effected businesses in these mapped areas.
Reginald Leonard, 42 Fairfield Road
Submitted to the Town Manager copies of the general permit registration and the rules and regulations regarding storm water discharge and soil and erosion control that the State expects municipalities to follow. He noted there are also checklists included. He stated he couldn’t find these documents at Town Hall.
COUNCILMEN COMMUNICATIONS & PETITIONS
Councilman Mangini stated she had the privilege of attending the veterans’ ceremony on Sunday, which had to be held indoors due to inclement weather. She noted the bad weather did not deter people or bands who came out to honor the veterans. She stated also in attendance were Board of Education Chairman, Sharon Racine, Senator John Kissel, Town Attorney, Christopher Bromson, Chief of Police, Carl Sferrazza and Town Manager, Matthew Coppler. She stated this was a beautiful ceremony, which expressed much appreciation to the veterans.
Councilman Mangini noted a deaf child is moving into an Enfield neighborhood, and the parents are inquiring as to how they can go about getting a handicap sign for their street.
Councilman Kaupin requested an update be included in an upcoming Council packet regarding the monitoring process of the meters and the billing process for the Department of Corrections.
Councilman Kaupin requested an update on the winter housing of ambulances and what the plan is for going forward.
Councilman Kaupin referred to the comment about the Ethics Ordinance and suggested this be discussed at the Wednesday leadership meeting.
Councilman Kaupin stated he would like clarification about 12-170a within the revaluation packet.
Councilman Kaupin suggested the Town Manager sit with Reginald Leonard regarding his concerns about state regulations.
Councilman Kaupin requested DPW investigate Mrs. Collins’ concern about piles of leaves near her home.
Councilman Nelson stated as a builder, it’s his impression Enfield does very well enforcing regulations. He noted he has had every agency in Enfield on his job sites.
Councilman Peruta stated he would also like to see special meetings televised.
Councilman Peruta stated he also would like clarification on the 12-170a item raised in public communications. He noted Enfield does offer tax relief for seniors and disabled persons.
Councilman Peruta stated his belief the Town does care about the mercury issue. He noted in previous discussions about mercury disposal, it was determined the Town did not want to house mercury because of the exorbitant cost, however, Public Works directs people to locations where this material can be accepted.
Councilman Peruta stated at the last meeting, there was a request to include an agenda item regarding library expansion. He requested this be included on the next agenda.
Councilman Crowley requested an update on the leaf program. He questioned if the Town is charging to drop off leaves and brush at the landfill.
Councilman Crowley requested Mr. Giner provide him with regulations/information about businesses operating out of homes.
Councilman Crowley explained the handicap parking spaces are located where they are behind the Town Hall because that location is closest to the handicap ramp leading to the front entrance.
Councilman Ragno stated it was good to see a lot of people come out to vote. He requested something be done to take down all the political signs.
Councilman Ragno stated his belief ethics in government is a salient issue, and he feels anyone involved in the administration of town government should be signing off on this document annually.
Councilman Ragno encouraged Enfield citizens to make the town better through civic involvement.
Councilman Ragno agreed with Mrs. Collins about the state park abutting her property and that it should be maintained and litter free.
MOTION #8887 by Councilman Hilinski, seconded by Councilman Mangini to move Item 13P to Item 10A.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8887 adopted 10-0-0.
MOTION #8888 by Councilman Hilinski, seconded by Councilman Lee to suspend the rules to move the following items to Miscellaneous – Items 13 F, H, I, J, L, and M.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8888 adopted 10-0-0.
Councilman Hilinski requested a report on the levels of mercury in the Connecticut River and what DEP’s official opinion is for the cause of this and what are some of the things Enfield might do to help prevent this problem.
As concerns a comment about the Council having more special meetings, Councilman Hilinski noted there has been a lot of work for the Council to do. He agreed with Councilman Peruta about future televising of special meetings. He stated although special meetings do not include Public Communications, people can call or e-mail the Council if they have an issue with anything. He pointed out these meetings/agendas are posted ahead of time.
Councilman Hilinski agreed with Ms. Jedziniak in that there were too many political signs during the election period. He stated that hopefully they can place a limitation on the number of signs that can be put up. He added perhaps they can donate that money to better causes than erecting signs.
Chairman Tallarita stated the Solid Waste Task Force is looking at proper disposal of items containing mercury. He noted this Task Force is doing a great job, and they should be coming before the Council with a proposal very soon.
As concerns the bid waiver on books, Chairman Tallarita noted they discussed this with the Board of Education and it was understood that under certain thresholds they don’t have to come to the Council for a waiver. He explained there was money put away under CIP for books, and it was determined that rather than grant the school system an overall blanket waiver, they suggested the Board of Education come before the Council on an individual basis for each purchase order required, however, if it fell below the threshold, they wouldn’t have to come to the Council, but rather it could be submitted directly to the Director of Finance and a purchase order could be cut.
Chairman Tallarita agreed with Councilman Nelson in that he has never heard from developers or builders in Enfield that there’s any lapse in regulation enforcement. He noted he usually hears the opposite in that they think there’s too much oversight.
Chairman Tallarita stated he received correspondence about the nation’s National Flag Festival and Parade in Philadelphia from June 12 to June 16, 2007. He explained this group is asking for participation from towns and states. He noted this letter is requesting this be disseminated to the organizations in Enfield that might have some interest in participating. He requested the Town Manager’s Office disseminate this to the Board of Education and some of the bigger organizations in Enfield.
Chairman Tallarita thanked the Town Manager and Public Works Director for putting together the Public Works update. He requested they include the CIP or Project Number next to the project so they can correlate it to the budget. He also requested a notation in the comment section dealing specifically with the budget, i.e., if they’re within budget with a project, that a budget adjustment might be needed, or that it’s not a budgeted item.
He questioned if they talked about having this on a quarterly basis. Mr. Coppler stated they had talked about either monthly or quarterly. He added his belief they will be updating it on a more regular basis. Chairman Tallarita questioned if this can be available electronically, and Mr. Coppler indicated it could be placed on the website.
Chairman Tallarita requested the Town Attorney look into the political sign issue and whether limiting signs could be an infringement on the freedom of speech. He agreed there seemed to be more signs than ever put out this year.
As concerns Mr. Dubish’s comments, Chairman Tallarita stated his belief the Town Manager’s correspondence with Mr. Dubish provided a good summary on this issue. He added his belief there’s integrity within the Town’s system, and he believes there’s no prejudice in the decisions that the Town makes.
TOWN MANAGER REPORT & COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Coppler referred to the concerns of Mr. Dubish and stated unfortunately the law allows for what’s going on next door. He noted when the Town receives a complaint, it is taken seriously and investigated. He stated the Council could have further discussion on what is and isn’t allowed as concerns businesses in residential areas.
Mr. Coppler stated there was a meeting last Wednesday with the residents from the Yale/Meadowlark area. He noted Councilman Edgar was in attendance. He noted this was a very lengthy meeting and he believes what came out of that meeting was a commitment by staff to learn what has to be done next in terms of funding and the plan of action. He stated they will be going before Inland/Wetlands very soon, and they will then come before the Town Council to determine where the money will come from and what the plan of attack is.
Mr. Coppler introduced Henry Dutcher, Director of Libraries. Mr. Dutcher gave an overview of his department.
- There are a number of grants taking place at the library
- The Pearl Street Library renovation is underway
- The Central Library renovation is underway
- One Book/One Community Program replaces Enfield Reads Together Program, which was lost during the last budget season
- Outreach is underway with the distribution of hundreds of library cards at high schools, middle school, Head Start, and day cares; taking story time on the road to places where people can’t manage to visit the library
- Installation of software program called Smart Access Management (SAM), which time manages their PC’s and this frees up reference staff to do reference work
- Print management – if someone prints something, it’s paid for
- Individualized Internet Filtering – offers every individual five different internet levels that can be chosen to filter themselves or their children
- New data bases – Grolier on-line; Learn-A-Test, Heritage Quest (geneology data base); Info Anytime (a 24/7 reference question answering service)
- Expanded collection – SAT, ESL, foreign language, a literacy collection
- Weeding approximately 20,000 to 25,000 items which will accommodate two year’s worth of growth in fiction and about three year’s of growth in non-fiction
- Summer reading – 797 children participated with the new children’s librarian this summer-the program was taken out on the road and a pre-school component was added. 129 parents signed up their children for the pre-schoolers reading program
- Long range goals include addressing space needs, staffing and financial needs, wireless access for patrons
Mr. Dutcher stated he has an amazing staff that shows great customer service.
Mr. Dutcher also provided an update on the Common Grounds Rotary Garden. Joining Mr. Dutcher was Master Gardener, Emilita Grimes. Also present were Zoey and Chloe Grimes. Mr. Dutcher stated the garden put out 4,200 pounds of produce for the food bank and Loaves and Fishes. He stated his belief this is amazing for the first year. He noted there were a couple negatives that took place in the form of squash bugs and some “help yourself” instances. He stated these can be considered first-year growing pains, but all in all it was a great growing season. He noted they have mulched leaves over the top of the garden at this time, and they’ll be planning for the spring and they anticipate the second year will be much better than the first. He stated Emilita took on a ten-week course for children’s gardening, and she never had less than 15 students on a Saturday morning.
Ms. Grimes stated senior citizens from the senior center helped out or participated in the children’s class. She thanked the parents of these children who did a large part of the harvesting and maintaining the garden. She added the children also showed their produce at the Four Town Fair and won six first place ribbons, six second place ribbons and several best in show.
Ms. Grimes stated she had the opportunity to present this program at UCONN at the Master Gardener graduation, and many of the comments she heard were that there’s nothing in the state offered like what’s being offered in Enfield.
TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT & COMMUNICATIONS
Attorney Bromson referred to the Ethics Ordinance topic that has been raised this evening and noted most public officials take an Oath of Office and that is covered by that. He noted even if they weren’t to take an Oath or sign it, the Council and Town employees are bound by the Ethics Ordinance, and if they violate the Ethics Ordinance, they will be held responsible.
Chairman Tallarita stated his belief concern might have to do with Council appointments. He added his belief everyone gets a copy of the Ethics Ordinance. He noted they could have a discussion about whether everyone should sign off on it every year. Attorney Bromson stated all the officials and employees are bound by the Ethics Ordinance.
Attorney Bromson stated in the last legislative session, a new law was passed regarding alcohol and alcohol delivery to minors and possession by minors. He noted it has always been a felony for an adult to provide or sell liquor to a minor. He stated this is an unclassified felony with a $1,500 fine and up to 18 months in jail. He pointed out they closed the loophole about premises whereby homeowners are now responsible for their own property so that if a minor is having alcohol with the homeowner’s knowledge, it is first an infraction covered by fines and the second offense is a $500 fine and up to a year in jail. He pointed out if a minor left those premises and drove a car and had an accident while under the influence, the homeowner would be liable for any resultant injuries by anyone involved in that accident, and it would not be covered by insurance. He noted a family could lose their home or life’s savings. He stated tied in with this, as of today, there will be a sweeping reform to drunk driving laws in Connecticut. He noted there could be a doubling or tripling of fines; an increase in minimum mandatory jail sentence by ten times more, and there’s an attempt to seize a vehicle on a second offense. He warned people to be very careful during the holidays.
Attorney Bromson stated questions about curfews have been raised recently, and he made a copy of the second circuit case, which involves a Vernon curfew that was passed, but it was struck down by the second circuit court, which is just below the Supreme Court. He noted it was a very reasonable, well-written curfew law, but for issues of equal protection, it was struck down.
REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL
Councilman Lee stated the Commission on Aging is holding a community conversation on November 20th, and this has to do with preventing identity theft and internet safety for seniors. He noted this is a free event and takes place from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., and they do require an RSVP. He noted people can contact the senior center if they wish to reserve a seat and refreshments will be served.
DISCUSSION RE: SENIOR CENTER FLOOR
Mr. Kazmarski stated they did test the concrete floor in the kitchen and dining room area of the senior center over the weekend. He noted the samples were turned over to a lab for analysis today. He stated they’re trying to expedite those test results so the Town Manager can pass them along to the Council. He noted that will be a determining factor as to what types of new flooring they might propose to the Senior Center Advisory Committee. He stated the cost of this testing will be under $1,000.
Chairman Tallarita questioned if it’s necessary to come back before the Council, and Mr. Coppler pointed out money set aside isn’t sufficient for what they’re considering right now, therefore, in the end the Town Council will need to approve a transfer of funding.
Chairman Tallarita stated it would be in everyone’s best interest to expedite this matter.
He clarified that the Town accepted that building only in the last couple years. He stated his understanding this isn’t covered under any warranty program because the building was accepted as it was, therefore, they don’t have any recourse to go back to the developer or manufacturer at this point. Mr. Kazmarski stated the typical warrantees on these products are one-year. He noted there was a settlement agreement with the various parties for the close-out of this particular project. He pointed out none of this was perceived prior to the close-out. He noted they want to “cure the problem” and make sure it doesn’t happen again. He explained one of the unique aspects of this is also the fact that the vinyl composite tile in the adjacent room is perfectly firm and nothing is happening to it, while the linoleum is starting to peel up at the seams. They don’t fully understand why that is happening in certain areas, but the test they performed over the weekend will help clarify that and give them a better idea as to the type of product they should be looking at.
Joining the discussion was Trudy Dorous, a member of the Senior Citizen Center Building Committee and the Senior Center Advisory Committee. She noted when the project was completed, they had about $200,000 remaining. She questioned where that money went. She noted at the last Advisory Committee meeting they were informed there will be another consultant hired for the floor. She stated her belief the more this goes on, the more expensive the floor will get. She stated her hope something will be done soon.
Mr. Coppler stated he was at that Advisory Committee meeting, and that was a course that was suggested, but toward the end of that meeting, he said they were looking into this and they would get back to the Committee on a new course of action. He noted it’s not the intent to bring on a consultant to study this, and he feels that’s not necessary. He pointed out they have the in-house ability to address this, other than the testing being done.
Chairman Tallarita requested the $200,000 surplus be looked into. He added he recalls some things being done at the end of the project, i.e., tables, chairs, etc. Mr. Coppler noted that information will be put together.
Councilman Nelson stated his belief they should have professionals come in and do their own evaluation and stand behind their work.
Mr. Kazmarski stated they are trying to find the cause of the floor problems. He noted testing results might indicate certain treatments might have to be made on the concrete before any type of adhesive or flooring can be put down. He noted they will get input from various contractors and suppliers to learn what type of product is best suited to be installed. He added whatever material is put down, the Town will be asking for a substantial warranty from the supplier and/or the contractor.
Councilman Crowley stated his belief they should explore the possibility of approaching the original contractor to come back and fix the floor. He noted if this contractor refuses, he should never do another job for the Town of Enfield.
Councilman Crowley stated his belief a contractor should also run their own tests. He noted perhaps they’d come up with the same results the Town gets.
Mr. Kazmarski stated the flooring that was installed is the flooring that was called for in the project specifications. He explained the Town is doing the baseline for the testing of the concrete to see if that is in fact the problem and whether they have to treat the concrete. He noted once they have that information, they can write a spec that contractors can bid on.
Councilman Mangini agreed with Councilman Nelson in that they should put this out to bid and let the contractor tell them what needs to be done.
Councilman Kaupin suggested the possibility of letting the bidders do their own testing, and the Town can use that as a base line for comparison. He noted the contractor can be chosen, and it can be turned over to the advisory committee for selection of flooring and color. He questioned whether the proposal could call for testing, and Mr. Kazmarski responded yes. He noted the problem he has with this whole scenario is what type of specification do they call for that the contractor must adhere to. He noted there are various types of linoleums, and the only way he can see this happening is not to go through a bid process, but rather go through an RFP process. They could call the contractors in to do some testing, get results, provide a recommendation and price it out. He noted someone has to make a selection if there are six different products recommended.
Councilman Kaupin questioned if the money set aside in CIP was intended for both the kitchen and dining room, and Mr. Kazmarski responded yes. Councilman Kaupin stated it’s now being learned that dollar amount is insufficient. He questioned why the cost is so much higher. Mr. Kazmarski stated they won’t know what the dollar amount is going to be until they get the test results back and until a determination is made as to what type of system they should go with. He noted they’re not necessarily short of funds, but rather it depends on the test results and the recommendations of the Senior Center Advisory Committee. He stated the Committee may choose to go with a vinyl composite tile, and that would be a lot less expensive than a linoleum sheet product with welded seams. He noted they also don’t know what type of treatment, if any, is going to be necessary for the concrete.
Councilman Kaupin questioned how they came up with the dollar figure in the budget. Mr. Kazmarski stated the capital item was for the kitchen. He noted the dining area condition has worsened. Councilman Kaupin questioned if this will take care of all the open areas, and Mr. Kazmarski responded yes, for the kitchen and dining areas. He added they’re looking at the floors in the recreation room, in the wellness center, and the library where there’s some indication of some possible longer term problems.
Councilman Kaupin stated when the Town builds a new building and there are failures, the Town loses credibility to do future projects. He noted if the floor is a problem throughout the entire building, the Town should know about it and it should be fixed at one time. He agreed with Councilman Nelson in that they have to get the contractor 100% behind his/her work.
Councilman Hilinski commended Mr. Kazmarski and Mr. Vindigni for their quick response in this situation and for the information provided since then. He stated his understanding about $20,000 was allocated for the kitchen floor. He added his recollection the plan was to install some type of floating floor on the dining room floor for another $20,000 to $30,000. He stated his belief they were not aware of the moisture content, which was causing the problem when the estimate was made for budget purposes.
Councilman Ragno questioned if there were specifications for the flooring when the building was being developed. Mr. Kazmarski responded yes. Councilman Ragno questioned whether there was any input from the contractor concerning the type of flooring. He stated he’s bothered by the fact that they built a new facility and they have to go back to square one and re-test the flooring. He agreed with Councilman Nelson in that contractors should do the studies and make a recommendation.
Councilman Edgar stated when the building was originally completed, there was a problem with the floor and a problem with the contractor. He noted the general contractor wrote the specifications and the party who put the floor in adhered to those specifications. He stated it shouldn’t take this long to do these projects. He noted he’s glad to hear they’re not hiring a consultant. He stated his belief this is the responsibility of the Town Manager, and he would like this problem fixed quickly.
Councilman Lee stated his hope they’ll examine the entire building. Chairman Tallarita questioned if there are problems in other rooms. Mr. Kazmarski stated symptoms are surfacing, and they believe they’ll run into the same problem in the other rooms. He noted when they get a recommendation as to what type of product should be installed, they’ll price out the other rooms as well.
OLD BUSINESS
APPOINTMENTS (TOWN COUNCIL & TOWN MANAGER)
All appointments remained tabled.
Item C. and D. remained tabled.
MOTION #8889 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Ragno to remove Item E. from the table.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8889 adopted 10-0-0.
MOTION #8890 by Councilman Lee, seconded by Councilman Kaupin to remove Item E. from the agenda.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8890 adopted 10-0-0.
Item F. remained tabled.
NEW BUSINESS
DISCUSSION RE: USE OF FACILITIES
Chairman Tallarita referred to Lines 30 and 31 and noted the words, “to the Facilities Director” appears to have been inadvertently included.
Chairman Tallarita stated he wants to be sure this applies specifically to buildings only, not Town land. Mr. Coppler responded that’s correct, and noted it was his impression this applied to the old senior center.
Chairman Tallarita referred to Line 62 and voiced concern how this would effect the Fourth of July Celebration. Mr. Vindigni suggested some clarifying language that “facilities” is intended to mean physical structure and that this is specifically for the High Street Community Center. Chairman Tallarita stated he’s not suggesting this be that regulated because he feels it’s good policy to have a document that outlines overall usage of Town buildings. He added they should also have something that outlines Town grounds. Mr. Vindigni stated they already have that on the books.
Councilman Kaupin referred to Line 47 and noted that should be Item #4.
Councilman Kaupin referred to Item E – Insurance and Liability and questioned why they would be asking for automobile insurance and workers’ compensation coverage. He requested clarification on this.
Chairman Tallarita stated smaller non-profit groups wouldn’t even have insurance, and he does not want to eliminate them from having access to public space. He suggested talking with the Risk Manager about how they should structure that language.
Councilman Crowley requested a listing of what is available for the public’s use. Mr. Vindigni stated one difficulty in making commitments to groups, especially as concerns Town Hall meeting space, is that there’s often a need for special Council meetings or land use meetings, and they would need that space. Councilman Crowley stated possibly there’s space at the old senior center, the libraries, the Lamagna Center, etc. He noted he gets occasional calls from people looking for meeting space.
Referring to the “Permit for Use of Town Facility”, Item #3, Councilman Mangini pointed out dance studios and other groups use background decorations on the stage. Mr. Vindigni stated this was modeled after the procedures that the School Department has in place. He suggested a revised document come before the Council at the next meeting.
Referring to Line 47, Councilman Lee questioned whether the intent is that it would be organizations serving residents of Enfield. Mr. Vindigni indicated he would get that clarified.
Councilman Ragno stated there’s a conflict in language between Line 70 and Line 4 on the Permit for Use of Town Facility as concerns alcoholic beverages.
Councilman Ragno stated he does not see any language about a deposit for the use of these facilities. He noted there’s no way to hold people accountable without a deposit.
He added his belief there should be some type of inventory checklist included in this document.
Chairman Tallarita questioned whether this is something that should go through the Facilities Committee as well. He noted the Facilities Committee hasn’t really been utilized to its fullest potential in the past.
Item C. will move onto the next agenda under Old Business.
DISCUSSION/RESOLUTION RE: CONNECTICUT MUNICIPAL CONSORTIUM FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Councilman Kaupin stated he spoke to Mike Guarco, the Chairman of this organization, and he’s also the Granby Finance Board Chairman. He noted Mr. Guarco offered to attend this evening’s meeting, but he told him if there were specific questions, he’d make that known.
Councilman Kaupin stated his belief this is a complimentary group to CCM, CABE and COST. He noted the three platform items are the same platform items for those organizations. He stated this is to get Enfield to join a consortium of other municipal leaders and boards to help push for these items with the State Legislature. He noted Mr. Guarco informed him Windham has offered their support for the consortium.
Councilman Mangini stated she will not support this resolution. She stated her belief these gentlemen have good intentions and their support for CABE, CCM and NLC is wonderful and should be admired. She voiced her concern with the language of the resolution. She noted there are labor issues they are looking for Enfield to support, which she cannot support because they’re talking about binding arbitration and collective bargaining, and they have no place on this particular agenda. She added her feeling there’s a possibility that if this particular group isn’t working hand-in-hand with such groups as CCM and CABE, they could actually sabotage the efforts and hard work of those groups. She stated her belief this is a big town vs. small town initiative whereby Enfield could get hurt in the long run. She noted for these reasons she’s not in a position to support this resolution.
Councilman Peruta stated when this group came before the Council, he was impressed with their effort to form this Consortium. He noted if this really dovetails in with the other organizations that the Council supports, they definitely need to talk with them more. He stated the prevailing wage, binding arbitration, and the new mandates are a great platform. He agreed binding arbitration does need to be fixed, but he’s not sure what they are talking about here is exactly the solution he would go after. He noted he would definitely like to talk to them again.
Chairman Tallarita stated when this group came before the Council, the concept made sense, however, he’s not sure whether he has had enough time to research this and get enough answers because there are some parts that do concern him. He noted he wants to be sure everyone is on the same page and they’re heading in the right direction together. He noted he really hasn’t formed an opinion as to whether he would or would not support this because he doesn’t have enough information at this time. He added he would like them to come back and answer some questions. He noted he would also like to talk with CCM, the other municipalities and some other people to learn their feelings. He added he would like a list of some of the bigger municipalities that they’ve approached and learn why they haven’t made a decision to join this Consortium.
Councilman Kaupin stated his belief they have a statement from CCM, COST and CABE. He stated he knows these three organizations are behind the Consortium 100%. He noted he’ll try to get this group back for the second meeting in December.
Chairman Tallarita stated his concern has to do with items within the resolution relating to prevailing wage and binding arbitration. He noted he would like to know what their real stance is on these items and what they would be lobbying for. He stated one of the comments made at the previous meeting concerned him because it was said that under the Educational Cost Share Grants, some of the larger communities do better than some of the smaller communities, and they’re trying to equalize the playing field across the board. He questioned whether Enfield might be losing money in this area.
MOTION #8891 by Councilman Hilinski, seconded by Councilman Mangini to remove Item E. from the agenda.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8891 adopted 10-0-0.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
The Consent Agenda items will appear under New Business on the next regular meeting agenda.
APPOINTMENTS (TOWN COUNCIL & TOWN MANAGER)
All appointments will appear under New Business on the next regular meeting agenda.
DISCUSSION/PRESENTATION BY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ON NEW TAX BILLS AND DELINQUENT TAXES
Mr. Simmons responded to Mr. Sheridan’s comment about Section 12-170a mentioned in the revaluation booklet. He noted Mr. Sheridan is correct in that the State did repeal that legislation and that related to the elderly freeze program and they replaced it with the circuit breaker. He noted that although they changed the parameters a little, there are still people benefiting under that program.
Mr. Simmons informed the Council that the cost to prepare and distribute the revaluation booklet to every household in town was $1,470.
Chairman Tallarita stated a new tax bill is being prepared. He noted this new format provides a little more definition. He stated he was interested in the proportional share of town taxes during a fiscal year so that the taxpayer has a better understanding of where the money goes. He suggested some type of pie chart be included. Mr. Simmons stated that’s a possibility. He noted there’s a cost associated with that because the more colors they use, the higher the cost.
Chairman Tallarita stated rather than “schools”, he prefers it read, “Board of Education”. He added his belief it would be nice to include the debt since Enfield has such a low percentage of debt compared to other municipalities. He added his belief Social Services, which is a big portion of the Town budget, should also be represented. He stated his belief the focus should inform people where their tax dollars are going. He questioned if the CIP could be broken down to any defined small element, i.e., education projects. He suggested perhaps the back of the bill can include some definitions of General Government, Public Safety, Public Works, etc. He noted this definition could explain what the different components are within those categories. He stated it would also be helpful if there was a way to explain what a mill actually equals on a tax bill. Mr.Simmons questioned whether this clarification of the mill rate would apply to a particular tax bill or town wide, and Chairman Tallarita stated he’s leaning toward the particular tax bill, however, he’s not sure if that’s a formula that can be calculated. Chairman Tallarita noted another item to consider would be the outside dollars that come into Enfield. He stated he is looking to provide as much clear information as possible so that people have a real understanding of their tax bill.
Councilman Peruta stated many people who have mortgages don’t even see their tax bill because it goes directly to a bank. He noted perhaps there’s a method to get this to those people. Mr. Simmons explained mortgage companies identify to the Town who their clients are and they electronically receive a file of the taxes due. He noted if they decided to mail a physical tax bill to every resident, there would be a substantial increase in postage. He stated another option would be to place a sample of an average tax bill on the Town’s website. He noted at some point perhaps it will be possible for someone to look up his or her own tax information on the computer. He pointed out that the Town’s website enables people to enter their assessed value and the mill rate and learn what their taxes will be based on which fire district they are in. He noted they could also put this tax bill format on the website and people could fill in their assessed value and see a sample copy of their tax bill.
Chairman Tallarita questioned what portion of the taxpayers receive a tax bill directly as opposed to a bill going to a mortgage company. Mr. Simmons stated he could get that information.
Councilman Peruta disagreed with Chairman Tallarita’s suggestion to change “Schools” to “Board of Education”. He noted people will get the idea that the money is there for the schools and the Board of Education controls it. He feels changing the wording would be pointing the finger at the Board of Education a little too much.
Councilman Peruta agreed with Chairman Tallarita about including “debt”. He feels this is a very good idea and suggested perhaps there could be something on the back of the bill to explain “debt”.
Councilman Peruta stated Social Services and Public Works include a lot of components, and he’s not sure if including those departments will be beneficial. He noted people might get excited if they see all the money spent in this department when they don’t have a clear understanding of the many services provided by those departments. He stated he doesn’t want to paint an inaccurate picture and have misunderstandings.
Councilman Ragno stated he doesn’t believe they should have all this information on a billing. He stated his belief the proper place for this information is on the website.
Mr. Simmons agreed and stated if too much information is provided, people will get mad because all they want to know is how much they owe. He noted details can be provided in the budget book and on the website.
Councilman Hilinski stated he likes the idea of putting information on the tax bill because if it’s placed on the website or in the budget book, only a certain percentage of people will look at it.
Councilman Lee agreed with the idea of providing more information, however, he does not believe they should use the bill for that purpose. He stated his belief using the website is the best way to go in order to provide taxpayers with more details. He feels they should be promoting the use of the website.
Councilman Lee questioned if by July, 2007 there will be any semblance of an electronic payment system established for residents to use in addition to what is currently done with banks. Mr. Simmons stated that’s a possibility, but it’s a policy decision that the Council will have to make. He noted there are software vendors who already have that system up and running, and it’s only a matter of signing on.
Councilman Lee questioned if it’s possible to get an overview of those vendors and the cost structure by December or January, and Mr. Simmons responded yes.
Councilman Lee referred to the bar code section of the bill and questioned if it’s intended that would exist on any new document and what is that for. Mr. Simmons explained that enables them to scan the documents, and all the data is within the bar code.
Councilman Nelson agreed with defining the tax bill by using the website approach. He noted the Town can promote its website when Channel 16 comes on line for Enfield.
Chairman Tallarita stated it was not his intent to spend a lot of money in doing this, and he wasn’t suggesting mailing this to each household. He noted he saw a tax bill from another state that provided an outline showing where tax dollars were being spent. He noted this could be done in concert with the web. He pointed out there are a lot of people who do not go to the web for information. He stated his belief anything the Town can do to help educate the public is beneficial.
Councilman Crowley agreed it’s good to have as much information as possible.
Councilman Ragno stated his belief they do need directions on the bill as to how people can access the web. He noted rather than having all this nice-to-know information on the bill, perhaps they can provide information about how a person can appeal their tax bill.
Mr. Simmons stated they will communicate the appeal process with the increase notices that go out as part of the revaluation.
Chairman Tallarita suggested the bill not be too complicated, but that it provides some information. He noted the format can always be revised.
DISCUSSION RE: AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA PROGRAM, MODEL MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS
Mr. Giner stated the Planning & Zoning Commission is holding public hearings on the adoption of aquifer protection regulations for the Town of Enfield. He explained in 2004 the State sent a letter directing the Town to appoint an agency to administer this, and it had to be an existing land use agency. He noted some towns used their Inland/Wetlands Commission, and Enfield decided to go with Planning & Zoning.
Mr. Giner commended Karen LaPlante on her summary. He displayed a map showing the aquifer areas in Enfield. He noted Planning & Zoning requested he provide a public information session and invite people/businesses that might be affected by these regulations. Chairman Tallarita stated his understanding these regulations are affecting commercial properties as opposed to residential properties, and Mr. Giner responded that’s correct. He explained existing businesses within the aquifer areas have to go through a registration process. He noted the State will allow the Town to charge a fee, and Planning & Zoning can make that decision. He stated they will have a better idea at the next budget session whether they will need more staff. He noted at this time they are handling this in house.
Councilman Lee questioned if this effects commercial and industrial, and Mr. Giner responded anything on the list of uses that may impact aquifer areas, i.e., a gas station or any kind of activity that may potentially cause a spill. He pointed out there is a list of prohibited activities, and they cannot allow any new activities that are on that list. He stated existing activities can continue, however, they do have to register. He noted they can expand, but they have to apply for permits to expand.
Councilman Lee questioned what risks are involved if the Town chooses not to ramp up this entire process until the full maps are done in 2008. Mr. Giner stated according to the statutes, the DEP can choose to take over the administration of the program. He added his opinion Enfield can control the local process a lot better than DEP can.
Councilman Lee stated he has a lot of problems with this public act, and he views this as one of the more serious unfunded mandates facing Enfield. He stated his belief the Council and Planning & Zoning office should look at this very seriously and very carefully and empower the Town Manager’s office to defend the implementation of some of this until the time at which the maps are complete and the state is willing to put up their share of the resources to allow the Town to enable this process in a reasonable manner. He stated his belief they will be doing a large disservice to numerous property owners taking this at its current face value.
Councilman Kaupin questioned whether any information has come forward on what the
anticipated cost would be for a business that is within this aquifer protection zone.
Mr. Giner stated it depends on the size of the facility. He noted if it were a small facility consisting of less than one acre, the registration fee would be $250; $400 for a medium facility consisting of about five acres; $600 for a large facility. He stated if someone wished to get a permit for a new activity, a little more review is involved and it could cost up to $1,000 for a facility greater than five acres or $500 for a smaller facility.
Councilman Kaupin questioned whether these are one-time fees, and Mr. Giner stated his belief the registration would have to be renewed every five years. Councilman Kaupin questioned if that registration renewal would be through the Town, and Mr. Giner stated that would go through the Planning & Zoning Commission acting in its capacity as the Aquifer Protection Agency.
Councilman Kaupin agreed with Councilman Lee and the information provided by Karen LaPlante. He stated his belief if the Town moves forward on this, they have to do something for the local businesses. He stated his opinion existing businesses shouldn’t have to pay a fee. He stated they need to talk to their state legislators because the State again passed an unfunded mandate that hurts small businesses, impacts the Town’s ability to manage its land and limits what commercial development could happen.
Chairman Tallarita stated he’s most concerned about the commercial property value if the permitting/application process is denied them in the future. He noted this would be an incredible hardship placed on the Town of Enfield and other towns that have large aquifers such as Enfield.
Councilman Mangini questioned what Mr. Giner thinks about going forward. Mr. Giner stated that is really a policy decision. He went on to note the Town has the option of waiving fees. He pointed out that as of September, seven out of the 83 towns that are eligible to adopt these regulations have adopted them.
Councilman Nelson questioned whether East Windsor has an aquifer, and Mr. Giner responded yes. Councilman Nelson questioned whether East Windsor’s aquifer is within their industrial park, and Mr. Giner responded no.
Councilman Nelson stated all communities are struggling to get good business in their towns, and this will just add one more burden to Enfield. He agreed that if the state wants this, the state can do this and pay for it. He suggested this would be a good issue for the Consortium to get involved in. He noted this is really going to hurt Enfield in the long run.
Councilman Lee questioned if Somers has an aquifer, and Mr. Giner stated they have a small area.
Chairman Tallarita stated this issue may be important enough to warrant the formation of a subcommittee. He noted this can be a more focused group that can report back to the group as a whole. He stated they can also work with Planning & Zoning to be sure everyone is on the same page and moving in the same direction.
Chairman Tallarita requested Mr. Coppler and Mr. Giner consider forming a small group consisting of about five people from the Council that can research this item and report back. He suggested Mr. Giner pull back on this process a little. Mr. Giner responded that’s up to the Commission, but he will let them know at the next meeting. Chairman Tallarita pointed out they have to understand the long term effects before decisions are made. Mr. Giner stated the aquifer map and the draft regulations are on the Town’s website.
DISCUSSION RE: CHANGE OF NAME FOR ENFIELD CHILD DAY CARE CENTER
Social Service Director, Pamela Brown, and Enfield Day Care Director, Karen Edelson, were present for this discussion.
Ms. Brown stated the day care program is 30 years old and was named 30 years ago. She explained over the last ten years they’ve sought School Readiness Funds and they’ve changed the focus to meet the educational needs of the children so that every classroom is following the Connecticut benchmarks. She noted for this reason, they would like a name which reflects the quality that this program provides. She stated the Enfield Child Development Center is a more accurate name for this program. She added this name change has been encouraged by NAEYC who does their accreditation. She noted NAEYC wants the public to know that day care centers are providing for the educational needs of the children. She stated besides attracting fee-paying parents to make the program more self-sufficient, this name change will help to attract additional grants and state funding.
Councilman Kaupin questioned the cost to make this name change. Ms. Edelson stated her belief the cost will be minimal.
Councilman Lee questioned when the day care’s license is up for renewal, and Ms. Edelson stated every two years they go through the state and local licensing. She noted these are due in February and March of 2007 for both of Enfield’s day care sites. She went on to note their NAEYC accreditation is up for renewal on October 31, 2007. She pointed out the accreditation takes place every five years.
Councilman Lee questioned if there’s a legal opinion on the appropriateness of this change. He questioned what this could possibly open them up to if they are saying this is an educational program, rather than a day care service. He noted the State Constitution guarantees the delivery of educational services in each town. He questioned if they say this is a lot more than a day care program, and they’re marketing it as an educational program, do they have to provide this service to anyone who requests it in the same way Enfield Public Schools is chartered to do. He noted he would like more information about other communities that have done this and what the outcome was, and what the Town Attorney’s office thinks about this. He wants to be sure the re-branding or re-marketing of this service doesn’t open other Pandora boxes in the future.
Councilman Crowley stated he has no problem with this name change and will support it. He suggested possibly it could be named, “The Enfield Child Education/Day Care Center”.
Councilman Mangini stated her belief this should not be a problem.
Councilman Peruta stated the education component has been going on for a while. He noted the day care provides a lot more than babysitting. He commended the Enfield Day Care for their program. He voiced his support of this change.
Chairman Tallarita noted a policy was established for the re-naming of Town buildings, and he questioned the Town Clerk whether they have to follow that policy in this particular situation. Ms. Olechnicki pointed out this is a renaming of a program not a building.
DISCUSSION/RESOLUTION RE: PROPOSED DIAL-A-RIDE SUPERVISOR JOB DESCRIPTION
Chairman Tallarita stated he would not want to eliminate people who have qualifications based upon experience by requiring a Bachelor’s Degree. He questioned the Social Service Director, Pamela Brown, as to whether she sees a need for a Bachelor’s Degree for this type of position.
Ms. Brown stated she supports the requirement for a Bachelor’s Degree because this is more of a supervisory/management position, and she would like this person to be able to take the full responsibilities of being a supervisor and a manager. She stated there is also a fair amount of business to conduct, i.e., an outside contract with CHR and four different grants from the state, therefore, she would like this person to have good business-writing skills. She added she would like to see this position at the same level as the other division heads within her department.
Councilman Mangini agreed with Ms. Brown in that with a Bachelor’s Degree comes the ability to write and make better than the average judgments when it comes to financial matters and doing analysis. She agreed they do need to concentrate on keeping people in positions for experience vs. education, but she feels in this particular situation a Bachelor’s Degree is definitely appropriate.
Councilman Hilinski agreed that a Bachelor’s Degree is probably appropriate, but they shouldn’t preclude hiring someone with experience. He recommended the wording, “Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent experience” within the job description. He noted this allows them the flexibility to go either way.
Councilman Peruta agreed with Councilman Hilinski and noted this would give them some latitude. He noted college degrees don’t necessarily make a better writer.
Councilman Ragno agreed this should be a combination, and if the person takes the job, there should be some requirement that a person furthers their education within a certain amount of time. He agreed that an educational process does help a person think critically and does help with writing skills.
Councilman Crowley questioned what merits the $5,000 salary increase. Ms. Brown stated this is because the position would be at a different level. Councilman Crowley questioned why that’s necessary, and Ms. Brown explained at this time she’s providing the direct supervision of Dial-A-Ride, and the previous Dial-A-Ride Coordinator had no supervisory responsibilities and did not get involved with the financial piece. She noted there’s a large number of responsibilities that she carries, i.e., public relations, staffing, the Senior Citizen Bus Committee, etc.
Chairman Tallarita stated he wants to see the Town of Enfield job descriptions allow for equivalencies. He noted every job description he sees at the State of Connecticut will call for a four-year degree or a certain amount of experience. He noted they need to have a discussion with the Human Resource Director about how they’re going to allow for more flexibility within the job descriptions to allow for a greater pool of people.
Items N. and O. will appear on the next agenda.
MISCELLANEOUS
RESOLUTION #8891 by Councilman Kaupin, seconded by Councilman Mangini.
WHEREAS, the Town of Enfield Board of Education has been grieved by the Enfield Teachers’ Association alleging that a portion of the proceeds of the AON Corporation settlement brought about by a lawsuit initiated by the Connecticut Attorney General should be allocated to them, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Enfield wishes to allocate the proceeds from the settlement in the same manner as the settlement agreement with the Enfield Teachers’ Association in the Anthem demutualization process,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Enfield hereby authorizes the release of $5,375.65 from the Self Insurance Fund, where the proceeds are invested, to settle the Teachers’ Union grievance and allow for payment to school administrators.
Chairman Tallarita questioned whether this sets any type of precedence that will effect any other litigation underway. Mr. Simmons stated this could be a factor in someone making an argument for this. He added demutualization proceeds are different and there was a lot of state litigation involving those that are separate from this. He noted the teachers’ group went through an arbitration route and won. He stated his belief this question should be asked of the Town Attorney. He added his belief this is defendable since they’re applying the same rules they did to the arbitration they already won in the demutualization case.
Mr. Coppler agreed there is that exposure whereby someone could use this against them.
Chairman Tallarita pointed out this is a small figure, and it would cost even more to go through the arbitration process.
Councilman Hilinski stated he doesn’t see where this creates any kind of precedence.
Councilman Nelson questioned if this is similar to the money that the nurses are requesting. Mr. Simmons stated the nurses are seeking the Anthem demutualization funds, and that’s different because that’s when Anthem Blue Cross demutualized, whereby it was no longer a mutual holding company, and the Town of Enfield has legal precedence that says they are the true owner of the shares received. He stated the courts already backed this up.
AMENDMENT #1 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Hilinski to correct the figure within the resolution to $5,373.65.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared AMENDMENT #1 adopted 10-0-0.
Upon a ROLL-CALL vote being taken, the Chair declared RESOLUTION #8891 adopted 8-1-1 as amended, with Councilmen Nelson voting against and Councilman Lee abstaining.
RESOLUTION #8892 by Councilman Hilinski, seconded by Councilman Mangini.
WHEREAS, the Town of Enfield applied for and received a $4,000 grant from the America the Beautiful Grant Program,
WHEREAS, the Town of Enfield Planning Department has requested that an extension be granted to fulfill the terms of the grant,
WHEREAS, the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection requires that a formal Personal Services Agreement to extend the existing grant be signed by a duly authorized agent of the Town of Enfield,
WHEREAS, Matthew W. Coppler is the current Town Manager of the Town of Enfield,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Enfield Town Council does hereby authorize Matthew W. Coppler to sign the Personal Services Agreement with the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on behalf of the Town of Enfield.
Upon a ROLL-CALL vote being taken, the Chair declared RESOLUTION #8892 adopted 10-0-0.
RESOLUTION #8893 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Lee.
RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Enfield has determined that bidding Student Texts “Connecticut Adventure” would be against the best interest of the Town and therefore hereby waives the bid process in favor of using Gibbs Smith Publisher for these text books.
Upon a ROLL-CALL vote being taken, the Chair declared RESOLUTION #8893 adopted 8-2-0, with Councilmen Edgar and Nelson voting against the resolution.
DISCUSSION/RESOLUTION RE: STREETLIGHT PURCHASE
Chairman Tallarita recommended moving this to Old Business. He noted Councilman Maxellon brought up some information in a recent e-mail, which he wished to present to the Council. He requested Mr. Vindigni contact CCM to learn if they have any statistics or information on other communities.
Chairman Tallarita stated he has always been led to believe that this is a cost-saving initiative for the Town of Enfield, however, there’s some talk that this may not be the case. He went on to state he was under the impression that the lights in Hazardville were purchased under the streetscape development program in that area, however, it appears they are rented.
RESOLUTION #8894 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Kaupin.
RESOLVED, that in accordance with Chapter VI, Section 8(f) of the Town Charter, the following transfer is hereby made:
TO: Dial-A-Ride
Salaries Full-Time $ 5,000.00
Gasoline 12,762.00
_________
$17,762.00
FROM: Dial-A-Ride
State Grant $17,762.00
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the amount of $17,762.00 is available from the State Grant as of 11/7/2006.
/s/ Gregory Simmons, Director of Finance
Councilman Nelson questioned if the $5,000 is for the job description that was just discussed. Mr. Coppler responded yes, that was anticipated. He noted this grant was not accounted for as part of the budget process. Chairman Tallarita stated he wasn’t objecting to the position, but rather how the position was detailed. He noted by doing this, they are not committing to the funds for that position. He stated if that position isn’t approved, those monies could be reallocated.
Upon a ROLL-CALL vote being taken, the Chair declared RESOLUTION #8894 adopted 10-0-0.
RESOLUTION #8895 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Hilinski.
RESOLVED, that the Enfield Town Council may enter into and deliver to the State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security any and all documents which it deems to be necessary or appropriate regarding the Memorandum of Agreement on State use of FFY 2006 Homeland Security Grant Funding; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that Matthew W. Coppler, as Town Manager of the Town of Enfield is authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all documents on behalf of the Enfield Town Council and to do and perform all acts and things which he deems to be necessary or appropriate to carry out the terms of such documents, including, but not limited to, executing and delivering all agreements and documents contemplated by such documents.
Upon a ROLL-CALL vote being taken, the Chair declared RESOLUTION #8895 adopted 10-0-0.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION #8896 by Councilman Ragno, seconded by Councilman Mangini to adjourn.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #8896 adopted 10-0-0, and the meeting stood adjourned at 11:52 p.m. |